Opinions

<results><page>0</page><page>20</page><page>1069</page><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that the Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners policy does not require attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID to attend meetings and therefore, MAC’s policy does not violate the Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 requirement to hold open meetings.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-007</Title><Publisher/><Subject>open meeting law</Subject><Subject>open meetings</Subject><Subject>ID</Subject><Subject>identification</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-007</Title><title>Opinion 26-007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-747392&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-05-18T16:37:57Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Commissioner opined that the Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners policy does not require attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID to attend meetings and therefore, MAC’s policy does not violate the Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 requirement to hold open meetings. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 18, 2026; Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Edward Hasbrouck asked the Commissioner for an advisory opinion regarding the Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners’ (MAC) conduct under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). The Commission provided comments in response to Hasbrouck’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Hasbrouck provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to the Bylaws of the MAC, Article II, Section 1, “Unless otherwise designated by majority vote of the Commissioners or by action of the Chairperson, regular and special meetings will be held at the Commission&apos;s designated meeting room within Terminal 1 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, presently Room LT-3048A or as it may be relocated within Terminal 1.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This location is accessible only by passing through a checkpoint operated by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;According to the MAC website, the TSA imposed additional requirements for passage starting February 1, 2026: “Effective Feb. 1, 2026, individuals who do not present an acceptable form of REAL ID at TSA checkpoints may use TSA ConfirmID to attempt to verify their identity [sic] Verification is not guaranteed. …. TSA ConfirmID costs $45, and the MAC will cover this cost.” …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An individual seeking to pass through a TSA checkpoint without REAL-ID compliant ID, or with no ID, may be required by the TSA to:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pay a $45 fee, payable only (a) on the Pay.gov website, (b) by credit or debit card or Paypal account accepted by Pay.gov and its payment processor, and (c) by completing a form with personal information (billing address, etc.).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Complete TSA Form 415, “Certification of Identity”. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Answer a series of questions based on the information contained in the record (if any) about the individual maintained by the Accurint commercial data brokerage.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MAC website says that “the MAC will cover this cost,” but does not say whether individuals must pay the $45 fee, and then seek reimbursement from the MAC through some unspecified process taking an unspecified amount of time, or if there is some procedure posted at the checkpoint to have the MAC pay the fee.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While the MAC livestreams most of its meetings, only those who are allowed to attend in person are allowed to make public comments during MAC meetings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(Footnotes omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the advisory opinion request, MAC provided the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Beginning February 1, 2026, the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) began requiring that persons passing through airport checkpoints have a Real ID-compliant document – usually a state identification or passport – or go through the TSA ConfirmID program. The TSA ConfirmID program is an additional layer of screening whereby additional verification steps are taken for persons not possessing a Real ID-compliant document. The cost assessed by TSA for this additional verification is $45.00. Similar to parking, the MAC pays this fee for those attending the MAC Board’s public meetings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior to the TSA change, members of the public attending the public meeting(s) needed to present any valid photo identification to obtain a concourse pass to proceed through the TSA checkpoint. This process was established many years ago and is used on a daily basis to allow infrequent visitors to MSP Airport that need access beyond the checkpoints to gain access without having a boarding pass.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(Footnote omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Does the Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners policy requiring attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID or obtain a Real ID or passport to attend meetings violate Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 to hold open meetings?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. There is no dispute that MAC is subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “open” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by [the law].” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) (&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt;), the Court wrote that the OML serves three purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences; (2) to assure the public’s right to be informed; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983) (citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt; at 735. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that “Chapter 13D is silent on the issue of the location of public meetings. Clearly, though, meetings must be held in a location to which members of the public can easily gain access; if a body were to do otherwise, it would violate the spirit of the Open Meeting Law.” (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-034&lt;/a&gt;.) However, the Commissioner commented that holding a meeting in a public or private location that required going through security and signing in would not necessarily violate the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MAC provided additional context:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he MAC &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;neither&lt;/span&gt; requires attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID, &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;nor&lt;/span&gt; does it require attendees to obtain a Real ID-compliant document to attend “open to the public” meetings subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01. The information received by the Department is inaccurate. &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;T&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;he MAC pays the TSA ConfirmID fee for members of the public attending public MAC Board meetings who do not have a Real ID-compliant document&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MAC is committed to preserving access for the public to attend MAC Board meetings. Recognizing the potentially discouraging effect on public access that the TSA’s change of February 1, 2026, could have precipitated, the MAC committed to paying the TSA ConfirmID fee. As described in the public agenda notice for the MAC Board meetings, members of the public need to stop at the information booth on the ticketing level, present their identification, and receive a concourse pass to proceed through the TSA checkpoint. At the time that the person is receiving a concourse pass, MAC staff ascertain whether the person will need to use TSA ConfirmID. If TSA ConfirmID is needed, MAC staff arrange payment of the fee by the MAC to the TSA.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the two months since the TSA change, the MAC has paid for three persons to attend an “open to the public” MAC Board meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(Footnote omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that MAC’s open meeting process has been evolving since the TSA identification policy went into effect in February of this year. (For example, initially, MAC’s policy was to pay for ConfirmID for an attendee three times and now it is unrestricted. It was previously unclear whether an attendee would need to pay and then be reimbursed.) Some changes occurred after conversations between and amongst the opinion requester, MAC, and the Data Practices Office, but before the issuance of this opinion. At the time she accepted the advisory opinion request, the Commissioner’s particular concern was that MAC would require some members of the public to pay to attend an open meeting and the fact that in-person attendance is the only way for the public to provide comment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Requiring attendees to pay an entrance fee to a public meeting where the cost is more than &lt;em&gt;de minimis&lt;/em&gt; would violate the spirit if not the letter of the OML. (&lt;em&gt;De minimis&lt;/em&gt; costs to an attendee of an open meeting – bus fare, parking fees – to attend a meeting would not necessarily constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on MAC’s response to the advisory opinion request, the Commissioner is reassured that the current policy meets the requirements of the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners policy does not require attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID to attend meetings and therefore, MAC’s policy does not violate the Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 requirement to hold open meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 18, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>747392</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-05-20T13:21:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that the City of New Prague did not initially respond appropriately to a January 20, 2026, data request for an automated license plate reader data audit trail required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c) because it failed to provide the requester with all public data he was entitled to access. The City has since offered access to the requested data.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-006</Title><Publisher/><Subject>13.824</Subject><Subject>ALPR</Subject><Subject>Automated License Plate Readers</Subject><Subject>Law enforcement data</Subject><Subject>format</Subject><Subject>electronic data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-006</Title><title>Opinion 26-006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-749204&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-05-18T16:35:51Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Commissioner opined that the City of New Prague did not initially respond appropriately to a January 20, 2026, data request for an automated license plate reader data audit trail required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c) because it failed to provide the requester with all public data he was entitled to access. The City has since offered access to the requested data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 18, 2026; City of New Prague</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Brian Paulson (Paulson) asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to access data maintained by the City of New Prague (City) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The City Administrator for New Prague submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On January 20, 2026, Paulson submitted a data request to the City for a copy of the audit trail regarding law enforcement staff’s access to automated license plate reader data, which is required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c). On February 4, 2026, the City provided Paulson with a PDF copy of the data with redactions, which included redactions of all data in columns titled “License Plate” and “Filters.” The City cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 2 and section 13.82 as the basis for these redactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paulson then requested assistance from Data Practices Office staff, who contacted City officials on March 2, 2026, to offer guidance on the requirements of section 13.824. On March 16, 2026, Paulson asked City officials whether additional data may be accessible to him, and the City Administrator informed Paulson the City considered its response to the request complete “to the best of [the City Administrator’s] knowledge.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paulson also provided a copy of the redacted audit trail he received as well as guidance documents about the City’s ALPR system’s process to export audit trail data, which states, “Image metadata and audit logs will be in .CSV format.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of New Prague respond appropriately to a January 20, 2026, data request for an automated license plate reader data audit trail required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes government data are public unless a statute, temporary classification, or federal law classify the data as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If a government entity denies access to data that are classified as not public, then the entity must inform the requester of the specific legal authority that allows it to withhold the requested data. (Section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, section 13.03, subd. 3(e) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. This does not require a government entity to provide the data in an electronic format or program that is different from the format or program in which the data are maintained by the government entity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that government entities are not obligated to convert data to a different format at the request of a data requester. Rather, entities are required to provide access to data in the format in which those data are maintained. (See, e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267138&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 09-006&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-411892&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-013&lt;/a&gt;.) For electronic data, a government entity must make a copy of the data in its native format if it can reasonably do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824 establishes specific requirements for automated license plate readers (ALPR), which the law defines as “an electronic device mounted on a law enforcement vehicle or positioned in a stationary location that is capable of recording data on, or taking a photograph of, a vehicle or its license plate and comparing the collected data and photographs to existing law enforcement databases for investigative purposes.” (See section 13.824, subdivision 1(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.824, subdivision 2(a) limits the collection of data by an ALPR to: (1) license plate numbers; (2) date, time and location data on vehicles; and (3) pictures of license plates, vehicles, and areas surrounding the vehicles. Subdivision 2(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data collected by an automated license plate reader are private data on individuals or nonpublic data unless the data are public under section 13.82, subdivision 2, 3, or 6, or are active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13.824, subdivision 7 establishes requirements and limitations regarding access to data collected by an ALPR. Paragraph (b) states that law enforcement personnel’s access to the data collected by an ALPR “must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the data are pertinent to an active criminal investigation and must include a record of the factual basis for the access and any associated case number, complaint, or incident that is the basis for the access.” Meanwhile, paragraph (c) states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All queries and responses, and all actions in which data are entered, updated, accessed, shared, or disseminated, must be recorded in a data audit trail. Data contained in the audit trail are public, to the extent that the data are not otherwise classified by law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Paulson’s requests to the City and now the DPO have also raised issues about license plate number and “filters” data in the audit trail. The license plate number data in the audit trail identifies license plate numbers collected by ALPRs and its data sharing platform. The filters data identifies search criteria input into the ALPR data sharing system by its users. The audit trail is a .CSV format document that includes both license plate numbers and filters data. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… Mr. Paulson previously argued that both license plate number data and filters data must always be classified as public data. He has referenced Minn. Stat. 13.824, subd. 7(c), which states: “Data contained in the audit trail are public, to the extent that the data are not otherwise classified by law.” Contrary to Mr. Paulson’s arguments, license plate numbers in the audit trail may be collected by an ALPR. Minn. Stat. 13.824, subd. 2 specifically identifies “license plate numbers” collected by ALPRs as private data. It is City officials’ understanding that license plate number data collected by an ALPR and included in the audit trail data therefore is “otherwise classified by law” as not public data. The City has a legal obligation to maintain it accordingly. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… After a meeting with the DPO on March 2, 2026, City officials concluded that license plate number data collected by an ALPR in the audit trail may also be classified as public data under Minn. Stat. 13.82, subd. 2, 3, or 6 or may be active criminal investigative data under Minn. Stat. 13.82, subd. 7. In order to appropriately classify the data, it is City officials’ understanding that the City must first identify which license plate numbers in the audit trail have been collected by an ALPR. It must then determine whether each license plate number may be classified as public data under another classification. This process would require analysis of the audit trail under the statutory scheme for comprehensive law enforcement data. It is also City officials’ understanding that it must also provide filter data in the audit trail data unless it is otherwise classified by law as not public data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;After a meeting with the DPO, City officials immediately prepared its audit trail data for Mr. Paulson’s inspection accordingly. Due to a miscommunication, Mr. Paulson was not notified that the data was ready for his inspection. The City therefore concedes that it did not appropriately respond to his request by not providing this notification. However, upon receiving the Notice [of the advisory opinion], City officials realized the miscommunication and notified Mr. Paulson on April 6, 2026, that the data was available for his inspection. Mr. Paulson initially declined to inspect the data but has since done so.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… Entities subject to the Minnesota Governmental Data Practices Act routinely provide responsive electronic data in PDF format in order to redact out not public data. Other file formats, including .CSV, do not provide governmental entities with the ability to redact out not public data. Therefore, when redactions are necessary, providing the data in PDF format allows for disclosure of public data intermingled with not public data that would otherwise be infeasible to redact in its native format. Regardless, the data Mr. Paulson has now inspected was provided in its native .CSV format for his convenience. (Emphasis in original.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the City acknowledges, its initial approach to how data in the audit trail were classified under section 13.824, subd. 7(c) was incorrect. However, the City’s current understanding of how audit trail data are classified is in line with the Commissioner’s interpretation of subdivision 7(c). Additionally, government entities should provide copies of electronic data in a native format when it can reasonably do so. The Commissioner will address each consideration in turn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data Classification&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.824, subd. 7(c) requires law enforcement agencies to create a data audit trail documenting instances when agency staff query or access the database containing data captured by an ALPR. The subdivision designates the audit trail as public data, but the language acknowledges that certain data within the audit trail may be “otherwise classified by law” as not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At issue here are two categories of data in the audit trail described as “filters” and “license plate numbers.” The data in these categories within the audit trail are public data unless a specific statutory provision classifies those data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The data within the “filter” category of the audit trail show the search criteria terms or phrases that law enforcement staff enter when searching the ALPR database system. The Data Practices Act does not generally classify search criteria terms or phrases as not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, section 13.824, subd. 7(b) clarifies that, when law enforcement personnel access data contained within an ALPR database, the access must be “based on a reasonable suspicion that the data are pertinent to an active criminal investigation.” (See section 13.824, subdivision 7(b).) Therefore, the data related to each query documented in the audit trail, including data in the filter category, may be related to an active criminal investigation, and the City must review the status of the criminal investigations related to the ALPR database searches to determine the appropriate classification of the data provided in the audit trail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under section 13.82, subd. 7, the audit trail data related to a specific ALPR data search by law enforcement personnel are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic while the criminal investigation related to that search remains active. The audit trail data related to the specific search then become public when the criminal investigation changes to inactive due to one of the reasons stated in section 13.82, subd. 7. As a result, the City is permitted to redact data in the “filter” category, along with the other data in the audit trail documenting a specific search, when the data are related to an active criminal investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, section 13.824, subd. 2(b) classifies data “collected by an automated license plate reader” as private. Therefore, any license plate numbers contained within the audit trail that an ALPR device directly collected are classified as private data and may be redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, license plate numbers appearing in the audit trail that are the result of other creation methods — such as an officer entering the number in the ALPR database’s search functions after collecting the data via other investigative methods — are not classified as private under section 13.824, subd. 2(b). Rather, these license plate numbers are governed under the general law enforcement data classifications described in section 13.82. As a result, the data in the license plate category are public unless the numbers are collected directly by an ALPR device or are classified as not public under section 13.82 while the investigation is active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data Format&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paulson also raised the issue of accessing the audit trail data in a native .CSV format after receiving the original response in PDF. The City explained in its response to the Commissioner that it needed to convert the data to a PDF format to redact not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Past advisory opinions have made clear that government entities must provide access to data in a computer storage medium if the entity can reasonably make a copy. Here, it appears the audit trails are exported in a .CSV format, and therefore the City should provide access to the audit trail data in that format when it can reasonably do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although the Commissioner appreciates the update that it has since offered Paulson access to an audit trail containing additional public data in a .CSV format, the City did not respond appropriately to the January 20, 2026, request because its initial response did not provide Palson with all data he was entitled to access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final note regarding the audit trail requirements of section 13.824, subd. 7(c) and its classification. The Data Practices Office has recently received several questions from members of the public and law enforcement agencies about what specific data elements should be recorded in the data audit trail and who should have access to that information. However, the language of section 13.824, subd. 7(c) does not offer clear or specific direction on what data the Legislature expects to be included in an audit trail recording “[a]ll queries and responses, and all actions in which data are entered, updated, accessed, shared, or disseminated.” The audit trail data are classified as public, “to the extent that the data are not otherwise classified by law.” This language has resulted in inconsistent approaches across law enforcement agencies for what data may or may not be included and accessed in the audit trail required under section 13.824, subd. 7(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner encourages the Legislature to revisit the language of section 13.824, subd. 7(c) to implement more specific requirements for what data law enforcement agencies must include in the publicly available audit trail. Such language can ensure the audit trails are consistent across all Minnesota law enforcement agencies using ALPRs and can offer clearer information to the public about how law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions are accessing ALPR data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of New Prague did not initially respond appropriately to a January 20, 2026, data request for an automated license plate reader data audit trail required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c) because it failed to provide the requester with all public data he was entitled to access. The City has since offered access to the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 18, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>749204</id><pubdate>2026-05-19T05:00:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that the City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as nonpublic, that document the requester’s home and personal property. </Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-005</Title><Publisher/><Subject>body camera data</Subject><Subject>nonpublic data</Subject><Subject>access to nonpublic data</Subject><Subject>access to body camera data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-005</Title><title>Opinion 26-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-743263&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-04-23T16:32:19Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Commissioner opined that the City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as nonpublic, that document the requester’s home and personal property. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 2026; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X (a pseudonym used according to section 13.072, subdivision 4) asked the Commissioner for an advisory opinion regarding a request they made to the City of Minneapolis (City) for certain data the City maintains under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This request arises from an incident in which officers from the Minneapolis Police Department forced entry into my home while I was on vacation with my family and recorded body-worn camera footage inside my private residence. I submitted multiple data requests to the City of Minneapolis seeking access to the footage and my requests were denied on the grounds that I was not physically present in the video and therefore was not considered a “subject” of the data under Minnesota statute 13.825.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, my request includes portions of the footage recorded inside my home in which no individual - including the officers - is visible. In these portions of the recordings, the bodyworn [sic] camera captures only the interior of my private residence and my personal property, but does not depict any person who could be considered a “subject” in the recording.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis responded to the request for body camera data by stating:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;With exception for use of force causing harm, body camera video is nonpublic or private data, accessible only to people seen or heard in the video. Since you were not present for this event, the data can&apos;t be provided to you, per MN statute13.825.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This request will be closed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the advisory opinion request, the City provided these additional facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On August 7, 2024, Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officers responded to a call [at X’s residence]. [X]’s neighbor had called to request a welfare check because [X, their child, and dog] had not been seen in at least two weeks, which was unusual. Two officers responded to the home with their body worn cameras (BWC) activated. Officers examined the scene outside the home for about 30 minutes. They knocked repeatedly at both doors but received no answer. They found mail piling up and spilling out of the mailbox and a food delivery box on the front steps. They also heard a buzzing sound coming from inside of the house. Officers spoke with 6-7 neighbors at different points during this time, who are visible and audible on the camera footage, with additional neighbors visible in the background. The neighbors expressed concern about the fact that [X, their child, and dog] had not been seen for multiple weeks. One of these neighbors had a phone number for [X]. An officer called the number multiple times, but the calls went straight to voicemail, indicating to the officer that the phone may be out of battery life. Officers also checked vehicles in the vicinity of the home to determine if these vehicles were registered to [X and their child]. At some point, a supervisor joined the two officers on the scene. Based upon all of the available information, a decision was made to force entry into the home to check on the welfare of the residents. Officers forced entry, conducted a brief search of the home lasting between 4 and 4.5 minutes, and determined that [X, their child, and dog] were not in the home. The three MPD officers are seen and/or heard throughout the time inside the home on each other’s body worn cameras. After approximately 4 minutes and 15 seconds inside, the officers exited the home and one officer spoke again with the neighbors. Another officer waited until a fourth person (not a sworn officer) arrived to board up the damage caused by the forced entry. This board up person is also visible and audible on the BWC. Officers left a card with the pile of mail before leaving the home.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, which are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, that document the requester’s home and personal property?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Portable recording system data (commonly referred to as body camera video) are defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as, “audio or video data collected by a portable recording system worn by a peace officer.” That section classifies data collected by a body camera as private or nonpublic, subject to limited exceptions not applicable to this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;“Data not on individuals&quot; are “all government data that are not data on individuals.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;“Nonpublic data” are defined as “data not on individuals made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not accessible to the public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 9.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data on individuals are defined as, “all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.825, subdivision 4, provides access to body camera data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) For purposes of this chapter, a portable recording system data subject includes the peace officer who collected the data, and any other individual or entity, including any other peace officer, regardless of whether the officer is or can be identified by the recording, whose image or voice is documented in the data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) An individual who is the subject of portable recording system data has access to the data, including data on other individuals who are the subject of the recording. If the individual requests a copy of the recording, data on other individuals who do not consent to its release must be redacted from the copy. The identity and activities of an on-duty peace officer engaged in an investigation or response to an emergency, incident, or request for service may not be redacted, unless the officer&apos;s identity is subject to protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17, clause (a).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, the City supported its decision to deny access to the requested body camera data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Section 13.825 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act provides a unique, format specific classification for a particular type of data – “portable recording system” data, more often called body worn camera (“BWC”) ….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;First, subdivision 4(a) identifies who qualifies as a subject of BWC: the peace officer wearing the camera and any person (including peace officers) whose voice or image is documented in the footage. It does not matter whether the person is identified in the BWC footage; it matters only that the individual can be seen or heard in the BWC. Homes and personal property are mentioned nowhere in subdivision 4(a). As a result, they cannot be the subjects of BWC.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, even if homes or personal property could be subjects of BWC, [X] still was properly denied access to the BWC in question because subdivision 4(b) is even more specific than subdivision 4(a). Subdivision 4(b) specifies who has access to BWC data and it provides that only “an individual who is the subject” has access (emphasis added). Individual “means a natural person.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 8. As a result, only the natural persons who are seen or heard in the BWC have access to that footage. The legislature could have included in subdivision 4(b) a right for owners to access BWC documenting their property, but the legislature did not do so and no such right should be read into the statute.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that section 13.825 establishes an alternative access scheme to the rest of the Data Practices Act. However, she does not agree with the conclusion the City reached in its analysis. Instead of arguing that X is not the subject of nonpublic data, the City argues that only individuals that are seen or heard may have access to body camera video. This is too narrow of a reading and impermissibly limits access by subjects of nonpublic data not on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.825, subd. 4(a) states that data subject “includes,” the subjects listed in that provision. It does not limit subjects to those identified. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive.” (See &lt;em&gt;LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728&lt;/em&gt;, 814 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. 2012).) In paragraph (a), the Legislature identified additional data subjects who would have otherwise been considered incidental (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 8) and would not have had access rights in other, non-body camera data contexts. Paragraph (a) serves as an exception to that general rule. Additionally, the language in 13.825, subd. 4(a) refers to “any other individual or entity,” which contradicts the City’s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.825, subd 4(b) provides access rights for data on individuals but does not, as the City contends, say that “only” individuals are entitled to access. Here again, the Legislature needed to specify access rights because a data subject in a body camera video is allowed to access (i.e., view or inspect) private data on other data subjects. A data subject is not allowed to access private data on others in almost every other data practices context. Thus, the provision does not limit access rights to only individual data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Legislature had intended for body camera data to be considered only data on individuals, it would have defined the data in that way and classified the data only as private. The City must give effect to the nonpublic classification by determining whether there is a subject of nonpublic data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The definition of the nonpublic classification provides that it is, “accessible to the subject, if any, of the data.” While the City did not provide any analysis on how it would determine whether a requester is a subject of nonpublic data, the Commissioner believes the situation here is illustrative. The City police department received a call concerning X’s welfare. The police forced entry into X’s house, walked through the house to look for X, their child, and dog, contacted a company to board up the window, and closed the call. A portion of the requested videos includes only on-duty, non-undercover peace officers and images of X’s residence. Therefore, in these specific circumstances, X, as the owner and resident of the home depicted in the described videos, should have access to the 4-4.5-minute portion of the videos that portray only the search of the home and property but no other individuals except for on-duty officers. To decide otherwise would be to endorse an interpretation of 13.825 that allows law enforcement to create and maintain a collection of videos to which no one outside of the agency would have access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In concluding its remarks, the City wrote, “if the legislature intended for Chapter 13 to provide access rights for persons whose homes or personal property are depicted in BWC, the Legislature left many critical questions entirely unanswered.” The Commissioner and the City are in full agreement. Many critical questions about implementing the classifications of section 13.825 have been left unanswered by the language and the Commissioner acknowledges that this advisory opinion provides an answer to only one question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is acutely aware of the challenges that government entities and requesters face related to the administration of body camera data. Given the number of issues raised to the Data Practices Office on a weekly basis, it is her view that the section is overdue for reconsideration. Instead of resolving over time, these issues have compounded since the Legislature enacted the section in 2016, which has led to inconsistent application and widespread confusion. Thankfully, the Legislature now has a wider range of law enforcement agencies with experience using body cameras that can inform discussions about this section’s operations. She encourages the Legislature to revisit the policy and practical considerations of section 13.825 to determine whether revision and additional guidance are appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as nonpublic, that document the requester’s home and personal property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April 23, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>743263</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Body camera data 13.825</Title><Id>378580</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determining if there is a data subject</Title><Id>267176</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-04-24T14:29:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that data relating to the complaints and charges about a former police chief that were raised in an employee survey were public government data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 subd. 2(f), except for any data that identified other government employees, because the former chief resigned while the charges were pending.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-004</Title><Publisher/><Subject>public official</Subject><Subject>personnel data</Subject><Subject>complaint</Subject><Subject>resignation</Subject><Subject>settlement</Subject><Subject>employee survey</Subject><Subject>public data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>323425</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-004</Title><title>Opinion 26-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-733434&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-03-17T20:20:02Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked about the classification of data about its former police chief. The data involved comments received in response to an employee survey that raised concerns about the chief, who ultimately resigned after the city placed him on administrative leave in response to the concerns raised in the survey comments. The city argued that the data were private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The Commissioner determined that the data received in response to an employee survey were complaints and charges against the police chief, and were public government data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2(f), as the chief resigned while the complaints and charges were pending.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 17, 2026; City of Rosemount</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Rosemount asked the Commissioner for an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In summer 2025, the City conducted a city-wide employee survey. Most of the questions were multiple choice and asked the employee to respond whether they strongly agreed, agreed, or disagreed with particular statements. The City also asked three open-ended questions:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Question No. 13: What aspects of the organization’s culture do you appreciate most?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Question No. 14: What suggestions do you have for improving the work environment?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Question No. 15: Do you have any additional comments, concerns, or suggestions to help improve your experience at the organization?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The answers to these three questions generated over 80 pages of comments from police department employees (specifically 6 pages for Question 13, 26 pages for Question 14, and 55 pages for Question 15). The most common subject of the comments were criticisms/concerns/complaints/negative comments . . . about [the former Rosemount police chief]. . . .&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because of the survey results, for various reasons, and after consultation with legal counsel, the City decided to proceed with separation of employment of [the former police chief] rather than proceed with a formal investigation or other alternative. The City communicated this intent to [the chief] and placed him on paid administrative leave. . . . [T]hereafter the parties negotiated and executed a separation agreement. [The chief] signed the agreement on November 10, 2025, and the agreement was fully executed when the City signed on December 3, 2025.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data maintained by a city that are related to the resignation of a public official?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Personnel data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 and are defined as “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a government entity.” If data are personnel data, then the presumption that the data are public is reversed. Section 13.43, subdivision 4 classifies personnel data as private if the data are not already classified as public in subdivisions 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5)(iii) identifies certain employees at municipal government entities as “public officials” and classifies specific disciplinary data about the public official as public government data if certain conditions are met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee who is identified under subdivision 2(e)(5) become public when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, Section 13.43, subdivision 7a addresses employee suggestion data, stating:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Personnel data includes data submitted by an employee to a government entity as part of an organized self-evaluation effort by the government entity to request suggestions from all employees on ways to cut costs, make government more efficient, or improve the operation of government. An employee who is identified in a suggestion shall have access to all data in the suggestion except the identity of the employee making the suggestion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has addressed employee survey data in a previous advisory opinion, explaining that responses to surveys that identify government employees are personnel data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267489&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-012&lt;/a&gt;.) Employee survey responses that are not identifiable to an employee are not data about an individual and therefore cannot be personnel data. Those responses that are not data on individuals are presumptively public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the City stated it believed the data about the former police chief were classified as private personnel data under section 13.43 for two reasons. First, the City maintained that, under section 13.43, subd. 7a, “[T]he employee survey data on [the former chief] is private data and remains private data following his resignation.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Second, the City suggested that the considerations of section 13.43, subd. 2(e) regarding disciplinary data about public officials was not applicable. The City wrote that it “did not conduct a formal investigation and did not at any point decide to proceed with such an investigation.” The City added that “[t]here was not a complaint or charge here, as is contemplated (but not defined) by the data practices act [sic].”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that all of the survey data are classified as personnel data under section 13.43. As established in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267489&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-012&lt;/a&gt;, any de-identified survey responses maintained by the City are not personnel data under section 13.43. Rather, those survey responses are presumptively public data not on individuals. However, any data that identify an employee, including those data that identify the former police chief, are personnel data. The classification of the personnel data in the survey responses will depend on whether those data fall under a category of public data identified under section 13.43, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(f) states that data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public if “the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act does not define “complaints or charges.” Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, past advisory opinions looked at the common usage and definitions for these terms, finding that what may constitute a complaint or charge is broad. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267769&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 04-064&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267412&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-003&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The 5th Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines a “complaint,” in part, as an “expression of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment” and a “cause or reason for complaining; a grievance.” It also defines “charge” as “to make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame” and “to put the blame for; attribute or impute.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its advisory opinion request, the City characterized the comments in the survey about the former police chief as “criticisms/concerns/complaints/negative comments.” (Emphasis added). The City’s own description of the survey data is that the comments contain “complaints” about the former police chief. Further, the City describing the comments as criticisms, concerns, and negative comments suggests these data are expressions of dissatisfaction about the former chief and are complaints or charges under the common usage of those terms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Contrary to the City’s argument, section 13.43, subd. 2(f) does not require a formal personnel investigation for the public classification to apply. Rather, subdivision 2(f) requires only that there is a complaint or charge, and that the complaint or charge is “pending” when the public official resigns or is terminated for the data to become public. Here, “[b]ecause of the survey results,” the City consulted with legal counsel, placed the former police chief on administrative leave, and then sought a separation agreement with him. The chief agreed to resign from his employment as part of that agreement. The concerns raised in complaints from the employee survey were not resolved at the time of this resignation. Therefore, the complaints raised within the employee survey were pending at the time of the chief’s resignation, and all data related to those complaints, besides identifying data on other employees, are public under section 13.43 subd. 2(f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that when a local public official signs a settlement agreement that releases the government entity from any claims relating to conduct that is the subject of a complaint or charge, data relating to that complaint or charge are public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(2).) If the settlement agreement at issue here released claims related to the complaints in the survey results, then data related to complaint are classified as public under that provision, as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;All data relating to the complaints and charges about the former police chief that were raised in the employee survey are public government data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 subd. 2(f), except for any data that identify other government employees, because the former chief resigned while the charges were pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 17, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>733434</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data access to the public</Title><Id>266630</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee survey data</Title><Id>266720</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>267210</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-03-19T05:00:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that data about an elected school board member in an investigative report concerning the member’s alleged misconduct were presumptively public because the school district had not made an affirmative determination that its elected officials were “employees” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act’s classifications of personnel data under section 13.43.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-003</Title><Publisher/><Subject>elected officials</Subject><Subject>personnel data</Subject><Subject>public data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-003</Title><title>Opinion 26-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-727779&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-02-25T19:57:50Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the classification of data it maintained in an investigative report about the alleged misconduct of a school board member. The district noted that it had not made a clear determination on whether it considered its elected officials to be employees for data practices purposes. The Commissioner explained that a government entity is in the best position to determine whether its elected officials are employees for data practices purposes. If the officials are employees, then section 13.43 applies to data about them and the applicable classifications follow. If the officials are not employees, then section 13.43 does not apply to them and data are presumptively public. The Commissioner noted that entities must affirmatively determine whether its elected officials are employee, and the decision cannot be made directly in response to a data request. The Commissioner observed the district had not designated its elected officials as employees, which meant the data in the investigative report were presumptively public.
 </ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 25, 2026; Independent School District No. 831, Forest Lake Area Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District No. 831, Forest Lake Area Schools (District), asked for an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data about elected school board members under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A citizen has made a data request to the School District seeking “all public data concerning the hiring or retention of a law firm or individual to conduct an investigation on behalf of [the School District] as authorized during the May 15, 2025 School Board meeting.” Among other categories, the data request specifically seeks: “[a]ny public reports, summaries, or findings generated as a result of the investigation.” The investigation authorized by the School District’s governing Board concerned alleged misconduct of a Board member. At the time of the data request, the investigation was ongoing, and no report existed; however, a report has since been completed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District seeks guidance on the proper standard for determining the classification of data regarding a Board member. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data about an elected school board member in an investigative report concerning the member’s alleged misconduct?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Personnel data are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Personnel data are defined as “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Past advisory opinions have established that a government entity must determine whether its elected officials are “employees” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act’s classifications under section 13.43. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267232&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;16-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267335&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267742&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267669&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-039&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267573&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-041&lt;/a&gt;.) The Commissioner’s consistent analysis in these opinions is that the government entity is in the best position to make this determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with this approach in a non-precedential opinion. (See &lt;em&gt;Krout v. City of Greenfield&lt;/em&gt;, No. A11-1200, 2012 WL 1253090 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2012).) Specifically, the Court wrote, “Allowing government units to decide whether their elected officials are employees also comports with the fundamental purpose of the [Data Practices Act].”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If an elected official is not an employee for Data Practices Act purposes, then data about that official are presumptively public. If an elected official is an employee, then only the personnel data about that official identified under section 13.43, subdivision 2 are public. All other personnel data about the elected official are classified as private under section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In this situation, neither the governing board nor members of the School District’s administration have, to date, made any determination or taken any affirmative action on whether board members are “employees” for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 13.43. The School Board has not adopted a resolution, and there is no documentation reflecting any determination or previous action by the Superintendent, Human Resources staff, the responsible authority, or any other District official regarding the “employee” status of board members under the MGDPA.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted in past advisory opinions, government entities are in the best position to determine whether elected officials are employees for data practices purposes, and the Commissioner declines to dictate specific processes for how those determinations must be made. Each government entity can establish its own procedure to decide whether its elected officials are employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the processes and procedures an entity uses to make such determinations cannot be done on an &lt;em&gt;ad hoc&lt;/em&gt; basis. Rather, a government entity must affirmatively decide to designate its elected officials as employees, if it chooses to do so, and the entity should clearly document that decision. An entity cannot rely on past practices or other similar arguments to determine that an elected official is an employee in order to classify data about the official as private under section 13.43 upon receiving a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If a government entity has not made the affirmative determination that its elected officials are employees for data practices purposes, then data about the official would fall under the Data Practices Act’s public presumption unless another statutory section, temporary classification, or federal law applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the District has not acted to designate the elected school board members as employees for data practices purposes. Additionally, no other section in the Data Practices Act classifies complaints or investigative data related to misconduct allegations against an elected school board member as private or confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the data in the investigative report concerning the elected school board member’s alleged misconduct are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The data about an elected school board member in an investigative report concerning the member’s alleged misconduct are presumptively public because the school district has not made an affirmative determination that its elected officials are “employees” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act’s classifications of personnel data under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;February 25, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>727779</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected officials</Title><Id>267224</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-02-27T06:00:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner opined that the city did not respond appropriately to a data request where the city maintained that the data were privileged communications between a third-party individual and that individual&apos;s attorney. The Commissioner noted section 13.393 exempts attorney data from the requirements of the Data Practices Act; however, those exemptions apply to communications between only the city and its attorney and do not extend to data that the city believes may be privileged between others.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-002</Title><Publisher/><Subject>attorney-client privilege</Subject><Subject>presumptively public</Subject><Subject>public data</Subject><Subject>attorney data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-002</Title><title>Opinion 26-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-722852&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-02-04T20:13:03Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for documents that an individual gave to city council members during a council meeting. The city maintained that the data its council members received were privileged communications between a third-party individual and that individual&apos;s attorney. Therefore, the city denied the requester access to the data on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. The Commissioner noted section 13.393 exempts attorney data from the requirements of the Data Practices Act, including documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, those exemptions apply to communications between only the city and its attorney and do not extend to data that the city believes may be privileged between others. Therefore, the city did not respond appropriately to the request because the requested data appeared to be presumptively public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 4, 2026; City of Emily</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Nate Dybvig (Dybvig) asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data maintained by the City of Emily (City), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The Emily City Attorney submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At an Emily City Council meeting on September 9, 2025, a member of the public, Steve Carlson (Carlson), appeared during the public comment period to discuss his concerns about alleged financial irregularities related to a proposed local mining project. Carlson also gave packets of documents related to his concerns to each council member and the mayor. Dybvig’s opinion request noted that Carlson also confirmed he previously delivered a copy of the document packet to city staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On October 22, 2025, Dybvig submitted a data request to the City for a copy of the documents that Carlson gave to city council members. The City responded on October 29, 2025, stating it would not provide Dybvig with access to the requested data. In a letter to Dybvig, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The data that you request is classified as data not on individuals – Non-public Data, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 13.02, Subd. 9. This is because the information you seek in your Data Request is protected by the confines of Minn. Stat. § 595.02, Subd. 1(b).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dybvig contacted the City on October 30, 2025, to ask for further clarification. He noted that the requested data were delivered to the city council during an open meeting and the cited statutory sections did not appear to be applicable. The City did not offer additional information in response to Dybvig’s communication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Emily respond appropriately to a request submitted on October 22, 2025, for data in documents that a member of the public provided to the mayor and city council members during a September 9 meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If a government entity denies access to data due to a not public classification, then the entity is obligated to inform the requester of the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or provision of federal law that allows it to withhold the requested data. (Section 13.03, subd. 3(f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 9 states, “‘Nonpublic data’ are data not on individuals made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not accessible to the public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 595.02, subdivision 1(b) establishes the attorney-client privilege as it relates to witness testimony, stating, “An attorney cannot, without the consent of the attorney’s client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or the attorney’s advice given thereon in the course of professional duty; nor can any employee of the attorney be examined as to the communication or advice, without the client’s consent.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Past advisory opinions have clarified that section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, the section exempts data created, collected, maintained, or disseminated by government attorneys from the Data Practices Act’s requirements when those data are subject to other statutes, rules, or professional standards governing attorneys’ work and conduct, such as the attorney-client privilege. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-549122&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;22-007&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267599&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-017&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267516&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the interaction of the Data Practices Act and the attorney-client privilege in the context of data contained in a law firm’s billing records maintained by a government entity. The Court cited section 595.02, subd. 1(b) as the statutory basis of the attorney-client privilege. However, the Court also relied upon the classic explication of the privilege when considering its scope:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998) (citations omitted).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Court then wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because billing records are not “communication made by the client,” they come under the privilege only if they are “attorney’s advice given [on a client’s communication] in the course of professional duty.” …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Here, we hold that the billing records are not protected in their entirety by the attorney-client privilege: much of the information in them is not confidential, and much of it would have been disclosed regardless of the existence of the privilege. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Certainly, the public has a right to at least some of the government data contained in the billing records, and the attorney-privilege protects only data that renders legal advice and that might not have been disclosed absent the privilege.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the City disagreed that it violated the Data Practices Act, noting it had denied Dybvig access to data on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The City also enclosed a letter the City Attorney previously sent to the Commissioner, which disputed an argument Dybvig made suggesting any attorney-client privilege was waived when Carlson provided the documents to the city council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner’s understanding of the City’s position is that the requested data are not privileged communications between the City Attorney and City officials. Rather, this is a unique situation where the City received documents it believed were privileged communications between a third-party individual not related to the City and that individual’s attorney. Under the City’s argument, the attorney-client privilege between that third party and their attorney was not waived when Carlson obtained those documents and disclosed them to the mayor and city council members at the meeting on September 9. Therefore, the City was obligated to withhold access to preserve the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the other parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City’s reliance on the fact that the requested data appear to be privileged between an individual unrelated to the City and that individual’s attorney is not a sufficient reason to withhold access to data in this situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the Court of Appeals noted in &lt;em&gt;City Pages&lt;/em&gt;, the attorney-client privilege typically protects “communications made by the client,” but it may apply to other communications “only if they are ‘attorney’s advice given [on a client’s communication] in the course of professional duty.’”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Carlson provided data directly to the mayor and city council members. Therefore, the requested data were not communications made by City officials to its attorney nor were they communications from the City attorney rendering legal advice to the City officials. As a result, the requested data are not attorney-client privileged communications between the City and its attorney, and section 13.393 does not exempt the data from the Data Practices Act’s requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the plain language of section 13.393 does not allow a government attorney to extend the section’s exemptions when a government entity receives data it believes may be privileged between other parties. Thus, the City cannot rely on section 13.393 to withhold access even though it believes Carlson was not authorized to disclose data in documents that would be privileged between other parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner’s opinion that the attorney-client privilege, with its statutory basis in section 595.02, subd. 1(b) and applied through section 13.393, is not applicable to the documents that Carlson gave to the mayor and city council members. The City cannot rely on section 13.393 or section 595.02, subd. 1(b) to withhold access to the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, section 13.02 provides definitions of terms used throughout the Data Practices Act, and the section does not classify data. The City citing section 13.02, subd. 9 as the basis to withhold data in response to Dybvig’s request was not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a result, the requested data in the documents are subject to the public presumption. The City was obligated to provide Dybvig with access to the requested data unless a different statutory section or federal law classified the data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final note: The fact the City accepted and continued to maintain the documents Mr. Carlson provided — even though those documents appeared to be privileged between a third-party individual and that individual’s attorney — complicated the situation at hand. A government entity that receives documents it believes are privileged between other individuals should consider whether it must maintain those data for any longer than necessary, especially if they are transitory data. Government data that are transitory in nature and not part of an official record do not need to be retained for any specific length of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A practical solution for an entity finding itself in this situation may be to promptly return the privileged documents to the applicable individual or attorney upon determining it should not have received the documents. Alternatively, an entity could destroy any copies of the documents it believes it was not authorized to receive so long as those documents are not official records under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.17 or subject to a pending data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Emily did not respond appropriately to a request submitted on October 22, 2025, for data in documents that a member of the public provided to the mayor and city council members during a September 9 meeting. The data are presumptively public unless another specific statutory section or provision of federal law classify the data otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;February 4, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>722852</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-02-06T06:00:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner concluded that Met Council did not respond appropriately a reporter’s request for data about an investigation into complaints or charges against a former Metro Transit Police Chief.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-001</Title><Publisher/><Subject>public official</Subject><Subject>personnel data</Subject><Subject>public data</Subject><Subject>resign</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 26-001</Title><title>Opinion 26-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-719953&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2026-01-16T16:44:40Z</Date><ShortDescription>A reporter asked about Met Council’s response to a request for data about a former Metro Transit Police Chief. The reporter requested access to public data about an investigation into complaints or charges against the chief. Due to a recent legislative change, the duly appointed chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit is a “public official” as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5) and therefore, data about a complaint or charge against the chief is classified public because he resigned while the complaint or charge is pending. Therefore, Met Council did not respond appropriately to the reporter’s request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2026; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ryan Raiche, a reporter for KSTP-TV, requested an opinion regarding the Metropolitan Council’s (Met Council) response to requests for government data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). Met Council provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;KSTP-TV provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In September 2024, the Met Council announced that [the Police Chief] was no longer with the department. At the time, KSTP-TV requested all data, including any prepared reports, relating to that investigation. The Met Council denied our request because under state law – at the time – the Metro Transit Police Chief was not considered a “public official.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;That all changed this last legislative session after our reporting on the matter. Lawmakers added the Metro Transit Police Chief to the list of “public officials.” The Met Council even lobbied for this change.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Once the law took effect in August 2025, KSTP-TV made the request again:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;“In light of new legislation which changes the classification of certain data on the police chief at Metro Transit, KSTP-TV is requesting again all data, including any prepared reports, relating to the investigation into former Metro Transit Police Chief Earnest Morales.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Despite lobbying for the change in the law, the Met Council denied the request again, saying the new law does not apply retroactively. KSTP-TV appealed that decision based on 13.03 subdivision 9. A Met Council lawyer responded with the attached letter – denying me again.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council respond appropriately to a request submitted on August 5, 2025, for all public data related to a personnel investigation involving the former Metro Transit Police Chief?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Personnel data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Personnel data means “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of… a government entity.” Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data, unless or until there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4) and (5).) For employees who are “public officials,” however, data relating to a complaint or charge are public if certain conditions are met. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In 2025, the Minnesota Legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5), by adding certain individuals employed by Met Council to the definition of &quot;public official,&quot; including the chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit Police Department.  Paragraph (f) of the same subdivision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (5), are public only if:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9 states, “unless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, regardless of the data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” Meanwhile, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.21 states, “no law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the Legislature.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267801&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-039&lt;/a&gt;, a University of Minnesota faculty member signed an agreement in 1991, as a result of a complaint from a student. In 1993, the Legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2, changing the public classification of settlement agreements from those relating to “administrative or judicial proceedings” to the current language – “any dispute arising out of the employment relationship.” The faculty member asserted, though the University could not confirm, that he had been promised confidentiality when signing the agreement. The Commissioner wrote, “Although this kind of agreement may have been private at the time it was entered into, the Legislature, in its 1991 enactment of Section 13.03, subdivision 9, provided” that the classification is determined by the statute existing at the time of the request. Therefore, the settlement agreement was public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267342&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-011&lt;/a&gt;, a data subject had been a patient at a state hospital at various times in the 1960s. Subsequently, the Legislature classified certain directory information about public hospital patients as public. The data subject objected to the release of that data. The Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;K objects to DHS treating any of the data on the index card as directory information. One basis for K’s objection is that because the data were collected/created prior to August 1, 1975, and the data were treated as not public pursuant to Section 246.13, the data cannot ever be public data. K’s reasoning is understandable. K believed the assurances made at the time of K’s release from involuntary commitment, that the data were private and confidential.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, the Legislature, on an annual basis, enacts new legislation, and amends and repeals existing statutes. Annually, the Legislature alters the classification of various types of government data. As evidence of its intent, to maintain ongoing control over classification of data, the Legislature enacted Section 13.03, subdivision 9.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, Met Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At no point in time, however, was [the former Chief] a public official under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 2(e). The statutory language only applies to the person in the role of the Chief of Police after the effective date [of the 2025 legislative change]. Prior to the effective date, the Chief of Police was not a public official. As an employee who was not a public official, the only public data related to a complaint or charge is the existence and status of the complaint, i.e., there was a complaint, and the investigation is closed. The Council is not permitted to provide further data under state law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Minnesota Statutes 13.03, subdivision 9 also does not apply in this situation and it is not a clear and manifest intent of the Legislature for retroactively applying the 2025 amendment. First, subdivision 9 addresses changes in the classification of data. But here, the classification of data has not changed: Data about public officials was and remains classified as public. Instead, the amendment changes the definition of who is a public official. While that has the effect of changing the classification of data for someone who currently or in the future serves in one of those roles, it does not apply to someone who is not in that role (see plain language analysis above). Subdivision 9 does not apply. Second, the Legislature added section 13.03, subdivision 9 in 1990. The public official exception was not added until five years later and then only applied to “the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads.”1995 Minn. Laws Ch. 259 (S.F. 1279). A 1990 amendment is not clear and manifest intent of retroactivity for a 2025 amendment particularly where so many changes to the statutory section have occurred between the two enactments.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The Legislature’s clear and manifest intention regarding determining data classification is stated in section 13.03, subd. 9; unless otherwise expressly provided, classification is determined by the language of the law existing at the time of the request, “regardless of the data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” If the Commissioner were to accept Met Council’s argument regarding retroactivity, section 13.03, subd. 9 would be rendered meaningless. An entity would be obligated to research the legislative history of a provision each time it needed to determine the classification of responsive data, instead of relying on the plain language of the statute. This is exactly the problem section 13.03, subd. 9 seeks to remedy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because section 13.43 does not expressly state otherwise, the relevant inquiry to determine the classification of the data at issue is:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does Met Council maintain “data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under [subdivision 2] paragraph (e), clause (5)”?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did that employee resign while the complaint or charge was pending?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At the time KSTP-TV made the August 2025 request, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5) identified the chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit Police as a “public official.” There was a complaint or charge against him, and he resigned while the complaint or charge was pending. Because the classification of data are determined at the time of the request, Met Council did not respond appropriately to KSTP-TV’s data request by denying access to all of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a final note, in its comments, Met Council raised important issues related to due process and employee decision-making during the complaint process. The Commissioner has commented on those concerns in the prior opinions cited above. In making the recent changes to section 13.43, the Legislature did not discuss how changes in determining classification would impact public officials who resigned prior to the change. The Commissioner encourages entities that share these concerns to raise them for the Legislature’s consideration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Council did not respond appropriately to a request submitted on August 5, 2025, for data related to a personnel investigation involving the former Metro Transit Police Chief by denying access to all data. Data “related to the complaint or charge” are public, except for data on other employees, because the Chief resigned while the complaints or charges were pending, and section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(v) identifies the Metro Transit Police Chief as a public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 16, 2026&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>719953</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>267210</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification at time of request, controls access (13.03, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266595</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-01-19T06:00:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner concluded that Itasca Medical Care (IMCare), a county-based purchasing plan, was subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 because it contracted with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to perform a government function.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-011</Title><Publisher/><Subject>government contracts</Subject><Subject>privatization</Subject><Subject>government function</Subject><Subject>welfare data</Subject><Subject>welfare system</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-011</Title><title>Opinion 25-011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-712484&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-11-13T16:38:35Z</Date><ShortDescription>A county-based purchasing plan asked whether it was subject to the requirements of a Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 after receiving a request from a media member for data it maintained. The purchasing plan denied the requester access, stating that section 13.46 classified the data as not public. However, the requester disputed whether the purchasing plan was part of the &quot;welfare system&quot; under the definitions in section 13.46. The Commissioner concluded that the purchasing plan was subject to the requirements of section 13.46 because it contracted with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to perform a government function. Therefore, the purchasing plan met the definition of “welfare system” as defined in section 13.46, subdivision 1(c).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 13, 2025; Itasca Medical Care</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Itasca Medical Care (IMCare) asked for an advisory opinion regarding whether it was subject to the requirements of a specific section of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;IMCare provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;IMCare is organized as a county-based purchasing entity organized under Minn. Stat. § 256B.692 for the purposes of providing health insurance to Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible residents of Itasca County. It is also a Minnesota Health Care Program administered by Itasca County Health &amp;amp; Human Services. IMCare has contracts with the [Minnesota Department of Human Services] and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Section 6.1.22 of IMCare’s contract with DHS provides that IMCare must offer housing stabilization services (“HSS”) to IMCare members. These services are intended to provide support for members with disabilities and seniors to find and retain housing in the community. … Section 6.1.22 and its subparagraphs also outline the terms under which housing stabilization services are provided to members and how service providers will be compensated for services provided to members. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In January 2025, in accordance with IMCare’s obligations to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, IMCare conducted a review of HSS providers. IMCare prepared a report of its findings, which was requested by DHS, and sent to DHS on May 1, 2025 and July 22, 2025. DHS initiated an investigation. As of the date of this letter, DHS’s investigation into the HSS service provider at issue is ongoing. The report includes private data on individuals and protected health information.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On August 13, 2025, IMCare received a data practices request asking for “all publicly releasable data” about Medicaid fraud in HSS programs:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;KARE 11 is requesting all publicly releasable data related to Medicare fraud concerns in the Housing Stabilization Services (HSS) program. Reports to DHS about fraud concerns in the program, documented determination of fraud by specific providers, stop payment orders, overpayment requests etc. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On September 11, 2025, Eric Villeneuve, Health &amp;amp; Human Services Director, responded to the data practices request and informed the requesting party that the records requested were exempt from disclosure and cited applicable Minnesota law:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Per MN Statute 13.05, subd. 11, 13.387, and 13.46, subd. 3, records are currently withheld due to an open investigation. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The same day, the requesting party stated that he would be appealing the decision. The requesting party also stated that IMCare was not part of the “Welfare System” and the exemption for investigative data was therefore not applicable. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;IMCare has not received any appeal and is not aware of any further action taken by the requesting party about this request. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;IMCare also submitted a copy of its contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide Medicaid and MinnesotaCare services, which included provisions on offering housing stabilization services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is Itasca Medical Care, a county-based purchasing plan, subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless a state statute, federal law, or temporary classification classifies data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a private party enters a contract with a government entity to perform any of its functions, the private party must comply with Data Practices Act in carrying out its duties related to the contract. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.387 states, in part, “The provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 11, apply to … county-based purchasing plans … contracting with a government entity for health care related services.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 1(c) defines “welfare system” for the purposes of that section. Subdivision 1(c) states, “‘Welfare system’ includes the Department of Human Services; … and persons, agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities under contract to any of the above agencies to the extent specified in the contract.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, IMCare explained the data requester argued that it was not an organization included in the definition of “welfare system” as described in section 13.46, subd. 1(c). Therefore, the requester maintained, IMCare’s reliance on section 13.46, subdivision 3 to withhold responsive data was not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;IMCare added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[S]ection 13.46, subdivision 1(c) includes the “Department of Human Services” and “persons, institutions, organizations, and other entities under contract to any of the above agencies to the extent specified in the contract.” IMCare believes it is included within the definition of “welfare system” in subdivision 1(c) because it has a contract with DHS to provide, among other things, housing stabilization services.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with IMCare’s analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.05, subd. 11 requires private parties to comply with the requirements of the Data Practices Act when contracting with a government entity to perform any of its functions. Section 13.387 establishes that county-based purchasing plans, such as IMCare, are subject to the requirements of section 13.05, subd. 11 when contracting with a government entity to provide health-care related services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, as IMCare has noted, the definition of “welfare system” extends to organizations under contract with DHS to provide government services. IMCare has contracted with DHS to provide services to residents, including housing stabilization services, which were the subject of the August 13 data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Specifically, section 13.3 of IMCare’s contract with DHS states, “Under this Contract, [IMCare] is part of the ‘welfare system,’ as defined in Minnesota Statutes, §13.46, subd. 1, and Minnesota Rules, Parts 9500.1458 and 9506.0400, subp. 12. [IMCare] agrees to be bound by the applicable state and federal laws governing the security and privacy of information.” This language further supports the fact that IMCare is part of the “welfare system” under section 13.46.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Taken together, IMCare is subject to the requirements of section 13.46 because it has contracted with DHS to perform specific government functions involving health care services. As a result, IMCare’s response to the August 13 data request that the responsive data are part of an active investigation and classified as not public data under section 13.46, subd. 3 was appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Itasca Medical Care, a county-based purchasing plan, is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 because it has contracted with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to perform a government function. Therefore, IMCare meets the definition of “welfare system” as defined in section 13.46, subdivision 1(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>712484</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Welfare system</Title><Id>267208</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-17T14:05:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner concluded that Minnewaska School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of its members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence. </Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-010</Title><Publisher/><Subject>open meeting law</Subject><Subject>interpretation of a meeting</Subject><Subject>meeting</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-010</Title><title>Opinion 25-010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-712951&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-11-13T16:37:47Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the Minnewaska School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of its members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence. The Commissioner determined that the Board violated the OML because four of the seven Board members were present and received information related to official school business. Although the Board did not take formal action or organize the event, the gathering met the definition of a meeting under the OML. Since this meeting was not properly noticed and was not open to the public, the Commissioner concluded that the Board did not comply with the requirements of the OML.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 13, 2025; Independent School District No. 2149, Minnewaska Area Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lucy Williams asked for an advisory opinion regarding Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska Area Schools, School Board (Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 23, 2025, a private group of residents hosted an informational meeting about an upcoming school bond referendum for Minnewaska Area Schools and sent invitations to other community members. The invitations stated the meeting “will provide the latest information as well as have Superintendent Rankin and school board members present.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board did not advertise the event nor provide any notice on its website or other locations. The Board chair and three other Board members were present at this event. A transcript of the meeting provided in the advisory opinion request shows the host introduced the Board members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Superintendent then presented to the group and discussed financial investment in the school district, including possible changes to curriculum and facilities. He then answered some questions from attendees about funding. After the Superintendent presented, a speaker briefly discussed curriculum and job pathways for students. At the end of the meeting, a Board member provided information on how attendees can vote on the bond issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnewaska School Board comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, when a quorum of members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a school district is a public body subject the law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that a meeting subject to the OML “are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983) (&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;). While chance or social gatherings are not subject to the requirements of the OML, Moberg held that “a quorum may not, as a group, discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518 (citing &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d 1, 7 (Minn. 1983)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML will be interpreted in favor of public access and transparency. Specifically, it noted that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729 (Minn. 2002). The Court also explained that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by [the law].” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d at 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In finding that a gathering of township board members violated the OML, the Commissioner relied on &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; and an earlier Minnesota Attorney General opinion. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267093&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 16-005&lt;/a&gt;, Issue 3.). The Attorney General wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We also point out that the fact that a particular gathering does not purport to be and is not intended to be an official council meeting does not remove it from the requirements of the open meeting law [sic] and the fact that some of the subjects do not at the time of the gathering appear to require formal council action is of no consequence.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(See Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974.) Thus, there are only two elements that determine whether a gathering is subject to the OML: 1) a quorum or more of members of the public body are present, and 2) those members discuss, decide, or receive information related to the official business of that public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the Board stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Board did not deliberate toward decisions, receive testimony as a body, or transact official business at the private gathering. There was no roll call, agenda, motions, votes, or direction to the administration. . . .The District did not organize the event. Any comments by the Superintendent were informational in nature; board members’ presence alone did not constitute Board action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges the Board’s comments, which clarify that the Board did not take any official action at this meeting. However, formal action following a public body’s procedures or bylaws is not required for a meeting to occur under the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Four of the seven Board members attended the September 23 event, resulting in a quorum of Board members being present. At the event, the Superintendent discussed school funding and plans for improvements and changes to the District, a presenter discussed curriculum opportunities, and a Board member provided information on voting for the related school bond. The topic and focus of the entire event were related to the Board’s work. Additionally, the members of the Board that attended were introduced as Board members, and the invitation itself stated that members of the Board would be present. The quorum of members received information related to the official business of the Board. Therefore, this gathering was subject to all the applicable requirements of the OML, which the Board did not meet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnewaska School Board did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, when a quorum of members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>712951</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-17T14:00:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner concluded that 911 calls were public request for service data under section 13.82, subd. 3, and therefore the County did not respond appropriately.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-009</Title><Publisher/><Subject>911 call</Subject><Subject>transcript</Subject><Subject>911 transcript</Subject><Subject>request for service data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-009</Title><title>Opinion 25-009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-706901&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-09-23T20:05:45Z</Date><ShortDescription>Several media requesters asked whether a county sheriff’s office responded appropriately to a request for a 911 transcript. The County argued that portions of the transcript were active investigative data under section 13.82, subd. 7 and a health record under the Minnesota Health Records Act. The Commissioner concluded that 911 calls were public request for service data under section 13.82, subd. 3, and therefore the County did not respond appropriately.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 23, 2025; Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Isabella Nascimento, legal counsel for several media requestors (Media Requestors), requested an opinion regarding the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office’s (HCSO) response to requests for government data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). HCSO provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Media Requestors provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On June 16, 2025, KSTP’s Ryan Raiche requested “the 911 call transcript of the call made by Hope Hoffman to report the shooting of her parents by Vance Boelter.”… On June 17, KARE 11’s Lou Raguse submitted a similar request for the “[t]ranscript of all 911 calls related to the response to . . . a shooting.”… On July 7, Star Tribune’s MaryJo Webster likewise requested “a copy of the transcript of a 911 call placed from within the home . . . in Champlin, on Saturday, June 14.”…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County responded to all three requests with the same response:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The requested data is ‘criminal investigative data’ and is ‘confidential or protected nonpublic’ while the investigation is active pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. An investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of the events listed in this subdivision. Accordingly, the requested data cannot be disclosed while the investigation is active.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In response to KARE 11 and Star Tribune, the County also claimed that “much of the requested data cannot be disclosed pursuant to the Minnesota Health Records Act,” but failed to cite any particular provision of the law to support its denial.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;KSTP appealed the denial of its request, but the County stood on its improper denial, again citing Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. According to the County, “Subdivision 7 governs investigative data except for data in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of Section 13.82. The requested transcript falls under subdivision 4, and it is therefore confidential or protected non-public under subdivision 7 while the investigation is active.” It also added a reference to the Minnesota Health Records Act, still without citing to any particular provision therein. (Citations and references omitted.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;HCSO subsequently provided the Media Requestors with a redacted transcript, for which it charged the Media Requestors, and cited section 13.82, subdivision 7 and Minnesota Statutes, section 144.293 of the Minnesota Health Record Act (MHRA) for the redactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office respond appropriately to data requests by the media for the transcript of a 911 call?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. Data Practices Act&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless a state statute, federal law or temporary classification classifies the data as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Some data that law enforcement collects and maintains are subject to this general, public presumption. When there is a criminal investigation however, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82 and other statutes regulating law enforcement data classify the data. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain data are always private, and certain data are temporarily confidential/protected nonpublic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The following provisions of section 13.82 are relevant to this opinion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subdivision 3 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The following data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document requests by the public for law enforcement services shall be public government data:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) the nature of the request or the activity complained of.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subdivision 4 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from a law enforcement, fire, or medical agency is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making the call, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17. A transcript shall be prepared upon request. The person requesting the transcript shall pay the actual cost of transcribing the call, in addition to any other applicable costs provided under section 13.03, subdivision 3. The audio recording may be disseminated to law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes. The audio recording may be used for public safety and emergency medical services training purposes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subdivision 7 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined on the classification of a 911 transcript. In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267631&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-050&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Regarding the 911 transcript... It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the transcript cannot be protected under subdivision 7 as criminal investigative data because it is not data that the Department collected or prepared in order to prepare a case against the caller. Rather, a call of this nature to a 911 center is a type of request for service data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267587&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-006&lt;/a&gt;, a County argued that it could withhold a 911 transcript based on section 13.82, subdivision 14, which allows a law enforcement agency to withhold public response or incident data (designated by section 13.82, subdivision 6) temporarily. The Commissioner wrote, “[t]he transcript of a call to a 911 system is request for service data, not response or incident data.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Neither of the parties asserted that the call at issue in this advisory opinion included any identities protected by section 13.82, subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In their opinion request, the Media Requestors argued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The data requested by the Media Requestors is public under the plain text of Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 4…. That this data is public is bolstered by Subdivision 3, which makes public certain data “which document requests by the public for law enforcement services” (a 911 call is literally such a request). Id., subd. 3; id., subd. 4 (“a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from law enforcement … is private …, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public” (emphasis added)). In other words, the transcript of a 911 call that requests law enforcement services is public data—which is precisely what the Media Requestors requested from the County here.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the Commissioner, HSCO wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Except for data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, under Minnesota Statutes § 13.82, subdivision 7, criminal investigative data is not public while the investigation is active.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Recordings and transcripts of 911 calls are not addressed in subdivisions 2, 3, or 6 of Minnesota Statutes § 13.82. They are instead addressed in subdivision 4. Subdivision 4 establishes that the audio of 911 calls is private, but that a written transcript of the call is public unless it would reveal the identity of certain protected individuals.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Under the plain language of Section 13.82, because a transcript of a 911 call is not addressed in subdivisions 2, 3, or 6, it is not public under subdivision 7 while it is active criminal investigative data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the Media Requestors. It has been the Commissioner’s longstanding opinion that a 911 call is request for service data under 13.82, subd. 3. A 911 call communicates the “nature of the request or the activity complained of,” so relevant agencies can provide an appropriate response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Data Practices Act generally classifies individual pieces of information or data elements, section 13.82, subd. 4 classifies an entire record as either private (“the audio recording”) or public (“a written transcript”). The classifications apply to a call placed to a 911 system “for the purpose of requesting services from a law enforcement agency, fire, or medical agency.” (Emphasis added.) As such, 13.82, subd. 4 acts as an exception to the always public classification of request for service data in 13.82, subd. 3, by creating a private classification of the audio recording while continuing to ensure public access to the call in the form of a transcript.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the parties note, section 13.82, subd. 7 excludes “request for service data” from the not public classifications of active investigative data. Here, the Media Requestors requested a transcript of the June 14, 2025, 911 call. HCSO denied access to the transcript in whole, and then in part, stating the 911 call was active investigative data pursuant to section 13.82, subd. 7 and later, also citing the MHRA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, HCSO did not respond appropriately because the transcript of the 911 call is public request for service data under section 13.82, subds. 3 and 4, rather than active criminal investigation data under section 13.82, subd. 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;2. Minnesota Health Records Act&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;HCSO also argued that part of the 911 transcript is a health record under the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.291-144.298, and cannot be provided to the Media Requestors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For information to be a “health record” under the MHRA, it must relate to a “patient.” A patient is defined as “a natural person who has received health care services from a provider for treatment.” (Section 144.291, subd. 2(g).) (emphasis added). Individuals certified and regulated by the Office of Emergency Medical Services under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 144E are not included in the definition of a “provider.” (See section 144.291, subd. 2(i).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;HCSO provided the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Applying [the MHRA] to the present case, HCSO properly withheld a portion of the 911 transcript because it constitutes health records as they are defined under the Minnesota Health Records Act. A portion of the call captures communications with a medical dispatcher for the purpose of conveying health information regarding the injuries… to medical providers.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;HCSO’s argument is not persuasive. When a government entity receives a health record directly from a provider, they are constrained from further dissemination by the MHRA. (Section 144.293, subdivision 2.) Documentation resulting from an individual sharing health-related information with a non-provider (e.g., law enforcement officers, EMT, emergency medical dispatch, etc.), is not subject to the MHRA. The exchange of information between the caller and dispatch here was to assess the nature of the requested service so that the proper response could be provided. As noted above, the transcript of this exchange documents a public request for service under section 13.82, subd. 3. Therefore, the MHRA is not an appropriate basis on which to deny access to a 911 transcript.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that the issue of access to 911 transcripts during an active investigation amplifies the inherent tension in the Data Practices Act among the three foundational policy considerations upon which the law rests: personal privacy, transparency, and government operations and efficiency. The legislature enacted section 13.82, subd. 4 (originally codified at subdivision 3a) in 1994 after the media requested and obtained a public recording of a 911 call during the active investigation of another tragic incident. In subsequently classifying the recording as private, the legislature acknowledged the caller’s right to privacy in the audio of their own voice in a sensitive and emotional situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The legislature also preserved the public’s right to obtain data necessary to observe and monitor government actions by requiring the creation of a transcript upon request, and it ensured that the recording could be accessed by the government entities that need it to do their jobs. If, in attempting to give effect to each of these competing interests, the legislature has not struck the intended balance, the Commissioner encourages the legislature to reconsider the language of section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to data requests by the media for the transcript of a 911 call when it initially denied the request and when it subsequently provided a redacted transcript.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;September 23, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>706901</id><Tag><Description/><Title>911 tape transcript</Title><Id>266459</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-10-21T13:07:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-008</Title><title>Opinion 25-008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-704077&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-09-03T18:04:03Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the Twin Lakes City Council violated the Open Meeting Law when it held an emergency meeting on June 3, 2025, to approve a wastewater services contract. The Commissioner determined that the Council violated the OML because the circumstances did not justify calling an emergency meeting, which is reserved for issues requiring immediate action, typically involving public safety. Since the matter could have been handled through a properly noticed special meeting, the Council’s use of the emergency meeting procedure did not comply with the OML.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 3, 2025; Twin Lakes City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Cheryl Neilon (Neilon) asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Twin Lakes City Council’s (Council) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council did not provide comments in response to this advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On June 3, 2025, the Council held an emergency meeting to approve a contract with MMS Environmental to perform wastewater services. The meeting minutes state:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mayor Prestholt opened the meeting, stating we were there to hire MMS to do our water and sewer sampling and to keep us in compliance with the State. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency gal . . . . has been talking with the Mayor and she told him that we have to get this done as soon as possible. The Mayor said there is an open window for draining the sewer ponds as the water is correct and right. He said we’ve got to get the samples taken and mailed in.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At this meeting, one member abstained and the remaining members voted to approve the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Neilon also provided a copy of the Council’s June 3 meeting minutes as well as a copy of the City’s contract with MMS Environmental to perform regular wastewater services for three years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the members of the Twin Lakes City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held an emergency meeting on June 3, 2025 to consider a contract?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that a meeting subject to the OML “are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML will be interpreted in favor of public access and transparency. Specifically, in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729 (Minn. 2002), it noted that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” The Court also stated the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by [the law]” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;One of the mechanisms to ensure a public body’s meetings are open to the public and transparent is to provide appropriate notice of its meetings as is required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. This section details how public bodies must provide notice for three different types of meetings. First, subdivision 1 requires public bodies keep a schedule of its regular meetings on file at its primary offices. No other notice for a regular meeting is required. Next, for a special meeting that is not on the regular meeting schedule, or a rescheduled regular meeting, subdivision 2 requires that a public body post a written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board, or if there is not bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room. This notice must be posted at least three days before the meeting. Additionally, the public body must deliver a notice for this special meeting to any person who requested in writing to be notified of these meetings. A public body may publish this notice in an official newspaper in place of delivering these individual notices. Subdivision 3 describes the third and final type of meeting as an emergency meeting, which only requires that the public body make a good faith effort to notify news media that filed a written request to receive notice of an emergency meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The notification requirements for emergency meetings are limited given that these meetings, by their very nature, are held to address issues that require immediate consideration by the public body. Section 13D.04, subdivision 3 defines an emergency meeting as “. . . a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body.” Under this definition, the subject matter of an emergency meeting is such that the three-day notice required for a special meeting is not possible. Additionally, the Commissioner has previously stated that public bodies should hold emergency meetings only in rare circumstances where public safety is at risk. Examples of emergency situations would include holding a meeting to respond to a natural disaster, or a health epidemic caused by an event such as an accident or a terrorist activity. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267124&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-027&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266443&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is limited to the information presented to her. From the information provided, it does not appear that the City’s need to sign a contract required immediate attention, or that waiting the three days required to notice and hold a special meeting would jeopardize public safety. If the City’s water issues created a public safety concern that required immediate approval of the contract, then holding an emergency meeting would have been appropriate under 13D.04, subd. 3. However, the minutes for the June 3 meeting only indicate that the Council wished to sign the contract with MMS Environmental to perform regular wastewater services to comply with other state requirements regarding its water services quickly. Given the Supreme Court’s direction that the OML must be interpreted in favor of public access, the Council’s decision to hold an emergency meeting on June 3 to discuss this contract did not comply with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Members of the Twin Lakes City Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held an emergency meeting on June 3, 2025 to consider a contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;September 3, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>704077</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-09-05T12:00:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>This is an advisory opinion of the Commissioner of Administration. The Commissioner determined that the City did not respond appropriately to four data requests made by a member of the public.</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-007</Title><Publisher/><Subject>data request</Subject><Subject>response to data request</Subject><Subject>reasonable time</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-007</Title><title>Opinion 25-007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-701366&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-08-08T15:29:13Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to their requests for public data. The requester made four data requests between September 1, 2023 and September 13, 2024, but received no response from the City as of July 2025. The City indicated that it was working with the data requester and had begun providing data to the requester upon learning of the pending advisory opinion request. The Commissioner determined that the City did not comply with the Data Practices Act because its response was not appropriate, prompt, or within a reasonable time.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 8, 2025; City of Fertile</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April Swenby (Swenby) requested an advisory opinion regarding the City of Fertile&apos;s (City) response to her requests for government data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The City Administrator of Fertile provided comments in response to this advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Swenby provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;During the timeframe of July 2023, and September 2024, I made several data practice requests. During this time frame the City of Fertile did not have a data practice policy ..., thus most of my requests were not made on a specific form, but they were always done in written communication.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I have made good faith efforts to obtain public data and I have been unable to receive a response from the City of Fertile on the above requests. I have attended multiple public meetings to ask for assistance, I have sent reminder e-mails to staff, and I have e-mailed council members asking for assistance. I have also asked the Department of Administration for assistance for the past two years on the proper way to obtain public data and have followed their suggested advice to work with City staff. ... Most recently, the Mn [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] Department of Administration ... has reached out to the City of Fertile prior to June 13, 2025. There has been no communication to me about my data practice requests and no concerted effort to provide me public data since the Mn [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] Department of Administration conversation with the City of Fertile&apos;s staff.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Swenby provided copies of her correspondence with the City and of four data requests she had submitted between September 2023 and September 2024. The various requests asked for access to financial records, a copy of a city council meeting recording, copies of data cited in a financial audit of the City, and copies of billing records related to the City&apos;s payments to the Public Employees Retirement Association and related emails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Fertile respond appropriately to requests for data from a member of the public submitted on the following dates: September 1, 2023; September 30, 2023; December 24, 2023; and September 13, 2024?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity receives a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to have procedures to provide access to data in “an appropriate and prompt manner” and “within a reasonable amount of time.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) The Data Practices Act and Minnesota Rules do not define “appropriate,” “prompt,” or “reasonable amount of time.” However, the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions that these terms are relative to the nature or complexity of the data request and the amount of responsive data requested. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266715&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 02-020&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266899&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-411892&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the City wrote, “[T]he City is working with the data requestor on an ongoing basis to deliver the data and requested documents to her.” The City also described the various documents and data it had begun providing to Swenby upon learning of the pending advisory opinion request, as well as steps it planned to take to provide access to data not yet provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates the City’s update that it is now providing access to the requested data. However, these updates do not change the fact that the City has not complied with the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As of early July 2025, the City had not yet offered any responses to Swenby’s data requests submitted in 2023 and 2024. After learning of the pending advisory opinion, the City then began providing Swenby with access to portions of the data she requested. However, this access comes after more than a year and many months from her initial data requests, which is neither prompt nor timely given the scope of the data Swenby requested. Additionally, the City did not offer further information about the processing of the requests or access to data despite Swenby’s attempts to learn about the status of the requests and efforts to resolve her concerns informally.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the City’s current responses to Swenby’s data requests are not appropriate, prompt, or within a reasonable amount of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final note about the City’s responses to these data requests. It appears at least one communication Swenby sent to the City on July 29, 2023, contained questions rather than a data request. However, the City indicated to Swenby that it would treat the questions as a request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Previous advisory opinions have made clear that the Data Practices Act requires government entities to respond to data requests. The law does not require an entity to respond to questions that do not clearly ask to either inspect or obtain copies of government data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267827&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 04-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267699&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-036&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267419&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner encourages the City to review its procedures to ensure that it is not treating all questions related to its operations as data requests. Data requesters should also frame their communications in ways that do not allow for confusion as to whether access to government data is being requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Fertile did not respond appropriately to requests for data from a member of the public submitted on the following dates: September 1, 2023; September 30, 2023; December 24, 2023; and September 13, 2024.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;August 8, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>701366</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for data</Title><Id>267220</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor responsibility</Title><Id>266550</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No response</Title><Id>266300</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely, generally</Title><Id>266408</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-08-11T05:00:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-006</Title><title>Opinion 25-006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-695922&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-06-30T16:38:17Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a school district responded appropriately to a request for public data. The requester asked for data 11 months prior, and had only received portions of the data after inquiries from the Department of Administration and the requester. Additionally, the District indicated it was providing only a subset of the data due to technical difficulties with retrieving all the data requested. The Commissioner determined that the District did not respond appropriately to the request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 30, 2025; Independent School District No. 623, Roseville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Charles Laszewski (Laszewski) requested an advisory opinion regarding Independent School District 623, Roseville’s (District) response to his request for government data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The District did not provide comments in response to this advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Laszewski provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Laszewski submitted a data request to the District on June 18, 2024. This request stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am requesting a copy of all emails, text messages and voicemail messages sent or received by you, other school district staff, and members of the School Board pertaining to school bus transportation, Centerline Charter bus company, electric school buses, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chuck Laszewski, Sonita van der Leeuw and the Roseville Area High School Students for Climate Action. My request is for the time frame of May 1, 2022 through June 17, 2024.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District and Laszewski first communicated regarding this request in July 2024, and Laszewski received emails from the District updating him about the status of his request on August 6 and 12, 2024. In these updates, the District communicated it was experiencing technical issues with running such a broad search of its email servers and also mentioned that the amount of data responsive to Laszewski’s request was substantial. The District stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . .If we were able to include the keyword “electric”, it would greatly reduce the results and make it more manageable.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The request as currently stated will require staff time to sort through the results once we hear back from Microsoft. In addition, redacting will be required. The request as currently stated may result in a cost to you of $500 minimum to $1,000 or more depending on staff time requirements. We can run the electric bus keywords and this will likely be of little or no cost to you.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In correspondence dated August 14, 2024, Laszewski declined to narrow his request to just correspondence mentioning “electric bus,” as suggested by the District, and requested that he receive all the data responsive to his initial request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Laszewski next requested assistance from Data Practices Office staff, who contacted the District to inquire into his request. Then, on October 15, 2024, the District made a portion of the requested data available for inspection. At this inspection, 100 emails were available for Laszewski to review. He did not hear from the District again until December 3, 2024, when he reached out to inquire whether he could inspect more data related to his request. The District responded and scheduled a second time for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At this second visit to inspect data on December 9, 2024, there were 15 emails for Laszewski to review. Laszewski alerted the District to his concerns about the data provided, noting that it appeared the District had improperly narrowed its search to only emails containing the phrase “electric bus.” The District acknowledged that the search had been conducted only for emails containing “electric bus” due to concerns from the technology staff about the volume of emails that a broader search would generate. The District added that staff are required to review and redact all emails that Laszewski requested with the broader search. However, the District stated it would contact its technology staff about retrieving data related to Laszewski’s original request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 5, 2025, Laszewski reached out to the District again to request an update on his data request. The District confirmed receipt of Laszewski’s email on May 5 but did not provide any further updates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 623 respond appropriately to a request for data submitted by a member of the public on June 18, 2024?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act requires government entities to establish procedures to respond to requests from members of the public in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable amount of time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) The Commissioner has previously stated that an appropriate, prompt, and reasonable response will depend on the complexity of the request and the amount of responsive data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267963&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 13-003&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266899&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1 requires government entities to “keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.” The Data Practices Act does not contain an exception allowing a government entity to deny access to data because a request results in a large amount of data that must be compiled and reviewed. (See, e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-514480&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 22-001&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court, in &lt;em&gt;Webster v Hennepin Cnty,&lt;/em&gt; 910 N.W.2d 420, 431 (Minn. 2018) stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), dictates that government data be made available and that personnel responsible for making it available establish procedures that insure it is made available. It follows, then, that when the procedures are followed and the requested data are not made available appropriately or promptly, the “established procedures” do not insure that government data are properly available.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is limited to the information provided to her, and the District did not offer comments or additional facts in response to this advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Laszewski’s request for copies of data on June 18, 2024, included specific keywords contained in more than two years of communications and, at some point, the District understood that it should offer Laszewski access to the data via inspection. The District informed Laszewski that there was a substantial amount of data responsive to this request and asked him to narrow his data request, which he declined to do. The District subsequently provided Laszewski with access to some data responsive to his request, but only after being prompted by both the requester and staff in the Data Practices Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As of May 2025, the District had provided Laszewski with 115 emails and, despite repeated statements that the responsive data were substantial, was not clearly communicating with Laszewski about when he could access the additional responsive data. Although the Data Practices Act does not require the District to provide Laszewski with regular updates on the status of his request, it must have procedures to ensure its response to the request is appropriate. Its current procedures are not sufficient if Laszewski remains unsure whether the District will provide access to all responsive data nearly 11 months after his initial request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the District’s conversations with Laszewski suggested it chose to narrow the scope of his data request due to the amount of responsive data, despite his objections. Requesters are entitled to access any public data a government entity maintains, and a government entity cannot limit what data are accessible to a requester simply because responding to the request may be burdensome or technically difficult to gather and review all responsive data. Any data that the District maintains must be easily accessible for convenient use. Therefore, the District is still obligated to provide Laszewski with access to all public data he has requested rather than just the public data in communications containing the term “electric bus.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Taken together, the District has not complied with the Data Practices Act because it has not responded appropriately to Laszewski’s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District 623 did not respond appropriately to a request for data submitted by a member of the public on June 18, 2024.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 30, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>695922</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Burdensome or harassing</Title><Id>266804</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-01T20:44:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-005</Title><title>Opinion 25-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-695899&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-06-30T16:36:02Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a state agency responded appropriately to a data request for &quot;all emails&quot; related to specific topics when the agency did not also provide documents attached to the responsive emails. The state agency&apos;s email retention policy then automatically destroyed several of the emails and attachments before the agency provided access to the missing responsive documents. The state agency maintained that the requester was not clear that the request for &quot;all emails&quot; included the attached documents. The Commissioner noted documents attached to an email message are part of an email itself. Therefore, the agency did not respond appropriately when it failed to provide access to email attachments in its response to the request. Further, the agency could not remedy the situation because the email auto-delete policy destroyed responsive data. The Commissioner encouraged government entities to ensure they have procedures in place to retain official records and data responsive to a request when using email auto-delete policies.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 30, 2025; Iron Range Resources &amp; Rehabilitation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;John Ramos, publisher of the Duluth Monitor (Monitor), asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Department of Iron Range Resources &amp;amp; Rehabilitation’s (IRRR) response to the Monitor’s request for data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The IRRR’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Monitor provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On July 18, 2024, the Monitor submitted a data request to IRRR for:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) All emails which mention ‘Boathouse Bay’ for the period of March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) All emails to or from David Drown for the period March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) All emails to or from John Anderson for the period March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(4) All of Chris Ismil’s emails for the period July 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 8, 2024, the IRRR provided the Monitor with data responsive to its request, but the IRRR did not include documents attached to the requested emails as part of the responsive data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 30, 2024, the Monitor contacted the IRRR to inform the agency that the email attachments were missing. The IRRR followed up with the Monitor on January 9, 2025, to ask for a list of email attachments that were missing, which the Monitor provided on January 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Monitor sent further correspondence to the IRRR about the status of the requested emails but did not receive a response. The Monitor then requested assistance from Data Practices Office staff, who contacted the IRRR.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On March 7, 2025, the IRRR provided copies of several documents attached to emails. The IRRR also explained:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The agency is responding to your request to the best of our ability. Unfortunately our e-mail retention policy automatically deletes e-mails 45 days after receipt, unless saved by staff for their own reference. Thus attachments to deleted emails are deleted as well. This applies to the following attachments as numbered by you: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,13,16,17,19, 20,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Department of Iron Range Resources &amp;amp; Rehabilitation respond appropriately to a request for government data maintained in emails?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity receives a request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable amount of time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) If a government entity receives a data request that it believes is vague or ambiguous, the entity may need to contact the requester to seek clarification to ensure it can meet its obligations under the Data Practices Act to respond appropriately. (See, e.g., Advisory Opinions 03-026 and 14-006.) Further, a government entity shall permit a person to access public data upon request at reasonable times and places. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act does not establish general retention periods for government data, with some exceptions. Rather, the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires a government entity to create records that document its official activities. Under the Records Management Statute, Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, official records must be kept for the length of time stated in the entity’s records retention schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data that are transitory in nature and not part of an official record do not need to be maintained for any specific length of time, and a government entity may destroy transitory data at any time. However, the Commissioner has previously opined that if data exist when an individual requests access to those data, then the Data Practices Act requires the entity to provide access to the responsive data prior to destruction. (See Advisory Opinions 07-006 and 08-028.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the IRRR wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While a state agency’s retention of official records is governed by statute and policy, state agencies do not generally have a blanket e-mail retention policy. The agency’s policy is to retain e-mails for 45 days, after which they are automatically deleted. However, many employees delete emails before the 45-day period. Employees may also save email messages in their work files....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...The issue here is whether the agency should have known that the Monitor was requesting every attachment to the provided e-mails.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The first data request appeared to focus on the Boathouse Bay project in Silver Bay, and specifically noted a request for e-mails, which were provided. The Monitor did not initially specify that it was also requesting email attachments. Upon receiving the requested data, the Monitor did not respond that the submission was incomplete and that attachments were missing. However, it waited almost four months before following up.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Additionally, when The Monitor did follow-up the request was so vague and broad that clarification was required. The initial request appeared to focus on the Boathouse Bay Project, however the request for attachments related to several different topics, some unrelated to the original request and some other attachments were referenced in the subject line, but not attached to the email itself.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The agency does not believe that it violated state statutes by not providing the email attachments. While the agency has a responsibility to maintain accurate records documenting its official activities, it is also the requestor’s responsibility to provide sufficient detail to enable the agency to fulfill the request. In this case, emails from a specific individual were requested and subsequently provided. Attachments were not requested until weeks later, and many of those later-requested attachments were unrelated to the Boathouse Bay Project.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that IRRR met its obligations under the Data Practices Act when responding to the Monitor’s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.03, subd. 2(a) requires a government entity to have procedures to provide access to data it maintains in an appropriate manner upon receiving a data request. Here, the IRRR provided only a portion of data on September 8, 2024, that were responsive to the Monitor’s data request, which meant it did not provide a complete and appropriate response. The IRRR’s obligation was to provide access to all responsive data (i.e., the emails and attachments) that it maintained at the time of the Monitor’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response, the IRRR suggested that the Monitor was not clear that its request for “all emails” also included data that were attached to those emails. However, documents attached to emails are part of the email itself. The attachments are responsive to a request for “all emails” in the same way that the data in an email subject line, the date and time the email was sent, and recipients of the email are responsive data in a request for “all emails.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a result, it was unreasonable for the IRRR to interpret the Monitor’s request for “all emails” to exclude data attached to those emails. Moreover, if the IRRR was uncertain whether the Monitor’s initial request for “all emails” also included the attachments to emails, then the IRRR should have sought clarification from the Monitor to ensure it could provide an appropriate response to the data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the IRRR employed technology that automatically deleted its emails after 45 days. This technology destroyed data that were responsive at the time of the Monitor’s data request, and it was no longer possible for the IRRR to remedy its initial failure to provide the Monitor with all data it had requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that some of the Monitor’s concerns may have been avoided if it had followed up with the IRRR about the missing data shortly after receiving a response on September 8. Nonetheless, this fact does not alter the IRRR’s obligation under the Data Practices Act to have procedures that ensures it responds fully to data requests and provides access to all responsive data before the destruction of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the IRRR did not respond appropriately to the Monitor’s request for emails it had maintained because it failed to provide all responsive data to the Monitor’s request. It was then unable to remedy the situation because several email attachments were automatically destroyed prior to the IRRR providing the Monitor with access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final note about auto-delete email retention policies. These types of automatic data deletion tools are not prohibited by the Data Practices Act. However, all government entities have obligations under the Official Records Act and Records Management Statute to create and retain records documenting their official activities. As noted above, government entities are also obligated to provide access to data that are responsive to a data request before any destruction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner encourages government entities that use technology to automatically delete emails to establish appropriate procedures that allow them to identify and retain email data responsive to a pending data request as well as any official records that may be contained in emails prior to any deletion. These procedures can help ensure government data and official records are not inadvertently destroyed in violation of the Data Practices Act, Official Records Act, or Records Management Statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Department of Iron Range Resources &amp;amp; Rehabilitation did not respond appropriately to a request for government data maintained in emails because it did not provide all data that were responsive to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 30, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>695899</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Destruction of data</Title><Id>267111</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-01T18:24:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-004</Title><title>Opinion 25-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-693194&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-06-09T20:11:38Z</Date><ShortDescription>A City asked whether Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685 classifies data about a future municipal electric utility customer. The Commissioner determined that an individual or entity is a customer of the municipal electric utility if it has purchased or has a contract or agreement to purchase electric utility services from the municipal electric utility. As a result, a future municipal electric utility customer is not a customer for purposes of section 13.685, and data about the future customer are presumptively public.  </ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 9, 2025; City of Chaska</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Chaska requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner about whether certain data the City maintains are classified as private or nonpublic data on municipal electric utility customers under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City received a request from Mr. Wade Sorenson for government data related to the development of a data center within the City by an entity called Cloud HQ. Cloud HQ has been in the process of securing approvals for its development for several years and has received approval for preliminary grading and berm construction, platting, and rezoning. The City operates a municipal electric utility, and the Cloud HQ site is located within the City of Chaska’s electric utility service territory as assigned by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The original request, which is included in this submission, stated the following requests:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . . 5. Provide a copy of all internal and external communications, documents and meeting notes with CloudHQ (or other parties) related to electricity consumption by the facility.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;6. Provide a copy of all internal and external communications, documents and meeting notes with CloudHQ (or other parties) related to utility availability guarantees, SLAs, or prioritization of service for electricity or water to the data center facility.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;7. Provide a copy of all internal and external communications, documents and meeting notes with CloudHQ (or other parties) related to reduced or preferential pricing for electricity, water or sewer fees.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . . The City ultimately did not provide Mr. Sorenson with 294 files responsive to requests numbers 5, 6, and 7 (the “Electric Data”). The City determined the Electric Data were classified as nonpublic pursuant to MN Stat. § 13.685. As previously stated, the City operates a municipal electric utility, and Cloud HQ’s development site lies within the City’s electric service territory. The Electric Data were responsive to request number 5 and parts of numbers 6 and 7 of Mr. Sorenson’s request for data. The City informed Mr. Sorenson on April 15, 2025 that it would not release the Electric Data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are data about future municipal electric utility customers classified as not public data by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are construction plans, communications, and similar data related to a city providing electric utility services to a future customer classified as not public data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies all government data as public and available to anyone upon request, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Here, the City asserts that some of the data requested by Mr. Sorenson are not public data as classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.685 states, “Data on customers of municipal electric utilities are private data on individuals or nonpublic data,” but the data may be disclosed in specific circumstances. In addition, data are classified at the time a request is made. (See Minnesota Statute, section 13.03, subdivision 9.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Are data about future municipal electric utility customers classified as not public data by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.685 classifies data on municipal electric utility customers as private or nonpublic data. “Customer” is not defined in Chapter 13, so the Commissioner looks to the common and approved usage of the word. (Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, defines a customer as “[o]ne that buys goods or services, as from a store or business.” (See also &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267893&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-047&lt;/a&gt;.) Under this definition, one that has purchased or has a contract or agreement to purchase electric utility services is a customer of the municipal electric utility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the City is preparing to provide electric utility services to Cloud HQ, which plans to construct a data center within the City’s electric utility service territory. Based on the information provided to the Commissioner, it does not appear that Cloud HQ is currently purchasing electric utility services from the City. Rather, the City and Cloud HQ are in conversation over how such service would be provided in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Negotiating with the City does not make Cloud HQ a customer of the City’s electric utility services. Instead, whether Cloud HQ is considered a customer of the City’s electric utility service will depend on whether it has purchased electric utility services from the City or entered into a contractual relationship agreeing to purchase such services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City referred to Cloud HQ as a “future customer” in its request to the Commissioner. This modification implies that Cloud HQ has not yet purchased electric utility services but intends to do so in the future. If Cloud HQ is a customer of the City’s electric utility services, data about it will be classified under section 13.685. However, until such purchase or agreement, these data are not about a customer and are presumptively public data under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Are construction plans, communications, and similar data related to a city providing electric utility services to a future customer classified as not public data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request for an advisory opinion to the Commissioner, the City described various types of data related to its work in providing Cloud HQ electric utility services:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All of the Electric Data are about providing Cloud HQ with electric utility service. The Electric Data that are responsive to Mr. Sorenson’s request exist solely because the City, in its role as an electric utility, will provide electric utility service to the Cloud HQ site. Put another way, if the site were located within the service territory of another utility, then the Electric Data would not exist. Given this fact, the City interpreted all of the Electric Data to be data on a municipal electric utility customer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City mentioned different types of data it maintains: “plans for the layout, construction, and cost allocations for electric utility facilities to be constructed exclusively to provide services to a future municipal utility customer” and “internal communications, [] communications with other utilities or agencies, and [] communications or negotiations with the future customer[].”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner does not have access to the data as described but cautions the City with application of section 13.685 to data it maintains because it is planning to provide electric utility service to a customer. Construction plans, communications, and documentation regarding the City’s work to provide utility services are not necessarily data about a specific customer. Instead, these data appear to be about the City’s work to provide electric utility services. Data about the City’s utility work are generally presumptively public. To the extent these data reveal data about an electric utility customer, then those data about the customer would be withheld as they are classified as private or nonpublic under section 13.685.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted in Issue 1, Cloud HQ was not a municipal electric utility service customer at the time of Mr. Sorenson’s data request. As a result, any construction plans, communications, and similar data related to providing Cloud HQ with utility services cannot be classified as not public data under section 13.685, as there are no data within those documents that are about a customer. Instead, these data are presumptively public unless another statutory section, temporary classification, or federal law classify the data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner would like to add one final comment. In its advisory opinion request materials, the City mentioned it had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with Cloud HQ. Even when a government entity signs a non-disclosure agreement with a private party, such an agreement may not limit access to public government data. Provisions of such agreements that are contrary to law are not enforceable. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-536273&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 22-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, does not classify data about future municipal electric utility customers as not public because they are not customers of municipal electric utilities.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Construction plans, communications, and similar data related to a city providing electric utility services to a future customer are not classified as not public by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 9, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>693194</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data</Title><Id>266594</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification of data</Title><Id>266911</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-06-11T15:45:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-003</Title><title>Opinion 25-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-693178&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-06-09T19:40:39Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the classification of personnel data about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation. The district also asked whether data contained in a resignation letter were classified as private. The Commissioner noted that section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that all data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public when the employee resigns while the complaint or charge is pending. In this situation, the public official resigned after an investigation was completed, but the school board had not yet decided whether it would discipline the employee or formally close the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was still pending at the time of the public official&apos;s resignation, and data related to the complaint became public. Additionally, the Commissioner opined that data within an employee&apos;s resignation letter are classified as private data under section 13.43, subdivision 4.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 9, 2025; Independent School District No. 93, Carlton </Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District No. 93, Carlton (District), asked for an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the classification of personnel data it maintained about an employee who was a public official. Legal counsel for the former public official submitted comments on her behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This request follows a data request, dated April 24, 2025, submitted to the District by reporter Macklin Caruso. Mr. Caruso works for the Pine Journal. The District also received a similar data request from Jana Peterson, editor of the Pine Knot News, on April 30, 2025. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… On February 27, 2025, the District’s School Board authorized an investigation into concerns related to its former Superintendent. The District hired an outside investigator to conduct the investigation. On April 9, 2025, the outside investigator submitted his final report. The investigation was closed as of this date.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On April 18, 2025, the School Board conducted a special meeting, which included a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) for preliminary consideration of allegations against the former Superintendent. The School Board did not take any official action with respect to the results of the investigation at this meeting. On April 20, 2025, the former Superintendent submitted a letter of resignation. The School Board accepted the former Superintendent’s resignation at its regular meeting on April 21, 2025.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On April 24, 2024, Mr. Caruso sent Board Chair Laura Nilsen a formal Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request for “the Carlton School Board’s investigation into a complaint against [the former Superintendent] and her resignation letter.” On April 30, 2025, Ms. Peterson sent a data request to Chair Nilsen seeking, among other things, “a copy of the investigation report into the complaint against [the former Superintendent.]”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data maintained by Independent School District 93, Carlton, relating to a complaint or charge about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data contained in a resignation letter that the public official submitted to the school district?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals that a government entity maintains because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 describes types of personnel data designated as public and subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iv) identifies certain employees who work for local-level government entities, such as a school district, as “public officials,” which includes “individuals defined as superintendents … under Minnesota Rules, part 3512.0100.” All data relating to a complaint or charge against a local public official becomes public data if specific conditions are met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee who is identified under subdivision 2(e)(4) become public only if:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of data maintained by Independent School District 93, Carlton, relating to a complaint or charge about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the District identified previous advisory opinions addressing data classification when a public official has resigned while a complaint was pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267270&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 15 006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 15-006&lt;/a&gt;, a city’s finance director, who was a public official, resigned after the city completed a draft of an investigative report about a complaint against her but before the report was finalized. The Commissioner determined that all data related to the complaint were public because the finance director resigned while the complaint was still pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-343324&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 18 008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 18-008&lt;/a&gt;, a county sheriff, who the county considered an employee for data practices purposes, informed the county he intended to retire after it received an external investigative report related to a personnel complaint against him. The Commissioner determined the retirement was akin to a resignation and opined that all data related to the complaint would be public if the complaint was still pending on the date the sheriff’s retirement became effective. However, the Commissioner noted that, given the facts at hand, the data in the investigative report would have been classified as private personnel data because the sheriff had not yet retired at the time the data requester had asked for access to the complaint data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As a result, the District seeks an advisory opinion on whether data regarding allegations against the former Superintendent in the April 9, 2025 investigation report is public under paragraphs (e) and (f) in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2 when the former Superintendent resigned after an investigation was closed, but before the School Board took any official action based on the results of the investigation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also offered the former public official whose data are at issue in this opinion an opportunity to submit comments regarding the classification of the data. In response, the official’s legal counsel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he plain statutory language does not permit disclosure under the circumstances. [The public official] was the District’s Superintendent at the time the District received allegations and conducted an investigation. Therefore Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 2(f) applies. [She] resigned of her own volition after the District’s investigation was completed and closed, not while it was pending as required by the statute. Further, [she] was never disciplined based on the allegations or investigation findings. [The official] also never entered into a settlement agreement. The statutory language provides explicit scenarios for complaint and investigation information to become public—none of which are met here. These are the only avenues by which this information can become public; otherwise, the data remains private. Because [she] did not resign while a complaint was pending, receive any disciplinary action or enter into a settlement agreement, the data requested is not public and should not be disclosed by the District.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(f) states that data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public if “the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment &lt;em&gt;while the complaint or charge is pending.&lt;/em&gt;” (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The plain language of subdivision 2(f) indicates that the applicable determination of whether data related to a complaint or charge against a public official become public depends on the procedural status of the complaint or charge itself, which is not necessarily the same as the status of a personnel investigation into the public official’s conduct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is not familiar with all processes that government entities may use when considering complaints or charges against employees. However, in many situations, a complaint against a government employee is not immediately resolved upon the completion of a personnel investigation report. Rather, the appropriate authority within a government entity must review the findings of the report to determine whether to take disciplinary action. A complaint remains pending in the interim between the completion of an investigation report and the entity’s determination of whether to take disciplinary action against the employee or to formally close the complaint without discipline. If a local public official resigns during this interim period, then data relating to the complaint or charge become public under the language of section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the District has not suggested that the complaint against the public official was immediately resolved or closed without discipline upon the outside investigator submitting his final investigative report to the District on April 9. Instead, the District explained the School Board held a meeting on April 18, and it did not take any official action related to the investigation of the public official’s conduct. As a result, the complaint against the public official remained pending because the School Board had not determined whether it would discipline the public official or formally close the pending complaint. On April 20, the public official offered her resignation to the School Board, which it accepted the following day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District did not offer any information to indicate that the School Board closed the pending complaint without discipline between its April 18 meeting and its decision to accept the public official’s resignation on April 21. Therefore, the complaint was still pending before the School Board at the time of the public official’s resignation. All data related to the complaint against the public official became public under section 13.43, subd. 2(f) upon the Board’s acceptance of her resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of data contained in a resignation letter the public official submitted to the school district?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As to Mr. Caruso’s request for the former Superintendent’s resignation letter, the District’s position is that an employee’s letter of resignation is typically private under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 4. The Superintendent’s resignation letter made no reference to any complaint or charge against her. As a result, the District believes the letter is private data on her and is seeking the Commissioner’s confirmation of the same.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the District’s analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2 does not designate data contained within an employee’s resignation letter as public data. Additionally, the District has not indicated that the resignation was the result of a settlement agreement that released any potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that was the subject of a complaint against the public official. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(2).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the data in the resignation letter are classified as private under section 13.43, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data maintained by Independent School District 93, Carlton, relating to a complaint or charge about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation are public data because the official resigned while the complaint was still pending.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data contained in a resignation letter that the public official submitted to the school district are classified as private data under section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 9, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>693178</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-06-11T15:10:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-002</Title><title>Opinion 25-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-673980&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-03-27T19:04:25Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a county board of commissioners violated the Open Meeting Law when all commissioners gathered to tour a county building with potential tenants. The Commissioner could not determine whether the board violated the OML because there was a factual dispute over whether the board held the tour immediately after it adjourned a regular meeting or the board announced the time and place of the tour, recessed its regular meeting, and reconvened its regular meeting for the tour. If the board adjourned its regular meeting, then the board violated the OML because it did not appropriately notice a special meeting of the commissioners gathering to tour the building. If the board announced the time and place of the meeting before recessing the meeting, then the board did not violate the OML when meeting for the tour because it met the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 4(a).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 27, 2025; Murray County Board of Commissioners</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On February 14, 2025, Joshua Malchow asked for an advisory opinion regarding whether a gathering of the Murray County Board of Commissioners (Board) violated the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board’s legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Malchow provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On February 4, 2025 the Murray County Board of Commissioners held a regularly scheduled (and duly posted) meeting at the Murray County Government Center (2500 28th Street, Slayton, MN) starting at 8:30AM. I virtually attended this meeting via Zoom and was present for the “Additions to the Agenda” portion of the meeting. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;There were a couple of additions to the agenda but none of them pertaining to a visit after the regular meeting to a County owned building in Slayton with members of the Wonderworld Daycare Center board of directors to explore options for a new childcare center in Slayton.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Multiple members of the board of directors for the Wonderworld childcare center and the childcare center director have confirmed that all five members of the Murray County Board of Commissioners were physically present at this location in Slayton as well as the County Administrator and discussion was held with all parties regarding options for building for Wonderworld. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This “tour/discussion” at the building located at 2989 Maple Road in Slayton, was not part of the posted agenda, and was not an addition to the agenda. The Board adjourned their meeting, did not recess their meeting, and proceeded to then meet at the facility located at 2989 Maple Road. In the audio [recording of the meeting] at 1:01:30 Board Chair Dennis Welgraven states, “I think that’s all we have today. I will adjourn the meeting.” …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Malchow also provided links to the Board’s meeting agenda and audio recording of its February 4 meeting posted on the Murray County website as well as a copy of draft meeting minutes for the February 4 meeting. The meeting agenda, draft minutes, and recording that Malchow submitted did not contain any information or reference to Board members gathering to tour a building with daycare center staff on February 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Murray County Board of Commissioners comply with the Open Meeting Law when commissioners gathered to tour a county-owned building after its regular meeting on February 4, 2025?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Although the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Supreme Court defined meetings subject to the law as “those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W. 2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A public body must provide appropriate notice of its meetings as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. Section 13D.04, subdivision 1 requires a public body to keep a schedule of its regular meetings on file at the body’s primary offices. Section 13D.04, subdivision 2 governs notices for special meetings, which are any meetings that a public body holds that do not appear on the schedule of regular meetings. Subdivision 2 requires a public body to post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of a special meeting on its principal bulletin board or the door of its usual meeting room at least three days before the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13D.04, subdivision 4(a) states, “If a meeting is a recessed or continued session of a previous meeting, and the time and place of the meeting was established during the previous meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting, then no further published or mailed notice is necessary.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Murray County Board of Commissioners held a regular meeting on February 4, 2025. When preparing the agenda for the meeting, County staff inadvertently did not include a planned walkthrough of a County-owned building with representatives from a childcare center located in Slayton, MN. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the conclusion of the February 4 meeting, Board Chair Dennis Welgraven commented “I think that’s all we have today. I will adjourn the meeting.” … What the recording does not show, and what Mr. Malchow did not see because he was not physically at the meeting, is that the County Administrator Carolyn McDonald promptly corrected Chair Welgraven’s statement and stated that the Board was recessing and would immediately reconvene at the ACE Building, which is located at 2989 Maple Road in Slayton. County Administrator McDonald’s comments were not captured in the audio recording of the meeting because the County employee who manages the recording of meetings stopped the recording before she corrected Chair Welgraven’s comment. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County Board has since taken action to correct the minutes from the February 4 meeting to reflect the discussion that took place before the Board recessed the meeting to reconvene at the ACE Building site. . . .&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County acknowledges that all five Commissioners then went to the ACE Building for the walkthrough with the WonderWorld representatives. The purpose of the walkthrough was simply to allow the WonderWorld representatives to see the building. . . .&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… While there was some confusion toward the end of the meeting when Chair Welgraven mentioned adjourning the meeting, the Board never voted to adjourn the meeting. Ms. McDonald promptly clarified in public that the Board would be going into a recess and then immediately reconven[e] at the ACE Building.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Board has taken action to clarify in its meeting minutes that the location and time of the recessed meeting was noted on the public record. The OML is silent as to when the Board is required to prepare meeting minutes. The only notice requirements for a recessed meeting is that the time and place of the recessed meeting be established&lt;/em&gt; during &lt;em&gt;a previous meeting, which happened in this situation, and that the time and place of the recessed meeting is recorded in the minutes of that meeting, which the County has now done. … (Emphasis in original.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is limited to the information presented to her, and she cannot resolve factual issues. Here, there’s no dispute that the gathering of Board members to meet with daycare officials was subject to the OML’s requirements under the Minnesota Supreme Court’s definition of a “meeting” in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;. Both Malchow and the Board agree that the county commissioners conducting a walkthrough of the county-owned ACE Building with potential tenants involved discussing and receiving information related to the Board’s official business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the question becomes whether the Board appropriately noticed the commissioners’ tour of the ACE Building with daycare officials. The notice the Board was obligated to provide under section 13D.04 depends on whether this tour was a special meeting or a continuation of the February 4 regular meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the parties disagree on what occurred near the conclusion of the Board’s meeting at its regular location on February 4, and it is not clear whether the Board adjourned the regular meeting as Malchow indicated in his opinion request or the Board recessed to gather at the ACE Building later as it maintained in the response to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Board adjourned the February 4 meeting, then the Board members’ meeting with daycare officials to tour the ACE Building violated the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.04, subd. 2 requires a public body to provide a special meeting notice when it holds a meeting that does not appear on its schedule of regular meetings. That notice must be posted on the public body’s principal bulletin board or usual meeting room door at least three days in advance of the special meeting and include the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Neither Malchow nor the Board have suggested that the tour appeared on the schedule of regular meetings or that a special meeting notice was posted regarding the tour of the ACE Building with the daycare staff. Therefore, the Board violated the OML if it adjourned its February 4 regular meeting, as it appeared to do in the original recording and meeting minutes, because the subsequent tour at the ACE Building would have been an unnoticed special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, if, as the Board contends, it announced the time and place of the tour before recessing the February 4 meeting, then the Board members reconvening to tour the ACE Building with daycare officials did not violate the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.04, subd. 4(a) contemplates situations when a public body may recess a regular meeting and then reconvene elsewhere. The subdivision requires a public body to establish the time and place it intends to reconvene the meeting before recessing, and that information must be recorded in the meeting minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board maintains it announced to in-person meeting attendees that members would reconvene the February 4 regular meeting at the ACE Building after a short recess despite initial confusion over Chair Welgraven’s announcement that the meeting was adjourned. The Board also explained that it corrected the approved meeting minutes of its February 4 meeting to document the recess and the tour, which happened after it received notice of Malchow’s advisory opinion request. Therefore, the Board appears to have complied with the OML if it announced the time and location of the tour when recessing and reconvening the February 4 meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has an additional note about the records of the Board’s February 4 meeting. At least some of the confusion regarding what occurred during the meeting appears to be the result of the Board not clearly documenting in the meeting agenda or audio recording that all county commissioners planned to tour the ACE Building on February 4. Additionally, the February 4 meeting minutes did not officially document the time and place of the reconvened meeting until the Board took action to correct those previously approved minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds the Board that, in addition to its OML obligations, it also has obligations under the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, to create records that document its official business. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that government entities and public bodies have “a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.” (See section 15.17, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML does not require a public body to create meeting agendas or meeting minutes for a regular meeting. However, many public bodies do create and maintain such agendas and minutes in order to meet the requirements of the Official Records Act. (See, &lt;em&gt;e.g.&lt;/em&gt;, Advisory Opinion 04-059.) When creating these records, a public body should take care to ensure the records do indeed provide full and accurate information about the body’s activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner encourages the Board to review its processes and procedures related to the creation of its records to confirm that it is accurately documenting its activities as required by the Official Records Act. A lack of complete and accurate official records will likely lead only to further confusion for the public in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Murray County Board of Commissioners complied with the Open Meeting Law when commissioners gathered to tour a county-owned building on February 4, 2025.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Board adjourned its February 4 regular meeting, then the Board violated the Open Meeting Law because it did not appropriately notice a special meeting as required by section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Board announced the time and place and recorded in the meeting minutes where it would reconvene before recessing the February 4 meeting, then the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law because it met the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 4(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 27, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>673980</id><pubdate>2025-04-02T19:30:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 25-001</Title><title>Opinion 25-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-672247&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2025-03-11T19:03:58Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a Township Board violated the Open Meeting Law when it selected a new Supervisor outside of an open meeting. The Board filled scoring sheets for candidates during a meeting, and those sheets were later tabulated to select the individual to fill the open position. The Commissioner opined that as the interviews were conducted at an open meeting, the scoring sheets were required to be public at the meeting. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 2025; Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Deb Scheibel asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 12, 2024, the Board held a special meeting to interview candidates for an open supervisor position. While interviewing the three candidates, the two Supervisors and the Town Clerk filled out score sheets for each candidate. These scoring sheets were sealed and provided to the Town Clerk at the end of the interviews.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At the next meeting of the Board on January 9, 2025, the individual receiving the highest score from the scoring sheets was present and appointed to fill the vacancy. This appointment was done by a public vote. Scheibel stated that “[d]uring the January meeting or any other time it was not disclosed how the Supervisors and the Clerk voted.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors comply with the Open Meeting Law when it made a final decision on appointing a new board supervisor outside of an open meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that a meeting subject to the OML “are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML will be interpreted in favor of public access and transparency. Specifically, in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729 (Minn. 2002), it noted that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” The Court also stated the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by [the law]” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4(a) specifically addresses member votes, stating:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal or minutes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Court of Appeals discussed an earlier version of this subdivision in &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato&lt;/em&gt;, 563 N.W. 2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). In that case, a city council took a straw vote at an open meeting to narrow a list of job candidates by having council members write their top choices on a piece of paper. The Council did not make the results of the straw vote public during the meeting, but did record the results in the meeting minutes, which were available at a later date. In finding the council violated the OML, the court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A city council meeting is not really “open” to the public if the council is conducting its voting in secret. . . . Secret voting denies the public an opportunity to observe the decision-making process, to know the council members’ stance on issues, and to be fully informed about the council’s actions. Mankato Free Press, 563 N.W. 2d at 295, 296.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the Board stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . Minnesota Statutes 367.03 Subd. 6(a) states that, “when a vacancy occurs in a town office, the town board shall fill the vacancy by appointment.” No additional guidance or requirements regarding the appointment process are provided in statute. In the name of transparency and fairness, the town board decided to post notice of the vacancy in the official newspaper, and to conduct interviews with those that submit their names for consideration at a special meeting to be held on December 12, 2024 at 6:00 PM.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On December 12, 2024, interviews were held with three people during a special meeting, which was posted and available to the general public to attend. . . . The two remaining Supervisors and the Town Clerk all had score sheets that had been prepared to independently rank each candidate’s responses and score them. Upon the conclusion of the three interviews, each ranking sheet was placed into a sealed envelope and given to the town clerk.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Between the December 12, 2024, Township meeting and the January 9, 2025, Township meeting, the Town clerk and the Town Treasurer, both elected positions, opened each of the envelopes and tallied the results. The reasons these were not tallied at the December 12, 2024, meeting was simply for efficiency and to allow for accurate calculations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . At the January 9, 2025, Township meeting, Alex Haagensen was appointed to fill the vacancy. This was done by a unanimous vote made at a public meeting and in view of all in attendance. Minnesota Statute 367.03 Subd. 6(a) does not require any specific process – only that the vacancy be filled by appointment. That vacancy was filled by appointment at a regular Township meeting in view of all those in attendance.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The score sheets that were [filled] out by [the Supervisors and Clerk] are all on file in the Clerk’s office. These are public documents, and all citizens are welcome to view them by a simple request to the Township Clerk.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that the law does not prescribe a specific process for township boards to fill a vacancy, and the process the Board followed may allow for some efficiencies and accurate calculations. However, the process the Board created did not comply with the requirements of the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires public bodies to conduct most official business during an open meeting, and votes conducted during an open meeting must be done in public and recorded in the minutes or journal of votes. Otherwise, members of the public attending a meeting cannot understand how individual members of a public body voted on a particular issue, and the meeting is not open under the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Board must appoint a new supervisor when a position on the Board becomes vacant, which is part of its official business. The Board chose a process where candidates would be interviewed and evaluated at a meeting. As none of the exceptions to close a meeting applied, the OML required that any discussion or decisions occur at an open meeting. In its comments, the Township noted that the appointment of the individual to the supervisor position was conducted at the meeting on January 9. However, the &lt;em&gt;selection&lt;/em&gt; of this individual occurred outside an open meeting. Specifically, it appears the decision by the Board occurred when the scoring sheets from the December 12 meeting were tallied, which occurred at some point between December 12 and January 9. Because these scoring sheets determined who the Board would appoint to the position, the sheets communicated the vote of each Supervisor and were required to be public at the December 12 open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates that the scoring sheets may be available to requesters outside a meeting. However, the obligation to vote publicly in the meeting remains, and so the results of those sheets needed to be disclosed during the December 12 meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it made a final decision on appointing a new board supervisor outside of an open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 11, 2025&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>672247</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-04-02T19:30:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 24-004</Title><title>Opinion 24-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-645187&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2024-10-03T19:30:36Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for public data that he made while using a pseudonym. The City had informed the requester that it would not provide access to data until he identified himself. The Commissioner opined that the city did not respond appropriately because Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12 prohibits government entities from requiring data requesters to identify themselves as a condition to obtain access to public data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 3, 2024; City of Kasota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 19, 2024, Chris Hanson (Hanson) asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to access data from the City of Kasota (City) under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The City’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In an email to the City Clerk dated August 12, 2024, Hanson requested that the City allow him to inspect various public data under section 13.03, subdivision 3, including data documenting different City expenditures, resolutions, employment policies, hiring and termination processes, service contracts, and receipts and invoices over the course of several years. Hanson did not directly identify himself in the data request. Rather, he sent the email from a non-identifying email address with a displayed name of “anonymous,” and he signed the data request as “Concerned citizens.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 13, the City Attorney responded to the data request in a letter, writing:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Since Concerned Citizens is not an individual as defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 13, the City of Kasota is unable to honor your request. You will note that the statute you quoted – M.S. § 13.03, Subd. 3 requires that the request for access to data must be made by a person. Since Concerned Citizens is not a person as defined by statute, until such time as you are able to identify a person as defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 13, the City of Kasota is unable to honor your request.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 14, Hanson sent another email to the City Attorney and City Clerk from the non-identifying email address restating his data request. He also included the language of section 13.02, subdivision 10, which defines “person” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act. Hansen signed this email as “citizen of kasota” [sic].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 15, the City Attorney responded by email, writing:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In my opinion, the term “Concerned Citizen” fails to identify a person as defined by the statute you quote. Since the statute you quote MS 13.03 Subd. 3. (c), allows the City to require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching and retrieving government data, it is necessary for you to identify yourself and provide the City with a billing address. If you disagree with my opinion, you are welcome to request a Court Order finding that “Concerned Citizen” is in fact a person as defined by statute.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;That same day, Hanson responded through the non-identifying email address by restating his request and writing, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The city of Kasota and the designated authority in charge of the MGDPA is not working in good faith to provide this data. I have identified myself as a resident of the state of MN, and Citizen of Kasota. I must have reasonable access to this data while remaining anonymous. I will provide a billing address once a cost estimate will be provided.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 16, the City Attorney sent an email again noting that he was unable to identify “Concerned Citizen” as a person under the law. He added, “If you provide me with your legal authority, including cited case law, which states that ‘Concerned Citizen’ is a person defined by statute, I will reconsider my position.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Later that day, Hanson responded through the non-identifying email, writing, “I choose to identify myself at this time. I am a concerned citizen, and I am requesting the data in this request.” Hanson identified himself as “C Hanson” and included an address. Hanson then re-stated his data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Kasota respond appropriately to a request for public data when it informed the requester that it would not provide access to data until the requester provided identifying information about himself?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statues, section 13.02, subdivision 10 defines a “person” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, business trust, or a legal representative of an organization.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) requires a government entity to establish procedures to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time when receiving a data request from a person who wants access to public data. (See also Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3 prohibits government entities from charging any fees when a person requests to inspect public data. However, government entities may charge specific copy cost fees if the person requests copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13.05, subdivision 12 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;It is the City’s position that once Mr. Hanson clearly identified himself with a billing address and restricted his original request to the request to observe the documents in person, the City promptly and in good faith complied with his Data Practices request. It is the City’s position that it followed the statute by requiring identification in order to clarify that Mr. Hanson was in fact an individual and understood that he had a financial obligation by statute.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the City met its obligations under the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The plain language of section 13.05, subd. 12 prohibits government entities from requiring data requesters to identify themselves as a condition to obtain access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the City repeatedly informed Hanson that it would not respond to his data request until he provided more identifying information about himself than “Concerned citizens” or “citizen of kasota,” and it agreed to begin processing Hanson’s request only after he eventually identified himself despite his several objections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City’s refusal to respond to Hanson’s data request violated the language of section 13.05, subd. 12, which clearly allows a “person” — which is defined as broadly including both individuals and other types of non-individual organizations under the language of section 13.02, subd. 10 — to request data using a pseudonym.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner agrees that the City can recover specific costs when providing a requester with copies of public data. However, Hanson stated in his August 12 data request that he was “asking to inspect this data under Minnesota statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under section 13.03, subd. 3(a), government entities “may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data,” and it was not appropriate for the City to require that Hanson first provide identifying information so it could calculate copy costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Even if Hanson had requested copies, the City’s ability to charge copy costs does not override the Data Practices Act’s prohibition on a government entity requiring requesters to identify themselves in order to access public data. Rather, section 13.03, subd. 3, read together with section 13.05, subd. 12, requires a government entity to have procedures in place that would allow pseudonymous data requesters to pay for and obtain copies of public data in an appropriate and prompt manner without the need for requesters to identify themselves.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the City’s response to Hanson’s request for public data was not appropriate when it declined to provide access to data until he disclosed identifying information about himself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Kasota did not respond appropriately to a request for public data when it informed the requester that it would not provide access to data until the requester provided identifying information about himself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 3, 2024&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>645187</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-04-02T19:30:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 24-003</Title><title>Opinion 24-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-640096&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2024-08-06T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked whether emails and similar written correspondence regarding school district business that were sent between school board members were classified as private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2. The Commissioner opined that the private classification under section 13.601, subd. 2 applied to communications between elected officials and members of the public rather than just between elected officials. Additionally, section 13.601, subd. 2 does not apply to elected officials&apos; correspondence when they are communicating in an official capacity. Therefore, school board members&apos; emails are presumptively public unless specific data are classified as not public under another section of the Data Practices Act, other state statute, or federal law.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 6, 2024; ISD 11, Anoka-Hennepin</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On July 3, 2024, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin (District), requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the classification of data contained within written correspondence between school board members under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 30, 2024, the president of the District’s teacher’s union requested access to all emails exchanged between three individual board members regarding the school budget for the 2024-25 school year and/or emails that included various search terms (e.g. systemic racism, anti-racist, whiteness, etc.). After receiving the request, the District’s General Counsel had separate conversations with the union president and the union’s attorney (Education Minnesota) seeking clarification on the request. During these discussions, the District raised concerns that email correspondence exchanged between individual board members may constitute private data under Minnesota Statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District also provided a copy of the data request for the school board members’ emails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Are emails and similar written correspondence regarding school district business sent between individual school board members classified as private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 3 establishes that government data are presumptively public “unless there is federal law, a state statute, or a temporary classification of data that provides that certain data are not public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.601, subdivision 2 states, “Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or recipient.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has addressed section 13.601, subd. 2 in several previous opinions, noting that the private classification applies only when the correspondence is between members of the public and elected officials. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267991&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 97-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-268026&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 97-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267360&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-052&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266869&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 99-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-013&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267742&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 02-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner has opined that correspondence between an elected official and an individual who is also an elected official or employee of a government entity cannot be classified as private under section 13.601, subd. 2, unless the individual was acting in a personal capacity as a private resident rather than in an official capacity as an employee. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267360&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-052&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267479&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267905&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 11-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;11-019&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lastly, the private classification contained in section 13.601, subd. 2 is limited to correspondence between elected officials and “individuals,” meaning that the classification does not apply when a person is acting on behalf of an organization. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266863&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 10-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-355746&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 18-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… The Department of Administration … has rejected the notion that a person writing on behalf of an organization, corporation or other “artificial persons” can be considered to be an individual for the purposes of Minn. Stat. 13.601 Subd. 2. It has ultimately opined that, “correspondence between [an elected official] and a party that communicates on behalf of [an organization] is presumptively public.” …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The question in this instance, however, is whether individual school [board] members are in all instances deemed to be communicating on behalf of the school district or whether they can act as individuals when communicating their own personal thoughts about issues affecting the schools. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… Just as a constituent might express through correspondence their interests and concerns about the school district to an individual school board member and have an expectation of privacy in the communication, it can be presumed that school board members, acting in an individual capacity, can expect that they can have similar communications. To suggest otherwise is to conclude that school board members never have agency to act as individuals and they are always acting as agents of the District when they send or receive correspondence that relates to the school district.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While the Department of Administration has issued decisions that address the scope of communications covered by Minn. Stat. 13.601 Subd. 2, the decisions do not draw a distinction between instances where an elected official is acting in an individual capacity – as compared to a representative compacity. See&lt;/em&gt; Advisory Opin. 02-013 (Pipestone-Jasper) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Advisory Opin. 98-052 (Clay County). &lt;em&gt;As a result, these cases are distinguishable. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The fundamental question in this case is whether a school board member can act as an individual and have an identity separate from the board as [a] whole. We believe that the individual board members can act outside of their representative/elected capacity – even when discussing school district concerns. Important in this analysis is that Minnesota Statute directly acknowledges, “[t]he care, management, and control of independent school districts&lt;/em&gt; is vested in a board of directors&lt;em&gt;, to be known as the school board.” Minn. Stat. 123B. 09 (emphasis added). …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… When an elected official is not clothed with the authority to represent the entire board or to act independent in their representative/elected role – they presumptively retain the right to act as an “individual” under Minnesota Statute 13.601. Had the legislature intended to remove from elected officials the capacity to act as an individual it would have expressly stated as much. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The foregoing analysis supports the conclusion that a school board member can correspond with another school board member as an individual on matters related to the school district and that such correspondence can be maintained as private data under Minn. Stat. 13.601 Subd. 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner consistently has opined that the private classification under section 13.601, subd. 2 applies only to correspondence between elected officials and members of the public. This interpretation is supported by the language of the subdivision itself, which distinguishes between “individuals” and “elected officials.” If the Legislature intended to classify correspondence that was only between elected officials as private, the inclusion of “individuals” would be unnecessary. The plain language of subdivision 2 indicates that the correspondence must be between an elected official and someone who is not acting as an elected official in order for the private classification to apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the District’s argument that the determination of whether section 13.601, subd. 2 applies to specific correspondence should be based on a distinction between a school board member acting as an individual board member rather than on behalf of the entire board is not persuasive. Although school board members may not represent the entire board, individual members still act in an official capacity outside of school board meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, past advisory opinions have explained that the appropriate analysis is for an entity to determine whether the elected official or employee sent the correspondence in a personal capacity rather than in an official capacity. In drawing this distinction, the Commissioner noted that the burden is on the elected official or government entity to explain why the content of correspondence was not work-related. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267360&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-052&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the local teacher’s union requested emails exchanged between elected school board members that referenced the “2024-2025 budget” or contained specific key words, including “systemic racism,” “anti-racist,” and “whiteness,” among several other terms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a result, the private classification under section 13.601, subd. 2 would apply only if board members were communicating in their personal capacities rather than in their official capacities. In its opinion request, the District described the correspondence at issue as “regarding some aspect of school district business” and “related to the school district,” which indicates that the board members were acting in their official capacities rather than in personal capacities when sending the emails. Thus, the District has not met its burden of explaining why the content of the correspondence was not work-related.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that there may be limited, unique situations when section 13.601, subd. 2 applies because an elected board member wrote to other board members in a personal capacity, but that is not the situation here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the emails and similar written correspondence about school district business sent between school board members cannot be classified as private data under section 13.601, subd. 2. Rather, the data in the emails are presumptively public unless specific data are otherwise classified as not public under the Data Practices Act, other state statute, or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Emails and similar written correspondence regarding school district business sent between individual school board members are not classified as private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2. The data in the emails are presumptively public unless another section in the Data Practices Act, state statute, or federal law would classify the content of the emails as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;August 6, 2024&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>640096</id><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected officials</Title><Id>267224</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-08-07T04:30:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 24-002</Title><title>Opinion 24-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-638156&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2024-07-22T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for its data access policies. The Commissioner opined that the city did not respond appropriately because it appeared that the city did not have data access policies at the time of the request. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 22, 2024; City of Fertile</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Cheryll Reitmeier (Reitmeier) requested an advisory opinion regarding the City of Fertile’s (City) response to a request for its written data access policies, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025. The City’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 23, 2024, Reitmeier hand-delivered a letter to the City, which was received by the deputy city administrator, requesting a copy of its data access policies. As of June 8, 2024, the City had not yet provided Reitmeier with a copy of its policies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Reitmeier noted that another member of the public had also requested the City’s data access policies during two separate City Council meetings on November 13, 2023, and April 8, 2024. However, the other member of the public had not yet received a copy of the policies either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Fertile respond appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivision 2 requires a government entity’s responsible authority to prepare “a written data access policy” that informs members of the public about their rights under the Data Practices Act as well as how to request access to public data that the entity maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, section 13.025, subdivision 3 requires the responsible authority to “prepare a written policy of the rights of data subjects under section 13.04 and the specific procedures used by the government entity for access by the data subject to public or private data on individuals.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Both subdivisions require the responsible authority to update the policies “no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public’s ability to access data.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13.025, subdivision 4 states that these policies must be made “easily available to the public by distributing free copies to the public or by posting the policies in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public or by posting it on the government entity’s website.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has addressed these requirements in past advisory opinions, noting that they have been in place since 2001. Further, she has opined that the policies should be available in such a manner that the public would not need to ask for them. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-514480&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 22-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;22-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-375057&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 19-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266427&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 13-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-007&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266477&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267246&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-049&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the City wrote that it had a small staff that has received many data requests recently and has incurred substantial expenses when attempting to respond appropriately to these requests. The City added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;With regard to this data request, the City has been unable to locate its data access policy and has been working on updating their policy. The reason the City did not respond sooner to the data request was because it wanted to establish its new policy prior to responding. The City of Fertile is planning to adopt its new data access policy at their next regularly schedule council meeting on July 8, 2024.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As indicated above, the requirement for a government entity to have data access policies for the public and for data subjects is long-standing. Additionally, individuals should be able to easily find these policies in a public location at the entity’s offices or on the entity’s website.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates the City’s update that it planned to adopt a new policy during its July 8 city council meeting. However, the City violated the requirements of section 13.025 because it appears no data access policies existed when Reitmeier made her request on May 23.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Fertile did not respond appropriately to a request for its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;July 22, 2024&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>638156</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access policy</Title><Id>375058</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-07-23T04:55:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 24-001</Title><title>Opinion 24-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-631737&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2024-07-15T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A data subject asked whether the Department of Human Services complied with section 13.04, subd. 4 when it extended a deadline to respond to a challenge that data about him were accurate and complete. The Commissioner noted that section 13.04, subd. 4(c) requires a government entity to respond to a data challenge within 30 days by either correcting the disputed data or informing the data subject that it has determined the data are correct. The plain language of the subdivision does not permit an entity to extend this 30-day deadline. Therefore, the Commissioner opined that DHS did not comply with the Data Practices Act when it extended the deadline to respond to the data subject&apos;s challenge.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 15, 2024; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X (a pseudonym used according to section 13.072, subdivision 4) requested an advisory opinion about his rights regarding the Department of Human Services’ response to a challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data about him. X made this challenge under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivisions 4 and 4a, and the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) maintained the challenged data. DHS operates MSOP, and DHS’ legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On February 20, 2024, X submitted a challenge contesting the accuracy and completeness of data that MSOP maintained about him to the program’s executive director under section 13.04, subds. 4 and 4a. In a letter dated March 1, the executive director confirmed that she had received X’s challenge on February 29 and wrote that the challenge was under review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated March 29, the executive director informed X that MSOP was “extending this investigation of data until April 12, 2024.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On April 20, X wrote to the executive director to notify her that he had not yet received a response to his data challenge, adding that he believed the law required MSOP to respond to his challenge within 30 days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 6, X received a letter from the executive director, which was dated April 12, that indicated MSOP was further extending its investigation until April 29.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 13, X received a letter from the executive director that provided a determination on the accuracy and completeness of the data he had challenged. The letter was dated April 29, and the executive director’s digital signature was dated May 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Department of Human Services comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, when it extended a deadline to respond to X’s challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 5(a)(1) requires each responsible authority of a government entity to “establish procedures to assure that all data on individuals is accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which it was collected.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, section 13.04, subdivision 4 provides individuals with the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about themselves that a government entity maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;To exercise this right, individuals must notify the appropriate government entity official that they believe specific data maintained by the entity are inaccurate or incomplete and describe the nature of their disagreement with the data’s content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(Note: Section 13.04, subdivision 4a requires an individual disputing the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by MSOP to submit the challenge to the data practices compliance official of DHS, and this official must respond to the challenge as required by section 13.04, subd. 4. The MSOP executive director’s correspondence to X indicates she is serving as the data practices compliance official for the purposes of section 13.04, subd. 4a.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 4(c) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Upon receiving notification from the data subject, the responsible authority shall within 30 days &lt;em&gt;either:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) notify the individual that the responsible authority has determined the data to be correct. If the challenged data are determined to be accurate or complete, the responsible authority shall inform the individual of the right to appeal the determination to the commissioner as specified under paragraph (d). Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual’s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In short, section 13.04, subd. 4(c) requires a responsible authority to respond to a data challenger within 30 days by either correcting challenged data or notifying the individual that the entity has determined the challenged data are correct. The plain language of the statute does not provide an entity with the power to extend this 30-day deadline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, DHS confirmed it received X’s challenge on February 29, 2024, in its March 1 letter to him. The calculated 30-day deadline to respond would have fallen on Saturday, March 30, but Minnesota Statutes, section 645.15 notes that when the last day of a statutorily imposed deadline “falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, that day shall be omitted from the computation.” Therefore, the deadline for DHS to respond to X’s data challenge was Monday, April 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, DHS twice informed X it was delaying its response without reference to any statutory authority that permits such an extension. DHS did not provide a determination on X’s data challenge until it sent a letter dated April 29, signed on May 6, and received by X on May 13. All these dates were beyond the April 1 deadline as required by section 13.04, subd. 4(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response, DHS requested that the Commissioner not issue an advisory opinion because of her longstanding practice of declining to issue an opinion when the applicable matter is pending before a court or is the subject of a judge’s order or decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X currently has an appeal before the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP), which was established by the Minnesota Supreme Court under Minnesota Statutes, section 253B.19, subdivision 1. Section 13.072, subdivision 1(c) gives the Commissioner the authority to decline an advisory opinion request within five business days of receipt, or, if she does not, she must issue an opinion. A requester may withdraw a request for an opinion at any time. X did not withdraw his request and therefore the Commissioner is obligated to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the Commissioner is unaware of any authority that would allow the CAP to extend the statutory deadline required by section 13.04, subd. 4(c), nor does it appear that the timing of DHS’ determination is at issue in X’s CAP proceeding. Thus, this opinion is unaffected by the appeal before the CAP, and this opinion does not reach any conclusion on whether the data at issue in those proceedings are accurate and complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a result, DHS did not comply with the requirements of section 13.04, subd. 4 when it extended the amount of time it would take to respond to X’s data challenge and failed to provide X with a determination about the accuracy and completeness of data within 30 days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lastly, DHS may want to review its internal procedures required by section 13.05, subd. 5(a)(1) to ensure that “all data on individuals is accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which it was collected.” If DHS cannot meet the 30-day deadline to respond to a data challenge in the future, it may also be failing to meet its obligations under section 13.05, subd. 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Department of Human Services did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, when it extended a deadline to respond to X’s challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;July 15, 2024&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>631737</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subjects (13.04)</Title><Id>267308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-07-16T13:15:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 23-005</Title><title>Opinion 23-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-599702&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2023-11-14T18:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege to discuss a contract it had with a local school district and decide whether to break it. The Commissioner opined that the council violated the OML because a public body cannot close a meeting for attorney-client privilege purposes when there was no threatened or pending litigation. The Commissioner noted the threat that litigation may be a result of a public body deciding a matter one way or the other is not sufficient justification to close a meeting, and therefore the public&apos;s right to hear the discussion about the contract outweighed the need for absolute confidentiality.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 14, 2023; Woodbury City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;William Brown requested an advisory opinion regarding the Woodbury City Council’s (Council) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 6, 2023, the Council held a regular meeting. In his comments, Brown stated that during this regular meeting the Council went into closed session “to discuss potential litigation strategy regarding the contract with ISD 833 to provide School Resource Officer services with the City Attorney.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Brown provided details from ISD 833, indicating that there was no threatened litigation at the time of the September 6, 2023 meeting. He notes that on September 5, 2023, the City and Superintendent discussed the contract at issue. Brown stated that the Superintendent did not threaten litigation, but “wanted to know what [the City of Woodbury] [was] doing as it impacted SROs in 2 of her schools.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, the Council stated,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Woodbury reviewed its SRO contract with District 833 and quickly ascertained that as of August 2023, even if Woodbury were to immediately provide notice of its intent and desire to stop the SRO services, as a practical matter that contractual notice would not take effect and the City had no direct legal entitlement to cancel its SRO services under the contract until December 31, 2024. As a result, the City did not have a practical means of pulling its SROs out of the ISD 833 high schools absent either: (1) mutual agreement and consent from ISD 833, or (2) by engaging in a purposeful and known breach of contract. City staff was understandably concerned that ISD 833 would not mutually agree to the cancellation of SRO services and that pulling of SROs may well result in breach of contract litigation with ISD 833, so as a result, City staff preemptively placed a potential closed session discussion on the City Council’s agenda.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council indicated that in closed session, it “opted to temporarily suspend its SRO activities under contract with ISD 833 until such time there could be greater legal clarity or a legislative amendment.” The Council subsequently informed the school district of its decision to suspend the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council noted that after additional guidance from the Attorney General’s Office and the League of Minnesota Cities, the Council has since “directed that the City Staff should reactivate its SROs and send them back into the ISD 833 high schools.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Woodbury City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law when it went into closed session on September 6, 2023, on the basis of attorney-client privilege pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. One exception to this general rule is that public bodies may close a meeting based on attorney-client privilege. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 3(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court established the test for the appropriate application of the attorney-client privilege exception:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;To determine whether the attorney-client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law applies, we balance the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the Open Meeting Law. The exception applies when this balancing dictates the need for absolute confidentiality.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 732 (Minn. 2002) (&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt;). (See also &lt;em&gt;Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority&lt;/em&gt;, 251 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1976) (&lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court held that the statutory exception in section 13D.05, subd. 3(b), was consistent with its holding in &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;. See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt;. The Court considered the issue of whether the exception would apply in situations where the public body had received a potential threat of litigation. In holding that the public body violated the OML, the Court wrote, “[b]alancing the policies behind the attorney-client privilege and the Open Meeting Law, it is clear to us that when a public body is deciding a matter within its jurisdiction, the threat that litigation might be a consequence of deciding the matter one way or another does not, by itself, justify closing the meeting.” &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 741.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Court also held that because the exception applies only when absolute confidentiality is required, “the scope of the privilege is narrower for public bodies than it is for private clients.” &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 737. Further, the Court stated that the attorney-client privilege exception, “is to be employed or invoked cautiously and seldom in situations other than in relation to threatened or pending litigation.” And that this exception, “would almost never extend to the mere request for general legal advice or opinion by a public body in its capacity as a public agency.” &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt; at 626.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner has issued several advisory opinions on this exception. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267583&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 99-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267821&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267684&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-015&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267295&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-017&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266933&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 16-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;16-003&lt;/a&gt;). In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267295&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-017&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted, “the privilege does not automatically apply when a public body is threatened with or engaged in active litigation; conversely, the privilege is not always prohibited prior to pending or threatened litigation ... the Supreme Court&apos;s limitations on the privilege, taken together with the obligation to construe the OML in favor of the public, set a high standard for public bodies.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Council had a contract with the school district. The Council intended to discuss the contract and decide whether to break it. The Council indicated that the school district wanted the City to continue compliance with the contract. In its comments, the Council argued, “[t]his factual scenario rose to the level of a ‘threat of litigation.’ This issue was not some mere enactment of controversial code or denial of a land use application that might result in disputes in the future, rather it involved a direct and present factual scenario in which action on the part of the City Council could immediately open the City up to legal claims against it for breach of an existing contract.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that the Council’s discussion of the contract could result in possible litigation against the City at a later date. However, at the time of the discussion there was no threatened or pending litigation. As the Supreme Court held in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt;, when a public body is deciding a matter within its jurisdiction, the threat that litigation might be a consequence of deciding the matter one way or another does not, by itself, justify closing the meeting. Therefore, the public’s right to hear the discussion about the contract outweighed the need for absolute confidentiality, and the Council did not comply with the OML when it went into closed session to discuss the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that the Council also considered more than legal advice from its attorney during the closed session. The Council decided to suspend the contract in closed session, and subsequently informed the school district of its decision. When public bodies rely on the narrow attorney-client privilege exception to go into closed session, it should return to open session to engage in votes or discussion that fall outside this authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Woodbury City Council did not comply with the OML when it went into closed session on September 6, 2023, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Tamar Gronvall
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 14, 2023&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>599702</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-11-16T05:00:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 23-004</Title><title>Opinion 23-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-594269&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2023-10-03T13:50:13Z</Date><ShortDescription>A data subject asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it held multiple closed sessions under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), to discuss allegations against an individual subject to its authority. The data subject also asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for data made under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. The Commissioner opined that the Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings under section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), as it had previously determined that discipline may be warranted and discussed matters outside the scope of closure permitted by the section. Additionally, the Commissioner concluded that the City did not respond appropriately to a request from the data subject because it did not provide access to the data within ten business days, as required by section 13.04. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 3, 2023; City of Fertile</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X (a pseudonym used pursuant to section 13.072, subdivision 4) requested an advisory opinion regarding the Fertile City Council’s (Council) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, as well as the City of Fertile’s (City) response to a data request under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The City’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A summary of facts is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X works in a position that is subject to the Council’s authority. On January 24, February 24, May 22, and June 12, the Council held closed meetings, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) as its authority to go into closed session to discuss allegations against X. During a special meeting on June 20, the Council also went into closed session under section 13D.05, subd. 2(b), but reopened the meeting when X submitted her resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On June 29, 2023, X submitted a data subject request to the City’s Responsible Authority, asking for the recordings from all the closed meetings since January in which X was the subject. On July 12, the City told X that it was preparing and redacting the recordings to fill the request. X reported that recordings for the January, May and June 12 meetings were provided to her on August 18. In a letter to X dated August 17, the City wrote that the recording device used during the February 24 meeting malfunctioned, and there were no data from this meeting responsive to X’s request. As part of her advisory opinion request, X provided the recordings of the January 24, May 22, and June 12 meetings to the Temporary Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Temporary Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Fertile City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sect on 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), on January
&lt;br /&gt;
24, February 24, May 22, and June 12, 2023?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Fertile respond appropriately to a June 29, 2023 data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;: Did the Fertile City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), on January 24, February 24, May 22, and June 12, 2023?
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law requires all meetings of public bodies be open to the public unless a specific law permits or requires the public body to close the meeting. When a closed meeting is conducted under these provisions, discussion at the closed session is limited to the topic outlined by law. Here, the Council closed all four meetings under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b). This provision states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open. . . .
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under this statute, a public body must close a meeting to discuss allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. However, once a public body determines that discipline of any nature &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be warranted, then the subsequent meetings or hearings must be open to the public. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-385441&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 19 008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 19-008&lt;/a&gt;.)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its comments to the Temporary Commissioner, the Council reviewed each closed meeting at issue and confirmed discussion occurred at each meeting about allegations against X, as well as other topics related to X’s place of employment. The comments indicated the Council continued holding closed meetings on this issue until a decision regarding disciplinary action was made by the Council. The Council stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As an individual subject to the Council’s authority, the Council believed that closing each of these meetings was the best and most efficient way for it to address and review concerns regarding X’s performance, while maintaining the integrity of the ongoing investigation that the City Administrator was conducting.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner acknowledges that the Council would prefer to hold closed meetings to discuss the allegations until a final decision regarding discipline against X has been made. However, the legislature provided for closed meetings only until the Council determines that discipline &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be warranted. As a result, to determine whether closure of a particular meeting under section 13D.05 subdivision 2(b) was appropriate, the Temporary Commissioner looks to the discussion at the January 24, February 24, May 22, and June 12 meetings.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The redacted recordings of these closed meetings provided by X to the Temporary Commissioner indicate the Council determined discipline may be warranted at the meeting on January 24, 2023, if not earlier. While the Council members did not vote to remove X from her position at this meeting, the Council discussed hiring a temporary replacement and theorized that the issues raised in the allegations or charges would disappear if X was no longer employed by the City. Once a public body discusses replacing or otherwise removing an employee, it is clear that disciplinary action may be warranted. As a result, all later meetings on this topic must be open to the public, pursuant to section 13D.05, subd. 2(b). Further, if the Council determined prior to this session that discipline may be warranted against X, then the Council was not permitted to go into closed session under section 13D.05, subd. 2(b) during the January 24 meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the City provided the following comment regarding the discussion at the January 24 meeting:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;. . . Council discussion covered multiple topic areas of concern  and did not focus on [X] or any one individual specifically as the subject of the meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;From the brief recording provided to the Temporary Commissioner and the City’s own comments, it is clear the Council discussed issues beyond the scope of closure authorized by section 13D.05, subd. 2(b). Therefore, the portions of the discussion beyond the scope of preliminary consideration of allegations against X at the January 24 should have been held while the meeting was open to the public.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion at later meetings also confirm that the Council previously determined that discipline against X may be warranted. The February 24 meeting was not properly recorded or provided to X due to a technology malfunction, but discussions at the meetings on May 22 and June 12 focus on continuing concerns about X’s work performance, hiring a replacement, and notifying X of the Council’s decision to remove X from her position. The underlying assumption throughout all these discussions is that the Council previously determined discipline against X may be warranted. Given that the Council had already determined that discipline may be warranted at or before the January 24 meeting, these ongoing discussion of allegations against X in closed session were not permitted by section 13D.05, subd. 2(b).
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the subject matter of the meetings on May 22 and June 12 also strays beyond the scope of the authority to go into closed session under section 13D.05, subd. 2(b). Discussion of hiring a replacement, management of the city business, or other employees or matters not relevant to the allegations are outside of the scope of permitted topics for closure under section 13D.05, sub. 2(b).
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the City communicated to X that the February 24 meeting was not properly recorded due to a malfunction in the recording equipment. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(d) requires public bodies to record closed meetings and retain the recordings for three years.The Temporary Commissioner encourages the Council to rectify any issues with equipment to ensure compliance with this provision for future meetings.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;: Did the City of Fertile respond appropriately to a June 29, 2023 data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On June 29, X emailed the City Administrator and asked for “copies of all recordings from closed meetings related to me since January.” The City updated X on July 12, stating that they were preparing the data. Both the City and X stated that these recordings were provided to X on August 18. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3 addresses a government entity’s response to data requests when individuals request data about themselves. Subdivision 3 states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner recognizes that meeting this required timeframe can be difficult for government entities, especially for smaller entities facing limited staff and exponential increases in electronic data. However, section 13.04, subd. 3, creates a strict deadline for responding to data subject requests within 10 business days and does not provide for exceptions to this requirement. Therefore, the City’s response was outside the appropriate timeframe for a response required by statute.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Temporary Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Fertile City Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings on January 24, February 24, May 22, and June 12, 2023 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) after the Council determined discipline may be warranted against X and discussed issues beyond the scope of the closure required by this section.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Fertile did not respond appropriately to a June 29, 2023 data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when it did not respond within 10 business days.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Stacie Christensen
&lt;br /&gt;
Temporary Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 3, 2023&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>594269</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days</Title><Id>267263</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-10-25T13:03:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 23-003</Title><title>Opinion 23-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-591160&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2023-09-07T18:30:28Z</Date><ShortDescription>Members of the public asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it discussed topics during a special meeting that were not described in the special meeting notice&apos;s purpose. The Commissioner opined that the council did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting because the purpose in the notice failed to describe all topics that councilmembers discussed.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 7, 2023; Crosslake City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paul Boblett, editor of the Northland Press, and Nancy Vogt, editor of the Pine and Lakes Echo Journal, requested an advisory opinion regarding the Crosslake City Council’s conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council’s legal counsel provide comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Boblett and Vogt submitted comments and news stories providing the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The articles related to what both Nancy and I believe to be an Open Meeting Law violation can be found in the June 20 edition of Northland Press … and the June 14 edition of the Echo Journal….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;There is also a video … of the May 24, 2023 Special Meeting to corroborate what happened, which boils down to the Crosslake City Council discussing several items not described in the posted notice … during their May 24, 2023 Special Meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crosslake Council Lectured Regarding Open Meeting Law, Workshop Comments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;By Paul Boblett, Editor&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… Nelson then listed the agenda items given to her by the council prior to the May 24 workshop that included parking, future land purchase, ethics, the side by side, fire chief salary, and the Boller property.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Topics not on the agenda, but discussed by council during that meeting include the city sign, affordable housing, police scheduling, short term rentals and police, the Loon Center, short term rental ordinance, the roundabout, and motions versus tabled items. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crosslake council receives harsh reprimands from staff&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;By Nancy Vogt, Editor&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… A silent city council listened as City Clerk Char Nelson pointedly told them they’d recently violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… She cited the council’s May 24 workshop at city hall, where council members were to give her specific agenda items to discuss. She listed those items, then said the council addressed many other topics - which she also listed - that weren’t on the agenda. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Boblett and Vogt also submitted a copy of the Council’s notice of its May 24 special meeting as well as a link to a video recording of the Council’s meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Temporary Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Crosslake City Council provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on May 24, 2023, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a historical review of the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences”; (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed”; and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].”&lt;/em&gt; St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Court added in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” (See also &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6, stating “The [OML] will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by § 471.705.”)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Supreme Court defined meetings subject to the law as “those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A public body must provide a special meeting notice for any meeting that is not on the regular schedule of meetings on file at its primary offices. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 requires a public body to post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the special meeting on the principal bulletin board or the door of the usual meeting room at least three days before the meeting. Subdivision 2 also permits individuals to request notice of special meetings “concerning particular subjects.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that for a special meeting notice to be effective, it must provide detail about the meeting’s purpose, which is the intended object or end to be attained in a special meeting. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267355&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 07-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 10-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267675&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 15-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-550917&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 22-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;22-009&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267471&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-004&lt;/a&gt; also clarifies that when a public body holds a special meeting, its “actions are limited to those topics included in the notice of the special meeting.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Temporary Commissioner, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The May 24, 2023 notice listed the purpose of the meeting as a Council Workshop at which issues and topics would be discussed. The May 24, 2023 special meeting was open to the public and attended by members of the public. … The public was not limited in its access to the discussions at the May 24, 2023 meeting. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The notice also included topics which are broad in nature. The complaint from Mr. Boblett and Ms. Vogt takes a rigid view of the way the topics outlined in a meeting notice may be discussed. Here, the City appropriately identified the purpose of the special meeting in its meeting notice as a City Council workshop and then outlined broad topics. That discussion of those topics at the meeting was, of course, broader than the one-word description of the topics as outlined in the meeting notice. That is the way some discussions work--a topic is identified, and the discussion expands with thoughts, opinions, and facts about that topic. The fact that the discussion expands does not mean that the original topic identified is not still the topic of discussion. The Council appropriately identified topics for discussion in its meeting notice and then engaged in broader discussion. That broader discussion, however, still related to the topics identified in the meeting notice. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The discussion of the roundabout focused on discussions of Crow Wing County Board meeting discussions and a past City Council meeting. Additionally, the discussion of the roundabout related to parking and the removal of parking. … The discussion of the Loon Center was anecdotal and referenced the roundabout. The Loon Center also relates to parking as the location of the Center would result in a lack of parking. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Council’s brief reference to short term rentals and the short-term rental ordinance referenced a subsequent meeting on May 31, 2023, and a reference to a past symposium. The discussions are anecdotal in nature. While the phrase “affordable housing” was said in the discussion of short-term rentals, but that reference was limited and not a separate topic. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The reference to the “city sign” was limited and a simple question relative to when the sign, which was previously approved by the City Council, was going to be finished. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The reference to police scheduling was similarly limited in nature. Mayor Nevin informed the Council he was going to speak with the Police Chief about police officer scheduling as it related to police officer safety. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City submits there has not been a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The posted meeting notice identified the purpose of the special meeting as a City Council workshop and outlined broad topics. The discussion by the Council was within the scope of the requirements of the law. The Council did not “transact public business,” no motions were made, and no public business occurred. The public was present for this discussion and the public’s right to full access to the discussions at the May 24, 2023 City Council meeting was not limited.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, all council members met during a special meeting on May 24 to discuss official business, and the special meeting notice stated the purpose of the meeting was for “reviewing grade adjustment to Boller property on CSAH 66, and discussing the following topics: parking, future land purchases, ethics issues, side by side for police department, and fire chief salary.” During the special meeting, the Council’s discussions included these specific topics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, the Council acknowledged that its members discussed additional issues during the May 24 special meeting, including motioned versus tabled items, a planned roundabout, the Loon Center, short term rentals and a short-term rental ordinance, a city sign, and police scheduling. The Council maintained that the discussions of these issues were within the scope of the topics described in the special meeting notice’s purpose or were limited in nature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner recognizes that when a public body identifies a broad topic it will address as a purpose of a special meeting, members’ discussions may reasonably expand and reach several sub-issues related to the topic. However, the meeting recording reveals Council discussion of additional issues that the public body failed to include in the special meeting notice’s purpose, and many of the issues did not directly relate to or mention the appropriately noticed topics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner is also not persuaded that the Council did not need to include the additional issues in the special meeting notice’s purpose because discussions about these issues were limited in nature. The OML requires the Council to describe all subjects that it would address in the special meeting notice’s purpose, regardless of the scope of the members’ discussion. The Council’s failure to properly notice these topics resulted in the public not knowing which subjects the Council would address during the special meeting, and the public could not reasonably determine whether to attend the special meeting to be informed about the councilmember’s views on these topics or have access to the Council’s decision-making process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council’s special meeting notice did not describe several topics that members discussed during the May 24 meeting, and the Council was obligated to wait until its next regular meeting or schedule another special meeting to discuss these additional topics. Therefore, the Council did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on May 24, 2023, as required by the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Temporary Commissioner has a final note on the Council’s argument that it did not “transact public business,” suggesting additional discussion outside the scope of the notice was permitted under the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that any gathering of a quorum or more of a public body’s members to “discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body” is a meeting subject to the OML’s requirements. This definition of a meeting does not require a public body to transact public business or make and vote on motions for the OML requirements to apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Temporary Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Crosslake City Council did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on May 24, 2023, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Stacie Christensen
&lt;br /&gt;
Temporary Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;September 7, 2023&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>591160</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-09-08T19:42:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 23-002</Title><title>Opinion 23-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-589036&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2023-08-23T18:30:28Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a county responded appropriately to a request for the entity’s data inventory. The county informed the member of the public that the data inventory required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivision did not exist. As a result, Commissioner opined that the entity did not respond appropriately to the request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 23, 2023; Benton County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Trent Robertson asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to access Benton County’s data inventory, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). Benton County (County) submitted comments in response to Robertson’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On July 20, 2023, Robertson contacted a responsible authority at the County requesting access to the County’s data inventory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County responded on July 21, 2023 stating,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We are aware of the provisions of the MN Data Practices Act regarding a data inventory…. The County has made its best efforts to comply with the data practices act, including establishing procedures for individuals to request access to government data and designating responsible authorities over government data. The County takes reasonable steps to ensure the security of government data through physical and electronic controls. Due to staffing limitations, we have not had the ability to create a data inventory. As time and staffing permits, we will make reasonable efforts to satisfy all the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Temporary Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Benton County respond appropriately to a member of the public’s request to access the entity’s data inventory required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivision 1?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act requires a government entity to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time when receiving a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivision 1 requires a government entity’s responsible authority to prepare “an inventory containing the authority&apos;s name, title, address, and a description of each category of record, file, or process relating to private or confidential data on individuals maintained by the authority&apos;s government entity.” This data inventory must be updated annually and “available from the responsible authority to the public according to the provisions of sections 13.03 and 15.17.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The requirement for government entities to create and maintain a data inventory is long-standing, and the Commissioner understands that staffing limitations may make meeting this requirement difficult. Nonetheless, government entities have an obligation to prepare the data inventory, ensure it is updated annually, and provide access to members of the public in response to public data requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Robertson requested the data inventory from a responsible authority at the County. The County indicated that it does not have a data inventory. Therefore, the County did not provide appropriate access to the inventory required by section 13.025, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Temporary Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Benton County did not respond appropriately to a member of the public’s request to access the entity’s data inventory required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Stacie Christensen
&lt;br /&gt;
Temporary Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;August 23, 2023&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>589036</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-10-25T13:06:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 23-001</Title><title>Opinion 23-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-581173&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2023-06-14T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A data subject asked whether a joint powers entity responded appropriately to a data subject request when it did not provide responsive data within 10 business days. The Commissioner opined that the entity did not respond appropriately. She encouraged government entities to discuss the requirements of section 13.04 with contractors and IT personnel to ensure data subject requests are responded to within the required timeframe.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 14, 2023; Western Prairie Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X (a pseudonym used pursuant to section 13.072, subdivision 4) asked for an advisory opinion regarding her right to access data about herself and her minor child from Western Prairie Human Services (WPHS), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). WPHS submitted comments in response to X’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her request, X wrote that she submitted a data subject request to WPHS on February 27, 2023. WPHS confirmed receipt of the data request on February 28, 2023. X followed up on her data request in March and April 2023.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, WPHS wrote that it “contracts with an outside agency to provide IT services.” WPHS explained that it received responsive data provided by the IT company on March 17, 2023, with the exception of data maintained on two cell phones. WPHS indicated that it followed up with the IT company for the additional data in March and April 2023. WPHS received the remaining responsive data from the IT company on May 1, 2023.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;WPHS added that it provided the responsive data to legal counsel for review and redaction prior to releasing the data to X on May 9, 2023.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Western Prairie Human Services respond appropriately to a February 27, 2023, data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Grant County and Pope County entered into a joint powers agreement to combine Grant County Social Services and Pope County Human Services, forming Western Prairie Human Services, a joint powers entity, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that joint powers entities are statewide systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 18. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267653&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 95-040&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 95-040&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-011&quot;&gt;07-011&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, Western Prairie Human Services is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, governs the rights of data subjects. Section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires a government entity to “comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-340460&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 18-005&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 18-005&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated, “[w]hen a data subject requests access to government data about him/herself, the Data Practices Act sets a strict time limit for the entity to provide access. … Though the amount of data created and maintained by government is ever-increasing due to the transition to electronic and digital records, the strict time limit to provide access to data about data subjects remains the same.” (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267853&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 03-026&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 03-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267820&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-070&quot;&gt;04-070&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267728&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-006&quot;&gt;14-006&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-514480&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 22-001&quot;&gt;22-001&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that searching for, retrieving, and redacting responsive data can be time-consuming depending upon the size of the data request. However, there is not an exception to the 10-business day response time required by section 13.04. Therefore, WPHS did not respond appropriately when it failed to provide X with the requested data about herself and her minor child within 10 business days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that entities may rely on internal IT departments or contractors to assist with the search and retrieval of electronic data. However, the Commissioner encourages entities to discuss its Chapter 13 obligations with its technology providers to ensure that requests from data subjects are responded to within 10 business days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Western Prairie Human Services did not respond appropriately to a data request made on February 27, 2023, by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Stacie Christensen
&lt;br /&gt;
Temporary Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 14, 2023&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>581173</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access by data subject or parent</Title><Id>266762</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subjects (13.04)</Title><Id>267308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-06-15T18:18:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-009</Title><title>Opinion 22-009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-550917&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-12-08T18:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the school board of a charter school violated the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the closed portion of a meeting and whether the board provided appropriate notice of the purpose of a special meeting. The board acknowledged it failed to record the closed meeting at issue as required by the OML and described steps it would take to avoid similar situation in the future. The Commissioner opined that the board did not provide appropriate notice of the special meeting&apos;s purpose because the notice indicated the board would hold closed session &quot;for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the board&apos;s authority.&quot; However, the board violated the OML when it moved beyond the stated purpose of a &quot;preliminary consideration&quot; when it also voted to impose discipline on the individual.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 8, 2022; Modern Montessori Charter School</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Shawn and Shawna Heller requested an advisory opinion regarding the Modern Montessori Charter School Board’s (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board’s legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Hellers provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On May 18, 2022, Modern Montessori Charter School Board held a closed annual review of the Director of Operations. As the subject of the meeting, the Director requested a copy of the recording. The School Board admitted the meeting was not recorded in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05 Subd. 1 (d). …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On September 28, 2022, Modern Montessori Charter School Board held a closed session under Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subd. 2 (b). … The meeting notice on the school’s website only contained the following content with no additional information or agenda:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: SPECIAL SESSION&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wednesday, September 28, 2022
&lt;br /&gt;
6:45 PM - 7:45 PM
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern Montessori Charter School&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This special meeting will be closed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 2 (b) for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the board’s authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;According to the meeting minutes, the special meeting transitioned from closed to open and the School Board voted to end employment of the Director prior to adjournment of the special meeting. The Director and public school community was not informed, provided an agenda, nor given a reasonable expectation that a vote was going to occur based on the content of the special meeting notice and previous meeting precedent. Alternatively, no physical notice was posted on the premises with any additional information in the three days prior to the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Modern Montessori Charter School Board violate the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the portion of its May 18, 2022, meeting that was closed to evaluate the performance of an individual who was subject to its authority?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Modern Montessori Charter School Board provide appropriate notice of the purpose of its special meeting on September 28, 2022, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Modern Montessori Charter School is a public charter school. Minnesota Statutes, section 124E.03, subdivision 5a requires Minnesota charter schools to “comply with chapter 13D governing open meetings.” Therefore, the Board is subject to the requirements of the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Modern Montessori Charter School Board violate the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the portion of its May 18, 2022, meeting that was closed to evaluate the performance of an individual that was subject to its authority?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(d) requires a public body to record its closed meetings at its own expense, except meetings closed as permitted by attorney-client privilege. These recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting unless the law states otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;MMCS admits that the closed portion of the May 18, 2022 meeting was not recorded. MMCS was established in the fall of 2019. Having been in existence for only three (3) years, closed sessions of meetings of the board have occurred infrequently. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… [T]he Board held a series of meetings that were not recorded which was due to inadvertence and lack of knowledge. Once the Board was notified by a board member based upon their training, and also sought guidance from legal counsel regarding recording requirements, MMCS has been in compliance with the Open Meeting Law and has recorded closed meetings when required. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… MMCS admits to having missed or misunderstood the recording requirement for various types of closed meetings, has recently received training, guidance from legal counsel and has additional training scheduled. MMCS intends to change its board training to include annual training on the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board acknowledged that it violated the OML when it failed to record the closed portion of its meeting on May 18, 2022. The Commissioner appreciates the Board describing the steps it is taking to avoid similar situations in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Modern Montessori Charter School Board provide appropriate notice of the purpose of its special meeting on September 28, 2022, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader,&lt;/em&gt; 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” (See also &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983), stating “The [OML] will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by § 471.705.”)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A public body must provide notice at least three days before any meeting that is not on its regular schedule. The notice must include the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2). These notice requirements also apply to closed meetings. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has opined that special meeting notices must provide detail about the purpose of the meeting. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267355&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 10-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267675&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 15-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-002&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267471&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt; indicates that when a public body holds a special meeting, its “actions are limited to those topics included in the notice of the special meeting.” The Commissioner added, “[t]his conclusion is further supported by the purpose and spirit of the OML, which is to allow the public the opportunity to participate in the government that represents it. The public cannot receive effective notice unless [a public body] is limited to acting on only those items for which this notice was provided when the special meeting was scheduled.” (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267582&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-057 &quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 10-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 15-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-379354&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 19-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The substance of the Notice fulfills the requirements of Minn. Stat. 13D.04, subd. 2(a). …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Apparently, the Hellers’ issue with the Notice stems from the fact that following the closed session where preliminary consideration of allegations or charges were considered, the board came out of closed session and, at that same meeting, in open session, passed a resolution regarding disciplinary action to be taken against Ms. Heller. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If MMCS board were to follow the Hellers’ logic, then another special meeting would have to be called for the purpose of acting upon the discipline that the board concluded was warranted. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In this case, during the closed portion of the September 28, 2022 meeting, the board concluded that discipline was warranted as a result of the allegations or charges against Ms. Heller. In order to act upon the conclusions reached during the closed portions of the meeting, the board returned to open session, passed the resolution … and then adjourned. The board’s resolution was consistent and in keeping with the purpose of the meeting described in the Notice.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the Board met the requirements of section 13D.04, subd. 2, as it failed to provide sufficient details of the special meeting’s purpose in its notice to accurately reflect the Board’s actions during the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML does not define “purpose.” As a result, the Commissioner must rely upon the common usage of the word. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08.) Meriam Webster defines purpose as “something set up as an object or end to be attained: intention.” Therefore, section 13D.04, subd. 2 requires a public body to provide notice of the intended object or end to be attained in a special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Board confirmed that the language describing the special meeting’s purpose was “&lt;em&gt;[t]he special meeting will be closed&lt;/em&gt; pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 2 (b) for &lt;em&gt;preliminary consideration&lt;/em&gt; of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the board’s authority.” (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The notice did not provide details about any discussion or action that might occur beyond the Board’s preliminary considerations of allegations or charges to take disciplinary action, nor did the notice suggest the Board would address topics outside of a closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board is correct that the OML requires any subsequent discussions or disciplinary actions to take place in open session after it determines discipline may be warranted. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-385441&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 19-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 19-008&lt;/a&gt;). Additionally, the Commissioner acknowledges the Board’s position that it was administratively inconvenient to schedule and notice a second special meeting to act on discipline it concluded was warranted. However, the Board’s notice stated that the purpose of the meeting was for preliminary considerations of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. In voting to impose discipline, the Board moved beyond the special meeting’s “intended object or end to be obtained” described in the notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the Board did not provide any details in its notice other than its intent to hold a closed session for discussion of preliminary consideration of allegations or charges, the OML required the Board to schedule another special meeting or wait until its next regular meeting before taking additional actions. If the Board wished to take additional action at its September 28, 2022, meeting, it needed to provide more details in the purpose given on the special meeting notice to reasonably inform members of the public that such actions may take place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, the Board did not provide appropriate notice of the purpose of its September 28, 2022, special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that in its comments, the Board stated that the only location it posted the special meeting notice was on its public website. Although the Commissioner agrees with the Board that posting a special meeting notice on a website “has significantly more public visibility than an internal bulletin board or the door to the meeting room,” an online posting alone does not meet the requirements of section 13D.04, subd. 2. Rather, subdivision 2 requires a public body to post the notice on its principal bulletin board or on its meeting room door if there is no principal bulletin board. A public body is also obligated to mail a notice to any individual who has filed a written request to receive notice of special meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted in past opinions, the Commissioner recognizes that the OML contains various provisions that may not reflect public bodies’ contemporary business practices. She encourages the Legislature to review the OML for opportunities to address the practical implementation of the law to meet current expectations and abilities of both public bodies and the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Modern Montessori Charter School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the portion of its May 18, 2022, meeting that was closed to evaluate the performance of an individual who was subject to its authority.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Modern Montessori Charter School Board did not provide appropriate notice of the purpose of its special meeting on September 28, 2022, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 8, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>550917</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-08-18T19:14:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-008</Title><title>Opinion 22-008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-549227&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-12-02T18:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting to review applications to appoint a new board supervisor. The board maintained that its meeting was properly closed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) because it was reviewing applicant data of individuals who voluntarily placed themselves under the Board’s authority. The Commissioner opined that section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) permits public bodies to close meetings only to “evaluate the performance of individuals” rather than to discuss general personnel issues, such as hiring or appointment decisions. Therefore, the board closing its meeting to review applications violated the Open Meeting Law. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 2, 2022; Thomson Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jana Peterson, editor of the Pine Knot News, requested an advisory opinion regarding the Thomson Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board’s legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Peterson provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Thomson Township Board of Supervisors held its regular meeting on Sept. 8, but went into closed session for what it termed “personnel” discussions, along with an update on a potential real estate transaction. There were no names listed on the agenda (attached) regarding the alleged “personnel” discussion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;What the supervisors actually discussed under its “personnel” OML exemption were the six applications from citizens of Thomson Township to replace elected supervisor Jason Paulson, who had stepped down. In their private discussion about his replacement, the board narrowed its applicant pool from six to three.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Thomson Township Board of Supervisors violate the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting on September 8, 2022, to review applications to appoint a new board supervisor?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of a public body to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The exceptions for closing a meeting are described primarily in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Town properly closed a meeting on September 8, 2022 pursuant to sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) of the Open Meeting Law to review and evaluate applicant data, both private and public, pursuant to sec. 13.43, subd. 1 and 3 of the Data Practices Act, as modified by sec. 13.601, subd. 2 and 3 of the Data Practices Act, to determine a short list of applicants to invite back for public interviews to fill an open board seat, from individuals who had voluntarily placed themselves under and made themselves subject to the Board’s authority by submitting such letters of application to the Board.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The ability of a public body to close a meeting under the language of section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) is limited to situations when it will “&lt;em&gt;evaluate the performance&lt;/em&gt; of an individual subject to its authority.” (Emphasis added.) The language does not allow a public body to close meetings to generally discuss personnel issues, such as hiring or appointment decisions. Additionally, the subdivision’s language itself further supports the limitation of closing meetings only to performance evaluations, stating that a body must “identify the individual to be evaluated” as well as requiring the body to “summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation” at its next open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Board did not provide any information indicating it closed the meeting to evaluate the performance of any individual subject to its authority. Rather, the Board explained that the closure was to review and evaluate applications to select finalists who it would interview for a Board vacancy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided, the Board did not close the meeting to conduct performance evaluations of individuals subject to its authority. Therefore, it could not rely upon section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) to close its meeting. Even if it were conducting performance evaluations, the Board failed to comply with the necessary steps to close a meeting under section 13D.05, subd. 3(a), including identifying the individual subject to its authority who will be evaluated in closed session and summarizing the conclusions of the evaluation at the next open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Board cited Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.43 and 13.601 to maintain that it was permitted to close the September 8 meeting. However, a not public classification is insufficient authority to close a meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(a) states, “Except provided in this chapter, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public.”) Further, townships located in non-metropolitan counties, such as Carlton County, are not subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board did not identify any other provision within the OML or any other statute that would permit it to close a meeting in this situation. Therefore, the Board did not comply with the OML when it went into a closed session to review applications for a board vacancy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Thomson Township Board of Supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting on September 8, 2022, to review applications to appoint a new board supervisor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 2, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>549227</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual performance</Title><Id>266629</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual subject to authority</Title><Id>266716</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-12-06T18:08:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-007</Title><title>Opinion 22-007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-549122&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-11-23T18:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a county attorney’s office responded appropriately to a request for data, including correspondence and non-work product materials. The county indicated that any responsive data were governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, and thus were exempt from the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that if the county attorney’s office maintained responsive government data that were not maintained by attorneys acting in their professional capacity for the entity and governed by provisions specific to attorney work pursuant to section 13.393, then it did not respond appropriately to the member of the public’s data request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 23, 2022; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Eric Rice (Rice) asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to access data maintained by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). HCAO submitted comments in response to Rice’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On January 10, 2022, Rice submitted a data request to HCAO for:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Correspondence and non-work product materials regarding the incident involving Jaleel Stallings and Minneapolis Police officers that occurred on May 30, 2020. The incident is MPD No. 2020-146953 and Court File No. 27-CR-20-12859. I am particularly interested in the creation and dissemination of the press release announcing Stallings’ arrest and charges issued by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. I also seek general correspondence or other documents that reference or discuss the Stallings matter.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Rice indicated that he anticipated receipt of correspondence, training materials, materials related to the entity’s press release, as well as correspondence regarding media and news inquiries to the entity. Rice argued, “these materials, and others, would not be subject to any court privilege, and, thus, would not be protected from disclosure pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.393.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, HCAO indicated it responded to Rice on May 25, 2022, stating, “[n]o public data exists responsive to your request. Existing data is protected under MN Statute Section 13.393.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office respond appropriately to a data request for certain “correspondence and non-work product materials” submitted on January 10, 2022?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267599&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 12-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-017&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner highlighted that “[s]ection 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data created, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity’s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In prior opinions, the Commissioner distinguished between data maintained by attorneys acting in a professional capacity for a government entity that are governed by other “statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility” and data that are not governed by provisions specific to attorneys acting in their professional capacity. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267599&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 12-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 12-017&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267516&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When evaluating the application of section 13.393, courts generally analyze whether there is a doctrine or privilege applicable to the data at issue that would warrant the government entity relying upon section 13.393 to exclude the data from the requirements of the Data Practices Act. For example, in &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt; the court addressed limitations to attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, indicating that billing records would not be protected in their entirety. &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. Ct. App., 2003). Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court also recognized the common-interest doctrine and discussed the doctrine in relation to section 13.393. &lt;em&gt;Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison&lt;/em&gt;, A20-1344 (Minn., Sep. 28, 2022).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267599&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 12-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-017&lt;/a&gt;, “the Legislature did not intend that any and all data used, collected, stored, or disseminated by a public attorney, or government data held by a government entity that relate to the conduct of its legal affairs, are exempt from disclosure under Chapter 13.” When a government entity relies upon section 13.393 to exempt data from the requirements of Chapter 13, the entity should ensure the attorney maintaining the data is acting in a professional capacity for the entity and there is an applicable statute, rule, and/or professional standard concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, or professional responsibility that otherwise governs the data in the hands of the government attorney. The fact that data are maintained by a government attorney does not in itself warrant the application of section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Rice requested correspondence and non-work product materials, including data related to a specific press release. General correspondence with members of the public, such as media inquiries, or a copy of a publicly-issued press release, are unlikely to fall within section 13.393 as these data do not appear to be subject to statutes, rules, or professional standards that otherwise govern the work of a government attorney. Therefore, some of the data HCAO created related to those activities were likely government data subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts provided by the parties, it is not clear whether such government data existed at the time of the January 10, 2022, data request. If the requested government data existed, the data were subject to the public presumption and should have been provided to the requester unless a not public classification applied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If HCAO maintained government data responsive to Rice’s data request that were not maintained by attorneys acting in their professional capacity for the entity and governed by provisions specific to attorney work pursuant to section 13.393, then it did not respond appropriately to the January 10, 2022, data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 23, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>549122</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-11-28T15:32:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-006</Title><title>Opinion 22-006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-536273&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-08-09T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked whether data it collected, created, and maintained pursuant to a contract with a private entity were government data, subject to the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that the data were government data because the data met the definition of government data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7 and the city’s financial director administered the data as part of her work for the city. The Commissioner further advised that the data were public unless the city could identify a state statute or federal law that classified the data as not public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 2022; City of Two Harbors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Two Harbors requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner about certain data that the City maintains and the applicability of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act) to that data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;THDF [the Two Harbors Development Fund, Inc.] administers a revolving loan fund for business development loans within the city of Two Harbors. The Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of THDF require all board appointments to be made by the Mayor of Two Harbors, with consent of the city council. The City and THDF also entered into an agreement whereby the City would provide loan application forms, loan agreements, accounting, audit, bookkeeping and record keeping for the loans in exchange for the sum of $5,000 annually (See attached Ex.A). Loan applications are available at, and to be returned to, Two Harbors Development Fund, Inc. 522 First Avenue, Two Harbors, MN. This is the same address as the Two Harbors City Hall. The Finance Director receives all payments and does all bookkeeping.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;THDF is required to provide the City with access to its books and records at all times to allow the City Financial Director to prepare monthly financial statements to be submitted to the City, in addition to all federal and state tax filings. The City Finance Director performs all accounting for THDF in her job as a City employee.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Two Harbors pursuant to the City’s contract to perform services for a non-government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, how are the data classified?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Are data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Two Harbors pursuant to the City’s contract to perform services for a non-government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act defines “government data” as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) A “government entity” includes political subdivisions, state agencies, and statewide systems. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7a.) The City of Two Harbors is a political subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request for an opinion, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City believes that should the Commissioner find otherwise, significant data will be disclosed that neither the THDF board members, nor loan recipients, believed would be made public. The Agreement provides for the City to provide accounting services to THDF, with the understanding that the otherwise private financial information submitted to the City to perform its duties would remain private. Although the Finance Director performed this work in the scope of her duties as a City employee, the City was compensated for that service and no government function was performed. This was private accounting work, bookkeeping related thereto and some minute taking for a private nonprofit corporation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In contracting with the City, THDF submits information to a government entity. The City in turn creates data by developing loan applications, conducting audits, and providing accounting, book-keeping, and general record-keeping for THDF. The City finance director performs the work for THDF as part of her City work responsibilities. Therefore, pursuant to the definition of government data, the information the City collects, creates, maintains, and disseminates, pursuant to the agreement with THDF are government data subject to the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its opinion request, the City pointed to the following provision in the agreement between the City and THDF, implying that the data may be exempt from the Data Practices Act:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nothing in this Agreement shall require any data or information not subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act in the absence of this Agreement to be subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;To the extent that the provision attempts to remove government data administered by the City from the purview of the Data Practices Act, the provision does not apply. The City may not contract around its obligations under the Data Practices Act. Contracts contrary to law are unenforceable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2: &lt;/strong&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, how are the data classified?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, the classification of the data depends upon the content. Data the City collects, creates, maintains, etc., pursuant to its work for THDF are presumptively public unless the City can identify a state statute, temporary classification (there are not any at this time), or federal law that classifies the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Two Harbors pursuant to the City&apos;s contract to perform services for a non-government entity are government data subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The classification of the data created by the City pursuant to its contract with THDF depends on the content; data are presumptively public unless there is a state statute or federal law that classifies it as not public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;August 9, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>536273</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification of data</Title><Id>266911</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-11-23T14:02:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-005</Title><title>Opinion 22-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-534520&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-07-25T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A government entity asked whether a final disposition of disciplinary action occurred for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) when the entity decided to discipline an employee, the employee grieved the discipline under a collective bargaining agreement but resigned during the grievance process, and the union representing the employee declined to elect that the grievance be referred to arbitration. The Commissioner opined that final disposition had occurred based on the language of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b) because the employee’s union failed “to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.” Additionally, the employee’s resignation during the grievance process did not impact when the final disposition occurred.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 25, 2022; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Council requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner about whether a final disposition of a disciplinary action against an employee has occurred, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Metropolitan Council investigated an employee. As a result of that investigation, the Council disciplined the employee. The discipline did not include discharge but was a “disciplinary action” as defined in the collective bargaining agreement; the employee continued to be employed by the Council.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The collective bargaining agreement establishes a grievance process and allows the union to refer the grievance to final and binding arbitration.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Consistent with that agreement, the employee’s union submitted a request for grievance on behalf of the employee; the grievance addressed matters other than whether the employee remained in Council employment. Several weeks after the union submitted the request for grievance, the employee submitted their voluntary resignation. The employee’s union proceeded with the grievance even though the employee was no longer a Council employee and the Council held Step 1 and Step 2 grievance hearings. The former employee attended and participated in both hearings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Council issued its response to Step 2 grievance, maintaining the disciplinary action. The union elected not to refer the grievance to final and binding arbitration. Instead, the union formally withdrew its grievance filed on behalf of the former employee and the time to refer the grievance to arbitration expired. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, any grievance not referred to arbitration within the time provided by the agreement “shall be considered waived” (emphasis in original).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Has a final disposition of disciplinary action occurred for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) when a government entity decides to discipline an employee, the employee grieves the discipline under a collective bargaining agreement but resigns during the grievance process, and the union representing the employee declines to elect that the grievance be referred to arbitration?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data on individuals maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 lists types of personnel data designated as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Specifically, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) designates “the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body” as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;For the purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the government entity, or arbitrator. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267576&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 00-072&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-072&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted that section 13.43, subd. 2(b) establishes that the occurrence of a final disposition depends on whether the specific employee is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. In addressing whether a final disposition for a union employee had occurred while a grievance was still pending, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[I]n general, if an employee who is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement resigns after the government entity makes its final decision, then there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action. However, in this case, there is a collective bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration, which remains a possibility. The terms of the agreement allow a grievance to be filed either by the employee, or as is the case here, by the union on behalf of the employee. Thus, the statutory provision [addressing “In the case of arbitration proceedings…”] that governs discipline in the case of arbitration proceedings is directly applicable here. Accordingly, there has been no final disposition of the disciplinary action. Final disposition in this situation will occur when arbitration is either concluded, or is no longer a possibility.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the Council noted that the outcome of past advisory opinions interpreting section 13.43, subds. 2(a)(5) and (b) appeared to depend on whether a collective bargaining agreement covered the employee subject to a disciplinary action. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267946&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 94-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 94-019&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267595&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 95-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267576&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 00-072&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-072&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267686&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 02-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-053&lt;/a&gt;.) However, the Council added that “[t]he timing of the employee’s resignation—while the grievance process was ongoing and before the opportunity to refer to arbitration—also makes it unclear about how subdivision 2(b) should be applied in this case.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In assessing the facts, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Here, the employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, following the guidance of past advisory opinions, one interpretation is that the Council should look to whether arbitration has concluded or remains a possibility to determine if there is a final disposition. Applying that interpretation, a final disposition of the disciplinary action occurred after the union withdrew its grievance on behalf of the employee. As a result, the employee failed to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. There no longer was any possibility of an arbitration proceeding that could change the disposition of the disciplinary action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that this analysis is the correct approach for the situation at hand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The language of section 13.43, subd. 2(b) describes separate situations when a final disposition of a disciplinary action will occur. For employees who are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, the final disposition occurs when the government entity makes a final decision determining that discipline is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When an employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the final disposition does not occur immediately when the government entity decides to issue a disciplinary action. Rather, the final disposition occurs at the conclusion of any arbitration proceedings resulting from the matter or the employee’s failure to elect arbitration to contest the discipline within the appropriate time frame provided in the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(b) also contemplates employee resignations in the context of disciplinary actions. Typically, when an employee resigns prior to a government entity’s decision to issue discipline as the result of a complaint, the data related to the complaint and investigation—other than the existence and status of the complaint—would remain private personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 4. However, section 13.43, subd. 2(b) states, “Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the final decision of the government entity, or arbitrator.” (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This language in subdivision 2(b) simply clarifies that once a government entity disciplines an employee, the individual can no longer resign from employment to keep data about the complaint and investigation private. Rather, the only way the disciplinary action and related data do not become public after discipline is imposed is when “an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permitted the employee’s union to grieve a Council decision to discipline an employee. Therefore, final disposition for any employee working under this specific agreement would occur upon the conclusion of arbitration proceedings or the union’s failure to elect arbitration within the time frame established by the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;After the Council disciplined the employee, the union opted to initiate the grievance process through agreed-upon steps in the collective bargaining agreement. During these steps, the final disposition had not yet occurred because there was still an opportunity for the union “to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the grievance process was ongoing, the employee resigned. However, the employee’s resignation was irrelevant to the final disposition. The Council disciplined a union employee, and, at that point, arbitration proceedings remained a possibility. Therefore, the resignation did not affect either the classification of the data nor whether final disposition had occurred under the language of 13.43, subd. 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;After concluding the second step of the grievance process, the Council maintained the disciplinary action against the employee. The employee’s union then determined it would withdraw the grievance, and the time to request that the matter go to arbitration expired. Therefore, the language in section 13.43, subd. 2(b) stating “a final disposition occurs … upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement” was met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, a final disposition of disciplinary action occurred for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) when the time expired for the employee’s union to elect arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement. The employee’s resignation did not have an impact on when final disposition occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that collective bargaining agreements may vary regarding the processes that entities must follow to impose disciplinary actions on employees subject to the agreement. Such variations leave open the possibility that the disciplinary processes under another agreement could result in a different outcome for whether and when a final disposition will occur under section 13.43, subd. 2(b). All government entities should closely review the specific terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement and the language of section subdivision 2(b) when determining whether the final disposition of a disciplinary action against an employee has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lastly, the Council asked about the appropriate classification of data documenting the fact that an employee resigned under these circumstances. Section 13.43, subd. 2(b) does not classify data. Rather, as noted above, the subdivision clarifies when final disposition of a disciplinary action has occurred for the purposes of section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(3) designates that an individual’s “date of first and last employment” are public data. However, subdivision 2 does not designate data describing the fact that an employee resigned as public. Thus, the fact that an employee resigned is generally private under section 13.43, subd. 4 unless the resignation would be made public for other reasons described in subdivision 2, such as part of “the complete terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship.” (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A final disposition of disciplinary action has occurred for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) because the entity decided to discipline an employee and the employee’s union did not elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. The employee’s resignation during the grievance process established under the collective bargaining agreement did not impact when the final disposition occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;July 25, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>534520</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-26T04:45:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-004</Title><title>Opinion 22-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-533711&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-07-15T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the board held a private discussion before its noticed meeting, and whether the board violated the OML when it did not provide access to public meeting materials during its meeting. The Commissioner opined that if the board discussed public business before its noticed meeting, it violated the OML. The Commissioner further opined that the board violated the OML when it failed to provide access to public meeting materials in the meeting room pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 15, 2022; Hillman Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Andrew Jauhola requested an advisory opinion regarding the Hillman Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board’s legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his opinion request, Jauhola stated that on November 16, 2021, the three-person Board held a regular meeting at the town hall starting at 7:00 p.m. However, members of the public, including Jauhola, arrived at the town hall up to 45 minutes before the scheduled meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jauhola wrote that two Board supervisors were discussing matters behind a locked door prior to the 7:00 p.m. meeting. He noted another member of the public overheard the supervisors discussing town business while reviewing meeting materials in front of them, including a court document concerning the township. Specifically, Jauhola maintained that one supervisor said, “‘I agree – I’ll approve’ while pointing at documents on the table in front of them.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Jauhola’s description of the November 16, 2021, meeting, the Board stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The facts as alleged are simply not accurate and do not warrant a point-by-point rebuttal. There was no secret pre-meeting to discuss Town business that evening. Two Fox 9 news trucks were at the Town Hall before any of the supervisors arrived. To the extent any conversations occurred among supervisors in the minutes before calling the meeting to order, they were of a personal nature and did not involve a discussion of Town business…The idea a quorum of the supervisors would arrive at the Town hall early with news trucks in the parking lot, enter the hall, lock the door behind them, and hold a ‘secret’ meeting about Town business with members of the public who arrived 45 minutes early at the window with their ears pressed against the glass is beyond belief.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jauhola added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hillman Township Supervisors failed to provide public copies for multiple documents at multiple public open board meetings. These documents were meeting minutes and correspondences [&lt;/em&gt;sic&lt;em&gt;] that were discussed in front of the public at these meetings…. The supervisors denied every documented instance here, including from the months of Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec of 2021.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;It appears that much of what is being referenced in the [advisory opinion] request is to letters and emails the Town identified as hate mail directed to individual supervisors. These letters, some of which contained explicit language, were not distributed to the other supervisors and did not relate to an action item on the agenda.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the Board stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;It does appear the Town Board misunderstood how to handle unapproved minutes. It believed unapproved minutes were not public and the minutes were not to be released until they were formally approved. The concern being that the language of the minutes may change at the time of approval and so did not want to appear to be misleading the public by distributing unapproved minutes or have two different versions of the minutes in the public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hillman Township Board of Supervisors violate the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the Board met before its scheduled meeting on November 16, 2021?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hillman Township Board of Supervisors provide appropriate access to its public meeting materials at its September 14, 2021, October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, and December 14, 2021, meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue #1&lt;/strong&gt;: Did the Hillman Township Board of Supervisors violate the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the Board met before its scheduled meeting on November 16, 2021?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a township is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held, “‘Meetings’ subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies…. This includes meetings at which information is received which may influence later decisions of such bodies.” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983). The Minnesota Supreme Court has also determined that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the comments provided, the parties dispute whether a quorum of the Board discussed public business before the November 16, 2021, meeting. The Commissioner is unable to resolve issues of fact. If the two Board supervisors, which is quorum of the Board, discussed public business outside of its noticed meeting, the Board did not comply with the requirements of the OML. If the two Board supervisors discussed matters unrelated to public business, there was no OML violation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that, like many townships, there are three supervisors on the Board. When a discussion between two individuals constitutes a quorum, township boards must take extra care to avoid discussion of public business outside of a noticed meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue #2&lt;/strong&gt;: Did the Hillman Township Board of Supervisors provide appropriate access to its public meeting materials at its September 14, 2021, October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, and December 14, 2021, meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.01, subd. 6, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) available in the meeting room to all members;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jauhola contends that the Board did not make available certain meeting materials, including correspondence and draft meeting minutes, at its September 14, 2021, October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, and December 14, 2021, meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board indicates that the correspondence Jauhola references were directed to individual supervisors and “were not distributed to the other supervisors.” If the materials were not distributed to all members of the public body at or before the meeting, and are unrelated to the agenda items, the materials are not subject to the meeting material requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the Board’s comment, its legal counsel stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I have since advised the Town Board that unapproved minutes should be provided to the public upon request, marked as unapproved, and included [in] the public packet at the meeting. Even though the Town does not prepare a traditional meeting packet that is distributed to members in advance of a meeting, I did inform the Town Board of the requirement to prepare and make available at the meeting a public packet containing the materials identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a). Though, again, with the exception of the unapproved minutes, it appears the requested documents in this case constituted correspondence sent to individual supervisors that did not satisfy the statutory criteria requiring them to be included in the public packet at the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Townships located in non-metropolitan counties, such as Kanabec County, are not subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11.) As a result, the OML’s requirements regarding public access to meeting materials is the primary mechanism for transparency and access to government information in these townships.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates the Board’s efforts to improve its process to comply with the OML in the future. However, the Board did not meet the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 6, when it failed to make the unapproved meeting minutes available in the meeting room for inspection by the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If a quorum of Board members discussed public business before its November 16, 2021, meeting, then the Board did not comply with the OML because it held a meeting without proper notice.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 6 when it did not make the unapproved meeting minutes available in the meeting room for public inspection during its meetings.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;July 15, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>533711</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Members materials</Title><Id>461869</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Quorum</Title><Id>266255</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-18T04:00:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-003</Title><title>Opinion 22-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-531393&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-06-17T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for a copy of body camera data that was presented as evidence in court. The city argued that the request should have been directed to the prosecutor’s office, and that the body camera data were private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825. The Commissioner determined that the city did not respond properly to the data request because prosecutors are not law enforcement agencies for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, and the obligation to provide access to data under this section resides with the law enforcement agency. Further, the body camera data are public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7 as data presented as evidence in court.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 17, 2022; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Joe Augustine, on behalf of KSTP-TV, asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to obtain copies of data from the City of Minneapolis (“the City”) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The City submitted comments in response to Augustine’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Augustine submitted a data request to the City for a copy of body camera data that was submitted as evidence in court. As part of his advisory opinion request, Augustine provided a copy of the “Court’s Order, which documents that the body camera data was submitted, accepted, and relied on by the Court as evidence in the [criminal] proceeding.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City’s response to Augustine’s data request stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This request is denied under MN statute [&lt;/em&gt;sic&lt;em&gt;] 13.825. The BWC recording is classified as private data associated with the subject(s) seen and heard in the video. The data subject(s) of the video requested have not provided authorization for us to release the video to you, as is required by law and our own City policy. You may be requesting the video because you believe it was used in an exhibit in court, which is considered public data under statute 13.82. However, Minneapolis was not the prosecuting agency in this case and did not enter the video as an exhibit in court. The prosecuting agency is responsible for submitting court exhibits, and you must contact that agency to receive an exact copy of the exhibits.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis properly respond to a request for body camera data that was presented as evidence in court?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies all government data as public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 classifies “portable recording system data” – audio or video data collected by a portable recording system worn by a peace officer (commonly referred to as body camera data) – as private or nonpublic, with exceptions. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, subdivision 2(a)(3) states, “portable recording system data that are active criminal investigative data are governed by section 13.82, subdivision 7.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, classifies active criminal investigative data collected or created to prepare a case against a person for a crime or offense, “for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility,” as confidential or protected nonpublic. Section 13.82, subd. 7 also states, “[a]ny investigative data presented as evidence in court shall be public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, the City provided several arguments to support its decision to deny access to the requested body camera data. The City stated, it “is not required to meet with the County Attorney to create new data. ‘Government data’ means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. The data submitted into evidence by the prosecuting county attorney does not constitute ‘government data’ of the City.” The Commissioner disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.82 applies to law enforcement agencies. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267628&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 01-079&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-079&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner interpreted the definition of a “law enforcement agency” to include county attorneys for purposes of section 13.82. However, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office disagreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation in a February 12, 2002, letter, noting that the language and legislative history of section 13.82 made clear that prosecuting authorities were not included as law enforcement agencies for the purposes of this section. As a result, law enforcement agencies, rather than prosecuting authorities, are obligated to respond and provide access to data classified by section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City also noted that it “has no knowledge of whether or how any data was redacted, enhanced, stabilized, or otherwise prepared for use as evidence in trial.” The City must have procedures to insure prompt and appropriate access to data (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3). Thus, it is incumbent on the City to determine which data are responsive to a data request. One way the City can accomplish this is to consult with the County Attorney to determine which part of the City’s investigative record the County Attorney’s Office has submitted as evidence in court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City also argued that section 13.82, subdivision 7 is applicable to active investigative data, and as the criminal matter in which the body camera data at issue was presented as evidence in court has now been dismissed, the investigation is now inactive and the public body camera data are classified as private pursuant to section 13.825. The Commissioner disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.825, subd. 2(a)(3) indicates that body camera data are “governed by section 13.82, subdivision 7” while the data are part of an active criminal investigation. Additionally, section 13.82, subd. 7 contains a trigger establishing that “[a]ny investigative data presented in court shall be public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the City was maintaining the body camera data at issue as active criminal investigative data. While the criminal investigation was still active, and governed by section 13.82, subd. 7, prosecutors presented portions of the body camera data as evidence in court as part of a criminal prosecution. As a result, the portions of the body camera data presented as evidence in court became and remain public data. Any remaining body camera data that were not presented as evidence would revert to the applicable classifications governed under section 13.825 when the criminal investigation became inactive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This analysis is also supported by the language in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(e):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the extent that judicial branch data are disseminated to government entities by the judicial branch, the data disseminated shall have the same level of accessibility at the government entity receiving them as they had at the judicial branch entity providing them. If the data have a specific classification in state statute or federal law, the government entity must maintain the data according to the specific classification.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13.03, subdivision 12 provides, “[p]leadings, as defined by court rule, served by or on a government entity, are public data to the same extent that the data would be public if filed with the court.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Both of these provisions, along with the public trigger for active criminal investigative data presented as evidence in court pursuant to section 13.82, subd. 7, reflect the Legislature’s intent for judicial branch data, or data presented in court, to have the same level of accessibility at government entities as the data would possess at the judicial branch.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that the Legislature enacted section 13.825 in 2016 and has not substantially changed its provisions since that time. The Commissioner is aware that in the intervening years, both members of the public and law enforcement agencies have identified several areas where the requirements could be clarified. This opinion highlights one such area. The Commissioner encourages the Legislature to review the provisions of section 13.825 and in particular its interaction with other provisions governing law enforcement data, to determine whether it best reflects the Legislature’s intent with regard to the protection of and access to this type of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not properly respond to a request for body camera data that was presented as evidence in court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 17, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>531393</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Body camera data 13.825</Title><Id>378580</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-11-28T13:57:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-002</Title><title>Opinion 22-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-521741&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-03-22T13:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when it directed him to access its record of votes that were contained in meeting minutes posted on its website. The Commissioner opined that the board violated the Open Meeting Law because the plain language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 requires a public body to provide access to its voting record in the location where it is maintained regardless of the availability of the records online.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 22, 2022; Turtle Lake Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Billy Ayers requested an advisory opinion regarding the Turtle Lake Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his request, Ayers wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[Emails to the town officials] lay out the Chairman of the Turtle Lake Township Board of Supervisors denying me the opportunity to review the journals of the township at the location where they are stored. It has to be noted that the township website does post minutes but only for the previous 12 months, and all records are actually stored at the township hall.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the documentation provided by Ayers, the Board wrote in email correspondence that its “voting history is documented on Board minutes and [can] be accessed on the Township website.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Turtle Lake Township Board of Supervisors provide appropriate access to its votes, pursuant to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivisions 4 and 5.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” (See also &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983), stating “The [OML] will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies governed by § 471.705.”)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In 2021, the Minnesota Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivisions 4 and 5 regarding requirements for how public bodies must document votes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4 now requires, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) The votes of members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal or minutes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 states, “[t]he journal or any minutes used to record votes of a meeting subject to this chapter must be open to the public during all normal business hours where records of the public body are kept.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267355&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-014&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a situation regarding a township board of supervisors that did not have any employees and its journal of votes was available only at the town hall during board meetings or upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In considering this situation, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given the Supreme Court’s direction to construe Chapter 13D in favor of public access, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that restricting public access to the journals to the night of the monthly Board meeting is not in compliance with Chapter 13D. The Board should establish more times when the journals are available at the Town Hall or consider changing the location where the journal is stored to one that allows requesters more access.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 08-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-034&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a situation regarding whether a state task force, which did not have a primary office location but received administrative support from the Department of Commerce, could publish its journal of votes on a website to satisfy the OML’s requirements related to public access to the journal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wrote, “if the Task Force wishes to post the members’ votes on its website, it may do so, but this is not sufficient. The Task Force/Department of Commerce also must maintain a journal of the votes for anyone who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy.” (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-461873&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 21-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 21-001&lt;/a&gt;, Issue 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he Town Board recorded votes, and made records of all votes regarding the hiring of a clerk, and those minutes were open to the public. The Town and the Town Clerk do not maintain normal business hours at the Town Hall, and therefore, in accordance with Town policy, the Town makes arrangements for residents to receive and have access to minutes. Billy Ayers, and all residents of the Town, are provided access to minutes and the records of votes recorded in those minutes. By recording the votes in meeting minutes, posting the minutes to the Town’s website and having the minutes open to the public the Town complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd.’s [sic] 4 and 5.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The voting record must be “open to the public during all normal business hours where records of the public body are kept.” Here, the Board acknowledged that the Town does not maintain normal business hours where the records are kept and that it posts some meeting minutes documenting its voting record on the Board’s website. The combination of these factors frustrates both the plain language and the spirit of the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regardless of the availability of the records online, the plain language of the law requires public bodies to provide access to the voting record in the location where it is maintained. Thus, the Board did not provide appropriate access to its votes to the extent that it did not permit Ayers to access meeting minutes at the Town Hall but directed him to access meeting minutes on its website.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the OML contains various provisions that may not reflect contemporary business practices or the technology available to public bodies today. The Legislature has updated other provisions of the OML to allow some public bodies to meet certain requirements by posting information on a website. (E.g., Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 6, allows state-level public bodies to post notices online.) However, the provision at issue in this opinion has not been updated, and the Commissioner is necessarily limited to rendering an opinion based on the existing language of the law. She encourages the Legislature to review the OML for opportunities to address the practical implementation of the law to meet the current expectations and abilities of both public bodies and the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner has a note regarding a disagreement between Ayers and the Board about whether certain Board members’ work on hiring a new clerk should be documented as votes in the Board’s meeting minutes. Section 13D.01, subd. 4 requires public bodies to maintain a record of its votes only from meetings that “are required by this section to be open to the public” or “on each appropriate of money, except payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute.” To the extent that the members’ work to hire a new clerk was not required to be conducted during an open meeting under 13D, the Board is not obligated to document such work or decisions in its meeting minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Turtle Lake Township Board of Supervisors did not provide appropriate access to its votes, pursuant to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivisions 4 and 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 22, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>521741</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Townships</Title><Id>267104</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-06-21T13:35:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 22-001</Title><title>Opinion 22-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-514480&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2022-01-04T18:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a joint powers entity responded appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies as well as to a request for data about himself made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. The Commissioner determined that the entity did not respond properly to the request for a copy of its policies because the entity had not yet adopted the required access policies at the time of the request. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that the entity contacting the requester during the afternoon of the day the 10-day deadline expired to offer an opportunity to inspect data did not reasonably meet the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 3. As a result, the Commissioner opined that the entity did not respond appropriately to the data request made by a data subject. Finally, the Commissioner provided guidance on government entities’ responsibilities related to large data requests and internal procedures that consider respectful workplace policies.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 4, 2022; SouthWest Transit</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mark R. Krampf requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding SouthWest Transit’s (SWT) response to a request for a copy of the entity’s written data access policies, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, and a request to access stored public and private data about himself made pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. SWT submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 5, 2021, Krampf requested SWT to inform him whether he was the subject of stored government data. If he was the subject of stored data, Krampf further requested to inspect the data immediately or within 10 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate inspection was not possible, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 10, Krampf contacted the chair of the SouthWest Transit Commission, the governing board of SWT, to learn about the status of the request. During the conversation, the chair noted that he was not aware of whether SWT maintained a written data access policy nor did he believe he was the responsible authority for SWT. The chair informed Krampf that an employee of SWT would respond to the request to access data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 11, SWT contacted Krampf to confirm receipt of the November 5 request. Krampf then requested on November 11 and 13 that SWT provide him with its written data access policies. SWT acknowledged the requests for its policies on November 15.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At 1:45 p.m. on November 22, SWT sent Krampf an email informing him it had compiled responsive data and proposed times on November 30, December 1, and December 2 to inspect the data at its offices. Krampf promptly responded via email that the 10-day statutory deadline to provide access to the data was that day. SWT then responded by email that the data could be inspected at its offices on November 22 between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., but, if that time did not work, Krampf could inspect the data at the times previously offered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 29, SWT adopted the Commissioner’s Model Policy for the Public and Model Policy for Data Subjects, and the following day it provided Krampf with the specific links where the policies were posted on its website.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did SouthWest Transit respond appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did SouthWest Transit respond appropriately to a data request made November 5, 2021, by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, and Chaska formed SouthWest Transit as a joint powers entity in 1986 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that joint powers entities are statewide systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 18. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267653&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 95-040&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-011&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, SWT is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did SouthWest Transit respond appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, requires a government entity to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time when receiving a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025 requires a government entity’s responsible authority to prepare “a written data access policy” (subdivision 2) as well as “a written policy of the rights of data subjects under section 13.04 and the specific procedures used by the government entity for access by the data subject to public or private data on individuals” (subdivision 3). (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267246&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 04-049&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266477&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266427&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 13-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-007&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-375057&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 19-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-002&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, section 13.025, subdivision 4 requires the policies to be “easily available to the public” by distributing free copies, posting the policies in a conspicuous place within the entity, or posting the policies on the entity’s website.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Legislature codified the current language of section 13.025 in 2012. Additionally, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3 require an entity’s responsible authority to update these policies “no later than August 1 of each year.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205 also provides guidance about access procedures for members of the public and data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, SWT wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;When these requests were made, SouthWest Transit was in the midst of responding to two other requests by the requester. Given limited staff resources, SouthWest Transit did its best to respond to the requests in a timely fashion. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition, SouthWest Transit acknowledges that, due to a miscommunication and oversight, SouthWest Transit had not previously adopted the data access policies required under Minn. Stat. § 13.025. The request for access to or copies of these policies alerted SouthWest to its failure to have adopted the policies. SouthWest promptly set about to adopt the policies, specifically using the Commissioner’s model policies. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The requirement for government entities to create and maintain data access policies is long-standing. Here, SWT’s failure to create the required access policies under section 13.025 meant that it could not possibly respond appropriately to Krampf’s request for access made on November 13 nor could it point Krampf to where the policies would be “easily available” to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates SWT’s efforts to immediately comply with section 13.025 upon recognizing it had not yet adopted the required data access policies. However, SWT did not respond appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did SouthWest Transit respond appropriately to a data request made November 5, 2021, by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, subdivision 3 requires a government entity to “comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-340460&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 18-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 18-005&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner observed that “[w]hen a data subject requests access to government data about him/herself, the Data Practices Act sets a strict time limit for the entity to provide access. … Though the amount of data created and maintained by government is ever-increasing due to the transition to electronic and digital records, the strict time limit to provide access to data about data subjects remains the same.” (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267853&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 03-026 &quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 03-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267820&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-070&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-070&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267728&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner recognized in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-268014&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt; that “circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. … The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, SWT wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The deadline [to provide inspection access] was November 22, 2021. The requester appears to agree that this date was the statutory deadline. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The requester expressly asked SouthWest to search all of its stored data “from the beginning of time.” … Although SouthWest Transit is a relatively small government body, like all government bodies in the digital age, “the amount of data created and maintained by [it] is ever increasing.” … SouthWest Transit asked the requester for assistance to help narrow SouthWest Transit’s search and more quickly identify responsive data. The requester declined to provide any such assistance. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Southwest Transit notified the requester on November 22, 2021 that the requested data had been collected for inspection. … Accordingly, SouthWest Transit needed to coordinate having an employee available for the inspection. In addition, [when considering personal relationships between the requester and specific SWT staff], SouthWest Transit determined that, in the interests of the safety of its staff and property, a law enforcement officer should be on site whenever the requester is inspecting data. Accordingly, SouthWest Transit needed to coordinate with local law enforcement regarding the dates and times for potential inspection. However, when the requester objected to future dates and times, SouthWest Transit offered to make the data available for inspection on November 22, 2021. The requester chose to refuse to inspect the data on that date.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The requester later requested that the data be made available on December 16 or December 17. SouthWest Transit again needed to coordinate scheduling with both an appropriate employee and local law enforcement. SouthWest Transit proposed December 16, 2021, between 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., and asked the requester to “respond when you plan to arrive so we can have the necessary staff on site to grant you inspection access.” … [T]he requester arrived during the proposed time without any notice.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;… SouthWest Transit permitted the requester to visually inspect the data. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Accordingly, SouthWest Transit responded appropriately to a data request made November 5, 2021 by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/em&gt; [Citations throughout omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires government entities to provide access to the subject of stored data “immediately, if possible” or “&lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; ten [business] days of the date of the request.” (Emphasis added.) Based on the plain language of the law, the 10-day deadline is strict and does not provide exceptions for mitigating circumstances despite the challenges it may pose for small government entities that must search through a substantial amount of electronic and digital data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, SWT appeared to agree that it could not provide immediate access to data that Krampf requested. Therefore, it was obligated to provide him with access to the data by the end of its business day on November 22, 2021, under the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;SWT contacted Krampf in the afternoon of November 22 to schedule a time for inspection beyond the statutorily-required deadline. SWT then offered the opportunity to access the data on November 22 only after Krampf replied that the 10-day deadline expired that day. SWT’s latter response came at 3 p.m. on November 22 and offered the opportunity to inspect data from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., which presumably was the end of its business day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although it may have been possible for Krampf to inspect data on November 22, a meaningful opportunity to inspect data by the expiration of the 10-day deadline was extremely limited. The Commissioner does not believe that SWT’s same-day offer that Krampf could inspect responsive data from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on November 22 reasonably met the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 3 when considering the totality of the facts and the strict requirements of the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner’s understanding that Krampf has since been able to inspect the data about himself maintained by SWT. Nonetheless, SWT did not respond appropriately to a data request made November 5, 2021, by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has an additional note about SWT’s comments in its response regarding the number and size of these requests and “the harassing nature of the requester’s behavior.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act does not contain an exception allowing a government entity to deny access to data because a request results in a large amount of data that must be compiled and reviewed. Additionally, both &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-031&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267689&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 01-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-034&lt;/a&gt;, which SWT cites in its response when asking whether it is obligated to further respond to Krampf’s requests, contained the following disclaimer:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner wishes to make clear that the conclusion he reached in this opinion is based on a unique and very specific set of facts. The outcome is in no way intended to suggest that a government entity does not have to respond to a data request merely because responding will be costly or time-consuming.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner emphasizes that the outcomes of those opinions cannot be broadly applied, and those opinions considered specific situations where a requester, who had long-standing disputes with the entities at issue, made large requests while rarely following up to access data. Additionally, it is not within the Commissioner’s authority to determine whether particular behavior is harassing. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267500&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 03-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-046&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, these limitations — and the requirements of Chapter 13, generally — do not mean that government entities and their staff must tolerate harassing or threatening behavior from data requesters. All entities have discretion to determine how best to insulate employees from overt acts of harassment or hostility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted above, the Data Practices Act does not have a mechanism that relieves entities of their obligation to respond to a request, and all entities must have internal procedures to respond appropriately and promptly to requests. In developing these procedures, government entities may consider their respectful workplace policies and obligations to employees to prohibit harassment or other hostile and threatening acts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a final consideration, both data requesters and government entities should act reasonably, respectfully, and in good faith when requesting access to data and during the facilitation of such access. The Commissioner urges all data requesters and government entities to conduct themselves in ways that help achieve the underlying policy goals of the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;SouthWest Transit did not respond appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;SouthWest Transit did not respond appropriately to a data request made November 5, 2021, by a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 4, 2022&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>514480</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access</Title><Id>267012</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access policy</Title><Id>375058</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-10-07T16:53:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-008</Title><title>Opinion 21-008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-512379&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-12-08T21:59:37Z</Date><ShortDescription>A parent asked the Commissioner whether a school district complied with the Data Practices Act and the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) when it disclosed the parent&apos;s student&apos;s directory information to a local newspaper. The Commissioner concluded that the District did not comply with the law because the parent had opted out of directory information disclosures.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 8, 2021; ISD 51, Foley Public Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X (a pseudonym used pursuant to section 13.072, subdivision 4) requested an advisory opinion about a determination that Independent School District 51 – Foley Public Schools (District) – made regarding data about X’s student, Y, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the beginning of each school year… I provide the Superintendent of Foley Public Schools (referred to as District hereafter) with a written letter requesting non – disclosure of Directory Information (FERPA (§ 99.37(a)(2)). For your reference, I have enclosed a copy of the letter. Under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), we have submitted the request of non - disclosure.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the Benton County News newspaper…, my child’s name [Y] is listed in the Honor Roll section of the newspaper. For your reference, I have enclosed a screen capture of the Honor Roll with a pencil pointing to my child’s name. According to the District’s Policy 515 Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records, Honors and Awards Received are not listed as Directory Information.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 51, Foley, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed the name of a student on the honor roll to a local newspaper after the student opted out of directory information disclosures?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;“Educational data” are, “data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 1.) Federal law defines an “education record” as, “those records that are (1) directly related to a student; and (2) maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.” (See 34 C.F.R. 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies most data relating to students as private and incorporates the provisions of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, and its regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. (Section 13.32, subd. 1.) Both laws provide for access rights of students and their parents and privacy protections that limit access by others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Private educational data are not accessible to the public and may only be shared with individuals designated as school officials by an educational agency or institution, with the informed consent of the parents or eligible students, or with a specific authorization in law. (See 34 CFR 99.31, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0400.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Directory information is an exception to the private classification of data about students. “‘Directory information’ means information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.&quot; (See 34 CFR 99.3). Directory information may include a student’s name, address, photograph, participation in sports or activities, awards, and honors, among other data elements. Under Minnesota law, data that a school properly designates as directory information are public. (See section 13.32, subdivision 5, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267591&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-078&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267868&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-065&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267142&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-021&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Public schools may also designate certain information as limited directory information. (See 34 CFR 99.37(d) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266966&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Parents and eligible students have the right to opt out of all or part of a public school’s designation of directory information. (See 34 CFR 99.37(a).) The result of the opt-out is that designated directory information remains private data on the student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the Commissioner, the superintendent wrote on behalf of the District, “I have and continue to notify parties in our school system regarding the denial of directory information in relation to this family. The honor roll publication was an oversight at the high school level.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appreciates the District’s candor. X has opted out of all of the District’s directory information disclosures about Y. Therefore, identifiable data about Y are private data. By releasing Y’s name to the newspaper without the consent of Y’s parents, the District did not comply with the Data Practices Act and FERPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner offers the following additional comments. The Commissioner reviewed the District’s Policy 515 on the protection and privacy of pupil records. The District’s definition of “directory information” is taken directly from the FERPA regulations. It contains awards and honors (not relevant to the conclusion here, as X opted out of all disclosures about Y), but the policy also uses the phrase “includes, but is not limited to,” prior to listing the various elements that the District could designate as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The imprecise language in the District’s notice does not seem to provide parents and students with the information needed to make informed decisions about opting out of directory information disclosure. The policy seems to suggest that the District may add to the list of directory information after it provides its annual notice to parents. The Commissioner encourages the District to revisit its policy to make clear which specific data elements it has designated as directory information or limited directory information, so parents and eligible students can make informed decisions about their rights under the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
Independent School District 51, Foley, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed the name of a student on the honor roll to a local newspaper after the student opted out of directory information disclosures.
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 8, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>512379</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-08-06T14:54:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-007</Title><title>Opinion 21-007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-511344&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-11-29T15:19:31Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked the Commissioner whether data in a recording made by an employee on a personal device and uploaded to the city’s computer system was government data, subject to the Data Practices Act. If so, the city asked how such data were classified. In reviewing its own policies, the city determined that the storage of the data on government computer systems did not fall within the employee’s limited ability to use city technology for personal reasons. As a result, the Commissioner agreed with the city’s assessment that the data were government data. The Commissioner also opined that any data in the recording in which an employee is an identifiable subject are personnel data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, and any other data that are not on individuals are presumptively public unless classified by another law. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 2021; City of Golden Valley</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Golden Valley requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding whether data the City maintains is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act), and, if so, the classification of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he Police Department hosted a meeting with City Administration. The meeting was a standard weekly meeting of Police Department employees and attendance was voluntary. The Police Chief invited the City Manager, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director, and Equity and Inclusion Manager to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss an all employee email from the Human Resources Department regarding healing circle opportunities for employees and responses to that email from Police Department employees. The meeting was held virtually and approximately 23 staff members attended.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;During the meeting, staff discussed the City’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) plan as it relates to policing. … Throughout the conversation, staff referred to the discussion as an “open, honest conversation” about race equity and a “courageous conversation.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;One of the police officers in attendance (the “Officer”) recorded a video of the meeting using a personal cell phone. The recording shows the virtual meeting taking place via the City’s online meeting platform and includes employee names, video images, voice recordings, and typed chat comments. It also contains the Officer’s comments made while on mute as well as drafts of the Officer’s chat messages not shared with the group during the meeting. … The day after the meeting, the Officer uploaded the video to the City’s computer system and saved it in a folder that is accessible to all employees of the Police Department. …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The meeting was not open to the public or held in a public space. … The City did not intend to collect or maintain this data, rather, it was collected and maintained by an employee on their personal device without the knowledge, instruction, or authorization of their supervisors. Nevertheless, the data is currently maintained on the City’s computer system and the content of the recording relates to the City’s operations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are data contained in a recording made by an employee on a personal device and uploaded to a government entity’s computer system “government data” subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to the first issue is yes, what is the classification of the data in the recording?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Are data contained in a recording made by an employee on a personal device and uploaded to a government entity’s computer system “government data” subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are “all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266866&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 08-028&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-028&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that there are often situations when government employees will create government data using a personal device while acting in an official capacity. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267413&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 12-019&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-019&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267561&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 01-075&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;, Commissioner also recognized that specific data maintained by a government entity may be personal data, rather than government data, and not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. In considering such a scenario, the Commissioner stated, “What constitutes these personal data depends on what the [government entity] has authorized for personal use. Any such personal data are not government data because … the employee did not create them in her/his capacity as a government employee, and the purpose of the data is not related to the operation of government.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the City wrote that its “computer use policies permit employees to make limited use of city-owned technology for personal matters.” Specifically, the City&apos;s policies state, “&lt;em&gt;Outside of work time&lt;/em&gt;, employees may occasionally use the City’s technology for personal email, social media, and web browsing.” (Emphasis added.) The City’s policies also state that “[a]ll … documents, messages, files, data, postings, and other items received, sent, or created using City equipment is the property of the City.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In this case, the data was created on a personal device but currently exists on servers maintained and owned by the City. The employee created the data in their capacity as an employee and the data relates to the operation of government. Furthermore, the employee would not have had access to the data but for their employment. Accordingly, it is the City’s position that the data is government data notwithstanding the fact that it was recorded on a personal device.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the City. In assessing its own policies, the City has determined that the storage of the recording on its computer systems does not fall within the employee’s permitted ability “to make limited use of city-owned technology for personal matters.” Additionally, the City determined the employee was acting in an official capacity when creating the data, such data relate to the City’s operations, and the City is currently maintaining the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a result, the data contained in the recording made by the City’s employee using their personal device and maintained on the City computer systems are government data subject to the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; If the answer to the first issue is yes, what is the classification of the data in the recording?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data on individuals maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that data that are not about an employee but about the work of government are not personnel data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267577&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 02-003 &quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 02-003&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-421826&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 20-003&quot;&gt;20-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner has stated that Chapter 13 generally classifies data elements, not entire documents. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267558&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 05-033&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 05-033&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267001&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 12-006&quot;&gt;12-006&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267728&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 14-006&quot;&gt;14-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request to the Commissioner, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Officer created the recording in their capacity as an employee of the City, all of the individuals in the recording are City employees, the meeting was hosted by the Police Chief, and the content of the recording relates to employee work in the Police Department and the operation of government. Therefore, it is the City’s position that the recording was retained because the individuals in the recording are employees of the City. … It is the City’s position that … the recording is private personnel data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner did not review any of the data in question. The City will need to review the recording to determine whether specific data elements contained within the recording are classified as not public by Chapter 13 or any other applicable law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Any data within the recording in which an employee is the identifiable subject are personnel data, pursuant to section 13.43. The City’s descriptions of data in the recording, such as employees’ individual comments and discussions that City staff described as “an ‘open, honest conversation’ about race equity and a ‘courageous conversation,’” suggests that some of it may be personnel data classified as private under section 13.43, subdivision 4. To the extent that the recording contains personnel data that are classified as public under subdivision 2, the City is obligated to provide access to such data, upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Other data elements that are not about individuals and not classified under Chapter 13 or any other law would be presumptively public, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data contained in a recording made by an employee in their official capacity on a personal device and uploaded to a government entity&apos;s computer system are &quot;government data&quot; subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Based on the City of Golden Valley&apos;s descriptions, any data in the recording in which an employee is the identifiable subject are personnel data classified by 13.43. Any other data not on individuals are presumptively public, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, unless classified by another law.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 29, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>511344</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data</Title><Id>266902</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:12:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-006</Title><title>Opinion 21-006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-503583&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-10-21T17:51:09Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked the Commissioner whether a County Sheriff’s Office responded appropriately to a data request, and a request for a “short description explaining the necessity” for a security information classification pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37. The Commissioner concluded that the Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to the data request, as the response was ambiguous and did not properly indicate whether responsive data existed. The Commissioner also concluded that the Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to section 13.37.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 21, 2021; Aitkin County Sheriff&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.     
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Amanda Eubanks, on behalf of the Center for Protest Law &amp;amp; Litigation (CPLL), asked for an advisory opinion regarding CPLL’s right to gain access to data from the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The Sheriff’s Office submitted comments in response to CPLL’s advisory opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 26, 2021, CPLL submitted a data request to the Sheriff’s Office, which included requests for the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All records reflecting communications, notes of discussions or meetings, and/or any correspondence involving R.H. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All records reflecting communications, notes of discussion or meetings, and/or any correspondence involving T.K., including but not limited to, any emails involving a T.K.’s email address.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 27, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office responded to CPLL’s data request. In response to request number 1 above, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[w]e have no public data documents regarding this bullet despite a meeting with [R.H.]”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to request number 2 above, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “We have four emails from that address and two of them are Security Data and not public per state MN statue [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;]. No other PUBLIC data that you request exists except for your request, which would be redundant to include. I will cut and paste the emails below.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;CPLL sent a follow up email to the Sheriff’s Office requesting the statutory citation for any not public data withheld. The Sheriff’s Office indicated it withheld not public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;CPLL sent an additional follow up to the to the Sheriff’s Office to confirm whether responsive data exists related to the first request above. CPLL further requested an explanation for the necessity of the security data classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subd. 2(b). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Sheriff’s Office responded, stating, “I feel my first email is clearly written and apologize you are having a tough time understanding it. I am extremely busy and if time allows I will consider another response, but I do feel I have responded with the requirements of the law.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to follow up communications, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[t]here is no data, public, private, or otherwise in the regards to [a portion of the data request not addressed in this advisory opinion]….The security data has security information contained in the email. (about operations) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;].”&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and a specified individual?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and a specified individual?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267452&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-033&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed appropriate responses to data requests, and stated, “[u]pon receipt of a request for access to government data under Chapter 13, the entity must either provide the requestor with access to the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267353&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-030&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner stated, “it is important for government entities to be clear and unambiguous in their communications regarding data practices requests.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Sheriff’s Office responded to request number 1 indicating there was no responsive public data. In additional communications, it was unclear whether there was responsive not public data, or whether no responsive data existed. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;At the time of CPLL’s advisory opinion request, the Sheriff’s Office had not provided further clarification or confirmation about the existence of additional responsive data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the comments submitted to the Commissioner, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[a]s I attempted to convey to the requestor, we have no data or correspondence other than what was provided [for request number 2], and a security document that was not related to the account.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the Sheriff’s Office’s comments, it appears there was no responsive data to CPLL’s request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and the individual identified in request number 1. The Sheriff’s Office’s initial response did not fully convey that to CPLL and was ambiguous. Therefore, the County did not properly respond to CPLL’s first request. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office properly respond to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies all government data as public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), defines security information as: &quot;government data the disclosure of which the responsible authority determines would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.” Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2 may not be employed as a blanket classification. Government entities must evaluate the application of the security information classification on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner has noted that when government entities exercise this discretion, they must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would “likely lead to substantial jeopardy.” (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267810&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267835&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-014&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2(b) states, “[i]f a government entity denies a data request based on a determination that the data are security information, upon request, the government entity must provide a short description explaining the necessity for the classification.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the Sheriff’s Office indicated two emails that were responsive to CPLL’s second request above contained security information. CPLL subsequently requested an explanation of the necessity for the security information classification. Initially the Sheriff’s Office did not provide the requested explanation. In subsequent communications, the Sheriff’s Office stated, “[t]he security data has security information contained in the email. (about operations) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;].”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The statement provided by the Sheriff’s Office suggests that the email contains security information “about operations.” CPLL asserts that the Sheriff’s Office did not properly respond to its request for a short description explaining the necessity of the security information classification. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with CPLL. Section 13.37, subdivision 2(b) requires government entities to provide a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” upon request. Here, the Sheriff’s Office reiterated that it considered the data “security information” and stated the data are “about operations.” It is the Commissioner’s opinion that this statement does not meet the requirements of section 13.37, subdivision 2(b). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Sheriff’s Office’s statement identifies a topic (“operations”) but does not include a description that explains why the security information classification is necessary. Merriam-Webster defines “explain” as “to make plain or understandable” or “to give the reason for or cause of.” The Commissioner believes a short description that sufficiently explains the necessity for the security information would make plain and provide reasons for such classification to help requesters understand why public disclosure of the information would be “likely to lead to substantial jeopardy.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Sheriff’s Office’s response that the data are “about operations” does not sufficiently make plain or provide reasons that would help the requester understand the necessity of the security information classification. As a result, the Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to CPPL’s request for the short description required by section 13.37, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the Sheriff’s Office copied and pasted the contents of the two responsive public emails in its response to CPLL’s request, rather than providing a copy of the public data to the requester. As discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-411892&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 19-013&lt;/a&gt;, “where the data are public, the requester is entitled to access in the format and program in which it is maintained.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office’s did not respond appropriately to CPLL’s request for all data reflecting correspondence or meetings between the Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office and a specified individual, as the Sheriff’s Office’s response was ambiguous and did not properly indicate whether responsive data existed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Aitkin County Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to a request for a “short description explaining the necessity for the classification” after withholding responsive data as “security information” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 21, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>503583</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-25T02:23:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-005</Title><title>Opinion 21-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-486128&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-06-21T16:05:46Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked the Commissioner about the classification of data that the district maintained about teachers who attended a professional development program offered by the District. The Commissioner concluded that the data that identified the teachers that attended the program constituted “work-related continuing education” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(7), and were therefore public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 21, 2021; ISD 186, Pequot Lakes Public Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.     
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Maggie Wallner, legal counsel for Independent School District 186 – Pequot Lakes Public Schools – (District), requested an advisory opinion about the classification of certain government data the District maintains, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District offered a professional development opportunity to staff through the SEED Project (“SEED”), a national organization that works with schools to promote equity and social justice. (See nationalseedproject.org). Participation in the course was voluntary and entailed one evening session per month for nine months. Participating teachers earned up to three graduate credits to be applied to their lane on the salary schedule, or alternately could opt to receive payment of up to $1500 for completion of the program. Participating teachers could also choose to apply for continuing education units (“CEUs”).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District has received a data request from a parent requesting a list of staff that have participated in SEED, with an expressed intent to request a teacher for next year that has not participated in the program. The School District maintains data that would be responsive to this request. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, maintained by Independent School District 186 – Pequot Lakes Public Schools – about District employees who participated in a professional development course offered by the District?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivisions 2 and 3 list the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. One of the public elements listed in subdivision 2 is, “work-related continuing education.” (See, section 13.43. subd. 2(a)(7).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;After proposing and refuting the argument that the data at issue could be “education and training background,” pursuant to section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(2), the District wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The other potentially applicable exception is “work-related continuing education.” Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(7). This phrase is not defined and there do not appear to be any cases or Advisory Opinions interpreting it. Although the staff were able to receive CEU credit for their participation in SEED, the program was not required as part of their work. Moreover, it is unclear whether this exception requires specific course titles to be public data, as opposed to total number of credits or general topics.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On balance, the School District concludes that this data would most likely fit within the “work-related continuing education” exception and be classified as public data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the District. Though “work-related continuing education” is not defined by the Data Practices Act, a plain language interpretation would include data about the program at issue here. The District offered the SEED Project to District employees as an educational program related to their job duties in the District. The District characterized the SEED Project as “a professional development opportunity,” offered to pay teachers to attend, and provided other benefits like continuing education credits and graduate credits for salary schedule lane changes. Therefore, data that the District maintains that identify the teacher(s) who participated in the SEED Project are public work-related continuing education data, pursuant to section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data maintained by Independent School District 186 – Pequot Lakes Public Schools – that identify District employees who participated in a professional development course offered by the District are public work-related continuing education data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 1(a)(7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis; 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 21, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>486128</id><pubdate>2022-02-03T15:03:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-004</Title><title>Opinion 21-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-481436&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-05-07T21:05:41Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked for recordings of a township board of supervisors meetings closed for labor negotiations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03. The Board argued that members voted to post the recordings to the Township website and to make them available upon request, but it was unclear from the facts whether the Board actually made the recordings available. The Commissioner opined that the Board members did not comply if they did not make the recordings “available” to the public after it had signed all of the contracts for the current budget period.  </ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 2021; Windemere Town Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.    
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Vern C. Anderson asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Windemere Town Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board’s legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Anderson provided a summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On February 13, 2020[,] township supervisors signed a contract with I.U.O.E.-Local 49….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In 2019, the Windemere township supervisors held several special/closed meetings. I submit below a list of three of the special/closed meetings and the circumstances of each. These special/closed meetings require prior public notice, as well as a statement at a prior open public meeting as to the purpose for the special/closed meeting, a recorded vote at a prior open meeting, and audio recordings of the subsequent special/closed meetings. The violation of Minnesota Statues 13D.03 comes to light when the supervisors refuse to make the audio recordings available to the public after the subject union contract has been signed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On January 29, 2021, I made a formal request for the required audio recordings of three special/closed meetings…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As of this date, March 19, 2021, the township clerk and chairman have not responded to my January 29, 2021, request to make the audio recordings of the above listed special/closed meeting available.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Have the Windemere Town Board members complied with the requirement to make recordings of meetings closed for labor negotiations in 2019 and 2020 available to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. One exception is for meetings to consider strategy for labor negotiations. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03.) The public body must record these closed meetings and the recordings “shall be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and shall be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the current budget period.” (Section 13D.03, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Minn. Stat.§ 13D.03, subd. 2(a) requires governmental bodies to tape-record the proceedings of a meeting closed to discuss labor negotiations, and subpart (b) requires that such recordings be made available to the public after the subject contract is signed. The Town is aware of five special meetings at which labor negotiations were discussed in closed session during 2019-2020. Those meetings were held on May 16, 2019, July 9, 2019, August 1, 2019, September 5, 2019, and January 2, 2020. The Town is in possession of tape-recordings of the August 1, 2019, September 5, 2019, and January 2, 2020, closed sessions. At its regular meeting in January 2020, the Town Board approved a motion to post these recordings to the Town&apos;s website. Though this was delayed, in part due to a newly elected, inexperienced Town Clerk, the recordings have been posted on the Town&apos;s website. The recordings are also accessible by the public by contacting the Town Clerk, who is in possession of the recordings and can set an appointment at which a member of the public can come to the Town Hall and listen to the recordings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the foregoing, it is clear the Town Board has complied with Minn. Stat.§ 13D.03, subd. 2(b) by voting in January 2020 to post all tape-recordings of closed meetings wherein labor negotiations were discussed on its website and subsequently posting said recordings to the public website. The Town Board cannot post tape-recordings it does not have.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the record, it is unclear when the Board posted the recordings to its website. The Board signed the contract related to the closed meetings at issue in February of 2020. The Board stated that it voted at the January 2020 regular meeting to make the recordings available by posting them to its website and upon request to the town clerk. (The Commissioner notes that voting to make the recordings available does not satisfy the requirement to make the recordings available.) The Board further stated that access to the recordings through the website was delayed due to a change in personnel. A new town clerk started in January of 2021 – 11 months after the Board and the union signed the contract. Presumably, the recordings were not available on the website until after the new clerk started and posted them. Until the recordings were made available on the website, availability would have been by request only.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Anderson made his request for the recordings on January 29, 2021. He did not receive a response from the chair or the clerk. If Anderson made the request during the time when the recordings were not available on the website, the Board did not comply with the OML because it did not make the recordings available to the public. If the Board posted the recordings on the website prior to Anderson’s request, then the Board complied with the obligation to make the recordings available. (Anderson asked for access to the recordings for several meetings, one of which was November 13, 2019. However, that meeting seems to have been open to the public. The OML does not require public bodies to record public meetings.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that the OML does not mandate how public bodies make recordings “available” to the public. Public bodies may decide how best to implement the requirement once the condition of section 13D.03, subd. 2 is met (i.e., all contracts are signed for the current budget period). Posting the recordings on a website or providing access upon request certainly satisfies the requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board also indicated that it failed to record two meetings closed for labor negotiations in 2019 and 2020. Though those two meetings were not a part of Anderson’s request, the Commissioner reminds the Board that the OML requires public bodies to record closed meetings. The Town also has obligations under the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 and the Records Management Statute, Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, to create and maintain records that document its official business. Further, by failing to record these two meetings, the Board did not meet the requirements in Section 13D.03 to maintain the recordings for a minimum of two years and make them available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner reiterates that non-metro townships’ obligations under the OML are critical because they are not “government entities” subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). The OML is one of the few mechanisms available to the public to obtain records from non-metro town governments. The Commissioner encourages all public bodies to provide meaningful access to information as mandated by the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Windemere Town Board of Supervisors did not post the recordings of meetings closed for labor negotiations to its website, provide access on request, or otherwise make them available, it did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subd. 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the Windemere Town Board of Supervisors posted the recordings to their website at the time of the request for recordings, it complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subd. 2(b) because the requested recordings were “available to the public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 7, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>481436</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Record of meeting</Title><Id>266389</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor negotiations</Title><Id>266350</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law (Ch.13D / 471.075) (See also: Public Meetings)</Title><Id>266764</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-02T18:55:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-003</Title><title>Opinion 21-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-476951&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-04-19T18:54:27Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the conduct of a School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the School Board attended a meeting in person, while members of the public were limited to remote attendance. The Commissioner determined that the School Board did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, specifically noting that there is currently not a mechanism in the Open Meeting Law to hold an in-person meeting while restricting public attendance to remote monitoring. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 19, 2021; ISD 2142, St. Louis County Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.   
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Marshall Helmberger requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the ISD 2142 – St. Louis County Schools – School Board (School Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Commissioner did not receive comments from the School Board in response to Mr. Helmberger’s opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Helmberger stated,  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On March 24, 2020, the school district announced in its meeting notice: “Meeting closed to the public due to COVID-19 pandemic and declared state of emergency.” The meeting notice included no call-in information for the public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the March 24, 2020 meeting, the school board approved a motion that meetings would be held virtually for the foreseeable future, specifically citing Minn. Stat. 13D.021 as the justification for this action. A portion of that motion reads: “In accordance with MN Statutes 13D.021, members of the public are not permitted to attend future meetings of the school board until further notice due to the current health pandemic.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In subsequent agendas continuing to the present, the school district’s meeting notices have listed call-in information and indicated that meetings remain closed to the public due to the pandemic and declared emergency.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;He further indicated that at meetings held on September 22, 2020, November 24, 2020, January 5, 2021, and January 26, 2021, “four members of the seven-member board were in attendance, along with the superintendent and the business manager.” And that, “based on the official minutes of the school district…the St. Louis County School Board held an in-person meeting, and has been holding such meetings routinely, without allowing the public physical access to those meetings.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Helmberger argued that, “the Legislature did not intend for Minn. Stat. 13D.021 to be used in such a manner…For the district to invoke its right to hold meetings electronically and then primarily meet in-person, while limiting access to the public to electronic means only, is a gross violation of both the letter and the intent of this provision.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the St. Louis County School Board comply with the OML requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 during meetings held on September 22, 2020, November 24, 2020, January 5, 2021, and January 26, 2021, when a quorum of the School Board attended the meetings in person while members of the public were limited to attending remotely?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a school district is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;‘Meetings’ subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies...This includes meetings at which information is received which may influence later decisions of such bodies.” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Public bodies required to comply with the OML must still do so during a state of an emergency. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, subdivision 1 permits public bodies to hold meetings via telephone or other electronic means if they meet the conditions of that section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.021 requires a public body to determine that an in-person meeting is “not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12.” Additional requirements for holding a meeting via telephone or other electronic means include: all participating members can hear one another; members of the public at the physical meeting location can hear all discussion “unless attendance at the regular meeting location is not feasible due to the health pandemic”; at least one member of the public body is present at the meeting location, “unless unfeasible due to the health pandemic”; and all votes are taken by roll call. (Section 13D.021, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.021, subdivision 3 further requires that “to the extent practical,” public bodies shall allow the public to monitor the meeting remotely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Mr. Helmberger provided a copy of meeting minutes from the School Board’s March 24, 2020, meeting, which stated all members voted in favor of the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Due to the current federal and state emergency declarations and guidance about limiting person-to-person contact due to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, all future meetings of the St. Louis County Schools ISD 2142 school board will be held at the District Office located at 1701 North 9th Avenue, Virginia, Minnesota and will be conducted in accordance with MN Statutes 13D.021 – Meetings by Telephone or Other Electronic Means until further notice.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Consistent with the federal and state guidance, the board chair has determined that an in-person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the current health pandemic.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Due to the health pandemic, it may not be feasible for at least one board member, the superintendent, or the school district’s legal counsel to be physically present at the regular meeting location. It is also not feasible for the public to attend at the regular meeting location due to the health pandemic.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In accordance with MN Statutes 13D.021, members of the public are not permitted to attend future meetings of the school board until further notice due to the current health pandemic. The public may monitor meetings from a remote location via Google Hangouts at meet.google.com/uwy-mdmm-hnv.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, Mr. Helmberger noted that despite the School Board’s March 24 determination, a quorum of the School Board members attended the September 22, 2020, November 24, 2020, January 5, 2021, and January 26, 2021, meetings in person while members of the public were limited to monitoring the meetings remotely. Mr. Helmberger provided copies of the minutes from each of these meetings, which documented the in-person or virtual attendance of each School Board member.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;He argued that the School Board “is citing the current health emergency as rationale to invoke Minn. Stat. 13D.021, under which the school district is allowed to hold meetings by telephone or other electronic means because it has determined that ‘in-person meetings’ are not ‘practical or prudent.” And that, “[b]ased on the plain meaning of this statute, an ‘in-person’ meeting…would be a physical meeting of a quorum of a governing body, which would normally be open to physical access by the public under the OML.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Helmberger. As discussed above, &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; indicates that a meeting consists of a gathering of a quorum of a public body. In order for public bodies to hold a meeting via telephone or other electronic means under Section 13D.021, it must first determine that “an in-person meeting … is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12.” In other words, Section 13D.021, subdivision 1 requires public bodies to determine that it is not practical or prudent for “a quorum or more members of the governing body” to hold an in-person gathering, “at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d at 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a quorum of the members gathered in person to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to official business, the School Board contradicted its prior determination that in-person meetings are not practical or prudent. As a result, the School Board did not meet the first requirement to hold meetings via telephone or other electronic means under Section 13D.021.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that there is currently not a mechanism in the OML for public body members to hold in-person meetings while limiting public attendance to electronic monitoring. Section 13D.021 permits telephone or electronic meetings of public bodies during a health pandemic or Chapter 12 emergency, meaning that a quorum of a public body that intends to gather in order to discuss, decide, or receive information related to public business under this section must do so via telephone or other electronic means.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The School Board did not comply with the OML when a quorum of the public body held in-person meetings on September 22, 2020, November 24, 2020, January 5, 2021, and January 26, 2021, while the public was limited to remote attendance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April 19, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>476951</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone meeting</Title><Id>362507</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public meetings (see also: Open Meetings Law)</Title><Id>266641</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law (Ch.13D / 471.075) (See also: Public Meetings)</Title><Id>266764</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13D.021</Title><Id>476954</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>remote meeting</Title><Id>476953</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Other electronic means, meetings</Title><Id>476952</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:11:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-002</Title><title>Opinion 21-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-462988&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-01-13T20:16:53Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public made a data request to a school district. She requested a copy of the recording of a school district open meeting. The school district denied access to the recording, indicating the recording contained discussions of allegations against school district personnel. The Commissioner could not determine whether the school district properly responded to the public data request because there was a factual dispute as to the purpose for the school district’s maintenance of the recording, and whether the school district maintained more than one copy of the recording for separate purposes.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 13, 2021; ISD 197, West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.  
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Krista Porvaznik requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding Independent School District 197’s (District) – West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools – response to a request for data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). Michael J. Waldspurger, counsel, responded on behalf of the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On July 24, 2020, Ms. Porvaznik submitted a data request to the District, which included a request for “the recording of the Public Comments portion of the June 15th School Board Meeting.” After communications between the parties, the District responded to the request by stating that during the public comment session, “some community members began making allegations against district employees” and that “[t]o the extent that the recording of the meeting consists of allegations against any district employee, the recording is classified as private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43 and may not be released to the public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 197, West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools, properly respond to a request for a copy of the public comments portion of the June 15, 2020, ISD 197 School Board Meeting recording?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data on individuals maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and therefore not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the Open Meeting Law (OML) requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a school district is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).) Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c) states, “data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.” The OML does not require public bodies to record meetings that are open to the public. Public bodies may determine what record(s) of a meeting they will create, and further, what they will consider the official record of the meeting that they must continue to maintain. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;There are two Minnesota Supreme Court cases that discuss how the purpose for maintaining data and the location where data are maintained impact the classification of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;KSTP TV&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed the classification of video recordings from Metro Transit buses, and whether the recordings were classified as personnel data. The recordings were originally maintained on the bus hard drives for multiple purposes, including safety-related reasons. However, after an incident, Metro Transit downloaded the recordings from the hard drives onto DVDs to evaluate bus driver conduct. The classification of the video ultimately depended upon whether the recordings was “‘maintained’ by Metro Transit exclusively for a personnel purpose at the time KSTP made its request to access the data.” (&lt;em&gt;KSTP TV v. Metropolitan Council&lt;/em&gt;, 884 NW 2d 342, 350 (Minn. 2016).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court analyzed a situation where a single government entity maintained duplicate data in separate locations for separate purposes. (See &lt;em&gt;Harlow v. State Dept. of Human Services&lt;/em&gt;, 883 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 2016).) In its opinion, the Court concluded that personnel data that are public per section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), remain public even though the same data are classified as confidential during an active maltreatment investigation under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3. (See &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt; at 568.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court did not address the interaction of Section 13.43 and the OML. However, the Court’s conclusion in &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt; demonstrates how data may be classified as public for one purpose and not public for another when the data are maintained in two separate locations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the District states, “[t]he video recording of the public comment session contains general allegations against three high school administrators. To the extent that the recording of the meeting contains allegations against any identifiable employee, including a small group of employees, the recording is classified as private personnel data.” The Commissioner disagrees. The classification of the recording depends on the purpose for maintaining the recording, and whether the recording is maintained in more than one location.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, although unclear, it appears that the District only maintains one copy of the meeting recording, if that is so, the &lt;em&gt;KSTP TV&lt;/em&gt; case is most applicable. The data Ms. Porvaznik requested is a recording of the public comments portion of an open meeting held by the school board. The plain language of the OML is clear, a record of an open meeting, regardless of form, is public. The OML only requires the District to record closed meetings. If the District chooses to record its open meetings and continues to maintain these meeting recordings for this original purpose (as a recording of an open meeting), the recordings of the open meetings are public. As a result, if the District continued to maintain the recording as a record of the open meeting at the time of Ms. Porvaznik’s data request, rather than exclusively for personnel purposes, the recording was still being maintained as a record of the meeting and would be public pursuant to 13D.05, subdivision 1(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, if the District placed the recording in an employee’s “personnel file” or maintained the meeting recording exclusively for personnel purposes at the time of Ms. Porvaznik’s request, then the data maintained about that employee would be personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the District maintains multiple copies of the meeting recording, &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt; provides additional guidance on the classification of data when maintained in two separate locations for different purposes. If the recording of the meeting exists both as a record of the meeting and in the personnel files or for personnel purposes of the employees discussed at the meeting, the copy of the recording that exists as a record of the meeting would be public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, the District asserts that “a record of the meeting” means meeting minutes. The Commissioner disagrees that a record of a meeting is limited to meeting minutes. If the Legislature had intended only meeting minutes to be public, the Legislature could have used the phrase “meeting minutes” instead of “a record of a meeting, regardless of form.” To the extent a public body maintains multiple records of a meeting, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), makes them public so long as the records of the meetings continue to be maintained for that purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The comments provided do not definitively indicate why or how the District maintains the recording or whether there are multiple recordings. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the District responded appropriately to Ms. Porvaznik’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner would like to note that Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c) only applies to open meetings, where the public will already have access to the discussions that take place at the open meeting. If a recording of a public meeting is not the public body’s official record, it is not required to continue to maintain the recording for that purpose. The classification of recordings of closed meetings are discussed in Advisory Opinion 10-001. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the District properly responded to Ms. Porvaznik’s data request, as there are questions of fact the Commissioner is unable to resolve.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lenora Madigan  
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 12, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>462988</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Record of meeting</Title><Id>266389</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public comments</Title><Id>266291</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:11:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 21-001</Title><title>Opinion 21-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-461873&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2021-01-03T14:42:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked about the conduct of the West Lakeland Township Board of Supervisors under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The member of the public raised four issues including the requirement to maintain a journal of votes, special meeting notice requirements, members’ materials, and discussions at special meetings. The Commissioner opined that the Board was not complying with the law because it did not keep a separate journal of the votes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4. The Commissioner opined that the Board did not comply with the law when it changed the location of a meeting without providing the three day notice required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. The Commissioner could not determine whether the Board complied with the requirements to provide one copy of the members’ materials at a meeting because there was a factual dispute. Finally, the Commissioner could not determine whether the Board had a discussion outside of the noticed purpose of a special meeting because there was a factual dispute as to whether the item the Board discussed was related to the stated purpose.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 3, 2021; West Lakeland Town Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2021, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 4, related to a journal of votes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Vincent Anderson asked for an advisory opinion regarding the West Lakeland Town Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Viet-Hanh Winchell, attorney for the Board, provided comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Anderson asked about four instances of the Board members’ conduct related to the OML. A summary of the circumstances, as described by Mr. Anderson, are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Journal of votes: “[e]nclosed is a copy of my request for the journal of votes and the town clerk&apos;s response that the journal of votes does not exist.”&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Special meeting notice: &quot;At various times, the board has moved the meeting location without the required notice. This could be changing rooms at the school to finding the school closed and deciding to meet somewhere else. Under Minnesota Statute 13D.04 Subd. 2 paragraph (b), I have requested to be notified of all special meetings/ changed locations….The particular meeting I am questioning, providing evidence on and enclosing a copy of the minutes of is a June 10, 2019 meeting that was moved without timely notice.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&quot;The treasurer each month at the monthly meeting presents and discusses financial reports to the board and presents required checks together with the applicable invoices to be signed by the chairman. The chairman does sign them at the meeting in company of the other board members. At times, there is not a public copy of the financial report and there has never been a public copy of the individual disbursements. … There were no financial reports available to the public at the regular [meeting]… September 9, 2019. Copies of the invoices with approvals and checks to be signed were not available to the public.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Special meeting purpose: “The particular meeting I am asking for an opinion on is that of September 2nd, 2020. Attached is a copy of the meeting notice and minutes of that meeting. You should note only 2 items were in the meeting notice. I have highlighted on the minutes additional topics that were discussed.”&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the West Lakeland Town Board members in compliance with the requirement in the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML), to maintain a journal of votes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML when it changed the location of the June 10, 2019, regular meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML requirement to have at least one copy of members’ materials available to the public at the September 9, 2019, meeting of the Board, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML when it held a special meeting on September 2, 2020, to discuss, “future virtual meetings and Lake Elmo Airport projects&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Are the West Lakeland Town Board members in compliance with the requirement in the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML), to maintain a journal of votes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) The vote of each member must be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute. (See, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivisions 4.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Anderson requested access to the journal of votes, the town clerk responded that the Board did not keep a journal of votes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The journal of votes is a journal or booklet of the minutes. The Town Clerk specifically maintains separate binders that hold all meeting minutes from July 1950 to the present. The meeting minutes reflect all actions taken by the Town Board along with summaries of nonaction items for each meeting….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Anderson believes “journal of votes” to mean a separate book that keeps track of only action items and that tallies up the voting. Certainly, that type of documentation does not exist. Although the Town Clerk responded that a journal of votes did not exist, it was a mistaken belief that what Mr. Anderson was looking for was a separate book that keeps track of only action items and that tallies up the voting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the Commissioner recently opined in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-416185&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 20-001&quot;&gt;20-001&lt;/a&gt;, “[t]he Board’s comments focusing on meeting minutes here are misplaced. The Board has an obligation to maintain a journal of votes and to provide access to the journal of votes, during all normal business hours where the journal is kept.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;“Journal” is not defined by the OML. As such, the Commissioner turns to the common usage of the word. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08). Considering the context of subdivision 4, Merriam-Webster defines “journal” as, “a record of current transactions”; “an account of day-to-day events”; “a record of transactions kept by a deliberative or legislative body”; “log.” In addition, section 13D.04, subdivisions 3 and 4 specifically refer to “minutes,” whereas section 13D.01, subd. 4, refers to a “journal of votes.” In distinguishing between a “journal of votes” and “minutes,” the Commissioner must conclude that the Legislature intended the “journal of votes” to differ from “minutes.” It is, therefore, the Commissioner’s opinion that section 13D.01, subd. 4(a) requires public bodies to maintain a journal votes that is separate and distinct from any meeting minutes they also produce. (See also, Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 08-034&quot;&gt;08-034&lt;/a&gt;, Issue 3, concluding that posting on a website is not sufficient for access to the journal of votes.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a related issue, both the requester and Board raised the question of which votes need to be recorded in the journal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Minnesota Statute § 13D.01, subdivision 4(a) is related to action items of the town board and has no specific requirement that each board member’s vote be recorded. Subdivision 4(b) is related to action items related to appropriation of money, which does have a specific requirement that each board member’s vote be recorded, in essence, a roll call vote. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Attorney General answered this question in an opinion from 1975, reaffirming a conclusion from a prior opinion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In Op. Atty. Gen. 471-e, Sept. 18, 1962, it was held that this provision makes it mandatory that the individual vote of each council member on all types of matters be recorded.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the vote recording provisions of Minn. Stat. sec. 471.705 (1974) require that the individual votes of public officials on “any action” be recorded in a journay [sic] except for votes on “payments of judgments, claims and amounts fixed by statute.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Op. Atty. Gen. 125a-14, Feb. 28, 1975. The Commissioner agrees; the Board must include the votes of each member of the public body on any action, “except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML when it changed the location of the June 10, 2019, regular meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.04, subd. 1, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A schedule of the regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this section for a special meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Public bodies must post notices for special meetings three days prior to the meeting. The notice must list the time, date, location, and purpose. The public body must also notify those individuals who have specifically asked for special meeting notice. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Town wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he Town was locked out of its usual place for its regular Town Board meeting. The Town Board and staff took all necessary measures to handle the last minute change, which was merely 0.8 miles down the same road and even had the Deputy Clerk wait at the usual meeting place for nearly half an hour to direct anyone coming for the meeting to go to the church. The Town Board needed to address the public hearing or face other consequences related to the 60-day rule. The Town Board did not violate the OML and did what was reasonably necessary to address the lock out, which was not its fault, in order to conduct town business that needed to be addressed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that public bodies have multiple obligations to consider when holding meetings. Here, however, the OML does not contain an exception to the notice provisions based on the Board’s competing obligation under a public hearing provision. The Board had a regular meeting scheduled and changed the location. The OML requires meetings under those circumstances to be noticed as special meetings, which requires a three-day posting and notice to individuals who have specifically requested notice. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a practical matter, if closures of the regular meeting location tend to occur with frequency, the Board may want to reconsider the location, as it seems to put Board members in the position of choosing either to  violate the OML or forgo scheduled meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML requirement to have at least one copy of members’ materials available to the public at the September 9, 2019, meeting of the Board, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.01, subd. 6, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) available in the meeting room to all members;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Anderson contends that the Board did not make available certain financial documents that the Board considered at its September 9, 2019, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Town responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the regular Town Board meeting, the Treasurer provides a financial report, receipts, a listing of disbursements, and checks. The Treasurer generally does not provide these in advance, rather she brings them to the meeting. The Treasurer always places one public copy of the financial report on the back table and also clearly marks it as “Public Copy, DO NOT REMOVE” or similar language.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On September 9, 2019, the Treasurer appeared late at the Town Board meeting because she first went to Baytown’s regular monthly board meeting. She is also the treasurer for Baytown Township. ….On September 9, 2019, upon her entry, she placed a copy of the financial report on the back table with the public copies and then proceeded to the front to provide the remaining copies to the Town Board for consideration. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Such document is not required to be provided in advance unless the Town Board had access in advance. At the time the Town Board had a copy of the financial report, so did the public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot resolve factual issues. If the treasurer distributed the financial documents at the meeting and then, also made them available to the public, then the Board complied with the law. If the materials were not available, then the Board did not comply with the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Anderson also contends that the unsigned checks should be made available to the public at an open meeting. The Board responded that the checks are not subject to section 13D.01, subd. 6, because they are the result of an action and “not a meeting item.” If the checks are not distributed before or at the meeting to all members or available to all members in the meeting room, then the OML does not require a copy of the checks to be in the public members’ materials. The Commissioner further notes that while there may be nonpublic data on a check that must be redacted (e.g., Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37 classifies checking account numbers), there are likely public data on checks, as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the West Lakeland Town Board members comply with the OML when it held a special meeting on September 2, 2020, to discuss, “future virtual meetings and Lake Elmo Airport projects”?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted in the requirements for Issue 2, special meeting notices require a purpose for the meeting and the public body must confine its discussion to that purpose. (See section 13D.04, subd. 2 and Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267582&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-057&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267288&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 07-024&quot;&gt;07-024&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 10-013&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-379354&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 19-006&quot;&gt;19-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board provided the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The purpose for this meeting, as clearly noted in the meeting notice, was to address: (1) future virtual meetings; and (2) update board on airport projects. It should be noted that Mr. Anderson was not in attendance at this meeting and is merely comparing the meeting notice to the meeting minutes, albeit, incorrectly.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Paragraph 3 discusses drainage issues and permit issues which is directly related to “Lake Elmo Airport project.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Paragraph 4 discusses potholes on 30th Street which is part of the “Lake Elmo Airport project.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Paragraph 5 discusses availability for the Joint Airport Zoning Board Meeting, which was created to address “Lake Elmo Airport project.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Anderson contends that the discussions of potholes on 30th street and the availability for the Joint Airport Zoning Board meeting are unrelated to the Lake Elmo Airport Project. The Board asserts that they are. There is a factual dispute here that the Commissioner cannot resolve. If discussion of those issues is included in the Lake Elmo Airport project, then the Board has met its obligations. If not, then the members discussed items outside the noticed purpose and did not comply with the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The West Lakeland Town Board members have not complied with the requirement in the OML to maintain a journal of votes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The West Lakeland Town Board members did not comply with the OML when it changed the location of the June 10, 2019, regular meeting and did not notice the meeting as a special meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the West Lakeland Town Board members complied with the OML requirement to provide access to the members materials at a September 9, 2019, meeting, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, as there is a factual dispute.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the West Lakeland Town Board members complied with the OML when they held a special meeting on September 2, 2020, by confining discussion to the purpose in the meeting notice, as there is a factual dispute.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;list-style: none&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lenora Madigan 
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 3, 2021&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>461873</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose</Title><Id>267069</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Members materials</Title><Id>461869</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Townships</Title><Id>267104</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T22:27:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-006</Title><title>Opinion 20-006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-448717&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-09-29T15:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>The City of Savage requested an advisory opinion regarding the classification of email addresses it collected to notify the public of information to participate in a town hall event. The Commissioner opined that the plain language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.356, paragraph (a) classified the email addresses as private data because the City collected the data for the purpose of notifying residents of how to attend the virtual town hall event. The Commissioner also noted that any other registration data the City collected from individuals not listed in section 13.356 would be presumptively public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 29, 2020; City of Savage</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Savage (City) requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the classification of data the City maintains, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On July 22, 2020, the City hosted a virtual town hall event via ZOOM entitled Race &amp;amp; Policing in Savage. The event arose out of the killing of Mr. George Floyd, and the City wished to have conversations with its residents regarding the City’s own policing policies and procedures. As part of its promotion of the event, the City circulated a flyer and advertised the event on its webpage and through social media. … The City requested that those interested in participating in the event rsvp for the same electronically and provide an email address. The City then sent those providing an email address with the ZOOM link to the event.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Following the event, the Savage Pacer submitted a data practices request seeking all communications involving City staff members or elected officials regarding the event. … The data collected by the City includes a list of the email addresses of those who rsvp’d for the event and to whom the ZOOM link was provided. The City has provided the Savage Pacer the requested information except a list of email addresses of those who rsvp’d for the event…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of email addresses collected by the City of Savage to notify the public of information to participate in a town hall event?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law as not public. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.356, paragraph (a) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The following data on an individual collected, maintained, or received by a government entity for notification purposes or as part of a subscription list for an entity&apos;s electronic periodic publications as requested by the individual are private data on individuals:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) telephone number;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) e-mail address; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) Internet user name, password, Internet protocol address, and any other similar data related to the individual&apos;s online account or access procedures.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City wrote, “[i]n this instance, the City required the email address of those individuals who rsvp’d for the event so that the City could notify those wishing to participate by sending the ZOOM link. For that reason, we believe that the email addresses of individuals are private data.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the City. The plain language of the statute classifies the data elements listed in section 13.356 as private if the City received them for “notification purposes.” The City collected the email addresses so that it could inform residents of how to attend the town hall. Therefore, section 13.356 classifies the email addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that if the City collected any other data from the individuals that are not listed in section 13.356, including name or US postal address, those data would be presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600;&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Email addresses collected by the City of Savage to notify the public of information to participate in a town hall event are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.356.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lenora Madigan
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;September 29, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>448717</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Email addresses</Title><Id>266718</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T15:23:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-005</Title><title>Opinion 20-005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-428247&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-04-14T17:00:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Minnesota Department of Education requested an advisory opinion regarding access to private and confidential data within the same government entity, as well as sharing of private data between school districts and counties. The Commissioner opined that private or confidential data may be shared with individuals in other programs or units within the same government entity when the individuals have a work assignment that reasonably requires access, and that private data may be shared or exchanged between government entities when authorized by statute or federal law. The Commissioner specifically addressed sharing provisions that MDE referred to in its advisory opinion request. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 14, 2020; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding access to and sharing of private and/or confidential data on individuals pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MDE wrote, &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[MDE] is the state agency charged with implementing state and federal education laws as well as with exercising general supervision over public education in the state. MDE is the state’s designated lead agency for purposes of the federal early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities, see 34 C.F.R. Chapter 303. MDE recently received a federal Preschool Development Grant, and seeks to use that grant, in part, to improve communication among the various government entities serving Minnesota’s children and their families. One aspect of communication that MDE believes might be improved is clarifying the legal authority of government entities to share private and confidential data on children and their families for the purpose of coordinating and providing additional services that may help the children.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When may an employee in one unit of a government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act access private or confidential data on individuals collected by another unit or a different program within the same government entity?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When may private data be shared or exchanged between a school district and a county without written consent of the individual subject of the data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; When may an employee in one unit of a government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act access private or confidential data on individuals collected by another unit or a different program within the same government entity?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data on individuals are “government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.” (Minnesota Statutes, 13.02, subdivision 5.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data on individuals can be classified as public, private, or confidential, depending on the content of the data. When data on individuals are classified as private or confidential, access to the data is limited. (Minnesota Statutes, 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2, outlines access to private data and specifically identifies those within a government entity that may access private data on individuals. Private data may be disclosed to individuals within a government entity whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data. Subpart 3 of this rule further states that the responsible authority of each government entity shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0600, subpart 2, similarly states that confidential data may be accessed by those within the government entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, individuals within the same government entity may access private and confidential data when their work assignments reasonably require access, even when those individuals work within different units or programs of the same entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; When may private data be shared or exchanged between a school district and a county without written consent of the individual subject of the data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data may be shared with other government entities that are authorized by statute or federal law to access the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Federal law is defined as “United States Code, rules and regulations of federal agencies as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and federal case law, including decisions of any court in the federal judicial system.” (See Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MDE identified numerous provisions that authorize school districts and counties to share or exchange private data without written consent of the data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that the following provisions identified by MDE provide statutory authority to share data between a school district and a county when the circumstances of each provision are met. The Commissioner notes that this is not an exhaustive list of potential sharing provisions available to school districts and counties, and entities that would like to rely on these sharing provisions should review the statutes for a full understanding of the legal authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – The Commissioner notes that FERPA is also incorporated in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Uninterrupted Scholars Act (an amendment to FERPA), specifically 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(L), which permits the release of education records to certain welfare agency representatives or tribal organizations when the agency or organization is “legally responsible for the care and protection of the student.”&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3, identifies specific instances when disclosure of private education data is permitted, including pursuant to a valid court order, certain health and safety emergencies, and to the juvenile justice system when necessary to protect health and safety. Section 13.32, subdivision 12 also provides for certain access to education data by personnel in a county’s welfare system.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 260C.208, subdivision 1, which authorizes agencies with “legal responsibility for the placement of a child” to request and receive information pertaining to the child that is necessary to carry out its duties, including education, medical, psychological, psychiatric, social, and family history data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 2 identifies when private data on individuals within the “welfare system” as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 1(c), may be shared, and subdivision 2(a)(32) specifically authorizes sharing of names, dates of birth, gender, and addresses to the chief administrative officer of a school to coordinate services for students and their families.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.08, subdivision 3(1), which outlines what information biennial child care fund plans submitted to the Commissioner of Education by counties and “designated administering agencies” for the administration of child care assistance must include. Subdivision 1 of this statute indicates that the Commissioner of Education must specify the requirements for the reports pursuant to the authority provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 256.01, subdivision 2(p). Child care assistance program payment data are classified as private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.02, subdivision 6. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MDE also cited Minnesota Rules, part 9560.0560, subpart 2 as a potential sharing provision. However, pursuant to the administrative rules, sharing authority must be in state statute or federal law. Minnesota Rules are not considered statutes or federal law, and as a result do not provide sufficient authority to share or exchange data between government entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds government entities of their obligation to provide Tennessen Warning notices to individuals when they collect private or confidential data from an individual, about that individual. The notice must include, (a) the purpose and intended use of the data; (b) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (c) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities outside of the collecting agency authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600;&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Private or confidential data may be shared with individuals in other programs or units within the same government entity, when the individuals have a work assignment that reasonably requires access.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Private data may be shared or exchanged between government entities when authorized by statute or federal law.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lenora Madigan
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April 14, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>428247</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Education</Title><Id>266712</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Confidential data</Title><Id>266733</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:13:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-004</Title><title>Opinion 20-004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-422167&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-03-05T21:29:56Z</Date><ShortDescription>A City asked about whether it was the agency with “primary investigative responsibility” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigates an officer-involved shooting on its behalf. The City also asked about the classification of body camera data while the BCA investigates the officers’ conduct. The Commissioner agreed that the City’s position that the BCA was acting as the City’s agent was reasonable and therefore, the City retained the primary investigative responsibility. Additionally, based on the plain language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, subdivision 2(a)(3), body camera data that are part of an active criminal investigation are classified by section 13.82, subd. 7, as confidential and protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Once the investigation is inactive, the body camera video data are classified by section 13.825.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 5, 2020; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2024, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes section 626.5534 subdivision 3, which provides that the BCA Use of Force Investigations Unit has primary investigative responsibility for officer-involved deaths.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis (City) requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the administration and classification of data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). The Commissioner invited the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) on behalf of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to submit comments. DPS did not submit comments. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An officer-involved shooting occurred in the City of Minneapolis on December 15, 2019. The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) responded to a report of a domestic with weapons. The incident resulted in shots fired by MPD officers and the ultimate death of the suspect. Body worn cameras were activated during this incident.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MPD responds to calls for service within the City of Minneapolis and conducts criminal investigations as appropriate. Given the death of the suspect in the December 15, 2019 incident, the MPD is not actively investigating the underlying alleged offense. However, the MPD also investigates officer-involved shootings to determine, among other things, whether involved officers acted in violation of the criminal code or MPD policy. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it has been the recent practice of the MPD to request that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) conduct criminal investigations of MPD officer-involved shootings. The MPD does not have a written agreement with the BCA regarding such investigations. The BCA is not statutorily required to investigate MPD officer-involved shootings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Upon the request of the MPD, the BCA has agreed to investigate the December 15, 2019 officer-involved shooting. The MPD provided copies of the body worn camera videos and other criminal investigative data related to the incident to the BCA for review as part of the investigation. The MPD also maintains access to the body worn camera data and other criminal investigative data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Which entity has “primary investigative responsibility” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates an incident on behalf of the Minneapolis Police Department?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of certain law enforcement data, including body camera video, during an active investigation into an officer-involved shooting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Which entity has “primary investigative responsibility” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates an incident on behalf of the Minneapolis Police Department?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, classifies active criminal investigative data collected or created to prepare a case against a person for a crime or offense, “for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility,” as confidential or protected nonpublic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the City received a data request for law enforcement data and body camera video, which asserted: “Please be aware that this data is not subject to the restrictions outlined in MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 7, because the Minneapolis Police Department is not the agency with ‘primary investigative responsibility.’”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he MPD has primary responsibility to respond to and investigate incidents relating to calls for service within the City of Minneapolis. The events resulting in the December 15, 2019 officer-involved shooting arose from such a call. The City retains primary investigative responsibility for investigating the underlying alleged offense as well as for investigating the MPD officers’ actions. The BCA is merely acting as an agent of the City while conducting its investigation into the December 15, 2019 incident.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that the City’s position is reasonable. The City continues to have the primary investigative responsibility because the BCA is acting as the City’s agent in investigating an incident within the City’s jurisdiction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of certain law enforcement data, including body camera video, during an active investigation into an officer-involved shooting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 classifies “portable recording system data&quot; – audio or video data collected by a portable recording system worn by a peace officer (commonly referred to as body camera data) – as private or nonpublic, with exceptions. Subdivision 2 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data collected by a portable recording system are private data on individuals or nonpublic data, subject to the following:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) data that document the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, if a notice is required under section 626.553, subdivision 2, or the use of force by a peace officer that results in substantial bodily harm, as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7a, are public;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;3) portable recording system data that are active criminal investigative data are governed by section 13.82, subdivision 7, and portable recording system data that are inactive criminal investigative data are governed by this section.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Active criminal investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City argues that the active criminal investigative data associated with the incident, including the body camera data, are confidential or protected nonpublic (excluding the “super public data” – arrest data, request for service data, and response or incident data – classified by section 13.82, subds. 2, 3, and 6). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the plain language of section 13.825, subd. 2(a)(3), body camera data that are part of an active criminal investigation are not classified by section 13.825. Instead, active investigative body camera data are classified by section 13.82, subd. 7. Once the investigation becomes inactive (see section 13.82, subd. 7(a)-(c)), inactive body camera data are classified as provided in section 13.825. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the body camera data are part of an active investigation into the actions of the officers responding to a call for assistance. Therefore, the body camera data and other law active investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic until the investigation is inactive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that the City also argued that section 13.03, subdivision 4, the “travelling data” provision, applies to the circumstances here. However, because the BCA is acting as an agent of the City, the data did not travel to a different entity. Instead, the BCA is brought “within” the City for purposes of the investigation and sharing data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600;&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minneapolis Police Department has the “primary investigative responsibility,” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates an incident on the City’s behalf.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Except for the data listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, when there is an active criminal investigation into an officer-involved shooting, law enforcement data, including body camera data documenting the incident, are confidential or protected nonpublic.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 5, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>422167</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Portable recording system data</Title><Id>378581</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Body camera data 13.825</Title><Id>378580</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-07-02T15:09:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-003</Title><title>Opinion 20-003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-421826&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-03-03T21:39:21Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public made a data request to a school district. He requested an email attachment that contained a district employee’s “contact list.” The school district denied access to the contact list, asserting contact lists are private personnel data. The Commissioner opined that the contact list may contain public data and/or not public data depending on the contacts listed. The fact that an individual maintains a list of contacts does not, by itself, make the contacts about that individual. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 3, 2020; ISD 181, Brainerd Public Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jeff Czeczok requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the Independent School District 181’s – Brainerd Public Schools – response to a request for data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). The Commissioner did not receive comments from the school district in response to Mr. Czeczok’s opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to a May 5, 2019, data request, Mr. Czeczok inspected data on July 15, 2019. One of the items he inspected was an email from a school district employee to another school district employee, dated September 21, 2017, which was entitled “Contacts.” This email contained an attachment entitled “google.csv.” The attachment to this email was not provided to Mr. Czeczok during inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Following his inspection of responsive data, Mr. Czeczok submitted additional data requests to the school district for the email attachment, including requests dated July 25, 2019 and August 8, 2019. The school district provided multiple responses to Mr. Czeczok’s requests. In its September 11, 2019, response, the school district stated that the requested email attachment contained an employee’s email contact list and indicated the contact list was private personnel data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 181, Brainerd Public Schools, properly respond to a request for government data maintained in an email attachment?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7). Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable amount of time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300). If the government entity denies access to data due to its not public classification, the entity must cite the specific authority that classifies the data as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f)). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data on individuals maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and therefore not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the school district responded to Mr. Czeczok’s requests for the email attachment within a reasonable amount of time. In its response, the school district indicated the attachment contained an employee’s contact list, asserting that such a list is classified as private personnel data. The school district relied on &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267577&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-003&lt;/a&gt; in its assertion, arguing that employee contact lists are akin to employee calendars, which may contain private data about government employees, and as a result, employee contact lists would be classified as private as well. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, in Advisory Opinion 02-003, the Commissioner indicated that the employee calendar at issue also contained certain data that documented public business of the government entity, such as telephone register information. This opinion clarified that “Chapter 13 classifies data, not files or records.” The Commissioner stated, “the [government entity] must provide public data contained in the calendar/register, i.e., data that document public business, even if those data are commingled with not pubic data.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reiterates that Chapter 13 classifies data, rather than entire records or documents. The school district stated that the email attachment requested by Mr. Czeczok contains a school district employee’s “contacts from his [d]istrict email.” A list of contacts may contain public data and/or not public data, depending on the contacts within the list. If contacts are maintained in order to conduct public business, or the contacts are maintained in order for the government employee to perform his or her job duties, these contacts are likely not about the employee. Rather, these contacts would be about the business the employee is conducting. As a result, such contacts would not be appropriately classified as private personnel data. The fact that an individual maintains a list of contacts does not, by itself, make the contacts about that individual. However, if certain contacts within the list would reveal private data about the employee, such as an employee’s personal contact information, family member/dependent contact information, or other personal contacts unrelated to the public business conducted by the employee, those contacts may be redacted as private personnel data or potentially “personal” data (i.e., data that are not government data - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267561&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has not reviewed a copy of the email attachment at issue in this opinion, and as a result, she is unable to determine whether the contacts are about the government employee, or whether the contacts document public business. If contacts within the email attachment document public business and do not reveal private data or personal data about the school district employee, they are not data about the employee, and thus cannot be classified as private personnel data. The Commissioner also notes that government entities must separate public and not public data at no cost to the requester per section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the email attachment maintained by Independent School District 181 contains public data, it must provide the requester access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis  
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 3, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>421826</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely, generally</Title><Id>266408</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data, email</Title><Id>266726</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-02-03T15:05:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-002</Title><title>Opinion 20-002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-420746&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-02-20T23:14:06Z</Date><ShortDescription>A board of directors of a nonprofit broadband corporation made up of government entities asked whether it was subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner opined that the board was not subject to the OML, but rather subject to the requirements in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A, which allow boards of directors of nonprofits to change some of the statutory requirements for holding meetings by changing articles or bylaws.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 20, 2020; Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Travis Thies, General Manager of the Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services (SMBS) asked the Commissioner about the Board of Directors’ obligations under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Thies wrote: “SMBS seeks to confirm that Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D (the “OML”) is not applicable to SMBS to ease the concern of its municipal members and obtain certainty.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services Board of Directors subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Most public bodies are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All meetings, including executive session, must be open to the public&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) of the governing body of a&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) school district however organized,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) unorganized territory,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) county,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(4) statutory or home rule charter city,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(5) town, or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(6) other public body.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the board of directors of the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA), which was formed by 18 member cities, was not subject to the Open Meeting Law. See, &lt;em&gt;Southern Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne&lt;/em&gt;, 578 N.W.2d 362 (1998) (&lt;em&gt;SMMPA&lt;/em&gt;).  The Court found that the plain language of the enabling legislation governing municipal power agencies allowed for SMMPA to run its affairs like a “private corporation.” Private corporations may manage their affairs by adopting bylaws that establish the manner of calling and holding meetings. (See &lt;em&gt;SMMPA&lt;/em&gt; at 365.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;SMBS wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SMBS was formed as a nonprofit corporation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 317A. SMBS is comprised of seven municipal members who formed SMBS to develop and deploy broadband infrastructure to their respective communities. It operates in nine rural communities in Jackson, Nobles and Cottonwood counties. It competes with CenturyLink, Frontier and other wireless providers for customers and state grant funding. It operates as a business, handling competitively-sensitive information, forecasting revenue and costs, and developing strategic plans to build, maintain and strengthen its network to remain competitive in the industry in which it operates….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[SMBS’s] position is that the OML does not apply to SMBS due to our corporate entity and because disclosing sensitive and strategic information discussed in Board Meetings would diminish SMBS’ ability to compete with its competitors.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;SMBS is a nonprofit corporation subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A, which includes provisions related to board bylaws and meetings. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 317A.181, subdivision 1, provides: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A corporation may, but need not, have bylaws. Bylaws may contain any provision relating to the management or regulation of the affairs of the corporation consistent with law or the articles, including but not limited to:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(8) the time, place, and manner of calling, conducting, and giving notice of member, board, and committee meetings, or of conducting mail ballots&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A nonprofit board of directors’ meetings are governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 317A.231, which includes requirements for board meetings but allows a board to alter those statutory requirements through its articles and bylaws. For example, meetings may be held in or out of the state. The board may meet by remote communication where board members are not required to be present at a particular location. The board may hold meetings by telephone. Board members may call meetings not in the articles or bylaws with five days’ notice to other members. Notice to other board members does not need to state a purpose. Additionally, board members may take action outside of a meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 317A.239.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;These provisions are contrary to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. (See &lt;em&gt;Quast v. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267613&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-034&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-334889&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-003&lt;/a&gt;, requiring meetings of public bodies to be held within the territorial confines of the public body;  Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.02 and 13D.021, providing requirements for meetings conducted via interactive television or telephone, including requirements for members to be present in certain locations; and Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.03 and 13D.04, requiring notice to the public in specific circumstances and within certain time limits.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Like the statutes governing municipal power agencies, Ch. 317A does not include any requirements for nonprofit boards of directors to hold public meetings and allows boards to follow or create requirements that are inconsistent with the provisions of the OML. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that as a board of a nonprofit subject to Ch. 317A, the SMBS Board of Directors is not subject to Chapter 13D, the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services Board of Directors is not subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;February 20, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>420746</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:13:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 20-001</Title><title>Opinion 20-001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-416185&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2020-01-14T20:28:13Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the Greenwood Township Board of Supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when they denied access to the votes of its members based on a Board resolution. The Commissioner concluded that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law, because section 13D.01, subdivisions 4 and 5 require the Board to keep a journal of votes and have that journal available during normal business hours. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 14, 2020; Greenwood Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2021, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subds. 4 and 5, related to a journal of votes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jeff Maus asked for an advisory opinion regarding Greenwood Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Michael C. Couri, attorney, responded on behalf of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Maus provided the following summary of the issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On October 1, 2019, I requested to view “the record of the vote of each member on each appropriation of money recorded August and September 2019 Board meetings (sic).” &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Township denied my request, writing “per town board motion – Maus is to receive no information from the Township.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, did the Greenwood Township Board provide appropriate access to the votes of members, in response to an October 1, 2019, request?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law requires public bodies to maintain a journal of votes and the journal must be “open to the public during all normal business hours where the records of the public body are kept.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivisions 4 and 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the Board wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;After expressing his concerns about Mr. Maus&apos; continued requests for information while [Mr. Maus’s] claim against the Township remained pending, Supervisor Ralston made a motion as follows: &quot;So, just, I think the blanket answer can be no. And let him carry it further. As long as we &apos;re talking about the emails and stuff. And I&apos;ll make that a motion.&quot; …. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The motion appears to have been limited to &quot;emails and stuff”&apos; that would not be provided to Maus. Recognizing the confusion that might exist, the following discussion ensued:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; Treasurer Pam Rogers: “What about things like the minutes and this stuff, the public stuff?” &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Supervisor Ralston: “He can get it out of the public folder. Just like anybody else.” &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Treasurer Rogers: “OK, she&apos;s [referring to Sue Drobac, the Town Clerk] been making him a packet.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Supervisor Ralston: “I mean, I think that, you know, public folder, you can get it at a meeting.” &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Clerk Sue Drobac: “This is all public information.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Following this discussion, the Town Board approved the motion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given that the motion was limited to &quot;emails and stuff”&apos; which was further clarified prior to the vote on the motion to make clear that it did not apply to the minutes of the Town Board meetings where the votes of the Town Board are recorded, it is clear that the Town Board&apos;s motion did not restrict Mr. Maus&apos; access to the Town Board minutes. Instead, the motion requires that Mr. Maus be treated “&apos;just like everybody else” in terms of what information is available to the public. Even Clerk Drobac recognized that the minutes of the Town Board meetings were public information. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As to Mr. Maus&apos; October 1st request “to view the record of the vote of each member on each appropriation of money recorded August and September 2019 Board meetings”, it would appear that the August minutes were clearly available for viewing as they were approved at the September 10th Town Board meeting and were part of the agenda packet made available to the public at the September 10th meeting. It is also clear that the Town Board&apos;s motion did not prohibit Mr. Maus from viewing this information.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board’s comments focusing on meeting minutes here are misplaced. The Board has an obligation to maintain a journal of votes and to provide access to the journal of votes, during all normal business hours where the journal is kept. The result of the Board’s action is to restrict access to the journal of votes to meeting times for Mr. Maus, specifically. This is contrary to the plain language of section 13D.01.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar situation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267355&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given the Supreme Court&apos;s direction to construe Chapter 13D in favor of public access, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that restricting public access to the journals to the night of the monthly Board meeting is not in compliance with Chapter 13D. The Board should establish more times when the journals are available at the Town Hall or consider changing the location where the journal is stored to one that allows requesters more access.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, the Board should provide a way for all members of the public to access the journal of votes during regular business hours where the records are kept, as required by section 13D.01, subd. 5. The Board cannot restrict, via motion, something that is guaranteed in statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Board argued that the members’ conduct was not at issue here, but rather the Township Clerk’s actions in responding to Mr. Maus’s request. While it is outside the scope of the Commissioner’s authority, she notes that perhaps a motion to preclude public access to “emails and stuff” does not provide sufficient direction to township staff members who implement the decisions of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Greenwood Township Board of Supervisors did not provide appropriate access to the votes of members, in response to an October 1, 2019, request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 14, 2020&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>416185</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Voting</Title><Id>266364</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Townships</Title><Id>267104</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:13:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-013</Title><title>Opinion 19-013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-411892&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-11-27T19:45:23Z</Date><ShortDescription> a data requester asked if a County had responded appropriately to two requests she made for public data. The Commissioner opined that the County responded appropriately to a request for public comments when it emailed the requester a link to the comments, which the requester had previously said would be acceptable. The County did not respond appropriately to a draft spreadsheet when it did not respond to the request promptly and appropriately, did not provide the data in the format in which it was maintained, and failed to assess a reasonable, actual copy cost; the county quoted five different costs and used two different pay scales to calculate costs.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 27, 2019; Rice County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Rosalyn Pautzke asked for an advisory opinion regarding her right to get access to data from Rice County, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The County submitted comments in response to Ms. Pautzke’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Pautzke provided a summary of the facts. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County never responded to my requests on September 6 and September 10 for EAW [Environmental Assessment Worksheet] comment letters. Both requests were submitted to persons identified by the County as Responsible Authority Designees. My initial request for the spreadsheet of EAW comment letter questions was made to Responsible Authority Designees on September 10 and renewed on September 11, 18, 23, and 25. Following my request for the live / native format spreadsheet file, on October 3 the County offered a PDF scan of the poor-quality printed copy and quoted a per page charge of $0.25, which resulted in a $10.00 charge for the digitized 40 pages. I did not assert that charging by page for an electronic file was inappropriate because the PDF of a poor-quality copy was not what I had requested.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On October 4, my renewed request for a live / native format spreadsheet file was denied by the County because they do not release editable files. The spreadsheet is maintained in Excel format….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On October 4 and 14, the County quoted a charge of $9.25 and $9.50 for an uneditable Excel file based on 37 and 38 pages at $0.25 each, respectively. On October 15, I asked whether I would be receiving a file in native format and indicated my willingness to pay the price quoted.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County has not responded.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Rice County respond appropriately to a September 6, 2019, request for the Wolf Creek Autobahn environmental assessment worksheet comment letters and any attachments pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Rice County respond appropriately to a September 10, 2019, request for a draft spreadsheet related to the Wolf Creek Autobahn project pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by: a. Responding in an appropriate and prompt, reasonable amount of time; b. By providing access to data in the format in which it is maintained; and c. Assessing a reasonable copy charge?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions that it is relative to the nature or complexity of the request and amount of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267656&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266715&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-020&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266899&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), dictates that government data be made available and that personnel responsible for making it available establish procedures that insure it is made available. It follows, then, that when the procedures are followed and the requested data are not made available appropriately or promptly, the “established procedures” do not insure that government data are properly available.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Webster v. Hennepin County&lt;/em&gt;, et al., 910 N.W.2d 420, 431 (Minn. 2018) (&lt;em&gt;Webster&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Rice County Guidelines and Procedures for the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Guidelines&lt;/em&gt;) lists the County responsible authority and designees in Appendix A. The responsible authority and data practices compliance official is Catherine Miller, Assistant County Attorney. The designees include the Director of Environmental Services, Julie Runkel, and the County Administrator, Sara Folsted. (See &lt;em&gt;Guidelines&lt;/em&gt; pages 32-34). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;: Did Rice County respond appropriately to a September 6, 2019, request for the Wolf Creek Autobahn environmental assessment worksheet comment letters and any attachments pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 6, 2019, Ms. Pautzke requested copies of the EAW comment letters the County received. She stated that she would accept the letters electronically via email or as a link. In her opinion request, she stated that the County never responded to her request for the comments. In its response to the Commissioner, the County submitted an email that included a link to all the comments, which the County sent to all the commenters on September 13, 2019. Ms. Pautzke was one of the commenters. Ms. Pautzke argues that this email, which was part of the notification for the EAW comment process, does not satisfy the requirement of responding to her data request. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County argued that it responded appropriately by providing the responsive data via a link in a September 13, 2019, email, even though the email did not specifically state that it was in response to a data request. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the County. Ms. Pautzke asked for data, she gave the County acceptable options for how to respond and the County provided her the requested data in one of the preferred formats (i.e., as a link), in a timely manner. While not strictly required, the Commissioner notes that as a best practice, and for the purposes of clarifying with data requesters when two obligations overlap (i.e., the EAW comment notification process and responding to request for public data), the County might consider noting for requesters that one response satisfies both requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did Rice County respond appropriately to a September 10, 2019, request for a draft spreadsheet related to the Wolf Creek Autobahn project pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As a threshold issue, in its comments to the Commissioner, the County argued that the spreadsheet was not a “draft” but rather “a partial document, in its initial stages of creation…. Such a partial document not need [sic] to be released upon request.” The Commissioner has previously opined that public data contained in “drafts” are accessible to the public. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267671&quot;&gt;02-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267731&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-038&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267581&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-009&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267270&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-006&lt;/a&gt;.) In general, the Data Practices Act classifies data, not documents, and classification determines access. Here, the data elements in the spreadsheet are public and the County has an obligation to provide them in a prompt and appropriate manner, regardless of their status as final, draft, partial, or complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;a. Responding in an appropriate and prompt, reasonable amount of time&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Pautzke submitted her initial request for the “draft spreadsheet” on September 10, 2019, to Ms. Runkel. She also submitted her request to Ms. Folsted on September 12, 2019. Ms. Folsted stated that she forwarded the request to Ms. Miller. Ms. Pautzke also sent the request to Ms. Miller directly several times. (There is a factual dispute as to how many times Ms. Miller received the request). As of the date of Ms. Pautzke’s advisory opinion request, October 21, 2019, Ms. Runkel had not responded to the request. Ms. Miller responded as noted below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County made several arguments as to why it responded promptly and appropriately to Ms. Pautzke’s data request. First, it argues that the Ms. Runkel responded appropriately to the September 10 request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the County wrote that &lt;em&gt;prior&lt;/em&gt; to Ms. Pautzke’s written data request, she and Ms. Runkel had a conversation about the spreadsheet. Ms. Runkel informed her:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]hat the spreadsheet was still in the process of being created and that she was not the one creating it.... Thus, when Ms. Pautzke requested the spreadsheet on September 10, Ms. Runkel had nothing to give her because Ms. Runkel did not yet have the spreadsheet. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ms. Runkel&apos;s response to Ms. Pautzke was timely, appropriate, and accurate because the spreadsheet was not yet government data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The conversation described by the County did not constitute an appropriate response, as it took place prior to Ms. Pautzke submitting her written data request. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Moreover, the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions that no response is not an appropriate response. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267746&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-008&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267090&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-027&lt;/a&gt;). (Apparently, a week after the Commissioner accepted Ms. Pautzke’s request for an advisory opinion, Ms. Runkel sent Ms. Pautzke a letter regarding the spreadsheet.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County argues that Ms. Miller’s response was prompt and appropriate because after receiving the request on September 23, 2019, she responded on September 25, 2019, stating “[a] spreadsheet is in the initial stages of being drafted and currently does not contain much information. It is currently a list of the questions/issues and does not yet contain any finalized responses. If you would like a copy of this draft, please let me know.” It is unclear why Ms. Miller did not provide a copy of the spreadsheet at this time, as Ms. Pautzke had specifically requested the draft spreadsheet multiple times. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;b. By providing access to data in the format in which it is maintained&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity maintains data in a computer storage medium, the entity should provide it in that medium if it can reasonably make a copy. “This does not require a government entity to provide the data in an electronic format or program that is different from the format or program in which the data are maintained.” (See section 13.03, subd. 3(e).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County maintains the spreadsheet in an electronic program – Excel. In her October 2 letter to Ms. Pautzke, Ms. Miller referred to a copy charge of 25 cents per page for 40 pages; per-page copy charges relate to paper copies of 100 or fewer and Ms. Pautzke inferred that Ms. Miller was offering her a paper copy. Ms. Pautzke clarified that she wanted an electronic copy, since she was aware that it was a spreadsheet. Ms. Miller then offered her a PDF copy. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Miller wrote in an October 4, 2019, letter that the County does not release “documents in editable formats.” Ms. Pautzke agreed to accept a copy with the contents locked but that still allowed her to use the functions in Excel to sort and change the font size. The County said it would not provide her an “editable” version. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267138&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-006&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a similar situation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;According to Ms. Swanson, the City “typically converts Word documents to PDF so they cannot be altered.” The City also maintains the data in Word format. As noted above, government entities are not obliged to convert data to a particular format in response to a data request. However, they are obligated, upon request, to provide access to data in whatever format they do maintain them. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(e).) Accordingly, in response to Mr. Siljander&apos;s request, the City should have provided him access to the data in Word format.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The result is the same here. The County should provide Ms. Pautzke with the spreadsheet in the format in which the County maintains it, which the Commissioner understands to be an unlocked Excel spreadsheet. (See Issue 2(c) regarding passing along the costs of the County’s decision to lock the spreadsheet to Ms. Pautzke.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that government entities have concerns about data requesters altering data or lifting data from documents. However, public data are available to anyone for any reason and the public can use public data elements in a document or file any way they choose. This does not mean that every spreadsheet or all metadata in a document are public. Here, where the data are public, the requester is entitled to access in the format and program in which it is maintained, as she requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;c. Assessing a reasonable copy charge&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act allows government entities to charge for copies. Entities may charge a maximum of 25 cents a page for paper copies of 100 or fewer. Entities may charge actual costs for paper copies of more than 100 pages. (See section 13.03, subd. 3(c).) For copies of electronic data, the “entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of providing the copy.” (See section 13.03, subd. 3(e).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In assessing “actual costs” for public data, an entity may charge for the employee time it takes to search and retrieve the data, as well as the time it takes to transmit the document (it also includes materials and mailing costs, which are not at issue here). The Commissioner has consistently advised that the employee rate used to calculate copy costs should be the lowest paid employee who can make the copy. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267877&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-268029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267872&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267937&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-055&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267597&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-038&lt;/a&gt;, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[I]f a government entity, in trying to determine how to arrive at a reasonable fee, recognizes that a lower-paid employee would be able to complete the task, it would be appropriate for the entity to charge a fee based on a rate that is lower than the rate of the employee who actually retrieves the data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County quoted Ms. Pautzke five different charges for a copy of the spreadsheet: 1) $10.00 (40 pages at 25 cents per page); 2) $10.00 for a PDF copy; 3) $9.25 (37 pages at 25 cents per page) for an uneditable Excel spreadsheet; 4) $9.50 (38 pages at 25 cents per page) for an uneditable Excel spreadsheet; and 5) $8.95 for an uneditable Excel spreadsheet. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On October 14, Ms. Miller wrote: “[t]he actual cost to provide the requested information would be over $10.00…. This is calculated as 10 minutes at over $50.00 per hour, including wages and benefits. Therefore, we chose to charge the lesser amount of .25 per page.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The over $50.00 per hour charge refers to Ms. Miller&apos;s base salary. Ms. Miller&apos;s exact hourly rate, inclusive of benefits, is $66.00. It would take Ms. Miller ten minutes to prepare the document for Ms. Pautzke, i&lt;/em&gt;ncluding locking it down&lt;em&gt;. In her October 3 email, Ms. Pautzke acknowledged that she may be charged for the employee time required to lock down the content of the cells…. Thus, the actual cost of employee time to make and electronically transmit the document was $11.00 (10 min = 1/6 of an hour) (1/6 x $66.00 per hour= $11.00). The County could have chosen to charge $11.00 but, instead, chose to charge the lesser amount of $9.50, which is reasonable.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;With regard to the November 4, $8.95 quote, the County wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This amount, which was based on the Administrative Coordinator&apos;s salary, is also reasonable. The Administrative Coordinator&apos;s exact hourly rate, inclusive of benefits, is $35.82. It would take the Administrative Coordinator fifteen minutes to prepare the document for Ms. Pautzke,&lt;/em&gt; including locking it down&lt;em&gt;…. Thus, the actual cost of employee time to make and electronically transmit the document was $8.95 (15 min = 1/4 of an hour) (1/4 x $35.82 per hour = $8.95). Although there are three lower paid employees in the Planning and Zoning Office (exact hourly rates at $34.40, $31.45, and $29.70), they are not familiar with Excel and it would take them much longer to prepare and provide the document, resulting in a cost that was more than $8.95. Thus, the County assessed a reasonable charge of $8.95&lt;/em&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The copy charge structure in the Data Practices Act for actual costs is not based on the amount of data (i.e., how many “pages” in an Excel spreadsheet), but rather the time it takes for an employee to search for, retrieve, and transmit it. The time it would take to search for and retrieve a 37 “page” Excel spreadsheet should be the same as the time it takes to search and retrieve the same spreadsheet when it consists of 38 “pages,” as a spreadsheet is simply one electronic file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County argues that the originally-quoted copy costs would have been less than the actual costs, and thus would be considered reasonable. However, this argument is based on an inaccurate calculation of the actual costs. In its calculations, the County included the time it would take to “lock down” the spreadsheet, even though that was not a part of Ms. Pautzke’s request, but rather something the County chose to do based on its “policy.” Chapter 13 does not include a requirement to restrict the manipulation or editing of public data elements. The County cannot pass along costs to requesters for activities that are not required or permitted by the law (except in limited situations where an entity voluntarily creates data for a requester). The County’s obligation is to provide access to public data in the way in which they are maintained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner concludes, based on the forgoing discussion of the issues with Ms. Pautzke’s on-going data request, that the County did not respond appropriately to the September 10 request for the draft spreadsheet. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the County’s current data access policies required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, are from 2017. She reminds government entities that they must review and update the required access policies on a yearly basis, and, as a best practice, following any personnel changes. This enables members of the public and data subjects to know where to direct data requests and ensures that government staff are aware of their obligations to respond. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266427&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-007&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-375057&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;19-002&lt;/a&gt;.) Once the written policies are in place, entities must then have internal procedures to ensure timely and appropriate responses to requests as required by section 13.03. (See also, &lt;em&gt;Webster&lt;/em&gt;.) Based on the internal handling of Ms. Pautzke’s requests, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that Rice County did not have internal procedures in place to ensure a timely or appropriate response to this data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Rice County responded appropriately to a September 6, 2019, request for environmental assessment worksheet comment letters by providing an email with a link.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Rice County did not respond appropriately to a September 10, 2019, request for a draft spreadsheet. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 27, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>411892</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266613</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Costs</Title><Id>266824</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access policy</Title><Id>375058</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data does not exist</Title><Id>266383</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data do not exist</Title><Id>267091</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request policy</Title><Id>375059</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data requests</Title><Id>267125</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee</Title><Id>266693</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data</Title><Id>266902</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-012</Title><title>Opinion 19-012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-408375&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-10-24T20:19:03Z</Date><ShortDescription>In Advisory Opinion 19-012, a member of the public asked whether the conduct of a School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the School Board was present at a committee meeting. The Commissioner determined that a violation did occur. Despite the fact that the committee meeting may have been properly noticed, the School Board did not provide notice that a School Board meeting would also take place. 
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 24, 2019; ISD 834, Stillwater Public Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Carl Blondin requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the ISD 834 – Stillwater Schools – School Board (School Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Attorney Maggie R. Wallner responded on behalf of the School Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blondin stated that at a Finance and Operations Working Group meeting on August 29, 2019, the three regular committee members attended, in addition to a fourth School Board member. He indicated that, &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;No notice was made pursuant to statute that this would be a regular meeting of the ISD 834 board, nor was a notice made that a quorum of the ISD 834 school board would be present. This was not a properly noticed special meeting of the ISD 834 School Board. This was not an emergency meeting of the ISD 834 School Board. This was a committee meeting of a committee that the District informs the public of having only three members, not a quorum. Yet, in spite of those facts, four members, a quorum of the ISD 834 school board, were present, and were able to receive and discuss, and in fact did receive and discuss information related to matters of public concern, deliberate on school business, and potentially take action to bind the board. This appears to be a violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The law presumes a violation of Minnesota&apos; (sic) open meeting law when a quorum is present and proper notice has not been given.&lt;/em&gt; Sovereign v. Dunn&lt;em&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blondin provided a video recording of the committee meeting, along with a written transcript. The video depicts the fourth board member engaging in a discussion with the committee members, including whether items have been presented to the School Board, an exchange about one-time funding, and a potential form to use to present information to the School Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the presence of a quorum of the ISD 834 School Board at a committee meeting on August 29, 2019, violate the Minnesota Open Meeting Law?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a school district is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).) These meetings must be properly noticed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;‘Meetings’ subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/em&gt; Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies...This includes meetings at which information is received which may influence later decisions of such bodies.” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs&lt;/em&gt;., 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blondin stated, the School Board provides notice for its regularly scheduled meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.04, subdivisions 1, 2. He indicated that the School Board also has multiple committees, one of which is the Finance and Operations Working Group. On its website, the school board posts the members of each committee.The Finance and Operations Working Group has three members. The School Board also “posts a schedule for these committee meetings on its bulletin board, and keeps a list of its meetings at its main office.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments, the School Board states, “it is undisputed that four School Board members, a quorum, were present at the August 29, 2019, meeting. However, it was a regularly scheduled, properly noticed meeting that was open to the public. Therefore, it is the District’s position that no Open Meeting violation occurred.” In support of its argument, the School Board provided a copy of the Finance and Operations Working Group Meeting Calendar, which included the August 29, 2019, meeting notice. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although the Finance and Operations Working Group may have properly noticed its regularly scheduled meetings, the School Board did not provide notice that a regular or special meeting of the School Board would also occur on August 29, 2019. Each group identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 1 is independently subject to the notice requirements of the OML. Once the fourth School Board member was present to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to the official business of the School Board, the committee meeting also became a meeting of the School Board. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The notice provisions of the OML inform the public when a School Board meeting will take place, so the public has “access to the decision-making process” of the relevant public body. St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6. The Commissioner notes that an important aspect of this access is that the public knows which public body is meeting. If the quorum of the School Board present at the August 29, 2019, meeting took a vote and unanimously agreed to an action, they would have bound the entire School Board and circumvented the OML, as the public was only provided notice that a committee meeting was taking place on that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The School Board did not comply with the OML when it failed to provide notice of a School Board meeting that took place at the August 29, 2019, Finance and Operations Working Group meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 24, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>408375</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Quorum</Title><Id>266255</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-02-03T15:05:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-011</Title><title>Opinion 19-011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-402931&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-09-16T14:38:55Z</Date><ShortDescription>A City asked about the classification of data that the police department collected from a school district pursuant to a subpoena, as part of a criminal investigation. The District argued that the data were private personnel data and retained that classification in the hands of the City. The Commissioner concluded that the data “traveled” from the District to the City and therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(a), the data changed classifications; the data were law enforcement data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, in the hands of the City.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 16, 2019; City of Shakopee</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;On August 7, 2019, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney for the City of Shakopee (City). In her letter, Ms. Sonsalla asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). Attorneys for Independent School District 720, Shakopee Schools (District), Stephen M. Knutson and Minhquang Trang provided comments on behalf of the District. Rachel Minske, Regional Editor for the &lt;em&gt;Shakopee Valley News&lt;/em&gt; submitted comments on behalf of the paper.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;The City provided the following information to the Commissioner.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;The City received a data practices request from the Shakopee Valley News for a copy of the &quot;NeuVest Report.&quot; The NeuVest Report is a report that Independent School District No. 720 (the &quot;District&quot;) had initiated with respect to its employment investigation of Rodney Thompson, a former employee of the District. Mr. Thompson is no longer employed by the District. He resigned from his position and no discipline was imposed on him by the District. The District maintains that the NeuVest Report is private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;The City, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, also criminally investigated Mr. Thompson with respect to incidents that occurred during the course of his employment with the District. Mr. Thompson pled guilty to federal and state criminal charges and was sentenced to prison. Therefore, the criminal investigation is no longer active.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;In the course of the City&apos;s criminal investigation of Mr. Thompson, the City&apos;s Police Department obtained an unredacted copy of the NeuVest Report from the District through the means of a search warrant. The NeuVest Report is being maintained by the City as criminal investigative data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 7 as it was received by the City as part of its criminal investigation of Mr. Thompson. Because the criminal investigation of Mr. Thompson is no longer active under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 7, it is the City&apos;s opinion that the Neu Vest Report is now public pursuant to this statute. Since the Shakopee Valley News&apos; data practices request for a copy of the report was made to the City, the City must provide the report.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Verdana&quot;&gt;The City and the District disagree with respect to whether or not the NeuVest Report is public when it is in the hands of the City. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data in a report that the Shakopee Police Department collected from Independent School District 720, Shakopee Public Schools, as part of a criminal investigation, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data that law enforcement collects, creates, and maintains are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. While an investigation is active, subdivision 7 classifies data not listed in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, as confidential or protected nonpublic. Once an investigation becomes inactive, much of the investigative data classified by subd. 7, become public. Data are inactive investigative data when 1) law enforcement agency or a prosecutorial authority declines to pursue the case; 2) when the statute of limitations has run for a particular offense; or 3) when a defendant has exhausted appeal rights. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivisions 2 and 3 list the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data that move from one government entity to another are commonly referred to as “traveling data.” Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4 provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) The classification of a government entity&apos;s data shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving entity. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) …&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(c) To the extent that government data are disseminated to a government entity by another government entity, the data disseminated shall have the same classification at the entity receiving them as they had at the entity providing them. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has considered traveling data in prior opinions. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267817&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-041&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267705&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-031&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267701&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-004&lt;/a&gt;.) In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267710&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-023&lt;/a&gt;, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the current situation, data traveled from the Medical Examiner to the Police Department. Once those data were received by the Police Department, the data became subject to the classification specified for law enforcement data in Section 13.82. Because Section 13.82, subdivision 5, states clearly that inactive law enforcement investigative data are public, the classification of the Medical Examiner data received by the Police Department are public.&lt;/em&gt; [Note: the legislature renumbered section 13.82, subd. 5 as section 13.82, subd. 7.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the District relied on &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-378530&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 19-005&lt;/a&gt; and section 13.03, subd. 4(c), for its argument that data classified as private personnel data at the District remain private at the City. Advisory Opinion 19-005 considered various statutes that classify law enforcement data during and after an investigation. It did not, however, address the issue of data classified by one statute at an entity (here, section 13.43, District personnel data) “traveling” to another entity and changing classifications (here, section 13.82, City law enforcement data). As such, section 13.03, subd. 4, did not apply to the data at issue in that opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;By contrast, section 13.03, subd. 4(a), clearly applies to the circumstances here. Regardless of the classification of the data at the District, once the City received the report, the classification changed because of the specific statute applicable to data in the possession of the receiving entity. Therefore, when the City collected the report from the District, pursuant to section 13.82, the data in the report became confidential/protected nonpublic active criminal investigative data. Once the data became inactive criminal investigative data, the data in the report became public at the City (except for any data in the report that would otherwise be classified as not public classified by section 13.82).&lt;/p&gt;
The Commissioner notes that the classification of the data at the City did not affect the classification of the data at the District at any time during the investigation.
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
The data in the NeuVest report maintained by the Shakopee Police Department as inactive investigative data are public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, regardless of the classification of the data as maintained by the Shakopee Schools.
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;September 16, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>402931</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traveling data</Title><Id>267064</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266798</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-010</Title><title>Opinion 19 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-389237&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-06-19T19:41:52Z</Date><ShortDescription>In Advisory Opinion 19-010, a member of the public asked whether a state agency had violated the Data Practices Act because it had not provided her with access to the data he requested (public personnel data on two employees) until eight months after she asked for the data. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. Here, she opined that given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the agency’s response was not timely. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 18, 2019; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Beverley Berg asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) response to her request for data about two MDH employees. Lynn Belgea, Responsible Authority Designee and Data Practices Compliance Official, responded on behalf of MDH.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In an email dated March 9, 2018, Ms. Berg asked MDH Commissioner Malcolm and Ms. Belgea for access to “complaints/concerns/investigatory findings” about two MDH employees, one who resigned and another whose employment was terminated. MDH confirmed receipt in an email dated March 12, 2018. In her opinion request, Ms. Berg wrote, “[e]ight months later, November 8, 2018, MDH responded that there wasn’t any responsive data.”&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) respond appropriately to a March 9, 2018, data request, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, an entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or inform the requester that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-340647&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267963&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267469&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267662&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-015&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267325&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267700&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267434&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-006&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Ms. Berg asked for public data on two employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Belgea discussed Ms. Berg’s numerous requests to various MDH staff over a number of years. She wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ms. Berg&apos;s request of March 9, 2018, was but one of many formal and informal requests, questions, and other emailed and in-person contacts that Ms. Berg has submitted to MDH staff over several years. In order to respond to her request for an advisory opinion, I feel it necessary to view this request in the context of her numerous other contacts with MDH Responsible Authorities Commissioner Ed Ehlinger and Jan Malcolm, in addition to frequent contacts with the MDH Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, Human Resources and Health Regulation Division Directors, and directors of the MDH Office of Health Facility Complaints.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ms. Berg began making what she termed data practices requests at least as far back as 2014, primarily directed to the MDH Health Regulation Division (HRD) and the HRD Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC). She sent her communications via email to HRD and OHFC staff and managers. Her ‘requests’ included asking numerous questions (which are not valid data requests), criticisms of staff, and challenges to internal policies, procedures, and practices.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;MDH policy permits the public to make a request directly to staff of the program that may have the data, rather than making an official request to the Responsible Authority (the Commissioner) or the RA designee (me). However, the policy is clear that, unless the request is submitted to the Commissioner or me, it is not an official data practices request. Consequently, program staff respond directly if they can and seek legal advice from the Commissioner’s Legal Unit as necessary. The data practices function in the MDH Legal Unit does not monitor responses for these inquiries. At some point since then, Ms. Berg began addressing data practices requests to the Commissioner and me. However, she also continued her practice of sending additional inquiries, comments, and questions to MDH executive office and program staff.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that Ms. Berg has made numerous data requests to MDH, “official” and otherwise, as both types are allowed under MDH’s data access policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Belgea wrote in further detail about Ms. Berg’s interactions with MDH:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;MDH found it challenging to even keep track of Ms. Berg&apos;s communications, much less complete responses to her requests. Ms. Berg made numerous requests, many of which were overlapping and repetitive. Many were a mixture of questions and requests that had to be parsed to determine what she was actually getting at. She sent requests to multiple MDH recipients. She sent multi-page emails with requests embedded in the emails. We have sent responses to some of her requests that she stated incorrectly she did not receive. She complained that her computer was not able to open data that was sent and demanded that it be reformatted and sent to her. In some cases, we notified her of completed responses, but she would not come in to MDH to review the responses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the other requests provide relevant context to MDH’s response, this opinion focuses on MDH’s response to Ms. Berg’s March 9, 2018, data request, which was an official request made to the responsible authority for public data related to complaints about two MDH employees. Given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, MDH’s response to Ms. Berg was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note, however, that had MDH communicated with Ms. Berg beyond its initial confirmation of receipt of her request, the Commissioner might view the circumstances differently. In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-347419&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-010&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed issues that arise in situations in which a requester makes numerous and/or voluminous data requests:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266899&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the University of Minnesota had responded appropriately to a data requester, even though the University had not provided any data to the requester after a period of five months. In that opinion, the requester had asked for access to data related to numerous studies conducted by the University. The University acknowledged his request on the same day he sent it. A month later, the University provided him with an estimate of copy charges and a recap of his remaining data requests. Two weeks later, the University provided the requester with a list of responsive studies (83 studies) so he could determine the order in which he wanted to review them. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the complexity of the request and the fact that the University has been in continual communication with Mr. Elliot, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the University has acted appropriately in responding to Mr. Elliott&apos;s October 20, 2013, request. It seems reasonable that the request might warrant the time that has elapsed, especially in the context of Mr. Elliott&apos;s various other requests.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Health did not respond appropriately to a March 9, 2018, data request, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;June 18, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>389237</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority duties</Title><Id>266438</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266677</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor responsibility</Title><Id>266550</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for data</Title><Id>267220</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data</Title><Id>266902</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Health data</Title><Id>344345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request policy</Title><Id>375059</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for data</Title><Id>267220</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-009</Title><title>Opinion 19 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-386246&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-05-30T19:23:17Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Office of Higher Education (OHE) asked about the classification of certain program review data it maintained on a private/out-of-state university. The Commissioner opined that while the OHE is conducting the review the data may be classified as not public civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39. When the review concludes, the data revert to the not public classification they had prior to the investigation or are public. The Commissioner also reiterated that data may be protected as trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, if the entity determines the data meet the definition in that section. Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64, classifies accreditation reports, records, and information in the program review as not public. Finally, the Commissioner noted that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9, classifies data at the time of the request, regardless of any prior or subsequent classification. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 30, 2019; Office of Higher Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE) Commissioner Dennis Olson asked for an advisory opinion regarding data OHE maintains about Walden University, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). Richard A. Duncan and David C. Archer provided comments on behalf of Walden University (Walden).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;OHE administers the registration process authorizing private colleges and universities to operate in Minnesota pursuant to the Minnesota Private and Out-of-State Public Postsecondary Education Act. OHE wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Under the Act, OHE is responsible for establishing policies and procedures to assure the legitimacy of private postsecondary education institutions and programs. One of OHE&apos;s policies and procedures is to investigate complaints from students that question the authenticity and legitimacy of their private institution, its programs, and its adherence to its policies and procedures. In the event of violations of the above items, OHE has authority to request the institution to take remedial action or to take administrative action against the institution.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;OHE performed a comprehensive program review of Walden and its doctoral programs, as an extension of the registration and student complaint investigation processes. The purpose of this particular comprehensive program review was to 1) understand the context, background, and issues related to student complaints; 2) ensure that doctoral programs are providing quality programs for students; 3) collaborate with Walden to take corrective action, if needed; and 4) substantively decrease the frequency of doctoral student complaints. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In order to meet these goals, OHE requested significant data from Walden to increase OHE&apos;s understanding of student complaints, student retention and completion, doctoral curriculum, doctoral faculty, recruitment practices, advertising, and student advising services. Walden has cooperated with the program review, with a continued request that the data provided by Walden was to remain nonpublic, and that the program review content was intended exclusively for OHE to gain additional understanding and context of student complaints, and establish benchmarks to better respond to future student complaints.&lt;/em&gt; (Footnotes omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;OHE provided the Commissioner with a list of 35 sets of data that it collected during the program review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;OHE further wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he legislature is currently considering a bill regarding data classification for program reviews conducted by OHE. In its final form, the bill may include language that classifies program review data as private. Should that bill pass and become law … then there may be only a short period of time where the data is public as the law change would take effect July 1, 2019, after which the data would be classified as private. OHE seeks clarification on its duties to disclose the program review data in that interim period, should it exist.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39 classify data of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE) as confidential or protected nonpublic after the completion of a program review conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 136A.61 to 136A.71?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64 classify all data provided to OHE by a school subject to a program review or produced by OHE after the review, if the school also provided the information to a federal accrediting agency?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are certain data submitted by a school to OHE during a program review classified as not public trade secret information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is OHE&apos;s obligation to provide access to certain program review data in response to a data request that it has already received from a member of the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes that all government data are public unless classified as not public by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.01, subdivision 3 and 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;: Does Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39 classify data of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE) as confidential or protected nonpublic after the completion of a program review conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 136A.61 to 136A.71?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data collected by government entities as part of an investigation undertaken to commence or defend a pending civil legal action or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic, while the investigation is active. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39.) For data to be classified by section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the entity must determine that a civil legal action is pending. When the investigative data become inactive, data that were classified as private or nonpublic prior to the legal action revert to that classification and the remainder of the data become public. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267726&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267837&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-048&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267385&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;One of the ways in which data become inactive investigative data, is “a decision by the government entity or by the chief attorney acting for the government entity not to pursue the civil action.” (See section 13.39, subd. 3.) Additionally, an investigation may become active again, if the government entity decides to renew the civil action. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its opinion request, OHE wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;During the pendency of a program review all data is classified as investigative under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.39 and is therefore classified as nonpublic. The investigative status of the data is only applied while there is any possibility that OHE may take some regulatory action against the institution, which would constitute the required civil action. As the program reviews are now complete, and OHE has determined that there is no pending regulatory action or civil legal action under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.39 subd. 3(1), it is OHE&apos;s position that any nonpublic or protected nonpublic status under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.39 no longer applies. Any request for further information from Walden is merely monitoring, and not investigative.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In arguing that OHE’s continued monitoring means that the civil legal action (i.e., program review) is still pending, Walden wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[W]hether an investigation exists hinges on the underlying facts, and OHE’s “monitoring” is an administrative investigation into Walden’s activities by another name.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Accordingly, to the extent that OHE’s ongoing “monitoring” is more accurately characterized as an investigation under Section 13.39, data collected pursuant to that investigation must remain nonpublic. Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.39.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267410&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-029&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote, &quot;whether data may be classified as civil investigative data is substantially the discretion of the government entity&apos;s chief attorney.&quot; OHE has discretion to determine when the program review is pending. Similarly, OHE makes the decision that it is no longer pursuing the program review. Therefore, while OHE is conducting a “program review,” the data it collects and maintains are active civil investigative pursuant to section 13.39 and are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. Once OHE determines not to pursue legal action further, the data are inactive civil investigative data and are classified as either public or private/nonpublic based on the classification of the data prior to the pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/em&gt; Does Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64 classify all data provided to OHE by a school subject to a program review or produced by OHE after the review, if the school also provided the information to a federal accrediting agency?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under statute, OHE shall not disclose “financial records or accreditation reports provided to it by a school,” except in certain circumstances. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64, subdivision 2.) Further, “all information submitted to the office [of Higher Education] is public information except financial and accreditation records and information.” (Section 136A.64, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its opinion request, OHE wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Walden argues that any information it submitted to OHE that “either directly involve[s] Walden&apos;s accreditation [ ... ] or information produced in the program review that is of the type of information used in an accreditation process,” should be classified as nonpublic pursuant to section 136A.64. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;OHE finds Walden&apos;s interpretation of section 136A.64 overbroad. To the extent that Walden has submitted to OHE reports it provided to [the federal accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC)] pursuant to HLC&apos;s accreditation process, OHE agrees that these reports are nonpublic. OHE rejects the argument, however, that data provided to OHE pursuant to its registration statute are nonpublic merely because the data has also been provided to an accreditor in some form and at some point in time. Specifically, OHE rejects Walden&apos;s argument that because the HLC requires Walden to be compliant with state laws related to the authorization of its educational activities and consumer protection, any and all information OHE collects in the course of determining whether Walden is in compliance with relevant Minnesota law must be considered accreditation data and retain a nonpublic status. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Oversight of postsecondary institutions is a shared responsibility between the federal government, state governments, and accreditation organizations. … These processes are parallel to each other, and the requirements of an accreditor cannot be used to determine that data as nonpublic under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).&lt;/em&gt; (Footnotes omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Accreditation records and information are nonpublic. To the extent that OHE determines that data Walden submitted pursuant to OHE’s registration and student complaint review authority are “accreditation records and information,” those data are not public. All other data Walden submitted are public, unless classified by another law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3&lt;/em&gt;: Are certain data submitted by a school to OHE during a program review classified as not public trade secret information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; “Trade secret information” is defined as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/em&gt; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data that meet the definition of “trade secret” are classified as private data on individuals or nonpublic data not on individuals. (See section 13.37, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued a number of advisory opinions on the application of the trade secret provision. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267690&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267811&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267399&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-005&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-360957&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-016&lt;/a&gt;.) She has consistently opined that the provision should be interpreted narrowly. Additionally, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267495&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-018&lt;/a&gt;, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[W]hile the outside person supplying the data to the government entity bears the burden of establishing that the data meet all of the conditions set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), the entity is ultimately responsible for determining whether the data warrant classification as trade secrets.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Walden argues that much of the data at issue fit the definition of trade secret information and should be protected. Walden wrote, “[u]nder Minnesota trade secret case law, information that threatens negative commercial consequences if disclosed publicly is protectable as trade secret.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In arguing that the first two prongs of the definition (supplied by the affected organization and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy) are not at issue, OHE wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As to the third element, OHE finds Walden&apos;s arguments unpersuasive and overbroad. The data to which Walden refers is aggregate-level data, critical to understanding the nature and activities of the school. Minn. Stat. [sec.] 136A.64. Additionally, much of the data that Walden now seeks trade secret protection for is already publicly available. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Under these specific circumstances, OHE recognizes that some, limited portions of the data do warrant such classification, while other portions of the data do not.&lt;/em&gt; (Footnotes omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, OHE has made preliminary determinations agreeing with Walden that some of the data are not public trade secret information and disagreeing with Walden’s determination about other data. The Commissioner reiterates that government entities are in the best position to determine whether data fall within the definition of trade secret information in section 13.37. If Walden disagrees with the conclusions reached in this opinion, it can bring an action in court to prevent OHE from disclosing the program review data about Walden.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 4&lt;/em&gt;: What is OHE&apos;s obligation to provide access to certain program review data in response to a data request that it has already received from a member of the public? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Prior to asking for this advisory opinion, OHE received a data request for the data at issue in this opinion. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Unless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, regardless of the data&apos;s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267342&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-011&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he Legislature, on an annual basis, enacts new legislation, and amends and repeals existing statutes. Annually, the Legislature alters the classification of various types of government data. As evidence of its intent, to maintain ongoing control over classification of data, the Legislature enacted Section 13.03, subdivision 9, in addition to the provisions of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, discussed above. Section 13.03, subdivision 9, provides: “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data&lt;/em&gt; at the time a request for access to the data is made&lt;em&gt;, regardless of the data&apos;s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Walden wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[I]f a conflict regarding classification of data under the Data Practices Act arises between the holding in an advisory opinion and a legislative enactment that has not yet taken effect, OHE is not required to adhere to the advisory opinion simply because it appeared first in time. Instead the Office should act in a way that advances, and does not thwart, the legislature&apos;s intent.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Walden’s characterization of the situation as a conflict between her advisory opinion and future legislative enactment. It is not the Commissioner’s opinion that governs the data at issue, rather it is the plain language of section 13.03, subd. 9. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Walden is correct that the Commissioner’s opinions are advisory in nature and a government entity is not bound by the conclusions reached in an opinion. However, an entity that relies on an opinion issued to it, or to another entity or person, “is not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or awards of attorneys fees in actions for violations arising under section 13.08 or 13.085, or for a penalty under section 13.09.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;During the pendency of this opinion, the Legislature classified some of the data at issue here as not public. (See, Laws of Minnesota 2019, chapter 64, article 2, section 23, effective July 1, 2019.) The legislation does not expressly provide for the not public classification to apply to data responsive to the existing data request. Thus, the legislative change does not affect the Commissioner’s analysis of this issue. The classification will apply to any data requests OHE receives on July 1, 2019, and going forward.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39 does not classify data of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE) as confidential or protected nonpublic after the completion of a program review conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 136A.61 to 136A.71.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Accreditation records and information submitted to OHE as part of a program review are not public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64. All other data submitted to OHE are public, unless classified by another law.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;OHE is in the best position to determine which data in a program review are classified as not public trade secret information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data are classified at the time a government entity receives a data request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9. Thus, the recent legislative change that takes effect on July 1, 2019, does not affect the pending data request; OHE must provide data classified as public at the time it received the request.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 30, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>386246</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets</Title><Id>266942</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets (13.37)</Title><Id>266417</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification at time of request, controls access (13.03, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266595</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification of data</Title><Id>266911</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-008</Title><title>Opinion 19 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-385441&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-05-22T17:54:52Z</Date><ShortDescription>a City Council held closed meetings to discuss allegations against a staff member after it decided to hire an investigator. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 2(b), requires a public body to close a meeting(s) to consider allegations against an employee subject to its authority until it determines that discipline may be warranted. Once it makes that determination, subsequent meetings and hearings for additional consideration of the allegations must be open. The Commissioner concluded that the Council members did not comply with the Open Meeting Law.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 22, 2019; Tower City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Marshall Helmberger asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Tower City Council (Council) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Andrew R. Peterson, attorney, responded on behalf of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Helmberger, the Council held one or more closed meetings in 2019 after it decided to hire an outside investigator to look into allegations against the City Clerk-Treasurer. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;By agreeing to seek the hiring of an outside investigator, the city council can no longer legitimately claim that its consideration of the allegations is “preliminary.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;... In concluding that the hiring of an investigator is appropriate, the council has self-evidently concluded that “discipline of&lt;/em&gt; any &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; may &lt;em&gt;be warranted,” (emphasis added)....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The city attorney argues that the city council can continue to hold meetings in closed session, apparently indefinitely, until the city has concluded its investigation and made a final determination of what, if any, disciplinary action is appropriate.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Such an interpretation is wildly at odds with the clear language of the statute, which specifically limits closed sessions to preliminary consideration of allegations. ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Tower City Council violate the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D), when it closed meetings to consider “Employee Misconduct Allegations” after it decided to hire an investigator to look into the allegations?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Peterson discussed Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a) (4) and (5), which states that absent a final disposition of disciplinary action against a public employee, the only related public data are the existence and status of a complaint or charge. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In an email that I sent to Mr. Helmberger on March 15, 2019, I told Mr. Helmberger that “the City is in the process of retaining an outside attorney to investigate allegations against … the Clerk-Treasurer.” In my email, I also told Mr. Helmberger that an outside attorney had not yet been retained by the City.... As of the date of this email, the City has not yet retained an outside attorney to investigate the allegations against [the Clerk-Treasurer] and decided to table this issue on April 8, 2019.  The fact that the City may retain an outside attorney to investigate the allegations of [the Clerk-Treasurer] at some time does not mean that the City has decided disciplinary action is warranted. The City would need to gather all of the facts before it can determine whether or not discipline is warranted against [the Clerk-Treasurer]. Since we do not know whether or not disciplinary action will be taken against [the Clerk-Treasurer], there is not a final disposition and only the existence and status of the complaint or charges are public at this time. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Quoting section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), Mr. Peterson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Again, the fact that the City may retain an outside attorney to help them with the investigation does not mean that the City has concluded that discipline of any nature is warranted. Since there has been no final disposition of disciplinary action taken against [the Clerk-Treasurer] by the City, I believe the City did not violate the Minnesota Open Meeting Law when it closed meetings to discuss allegations against [the Clerk-Treasurer] after it was decided to hire an investigator as this would be private data except for the limited data as to the existence and status of such complaint or charge.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Council’s position. Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) requires a public body to close a meeting until it determines that discipline may be warranted. Once it makes that determination, it may not close another meeting for additional consideration of the allegations. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Furthermore, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b) states, “… not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body’s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.” Therefore, the Council may discuss not public data, including personnel data classified as private under section 13.43, at an open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Once it decided to hire an outside investigator to look into allegations against the Clerk-Treasurer (even if that decision was subsequently tabled), the Council apparently determined that disciplinary action &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be warranted. Accordingly, all subsequent meetings or hearings related to those specific allegations must be open.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Tower City Council did not comply with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D), when it closed meetings to consider “Employee Misconduct Allegations” after it decided to hire an investigator to look into the allegations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 22, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>385441</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory responsibilities government</Title><Id>375060</Id><Key/></Category><Title> Advisory Opinion 19-007</Title><title>Opinion 19 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-385013&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-05-20T15:24:44Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the Houston County Agricultural Society (“Society”) is subject to both the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. The Society conceded it is subject to the Open Meeting Law, but disputed that it is a government entity for purposes of the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that the Society is subject to the Data Practices Act, as it is a political subdivision as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 11. The Commissioner noted that it is the governing body of the Society that is subject to the Open Meeting Law.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 20, 2019; Houston County Agricultural Society</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jordan Gerard, of the Spring Grove Herald, requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner addressing whether the Houston County Agricultural Society (the “Society”) is subject to the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. Attorney Kevin Roop responded on behalf of the Society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Gerard stated, “[t]he Houston County Agricultural Society will not abide my request for minutes, agendas and other requested materials pertinent to an issue. The Society claims they are not a public government entity and therefore not subject to the MN Open Meeting Law nor MN Govt. Data Practices Act.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Houston County Agricultural Society subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Houston County Agricultural Society subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;. Is the Houston County Agricultural Society Subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act governs access to and the protection of government data. All government entities are subject to the Data Practices Act per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7a defines “government entity” as “a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.” Section 13.02, subdivision 11, goes on to define “political subdivision” as “any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance, or charter provision.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the case of county agricultural societies, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 38.01, which enables their formation. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner previously issued &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267940&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-004&lt;/a&gt;. In this opinion, the Commissioner determined that the Dakota County Agricultural Society is subject to Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. Much of the same analysis applies to the question at hand as both these entities are subject to the same enabling legislation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Society submitted lengthy comments in response to Ms. Gerard’s advisory opinion request, which included the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MGDPA only applies to government entities. Under the MGDPA there are three types of governmental entities: state agencies, statewide systems, and political subdivisions. The MGDPA provides an extensive definition for “political subdivision.” However, the only section of the definition that could apply to the Society is “any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance, or charter provision.” This definition does not apply to the Society because it is not a board; It is an organization governed by a board.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Society indicated it concedes “that it is a public body under Chapter 13D of Minnesota Statutes.” However, it went on to state, “this concession does not mean that the Society is a political subdivision under the MGDPA. Furthermore, the Society denies that it is violating or has violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Society argues that since Minnesota Statutes, section 38.04, states that reports required by this section are public data pursuant to Chapter 13, this section would be “superfluous” if agricultural societies “were political subdivisions under the MGDPA” and that the Legislature’s “apparent need to specify that agricultural society reports are public data implies that most of an agricultural society’s data is not public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Society concluded its comments with the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Society has followed Minnesota Law. It has given Ms. Gerard the necessary disclosures under §38.04 and the Open Meeting Law. It does not need to give her additional information because it is not a political subdivision under the MGDPA…The purpose of Ms. Gerard’s request is to use this information to harm the Spring Grove Herald’s former employees and the Houston County Agricultural Society. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Society. As indicated above, and pursuant to Advisory Opinion 10-004, a county agricultural society enabled by section 38.01 is a political subdivision that is subject to the Data Practices Act. As further support for this conclusion, section 38.04 indicates that certain data maintained by the Society are public pursuant to Chapter 13. Chapter 13 is only applicable to government entities. It therefore follows that the Society is a government entity and must administer its data pursuant to the Data Practices Act. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the reason or motivation for a public data request is not a permissible consideration in responding to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt; Is the Houston County Agricultural Society Subject to the Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(6) indicates “[a]ll meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public…of the governing body of a…public body.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Society concedes that it is subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner previously issued &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267109&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-012&lt;/a&gt;, which addressed whether the Dakota County Agricultural Society Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law, and much of this analysis is applicable to these facts as well. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that it is the Board of the Houston County Agricultural Society that is subject to the Open Meeting Law, as it is the governing body of the Society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Houston County Agricultural Society is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Houston County Agricultural Society Board is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;May 20, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>385013</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data</Title><Id>266902</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Agriculture</Title><Id>245974</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title> Advisory Opinion 19-006</Title><title>Opinion 19 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-379354&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-04-09T13:16:58Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city council held a special meeting and provided notice by posting the proposed agenda. At the special meeting, the Council took action on three items that it had not identified in the notice. At a subsequent regular meeting, the Council approved meeting minutes of the special meeting but did not provide a copy of the minutes in the public packet. The Commissioner concluded that the Council members did not comply with the Open Meeting Law at either meeting.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 9, 2019; Rockville City Council </Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Rick Tallman asked for an advisory opinion regarding Rockville City Council (Council) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council declined to provide comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Tallman provided the following summary of the issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Rockville city council held a Special council meeting on 2/11/19 which was posted using the agenda as the Public Notice (see the attached 02.11.19_Agenda). It has been the common practice in Rockville for at least a few years to use the meeting agenda as the official Public Notice of meetings….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The city administrator requested additions to the agenda specifically - Item 6a) RTU 2019 Street Project Item and 6b) 2019 COLA Adjustment. The COLA increase for city staff was a very important topic to those in attendance at the December 2018 council meeting as can be viewed in the online recording of the meeting… There was not any public notice for this Special Council Meeting regarding the additions to the agenda that were added as required by MN 13D.04, subd. 2 (see the attached 2.11.19 minutes showing the additions to the agenda). &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Tallman also wrote that the February 13, 2019, regular meeting agenda listed approval of minutes from previous Council meetings, including the February 11, 2019, special meeting. The Council members had copies of the draft minutes at the meeting, but the Council did not make a copy available in the public packet of members’ materials&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, at the February 11, 2019, special meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the February 13, 2019, regular meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt; : Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, at the February 11, 2019, special meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For any meeting that is not on the regular schedule of meetings, the OML requires that public bodies provide notice at least three days before the meeting and that the notice include the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.) That subdivision also allows an individual to request to be notified of special meetings concerning one or more specific subjects. (See Section 13D.04, subd. 2(d).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Tallman stated that the Council’s practice is to post the special meeting agenda as the notice required by section 13D.04, subd. 2. The agenda for the February 11, 2019, meeting included the date, time, and place. For “purpose,” the agenda listed seven items:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Call to Order Roll Call&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Roll Call – (Silence Electronic Devices)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Additions/Approval of Agenda&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ordinance Review&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;City Fee Schedule&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Adjourn&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Tallman subsequently obtained a copy of the February 11 meeting minutes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The minutes of the meeting show actually 3 additions -#1 Item 6 a) 2019 Street Project Resolution 2019-08 which was another addition was also acted on passing unanimously. #2 Item 6 b) 2019 Cola - which was acted on and passed by a 3 to 1 vote. The 3rd item under item 6 b) Three new RTU Committee members which was not even on the agenda as an addition or approved as an addition was also acted on passing unanimously.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While a public body may add (or remove) topics from consideration at a regular meeting (where the notice required does not include listing the “purpose,” see section 13D.04, subdivision 1), it cannot do so at a special meeting. Special meeting notice must identify the purpose and the public body must limit the discussion to that purpose. If the public body does not limit its discussion to the topics stated in its notice, it cannot fulfill its obligation to provide notice to those members of the public who request notice of special meetings concerning specific topics. ( See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267471&quot; title=&quot;Advisory Opinion 04-004&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267582&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267288&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-024&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267304&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because the notice of the February 11, 2019, special meeting, did not adequately describe the “purpose,” the Council did not comply with section 13D.04, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt; : Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the February 13, 2019, regular meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires that at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items that are distributed at or before the meeting to all members of the governing body or are available to all members in the meeting room, “shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.” (See section 13D.01, subd. 6.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The agenda for the February 13, 2019, regular meeting includes, “Approval of the Rockville City Council Minutes of January 9, January 28 and February 11, 2019.” Mr. Tallman stated that the public packet did not include the draft minutes for the February 11, 2019, meeting:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I showed the Public copy to both the city attorney and the city administrator after the meeting pointing out that the minutes were not in the public packet. I also had people in attendance of that meeting verify that the 2/11/19 minutes were not in the public copy, nor were they in the online council packet available to the public. A council member had told me that the 2/11/19 minutes were emailed to the councilors from city staff the day before on Tuesday 2/12/19. That would indicate the minutes were available to the council but not the public as is required. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council did not provide a public copy of the February 11, 2019, draft meeting minutes at the February 13, 2019, meeting. Therefore, the Council did not comply with section 13D.01, subd. 6. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267319&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 08 015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-015&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-310269&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 17 006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;17-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies.” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn.1983). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). Here, the Council discussed and acted on three items that it failed to identify in its special meeting notice and subsequently, approved minutes from that meeting that clearly identified the Council’s action, without providing a copy to the public as required under the OML. In these circumstances, the Council met neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Rockville City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, at the February 11, 2019, special meeting because it did not provide adequate notice of the purpose of the meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Rockville City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the February 13, 2019, regular meeting, because it did not make a complete public packet of members’ materials available in the meeting room while it considered the subject matter.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April 9, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>379354</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Peace officer records of children</Title><Id>327537</Id><Key/></Category><Title> Advisory Opinion 19-005</Title><title>Opinion 19 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-378530&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-04-04T13:24:40Z</Date><ShortDescription>A law enforcement agency asked about the classification of data in an inactive criminal investigation of an officer-involved fatal shooting. The Commissioner opined that the data were variously classified under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.171 (peace officer records of children), 13.10 (private data on decedents), 13.82 (law enforcement data), and 13.825 (body camera data). The Commissioner also opined that absent clarification from the Legislature, law enforcement agencies have discretion to interpret the scope of the plain meaning of “data that document the discharge of a firearm” that are public under section 13.825.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 4, 2019; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;E. Joseph Newton, General Counsel for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, asked for an advisory opinion about the classification of inactive criminal investigative data about and related to an officer-involved fatal shooting of a child (“the child”) that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) maintains, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The Commissioner invited Paul Dworak, attorney for the data subject(s), to submit comments in response to Mr. Newton’s request, which he did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Newton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On July 13, 2018, the BCA assumed primary investigative responsibility for the investigation of an officer-involved shooting [of the child] that occurred in the city of Chanhassen.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;During the active criminal investigation, the criminal investigative data were classified as confidential or protected nonpublic data under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. The criminal investigation became inactive on October 11, 2018 when the Carver County Attorney declined to charge the deputies involved in the shooting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The nearly 1200 pages of data are primarily comprised of (1) incident and service call reports from the July 13, 2018 incident, (2) narratives of peace officers who were on scene, (3) interviews of the child’s family members and a friend, (4) canvass interviews of neighbors within the vicinity, (5) previous incident and service call reports to the child’s residences, (6) search warrants, (7) Google searches by the child and texts between the child and parents, (8) BCA laboratory reports of examinations of physical evidence, (9) dash cam video, and (10) audio and video data collected by portable recording systems.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Newton also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;These data are “peace officer records on children” because they constitute a “record” and involve a “child.” For instance, there are incident and service call reports with narratives that document the July 13, 2018 incident when the child was or may have been delinquent or may have been engaged in criminal acts. The incident stemmed from allegedly assaultive behavior and peace officers were responding to address a disturbance caused by the child. These data also include interviews of family members, neighbors, and a friend that contain detailed information about the July 13, 2018 incident and/or impressions about the child who was or may have been delinquent or may have been engaged in criminal acts.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Newton also asked about data classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This specific statute strictly addresses data that document the “discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty” rather than data that document the entire “incident.” However, the portable recording systems data at issue span the scope of the incident that started with a 911 call and lasted subsequent to the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty. For instance, there are data of peace officers responding to the scene before; during, and after the discharge of a firearm (when officers arrived to assist with the investigation) that do not document any portion of the aforementioned discharge.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act) what is the classification of inactive criminal investigative data maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that are “peace officer records of children”?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, which data are classified as public: data that document the “discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty,” or all data that document the entire “incident” (before, during, and after the discharge of a firearm)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act) what is the classification of inactive criminal investigative data maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that are “peace officer records of children”?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5, classifies as private “peace officers’ records of children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts.” Peace officer records of children are not confidential, even when an investigation is active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Private data are data on individuals; “individual” means a living human being. (See Minnesota Statues, section 13.02, subdivisions 5 and 9, and Minnesota Rules part 1205.0200, subpart 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.10, when an individual data subject dies, data that were classified as private or confidential before death are reclassified as “private data on decedents” or “confidential data on decedents”. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, classifies inactive criminal investigative data as public, with exceptions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;nactive investigative data are public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17. Images and recordings, including photographs, video, and audio records, which are part of inactive investigative files and which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data … .&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Newton, his item (1), “Incident and service call reports from the July 13, 2018 incident” include “narratives that document the July 13, 2018 incident when the child was or may have been delinquent or may have been engaged in criminal acts.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data in the reports that were in existence before the child died and were classified as private peace officer records of a child under section 260B.171, subdivision 5, are now private data on decedents per section 13.10. Data created after the death cannot be private data on individuals, and therefore cannot be classified under section 260B.171; they also cannot be classified under section 13.10. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his comments, Mr. Dworak asserted that all of the data at issue are private. He referenced language in section 13.10, subdivision 3, which states, “[n]onpublic data concerning a decedent, created or collected after death, are accessible by the representative of the decedent,” in support of his position that all of the data at issue are private. However, that provision does not classify data, instead, it clarifies that data that are nonpublic (because they were created after the data subject dies) are accessible to the decedent’s representative.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Newton, data BCA collected or created as part of its investigation into the officers’ shooting are inactive criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7. Those data are described in items (2) through (8) (except for (5)) that were either government data created after the death as part of the investigation, or data that were not classified upon their creation. For example, although the Google searches by the child and texts between the child and parents were created before the death, they were not government data until they were collected by BCA as part of the active criminal investigation. Because they were not government data when the child was alive, they could not have been classified under section 260B.171. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted above, inactive criminal investigative data are public unless the data reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17, or are images and recordings, including photographs, video, and audio, which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities under subdivision 7. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Upon review by the Commissioner, some of the data in item (5), “previous incident and service call reports to the child’s residences” are classified as private under either section 260B.171 or section 13.10. Data in the reports that are not classified by either of those statutes are either presumptively public or specifically classified as public under section 13.82, unless they are private per subdivisions 7 and/or 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Item (9), “dash cam video” on the child before the child died were classified as private peace officers’ records of a child under section 260B.171, and are now private data on decedents under section 13.10. Otherwise, the data are classified under section 13.82, as discussed above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;BCA must examine the data elements in items (1) – (9) to determine which of the above statutes classifies the data. Item (10) is discussed in Issue 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, which data are classified as public: data that document the “discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty,” or all data that document the entire “incident” (before, during, and after the discharge of a firearm)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 classifies “portable recording system data,&quot; which are audio or video data collected by a portable recording system (commonly referred to as body camera data) as private, with exceptions. Subdivision 2(a)(1) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[D]ata that document the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty…, or the use of force by a peace officer that results in substantial bodily harm … are public[.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Newton asked the Commissioner about the scope of data that document the discharge of a firearm, i.e., whether it means data that document only the discharge (the firing) of a firearm, or all audio/video data “that document the entire ‘incident’ (before, during, and after the discharge of a firearm)”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Legislature classified a portion of body camera data created by law enforcement agencies, but provided no definitions or guidelines in the statute as to what constitutes the data that document the weapon discharge. Absent clarification from the Legislature, law enforcement agencies have discretion to interpret the scope of the plain meaning of “data that document the discharge of a firearm”. Accordingly, law enforcement agencies will have to make those determinations in any given situation. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, body camera data on the child before the child died were classified as private peace officers’ records of a child under section 260B.171, and are now private data on decedents under section 13.10. Body camera data about the child after death are public or private under section 13.825. Furthermore, if BCA determines that any otherwise public portions of the body camera data are offensive to common sensibilities, it needs to protect the data per section 13.825, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act) the data maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension are classified under three statutes. As discussed above, some of the data are private under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.171 and 13.10. Data not classified by those sections are generally public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. However, some of the data may be protected under subdivisions 7 or 17; if so, the data are private or nonpublic.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, data that document the “discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty,” are public. Law enforcement agencies must determine how much of the body camera data document the discharge of a firearm.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;April 4, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>378530</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents</Title><Id>267229</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents (13.10)</Title><Id>266471</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles</Title><Id>267280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Body camera data 13.825</Title><Id>378580</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Portable recording system data</Title><Id>378581</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Title> Advisory Opinion 19-004</Title><title>Opinion 19 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-377565&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-03-28T18:19:28Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked whether it should provide access to a video of two students engaged in an altercation to one of the parents of one of the students. The Commissioner stated that where possible, schools must segregate the requesting parent’s student’s data from any other students’ data. However, relying on federal guidance, the Commissioner concluded, if segregating the data is not possible, then the school should provide the requesting parent with access to the unredacted video.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 28, 2019; ISD 283, St. Louis Park Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Peter Martin, attorney for Independent School District 283, St. Louis Park Public Schools (District) asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data that the District maintains under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District recently received a request from a parent to view certain hallway security video. The requested video depicts an altercation between two students, one of whom is the parent’s child. The video also depicts several students in the background who were not involved in the altercation. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District then asked whether the requesting parent could have access to the video.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, must Independent School District 283, St. Louis Park Schools, allow a parent of a student in a video access to the video if it also depicts other students?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Both Minnesota and federal law govern data about public school students. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies most data relating to students as private and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Both laws provide for access rights of students and their parents and privacy protections that limit access by others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Educational data are “data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. (See section 13.32, subdivision 1.) FERPA defines an education record as, “those records that are (1) directly related to a student; and (2) maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.” (See 34 C.F.R. 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota law, data subjects, including parents of minor children, have the right to access public and private data about themselves. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.) Moreover, Minnesota Rules provide that, “[t]he responsible authority shall not deny access by parents to data that is considered an education record, as that term is defined by [FERPA].” (See Minnesota Rules 1205.0500, subpart 4.) The Data Practices Act also gives data subjects the right to consent to the release of their private data to others. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4(d) and Minnesota Rules 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act also provides that private data are only accessible to the subject of the data, those authorized by law, those within an entity who need the data to do their job, and those to whom the data subject has given consent. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12 and Minnesota Rules 1205.0400, subpart 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota law does not resolve how a data subject’s right of access to private data is impacted by another data subject’s right to privacy when the private data of the one cannot be separated from the private data of the other. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that, “[e]ducational data ultimately are controlled by FERPA; the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations.” (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267142&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-021&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-320147&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;17-010&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;FERPA provides, “[i]f the education records of a student contain information on more than one student, the parent or eligible student may inspect and review or be informed of only the specific information about that student.” (See 34 CFR 99.12(a). See also 20 U.S.C. sec. 1232g(a)(1)(A).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In Advisory Opinion 17-010, the Commissioner addressed a similar situation to the one at issue here. She provided a lengthy analysis of the provisions of state and federal law implicated in providing parents access to an audio recording of an interview with their identifiable student, when the recording also contained private data about other identifiable students. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Relying on the federal guidance available at the time (see &lt;em&gt;Letter of technical assistance to school district re: disclosure of education records containing information on multiple complainants&lt;/em&gt; (FPCO, Oct. 31, 2003)), the Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The District must provide access to data on Student to Parent. The District must make every reasonable effort to redact the personally identifiable information on other students from the recording and provide access to Student’s data. Only if the District cannot easily separate Student’s education records from those of other students, then it must “inform” Parent of the specific information about Student.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On the same day that the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinion 17-010, the Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO) of the Student Privacy Policy Office (formerly the Family Policy Compliance Office or FPCO) at the U.S. Department of Education, issued a letter addressing a situation nearly identical to the circumstances here. (See the &lt;em&gt;Letter to Wachter&lt;/em&gt;, OCPO (December 7, 2017).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Letter to Wachter&lt;/em&gt;, a parent of a student shown in a video of a hazing incident that also depicted a number of other students, asked for a copy of the video under applicable state law. (The incident took place in a Pennsylvania public school.) The OCPO concluded that if the school could segregate the data about the parent’s student, then the FERPA requires the school to do so. This is consistent with the Commissioner’s conclusion in 17-010. However, the letter goes on to say that if the school was unable to do so, then the school should provide access to the parents by letting the parent view the unredacted video. The OCPO wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In providing access to the video, the District must provide the parents of a disciplined student (or the student if the student is an eligible student) with the opportunity to inspect and review the video so long as the video cannot be segregated and redacted without destroying its meaning. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Commissioner has not viewed the video at issue here, based on the District’s description, she agrees with the District that the video is an education record under FERPA and educational data under the Data Practices Act of the two students involved in the incident. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District stated that it is unable to segregate the image of the parent requester’s student without destroying the meaning of the record. As stated above, Minnesota law does not resolve the question of providing access under these circumstances. The District has an obligation to provide data subjects access to data and to protect private data on others. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District relied on a previous Advisory Opinion to argue that it could withhold access to the entire video. In Issue 3 of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267834&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-010&lt;/a&gt;, a school district asked about a situation where a parent of a student involved in an incident with a school employee requested a copy of the video of that dispute. The Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thus, in situations where the District determines it is impossible to redact a videotape without inappropriately releasing private data about a student or employee, the District may withhold the entire videotape.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The facts in that opinion are distinguishable from the facts at issue here. Advisory Opinion 03-010 addressed a combination of private educational data and private personnel data (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43). Private personnel data are not subject to FERPA, as the data in the District’s video are, which are solely educational data. Moreover, the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinion 03-010 nearly 16 years ago and she assumes that recording and redacting technology have advanced beyond what was reasonable and available to government entities in 2003. As she wrote in Advisory opinion 17-010:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner cautions government entities to pay careful attention to the way in which they create records. The entity must have in place the policies, procedures, and capacities to respond to any data practices requests that might arise subsequent to the creation of records. In other words, if an entity creates an audio recording record, it must ensure it has the capability to redact that recording appropriately, if necessary, in response to a data request.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the alternative, the District asks the Commissioner to reaffirm her conclusion in Advisory Opinion 17-010, that the parent requester in this situation should be “informed” of the specific information about the parent’s student but not given access to the video. However, the Commissioner relied on federal guidance to reach that conclusion and the federal guidance has changed. The Commissioner cannot ignore the more recent, clear statement from the federal government on the question raised here. Thus, consistent with the most recent federal guidance, the District should provide the parents of the students (or eligible student data subjects) involved in the altercation access to the unredacted video in these circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District also argued that the students in the background of the video, who were not a part of the altercation, may also be subjects of educational data. (See &lt;em&gt;Echo Newspaper v. St. Louis Park Public Schools&lt;/em&gt;, A17-1967 (Minn. App. Aug. 13, 2018) (finding that data that “relates” to a student “appears to cover a wide range of data”).) However, the Data Practices Act defines educational data as “data on individuals” that relate to a student. (See section 13.32, subd. 1.) The phrase “data on individuals” is defined as data in which:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data,&lt;/em&gt; unless &lt;em&gt;the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be&lt;/em&gt; only incidental &lt;em&gt;to the data and the data are&lt;/em&gt; not accessed by the name or other identifying data &lt;em&gt;of any individual.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(See section 13.02, subdivision 5.) (Emphasis added.) Therefore, if the background students’ images are incidental and not accessible by their names (i.e., in their education records or files or labeled by their names), then the video does not constitute educational data on those students and neither they, nor their parents, would be entitled to access the unredacted video. (Under FERPA, images of students in the background of videos are not education records. See &lt;em&gt;Letter to Wachter&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that all government entities in Minnesota are in a difficult position when administering data that combine private data on multiple data subjects. Educational entities are further challenged by the fact that failure to comply with the requirements of FERPA jeopardizes their continued receipt of federal funding. The Commissioner encourages the legislature to consider educational entities’ data practices duties under state law in light of their FERPA obligations.&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District 283, St. Louis Park Schools, should allow a parent of a student in a video access to the video even if it also depicts other students, pursuant to the federal guidance interpreting FERPA.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 28, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>377565</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Videotapes</Title><Id>266402</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access</Title><Id>267012</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data disclosure</Title><Id>267115</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Access by data subject or parent</Title><Id>266762</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-28T12:53:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Title> Advisory Opinion 19-003</Title><title>Opinion 19 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-377591&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-03-28T17:10:41Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked about his right to obtain government data maintained on the cell phones of county sheriff employees. In its response, the county stated that its employees’ personal cell phone records are not government data, contradicting its own policy that the county considers work-related data created, received, recorded, or stored on a personally-owned cell phone government data. The Commissioner opined that the county should have ascertained whether any of the cell phones contained government data, and if so, provided the data to the requester.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 28, 2019; Rice County Sheriffs Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paul Seeman asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to get access to data from the Rice County Sheriff’s Office, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The County submitted comments in response to Mr. Seeman’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Seeman first asked the County in 2016 and 2017 for access to “employment related cell phone call and text records” for three employees. He asked for records from 2014. In response to his renewed request, on February 19, 2019, which is at issue here, the County reiterated its earlier responses, which are the same for each employee: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Detective [XX] utilizes a personal cell phone for calls made away from his office phone at the Rice County Sheriff’s Office. Detective [XX]’s personal cell phone records are not an official government record. Rice County does not collect or maintain the requested records, nor are they in the possession of Rice County. The records you are requesting are not government data, and as such are not subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Rice County Sheriff’s Office respond appropriately to a February 1, 2019, data request, pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In arguing that the information Mr. Seeman requested does not constitute government data, the County wrote to the Commissioner: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rice County believes it responded appropriately when responding to Mr. Seeman’s February 1, 2019 request for personal cell phone records of the Sheriff Office’s employees. Rice County’s position is that the data requested is not government data. ….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The documents Mr. Seeman requested were not collected, received, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity and, accordingly, are not government data subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Furthermore, Rice County did not create the cell phone records, the cell phone provider did, so Rice County did not create these records either. ….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lastly, Rice County Sheriff’s Office is not in the possession of the requested record. As stated earlier, Minn. Stat. §13.82, subd. 18, provides “nothing in this section shall require law enforcement agencies to create, collect or maintain data which is not required to be created, collected or maintained ... “. Rice County did not need the cell phone records for its criminal investigation, therefore, it did not collect these records from the cell phone provider. Since there was no reason to gather this information as part of the investigation, Mr. Seeman, through a data request, cannot require the Sheriff’s Office to collect documents it would not normally obtain. Because the documents were never in the possession of Rice County, there is nothing to disclose. Rice County does not have records responsive to Mr. Seeman’s data request.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In 2008, the Commissioner opined that when a superintendent used a personal data recorder to record portions of a school board meeting, he was acting in his official capacity and therefore, the recording was government data. The Commissioner stated that in many situations, government employees use their own equipment (cars, computers, cell phones, pagers, etc.) for work-related purposes. It is not reasonable to conclude that in those situations, related data are not government data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266866&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-028&lt;/a&gt;; see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267413&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-019&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the County’s policy 702.5.1 “PUBLIC RECORDS” states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Work related information including data created, received, recorded or stored on a personally owned [Personal Communication Device “PCD”] in the course of office duties is considered government data subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and discovery obligations (Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et seq.).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to the County’s own policy, it recognizes that its employees may have government data on their cell phones (PCDs), which contradicts its statements to Mr. Seeman in denying him access. It is not clear from the record if the County ever searched for the data Mr. Seeman requested, or just rejected his request outright. Also, it does not matter if the County “did not need the cell phone records for its criminal investigation”. If the employees’ cell phones contained government data, the County needed to find out if any of the data were responsive to Mr. Seeman’s request. The Commissioner notes, however, that only those data that a government employee creates and maintains on a personal device, as part of the employee’s work related duties, are considered government data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left:.5in&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Rice County Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to a February 1, 2019, data request, if it did not ascertain whether the employees’ cell phones contained government data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 28, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>377591</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal electronic device used</Title><Id>266888</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal email, phone account - business use</Title><Id>266982</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory responsibilities government</Title><Id>375060</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-002</Title><title>Opinion 19 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-375057&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-03-08T22:00:32Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked if a state board was in compliance with the Data Practices Act if it did not provide access to the policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025. The board did not reply to the data request, which the Commissioner opined is not an appropriate response to a request for access to government data. Further, section 13.025 requires government entities to make the access policies available to the public in a manner such that the public does not have to ask for them.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 8, 2019; Minnesota Board of Aging</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Beverley Berg asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Minnesota Board of Aging’s response to a request for copies of the policies required pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).The Board declined to submit comments in response to Ms. Berg’s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Berg wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;November 11, 2018, I submitted a Data Practices request to Responsible Authority Kari Benson for 1) the Policy for requesting Public Data and 2) the Policy for requesting Private Data. November 11 was about ten weeks ago. Responsible Authority Kari Benson has failed to respond to my request for either policy. The public is not required to submit Data Practices requests to obtain these policies. Entities are required by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to have these policies available at all times by making them available from the entity&apos;s website, providing them upon request or having them available at the entity&apos;s office. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Board on Aging respond appropriately to a request for copies of the policies required under subdivisions 2 and 3 of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, an entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or inform the requester that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, an entity’s responsible authority “must prepare a written policy detailing its data access policies.” Further, it provides that the responsible authority “shall make copies of the policies available to the public.” The responsible authority may fulfill that obligation by distributing free copies, posting the policies in a conspicuous place, or posting it on the entity’s website.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205 also provides guidance about access procedures for members of the public and data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued numerous opinions on the access policies and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Data Practices Act. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267246&quot;&gt;04-049&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266477&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266427&quot;&gt;13-007&lt;/a&gt;.) The requirement for access policies was effective January 1, 2001. The Legislature recodified the access policy provisions in section 13.025 in 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Board on Aging did not reply at all to Ms. Berg’s request for public data, which is not an appropriate response to a request for access to government data. Further, section 13.025 requires government entities to make the access policies available to the public in a manner such that the public does not have to ask for them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Board on Aging did not respond appropriately to a request for copies of the policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alice Roberts-Davis
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 8, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>375057</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request policy</Title><Id>375059</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access policy</Title><Id>375058</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:14:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 19-001</Title><title>Opinion 19 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-363622&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2019-01-02T22:15:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked whether it responded appropriately to a data request for information from a Facebook page maintained by the mayor, when it replied to the requester that the information was not government data. The Commissioner opined that the city had responded appropriately because the mayor created and maintained the page outside of his official duties and the city did not collect, create, receive, maintain, or disseminate the information. Thus, the information did not fit within the definition of government data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 2, 2019; City of Victoria</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The United States Supreme Court discussed issues involving government officials’ social media posts and the public’s First Amendment rights in &lt;em&gt;Lindke v. Freed&lt;/em&gt;, No. 22-611 (2024).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 4, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Robert J. V. Vose, City Attorney for the City of Victoria (City). In his letter, Mr. Vose asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the City’s response to a data request pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following information to the Commissioner. The City received a data request on November 7, 2018 for:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[C]ertain data or information related to a Facebook page established by Victoria Mayor Thomas Funk known as “Victoria Residents First.” On November 9, 2019, the City’s responsible authority e-mailed a Department of Administration official seeking advice regarding this request. The Department’s response, enclosed, was that the Facebook page and its contents are not “government data” and thus the City is not required to provide responsive data. The City replied to [the data requester] in accordance with this informal advice. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Mayor uses “Victoria Residents First” to post his personal views on various issues, some of which have been, or might be, considered by the City Council. In turn, people sometimes reply to the Mayor’s posts and this periodically results in further discussion or debate on the Facebook page.&lt;/em&gt; [Footnote omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City further noted that it does not have any social media policies that apply to its elected officials, who do not maintain regular hours and are compensated by City ordinance. The City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Mayor and council members are expected to attend council meetings and other official City meetings, and to take whatever time is needed in advance of such meetings to be familiar with the agenda and supporting materials. They may also periodically participate in other events on behalf of the City.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Victoria respond appropriately to a data request for information from the Facebook page “Victoria Residents First,” pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In arguing that the information on the Facebook page does not constitute government data, the City wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Department [of Administration] broadly construes the term &quot;government data.&quot; In Advisory Opinion Nos. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267620&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266866&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-028&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267413&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-019&lt;/a&gt;, the Department concluded that data such as audio recordings, e-mail, and text messages may be &quot;government data&quot; even if collected, sent or received by a public official on a personal device that is not owned or provided by the governmental unit. However, it appears that only Advisory Opinion No. 18-005 addresses a request for, among other data, &quot;social media communications.&quot; That opinion does not resolve whether posts and other activities on social media such as Facebook, conducted by an individual governmental official without the governmental unit&apos;s authorization or involvement, constitute &quot;government data.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We agree with the Department&apos;s informal advice that &quot;Victoria Residents First&quot; Facebook page does not constitute &quot;government data&quot; because the data associated with this Facebook page was not collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by the City of Victoria. The City did not create the Facebook page and the City Council has not authorized or approved Mayor Funk&apos;s establishment of such page or his participation on the page as the Mayor. Neither state law nor City of Victoria policies require the mayor or council members to participate in social media such as Facebook. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Mayor may certainly use social media to interact with his constituents, either as a candidate or as an elected individual, doing so does not make the information posted on those sites “government data.” According to the City, the information on the Facebook page was not created in the course of the Mayor’s City-sanctioned responsibilities and did not represent the City’s official position on issues. As such, the City did not collect, create, receive, maintain, or disseminate the information as a government entity. Consequently, the Facebook information does not meet the definition of “government data” and the City is not required to collect and provide access to it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that while members of a public body, like the Mayor, are allowed to use social media (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.065), they must still be cognizant of the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). The Supreme Court has defined a “meeting” as a gathering of a quorum or more of public officials, where they, “discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983). Therefore, public body members should refrain from engaging in discussions over social media that include a quorum or more of the public body members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Victoria responded appropriately to a data request for information from the Facebook page “Victoria Residents First,” pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because the requested information is not government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;January 2, 2019&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>363622</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Defined</Title><Id>266478</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials (13.601)</Title><Id>266769</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected officials</Title><Id>267224</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition - &quot;data collected&quot; interpreted as &quot;data created, received, maintained...&quot;</Title><Id>266440</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination made by entity</Title><Id>266435</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination by responsible authority</Title><Id>266973</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-04-22T19:39:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-019</Title><title>Opinion 18 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-363544&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-12-28T18:25:39Z</Date><ShortDescription>A watershed district asked whether a member of the board of commissioners could attend meetings via interactive television from Florida. The Commissioner concluded that the geographical limitation imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Quast v. Knutson, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967), only applied to situations when an entire public body held a meeting outside the territorial confines of its jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, allows members to attend via interactive television when all of the conditions of that section are met.</ShortDescription><Subtitle> December 28, 2018; Rice Creek Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2025, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02 related to the requirements for public bodies to conduct meetings by interactive technology.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 10, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Phil Belfiori, Administrator of the Rice Creek Watershed District (District). In his letter, Mr. Belfiori asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the District Board Members’ duties under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided the following information in its opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Rice Creek Watershed District hereby requests an advisory opinion to address whether a member of the board of managers may participate in board meetings while out of state by means of the &quot;interactive television&quot; provision of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Minn. Stat. §13.02. One member of the board of managers would like to participate in meetings while spending the winter months in Florida.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our legal counsel has reviewed the Minnesota Department of Administration (MDA) Advisory Opinion 13-009, issued on March 19, 2013, concluding that “the plain language of the statute does not forbid a member of a public body from ‘attending’ a public meeting at a location ‘open and accessible to the public’ outside of the entity&apos;s geographic area.” Our attorneys questioned this conclusion in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in&lt;/em&gt; Quast v. Knutson&lt;em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967) where the Court ruled that the phrase &quot;open to the public&quot; as used in a section of the OML means &quot;within the territorial confines&quot; of the public body.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;May a member of the Board of Managers for the Rice Creek Watershed District participate in board meetings while out of state via interactive television, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML allows members of public bodies to attend and participate in meetings via interactive television if certain conditions are met. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02.) Specifically, section 13D.02, subd. 1, requires:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members of the body;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subdivision 2 provides that all members who “attend” via interactive television are present for quorum purposes. Subdivision 4 provides the notice requirement for public bodies using interactive television. The Commissioner has previously interpreted “interactive television” to include Skype and other similar applications. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267172&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 13-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In 1967, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a school board must hold its meetings within the territorial confines of the school district. &lt;em&gt;Quast v. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967). In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has interpreted that case to apply to all public bodies subject to the OML. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267613&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-012&lt;/a&gt; – statewide task force; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-034&lt;/a&gt; – township board; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-003&lt;/a&gt; – city council.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the District’s legal counsel has advised that &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt; limits a public body member’s ability to attend meetings by interactive television to situations where the member is within the territorial confines of the District. However, a public body’s use of interactive television is distinguishable from the situation in that case. In &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt;, the entire school board held a meeting outside of the school district it served. The Court was concerned with the prospect that a public body could remove itself from the territorial confines of the public body’s jurisdiction, thereby frustrating members of the public from attending meetings and functionally holding closed meetings. Here, in order to utilize interactive television, “at least one member of the body [must be] physically present at the regular meeting location,” members of the public in attendance – regardless of location – must be able to see and hear all member discussion, testimony, and voting, and locations from which members attend by interactive television must also be open and accessible to the public. Therefore, the Court’s concerns in &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt; regarding the openness of meetings outside the geographic area of a public body are remedied at meetings in which only some members attend by interactive television.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt; decision applies to an entire public body holding a meeting outside its territorial confines. The Court has yet to address the issue of location of meetings in other contexts. Thus, the plain language of section 13D.02 governs and board members of the District, and other public bodies, may use interactive television to attend and participate in meetings that meet the conditions of that section. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds the District that the Board member attending via interactive television from Florida must do so from a location that is “open and accessible” to the public and must provide notice according to section 13D.02, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A member of the Board of Managers for the Rice Creek Watershed District may participate in board meetings while out of state via interactive television, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, as long as the conditions of that section are met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 28, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>363544</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interactive Television (Skype)</Title><Id>267150</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2026-02-26T21:57:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-018</Title><title>Opinion 18 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-362508&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-12-14T22:45:36Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked if a watershed district had violated the Open Meeting Law when it allowed members to participate in a meeting via telephone in order to reach a quorum. The Commissioner opined that per section 13D.021, there must be a declared emergency under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12 for a local (versus state-level) public body to conduct a meeting via telephone.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 14, 2018; Bois de Sioux Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Michelle Swenson asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Bois de Sioux Watershed District Board of Managers (Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Lukas Croaker, attorney, responded on behalf of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Ms. Swenson, a Board member participated by telephone at regular meetings on October 17, 2017, and January 16, 2018, in order to reach a quorum. Ms. Swenson wrote, “[t]his is a violation of [Minnesota Statutes,] section 13D.021 as the presiding officer for this governing body had not determined that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under section 13D.02 was not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the members of the Bois de Sioux Watershed District Board of Managers comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, when, in order to reach a quorum, a member participated by telephone at the October 10, 2017, and January 16, 2018, meetings?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. There are two provisions in the OML that allow public bodies to conduct meetings by telephone. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.015 allows &lt;em&gt;state&lt;/em&gt;-level agencies, boards, commissions, departments and public pension plans to conduct meetings by telephone if certain conditions are met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, allows all public bodies to conduct meetings by telephone if conditions similar, but not identical to, those required by section 13.015 are met. In addition, the threshold requirement in section 13D.021 is that “the presiding officer, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer for the affected governing body determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under section 13D.02 is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 12.03, subdivision 1e, defines “declared emergency” as “a national security or peacetime emergency declared by the governor under section 12.31.”)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Croaker stated that at both meetings in question, the Board believed it was complying with the OML when the Board members called in to the meetings in order to reach a quorum. He wrote, “[i]t was a mistaken belief, as the conditions listed under Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 were not met.” He stated that the Board did not intentionally violate the OML, and “the Board made a mistake, which the Board now recognizes and will not allow it to happen in the future.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the Board understands that it may not conduct meetings by telephone, under section 13D.021, unless it determines that it is warranted due to a health pandemic or declared emergency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Members of the Bois de Sioux Watershed District Board of Managers did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, when, in order to reach a quorum, a member participated by telephone at the October 10, 2017, and January 16, 2018, meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 14, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>362508</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone meeting</Title><Id>362507</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-017</Title><title>Opinion 18 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-361276&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-12-06T18:39:55Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked about the classification of certain data related to the final disposition of disciplinary action in an “Investigation File,” which is now part of an active criminal investigation. The city discussed the operation of section 13.43, and concluded that the data in the Investigation File are public personnel data. The Commissioner agreed that the data are public when maintained by the city and confidential/protected nonpublic at the prosecuting attorney’s office, consistent with a 2016 Minnesota Supreme Court case, Harlow v. State Dept. of Human Services, 883 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 2016).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 6, 2018; City of Eden Prairie</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 9, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Richard R. Rosow, attorney for the City of Eden Prairie. In his letter, Mr. Rosow asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding classification of certain data the City maintains. The Commissioner invited David Brown, an attorney in the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO) to submit comments; Mr. Brown did not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In March 2018, the City received a complaint against an employee (“Employee”), a police officer employed by the City, related to potential employment misconduct. The City conducted an administrative investigation and prepared a report. As a result of the investigation, the City took disciplinary action against Employee, issuing a letter containing the final disposition of the action on July 25, 2018. The final disposition did not include termination of Employee’s employment. The July 25 letter, the investigation report, and additional data documenting the basis of the action will be referred to in this letter as the “Investigation File.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City stated that the July 25 letter was the “final disposition” of the City’s disciplinary action related to the complaint. The City discussed the operation of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, and concluded that the Investigation File is public personnel data. The City further wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Investigation File, however, has been collected by HCAO from the City for review and then sent by the HCAO to the McLeod County Attorney’s Office for that office to evaluate whether to criminally prosecute Employee. The McLeod County Attorney’s Office has, to my knowledge, not yet made a charging decision. Since the Investigative File has been collected by HCAO and provided by the HCAO to the McLeod County Attorney, it therefore can be considered active criminal investigative data, which is confidential. ... Chief Deputy County Attorney Brown told me that the City’s release of the Investigation File would jeopardize the active investigation and potentially result in the McLeod County Attorney declining to bring charges against the Employee on that basis alone, irrespective of the merits.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City is aware of the Commissioner’s opinion in Advisory Opinion 96-017, which presented similar facts to the current situation. In that Opinion, the Commissioner determined that disciplinary data was public personnel data despite an ongoing criminal matter. While Opinion 96- 017 would appear to confirm that the Investigation File is public personnel data, the City seeks further guidance for several reasons. The HCAO has expressed its adamant position that the Investigation File is criminal investigative data.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data related to the final disposition of disciplinary action in the “Investigation File,” which is now part of an active criminal investigation?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are always public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the disciplinary action, together with the specific reason(s) for and data documenting the basis of the action also become public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5).) According to subdivision 2(b):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[A] final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action,&lt;/em&gt; regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings&lt;em&gt;. ... In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, “… investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to the City, there is a final disposition of the disciplinary action it took against the employee, and therefore the data in the Investigation File are public, as the specific reasons for and data documenting the basis of the discipline. However, the HCAO has taken the position that because it is considering bringing criminal charges against the employee, the data are now active criminal investigative data, and as such, are classified as confidential/protected nonpublic under section 13.82, subdivision 7.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267885&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-017&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed this question:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County raised concerns regarding the need to protect investigative data prior to the completion of a case. Clearly, the Legislature, in its enactment of Section 13.82, subdivision [7], recognized that law enforcement agencies, under certain circumstances, need to be able to withhold data from public disclosure in order to protect an active criminal investigation. The Commissioner recognizes that confusion exists regarding the interaction of the relevant provisions of Sections 13.43 and 13.82. However, the effect of the 1990 amendment to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, is that once a government entity makes its final decision regarding disciplinary action of a public employee, and once there has been a final disposition of that disciplinary action, those data are public, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings, including court proceedings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Had the County deferred making its final decision regarding disciplinary action against the [employee] until the criminal investigation was completed, there would be no question that the data are classified as not public criminal investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision [7]. However, the County made&lt;/em&gt; its final decision &lt;em&gt;regarding disciplinary action prior to the criminal proceeding, and there has been a&lt;/em&gt; final disposition &lt;em&gt;of that disciplinary action. Therefore, according to the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the disciplinary data in question are public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that personnel data that are public per section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), remain public even though the same data are classified as confidential during an active maltreatment investigation under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3. (See &lt;em&gt;Harlow v. State Dept. of Human Services&lt;/em&gt;, 883 N.W.2d 561, 568 (Minn. 2016)). The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We conclude that personnel data consisting of an employment investigation report that is reclassified as public upon the “final disposition of [an employee] disciplinary action” … remains public even though the data is duplicative of data in a maltreatment investigation that is classified as confidential. ... Two reasons support our conclusion. First, there is no federal law or temporary classification that provides that the data is not public. When there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action … the personnel data is reclassified as public and is available to the public. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Second, our interpretation gives effect to the provisions of both statutes [per Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17.]. Specifically, the employment investigation data is public … and the data in the maltreatment investigation remains confidential. ... We acknowledge that it may seem anomalous to have data classified as public for one purpose, and confidential for another purpose. But we see nothing in the text of the [Data Practices Act] that prohibits this outcome.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court did not address the interaction of sections 13.43 and 13.82. Nonetheless, the Court’s conclusion in &lt;em&gt;Harlow&lt;/em&gt; is consistent with the Commissioner’s conclusion in Advisory Opinion 96-017, namely, that the same government data may simultaneously be classified as public for one purpose and confidential for another. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the data in the Investigative File are public personnel data as maintained by the City, and confidential/protected nonpublic data at the HCAO/ McLeod County Attorney’s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoListParagraph&quot; style=&quot;margin-right:.5in;mso-add-space:auto&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data related to the final disposition of disciplinary action in the “Investigation File” are public personnel data, even though the same data are now part of an active criminal investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;December 6, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>361276</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Harlow</Title><Id>361275</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigative data</Title><Id>267143</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action</Title><Id>267099</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-016</Title><title>Opinion 18 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-360957&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-11-30T18:48:13Z</Date><ShortDescription>A government entity asked about the classification of certain financial data that it maintains about one of its licensee racetracks. The entity argued that the data at issue did not meet the definition of “trade secret” in section 13.37 because the licensee did not demonstrate that the data derived “independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known.” The Commissioner agreed with the entity’s determination that the data were not trade secret and therefore, presumptively public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 30, 2018; Minnesota Racing Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Racing Commission (MRC) asked for an advisory opinion regarding data it maintains pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MRC provided a summary of the facts, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;By way of background, the two Minnesota licensed racetracks are required to provide the MRC with a number of disclosures as part of their license applications, including annual audited financial statements. These financial statements must reflect &quot;the applicant&apos;s current assets, including investments in affiliated entities, loans and advances receivable and fixed assets and current liabilities, including loans and advances payable, long term debt and equity.&quot; See Minn. R. 7870.0070, item A and Minn. R. 7870.0240, item A. In order to provide closer oversight throughout the year, the MRC has requested that the racetracks also provide us with quarterly unaudited financial statements, which they have done. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We understand the data may be considered application data under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.41. The question is whether these financial statements - both the annual audited financial statements and the quarterly unaudited financial statements - may also meet the definition of &quot;trade secret information&quot; under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.37, subd. 1 (b) such that they may be classified as nonpublic data under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.37, subd. 2 in the case of a racetrack that is a privately held entity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of certain financial data that the Minnesota Racing Commission maintains on a licensee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data that meet the definition of “trade secret” are classified as private data on individuals or nonpublic data not on individuals. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides the definition of trade secret:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued a number of advisory opinions on the application of the trade secret provision. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267736&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-035&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267690&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267811&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267399&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-005&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267495&quot;&gt;14-018&lt;/a&gt;.) He has consistently opined that the provision should be interpreted narrowly. Additionally, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267495&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-018&lt;/a&gt;, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[W]hile the outside person supplying the data to the government entity bears the burden of establishing that the data meet all of the conditions set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), the entity is ultimately responsible for determining whether the data warrant classification as trade secrets.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its letter to the Commissioner, the MRC wrote that it asked the affected licensee racetrack to provide a rationale for its assertion that the data qualify for trade secret classification. The MRC stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In applying this definition [of trade secret in section 13.37], we are satisfied that these data are a compilation supplied by the affected organizations, i.e. the racetracks. In the case of the privately held racetrack, we agree that the information has been the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. The issue is whether the financial statements derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from their disclosure or use.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The financial statements in question are not data unique to racetracks. Similar to the financial statement of other types of businesses, they contain high-level information on revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and equity. It is not evident to the MRC as to how this information derives independent economic value from not being known or ascertainable by a competitor or anyone else who may derive economic value from it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Therefore, we asked the affected entity to provide rationale on how their financial statements meet this third prong of the definition. The essence of their argument is that the information would give its &quot;major competitor,&quot; the other racetrack, &quot;a competitive advantage by allowing it to refine [its] own business practices to compete more effectively with [us] and potentially poach [our] customers.&quot; They also state the information is &quot;current, detailed, highly secret, and proprietary.&quot; We find this response to be vague and insufficient to establish the third prong of the definition. It is also a bit disingenuous because, in previous submissions to the MRC, the affected entity has not identified the other racetrack as being a major competitor. (Attachment 5) In fact, the Minnesota legislature specifically placed geographic and other restrictions on the affected entity so as to minimize competition with the other racetrack. See Minn. Stat. § 240.06, subp. 5-5a. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Financial statements are included in a long list of detailed disclosures required of racetrack license applicants. See Minn. Stat. 9 [sections] 240.06 and 240.07 and Minn. R. 7870. The law also requires a public hearing to be held before a license can be issued. Minn. Stat. [sections] 240.06, subd. 2 and 240.07, subd. 2. We thus believe the legislature intended for licensing data in this highly-regulated business, including financial disclosures, to be open to public scrutiny.&lt;/em&gt; [Footnote omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the MRC did not find the licensee’s arguments to be persuasive and the Commissioner concurs with the MRC. If counsel for the privately held racetrack, Running Aces, disagrees with the conclusion reached in this opinion, she has the option of bringing an action in court to prevent the MRC from releasing the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final comment. The MRC noted that it may consider some of the data at issue to be application data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41. Section 13.41 classifies certain data about applicants for licenses and data about licensees as private, confidential, and public. Those not public classifications – private and confidential – apply solely to data on individuals. Therefore, any data maintained by the MRC about racetrack applicants or licensees that are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; data on individuals, cannot be classified pursuant to section 13.41. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267848&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267850&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Certain financial data submitted by a licensee to the Minnesota Racing Commission do not meet the definition of trade secret data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, and are therefore presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;November 30, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>360957</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-015</Title><title>Opinion 18 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-356852&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-10-26T16:52:58Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked the Commissioner about the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board’s (PELSB) response to a request for access to additional information regarding the reasons PELSB entered into a Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order with a licensee, due to maltreatment of minors. The detailed data the requester sought related to the nature of the maltreatment. Per Minnesota Statutes section 13.41, subdivision 5, because PELSB and the licensee agreed to resolve the complaint without a public hearing, the only related public data are the “agreement and the specific reasons” for it. The Commissioner agreed with PELSB that the Order itself is “the agreement,” and the factual findings in the stipulation constitute the “specific reasons” for the agreement. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 26, 2018; Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 17, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Representative Jenifer Loon. In her letter, Representative Loon asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board’s (PELSB) response to a data practices request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Representative Loon provided a summary of the facts. She asked PELSB for “all stipulation and consent agreements” entered into by the Board since January 1, 2018. PELSB provided all of the agreements Representative Loon requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Representative Loon wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Upon further review of one of the stipulation and consent agreements, I noticed a teacher’s license was suspended and stayed due to maltreatment of minors. The agreement did not specify what the maltreatment was that led to the stayed suspension of the license. … I requested additional details from PELSB, and they responded they could not provide the details of maltreatment because it was considered inactive investigatory data which is classified as private data under Minn. Statute 13.41 subd. 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I contend that under Minn. Stat. 13.41 that PELSB did take disciplinary action, and therefore the information I am requesting regarding the details of maltreatment is public data. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…. The Stipulation and Consent Agreement is the tool by which there is an agreement to avoid the contested case hearing. Therefore, the agreement - the stipulation agreement - and the “specific reasons for the agreement are public data.” The stipulation agreement does not provide specific reasons on why the disciplinary decision is limited to a stayed suspended license. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, did the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board respond appropriately to a request for certain data related to a Stipulation and Consent Agreement? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, subdivision 4, when a licensing agency investigates one of its licensees, and the investigation is active, the related data are confidential. Once the investigation becomes inactive, the classification of the data depends upon whether the agency took disciplinary action against the licensee. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In general, under section 13.41, subdivision 2(a), all “inactive investigative data relating to violations of statutes or rules” are “classified as private.” Subdivision 5 articulates certain exceptions for inactive investigative data if the agency took disciplinary action. Specifically, subdivision 5, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Licensing agency minutes, application data on licensees except nondesignated addresses, orders for hearing, findings of fact, conclusions of law and specification of the final disciplinary action contained in the record of the disciplinary action are classified as public, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 15.&lt;/em&gt; The entire record concerning the disciplinary proceeding is public data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 15, in those instances where there is a public hearing concerning the disciplinary action. If the licensee and the licensing agency agree to resolve a complaint without a hearing, the agreement and the specific reasons for the agreement are public data&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; [&lt;em&gt;Emphasis added.&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, if the agency took disciplinary action, certain related data become public, depending upon the process and outcome. If there was a public contested case hearing, the entire record concerning the disciplinary proceeding is public. If there was no public hearing, a subset of data in the entire record is public. If the licensee and licensing agency agree to resolve the matter without a hearing, the agreement and specific reasons for the agreement are public. All other data not specified as public under subdivision 5, remain classified as private inactive investigation data under subdivision 2(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Representative Loon is correct that PELSB did take disciplinary action. However, PELSB and the licensee agreed to resolve the complaint without a public hearing. PELSB provided Representative Loon with the Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order, the tool used to document the agreement reached between PELSB and the licensee. She then asked for additional data related to the maltreatment report. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, PELSB stated: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Representative Loon is requesting data contained in the record (i.e., a Maltreatment Determination Report) that would be publicly available&lt;/em&gt; only &lt;em&gt;if a public hearing had been held regarding the matter. Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 13.41, subd. 5, makes the entire record concerning the disciplinary proceeding public&lt;/em&gt; only &lt;em&gt;when there is a public hearing concerning the disciplinary action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;PELSB contends that the Board’s announcement of the adoption of Stipulation Agreements and Consent Orders should not be considered a “public hearing concerning the disciplinary action” for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 13.41, subd. 5.  PELSB votes to adopt or reject signed stipulations during closed session, as it is acting within its quasi-judicial capacity based on non-public data. PELSB then moves to open session and announces the adoption of stipulation agreements that adopted during closed session.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order at issue confirms that the public hearing contemplated by section 13.41 in this case is a contested case hearing, and that right to a hearing is waived by entering into the Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order (see Minnesota Rules 8710.2100, subpart 3). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Without a public hearing, all inactive investigative data are private unless identified as public in subdivision 5. Here, the designated public data – the “agreement and specific reasons for the agreement” – are in the Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order. According to PELSB, the factual findings (i.e., the reasons for the agreement) are that the Minnesota Department of Education determined that the licensee committed maltreatment of three students, thus violating a subpart of the Code of Ethics for Minnesota Teachers, which states, “[a] teacher shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to health and safety.” (See Minnesota Rules, part 8710.2100, subpart 2(B).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, PELSB added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If Representative Loon’s position is correct that the Board’s announcement of a stipulation and consent order constitutes a “public hearing,” Minn. Stat. § 13.41 subd. 5’s provision for the resolution of a complaint without a hearing is superfluous, and licensing agencies would have difficulty in distinguishing the difference between “instances where there is a public hearing concerning the disciplinary action” as compared to instances when “the licensee and the licensing agency agree to resolve a complaint without a hearing.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;When a complaint is resolved without a hearing, only the agreement and specific reasons for the agreement are public data. Minn. Stat. § 13.41, subd. 5.  PELSB believes that the Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order, which contains “the agreement and specific reasons for the agreement,” meets this requirement. The Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order itself is “the agreement” that must be classified as public data, and the factual findings in the stipulation constitute the “specific reasons” for the agreement.  &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner concurs with PELSB that the subdivision 5 provision related to resolution of a complaint without a hearing would be superfluous if it was not intended to distinguish between public data contained in the Stipulation Agreement and Consent Order entered into without a public hearing and additional data that become public following a public hearing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Representative Loon argued that “the stipulation agreement does not provide specific reasons on why the disciplinary decision is limited to a stayed suspended license.” The Commissioner notes that the statute does not require specific reasons for the disciplinary action to be made public, but rather classifies as public “the specific reasons for &lt;em&gt;the agreement&lt;/em&gt;” when a complaint is resolved without a hearing. [Emphasis added.] While the Commissioner appreciates that the public may find additional information of interest, in this instance, PELSB provided Representative Loon with the agreement and specific reasons for the agreement. Given that the phrase “specific reasons” is not defined in section 13.41, and without additional legislative guidance, each government entity is in the best position to determine the meaning of the phrase within the context of section 13.41. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board responded appropriately to a request for certain data related to a Stipulation and Consent Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman   
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 26, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>356852</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-03-15T14:00:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-014</Title><title>Opinion 18 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-356119&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-10-18T12:58:20Z</Date><ShortDescription>Multiple school districts asked whether private educational data could be released pursuant to a subpoena. The Commissioner opined that since Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3(e), incorporates the FERPA regulations – which allow for disclosure without consent pursuant to subpoena when there has been a reasonable effort to notify the parents – Minnesota allows disclosure in response to a subpoena when those conditions are met.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 18, 2018; multiple school districts</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On behalf of a number of school districts represented by Kennedy and Graven, Adam Wattenbarger asked for an advisory opinion regarding data that the districts maintain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Data Practices Act). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Wattenbarger provided a summary of the facts. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;School Districts often receive subpoenas duces tecum compelling the disclosure of student records as part of a legal proceeding. For example, the attorney of a parent in a custody dispute may subpoena education records to be used in family court. The issue that arises is whether, under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.32, school districts may disclose private educational data in response to a lawfully issued subpoena. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, may a school district disclose private educational data in response to a subpoena? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about students and their parents are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and parents and incorporates the authority to share student data as allowed by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. (See section 13.32, subdivision 3(e).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined, “[e]ducational data ultimately are controlled by FERPA; the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations.” (See Advisory Opinion 09-021.) The purpose of FERPA, “is to set out requirements for the protection of privacy of parents and students.” (See 34 CFR 99.2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 3, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Except as provided in subdivision 5, educational data is private data on individuals and shall not be disclosed except as follows:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(e) pursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, sections 1232g(b)(1), (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B), (b)(1)(B), (b)(3), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (i), and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, sections 99.31, 99.32, 99.33, 99.34, 99.35, and 99.39;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;FERPA regulations provide:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by [section] 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(9)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(i) The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(ii) The educational agency or institution may disclose information under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section only if the agency or institution makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance, so that the parent or eligible student may seek protective action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO), in a 1996 letter to counsel for school districts in California, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While a lawfully issued subpoena or court order may compel disclosure of information, FERPA does not require an educational institution to disclose information from a student&apos;s education record to anyone other than to the parent of a student to whom the records relate or to the eligible student to whom the records relate. Rather, FERPA permits disclosure of education records without prior written consent in certain limited situations, such as when the records are the subject of a subpoena or court order.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The attorney for the school districts here, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Under federal law, it is clear that [disclosure pursuant to a subpoena] is permitted. The Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) provides that a school may disclose education records pursuant to a judicial a judicial order or “any lawfully issued subpoena,” provided that the school makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student in advance of compliance, so that the parent or eligible student may seek protective action. 20 U.S.C. [section] 1232g(b)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. [section] 99.31(a)(9)(i). &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;By contrast, under the Data Practices Act, educational data may be disclosed “pursuant to a valid court order.” Minn. Stat. [section] 13.32, subd. 3(b). The statute does not list a subpoena as a valid exception for disclosing educational data. However, the statute &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;does&lt;/span&gt; allow disclosure pursuant to a number of FERPA provisions and regulations, including all of 34 C.F.R. [section] 99.31. See Minn. Stat. [section] 13.32, subd. 3(d). Notably, section 99.31, as cited above, is the FERPA regulation that contains the exception which allows for disclosure of education record pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena (albeit subject to reasonable advance notice).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Therefore, based on the plain language of the statute, it appears that the Data Practices Act incorporates the FERPA provisions that allow disclosure pursuant to a subpoena. Because Minn. Stat. [section] 13.32 says that educational data may be disclosed pursuant to the provisions of 34 C.F.R. [section] 99.31, and section 99.31 say that data may be disclosed pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena, it follows that under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.32, educational data may be disclosed pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena (after following the FERPA notice requirements).&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the school district’s counsel. Even though a subpoena is not specifically mentioned, state law expressly allows for sharing pursuant to the FERPA regulations. Because FERPA regulations permit entities to share based upon a lawfully-issued subpoena after the school makes a reasonable effort to notify the student’s parents, a school would not violate the Data Practices Act by providing access to private educational data, provided that the school follows the requirements of FERPA. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that while section 13.32, subd. 3(b), lists “court order” as one of the exclusive circumstances in which an educational authority may share private student data without consent, that state provision does not reference the additional FERPA requirement regarding the reasonable attempt to notify the student’s parents. When releasing private educational data without consent pursuant to a court order, educational authorities must also comply with the FERPA notice requirements. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A school district may disclose private educational data in response to a subpoena, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, provided it makes a reasonable attempt to notify the student’s parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman   
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 18, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>356119</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Subpoenas</Title><Id>266864</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data disclosure</Title><Id>267115</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-013</Title><title>Opinion 18 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-355746&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-10-16T16:17:38Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Star Tribune asked the Commissioner about the classification of correspondence between a County Commissioner and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).  The Commissioner relied on the reasoning of Advisory Opinion Advisory Opinion 10-023 and opined that the County improperly classified the data as private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2. The private classification of section 13.601 is reserved for communications between elected officials and individuals. The NRCC, as an organization, does not meet the definition of &quot;individual&quot; under the Data Practices Act, but is instead properly categorized as a &quot;person&quot; under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02.  A Kanabec County District Court judge considering the Advisory Opinion subsequently came to the same conclusion as the Commissioner and ordered the County to release the data in question.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 16, 2018; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 25, 2018, Leita Walker, counsel for Star Tribune Media Company LLC (the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;), asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;’s right to access certain data maintained by St. Louis County (the County). Nick Campanario, attorney for the County, provided comments in support of his client.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to facts provided by the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;, on March 20, 2018, &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; reporter J. Patrick Coolican made a data request to the County for all correspondence between St. Louis County Commissioner Pete Stauber and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). On April 3, 2018, the County responded by stating it had recovered 15 responsive emails, but that they were withholding the data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2. (The &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt; also requested an advisory opinion regarding the County’s classification of the emails.)&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did St. Louis County respond appropriately to a request for a County Commissioner’s correspondence when it denied access pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1). When an entity denies access to data, it must cite the specific statutory authority or other legal justification for the denial. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, states “[c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The proper classification of correspondence between an elected official and a person who acts on behalf of an organization was previously addressed by the Commissioner in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266863&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-023&lt;/a&gt; (issued October 27, 2010):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In classifying the data as private, the Legislature provided a mechanism by which an individual can correspond with his/her elected official on a matter that is personal to that individual… [T]he Commissioner does not believe the Legislature intended for the protection afforded under section 13.601, subdivision 2, to apply to an individual writing as a representative of an organization. First, and foremost, the classification of private applies to data on individuals (as opposed to data about organizations or businesses). See&lt;/em&gt; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud, &lt;em&gt;765 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009). It is unlikely that someone corresponding on behalf of an organization is writing about an issue as a private citizen and not about an issue related to the organization. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; justified its position as follows: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We urge the Commissioner to issue an opinion concluding that, consistent with [Commissioner&apos;s Advisory] Op. No. 10-023, the requested data [are] public and should be disclosed immediately.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;And:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he private classification of data pursuant to § 13.601, subd. 2 applies only to data on individuals as private citizens, and does not apply to individuals acting as representatives of organizations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, the County urged the Commissioner to “overrule” the conclusion in Advisory Opinion 10-023:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;E-mail is a form of correspondence. Commissioner Stauber is an elected official. And the person on the other end of each withheld e-mail is an “individual,” a term that is defined in another unambiguous statutory provision, Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 8 (2018), which specifically provides, “‘Individual’ means a natural person” – that is, a human being. Thus, the e-mails are classified as private data on individuals, as provided in the first part of section 13.601, subdivision 2… A natural person acting as something other than a private citizen is still a flesh-and-blood natural person and, thus, still an ”individual” for the purposes of the MGDPA in general and section 13.601, subdivision 2, in particular.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the emails that are the subject of this advisory opinion, but can opine on whether the data could have a private classification based on the rationale provided by the County. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act contains distinct definitions for both “individual” and “person.” As noted by the County, “individual” means a “natural person”, i.e. a human being. In contrast, the term “person” is more expansive, including “individuals” and also artificial persons such as partnerships, corporations, and associations. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 10). See &lt;em&gt;Intl. Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, Loc. No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud and Design Electric Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, 765 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009) (“The definition of ‘individual’ stands in contrast to the definition of ‘person,’ which is defined as any “individual” or “corporation.”). The plain language of section 13.601, subdivision 2, is clear; had the legislature intended to classify correspondence between elected officials and organizations as private under section 13.601, it would have used the term “person” instead of “individual.” The legislature’s decision to use the term “individual” evidences an intent that correspondence between elected officials and organizations is not meant to be classified as private. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Treating as a matter of course, as the County suggests, every instance of correspondence with individuals as if it were from an “individual” and not a “person” would render the distinction between those two defined terms moot. The County is correct that, by its very nature, correspondence will necessitate composition or receipt by a human being. The crux of the analysis under section 13.601, subdivision 2, however, is whether the correspondent is an agent of an artificial person such as a corporation or an organization. To that end, any correspondence between Commissioner Stauber and a party that communicates on behalf of the NRCC is presumptively public because, as an agent of an artificial person, that party is properly defined by the Data Practices Act as a “person.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner would like to also address one additional issue. While the County ultimately determined that there were no text messages responsive to the Star Tribune’s data request, it stated in its original response: “[w]ith regard to text messages, Commissioner Stauber does not have a county owned mobile device, therefore the county is not the custodian of the data.” The Commissioner has previously opined that government employees and public officials can create and maintain government data on personal devices and accounts. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266866&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 08-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266863&quot;&gt;10-023&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267413&quot;&gt;12-019&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, to the extent that county commissioners are creating public government data via text, the County is responsible for providing access to those data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the emails that are the subject of this opinion request are correspondence between County Commissioner Stauber and a representative of the NRCC, the data are public and the County did not respond appropriately to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;’s request under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman  
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 16, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>355746</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.055</Title><Id>379214</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-012</Title><title>Opinion 18 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-354432&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-10-04T15:05:10Z</Date><ShortDescription>Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB) asked the Commissioner about the classification of a geospatial dataset that MESB creates and maintains. MESB is a regional joint powers board established by the nine metropolitan counties; the data set covers that region. MESB wanted to publish the dataset to make it more easily accessible to the public. Minnesota Statutes, section 16E.30, subdivision 10, defines “electronic geospatial data,” and Minnesota Statutes, section 466.03, subdivision 21(b) states that the data are presumptively public. Accordingly, the Commissioner opined that the data in MESB’s geospatial dataset are public.

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 4, 2018; Metropolitan Emergency Services Board </Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 13, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Jill Rohret, Executive Director of Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB). In her letter, Ms. Rohret asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding classification of a geospatial dataset that MESB creates and maintains.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MESB provided a summary of the facts. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The geospatial dataset in question represents the geographic coverage of Emergency Service Zone (ESZ) and Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) service areas in the nine-county metropolitan region. The MESB wishes to publish this geospatial dataset publicly for download via the Minnesota Geospatial Commons geospatial data clearinghouse … and to make it available for integration into web-mapping applications with partner organizations in both the metropolitan region and around the state.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MESB is a regional joint powers board established by the nine metropolitan counties of Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott and Washington, as well as the City of Minneapolis. The MESB works on behalf of its members to oversee and manage the metropolitan portion of the ARMER public safety radio system and the regional 9-1-1 system, and to provide regional leadership, planning, coordination, and support for public safety communications and EMS providers, resulting in efficiencies for local government and consistent public safety response within the metropolitan region. The MESB’s collaborative inter­governmental approach ensures optimal response to emergencies and large-scale public safety events occurring within the region.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An emerging part of the MESB’s work is the increasing need to develop and deploy technologies which utilize geospatial data. The MESB actively consumes various kinds of geospatial data from municipal, county, and regional partners and, as a regional agency, the MESB is the authoritative source for producing and managing datasets presenting the ESZ and PSAP service areas.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of certain data in a geospatial dataset the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board maintains?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MESB described the data elements in the dataset in detail. MESB wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the MESB’s understanding of the current legal context, it holds that these data are public under the applicable portions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the data can be appropriately defined as &quot;electronic geospatial data&quot; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16E.30, Subd. 10, and that the MESB is protected against liability for any errors or omissions present in the data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.03, Subd. 21. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The MESB wishes to provide this data to the public and to its partner agencies for their mapping and analysis uses. The MESB does not wish to endanger or jeopardize the safety or effectiveness of first responders, police, fire, EMS, or other emergency service personnel, their work, equipment or activities. The MESB takes the position that public knowledge of the information contained within these data is not a security issue as many of the facts contained in the data are already well known to the public or discoverable by other means.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;No information contained in the data we proposed to publish can be defined as “not public,” “nonpublic,” “private data on individuals,” or “protected nonpublic data” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13.02.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Through this letter of request, the MESB chiefly seeks to confirm that release of these data is not in violation of any known applicable federal or state laws, or any special designations made by the Minnesota Legislature relative to its release, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13.03, Subd. 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 16E.30, subdivision 10 defines “electronic geospatial data” as, “digital data using geographic or projected map coordinate values, identification codes, and associated descriptive data to locate and describe boundaries or features on, above, or below the surface of the earth or characteristics of the earth’s inhabitants or its natural or human-constructed features.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Along with the liability protection provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 466.03, subdivision 21(b) states, “[g]eographic information systems data is government data subject to the presumption of section 13.01, subdivision 3. ….”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, public government data may be used by any person for any purpose, without liability. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 13 and 14, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 2.) Accordingly, the geospatial data set at issue is public government data, and MESB may make it accessible to the public. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data in a geospatial dataset the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board maintains are public. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;October 4, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>354432</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification of data</Title><Id>266911</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification generally</Title><Id>266759</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Geo-spatial mappings</Title><Id>266990</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-011</Title><title>Opinion 18 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-347600&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-08-01T13:34:30Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a town board had violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not providing, in the public packet of members’ materials, a copy of a document the board discussed. The Commissioner acknowledged that the document was available to the public at an earlier meeting, and that the board read it aloud at the meeting in question. The Commissioner concluded that nonetheless, the board violated the OML by not having a least one public copy of members’ materials available to the public, as required by Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, sub. 6.

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 2018; Greenwood Township Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;John Bassing asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Greenwood Township Board (Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Michael C. Couri, Attorney, responded on behalf of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Bassing:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the May 8, 2018, regular meeting of the Greenwood Township Board, a revision of the Greenwood Fire Department’s Standard Operating Guidelines [SOG] was listed on the agenda. When the Board addressed this topic, the Fire Chief (the Fire Chief is an employee of the Township) asked if the Board would like to have a copy of the revision, and he proceeded to pass out copy [sic] to each and every Supervisor. The Clerk did not receive a copy and no public copy was available for viewing. I request a Supervisor’s packet for every meeting, and the revision was not in my packet.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Bassing submitted an audio recording of the May 8, 2018, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the members of the Greenwood Township Board comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, to make at least one copy of members’ materials available to the public at its May 8, 2018, meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(5), states that the governing body of a town is included in that requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 6, requires that at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items that are distributed at or before the meeting to all members of the governing body, or are available to all members in the meeting room, “shall be available in the meeting room for the public to review.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the Commissioner, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The document at issue was a one-page amendment to the Township’s Standard Operating Guidelines (see attached document). This document contained one paragraph of text. This SOG was first included in the April 10, 2018 Town Board meeting agenda packet. It was read aloud at a Town Board meeting on April 18, 2018. Although this document was omitted from the May 8, 2018 Town Board meeting agenda packet, the Fire Chief brought copies to the May 8, 2018 meeting and &lt;strong&gt;asked those in attendance if anyone needed copies. He then passed out copies to those who asked for one.&lt;/strong&gt; In addition, the entire document was read aloud at the May 8, 2018 meeting. The Board delayed taking any action on the SOG until the June 12th meeting, when it was adopted by the Town Board.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Although the SOG was not in the May 8th agenda packet for the public, it was read aloud in its entirety at that meeting (and at the April 18. 2018 meeting), thereby informing all in attendance of exactly what the Board was considering. The Township believes that both the offer of copies to anyone who did not have one and reading the document aloud meets the spirit of Minn. Stat. 13D.01, Subd. 6.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board acknowledges that the SOG was not in the public packet. However, Mr. Bassing and the Board do not agree as to whether the Board explicitly asked non-Board members present if they would like a copy of the SOG. The audio recording supports Mr. Bassing’s contention that the Fire Chief passed out copies to Board members only, as it doesn’t contain an offer by the Fire Chief or anyone else to provide copies to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the SOG was available to the public at an earlier meeting, and that it was read aloud at the May 8, 2018, meeting. Nonetheless, the Board did not comply with its obligations under section 13D.01, subdivision 6. As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-334889&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 18-003&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner also notes that a public body cannot fulfill its obligation to make members’ materials available in the meeting room for inspection by the public if the public does not know they are available for inspection. While there is not an affirmative duty to distribute copies to each member of the public in attendance at the meeting, liberally construing the OML to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies requires a public body to provide easy access to the materials. Where here, the materials were at a staff work station with other personal materials and not demonstrably available, members of the public could have been intimidated and possibly prevented from exercising their right to review a copy of the materials by being compelled to ask for them. ….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner again encourages all public bodies to develop ways to guarantee meaningful access to the information required by section 13D.01.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The members of the Greenwood Township Board did not comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, to make at least one copy of members’ materials available to the public at its May 8, 2018, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: August 1, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>347600</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-010</Title><title>Opinion 18 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-347419&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-07-31T13:34:39Z</Date><ShortDescription>A data requester asked whether a school district had responded appropriately to several data requests he made, including one for data about himself. The Commissioner opined that the district did not respond appropriately to the requests for public data in these specific circumstances when it did not communicate with the requester in nearly five months, despite the fact that the district knew that some data the requester sought no longer existed. The Commissioner further opined that the district did not respond appropriately to the requester’s request for data about himself because it did not provide him with any data within ten business days, as required by Minn. Stat § 13.04.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 30, 2018; ISD 709, Duluth Public Schools</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Art Johnston asked for an advisory opinion regarding data that Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools (District), maintains. Zachary J. Cronen, attorney for the District, submitted comments on behalf of the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Johnston sent four data requests to the District on March 2, 2018. The District time stamped the requests as “received” on March 7, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the District emailed Mr. Johnston that it had received the requests and that the requests were “currently in the process of being evaluated and we are gathering data.” Mr. Johnston has not received any communication or any data as of the date of requesting this advisory opinion, despite requests for a status update.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Johnston requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. All communications that involved ISD709 property sales, or potential property sales, or other utilization of ISD709 real property. This request includes, but [&lt;/em&gt;sic&lt;em&gt;] not limited to, emails, letters, memos, texts, analysis, and meeting noted involving ISD709 administration, agents, employees, attorneys, or school board members; and involving any other persons or entities. Dates requested are from January 2010 to the present. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;2. All communications between administration, employees, elected officials, attorneys, agents, or contractors of Independent School No. 709; and officers, employees, contractors, attorneys, affiliates, or agents of Johnson Controls, Inc., concerning the change orders entered into between I.S.D. No. 709 and Johnson Controls, Inc. dated on or about January 2012 (also known as Amendment Project Scopes – Change Order 2) and November 2009 (also known as Amended Project Scopes).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dates are from 2009 to the present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;3. All communications involving administration, employees, elected officials, attorneys, or agents of the Independent School No. 709; concerning responses to data requests and the Minnesota Government Data requests. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dates are from 2013 to the present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;4. All communications involving administration, employees, elected officials, attorneys, or agents of Independent School No. 709; concerning former school board member Art Johnston.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dates are from 2009 to the present. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, respond appropriately to March 2, 2018, data requests for public data related to District communications about property transactions, responses to data practices requests, and a contract change order?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, respond appropriately to a March 2, 2018, data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;: Did Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, respond appropriately to March 2, 2018, data requests for public data related to District communications about property transactions, responses to data practices requests, and a contract change order?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A government entity must respond to requests for public data from members of the public in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) An entity must respond by providing the data, notifying the requester that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or informing the requester that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions  &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267656&quot;&gt;98-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266715&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-020&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267325&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267662&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-015&lt;/a&gt;.) In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266899&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the University of Minnesota had responded appropriately to a data requester, even though the University had not provided any data to the requester after a period of five months. In that opinion, the requester had asked for access to data related to numerous studies conducted by the University. The University acknowledged his request on the same day he sent it. A month later, the University provided him with an estimate of copy charges and a recap of his remaining data requests. Two weeks later, the University provided the requester with a list of responsive studies (83 studies) so he could determine the order in which he wanted to review them. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the complexity of the request and the fact that the University has been in continual communication with Mr. Elliot, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the University has acted appropriately in responding to Mr. Elliott&apos;s October 20, 2013, request. It seems reasonable that the request might warrant the time that has elapsed, especially in the context of Mr. Elliott&apos;s various other requests.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, in response to the Commissioner, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The District notes that for a large portion of Mr. Johnston&apos;s data requests, there are no data responsive to his requests. According to the District&apos;s Record Retention Policy, correspondence, including emails, have a retention period of three years. See Independent School District 709 Records Retention, at ADM 00900, ADM 02000, available at http://www.isd709.org/district/ departments-3/business­services/finance/record-retention. All of Mr. Johnston&apos;s data requests are for communications and all are for a time period beginning more than three years from his requests, including two requests for communications that are over nine years old. Because communications more than three years old are not retained under the Record Retention Policy, there are no data responsive to those portions of Mr. Johnston&apos;s requests. Even with those limitations, there are still over 26,000 documents responsive to Mr. Johnston&apos;s requests that the District must review.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The District&apos;s Chief Financial Officer (&quot;CFO&quot;) is responsible for receiving data requests and coordinating the responses to data requests. Here, on March 20, 2018, Jackie Dolentz, the Executive Assistant to the District&apos;s former CFO, Doug Hasler, responded to Mr. Johnston acknowledging receipt of the requests. The District thereafter did not respond to Mr. Johnston in writing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The District has taken steps to ensure that moving forward, all data requests are properly received, acknowledged, and responded to in a timely manner and in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The District is currently working on reviewing, redacting as necessary, and responding to Mr. Johnston&apos;s data requests. The District estimates that it wil1 take 1,300 staff hours to respond to this request. The District will allow Mr. Johnston regular opportunities to review the documents that have been processed as they become available.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In these specific circumstances, once the District determined that certain responsive data no longer existed, it should have notified Mr. Johnston promptly. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267469&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-014&lt;/a&gt;.) Also, it appears that the District has identified responsive documents and has decided to provide Mr. Johnston with data on a “rolling” basis. This can be an effective strategy for both entities and requesters when dealing with a large amount of data. However, despite requests for status updates and the passage of nearly five months, the District has not provided Mr. Johnston with any responsive data nor communicated to him that data on at least one of his requests would be forthcoming. Given the lengthy response time in this specific situation, the District’s lack of response is unreasonable because it failed to communicate the reasons detailing the delay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that requests that result in a large amount of data can present practical challenges for government entities. While entities may be able to identify responsive documents fairly quickly, the time to review and protect not public information can result in lengthy response times. However, entities are still required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Entities can facilitate a timely response by staying in communication with data requesters while their requests are pending. It also allows the requesters to consider whether they would like to change their requests in order to reduce the amount of responsive data; this benefits both the entity and the requester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges and is encouraged by the fact that the District is making more of an effort to improve its compliance with the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;: Did Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, respond appropriately to a March 2, 2018, data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a data subject requests access to government data about him/herself, the Data Practices Act sets a strict time limit for the entity to provide access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.&lt;/em&gt; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued a number of opinions about the requirement to respond to data subjects immediately or within ten business days. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267853&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267820&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-070&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267728&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-006&lt;/a&gt;.)  In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-340460&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;18-005&lt;/a&gt;, he wrote, &quot;the County’s obligation under the Data Practices Act to comply immediately or in ten business day with a data subject’s request is clear.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District received Mr. Johnston’s request for communication about him on March 7, 2018, but has not provided Mr. Johnston with any requested data about himself. Therefore, the District did not respond appropriately. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, has not responded appropriately to several requests for public data because it has not notified the data requester that certain responsive data do not exist, provided any data to the requester on at least one of the requests, or provided information to explain the delay in responding to the requests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 709, Duluth Public Schools, did not respond appropriately to a March 2, 2018, data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, because it did not provide any data to the requester in 10 business days.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: July 30, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>347419</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days</Title><Id>267263</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days</Title><Id>266515</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely, generally</Title><Id>266408</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-009</Title><title>Opinion 18 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-343715&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-06-28T15:18:46Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a state agency had violated the Data Practices Act because it denied him access to the data he requested (school building radon testing/mitigation data). The agency stated that per Minn. Stat. § 13.3805, subdivision 5, data it maintains that “identify the address of a radon testing or mitigation site, and the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of residents and residential property owners of a radon testing or mitigation site, are private data on individuals or nonpublic data.” The Commissioner agreed with the agency that data it maintains that identify the location of any radon testing or mitigation site, regardless of the type of property, including school buildings, are nonpublic. However, the same type of data that entities other than the agency maintain are not classified by § 13.3805, subdivision 5.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2018; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A.J. Lagoe, a reporter for KARE 11 TV, asked for an advisory opinion regarding certain data the Minnesota Department of Health maintains. Lynn Belgea, Responsible Authority Designee for the Department, submitted comments. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Lagoe, KARE 11 asked the Department for school building radon data. The Department denied the request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.3805, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his request, Mr. Lagoe wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We believe MDH has erred in their interpretation of MN 13.3805, Subd. 5. In that the statute is clearly focused on the address of *&lt;strong&gt;residential&lt;/strong&gt;* property owners and not public/government buildings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The same data that MDH is withholding is considered public data by individual school districts, but requires hundreds of individual data requests and countless wasted hours by school districts responding to those requests when MDH has the data in one location.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Health respond appropriately to a request for school building radon data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.3805, subdivision 5: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data maintained by the Department of Health that identify the address of a radon testing or mitigation site, and the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of residents and residential property owners of a radon testing or mitigation site, are private data on individuals or nonpublic data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to Mr. Lagoe, the Department wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our determination is that the address of a radon testing or mitigation site, listed as a school or other building, is nonpublic data. This would include any data that would enable someone to figure out the address in addition to any direct addresses. For example, some cities and towns have only one or a few school buildings which would make them easy to identify.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, the Department stated that the first clause of section 13.3805, subdivision 5, “does not distinguish between types of buildings”.  Both parties also discussed the legislative history and intent of section 13.3805, subdivision 5. To that point, the Department cited Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, which provides, “[w]hen the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” The Department wrote, “Section 13.3805, subdivision 5, being unambiguous, must be read as classifying the requested data as nonpublic.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner concurs with the Department. Data maintained by the Department that identify the location of any radon testing or mitigation site, regardless of the type of property, including school buildings, are nonpublic. Both Mr. Lagoe and the Department acknowledged that the same type of data, which are maintained by entities other than the Department, are not classified by section 13.3805, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Health responded appropriately when it denied a request for school building radon data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 28, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>343715</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Health data</Title><Id>344345</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-008</Title><title>Opinion 18 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-343324&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-06-21T14:48:56Z</Date><ShortDescription>A county asked about the classification of an investigative report about an elected county sheriff. The Commissioner agreed with the County that the sheriff was a public official employee and that “retirement” is a form of “resignation.” As such, all data about the complaint became public when the sheriff retired while the complaint was pending, per Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subdivision 2(f) and (e) (excepting not public data about other individuals).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 21, 2018; Chisago County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, asked for an advisory opinion regarding data that Chisago County (the County) maintains. Marshall Tanick, attorney for the data subject, provided comments on his behalf. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Chisago County received a complaint against elected Sheriff Richard &quot;Rick&quot; Duncan and initiated an external investigation into the complaint. The complaint was investigated by attorney Kristi A. Hastings. On April 26, 2018, Hastings issued her investigative report to Chisago County. On April 26, 2018, Sheriff Duncan submitted his written notice of retirement to Chisago County to be effective May 4, 2018….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On April 27, 2018, Chisago County received a data request from KSTP requesting the &quot;investigation into complaint, disciplinary action, finding of investigation&quot; regarding Duncan.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data in an investigative report about a complaint against a County Sheriff?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data, unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).) For employees who are “public officials,” however, all data relating to a complaint or charge are public if certain conditions are met. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (4), are public only if:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending.&lt;/em&gt; (Section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(1).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Local public officials include the chief administrative officer; directors of departments, divisions, bureaus, or boards of a county with a population of more than 5,000 (or cities with more than 7,500 residents); the top three highest paid positions in a city or county with over 15,000 residents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.701; and certain school district employees. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(4)(i-iv).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote: “Whether the data is governed by [section] 13.43, hinges upon whether the Sheriff, as an elected official, is deemed an employee, or not.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has consistently opined that entities must determine whether elected officials are “employees” for purposes of the Data Practices Act. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267573&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-041&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267335&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267742&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-013&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267669&quot;&gt;01-039&lt;/a&gt;.) In an unpublished Minnesota Court of Appeals case, the Court agreed with the Commissioner’s previous opinions, “[a]llowing governmental units to decide whether their elected officials are employees also comports with the fundamental purpose of the MGDPA.” &lt;em&gt;Krout v. City of Greenfield&lt;/em&gt;, No. A11-1200, WL 2012 1253090 (Minn.Ct.App. April 16, 2012). If an elected official is not an “employee” for purposes of the Data Practices Act, then data about him are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote that it “believes the Sheriff is an employee, and more specifically, a ‘public official.’” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The data subject wrote that he, “believes that the County is probably correct on this point [that the data subject is an employee]. For the purposes of the analysis, he may be deemed an “employee,” and, therefore, the investigative data may be covered by section 13.43.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The next question is whether the data subject was a “public official,” while employed at the County. The County wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As an employee, the Sheriff is a &quot;public official&quot; under Minn. Stat. [section] 13.43, Subd. 2(e)(4)(ii) and (iii) as noted by the Sheriff’s salary and position as the head of a department. In Chisago County, the Sheriff is one of the employees whose salary is posted on the County&apos;s website to comply with Minn. Stat. §471.701 and identified by County Personnel Policy as a Department Head, responsible for overseeing the Sheriff’s Office. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The data subject argued that he is not a public official first, because including his position as one of the three highest paid was “premature and erroneous,” as a half-year employee this year and because he is not a department head. However, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The County provided four years of salary postings and “Sheriff” is included on all of them (all during the tenure of the data subject). Moreover, County also stated that the position of Sheriff is considered a department head within the County. Thus, under the plain language of the law, the data subject is a local public official.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The next question is whether the Sheriff “resigned” while the complaint or charge was pending, when he retired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The legal distinction between a resignation and retirement for purpose of the classification of data resulting from an investigation of an employee does not appear to have been previously addressed. The practical implications of the Sheriff’s retirement is that as of May 4, 2018, the Sheriff is no longer available for service, consistent with the impact of a resignation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The word “resign” is not defined in section 13.43. Words and phrases not defined in statute are to be interpreted according to their common and approved usage. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08.) The dictionary definition of “resign” is “to give up one&apos;s office or position.” (Merriam-Webster.com. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com (June 2018).) While there may certainly be a distinction between resignation and retirement for human resources or personnel purposes – as the data subject argues – in a data practices context, it seems that retirement is a form of resignation. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On April 26, 2018, the data subject stated his intention to retire on May 4, 2018, and subsequently retired. It is the Commissioner’s opinion that the Sheriff “resigned” on May 4, 2018. Therefore, if the complaint or charge was still pending on that date, when the Sheriff actually retired, all data related to the complaint or charge became public (except for private data on other employees or data that would jeopardize an active investigation). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that at the time of the April 27, 2018, data request from KSTP, the data in the investigative report were private personnel data, as the data subject had not yet resigned. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The data in an investigative report about a County Sheriff who is a public official employee and who resigns as a result of retirement while a complaint or charge is pending are public, except for otherwise private data on other individuals. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 21, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>343324</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected officials</Title><Id>267224</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>267210</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials (13.601)</Title><Id>266769</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Expunged records/sealed records</Title><Id>342909</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-007</Title><title>Opinion 18 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-342910&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-06-15T20:11:40Z</Date><ShortDescription>A City asked if it was required to provide access to a sealed criminal record pursuant to 5 USC § 9101. The language in that provision allows military recruiters to access certain records maintained by state and local law enforcement when the expunged records remain available for background checks. Here, the case against the subject of the records was ultimately dismissed and therefore, because there were not any record of a “conviction,” the records are not available for background checks under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03. Therefore, the City could not disclose the sealed records to the military recruiter.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 15, 2018; City of New Prague</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Scott J. Riggs, attorney for the City of New Prague (City), asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about data that the City police department maintains. Tim Warnemunde, attorney for the data subject, provided comments on behalf of his client.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In late 2017, the [Police] Department’s responsible authority received a written request for data. The request for data included the following:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;DD Form 369, Dec. 2014 – Police Record Check; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Standard For 86 – Questionnaire for National Security Positions – Authorization for the Release of Information&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Copies of the documents received by the Department are attached for your review.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The requests sought police records related to M.B. The person requesting the information was identified in the request at [sic]… a U.S. Navy Recruiter….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the terms of the Standard Form 86, the requestor was relying on obtaining the requested data to carry out the powers and duties contained in 5 U.S.C. section 9101. In relevant part, that statute provides that local law enforcement agencies shall provide “criminal history record information” which includes “records of a State or locality sealed pursuant to law if such records are accessible by the State and local criminal justice agencies for purpose of conducting background checks.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to this request, the City provided the requester with a summary of contacts the data subject had with the police department. The summary included an entry for an arrest for fifth degree drug sales, under Minnesota Statutes, section 152.025, subdivision 1, which occurred when the subject was a juvenile. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In March of 2018, the police department received a court order sealing/expunging the record of the arrest. The City expects to receive a request similar to the one it received in early 2017 and sought clarification on the effect of the expungement order on the records the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Does 5 U.S.C. section 9101 require the City of New Prague to disclose law enforcement records sealed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609A to a military recruiter?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609A governs the process for and the effect of an expungement order on access to criminal records. (See also Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 260B, regarding expungement of juvenile delinquency records.) The Chapter limits who may have access to sealed records and under which conditions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding section 13.82, 13.87, or any other law to the contrary, if the court issues an expungement order it may require that the criminal record be sealed, the existence of the record not be revealed, and the record not be opened except [under certain circumstances].&lt;/em&gt; (Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.03, subdivision 5(d).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, when a court seals criminal records, those records may only be accessed as provided under the court order, Chapters 609A and 260B, or as otherwise authorized in law. Though the records continue to exist, they are no longer subject to the Data Practices Act and consequently, any prior data classifications under that law do not impact access to those records. Moreover, the rights granted to data subjects under the Data Practices Act – including the right to access data about themselves in ten business days and the right to give informed consent to a third party – no longer apply. (The effect of an expungement order is similar to the effect of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, which relates to certain types of records created by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity. That provision essentially removes the records from the Data Practices Act and provides that access to attorney records is governed instead, by the Minnesota Rules of Court. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267561&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266767&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267516&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota law allows access to records sealed on January 1, 2015, and later, in certain circumstances, including:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(3) an expunged&lt;/em&gt; record of a conviction &lt;em&gt;may be opened for purposes of evaluating a prospective employee in a criminal justice agency without a court order;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(4) an expunged&lt;/em&gt; record of a conviction &lt;em&gt;may be opened for purposes of a background study under section 245C.08 unless the commissioner had been properly served with notice of the petition for expungement and the court order for expungement is directed specifically to the commissioner of human services;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(5) an expunged&lt;/em&gt; record of a conviction &lt;em&gt;may be opened for purposes of a background check required under section 122A.18, subdivision 8, unless the court order for expungement is directed specifically to the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board or the licensing division of the Department of Education.&lt;/em&gt; (Section 609A.03, subd. 7a(b)(3)-(5).) (Emphasis added.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Federal law provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Upon request by a covered agency, criminal justice agencies shall make available all criminal history record information regarding individuals under investigation by that covered agency, in accordance with Federal Investigative Standards /jointly promulgated by the Suitability Executive Agent and Security Executive Agent, for the purpose of—&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(A) determining eligibility for—&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(iii) acceptance or retention in the armed forces.&lt;/em&gt; (5 USC 9101(b)(1)(A)(iii).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;That section also defines “criminal history record information” as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Information collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, indictments, informations [sic], or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom, sentencing, correction supervision, and release. The term does not include identification information such as fingerprint records to the extent that such information does not indicate involvement of the individual in the criminal justice system.&lt;/em&gt; The term includes those records of a State or locality sealed pursuant to law if such records are accessible by State and local criminal justice agencies for the purpose of conducting background checks. (5 USC 9101 (a)(2).) (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The subject of the records raised the possibility that Minnesota Statutes, section 152.18 (certain first time drug offenders; certain marijuana offenses) applies to the records at issue and therefore, section 609A.03, subdivision 6, controls the outcome here. However, section 152.18 only applies to &lt;em&gt;possession&lt;/em&gt; crimes under section 152.025, subdivision 2, and the records expunged in the two court orders at issue here involve a &lt;em&gt;sales&lt;/em&gt; crime, under subdivision 1 of that section. Thus, sections 152.18 and 609A.03, subd. 6, do not apply to the records here. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The district court’s expungement order for Le Sueur County states that the order is sealing/expunging records under section 609A.02, subd. 3, for “5th Degree drugs-sale-marijuana in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 152.025, Subd. 1(a).” (The records are subject to a Scott County expungement order, as well, which is materially the same.) The Le Sueur County order further states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Petitioner’s request for sealing/expunging of records is granted. All official records, including all records relating to the arrest, indictment or complaint, trial and dismissal, shall be sealed by the agencies indicated in paragraph 4 [sic] below and the existence not disclosed without a court order, except as authorized by law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Paragraph 3 of the order lists New Prague City Attorney and New Prague City Police Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The subject of the records provided the following additional facts, “Taking into account the facts of the case, and [the data subject’s] good record, [the data subject] was given a stay of adjudication. [The data subject] satisfied all terms of the stay and the criminal case against him was &lt;em&gt;dismissed&lt;/em&gt;.” (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormalCxSpFirst&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under the federal provision, the Navy is allowed to access sealed records in Minnesota to determine eligibility to serve in the armed forces when those sealed records are accessible to local law enforcement agencies to conduct background checks. Minnesota law allows criminal justice agencies to access “criminal conviction records” to conduct certain background studies. Here, the Court stayed adjudication and once the subject of the records fulfilled the conditions of the stay, the case was dismissed. Thus, he was never “convicted” and his records are not accessible in Minnesota for background checks by criminal justice agencies. Therefore, the City cannot disclose the sealed records pursuant to 5 USC section 9101.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;5 U.S.C. section 9101 does not require the City of New Prague to disclose law enforcement records sealed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609A to a military recruiter, because Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.03, subd. 7a, does not allow criminal justice agencies to access sealed records to conduct background checks unless the individual is convicted of a crime. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 15, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>342910</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-006</Title><title>Opinion 18 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-340647&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-05-23T16:08:40Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a University had violated the Data Practices Act because it had not provided him with access to the data he requested (public personnel data on three employees) as of the date of his opinion request, which was two months after he asked for the data. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. Here, he opined that given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the University’s response was not timely. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 23, 2018; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mark Krampf asked for an advisory opinion regarding certain data the University of Minnesota maintains. Susan McKinney, responsible authority for the University, submitted comments. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Krampf, on February 17, 2018, he submitted a request to the University for public personnel data about three University employees. Most of the data Mr. Krampf requested are listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), such as gross pension, value &amp;amp; nature of any fringe benefits, final disposition of any disciplinary action, work location, badge number, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Krampf stated to the Commissioner that as of April 18, 2018, the University had not provided him with the data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a February 17, 2018, data request?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, an entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or inform the requester that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Also, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, “[t]he responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267963&quot;&gt;13-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267469&quot;&gt;06-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267662&quot;&gt;05-015&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267325&quot;&gt;04-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267700&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267434&quot;&gt;95-006&lt;/a&gt;.) Here, Mr. Krampf asked for public data on three employees. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her comments, Ms. McKinney wrote, “[t]he information Mr. Krampf has requested was provided to him on May 2, 2018.  Additional information based on an email from Mr. Krampf on May 16, 2018 was provided to him on May 21, 2018.”   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif&quot;&gt;Given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the University’s response to Mr. Krampf was not timely.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The University of Minnesota did not respond appropriately to a February 17, 2018, data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: May 23, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>340647</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266904</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-005</Title><title>Opinion 18 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-340460&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-05-22T12:53:33Z</Date><ShortDescription>A data subject asked if a county responded appropriately to a data request when it failed to comply within ten business days. The Commissioner concluded that Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subdivision 3, is clear: entities must comply with data subject requests within ten business days. The request resulted in almost 3,000 emails and, as of the date of the opinion, the County had failed to provide any emails to the data subject. The Commissioner acknowledged the challenge in producing all of the data within the strict time limit, but also noted that the statute does not allow for additional time in mitigating circumstances.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 21, 2018; Carver County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Noah McCourt asked for an advisory opinion about certain data that Carver County (County) maintains. Thomas W. Haines, Assistant Carver County Attorney, submitted comments on behalf of the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. McCourt provided a summary of the facts. On March 14, 2018, Mr. McCourt made a request to the Carver County Administrator for the following data: “[a]ny and all correspondence, documents, letters, electronic messages, memoranda, social media communications, telephone messages, and any other forms of data which includes the name Noah McCourt.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. McCourt further wrote, “Carver county [sic] has failed to meet the 10 day stipulation as cited from the MN Data Privacy act [sic] and in fact they have not responded to the request at all.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Carver County respond appropriately to a March 14, 2018, data request from a data subject pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a data subject requests access to government data about him/herself, the Data Practices Act sets a strict time limit for the entity to provide access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.&lt;/em&gt; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued a number of opinions about the requirement to respond to data subjects immediately or within ten days. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267853&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267820&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-070&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267728&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its letter to the Commissioner, the County wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. McCourt’s foregoing claim [that the County did not contact him about his request] is demonstrably false. In fact, the Carver County Attorney’s Office has exercised nothing but good faith in attempting to comply with Mr. McCourt’s extensive data request.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County argued that Mr. McCourt’s request was “patently distinguishable from the vast majority of typical data requests” because the Chief Deputy County Attorney, who is the data practices Responsible Authority for the County in these circumstances, was also the assigned prosecutor in a criminal matter involving Mr. McCourt. Relying on &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct&lt;/em&gt; 4.2, Communication with Persons Represented by Counsel, the Chief Deputy determined that he could not reply directly to Mr. McCourt, because Mr. McCourt was represented by counsel in the criminal matter. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on this reasoning, beginning on March 26, 2018, the Chief Deputy sent six emails regarding the data request to Mr. McCourt’s attorney for the criminal case. Specifically, he noted that the County identified about 3,000 responsive emails and that before providing the emails, each one would be reviewed to determine if it contained any not public data about others. He also noted that the County was implementing new software to respond more effectively to data requests and that installation and training were causing some of the delay. On April 24, 2018, the Chief Deputy determined that there would be a conflict of interest for him to review the documents and assigned the task to another attorney at the County. At a hearing for the criminal matter, Mr. McCourt’s attorney stated that she represented him in the criminal matter and it would not be “proper or appropriate for [her] to be dealing with the data practices portion.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot opine on the proper application of the ethical rules governing the conduct of attorneys; that is strictly within the purview of the Courts. For further guidance, the Commissioner refers the County to the comments to Rule 4.2, in particular Comment 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, notwithstanding the attorney conduct concerns, the County’s obligation under the Data Practices Act to comply immediately or in ten business day with a data subject’s request is clear. (The Commissioner has also previously opined that the existence of litigation between a data requester and an entity does not relieve the entity of its data practices responsibilities. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267779&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267700&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;.) As the Commissioner noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-268014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, Mr. McCourt asked for data about himself on March 14, 2018. As of April 18, 2018, the date the Commissioner received Mr. McCourt’s opinion request, Mr. McCourt had not received any data from the County. (The County subsequently contacted Mr. McCourt on May 18, 2018, with an update but, to the Commissioner’s knowledge, has not yet provided any data.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The issue of responding to requests that result in a large amount of emails is a challenging one. Though the amount of data created and maintained by government is ever-increasing due to the transition to electronic and digital records, the strict time limit to provide access to data about data subjects remains the same. The Commissioner acknowledges that entities are sometimes in the difficult position of being unable to comply fully – by providing &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the data – within ten business days (though entities can certainly provide &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the data within ten business days). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner has a note regarding the County’s access policies required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025. The County’s current access policy for data subjects identifies the Chief Deputy County Attorney as the Responsible Authority for offices not otherwise designated by statute. Thus, given the Chief Deputy’s prosecutorial responsibilities, it seems likely that situations similar to this one will arise in the future. The Commissioner encourages the County to revisit its access policies and procedures so that any issues related to representation or apparent conflicts of interest do not interfere with the statutory time limits for responding to requests. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Carver County did not respond appropriately to a March 14, 2018, data request from a data subject because it did not provide access to the data within ten business days, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: May 21, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>340460</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access by data subject or parent</Title><Id>266762</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days</Title><Id>267263</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response to data request</Title><Id>267049</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subjects (13.04)</Title><Id>267308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access</Title><Id>267012</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-004</Title><title>Opinion 18 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-335888&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-04-16T19:35:35Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the classification of data it maintained about a School Resource Officer (SRO) employed by a city and assigned to the District. Based on Advisory Opinion 97-030, the Commissioner opined that the definition of personnel data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, includes government data maintained by one government entity about employees employed by another government entity, when employees are working in their official capacities. Therefore, data about the SRO maintained at the District are classified as personnel data and while the existence and status of a complaint against the SRO are public, any other data about a complaint or charge against the SRO is private at the District.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 16, 2018; School District X</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Maggie R. Wallner, attorney for a school district (District), asked for an advisory opinion regarding data that the District maintains pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Data Practices Act). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided a summary of the facts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he School District received, from parents of a student, written complaints against a number of school employees, as well as a school resource officer (the “Officer”). The School District retained a law firm to conduct an investigation into the allegations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notably, the Officer is not an employee or independent contractor of the School District, but rather is employed by the City as a member of its police department. The Officer declined to be interviewed in the School District’s investigation, and the Police Chief informed the School District that an investigation would be conducted by the City if it received a complaint from the parents. The parents declined to submit a complaint to the City.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of data related to a complaint by a parent about a School Resource Officer maintained by a school district? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act defines “personnel data” as: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[G]overnment data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are always public. Unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the subject and the nature of the complaint are private. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267685&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-030&lt;/a&gt;, a county employee complained about the work environment in an office that was co-located with a city department. In the subsequent investigation, the county interviewed both city and county employees. The county then asked the Commissioner about the classification of the data that the county maintained about city employees. The Commissioner opined: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The data about City and County employees contained in the documents were collected, created, and are maintained by Blue Earth County because those individuals are or were employees of a government entity (in this case, either the City or the County). Therefore, those data in the possession of the County are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;***&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As discussed above, any data about an individual collected by a government entity because that individual is or was an employee of a government entity, are classified per Section 13.43. In this case, the data about City Employee A were collected by the County because City Employee A is an employee of the City of Mankato, who, because of the operation of a joint County/City Department, works with County employees. Therefore, the data about City Employee A in the possession of Blue Earth County are classified per Section 13.43.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The police department and the District signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) prior to the officer’s assignment at the District. It provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School Resource Officer is a licensed peace officer that will be serving the [redacted] Public schools. This role is vital to the security, safety, and education within the public school system, therefore the partnership between the City of [redacted] Police Department and ISD [redacted] is key in order to implement effective policing in the school system.&lt;/em&gt; [Redactions provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The MOU also specifies that the school resource officer (SRO) reports to the Chief of Police and the Chief and the Superintendent will have meetings to discuss performance and expectations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its opinion request, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;T&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;he Officer is not an employee of the School District; he was not performing services on a voluntary basis; and he was not acting as an independent contractor. Rather, he is employed by the City and assigned to the School District.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, the definition of personnel data, as highlighted above, applies to data on individuals maintained because the individual is an employee of &lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt; government entity. The Officer is indeed an employee of a government entity; it is just not the entity that maintains the data in question.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the District. The District collected the data about the SRO because the SRO is an employee of the police department, who also works within the District. This is consistent with the definition of personnel data in section 13.43 and Advisory Opinion 97-030.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because the District cannot discipline the SRO, there can be no final disposition of disciplinary action. Thus, the only public data about the complaint against the SRO that the District maintains, are the existence and status. The parents were invited to submit their complaint regarding the SRO to the police department, where additional personnel data might have become public if certain conditions had been met, but they declined.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner encourages school districts and police departments to consider the data practices implications when assigning SROs to districts and to include data practices responsibilities and expectations in MOUs or other contracts between the parties. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that the application of section 13.43 depends upon whether data are maintained &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; an individual is an employee of a government entity. When an individual’s identity as a government employee is unconnected to the collection or creation of data, (i.e., an employee is acting in his/her personal capacity), the data are not personnel data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267479&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-004&lt;/a&gt;, names of government employees corresponding with their elected officials in their individual capacities are not personnel data accessible to the public.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data related to a complaint by a parent about a School Resource Officer employed by a police department and maintained by a school district at which the SRO is assigned, are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left: 0.5in;&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: April 16, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>335888</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-003</Title><title>Opinion 18 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-334889&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-04-05T15:20:02Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a City Council had violated the Open Meeting Law by holding a meeting outside the geographic boundaries of the body, not providing a copy of members’ materials, and eating dinner together.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 5, 2018; St. Anthony Village City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Nancy Robinett asked for an advisory opinion regarding the conduct of the St. Anthony Village City Council (Council) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Jay Lindgren, City Attorney, responded on behalf of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Ms. Robinett, on January 11-12, 2018, the Council held what it described, in part, as a “Goal Setting Session.” The meeting was held at the Marriott Northwest Hotel in Brooklyn Park, MN (outside the legal boundaries of St. Anthony Village).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Robinett stated to the Commissioner that “all materials relevant to the … meetings…were not available to the public.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Ms. Robinett:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The attendees on the second day had a “pyramid” document that they were discussing and working on; I asked the facilitator for a copy of this so I could follow along. He gave me a copy of this single sheet, after some reluctance, but it was an older 2017 copy, as I saw a newer copy with 2018 written on it, in front of the invited attendees….&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;***&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the end of the first day, a dinner was scheduled for attendees …. I understand that a number of attendees, which I believe included council members and the mayor, were scheduled to spend the night in the hotel.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held meetings on January 11 and 12, 2018, in Brooklyn Park, MN?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, to make at least one copy of members materials available at its January 11 and 12, 2018, meetings?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they met for dinner in a hotel dining room, the evening of the January 11, 2018, meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a city is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(4).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&apos;Meetings&apos; subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/em&gt; Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983) (Moberg).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies.” &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn.1983) (&lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held meetings on January 11 and 12, 2018, in Brooklyn Park, MN?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court previously considered whether a school board violated the OML when it held a meeting 20 miles outside of the school district. The Court held: “To meet this statutory requirement [that meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public] it is essential that such meetings be held in a public place located within the territorial confines of the school district involved.” &lt;em&gt;Quast v. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (Minn. 1967) (&lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt;). Based on the holding in that case, the Commissioner has previously opined that all public bodies must hold their meetings within the territorial confines of their jurisdictions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267613&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-012&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Robinett wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am unaware of any reason why the meetings of the January 11-12 could not and should not have been held within the borders of the city of St. Anthony, in keeping with Minnesota law. Comments have been made by the mayor of St. Anthony that the long-standing practice of holding this annual meeting outside the borders of St. Anthony is approved by him, and is likely to continue.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City Manager described the meeting in this way:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City of St. Anthony City Council has had a tradition of holding its annual goalsetting session in a location outside City Hall in order to reflect on and organize its goals and strategies in an environment free from distractions and interruptions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the Commissioner, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Holding the St. Anthony annual goal-setting session outside City limits does not violate the Open Meeting Law…. Ms. Robinett contends that&lt;/em&gt; Quast &lt;em&gt;creates a bright-line rule that every meeting of every public body must be held within the territorial jurisdiction of that body, regardless of circumstances. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council then provided a number of arguments to support its position that &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt; does not create a bright-line rule and that public bodies should instead, employ a balancing test. However, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Council’s arguments and relies on the clear public policy underlying the Supreme Court’s holding in &lt;em&gt;Quast&lt;/em&gt; and past opinions applying that case to all public bodies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Requiring public bodies to hold meetings within their jurisdictions accomplishes the central purpose of the OML, which is to allow the public to observe the decision-making process of its governing bodies. Here, the Council spent two days talking about the long-term vision for the City and prioritizing goals and action steps. They also heard presentations from consultants and staff on issues related to finance, emergency services, and engineering, amongst other topics. The OML seeks to facilitate open, public access to these types of Council discussions in a manner accessible to its constituents. By holding the meetings outside of the Council’s jurisdiction, the Council effectively removed themselves from the people that they serve, thus undermining the public policy intent of the OML. Per the direction of the Supreme Court, the Commissioner interprets the OML in favor of public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that this interpretation of Quast is consistent with &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267172&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 13-009&lt;/a&gt;, which concluded that when the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, subdivision 1(3), are met, public body members may “attend” meetings via interactive television even when they are outside of the geographic boundaries of the public body. That provision requires at least one member of the public body to be physically present at the regular meeting location. It also requires that members of the public be able to see and hear all testimony, discussion, and votes. So, in essence, a meeting via interactive TV is still a meeting in the regular meeting room of the public body and within the territory of the public body. There are similar conditions for meetings by telephone. (See Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.015 and 13D.021.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, to make at least one copy of members materials available at its January 11 and 12, 2018, meetings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, requires that at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items that are distributed at or before the meeting to all members of the governing body or are available to all members in the meeting room, “shall be available in the meeting room for the public to review.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Robinett wrote that the public materials had not been made available at the meeting. On the second day, she asked one of the meeting facilitators for a copy of a document and was provided a document that was similar to, though not exactly the same as, the one being reviewed by the Council members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter to the Commissioner, the City Manager wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Staff prepared and brought to the goal-setting session a copy of all the materials that would be reviewed and discussed during the meeting. I kept the copy near me on top of the front table and sat in front of a large placard with my name on it, in case anyone asked to view the copy of the materials. No one did…. As a matter of fact, we had two extra copies.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council’s attorney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The statute does not impose an affirmative duty to distribute a copy of these materials, or to ask each member if they would like to inspect the materials. It only requires that a public body make the materials “available for inspection.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Robinett wrote that, given the configuration of the meeting room, it was not clear to her that the required packet was available. She stated, “[the City Manager] may well have had extra materials at his personal seating area. However, there were jumbles of materials at many seats, which were all clearly personal seating areas….”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council stated that the materials were in the meeting room and would have been provided, if requested. However, when Ms. Robinett asked to see the “pyramid document” that the Council members were reviewing and discussing, she was not given a copy of the same document. The City Manager wrote, “Although the copy provided unintentionally had ‘2017’ written on it, it was in all other respects identical to the ‘2018’ version the group was reviewing.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council stated that it had two extra copies of “all the materials that would be reviewed and discussed during the meeting.” If that had been the case, it is not clear why Ms. Robinett was provided with a document that was different in any respect from the one the Council members had. Secondly, Ms. Robinett would not have been able to verify that the document she had and the one members had was, “in all other respects identical,” because she did not have a copy of the 2018 pyramid with which to compare her copy. Even if the documents were nearly identical, providing a substantially similar document does not fulfill the requirement in section 13D.01, subd. 6. Thus, the Council did not comply with the OML requirement regarding members’ materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that a public body cannot fulfill its obligation to make members’ materials available in the meeting room for inspection by the public if the public does not know they are available for inspection. While there is not an affirmative duty to distribute copies to each member of the public in attendance at the meeting, liberally construing the OML to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies requires a public body to provide easy access to the materials. Where here, the materials were at a staff work station with other personal materials and not demonstrably available, members of the public could have been intimidated and possibly prevented from exercising their right to review a copy of the materials by being compelled to ask for them. The fact that the meeting was not in a familiar location also weighs in favor of a more proactive approach by the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the members of the St. Anthony Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they met for dinner in a hotel dining room, the evening of the January 11, 2018, meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that chance or social gatherings of a quorum or more public body members are not “meetings,” subject to the OML. (See, St. Cloud Newspapers v. Dist. 742 Com. Schools, 332 NW 2d 1, 7 (Minn. 1983.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Robinett wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I request an advisory opinion on whether the practice of holding a scheduled evening social dinner for an entire public body, following by a scheduled overnight stay together for that entire public body at a hotel, strains the exception to the open meeting law for chance or social gatherings, or even actually violates the open meeting law. The evening social dinner was listed as an agenda item, as a 6:30 p.m. dinner, and presumably a quorum of the city council was present at this dinner. The dinner was not held in the conference room in which the day’s meeting was held, but rather in a hotel dining area. This area was available only to the invited meeting attendees, for whom the city paid for dinner, and not general public. There was no notice given during the day one session inviting the public to this dinner session, even though it was listed on agenda. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;***&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I don’t know whether a quorum of the public body as a group discussed or received information pertinent to city business, as I was not at this dinner meeting….. However, the fact that this meeting was listed as an agenda item and yet was not available to the public, means the public simply has lost its right to be informed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his letter to the Commissioner, the City Manager wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Council Members are aware of the quorum and official city business elements of a “meeting” subject to the law. For this reason, City Council Members were each seated at a separate table in order to prevent formation of a quorum. City business and information were not discussed. As far as I was able to observe from my place at dinner, Council Members did not circulate between tables, and I did not observe any two Council Members talking together during dinner. Similarly, I have no reason to believe, based on the intent of the meeting, the Council Members’ training and what I observed, that any official city business was discussed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The dinner was in the general dining area of the hotel’s public restaurant. To my knowledge, no member of the public asked if they could attend the dinner, and no member of the public was informed by any City official that they would not be allowed to attend the dinner. I observed Ms. Robinett leave the goal-setting session before we broke for dinner. …..&lt;/em&gt; [Footnote omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Despite the fact that the dinner was listed on the agenda, the City Manager made clear in his comments that the Council members took specific measures to ensure that they would be in compliance with the OML. The members sat at different tables in a public dining room. No official business was discussed. The City Manager did not see any members speaking to one another. Ms. Robinett did not attend the dinner and thus was unable to observe the conduct of the Council members. Based on the City Manager’s comments and observations, it seems that a quorum of members did not discuss, decide, or receive information as a group related to official business. Therefore, the dinner was a social gathering and not a “meeting” subject to the OML and, the Council did not violate the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While members of public bodies may legally attend social gatherings together, the Commissioner again notes that the occurrence of this particular social gathering appears to have arisen exclusively as the result of Council holding a multi-day goal-setting meeting outside of the jurisdiction in violation of the OML. The Commissioner reiterates that such meetings should be held within the jurisdiction and cautions the Council to not conduct meetings at social events wherever they may occur. As always, public bodies must be mindful of even the appearance of impropriety when dining together as a group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the St. Anthony Village City Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held meetings on January 11 and 12, 2018, in Brooklyn Park, MN.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the St. Anthony Village City Council did not comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, to make at least one copy of members materials available at its January 11 and 12, 2018, meetings.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the St. Anthony Village City Council complied with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they attended dinner in a hotel dining room, the evening of the January 11, 2018, where they did not sit together or discuss, decide, or receive information related to official business as a group.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left: 0.5in;&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: April 5, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>334889</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Peace officer records of children</Title><Id>327537</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-002</Title><title>Opinion 18 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-327536&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-02-26T13:47:40Z</Date><ShortDescription>A police department asked about the classification of records involving juveniles. The Commissioner opined that per Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, when a juvenile is or may be delinquent or is or may be involved in criminal acts and the proceedings are not open to the public, records of juveniles are private. Identifying information about juvenile witnesses and victims are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subd. 17, as private, when the law enforcement agency has made the required determinations.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 26, 2018; City of Blue Earth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Faribault County Attorney’s office asked for an advisory opinion about certain data that the City of Blue Earth Police Department (Department) maintains. The Commissioner offered the data requester, KSTP, an opportunity to comment. KSTP did not provide comments. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County Attorney provided a summary of the facts. A reporter from KSTP made a request to the Blue Earth Police Department for incident reports related to a misdemeanor juvenile assault case and named the accused and provided a description of events. The juvenile was a minor at the time of the incident, though he is now an adult. The report also contains information that identifies two juvenile witnesses. &lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data in an incident report involving a misdemeanor juvenile assault case, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.82 and 260B.171?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data about two juvenile witnesses who are also identified in the report?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies government data as public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are generally classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Peace officer records about children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts (bad actor juveniles), however, are generally classified as private by Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5. That section also provides that data on juvenile victims and witnesses are classified pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, 6, and 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of data in an incident report involving a misdemeanor juvenile assault case, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.82 and 260B.171?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 260B.171, subd. 5, classifies peace officer records of children as private. Records relating to an offense where proceedings are open to the public under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.163, subdivision 1, are an exception to that general classification. Where proceedings are open to the public, related data are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Proceedings will be open to the public in the event that the juvenile is subject to extended juvenile jurisdiction and has been alleged to have committed or has been proven to have committed an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and the child was at least 16 years of age at the time of the offense. (See section 260B.163, subdivision 1.) Proceedings will also be open to the public once a juvenile has been certified to stand trial as an adult. (See section 260B.125.) (Proceedings involving traffic offenses by juveniles, not at issue here, are addressed in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.225.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The 17-year-old juvenile here was involved in a misdemeanor and according to the County Attorney the proceedings were closed to the public. Thus, the data in the incident report are classified as private pursuant to section 260B.171, subd. 5. Paragraph (a), clause (3) of that subdivision further provides that peace officer records of bad actor juveniles must be disclosed, “as authorized under section 13.82, subdivision 2.” Section 13.82, subd. 2(j) provides that the age and sex of a juvenile person cited, arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty, are public. Per section 260B.171, all other identifying data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, here, KSTP requested access to the incident report by naming the individual and providing the factual context of the incident. Thus, the Blue Earth Police Department cannot provide any data responsive to the request, because a response would disclose private data about the juvenile by confirming his identity and the nature of the incident. (See also, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267979&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-007&lt;/a&gt;: “Although the registration data the requestor seeks… are public when not linked to an individual, once they are connected to an individual, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, the registration data cannot be released.”)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner also notes that the analysis remains the same, even though the data subject here is now an adult. Data that law enforcement collected, created, and maintain about him as a juvenile continue to be classified according to section 260B.171.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of data about two juvenile witnesses who are also identified in the report?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Unlike bad actor juveniles, data on juvenile witnesses are not automatically classified as private. Data about juvenile witnesses are classified pursuant to section 13.82, subds. 2, 3, 6, and 17. (See section 260B.171, subd. 5.) Subds. 2, 3, and 6, classify identifying information about witnesses (the names of individuals who supply information that leads to an arrest; the names and addresses of individuals who request law enforcement services; and the names and addresses of witnesses to agency action or the incident, respectively) as public, unless those individuals qualify for protection under subd. 17. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subd. 17(g) provides that law enforcement shall protect an individual’s identity, “when access to the data would reveal the identity of a juvenile witness and the agency reasonably determines that the subject matter of the investigation justifies protecting the identity of the witness.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County Attorney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As this is a case involving assault allegations which relates to a separate assault case which has garnered significant media attention, the police department believes that the subject matter justifies protecting the identity of these witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As the Department has made the required determination, the identifying information about the witnesses are private per section 13.82, subd. 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;(Data about a juvenile who is both a witness and an alleged bad actor are classified by section 260B.171. See, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267614&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The classification of data in an incident report involving a misdemeanor juvenile assault case are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section, 260B.171.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data identifying two juvenile witnesses are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 17, because the Blue Earth Police Department has determined that the subject matter of the investigation justifies protecting the witnesses. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left: 0.5in;&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: February 26, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>327536</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles</Title><Id>267280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-09T16:28:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>323425</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 18-001</Title><title>Opinion 18 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-323424&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2018-01-10T13:39:23Z</Date><ShortDescription>A state agency asked about the classification of data in an arbitrator’s order reversing all discipline of a public official. The Commissioner opined that Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(e) classified the data as public. Regardless of whether there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, all data (except for other not public data, e.g., private personnel data) about a complaint against a state-level public official become public upon completion of an investigation, or if the employee is terminated or resigns while the complaint is pending.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 2018; Minnesota Management and Budget</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 15, 2017, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Eric Hallstrom, Deputy Commissioner for Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). In his letter, Mr. Hallstrom asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding classification of certain data that MMB maintains.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;MMB provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A state agency has received a request for data related to the disciplinary discharge of an individual who was a public official under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.43, subd. 2(e). In this situation, the public official had rights to a just cause discharge proceeding – an appeal to the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 43A.33. Under that statute, the hearing of the appeal to BMS is conducted by an arbitrator. The arbitrator in this matter found that the discharge was not supported by just cause, and reversed all aspects of the disciplinary action. The requester has requested a copy of the arbitrator’s order in this matter. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is the classification of the data in an arbitrator’s order reversing all discipline of a state-level public official, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies all government data as public, unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5), and subject to paragraph (f), upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subdivision 2(e) also lists the types of employees that are state- and local-level public officials. This opinion only pertains to state-level public officials. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) provides, “the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action,” are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A final disposition occurs when: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[T]he government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the government entity, or arbitrator. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.&lt;/em&gt; (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267615&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-002&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined on the classification of arbitration decisions maintained by the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) that arose out of collective bargaining grievance processes. In that opinion, the Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data in an arbitration decision that sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action against a public employee are private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its request for an opinion, MMB wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In Advisory Opinion 14-002, in the context of the grievance arbitration under Chapter 179A, (“PELRA”), the Commissioner determined that an arbitration decision sustaining a grievance and reversing all aspects of disciplinary action is private personnel data under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 13.43, subd. 4. The Opinion notes that section 13.43, subd. 2(b) provides, “[a] disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Opinion, however, did not address the question of whether an arbitrator’s decision under Minn. Stat. [sec.] 43A.33 reversing discipline would be public where the employee is a public official. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;MMB believes that the arbitrator’s decision reversing discipline of a public official is classified as public data… Once an investigation into a complaint against a public official is complete, “&lt;/em&gt;all data &lt;em&gt;relating to the complaint or charge are public.”&lt;/em&gt; Id. &lt;em&gt;(emphasis added). This is the case “notwithstanding” – regardless – of whether there is final disposition of any disciplinary action. Id. (stating complaint data on public officials is public, “[n]otwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5),” the clause addressing final disposition of disciplinary action). In other words, this notwithstanding clause means that for public officials,&lt;/em&gt; even if &lt;em&gt;no discipline was ever instituted, or a hearing officer reverses discipline, all data related to the complaint against the public official are and remain public upon completion of an investigation.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with MMB’s analysis. MMB rightly notes that the data at issue in Advisory Opinion 14-002 relate to arbitration decisions regarding employees who are not public officials and that the Data Practices Act treats complaint data on public officials differently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(b), clarifies which data become public pursuant to subd. 2(a)(5), due to a “final disposition of disciplinary action.” Because the language of section 13.43, subd. 2(e), specifically excludes the requirement for a final disposition of disciplinary action related to complaints against state-level public officials, whether an entity has disciplined a public official – or an arbitrator has reversed discipline – is not relevant to the ultimate classification of the complaint data at issue here. All data related to a complaint against a state-level public official (except private personnel data on other employees or other not public data) become public once the investigation is complete, or the individual resigns or is terminated while the investigation is pending. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left: 0.5in;&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data in an arbitrator’s order reversing all discipline of a state-level public official are public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), except for private personnel data on other employees and other not public data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: January 10, 2018&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>323424</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action</Title><Id>267099</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:16:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-010</Title><title>Opinion 17 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-320147&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-12-07T14:04:53Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked whether it had to provide a copy of an audio-recorded interview with a student to the student’s parent when the recording included educational data on multiple students. The Commissioner opined that the District should make every effort to redact the audiotape so that private educational data of other students is protected. However, if the District was unable to redact the tape, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) required the District to inform the parent of the specific information about the parent’s student.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 7, 2017; ISD 564, Thief River Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-377565&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 19-004&lt;/a&gt; for an updated analysis of the issues presented in this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Office (DPO) received an advisory opinion request from Michael Waldspurger and Kristin Nierengarten, attorneys for Independent School District 564, Thief River Falls (the District). In their letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data that the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. The District conducted an investigation into a complaint made by a parent (Parent). As part of that investigation, the District interviewed Parent’s student (Student) and audio-recorded the interview. During the two hour interview, Student discussed Student’s conduct, opinions, and observations. Student described locations and circumstances of incidents and activities. Student also identified and discussed other students. Parent subsequently asked the District for a copy of the audiotape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The data on [Student] and the data on other students are highly sensitive and are unquestionably classified as private data on individuals… Based on these facts, the District believes the recording contains private educational data on [Student] and private educational data on other identifiable students of the District.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, is Independent School District 564 – Thief River Falls – required to provide a parent with a copy of an audio recording of an interview with the parent’s minor student, when the recording also includes educational data about other students?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Data Practices Act classifies government data as public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about students and their parents are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and parents, and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined, “[e]ducational data ultimately are controlled by FERPA; the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations.” (See Advisory Opinion 09-021.) The purpose of FERPA, “is to set out requirements for the protection of privacy of parents and students.” (See 34 CFR 99.2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Subject to limited exceptions, data about students and their parents are private, and may not be released without consent or statutory authority. However, both FERPA and the Data Practices Act allow for disclosure of education records when an entity has de-identified the records. When releasing de-identified data, educational agencies or institutions must be sure, “that a student&apos;s identity is not personally identifiable, whether through single or multiple releases, and taking into account other reasonably available information.” (See 34 CFR 99.31(b)(7).) “Personally identifiable information” includes (but is not limited to) a student’s or parent’s name, address, date or place of birth, and:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.&lt;/em&gt; (See 34 CFR 99.2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;FERPA further provides, “[i]f the education records of a student contain information on more than one student, the parent or eligible student may inspect and review or be informed of only the specific information about that student.” (See 34 CFR 99.12(a). See also 20 U.S.C. sec. 1232g(a)(1)(A).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The audio recording at issue here constitutes private educational data under Minnesota law and private education records under FERPA, on multiple students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In arguing that it could not provide a copy of the tape to Parent, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On the audio recording, the data on [Student] are inextricably intertwined with the data on other students. The District cannot separate the data on Complainant from the private educational data on other students for two reasons. First, the data are in the form of an audio recording. Second, on the audio recording [Student] quickly and frequently transitions between discussing [Student’s] conduct, [Student’s] participation in conduct with other students, the conduct of other students towards [Student] and the other students toward additional students.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because data on [Student] are interwoven with private educational data on other students, the [Data Practices Act] and FERPA prohibit the District from disclosing the audio recording to Parent.&lt;/em&gt; See &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. App. 1993). [(&lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt;)]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is somewhat puzzled by the District’s first reason. It is certainly possible to redact audio and other government entities routinely do so. However, the District did not provide information on whether it is unable to redact due to practical concerns (i.e., it does not have the capability) or whether the inability to do so relates more to its second reason: the substantive nature of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District’s second reason for withholding the recording is based on Northwest Publications, in which the Court of Appeals held:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Employing the federal standard we hold that an entire document may be withheld only when the public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregating the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining parts of the document with little informational value.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.] &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt; at 509.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The holding in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt; applies to documents in which “public and nonpublic” data are inextricably intertwined. In situations where both of the conditions hold (redaction is too costly and would result in little informational value), an entity may take the drastic measure of withholding an entire document. The public would be denied access to public data, but the data subject would retain the right to access the not public data. This is not the case, here. Further, the policy behind both state and federal law mandates parents’ right to access data about their minor children (subject to very limited exceptions).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the data are a mix of private data on multiple students. If the Commissioner were to accept the District’s argument that &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt; extends to these circumstances, the District would effectively re-classify private educational data as confidential. (See, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 3). Thus, the practical result of the District’s decision to make a record that it cannot redact would be a record to which only the District had access. However, this is contrary to the express intent of both Minnesota and federal law, which classify these data as private and give data subjects the right of access. (Moreover, the Commissioner is skeptical that, even if &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt; applied to the data at issue here, the District could satisfy both of the threshold requirements. The District did not provide any information regarding the financial burden of redacting an audiotape.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Neither &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt; nor the Data Practices Act answer the question of how to provide the required access to data subjects when there are competing privacy interests. (The Minnesota Supreme Court opinion in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council&lt;/em&gt;, 884 N.W. 2d 338, 341 (Minn. 2016), seems to provide guidance on situations when data subjects’ rights come into conflict. However, as the District rightly points out, that case did not arise in the context of education records and did not contemplate the effect of FERPA regulations on the analysis.) However, the federal regulations address the issue of multiple data subjects in education records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In 2003, the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO), the agency within the federal Department of Education tasked with implementing and providing technical assistance on FERPA, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The law governing the proper handling of a student’s education records that contain personally identifiable information belonging to other students is clear. Indeed, the statute is unambiguous in that it states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one such student shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as related to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;20 U.S.C. sec. 1232g(a)(1)(A). See also 34 CFR § 99.12(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, absent the consent of the parents of the other students whose names appear in a student’s education records, an educational agency or institution does not have authority to release such personally identifiable information under FERPA. A school district should redact the names of, or information easily traceable to, any other students mentioned in a student’s education records before providing a parent access to the student’s education records.  In cases where joint records cannot be easily redacted or the information segregated out, the school district may satisfy a request for access by informing the parent about the contents of the record. Letter of technical assistance to school district re: disclosure of education records containing information on multiple complainants (FPCO, Oct. 31, 2003)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District must provide access to data on Student to Parent. The District must make every reasonable effort to redact the personally identifiable information on other students from the recording and provide access to Student’s data. Only if the District cannot easily separate Student’s education records from those of other students, then it must “inform” Parent of the specific information about Student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The steps an educational agency or institution might take to satisfy the FERPA standard of “informing” a parent about the specific information in an education record might take different forms depending on the record at issue. Generally, the Data Practices Act does not require entities to create data or to provide it in a different format than the one in which it is maintained. (See Advisory Opinions 00-017, 01-012, and 01-085.) Here, where the interview lasted two hours and likely resulted in a significant amount of information about Student, the District might consider creating a responsive document. In other situations where the circumstances are less involved, an educational agency or institution might fulfill its obligation verbally.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District asked if it was required to create and redact a transcript of the recording. FERPA gives parents the right to access the “specific information” about their students. While this seems to indicate more than a brief summary (e.g., the one provided to the Commissioner for this opinion), it does not necessarily compel an educational agency to create a transcript in every circumstance. Ultimately, the District is in the best position to determine how to inform Parent about the specific information on Student in the recording.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner cautions government entities to pay careful attention to the way in which they create records. The entity must have in place the policies, procedures, and capacities to respond to any data practices requests that might arise subsequent to the creation of records. In other words, if an entity creates an audio recording record, it must ensure it has the capability to redact that recording appropriately, if necessary, in response to a data request.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot; style=&quot;margin-left:.5in&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District 564 – Thief River Falls – is not required to provide a parent with a copy of an audiotape of an interview with the parent’s minor student if it cannot easily separate the parent’s student’s education record from the records of other students. In lieu of providing a redacted copy of the tape, the District must inform the parents of the specific information in the record.Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: December 7, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>320147</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data disclosure</Title><Id>267115</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data)</Title><Id>266980</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-009</Title><title>Opinion 17 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-316103&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-10-24T06:45:22Z</Date><ShortDescription>a County asked about the classification of the “outcome of a complaint” and the transcript of arbitration proceedings. The Commissioner opined that because the arbitrator reversed discipline for the conduct related to the complaint, but upheld discipline for other conduct, the county responded appropriately to the complainant requester by providing only the existence and status of the complaint. Additionally, the Commissioner opined that the portions of the transcript that documented the final disposition of disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the action, and the basis of the action were public; data about the reversed discipline and personnel data on other employees were private.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 24, 2017; Itasca County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Scott Lepak, attorney for Itasca County, asked for an advisory opinion regarding certain data the County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County provided a summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Employee X filed a complaint against Employee Y. The County hired an investigator to look [sic] allegations related to conduct of various employees, including Employee Y. As a result of this investigation, the Sheriff [disciplined] Employee Y. Employee Y appealed his [discipline] to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration award overturned the [discipline] and discipline for certain conduct but upheld discipline at a suspension level for other conduct. The arbitrator noted a policy violation for a waste of time but did not uphold discipline for the basis of Employee X’s complaint. A transcript of the arbitration hearing was prepared as part of the proceedings.&lt;/em&gt; [Private data omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County respond appropriately to a request for the “outcome of a complaint,” when it provided only the existence and status of the complaint?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an arbitration transcript where the arbitrator reversed discipline that was based on a complaint by the individual making the data request and upheld discipline based on other conduct&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are always public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the disciplinary action, together with the specific reason for and data documenting the basis of the action also become public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In circumstances where an employee is entitled to grieve initial discipline in an arbitration proceeding, “final disposition” occurs at the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County respond appropriately to a request for the “outcome of a complaint,” when it provided only the existence and status of the complaint?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Employee X requested the outcome of the complaint that Employee X filed against Employee Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County position is that the outcome of Employee X’s complaint against Employee Y is that the complaint is no longer active, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, sub. 2(a)(4), and otherwise is private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, Subd. 4 because Employee Y was not disciplined for the specific conduct Employee X complained about.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the County’s position. For purposes of this situation, Employee X is a member of the public; Employee X’s status as the complainant does not entitle Employee X to additional data. Employee X complained about Employee Y and Employee Y’s conduct regarding Employee X. Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld discipline for Employee Y’s other conduct. Thus, the “outcome of the complaint,” as requested by Employee X, is that a complaint existed and it is “no longer active.” Additional data are not public because Employee X’s specific complaint did not result in discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, had Employee X asked the County for any public disciplinary data (or all public data) on Employee Y, Employee X would have been entitled to the final disposition of disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the discipline and data documenting the basis of the action, regarding the conduct for which the arbitrator did uphold discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds the County that the arbitrator did not uphold all of the discipline and therefore, there are portions of the arbitrator’s award that contain private data on Employee Y. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267615&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-002&lt;/a&gt;. Additionally, personnel data about other employees, including Employee X’s identity as a complainant, are similarly private. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/267430&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 93-010&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an arbitration transcript where the arbitrator reversed discipline that was based on a complaint by the individual making the data request and upheld discipline based on other conduct?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The County position is that the only portion of the transcript of the discipline proceeding discussing the matters that ultimately were determined to be policy violations resulting in discipline may be disclosed as public data. The balance of the arbitration transcript would be private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, Subd. 4 because those matters were not upheld in the arbitration award.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees. Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, the disciplinary data related to the conduct for which Employee Y was ultimately disciplined are public (i.e., final disposition of disciplinary action, data documenting the specific reasons for and basis of the action). The data about Employee Y’s other conduct, the subject of Employee X’s complaint, and data about other employees are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Itasca County responded appropriately to a request for the “outcome of a complaint,” when it provided only the existence and status of the complaint.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The portions of the arbitration transcript that document the final disposition of disciplinary action, taken with the specific reasons for the action, and the basis of the action are public; data about conduct for which discipline was reversed and data about other employees are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: October 24, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>316103</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arbitration proceedings</Title><Id>266861</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action data, access</Title><Id>266891</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action</Title><Id>267099</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-008</Title><title>Opinion 17 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-313246&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-09-28T21:00:58Z</Date><ShortDescription>, a City asked about the classification of data that identify the location of a victim of domestic abuse, when the data are maintained by a nonprofit domestic violence advocacy agency. The Commissioner concluded that while Minnesota Statutes, section 13.823 specifically exempts private nonprofit domestic violence advocacy agencies who are not under the direct control of a government entity from Ch. 13, other sections require those agencies to maintain data about victims as private data as defined in Ch. 13. Additionally, federal statutes also restrict access to information about victims of domestic abuse. Therefore, while the advocacy agencies are not subject to Ch. 13, they must maintain data that identify the location of a victim of domestic abuse as private data and that information cannot be disclosed without consent, statutory authorization, or a court order.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 28, 2017; City of Grand Rapids</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Chief Scott Johnson of the Grand Rapids Police Department asked for an opinion regarding the classification of certain data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Chief Johnson provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The refusal on the part of Minnesota non-profit advocacy organizations to release location data to Minnesota peace officers regarding the victim of a domestic violence crime has been a reoccurring issue over a number of years. This refusal prevents Minnesota peace officers from performing their duties and is of concern to law enforcement agencies as they conduct follow-up criminal investigations, including the taking of victim and witness statements, subpoena service and, when requested from other government agencies, checking on the safety of victims. Somehow this issue is never resolved.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Chief Johnson met with the director of a local non-profit program that provides assistance to victims of domestic violence. The program is not a government entity, nor is its employees or volunteers under the direct control of a government entity. The program receives federal funding through a grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (OJP). After the initial meeting, the program director arranged a conference call which included Chief Johnson, the Grand Rapids City Attorney, and Suzanne Elwell, the director of the Crime Victim Justice Unit at OJP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As part of his request, Chief Johnson also submitted materials prepared by Ms. Elwell and the Minnesota Criminal Justice Collaborative on Domestic Violence, which included representation from the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, the Minnesota Chiefs Association and other community stakeholders.&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of location data maintained by a nonprofit domestic violence advocacy organization that would reveal where a victim of violence is residing?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, applies to government entities. A government entity is a political subdivision, a state agency, or a statewide system. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 7a, 11, 17 and 18.) The Data Practices Act also applies to contractors in certain circumstances. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11 and Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/267395&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 11 005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;11-005&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/267771&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 15 003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Certain programs that provide assistance to victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are specifically exempt from the Data Practices Act:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a program that provides shelter or support services to victims of domestic abuse or a sexual assault and whose employees or volunteers are not under the direct supervision of a government entity is&lt;/em&gt; not subject to this chapter&lt;em&gt;, except that the program shall comply with sections 13.822, 611A.32, subdivision 5, 611A.371, subdivision 3, and 611A.46.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis added.) (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.823, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While section 13.823 exempts non-governmental programs from the Data Practices Act, the provisions cited in that section provide protection for information that those programs collect and maintain. Section 13.822, classifies as private data about sexual assault communications with a sexual assault counselor. Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.32, gives the Commissioner of Corrections the authority to issue grants to programs that serve victims of domestic violence. Subdivision 5 of that section provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Personal history information and other information collected, used or maintained by a grantee from which the identity or location of any victim of domestic abuse may be determined is private data on individuals, as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12, and the grantee shall&lt;/em&gt; maintain &lt;em&gt;the data in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 611A.37, authorizes the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Public Safety to issue grants to shelter facilities that serve victims of domestic violence. Subdivision 3 of that section provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Personal history information collected, used, or maintained by a designated shelter facility from which the identity or location of any battered woman may be determined is private data on individuals, as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12, and the facility shall&lt;/em&gt; maintain &lt;em&gt;the data in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Private data are, “data made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of those data.” (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Data on individuals must be kept accurate, complete, current and secure (see, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.). Employees within an organization or program administering private data, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data, may have access to it. (See Minnesota Rules, part 1205, subpart 2.) In order for a program to share private data with a third party, there must be a law that allows or requires sharing, a court order or the program can obtain the informed consent of the subject. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;State law also protects domestic abuse advocates from being compelled to disclose information about their clients without a court order. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 595.02, subd. 1(l). The federal Violence Against Women Act also requires federal grantee programs to protect personally identifying information and personal information about victims of domestic violence and as well as other victims. (See 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(20) and (b)(2).) There are additional protections in other federal laws, as well. (E.g., Victims of Crime Act, 42 U.S.C. 10604(d) and the Family Violence Prevention and Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 10402(a)(2)(E).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, domestic violence programs that are not government entities or government contractors, while not generally subject to Chapter 13 – like the program at issue in Chief Johnson’s opinion request – must still &lt;em&gt;maintain&lt;/em&gt; victim location data (amongst other personally identifying information) as private within the definition as provided in, section 13.02, subd 12, if they are state or federal grantees. Private data cannot be shared outside of the program or agency without consent, court order, or statutory authorization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City did not provide any legal provisions or offer any arguments which would allow or require private domestic violence programs to supply identification or location data about their clients to law enforcement. While this may have a somewhat unusual practical result, as highlighted in Chief Johnson’s opinion request (i.e., an officer may deliver a victim of domestic violence to a shelter, return a short time later to ask her additional questions, and the program staff are legally restricted from confirming the victim’s presence at the program/shelter), it is the result the law requires.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Justice Collaborative on Domestic Violence’s &lt;em&gt;Guidelines for Domestic Violence Agencies&lt;/em&gt;, which Chief Johnson submitted with his opinion request, provides additional guidance to law enforcement and program staff on responding to these types of inquiries.&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Location data maintained by a nonprofit domestic violence advocacy organization that would reveal where a victim of violence is residing must be maintained as private data and cannot be disclosed without statutory authorization, consent, or a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: September 28, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>313246</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Domestic abuse data</Title><Id>313255</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-007</Title><title>Opinion 17 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-312123&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-09-13T13:50:30Z</Date><ShortDescription>a member of the public asked about determinations a county made regarding the appointment of county responsible authorities [“RAs”] and data practices compliance officials [“DPCOs”]. The Commissioner opined that the county did not comply with the data practices act, because it appointed more RAs and DPCOs than are allowed. Each elected official is the RA for that office, as is the director of the county welfare agency. The only other RA and/or DPCO the County may have is an employee appointed by the County Board.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 13, 2017; Hubbard County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Per Minnesota Statutes, section 197.603, the county veterans service officer is the RA for all records in the officer&apos;s custody. (See Discussion Issue 1)
&lt;br /&gt;
In Issue 2, the last sentence should reference Issue 3, not Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Jim Stengrim requested an advisory opinion about determinations Hubbard County made regarding the appointment of County responsible authorities [“RAs”] and Data Practices Compliance Officials [“DPCOs”]. Debbie Thompson, County Coordinator, and Jonathan D. Frieden, Hubbard County Attorney, responded for the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;According to Hubbard County’s most recent published ‘Data Practices Policy’ there appears to be a responsible authority individual for each county department and that same individual are [sic] also listed as the data practices compliance official for the respective departments. A data request to Hubbard County for all resolutions relating to the appointment of a Responsible Authority produced only one resolution from July 2001 and what appears to be motions made at meetings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;It appears that the departments of County Attorney and County Sheriff, since they are elected, may be governed by other statutes concerning the appointment of a responsible authority. In addition, it appears that the department of County Human Services may also be governed by other statutes concerning the appointment of a responsible authority. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;It appears that Hubbard County has not made any formal resolution(s) since July 2001 in making an appointment of a responsible authority individual. Realistically, this should be done annually but at least when there is a change in the individual.&lt;/em&gt; [References to Exhibits omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim further wrote that the individual who was appointed to be the RA and DPCO of Heritage Living Center (a County-owned nursing home facility) is not an employee of Hubbard County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A review of the facts provided shows that Hubbard County has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Government Data Practices, and Minnesota Administrative Rule 1205, Data Practices, by appointing multiple Responsible Authorities and Data Practices Compliance Officials.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Hubbard County act properly under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by appointing multiple responsible authorities?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Hubbard County act properly under Chapter 13 in the appointment of multiple Data Practices Compliance Officials?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Hubbard County act properly under Chapter 13 when they appointed a non-employee of the County as the Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for Heritage Living Center?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1. Did Hubbard County act properly under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by appointing multiple responsible authorities? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A person’s rights under the Data Practices Act are invoked when the person makes a request for access to government data to the responsible authority or designee of the government entity that maintains the data. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16 (b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Responsible authority” in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Until an individual is designated by the political subdivision’s governing body, the responsible authority is:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) for counties, the county coordinator or administrator. If the county does not employ a coordinator or administrator, the responsible authority is the county auditor;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County commented:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nowhere in Minnesota Statute or case law is a government entity limited to one individual as the responsible authority for the entire entity. To the contrary, the statute defining ‘responsible authority’ notes a government entity may designate an individual for any set of data. Moreover, the public interest is best served by designating multiple individuals to collect, use, and disseminate data, which that individual/department head already controls.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, counties will have more than one RA, because the Legislature decided that elected officials are the RA’s for their own offices, and the director of its welfare agency is also the RA for that agency. However, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the County that the County may have multiple RAs.  Other than an RA for each elected official within a county and the county welfare agency, the only other RA the County may have is the individual appointed by the County Board. According to the County’s public data access policy, the County Coordinator is the RA for the County generally. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Legislature allowed for the circumstances the County describes in its explanation of its reasons for appointing additional employees as RAs for their offices (&lt;em&gt;e.g.&lt;/em&gt;, Auditor, Assessor, Environmental Services Office), by authorizing the RA to appoint as many designees as the RA determines will be “in the best interest of the administration and enforcement” of the Data Practices Act. (See Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 1.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 6, defines “designee” as any person an RA designates to be “in charge of individual files or systems containing government data and to receive and comply with requests for government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Therefore, an RA may, as the County described, appoint “multiple individuals to collect, use, and disseminate data, which that individual/department head already controls,” but as designees, not RAs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2. Did Hubbard County act properly under Chapter 13 in the appointment of multiple Data Practices Compliance Officials?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 13, says that each responsible authority in every government entity shall appoint or designate an employee of the entity to act as the DPCO, who is the entity employee to whom “persons may direct questions or concerns regarding problems in obtaining access to data or other data practices problems. The responsible authority may be the data practices compliance official.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, the County may have only as many DPCOs, as it has RAs. And, as described in Issue 1, the DPCO must be an employee of the entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3. Did Hubbard County act properly under Chapter 13 when they appointed a non-employee of the County as the Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for Heritage Living Center?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The County stated, “Minn. Stat. § 13.02 subd. 16 places no restrictions on a government entity as to whom it appoints as the responsible authority. …. Moreover, as previously stated, the individual controlling the data is in the best position to answer data practices requests for the public.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the County that the “individual” a political subdivision appoints as RA does not have to be an employee. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14(A), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;For counties, each elected official of the county shall be the responsible authority for the official’s office. An individual who is an&lt;/em&gt; employee &lt;em&gt;of the county shall be appointed by the county board to be the responsible authority for any data administered outside the offices of elected officials.”&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;An agency rule that is adopted under the rulemaking provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14, has the force and effect of law. Accordingly, the director of the nursing home may not be RA for the nursing home.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For that matter, as a non-County employee, the director also may not be a designee. (Minnesota Rules, part 1205.100, subpart 1.) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, as noted above, the County’s DPCO must be an employee, who, according to the County’s policy, is its RA. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hubbard County did not act properly under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by appointing multiple responsible authorities.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hubbard County did not act properly under Chapter 13 in the appointment of multiple Data Practices Compliance Officials. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hubbard County may not appoint an individual who is not an employee of the County as the Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for Heritage Living Center.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman 
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: September 13, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>312123</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO)</Title><Id>266566</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-006</Title><title>Opinion 17 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-310269&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-08-30T12:41:48Z</Date><ShortDescription>a member of the public asked whether a town board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of members met and discussed documents prior to calling a meeting to order. The Commissioner opined that the issue involved a factual dispute that could not be resolved. The opinion requester also asked whether the Board violated the OML because a public copy of all members’ materials was not available to the public at the meeting. The Commissioner opined that the Board did not comply with the OML, because it did not provide a public copy of all members’ materials.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 30, 2017; Brunswick Township Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ronald Peterson requested an advisory opinion regarding the Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors members’ conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Rick Kawalek, Board Chair, and members Jeff Akken and Craig Peterson, responded on behalf of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Peterson follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The public gathered a few minutes before the 7 pm meeting on May 31, 2017 and found all the supervisors present, seated, inspecting and discussing documents. Conversation amongst the public prevented hearing any of the supervisor&apos;s deliberations until the meeting was called to order. The supervisors delayed convening the meeting at the noticed time of 7 pm while they continued inspecting documents and deliberating amongst themselves until calling the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. These were the same documents not shared with the public during the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Peterson also submitted statements from township residents. They wrote: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At this particular meeting of May 31, 2017, at approximately 6:50 PM, the Town Board was already seated and in a private discussion about items and articles they were in possession of, but only amongst themselves. The attendees were not included. In fact, the Board kept talking amongst themselves and did not call the meeting to order until almost 7:10 PM.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Peterson, after convening the meeting, the Board “inspected and adopted an agenda,” and “inspected and deliberated over other documents,” copies of which were not available to the public. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;One of these documents was identified by the town board as a 2005 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). When a copy was requested by the public, citing the Open Meeting Law (OML) requirement, a copy was not made available for the public but instead the public was told by the town board that the CUP was filed at the county recorder’s office and anyone wanting a copy could get one there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In their comments, the township residents stated, “[a]ll residents in attendance of this meeting witnessed the same push-back that is received at ALL the Township meetings - no agenda is made available to the residents; no minutes were made available; no discussion material was made available.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when a quorum met and discussed documents prior to calling a meeting to order on May 31, 2017?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, by not providing a public copy of all members’ materials at the meeting held on May 31, 2017?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1. Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when a quorum met and discussed documents prior to calling a meeting to order on May 31, 2017?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b) (5), states that the governing body of a town is included in that requirement.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&apos;Meetings&apos; subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281,&lt;/em&gt; 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the Board stated, “[a]s with every meeting prior to calling it to order supervisors were talking and exchanging pleasantries” and no one discussed documents or board business prior to calling the meeting to order. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Peterson and other township residents say that before the meeting was convened, they observed a quorum of the Board “seated, inspecting and discussing” documents and “deliberating amongst themselves”. Mr. Peterson did not hear the topic(s) of discussion, but said the documents “were the same documents not shared with the public during the meeting.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute. However, the Commissioner wishes to make clear that once a quorum of the Township board has assembled, it cannot discuss official business prior to convening the meeting.  If in this case, the Board engaged in any discussion of the conditional use permits—other than perhaps clerical matters such as whether it had copies prepared—it violated the OML, per &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2. Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, by not providing a public copy of all members’ materials at the meeting held on May 31, 2017?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, requires that at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items that are distributed at, or before, the meeting to all members of the governing body, or are available to all members in the meeting room, shall be available in the meeting room for the public to review. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board wrote to the Commissioner that it “did not fail to supply copies of all members’ materials at the meeting. At the meeting, we reviewed the existing C.U.P. and then discussed changes to be made to the C.U.P. to bring it up to date and address concerns that had come up in an earlier hearing and since the original C.U. P. had issued.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The minutes of the May 31, 2017, special meeting state that the Board approved the agenda, and reviewed the C.U.P. permit. Therefore, at least one copy of the agenda and one copy of the permit should have been available to the public during the meeting. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Peterson said that when members of the public, citing the OML, asked for a copy of the C.U.P at the May meeting, the Board said that it “was filed at the county recorder’s office and anyone wanting a copy could get one there.” Mr. Peterson and other township residents assert that the Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the May meeting. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board wrote to the Commissioner that it “did not fail to supply copies of all members’ materials” but it did not state specifically that the public had access to the agenda and the permit as required. It also stated, “[m]eetings usually do not allow time for making copies of documents during the meeting.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has discussed the importance of this provision of the OML in previous advisory opinions, given that it provides the public the opportunity to follow along as government considers and deliberates public issues. In order to ensure transparency, public bodies must make sure that they always provide public copies of members’ materials. If necessary, a public body should briefly recess a meeting in order to make the required public copy of all written materials under consideration. The Commissioner offered specific guidance in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/266929&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-010&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Managing the public copy of the members’ materials is a common issue for public bodies and members of the public.  The Commissioner would like to offer the following guidance.  The plain language of section 13D.01, subdivision 6, requires that the public body make “at least one copy” of members’ materials available to the public at the meeting.  In providing only one complete copy, the body fulfills its obligation.  However, as people review its contents, there is a greater chance that the packet may be altered so that others do not have access to it, as Mr. Ruppe suggests may have happened here.  In fulfilling the requirement, it is the public body’s responsibility to make certain that the packet is complete.  Public bodies may consider the following optional strategies, in addition to providing the one copy during the meeting: posting the information on their websites, providing multiple copies, or including a cover-sheet on the public packet listing its contents.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner is sensitive to the fact that members of the public living in certain non-metro townships encounter challenges when trying to access information from their local governments.  Because those bodies are not “government entities” subject to the Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13), the access provided for in the Open Meeting Law is vital to township citizens’ participation in and oversight of their government bodies.  The Commissioner strongly encourages all public bodies to develop ways to guarantee meaningful access to the information required by section 13D.01.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the Board did not assert that it made one copy of members’ materials &lt;em&gt;available to the public&lt;/em&gt;,” as the OML requires.  The Board asserted that it usually does not have time or capacity to make copies during the meeting. However, the OML makes no exceptions; the law requires copies be available.  Likewise, telling people that the C.U.P. document under review is available at another entity, which they can access at some later date after the meeting is over, is also not compliant with the requirement to have at least one copy available for inspection at the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. It is the Board’s policy to make only approved minutes available to the public. However, when the Board approves previous meeting minutes at an open meeting, those minutes must be available to the public while the Board is considering them. The Board’s policy to make only approved minutes available does not comply with the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the members of the Brunswick Town Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, prior to calling a meeting to order on May 31, 2017.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Members of the Brunswick Town Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, because it did not provide a public copy of members’ materials.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: August 30, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>310269</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Townships</Title><Id>267104</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-005</Title><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-005</Title><title>Opinion 17 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-310101&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-06-22T13:13:59Z</Date><ShortDescription> a member of the public asked whether a school board violated the Open Meeting Law, when a quorum of members sent a letter to another entity. The Commissioner opined that the Board did not comply with the law because the quorum took official action (i.e., agreeing to the contents of the letter and sending the letter) outside of a public meeting. The Commissioner also addressed the Board’s arguments that written communication does not constitute a meeting.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 2017; ISD 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Joe Begich requested an advisory opinion regarding the Independent School District 2154 – Eveleth-Gilbert Public Schools – school board members’ conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Joel B. Lewicki, attorney for ISD 2154, responded on behalf of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Begich follows. Four members of the 2016 Eveleth-Gilbert School Board (the Board) sent a signed letter to the Commissioner at the Iron Range Resource and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB). The IRRRB Commissioner provided the letter to Mr. Begich and others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Begich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I believe that the four members listed [in the opinion request], as a quorum of the 2016 School Board, violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law by (in whatever fashion), meeting, discussing, deciding, and then taking action in sending their letter regarding School Board business to Commissioner Phillips, as is evidenced by the&lt;/em&gt; existence &lt;em&gt;of the letter and Commissioner Phillips’&lt;/em&gt; receipt &lt;em&gt;of it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;There is no evidence in any official District meeting minutes or videotapes… that the School Board as a whole and at a legally noticed public meeting, ever discussed or decided upon the content, drafting, or sending of such a letter.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the School Board of Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert, comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when four members of the Board sent a letter to a commissioner of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized several purposes for the OML:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences”; (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed”; and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].” These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.&lt;/em&gt; [Citations and footnote omitted.] &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) of the governing body of a&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(1) school district however organized.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;‘Meetings’ subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983) (&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A majority of voting members of a school board constitutes a quorum. (Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, subdivision 6.) The District’s Board of Education is made up of seven members and therefore, four members make a quorum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner opined about the type of conduct that should take place at a public meeting in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 06 017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-017&lt;/a&gt;. In that opinion, a City needed to hire an accountant. The first candidate declined the offer and the second candidate quit shortly after starting the job. The Council then had to decide whether to extend an offer to the third candidate. To do so, the City Administrator called four members of the Council (a quorum) and they each stated that an offer should be extended to the third candidate.  While there was a factual dispute in that opinion, the Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If… a majority of the members of the Council took action with respect to the hiring of the accountant, then the OML has been violated. That the city administrator served as the go-between among the members should not change the outcome, given the manner in which the OML is to be construed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, in response to the Commissioner of Administration, the Board wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In early October, Michael Peterson [board member] individually drafted a letter to Mark Phillips, IRRRB Commissioner, but did not send it. Mr. Peterson sent that letter draft to Superintendent Jeff Carey, who made minor revisions. The revised letter was then placed on Eveleth-Gilbert Public Schools letterhead and given individually to Keith Young, Board Chair; Michael Peterson, Vice-Chair; Mona Putzel, Clerk; and Leon Schanlaub, Treasurer for their signatures.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At no point did a quorum of the Board meet, discuss, decide, or take action on the issue(s) described in the letter, the contents of the letter, or the drafting or sending of the letter.&lt;/em&gt; (Citations omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this case, a quorum of the school board effectively took the action of deciding to write a letter to the commissioner of the IRRRB stating a quorum of the board’s concerns, and position relative to various conversations and actions that were occurring. The Board’s assertion that it did not discuss, decide, or take action on the contents of the letter or sending the letter is not plausible based on the very existence of a letter purporting to be from “the Board” and bearing the signatures of a quorum of members of the Board. The subject line is “RE: Official Correspondence.” In it, the Board members wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;ISD 2154 is governed by elected representatives, and by the Superintendent who takes direction from the Board as a whole, not in part. It is disheartening to see individual Board members and community members muddy the waters that we have already cleared and would appreciate if they would not be given an audience in the future as they do not represent the Board of Education that was elected to make these decisions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Board did not provide any other explanation about how the Board could have drafted and issued the letter (including determining which members should sign the letter) without participating in some form of group decision-making. There is nothing in the records of Board meetings about the letter and the Board does not seem to maintain any official records about it. In response to a data request for, “any and all public government data that the District has in relation to the letter [to the IRRRB],” the District replied that it did not have any responsive data. (For a government entity’s responsibility to create and maintain official records, see Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17.) In sum, the Board clearly took official action almost entirely outside of the public purview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Moreover, as the Board stated in its letter to the IRRRB Commissioner, the Superintendent “takes direction from the Board as a whole, not in part,” and thus, any actions that the Superintendent took in revising the draft letter, placing it on District letterhead, distributing it to a quorum of members for signatures, and sending it to the IRRRB would have required direction from “the Board” (i.e., communication from a quorum of members where they agreed on the Superintendent’s tasks related to the letter).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Board argued that written communication does not constitute a “meeting.” In support of its argument, the Board cited an unpublished case of the Court of Appeals that held that written communications are not “meetings” under the OML. (&lt;em&gt;O’Keefe v. Carter&lt;/em&gt;, a12-0811, 2012 WL 6734463 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012.) Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are not precedential, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 480A.08, subdivision 3(c). The Board&apos;s argument is not relevant here, though, because the official action a quorum of the board took in agreeing to the contents of the letter prior to sending the letter should have occurred at an open meeting. Ultimately, it is not permissible for an individual member of the Board to send a draft letter to the superintendent to distribute individually to a quorum of the Board in order to avoid taking official action in a public meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, to address the Board&apos;s argument, the Commissioner continues to endorse the reasoning in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267446&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 09 020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-020&lt;/a&gt;, that more contemporary forms of written communication (e.g., email and text) could constitute a meeting and that the focus should not be on the media or form, but on the number (a quorum) and the conduct (reaching consensus and taking action) of public body members. As in Opinion 09-020, the Commissioner continues to encourage the Legislature to clarify the extent to which written communication may violate the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The School Board of Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert, did not comply with the OML when four of members of the Board sent a letter to a commissioner of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 22, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>310101</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>Are the data collected by the third-party administrator of the City of Duluth’s self-insured group health plan &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, are the data classified as private data on individuals under Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 12?
If the answer to Issue 2 is yes, must the City or its third-party administrator provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to obtaining the data, per Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, subdivision 2?</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-004: May 5, 2017, City of Duluth</Title><Publisher/><Subject>Data practices</Subject><Subject>Insurance </Subject><Subject>Tennessen</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-004</Title><title>Opinion 17 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-300482&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-05-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a city which operates a self-insured group health plan for its employees asked whether data collected by the third-party administrator were government data, how they would be classified, and whether the administrator was required give a Tennessen notice prior to collecting the data. The Commissioner opined that because the third-party administrator was collecting government data from the employees, the data were classified as private (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 subd. 4), and because the administrator is required to comply with the Data Practices Act as if it were a government entity (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11), it was required to provide a Tennessen notice prior to collecting the data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 5, 2017, City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.387, is also applicable to the data at issue in this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Steven Hanke, attorney for the City of Duluth, requested an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Duluth operates a self-insurance pool, referred to as the Duluth Joint Powers Enterprise Trust, for the City’s group health insurance plan. The plans cover eligible current employees, retired employees, and their dependents. The City’s collective bargaining agreement [sic] contain specific health insurance plan design requirements in regards to covered procedures, prescription drug pricing, monthly premium cost sharing, and so forth. The collective bargaining agreements also require retired employees and their qualified dependents to obtain Medicare Part A and B coverage if they are eligible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Duluth contracts with HealthPartners Administrators, Inc., as third-party administrator of the City’s self-insured group health plan. HealthPartners Administrators, Inc. sends City plan participants correspondence (several examples attached) soliciting information from Plan participants.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City believes that the data collected by HealthPartners Administrators, Inc. constitutes “government data” because it is being collected to perform a government function: administration of the City&apos;s self-insured health plan for its eligible employees, retirees, and their dependents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Thus, the City believes that HealthPartners Administrators, Inc. is subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11(a). The City also believes the data in question are private, and therefore, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, HealthPartners Administrators, Inc. must give a Tennessen Warning notice when it collects the data listed on the above-referenced questionnaires and forms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the data collected by the third-party administrator of the City of Duluth’s self-insured group health plan &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, are the data classified as private data on individuals under Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 12?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 2 is yes, must the City or its third-party administrator provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to obtaining the data, per Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity contracts with a private person to perform any of its functions, data related to performance of the contract are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. It also classifies &quot;data pertaining&quot; to an employee’s dependents as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; Are the data collected by the third-party administrator of the City of Duluth’s self-insured group health plan &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&quot;Government data&quot; are defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s third-party administrator collects and maintains the data in question to carry out the function of administrating the City’s self-insured group health plan. Under section 13.05, subdivision 11, it must comply with the Data Practices Act as if it were a government entity in carrying out its duties related to the contract. Thus, the data are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, are the data classified as private data on individuals under Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 12?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted above, data on public employees and their dependents are classified under section 13.43. The data collected on the forms that are used to administer the City’s self-insured health plan are private per section 13.43, subdivision 4, because they are data on employees/former employees that are not explicitly classified as public under subdivision 2, or are data on dependents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; If the answer to Issue 2 is yes, must the City or its third-party administrator provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to obtaining the data, per Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When a government entity collects private or confidential data about an individual from that individual, the entity is required to provide a notice, commonly referred to as a Tennessen warning. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.) This notice must contain the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the data; (b) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (c) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities outside of the collecting agency authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined that if an entity does not give an individual a Tennessen warning notice when required, or if an entity’s notice is inadequate, the entity cannot store, use, or disclose any of the data it collected from the individual. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4.) (See also Advisory Opinions, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267488&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot;&gt;95-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267715&quot; title=&quot;02-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-045&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267652&quot; title=&quot;07-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-009&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/266924&quot; title=&quot;13-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-011&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In order to administer the City’s self-insurance plan, its third-party administrator collects private data from eligible City employees, retirees, and their dependents. As noted above, the third-party administrator must comply with the Data Practices Act as if it were a government entity, and therefore it must provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to obtaining private data from those individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, at least one of the forms the City submitted asks for Social Security Numbers (SSN). The Commissioner previously has opined that when an entity collects an individual’s SSN, federal law imposes some additional notice requirements. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267764&quot; title=&quot;01-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/266882&quot; title=&quot;04-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-020&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267792&quot; title=&quot;04-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-048&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data collected by the third-party administrator of the City of Duluth’s self-insured group health plan are “government data” by operation of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11 and under section 13.02, subdivision 7.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The data are classified as private data on individuals under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City’s third-party administrator must provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to obtaining the data, per Minnesota Statutes sections 13.05, subdivision 11, and 13.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: May 5, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>300482</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Insurance companies</Title><Id>266546</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>Did the City of Birchwood Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a portion of its meeting on September 8, 2015, on the basis of the attorney-client privilege?

</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-003: April 26. 2017, Birchwood Village City Council</Title><Publisher/><Subject>Open Meeting Law</Subject><Subject>Attorney-client privilege</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-003</Title><title>Opinion 17 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-300478&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-04-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a member of the public asked whether a City Council properly closed a meeting pursuant to the attorney-client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner could not determine whether the Council made the required statement on the record. He opined that the Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it closed the meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege because the Council did not show that the Council required absolute confidentiality.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 26 2017, Birchwood Village City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Alan Mitchell requested an advisory opinion regarding the Birchwood Village City Council (Council) members’ conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Mark F. Gaughan and Caroline Bell Beckman provided comments from the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Mitchell follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The last item on the Birchwood City Council’s agenda for its regular monthly meeting on September 8. 2015, was entitled City Attorney’s Report. When this item on the agenda came up, the mayor moved, without any discussion, that the last portion of the meeting be closed for attorney client privilege. The City Council voted 4-0 (one member was absent) to close that portion of the meeting. The item to be discussed in the closed session was not identified… and no statutory authority for closing the meeting was cited.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Mitchell provided a transcript of the portion of the meeting preceding the closure:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mary [Mayor]: So now we need to go into our attorney’s report and I think, Alan [City Attorney], we need to go into private session for that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[City Attorney]: Mayor and council, if you would like to, you can try to caption, I guess, whatever rationale for that you would like to and ask permission to close regarding attorney client privilege information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[Mayor]: So with that I would move that we close this portion of the meeting for attorney client privilege… (brief interruption to ask another speaker whether she wanted to be heard on another matter before the meeting is closed). So I make a motion that we close this portion of the meeting for attorney client privilege. Is there a second.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[Councilmember]: Second.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[Mayor]: All those in favor. (All ayes. 4-0, Councilman Randy LaFoy absent.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[City Attorney]: … And mayor and council, I will just note that it is 8:28 p.m. by my phone anyway, and that this is a closure for attorney client privilege communication (recording ceased and speaker was cut off)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The transcribed portion of the meeting that Mr. Mitchell submitted is substantially similar to the transcript submitted by the Council. The Council’s transcript describes the recording cutting off the last statement from the City Attorney as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;[City Attorney]: And that this is a closure for the attorney/client privilege communication re--
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Both parties directed the Commissioner to the City’s website to review the video of the meeting at issue, which he did. The video demonstrates that the City Attorney was in mid-sentence when the audio cut out.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Did the City of Birchwood Village City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a portion of its meeting on September 8, 2015, on the basis of the attorney-client privilege?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law requires most meetings of public bodies to be open. One exception to this general rule is that public bodies may close a meeting based on attorney-client privilege. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 3(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally,[b]efore closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3.) The Commissioner has addressed this requirement in numerous previous opinions.  (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267613&quot; title=&quot;06-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-008&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267617&quot; title=&quot;07-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-018&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that in order to satisfy the requirement of section 13D.01, subd. 3, public bodies must 1) identify the authority to close a meeting and 2) provide a “particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed.” (See, &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471, 476 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).) The Commissioner has opined that an efficient way to fulfill the first requirement is to cite to the specific statute that allows or requires the public body to close the meeting. However, citing the law is not a requirement; a public body must simply state the specific grounds. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267821&quot; title=&quot;14-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-005&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council submitted the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Near the end of the meeting, the City Attorney recommended that the Council close the meeting pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. According to the transcript and video recording of the meeting, the City Attorney states, “And that this is a closure for attorney-client privilege information re--,” at which point the television technician cut the audio recording of the meeting. The video camera remained on, clearly capturing on-going discussions between the City Attorney and the Council in open session. According to Mayor Mary Wingfield, the City Attorney went on to explain, in open session, that the meeting was being closed pursuant to attorney-client privilege and the subject of the closure was code violations at 407 Lake Avenue. Further, according to [the Mayor], the City Attorney instructed her to repeat this information herself in open session. The Mayor recalls the awkwardness of repeating the attorney’s statements.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council did not submit a recording of the meeting that shows the discussion as described. The video of the meeting available on the City website cuts off at the same point as the transcript notes the audio cutting off. Thus, based on the record, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the Council made a proper statement on the record as it asserts or whether it did not describe the subject to be discussed as Mr. Mitchell asserts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council stated that it was closing the meeting on the basis of the attorney-client privilege exception; therefore, it met the requirement to state the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed. If the Council provided the additional statement regarding code violations at 407 Lake Avenue,” then it satisfied the second part of the requirement. If the Council did not provide the particularized description of the subject, then it did not satisfy the requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Even if the statement fulfilled the technical requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 3, the question remains whether the meeting was properly closed pursuant to the attorney-client privilege under section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has found that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law are to be interpreted in favor of the public. The Court said:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W. 2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W. 2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader,&lt;/em&gt; 642 N.W. 2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), permits a public body to close a meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege. While the Legislature enacted subdivision 3(b) in 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized an attorney-client privilege exception to the OML in 1976. (See &lt;em&gt;Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority&lt;/em&gt;, 251 NW 2d 620 (Minn. 1976) (&lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;) and &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt;.) A public body may use the exception when the policy underlying the privilege balanced against the policy underlying the OML weighs in favor of absolute confidentiality. Moreover, “the fact of threatened litigation does not necessarily mean that a public body has ‘the need for absolute confidentiality’ in its dealings with its counsel.” &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt; at 738. The Court has also cautioned that the privilege is narrower for public bodies and may not be invoked for general legal advice. (See also, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267583&quot; title=&quot;99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267821&quot; title=&quot;14-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267684&quot; title=&quot;14-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-015&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/268018&quot; title=&quot;16-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;16-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council submitted a full transcript of the September 8, 2015, meeting. The transcript does not show any discussion of litigation or potential litigation with the City, as either defendant or plaintiff. The meeting discussion centered on a section of the City’s building code, a specific project that illustrated the challenges of implementing that section, and whether the Council needed to change it going forward.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The majority of the meeting was open to the public. At the beginning of the meeting, the Mayor described how the building code section works and stated, “So I guess we probably should figure out, you know with the advice of our attorney what we want to do.” The meeting continued in open session and the Council went on to discuss a variety of related issues, including a moratorium on the code section and the Council subsequently decided to hold a special meeting to decide whether to institute a moratorium. The Council also decided that it would wait until the following regular meeting to take action on changing the language of the code section. At the end of the meeting, the Council then went into closed session based on the attorney-client privilege exception.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City Attorney presented the following summary upon returning to open session:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[City Attorney]: Mayor and council, thank you, we did talk generally about what the city’s options are with respect to zoning codes and things like that. I believe it was decided that next week, either Monday or Tuesday, that a special meeting will be called to consider an interim ordinance to study the height determination for purposes of your building and planning of houses in Birchwood. If that&apos;s fair to say?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council provided additional information in responding to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[At the September 8, 2015, meeting], the Council conferred in closed session with the City Attorney, There, the Council sought advice from the City Attorney regarding the pursuit of legal action against the contractor/builder. Upon re-opening the meeting to the public, the City Attorney described to the public that “we did talk generally about what the City’s options are with respect to zoning codes and things like that.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ultimately the City did not pursue legal action against the contractor/builder, instead choosing to amend its building height requirements and also passed a conflict of interest policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Council further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the present case, the Birchwood City Council faced not only a threat (from then-Chair of the Planning Commission) of “repercussions; if his project was not permitted to continue, but also with the question of initiating legal action against the contractor/builder for a project given improper approval by a building official. Importantly, the decision to close the meeting followed significant public discussion and participation on the substance of the matter. This is a case that tips the scale in favor of candid communications between a public body and its attorney without additional public intrusion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Case law thus far has not addressed closing a meeting pursuant to the privilege when the public body is the potential plaintiff. In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267471#/detail/appId/1/id/267295&quot; title=&quot;14-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-017&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner is not aware of a court case that examines the application of the attorney-client privilege exception when the public body is a potential plaintiff in a lawsuit, as is the situation here, or how that might affect the balancing of purposes of the privilege and the OML. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s limitations on the privilege, taken together with the obligation to construe the OML in favor of the public, set a high standard for public bodies.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the statement on the record that the Council may have made prior to closing the meeting, the summary the City Attorney provided following the closed session, and the transcript of the full meeting, it does not seem that, on balance, the Council met the standard to use the privilege to close the meeting. Discussions of the city options with regard to zoning codes and things like that” (e.g., deciding whether to institute a moratorium or the consequences of whether to change a section of building code), seems like a topic more properly addressed in a public forum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the Council provided additional facts about potential litigation based on a threat of “repercussions” from the builder/contractor and that the Council had considered pursuing legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The situation here is similar to that in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake &lt;/em&gt;case, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Prior Lake City Council improperly closed a meeting. A company stated that if it did not receive a conditional use permit (CUP) as allowed under a Prior Lake ordinance or if the City required an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW), the company would sue. Prior Lake had not decided yet whether to require an EAW or whether to issue the CUP. The Prior Lake City Council went into closed session on the basis of attorney-client privilege based on that threat. In rejecting the City use of the exception, the Court provided the following guidance:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given the contentious nature of many land-use proceedings, we are concerned about the ramifications of holding that open meetings may be closed to allow council members to meet with an attorney about how to view a threat of litigation relating to a public matter that has yet to be decided. Such a holding might well eviscerate the Open Meeting Law. No doubt public bodies frequently face threats of litigation associated with their decisions. Threats of litigation notwithstanding, the public has a right &quot;to be informed of all actions and deliberations&quot; that affect the public interest. Balancing the policies behind the attorney-client privilege and the Open Meeting Law, it is clear to us that when a public body is deciding a matter within its jurisdiction, the threat that litigation might be a consequence of deciding the matter one way or another does not, by itself, justify closing the meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt; at 739-740.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, when Council closed the September 8, 2015, meeting, it had not yet decided whether to institute a moratorium on the then-current building code section. It had yet to act on changing the building code section at issue to respond to the builder/contractor situation. The record does not reflect whether the Council had taken action to reverse its position and permit the builder/contractor to continue his project (thereby neutralizing the threat of “repercussions” from him) or whether that decision was also pending. Moreover, the Council did not present arguments to the Commissioner that the discussion in closed session would contribute to litigation strategy nor did it generally identify the information that would damage the Council’s position in litigation had it been disclosed to the public. (See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt; at 740.) In short, the record does not demonstrate that the Council required absolute confidentiality when it closed the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that meetings closed based on the attorney-client privilege exception are the only closed meetings that public bodies are not required to record and thus, the record for review is necessarily limited. As such, adherence to the other requirements of the OML becomes even more significant, so that the public can be informed and can judge whether closure is indeed appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Birchwood Village City Council complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, by providing the statement on the record before going into closed session during the September 8, 2015, meeting as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Birchwood Village City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when it closed a portion of the September 8, 2015, meeting on the basis of the attorney-client privilege exception pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: April 26, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>300478</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:17:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>Did the City of Woodbury comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), when it redacted the following data from initial complaint reports (“ICRs”), Documents 1A–4:
1A, 1B, and 1C: street address of the incident locations; data on a complainant, data about witnesses to the incidents; and data on arrestees;
2A, 2B, and 2C: name and age of a complainant, who appears to be one of the drivers involved in a traffic accident; other unspecified information; the date of birth for a juvenile who may have been a passenger in a vehicle in a traffic accident; birth dates and phone numbers for people believed to be involved in accident;
3A and 3B: street addresses for a fire concern and fire call, and complainant names, addresses and phone numbers; and
4: street address of the incident location and the name, home address, phone number, and date of birth of the complainant?
Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from the ICR on a law enforcement ride-along background check?
Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from ICRs identified in Documents 6A and 6B?
Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it redacted the date of birth of the defendant from a copy of a criminal complaint?</Description><Audience/><Title> Advisory Opinion 17-002 April 18, 2017, City of Woodbury</Title><Publisher/><Subject>Data practices</Subject><Subject>Protected identities</Subject><Subject>Law enforcement data</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-002</Title><title>Opinion 17 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-300473&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-04-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a newspaper asked if a city police department had properly classified various data elements in various police incident reports (ICRs). The Commissioner determined that the city had properly redacted some data elements, improperly withheld others, and in some cases could not make a determination.  The Commissioner noted that law enforcement agencies must exercise their discretion to protect certain identities on a case-by-case basis, and must document those determinations. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 18, 2017; City of Woodbury</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Scott Wente and Mathias Baden, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Woodbury Bulletin&lt;/em&gt;, requested an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data the City of Woodbury (City) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mark Vierling, attorney for the City, submitted comments on its behalf. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Baden asked the City’s police department for access to certain data, as detailed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Woodbury comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), when it redacted the following data from initial complaint reports (“ICRs”), Documents &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1A&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1B&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;1C&lt;/strong&gt;: street address of the incident locations; data on a complainant, data about witnesses to the incidents; and data on arrestees;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2B&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;2C&lt;/strong&gt;: name and age of a complainant, who appears to be one of the drivers involved in a traffic accident; other unspecified information; the date of birth for a juvenile who may have been a passenger in a vehicle in a traffic accident; birth dates and phone numbers for people believed to be involved in accident;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3A&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;3B&lt;/strong&gt;: street addresses for a fire concern and fire call, and complainant names, addresses and phone numbers; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;: street address of the incident location and the name, home address, phone number, and date of birth of the complainant?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from the ICR on a law enforcement ride-along background check?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from ICRs identified in Documents &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;6A&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;6B&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it redacted the date of birth of the defendant from a copy of a criminal complaint?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), when an entity denies access to data, it must cite the specific statutory section or other legal basis for its denial.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Under subdivision 7, data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility, are not public while the investigation is active, except for the data listed in subdivisions 2 (arrest data), 3 (request for service data), and 6 (response or incident data), which are always public. Absent a criminal investigation, law enforcement data are presumptively public.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, notwithstanding subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, data that identify an individual whose identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17 are private. Law enforcement agencies must protect some identities, and may protect others depending on the circumstances. The law enforcement agency is required to establish procedures to acquire data on individuals whose identities are protected under subdivision 17, in order to evaluate each situation and to exercise its discretion to determine whether an individual’s identity (of relevance here, victims, witnesses, and 911 callers) qualifies for protection under subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; Did the City of Woodbury comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), when it redacted the following data from initial complaint reports (“ICRs”), Documents &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1A&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1A&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;: street address of the incident location; data on the complainant, victims, and witnesses to the incident; name, address, phone number and date of birth of an arrestee;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, the City wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The ICR “emanates from a 911 call, a medical emergency, and involves a juvenile.” According to the City, there were 3 victims, and at the time the City gave Mr. Baden the ICR, the matter was still “pending under criminal investigation”. The City redacted the names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth, of the victim, the victim’s mother, and a juvenile, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 17.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 2, states that the name, age, sex and last known address of an adult who is cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty shall be public at all times in the originating agency. Accordingly, those data are public, and the City must provide access to them. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the City also protected the identities of a 911 caller (i.e., the “complainant”), and adult and juvenile victims. As noted above, section 13.82, subdivision 17, permits a law enforcement agency to protect certain identities, under certain circumstances. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under subdivision 17(f), the identity of a 911 caller, or the identity of a service subscriber whose phone was used to place the call, may be protected under two circumstances: if revealing the identity would threaten the personal safety or property of any person, or, if the object of the call was to receive help in a &lt;em&gt;mental health&lt;/em&gt; emergency. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, adult and juvenile victims’ identities may be protected if they so ask, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the law enforcement agency determines that revealing the individual’s identity would threaten his/her safety or property. The same conditions apply to protecting the identity of adult witnesses. A law enforcement agency may protect the identity of a juvenile witness without a request if it determines that the subject matter warrants it.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City did not provide information to the Commissioner confirming that revealing the identity of the 911 caller (complainant) would threaten the personal safety or property of any person, or, if the object of the call was to receive help in a &lt;em&gt;mental health&lt;/em&gt; emergency. One of those conditions must apply in order to protect that identity. The City also did not confirm to the Commissioner that any of the witnesses had asked to have their names withheld because they feared for their safety, and whether the City reasonably determined that revealing the identity of the victim or witness would threaten the personal safety or property of the individual. The City could have redacted these identities if any of the above conditions applied.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the City did not confirm whether it has the required procedures in place “to acquire the data and make the decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in subdivision 17. Without additional factual information, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether it was appropriate for the City to withhold data based on section 13.82, subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1B&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;: incident location address, names, addresses, phone numbers, and ages for two suspects who were arrested&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City stated: “[t]his entire ICR was in an open investigation mode at the time that the preliminary ICR with partial redactions were allowed to be released, and as under a criminal investigation all redactions are allowed under Minn. Stat. § 13.82 subd.7.”
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For data on arrestees, the analysis is the same as in &lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt; above. In addition, per section 13.82, subdivisions 2(a) and 6(a), the time, date and place of the action are always public, and may not be protected under subdivision 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1C&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;: dates of birth and phone numbers for an arrestee and possible witnesses listed on the report&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Predominantly, what has been deleted from this ICR are the phone numbers and the day and month of the date of birth of the individuals. As we review Minn. Stat. §13.82, it is only the age of the individuals that must be allowed, and thus, the Department’s policy has been to leave the year of birth available for public viewing, but not to release the day and month of the date of birth section of the ICR. Additionally, we do not read Minn. Stat. §13.82 as requiring or making public the phone numbers of the individuals cited in the ICRs, and of course any phone number that would otherwise identify a 911 caller, crime victim, victim of domestic abuse, or Home Safe Program participant under subd.17 of Minn. Stat. §13.82, thus the Department had stricken [sic] from all the ICRs.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees that when there is an active investigation, the only data that are public about witnesses and victims under section 13.82, subdivision 6, are their names and addresses (unless they qualify for protection under subdivision 17). Therefore, the City may protect any other data about witnesses and victims as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7, including their full dates of birth and phone numbers. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, with respect to individuals who are cited, arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise deprived of liberty, law enforcement agencies must provide access to “age” data, per subdivision 2. Typically, the data that document the age of arrestees are the full dates of birth, and therefore the only way to provide the actual (i.e., to the day) age of the individual is by providing the full date of birth.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response to Issue 4, below, the City wrote that it redacts the month and day of an individual’s date of birth “as a matter of policy within the department,” because it is not required “under Minn. Stat. §13.82 or other provisions that require the age of the individual. It is the City’s belief that by release of the year of the date of birth, the requestor is more than capable of determining the age of the individual, and that access to the month and date of birth is not necessary beyond the release of the year.”
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that law enforcement agencies interpret the meaning of “age” differently; some provide full dates of birth of arrestees under subdivision 2, and others redact the month and day, and make public only the birth year, as the City does. Given the various interpretations, and the fact that the Legislature used both terms in section 13.82, the Commissioner concludes that the City properly redacted the month and day, but also would be in compliance if it provided the full date of birth as public arrest data. See also discussion of &lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt; regarding the distinction between age and date of birth as those terms appear in section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2B&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;2C&lt;/strong&gt;: name and age of a complainant, who appears to be one of the drivers involved in a traffic accident; other unspecified information; the date of birth for a juvenile who may have been a passenger in a vehicle in a traffic accident; birth dates and phone numbers for people believed to be involved in accident&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Again, we note that this call is a result of a 911 emergency call. The first redactions relate to the identification and address of the 911 caller, in addition to their phone number. Their year of birth is left public and available for reading. Their month and day of birth has been redacted for the reasons as noted above. The identification of the juvenile identified within the margin has also been identified, as this is a result of a vehicle accident, but the phone number and month and day of birth have been stricken as per department policy as statute requires only the age be disclosed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Documents &lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2B&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;2C&lt;/strong&gt; are reports of traffic accidents. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In all three, the City redacted the full date of birth of each individual. Contrary to section 13.82, subdivision 2, which classifies the &lt;em&gt;age&lt;/em&gt; of an arrested individual as always public, subdivision 6(k) explicitly makes public the dates of birth of the parties involved in a traffic accident. Thus, the City should not have redacted the full dates of birth. As the Commissioner noted above, law enforcement agencies differ in their determinations about whether, in order to provide the age of an arrestee, they must provide the complete date of birth. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City also redacted the identities, including phone number, of each 911 caller. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City appropriately protected those identities. As discussed above under &lt;strong&gt;1A &lt;/strong&gt;and&lt;strong&gt; 1C&lt;/strong&gt;, the City could have redacted the 911 caller identities if it had determined any of the relevant conditions applied to redact the identities. However, the City did not provide the Commissioner with information about its determinations to redact.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City also redacted the date of birth and phone number of a juvenile party to the accident. The City did not protect the juvenile’s identity, so the Commissioner assumes data about the juvenile are not otherwise classified as private under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 260B, which governs certain data on juveniles. Accordingly, the juvenile’s full date of birth is public. As noted above, the City may withhold the juvenile’s phone number only if there is an active criminal investigation into the matter. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine if the City properly withheld access to the identity of the 911 caller. As discussed under &lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt;, the City could have redacted the 911 caller identity if it had determined any of the relevant conditions applied to redact the identity. However, the City did not provide the Commissioner with information about its determination to redact.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;3A&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;3B&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: street addresses for a fire concern and fire call, and complainant names, addresses and phone numbers;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding Document &lt;strong&gt;3A&lt;/strong&gt;, the City wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Again we note the incident was as a result of a 911 call. The address of the 911 caller is not public data as required under Minn. Stat. §13.82 subd.17. Names associated with or address otherwise redacted within the other portions of the report refer back to the identification of the 911 caller and their address, which is also prohibited by statute. Phone numbers were redacted as previously noted as not required by Minn. Stat. §13.82.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;See above discussions regarding the circumstances under which the City may protect those identities if the conditions set out in subdivision 17 are met. See also Issue 1, Documents &lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt;. The City can redact the phone numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;: street address of the incident location and the name, home address, phone number, and date of birth of the complainant?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We note again that this is a result of a 911 call. The location of the 911 caller is redacted as provided by Minn. Stat. §13.82 subd.17. In addition, the names associated with the incident would otherwise identify the 911 caller, and were redacted along with the 911 caller’s phone number; the 911 caller’s phone number appears in 2 places within the report, and were redacted in both locations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As noted above, the City can protect the identity of a 911 caller under two circumstances: if revealing the identity would threaten the personal safety or property of any person, or, if the object of the call was to receive help in a mental health emergency.  See above discussions, Issue 1, Documents &lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from the ICR on a law enforcement ride-along background check?&lt;/em&gt; 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Wente and Mr. Baden, the City stated that the ICR is not public because it “pertained to a ride-along background check.” The City wrote to the Commissioner: 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Background checks of the participant of the ride along are protected by Minn. Stat. §13.87 subd. 1 (b). The individual on the ride along had no convictions of any offenses. The City conducts its background checks through the Office of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and it is our opinion that the individuals who participate in ride alongs whose backgrounds are secured by the Department for the purposes of the ride along are protected under Minn. Stat. §13.82.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the ICR, and therefore is not certain about the type or classification of data it contains. It appears that the City conducts criminal background checks on individuals who will participate in ride-alongs. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, applies to “all data maintained in criminal history records compiled by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension” and classifies certain criminal history data as private. To the extent that the City maintains criminal history records from BCA, including those on ride-along participants, the data are private pursuant to section 13.87. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the City’s ICRs are classified pursuant to section 13.82, and the Commissioner cannot determine why or whether criminal history data would appear on an ICR, which typically documents the actions of a law enforcement agency. If the subject’s name is the only data that appears in both the ICR and the other data collected in the background check, then the name as it appears on the ICR is presumptively public under section 13.82. Further, data in the ICR classified by subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from ICRs identified in Documents &lt;strong&gt;6A&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;6B&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/em&gt; 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding Mr. Wente and Mr. Baden stated that the City “did not provide [the ICRs listed in Documents &lt;strong&gt;6A&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;6B&lt;/strong&gt;] at all, citing multiple statutes.”  
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Baden’s request for the identities of those involved in &lt;strong&gt;6A&lt;/strong&gt;, the City cited section 13.82, subdivisions 5 and 7. The City stated to the Commissioner that &lt;strong&gt;6A&lt;/strong&gt; contained data about a domestic abuse incident “where privacies are protected” under section 13.82, subdivision 17. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the City may protect data under subdivision 5, as it does not classify data, and subdivision 7 classifies only active criminal investigative data that are not explicitly public under subdivisions 2, 3, and 6. Regarding its redactions of identities pursuant to subdivision 17, see earlier discussion of Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6B&lt;/strong&gt; lists 20 ICRs requested by Mr. Baden, four of which have written notations following them, indicating that the City was withholding access from the entire ICRs pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, and in 2 cases, under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, which classifies as private peace officers’ records of children who are or may be delinquent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the specific ICRs at issue, but they very likely contain some public data under section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, or 6; for example, date and time of action, and identities of the individual officers who responded. Accordingly, the City should have provided access to the ICRs, redacted as appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 4. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City comply with the Data Practices Act when it redacted the date of birth of the defendant from a copy of a criminal complaint?&lt;/em&gt; 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its comments to the Commissioner, the City wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The fully public version of the Complaint is available at the Washington County Courthouse for persons that wish to see this particular file. At the time of the request to the City of Woodbury the requestor made a request for the document not from the Court file but from the City’s individual file.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Under section 13.82, subdivision 7, any investigative data presented in court are public. If the criminal complaint had been presented in court at the time the City provided Mr. Baden with a copy, then the full birthdate of the defendant is public. (See Issue 1, Documents &lt;strong&gt;2A&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;2C&lt;/strong&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, a note about this provision in section 13.82, subdivision 17:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Data concerning individuals whose identities are protected by this subdivision are private data about those individuals. Law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make the decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in clauses (c), (d), (f), and (g).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the identities of those individuals are not subject to automatic protection. Law enforcement agencies must exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis and document those determinations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Woodbury complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), when it redacted the following data from initial complaint reports (“ICRs”), Documents &lt;strong&gt;1A&lt;/strong&gt;–&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt;:
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Victims&apos;, witnesses&apos;, and arrestees&apos; phone numbers and dates of birth.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;list-style: none&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Woodbury improperly withheld access to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Arrestees’ name, age, and last known address&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Incident location address&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Full dates of birth of parties in traffic accidents&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;list-style: none&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City appropriately protected the identities of:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;911 callers, victims and witnesses, including street addresses of incidents&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City did not comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from the ICR on a law enforcement ride-along background check.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City did not comply with the Data Practices Act when it did not release any data from the 20 ICRs identified in Documents &lt;strong&gt;6A&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;6B&lt;/strong&gt;. The City should have provided redacted copies of the ICRs.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City did not comply with the Data Practices Act when it redacted the full date of birth of the defendant from a copy of a criminal complaint, if the complaint had been presented in court at the time the City provided a copy to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: April 18, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>300473</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-03-21T16:21:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), did Independent School District 2860, Blue Earth Area Schools, respond appropriately to a request for the payroll timesheet data of a former employee, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?</Description><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-001 March 22, 2017, ISD 2860 (Blue Earth Area Schools)</Title><Publisher/><Subject>Data practices</Subject><Subject>Personnel data</Subject><Subject>time sheets or payroll</Subject><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 17-001</Title><title>Opinion 17 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-300472&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2017-03-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether he could have access to a former teacher’s time sheet data for a time period following a public court case. The District denied access to the data, arguing that the data were private personnel data because of the existence of a complaint at the District during the same period. The Commissioner opined that the plain language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2, classifies the existence and status of a complaint, as well as time sheet data (or other comparable data used for payroll purposes) as public. The District did not reveal the nature or character of the complaint and therefore, the District would not have been revealing private data by providing the timesheet data to the data requester.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 22, 2017, ISD 2860 (Blue Earth Area Schools)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Anthony Acosta requested an advisory opinion about the classification of data that Independent School District 2860 – Blue Earth Area Schools (the District), maintains.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Michelle Kenney, attorney for the District, submitted comments on its behalf.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On January 20, 2017, Mr. Acosta submitted the following data request to the District:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;I am requesting to inspect the following data about [a former teacher] from May 16, 2016 to June 30, 2016:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(8): “payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee’s work time for payroll purposes.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District responded: “The data you requested is either not maintained by the School District or is classified as private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 and is not accessible to you.” 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District provided additional information about its interaction with Mr. Acosta. On September 30, 2016, Mr. Acosta wrote an email to the District. Quoting that letter, the District responded:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;I asked Superintendent Evan Gough to comment on whether [the teacher] was allowed to teach following a May 15 incident in which he was charged with domestic assault or was he placed on paid leave.” 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The data you request is classified as private personnel data under Minnesota Statues Section 13.43 and therefore the data you request is not accessible to you.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Gough says the district was aware of a complaint and was conducting an investigation. He insists on not saying whether the complain [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] is the same as the court case or a written complaint was filed with the district.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dr. Gough correctly provided you with the “existence and status of any complaints or charges under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4). The further data you request is classified as private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43,which is not accessible to you.&lt;/em&gt; [Reformatted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In that email, Mr. Acosta also wrote, “I could go check time cards and try to figure out whether [the teacher] was put on leave or not, but I shouldn’t have to.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Data Practices Act), did Independent School District 2860, Blue Earth Area Schools, respond appropriately to a request for the payroll timesheet data of a former employee, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. 
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are always public. Unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the subject and the nature of the complaint are private. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(8) (“clause 8”), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Payroll time sheets, or other comparable data used only to account for an employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes, are public except to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee&apos;s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In comments to the Commissioner, the District wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An employee’s payroll status during the period of time that a complaint has been received and an investigation is pending cannot be viewed as anything other than private data.
&lt;br /&gt;
…
&lt;br /&gt;
When responding to Mr. Acosta’s request, the School District understood that Mr. Acosta, as well as the community at-large because of Mr. Acosta’s reporting, had knowledge that [the teacher] was arrested on May 26, 2016[,] and was subsequently charged with misdemeanor domestic assault… Mr. Acosta’s request for payroll data regarding [the teacher] was for the same period of time (from May 16, 2016, the day of his arrest through the end of the school year). Thus, the School District’s response to Mr. Acosta’s request would disclose [the teacher’s] payroll information during a period of time in which the School District had knowledge of a complaint and an investigation was pending.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District cited several advisory opinions in support of its argument (See, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267431&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 04-047&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267479&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267863&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-005&lt;/a&gt;.) Those opinions discuss how the context of a request for public data might impact access to the data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In Advisory Opinion 07-004, a public data requester asked for the names of employees in internal email communications about the employees’ performance. The Commissioner said that while names of government employees are public, providing access to the names in the context of comments about their work performance would impermissibly reveal private data. In that situation, the names have not been “reclassified” as private, rather &lt;em&gt;the access&lt;/em&gt; impermissibly reveals private data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-047 seems to refute the District’s position that timesheet data are inaccessible just by virtue of the existence of a contemporaneous complaint:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner also wishes to comment on the use of the terms &quot;on leave with pay&quot; and &quot;on leave without pay&quot; in connection with a response to a data request about the status of a complaint/charge made against an employee. Because leave with or without pay may be a form of discipline, it should not be released by the entity&lt;/em&gt; when the entity is responding to data requests relating to the status of a complaint/charge against an employee.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that a data requestor will be able to determine whether a government entity is or is not paying an employee. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(8), states that &quot;...payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for&quot; an employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes are public.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;In responding to requests for payroll time sheet data, however, the entity would not be disclosing that any paid or unpaid leave an employee takes is related to a complaint or charge&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;Further, the entity would be disclosing only data relating to an employee&apos;s past or current pay standing, not data about the employee&apos;s future pay standing.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Additionally, the Minnesota Supreme Court has also considered a situation where a school district disclosed that a teacher under investigation was on “medical leave.” While the Court did not squarely address the contextual issue under consideration here, it found the disclosure to be a permissible disclosure of public data, even though the District had also disclosed that a complaint existed at the same time as the leave. (See, &lt;em&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 652 NW 2d 9, 22 (Minn. 2002).) Thus, contrary to the District’s assertion, the existence of a pending complaint does not itself affect the classification of timesheet data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the teacher’s complaint at the District did not result in the final disposition of disciplinary action, so the nature and character of that complaint remains private. The data requester had knowledge of public information from the court record. His admitted goal was to determine whether the subject of the court case was related to the complaint at the school and whether either had a bearing on the work schedule/payment of the teacher. However, when asked directly, the District repeatedly – and appropriately – declined to connect any existing complaints against the teacher with the subject of the court case. Consequently, Mr. Acosta was unable to link the subject of the court case directly to the subject of the complaint at the District. Thus, had the District simply provided Mr. Acosta access to public timesheet data, it would not have been impermissibly disclosing private complaint data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has a final note. The practical result of the District maintaining timesheet data as private complaint data is that when a complaint does not result in discipline, those timesheet data seemingly remain “private” in perpetuity. The plain language of the statute resists such an interpretation. Consider other public elements in 13.43, subd. 2 – dates of employment, terms and conditions of the employment relationship, expense reimbursement, etc. When these elements are requested at the same time as a request for public complaint data, the fact that a complaint exists does not mean that those public elements become private or reveal private data, even if an entity is using them in an active investigation. As Advisory Opinion 04-047 discusses, what would be inappropriate is if an entity responded to a request for data about a pending complaint by providing one of the other public data elements that revealed something about the nature of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District 2860, Blue Earth Area Schools, did not respond appropriately to a request for the payroll timesheet data of a former employee, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: March 22, 2017&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>300472</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T22:22:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-006</Title><title>Opinion 16 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266582&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-11-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a school board asked whether it might meet in private facilitated discussions designed to, among other goals, “improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving” among board members, without violating the Open Meeting Law. 

The Commissioner determined that as long as the board avoided even incidental discussions specific to matters within its official duties or powers, a quorum of the board could participate in those sessions because the board was not “gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to ‘the official business’ of the governing body.”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 4, 2016, ISD 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nancy L. Cameron, General Counsel for Independent School District 625, Saint Paul (District), requested an advisory opinion about whether proposed meetings of the School Board to address interpersonal and communication issues would violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District provided the following summary of the facts. The District has experienced numerous challenges over the past year, and wants &quot;to strengthen community engagement and commitment among [the Board], District administrators, the Saint Paul Federation of Teachers (SPFT), parent advisory councils (PACs), students, and other stakeholders.&quot; As part of this effort, the Board accepted a proposal from the Minnesota State Office for Collaboration and Dispute Resolution (OCDR) and the Dispute Resolution Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law (DRI), to partner with them in a two-phase, multi-year Collaborative Public Engagement Project (CPEP).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the project plan, the issues to be addressed include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;How to create an environment and mechanism so that administrators, SPFT, Board members, and parents feel valued, heard and respected&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;How to improve communication and problem-solving in [the District]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Development of a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities of administrators, [the Board], teachers, and other school staff&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Clarity around decision making including the role of administrators, SPFT, [the Board], and the community - especially parents&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;How to define and implement the principle of equity&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Improved [Board] cohesiveness and ability to work together to serve the District&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OCDR and DRI facilitators will conduct the sessions with the Board:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;These conversations--focused on interpersonal and communication issues-can only be effective if conducted privately with the participants involved. The participants would only be the [Board] members, the facilitators, and possibly the [Board] Administrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At issue in this opinion request are the following conversations in the planning process:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;1. Facilitated conversation among Board members&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Board members will meet in (facilitated) sessions to address the following topics:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;a. Board process and decision-making issues&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;b. Goals for meeting with administrative and SPFT leadership teams&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;2. Facilitated conversation among Board members, administration and SPFT leadership in sessions to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;a. Improve trust, relationships, communication, and collaborative problem solving capacity&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;b. Develop consensus on interim plan for information sharing and decision-making processes&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Would the School Board of Independent School District 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, if a quorum of the Board met privately with a facilitator in sessions designed to &quot;improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving among Board members,&quot; if they are not &quot;gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to &apos;the official business&apos; of the governing body&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Would the School Board violate the OML if it met privately with school administrators and union leadership for similar purposes to those stated in Issue 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that a school board is a public body subject to the Open Meeting Law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, subdivision 6, a majority of the voting members of a school board constitutes a quorum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the OML, all meetings of a public body must be open to the public. &quot;Meeting&quot; is not defined in the statute, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the question:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We therefore hold that &quot;meetings&quot; subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13D] are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Would the School Board of Independent School District 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, if a quorum of the Board met privately with a facilitator in sessions designed to &quot;improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving among Board members,&quot; if they are not &quot;gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to &apos;the official business&apos; of the governing body&quot;?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the District:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The proposed agenda topics are not subject to the OML because the Board members will not be gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to &quot;the official business&quot; of the governing body. See [&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;]. Instead, the planned sessions are focused on improving trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving among Board members. The facilitated discussions are also intended to clarify for Board members their individual expectations of the roles and responsibilities of District administrators and what they hope to get out of planned facilitated conversations with administrators and SPFT through the collaborative project. The goal is not for Board members to exchange views on substantive decisions - such as desired superintendent qualifications or proposed policies - that may come before the Board.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a similar situation, the Minnesota Attorney General addressed a question related to the OML&apos;s application to a public body&apos;s training and planning sessions. See Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5 (February 5, 1975). There, a city asked the Attorney General (AG) whether city council members and the mayor may gather privately in a training program where public business may be discussed incidental to the training.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Attorney General&apos;s Opinion states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears that the substance of the training program would consist largely of discussions devoted solely to developing skills in communication, planning, delegation of responsibilities, and decision-making, and to strengthening and clarifying an understanding of the responsibilities of council members. Thus, such a program would be directed toward developing general techniques in dealing with municipal matters rather than toward resolving specific problems.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In our opinion, a training program devoted solely to the above-described purposes does not constitute a deliberation on matters within the council&apos;s &quot;official&quot; duties or powers and is not inconsistent with the open meeting law. Indeed, to the extent that the training sessions improve council members&apos; skills at effective communication, it seems that the training sessions will provide the public with a more complete knowledge of municipal business and the reasons why decisions are made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District wrote, &quot;[l]ikewise here, the planned facilitated conversations with the Board, on the agenda topics listed above, may be conducted in private without running afoul of the OML. This AG opinion supports the conclusion that the Board may gather in private for these conversations on these agenda topics.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs. The type of gatherings the Board contemplates are not meetings for purposes of the OML, per the Court&apos;s holding in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, and the Attorney General Opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Attorney General also said:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The facts presented in this opinion do indicate, however, that specific municipal matters may also be discussed at the described training session. Discussions of this nature would constitute a deliberation on a matter within the official duties or powers of the council and would therefore be deemed to be a &apos;meeting.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, while participation in a non-public training program is not inconsistent with the language or purposes of the open meeting law, discussions of matters within the council&apos;s official duties or powers must be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the Board should avoid any issues specific to its official business during the sessions, as incidental discussions of public business would constitute a meeting subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Would the School Board violate the OML if it met privately with school administrators and union leadership for similar purposes to those stated in Issue 1?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The makeup of persons participating in this type of gathering with a quorum of the Board does not alter the analysis for Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The School Board of Independent School District 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, would not violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, if a quorum of the Board met privately with a facilitator in sessions designed to &quot;improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving among Board members,&quot; if they are not &quot;gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to &apos;the official business&apos; of the governing body&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 4, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266582</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Training not subject</Title><Id>266581</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:18:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-005</Title><title>Opinion 16 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267093&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-07-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a member of the public asked whether a Township Board complied with Open Meeting Law (OML) requirements for a special meeting; whether the board held serial meetings; and whether the board violated the law when a quorum attended a county planning commission meeting at which zoning/planning issues were discussed.

The Commissioner determined that the board acted properly because the actions it took during the meeting were related to the special meeting notice. In addition, the board did not meet outside of the noticed special meeting or otherwise engage in serial meetings. Finally, because a quorum of the board attended and participated in the county planning commission meeting, relayed board business, deliberated, and received information as a group on issues relating to its official business, the quorum’s presence at the county planning commission meeting was a special meeting that the board should have noticed.

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 13, 2016, Westfield Township Board of Supervisors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;James Peters requested an advisory opinion regarding Westfield Township Board of Supervisors&apos; (Board) conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Jack Perry, attorney for the Board, submitted comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Peters provided a summary of the facts as follows. The Board posted notice of a special town meeting of the Township electors (resident voters) for March 31, 2015. The notice stated the time and place of the meeting, and the following purpose: &quot;[t]o discuss with electors only, the question of whether the town board, consisting of 3 supervisors, shall, at some time, adopt land use and zoning regulations in the township of Westfield.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Peters asked the Commissioner to address three issues. First, he objected to actions the Board took at the March 31 meeting, namely, hiring an attorney and adopting an interim ordinance regarding zoning. He also stated that prior to the meeting at issue, he had made a written request that his law firm be notified of all special Board meetings, but the Board did not notify his firm of the March 31 special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Mr. Peters also raised issues about the operation of statutes governing town meetings, which the Township also discussed in its response. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 1(b), the Commissioner is addressing only matters governed by the OML in this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Mr. Peters asserted that the Board held serial meetings sometime in late 2014. He wrote that at its regular October 2014 meeting, the Board agreed to have a public hearing and special meeting on December 1, 2014, for the purpose of taking public input regarding Township planning and zoning. Subsequently, it cancelled that meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Peters&apos; third issue is his belief that two Board Supervisors violated the OML by attending a Dodge County Planning Commission meeting, held on December 11, 2014, &quot;for the purpose of taking in information on matters of significance to the Township without giving notice of the special town board meeting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Westfield Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding a March 31, 2015, meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, if they met outside a noticed meeting and agreed not to implement any planning or zoning ordinance?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when two members (a quorum) attended a county planning commission meeting and heard and discussed matters also before the Board?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did the Westfield Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding a March 31, 2015, meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, public bodies may hold three types of meetings: regular, special, and emergency. For regular meetings, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, requires a public body to keep a schedule on file at its primary offices. No additional notice is required. A meeting that differs in date, time or location from a regular meeting is a special meeting. Pursuant to subdivision 2, a public body must post written notice of a special meeting on its principal bulletin board or regular meeting room door at least three days before the meeting and it must include the date, time, place, and purpose for the meeting on the notice. (Emergency meetings are not at issue here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parties agree that the March 31, 2015, meeting was a special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the stated purpose for the meeting was, &quot;[t]o discuss with electors only, the question of whether the town board, consisting of 3 supervisors, shall, at some time, adopt land use and zoning regulations in the township of Westfield.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Peters, the Board violated the OML at the March 2015 meeting because it took actions not listed in the statement of the purpose of the meeting, i.e., hiring an attorney and adopting an interim ordinance. He stated that &quot;the three Board members immediately opened the special town board meeting, hired an attorney and adopted an interim ordinance all without notice, without holding a public hearing, and without taking public input.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, the Township wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Clearly encompassed by and as a means to facilitate the &quot;discuss[ion]&quot; called for in the Petition and the Notice, the Board began the March 31, 2015 special town meeting by unanimously (1) hiring legal counsel and (2) adopting an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting any new land uses or land use and zoning regulations in the Township (Interim Ordinance). The express purpose of the Interim Ordinance was to allow the Board &quot;to study and review the implications of and costs associated with&quot; the adoption of a land use and zoning ordinance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Despite attaching the public notice of the March 31, 2015 special town meeting to his letter, Peters inexplicably complains that the March 31, 2015 special town meeting was conducted without giving public notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To the extent Peters&apos; complaint is that the Board and its Supervisors hired an attorney and adopted an interim ordinance at this meeting, Minn. Stat. section 366.01, subd. 7 expressly authorizes the Board to employ an attorney for town business, and Minnesota law expressly authorizes the adoption of an Interim Ordinance without advance notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, according to the Township, in June of 2015, Mr. Peters asked the Dodge County Attorney to file a criminal complaint against the Board, alleging in part that the Board violated the OML. The Olmsted County Attorney investigated (due to a conflict of interest on the part of Dodge County), and &quot;determined that the Board had at all times acted lawfully and properly. No criminal charges were filed.&quot; One of the issues the Olmsted County Attorney investigated was, &quot;Whether Westfield Township supervisors violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law by failing to conduct a town meeting as required by statute, [and] failing to give adequate notice of a special board meeting on March 31, 2015 ?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s report said, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The meeting notice was &quot;to discuss with electors only, the question of whether the town board ... shall, at some time, adopt land use and zoning regulations and restrictions in the township of Westfield.&quot; To the extent there is alleged a violation of section365.56, Subd. 2, the minutes of the meeting reflect some preliminary &quot;business&quot; was conducted before the discussion of adopting land use and zoning regulations. That preliminary business was the board hiring an attorney to advise the board on the issue to be discussed. The board also adopted a temporary ordinance to prohibit any new land uses or land use and zoning regulations, effectively freezing the situation in Westfield Township for a year to sort out the question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While this preliminary business may have strayed a little from the specific meeting notice, the conduct of those discussions and decisions could certainly be considered germane to the business noticed. In fact, a judge or fact finder could certainly determine that the preliminary discussion was within the umbrella of the notice provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As &quot;purpose of the meeting&quot; is not defined in section 13D.04, subd. 2(a), and has yet to be interpreted by the appellate courts, the Commissioner agrees that the actions taken at the March 31, 2015, are germane to the special meeting notice. Mr. Peters also complained that the Township did not provide his law firm with notice of the meeting. However, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c), the Board was obliged to mail or otherwise deliver notice of the special meeting to Mr. Peters, or:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[A]s an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body&apos;s authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Peters provided the Commissioner a copy of the notice the Board published on March 17, 2015, in the &lt;em&gt;Byron Review&lt;/em&gt; newspaper, thereby satisfying its obligation to provide him notice of the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did the Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, if they met outside a noticed meeting and agreed not to implement any planning or zoning ordinance?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a gathering of a quorum or more of the members of a public body like the Board is a &quot;meeting&quot; for purposes of Chapter 13D and the requirements of that chapter must be met. &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). As part of its discussion in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, the Supreme Court cautioned members of a public body that: &quot;serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum for the purpose of avoiding public hearings or fashioning agreement on an issue may also be found to be a violation of [Chapter 13D] depending upon the facts of the individual case.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Peters, the Board held serial meetings, in person and otherwise:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]o reach an agreement on deciding to not to [sic] implement any planning and zoning and to cancel the public hearing scheduled for December 1, 2014. The Supervisors communicated positions and strategies, engaged in serial communications and gatherings, with the specific intent to avoid public discussion altogether and to forge majority without any public hearing and special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The serial meeting or meetings for cancellation of the December 1, 2014, special meeting is documented in the public hearing testimony of [a] Supervisor given on December 11, 2014, before the Dodge County Planning Commission. [He] testified as follows with regard to the private meetings of the Supervisors held to cancel the December 1, 2014 public hearing and special meeting: &quot;we figured that was good enough so we cancelled he [sic] meeting and we have -- as of now we have no intentions of -- having another one unless things change.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the Township, the only basis for Mr. Peters&apos; allegations is the Supervisor&apos;s statements at the Dodge County Planning Commission meeting that, &quot;we had a meeting in between, which I was looking for so we could check into this a little bit. We talked to various people in the community of Westfield and they did not think it was necessary to have our own zoning.&quot; Also, according to the Township, the meeting the Supervisor mentioned &quot;was the Board&apos;s regular public meeting on November 10, 2014. And there is simply nothing improper about each of the Supervisors&apos; individual discussions with members of the public, and their reporting of those discussions during regular Board meetings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At that regular meeting, the Board, &quot;after a long discussion&quot; voted to rescind its October motion, thus cancelling the December 1, 2014, special meeting. The Board also voted not to proceed with Township planning and zoning.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner finds the testimony Mr. Peters cited as evidence of serial meetings inconclusive. The minutes of the Board&apos;s November 10, 2014, meeting clearly reflect that the Board took formal action at that public meeting to cancel the December 1, 2014, special meeting and to set aside consideration of planning and zoning at that time. The record does not show that Supervisors met outside a properly-noticed meeting in order to fashion an agreement not to pursue planning or zoning regulations. It is not a violation of the OML if individual Supervisors speak individually with their constituents and report on those conversations at an open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when two members (a quorum) attended a county planning commission meeting and heard and discussed matters also before the Board?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We therefore hold that &quot;meetings&quot; subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13D] are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Peters contends that at the Dodge County Planning Commission meeting, the two Supervisors who attended received information on issues that are before the Township. According to the transcript Mr. Peters provided, when one of the two Supervisors in attendance was called by the Commission chair to speak, he identified himself as a Supervisor and stated that people in Westfield &quot;did not think it was necessary to have our own zoning. He further stated, &quot;[o]ur feelings [sic] is, you as a zoning board, you are the ones that have to get your act together and do what you have to to give them the permit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Township commented that the OML &quot;does not prohibit members of a governing body from gathering together for purposes not related to the official business of that body.&quot; It further commented:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As this dispute makes clear, the Board has no authority over matters of zoning and permitting. The December 11, 2014 County Planning Commission meeting involved the taking of public input on a CUP [Conditional Use Permit] application for a swine feedlot The Board had no Authority over the swine CUP. Put simply, Peters&apos; statement that [the two Supervisors] &quot;conduct[ed] a special town board meeting on December 11, 2014, at which they took public input on issues impacting the Township&quot; is wrong. [They] received at the December 11, 2014 County Planning Commission meeting no information &quot;on issues relating to the official business&quot; of the Board, and their attendance was not in violation of [the OML].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. In addition to the Supreme Court&apos;s holding in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; that gatherings of a public body&apos;s quorum to discuss, decide, or receive information relating to official business are meetings subject to the OML, the Minnesota Attorney General has addressed this issue in several Opinions. In AGO 63a-5 February 5, 1975, the Attorney General opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974, we concluded that deliberations by a council on matters within its &quot;official duties or powers&quot; must be open to the public. Examples of matters which were found to be within the council&apos;s official duties or powers were discussions on the appointment of persons to the municipality&apos;s boards and commissions, the priority to be given to the development of park and recreation facilities, the placing of certain items on the agenda of a future council meeting, and the desirability of adopting various ordinances regarding planning and zoning and the subdividing of land. ID., and Op. Atty. Gen. 471-e, Oct. 28, 1974&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In AGO 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974, the Attorney General wrote, &quot;[a] quorum of a public body may conduct a variety of official business pursuant to statutory or charter authority and, since the [OML] law applies to &apos;all meetings&apos; of the &apos;governing body,&apos; a gathering of a quorum where municipal matters arise can readily be found to be a meeting of the governing body.&quot; (Note 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Supreme Court and Attorney General have previously determined, matters within a public body&apos;s official duties or powers are to be interpreted broadly. Here the first two issues in this opinion are, at center, about whether and or when the Board would take up zoning/planning issues. The Supervisor who was called upon to speak at the Dodge County Planning Commission meeting did so as a Township representative. He conveyed the preferences of the community of Westfield Township to the Commission on an issue that the Township Board clearly discussed and considered as official Township business. A quorum of the Board attended and participated in the Planning Commission meeting, relayed Board business, deliberated and received information as a group on issues relating to the official business of the Board. Accordingly, per the OML, the Court&apos;s holding in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, and the Attorney General Opinions, it was a special meeting and the Board should have posted written notice of the time, date, place, and purpose (i.e., a quorum of Supervisors will attend the Dodge County Planning Commission meeting on [date] at [time]).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Westfield Township Board of Supervisors complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding a March 31, 2015, meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Supervisors complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, because the record does not show that they met outside a noticed meeting and agreed not to implement any planning or zoning ordinance.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Supervisors did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when two members (a quorum) attended a county planning commission meeting and heard and discussed matters also before the Board.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 15, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267093</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Serial meetings</Title><Id>266363</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T20:55:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-004</Title><title>Opinion 16 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268018&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-06-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a school district asked whether it would be in compliance with state and federal laws governing data on students if it included certain data in job postings for work with teachers to provide services to students with disabilities. At the time employees bid, they have not yet been assigned to work with any particular student(s). The Commissioner opined that under Minn. Stat. § 13.32, the data elements in the posting, taken together, inadvertently identify students and their disabilities, which are private. Because bidding employees do not yet have a legally recognized reason to access the private data on students, the District must remove the identifying data elements from the posting.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2016, ISD 706 (Virginia)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The commissioner was not aware, prior to accepting and issuing this advisory opinion, that a district court determined the data at issue were not education data. (Court File Number 69VI-CV-15-794, March 14, 2016.) Because the court order is binding on the parties and an advisory opinion is not, the opinion requester school district may not rely on this advisory opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;John M. Colosimo, attorney for Independent School District 706, Virginia, requested an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District provided the following summary of the facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;AFSCME Local 85 is the exclusive representative for all non-licensed paraprofessionals working with special education students and teachers to assist in providing services to meet the needs of students with disabilities in accordance with the students&apos; IEP [Individualized Education Plan].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For many years, the practice in the school district had been to allow and permit paraprofessionals the opportunity to bid on a student and assigned teacher to whom services would be provided. Since the level of service provided each disabled student may differ and require different levels and hours of work, the paraprofessionals would be given the opportunity to select their own assignment based on seniority. In the last contract negotiations, the contract language was changed allowing and entitling paraprofessionals to the following information in conjunction with this bid or bumping processitle, building, scheduled time, days of work, hours per week, grade level and case manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the District, a case manager is a &quot;special education teacher who provides services to students who have an IEP. The case manager supervises the work of support staff (paraprofessionals) and implements the IEP.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, would Independent School District 706, Virginia, disclose private educational data if it included the names and other data related to individual case managers in a job posting to District paraprofessionals bidding for assignments?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students, and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subject to limited exceptions, data about students and their parents are private data on individuals. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as, all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data Also, according to Minnesota Rules part 1205.0200, subp 4(f), all data, in whatever form it is maintained, is &apos;data on individuals&apos; if it can in any way identify any particular individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, personally identifiable information is defined in the federal regulations implementing FERPA as, [o]ther information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty[.] (34 CFR Part 99.3(f).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To address the issue, the Commissioner reviewed information from the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) of the United States Department of Education. The FPCO provides technical assistance to schools, including providing oral and written interpretations of FERPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a 2014 letter to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPCO wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Further, even if the University removed the students&apos; names and other direct identifiers from the spreadsheet and disclosed the other requested information, it appears based on the information you&apos;ve provided that disclosing this information would be identifiable to some students. The University is in the best position to make that determination. A student&apos;s identity may be personally identifiable, even after removal or redaction of nominally identifying information from student-level records.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued several advisory opinions that discuss circumstances in which the combination of certain data elements may uniquely identify an individual. &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266974&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-001&lt;/a&gt;:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In her request to the District, the newspaper reporter apparently asked for four separate pieces of information related to a hazing incident: the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, the particular athletic team involved, and the disciplinary action taken. Regarding the nature of the alleged hazing, it does not appear this is the type of data the release of which would identify any of the involved students. Therefore, such data are public and the District should have released the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the classification of the remaining information sought by the reporter may be more complicated. If, by stating the number of students disciplined and/or the particular athletic team involved and/or the type of discipline imposed, the District would, in effect, be identifying an individual student or students, the District cannot release the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267306&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267479&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266974&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267861&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-022&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267372&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-037&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267851&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-053&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267596&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-028&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267359&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-026&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private educational data may be disclosed to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400.) The corresponding language in FERPA&apos;s regulations states that data can be disclosed without consent if, [t]he disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(1).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERPA does not define &quot;legitimate educational interest&quot;; it is a duty of school districts to make those interpretations. The FPCO provides guidance in its &lt;em&gt;Model Notification of Rights for Elementary and Secondary Schools&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One exception, which permits disclosure without consent, is disclosure to school officials with legitimate educational interests. A school official is a person employed by the School as an administrator, supervisor, instructor, or support staff member (including health or medical staff and law enforcement unit personnel); a person serving on the School Board; a person or company with whom the School has contracted to perform a special task (such as an attorney, auditor, medical consultant, or therapist); or a parent or student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. A school official has a legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibility&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the District:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since each case worker works only with certain identified disabled students, it is the school district&apos;s concern that this practice and contract language may violate state and federal law by allowing a paraprofessional to obtain personally identifiable information of the student and the student&apos;s disability before the paraprofessional has a legitimate educational interest in receiving that information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, the paraprofessionals are able to ascertain and determine the disability of a student, if not the student himself/herself, by know [sic] the name and identity of the special education case manager. The case managers work with small groups of students usually with the same or similar disability, so that a para could easily determine the disability of a student with whom he/she may want to be assigned before any assignment has been made and before the para has a legitimate educational interest to access that data or information. In a smaller District like Virginia the paraprofessionals all know who worked with disabled students from previous years and which students are assigned to which case managers. What then happens is that the para is able [sic] self-assign to a student who may have fewer needs requiring less para time and effort, rather than the assignment being made by District administration and special education supervisors based upon whom they feel is best suited to meet the needs of the student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the legitimate educational interest only applies to school district employees and officials after an assignment has been made, the paraprofessionals would not be entitled to the case manager information and that which naturally flows from knowing that information until after an assignment has been made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;34 C.F.R. section 99.7(a)(3)(iii) states that if a district has a policy of disclosing records under section 99.31(a)(1), the district must include in its annual notification to parents a specification of criteria for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes a legitimate educational interest. (For an in-depth discussion of the meaning of &quot;school official&quot; and legitimate educational interest, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267861&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-022&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the District, its bidding process allows paraprofessionals access to personally identifiable information about students and their disabilities without parental consent and &quot;before the paraprofessional has a legitimate educational interest in receiving that information.&quot; The District stated, [n]either this District nor, to my knowledge, any other District in this area have identified their employees as public officials for purposes of allowing them access to private educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, as the District states, it has not identified paraprofessionals as school officials with a legitimate interest in receiving private educational data during the bidding process. For this reason, and based on guidance from the FPCO and prior advisory opinions, at the time paraprofessionals bid, they have not yet been assigned to work with the students and therefore do not yet have a legitimate educational interest in private data about the students and their disabilities, as is required under federal law. In addition, according to section 13.32, the paraprofessionals may have access to private educational data about students only if they have a work assignment that requires it, which they would not have during a bidding process. Accordingly, the District must remove the case managers&apos; names and related data from the job postings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, Independent School District 706, Virginia, would improperly disclose private educational data if it included the names and other data related to individual case managers in a job posting to District paraprofessionals bidding for assignments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268018</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T22:11:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-003</Title><title>Opinion 16 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266933&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-06-23T03:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a newspaper reporter asked whether a city council properly closed a meeting pursuant to the attorney-client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law (Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(b)). The Commissioner opined that the council had met the standard for closing the meeting because the council had been threatened with litigation and it needed absolute confidentiality to discuss the provisions of a proposed separation agreement.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 2016, Motley City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brenda Halvorson of the &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; newspaper requested an advisory opinion regarding Motley City Council (Council) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adam Ripple, attorney for the Council, submitted comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; provided a summary of the facts as follows. The &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; received notice of a special, closed meeting of the Motley Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The notice stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notice is hereby given that the Motley City Council will meet in Closed Session on Monday, March 21st @ 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the Closed Session is for consideration of the following item:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Discussion of a proposal of a separation agreement with City Clerk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When we received the initial notice of [the March 21, 2016] closed meeting, the reason given did not seem to me to fit any of the exceptions to the Open Meeting Law. The reporter, Dawn Timbs, asked for the statute under which they were closing the meeting. The reply was received from [Council member] Hutchinson who forwarded an email from the council&apos;s labor attorney, Pamela Steckman of Rinke Noonan, St. Cloud, which read &quot;The notice should state &apos;Closed Session under Minn. Stat. 13D.05, subd. 3.(b) [sic] attorney-client privileged discussion of potential separation agreement with city clerk.&apos;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The newspaper challenged the closing of the meeting for a couple of reasons, including that the attorney/client privilege exemption did not apply to the March 21, 2016, meeting for the purpose stated in the notice. Neither the attorney nor the Council indicated there was any pending or threatened litigation when asked.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Motley City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a special meeting on March 21, 2016, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Open Meeting Law requires most meetings of public bodies to be open. One exception to this general rule is that public bodies may close a meeting based on attorney-client privilege. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 3(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court established the test for the appropriate application of the exception:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To determine whether the attorney-client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law applies, we balance the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the Open Meeting Law. The exception applies when this balancing dictates the need for absolute confidentiality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader,&lt;/em&gt; 642 NW2d 729, 732 (Minn. 2002) (&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt;). (See also &lt;em&gt;Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority&lt;/em&gt;, 251 NW2d 620 (Minn. 1976) (&lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court further held that because the exception only applies when absolute confidentiality is required, &quot;the scope of the privilege is narrower for public bodies than it is for private clients.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 737. And that the exception &quot;would almost never extend to the mere request for general legal advice or opinion by a public body in its capacity as a public agency.&quot; &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt; at 626.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Commissioner has issued a number of advisory opinions on this exception. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267583&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 99 003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267821&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 14 005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267821&amp;quot;&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 14 003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267295&quot; title=&quot;Opinion 14 017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-017&lt;/a&gt;.)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the Commissioner, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the closed meeting of March 21, 2016, the only item that was discussed was the terms of a proposed separation agreement. Issues had arisen with the clerk working for the City of Motley. Her attorney had threatened litigation. The proposed settlement agreement was meant to resolve the threatened litigation. However, before voting to bind the City to the separation agreement, the City Council had to be advised on the legal ramifications of the proposed terms. The City Council had to be offered advice on whether their legal position with regards to the threatened litigation put them in a position of strength or weakness. Absolute confidentiality was required for this limited discussion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council provided the Commissioner with additional information that was not available to the &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; when it requested this advisory opinion: the City Clerk had retained an attorney and the attorney had threatened the City with litigation. While that information alone is not necessarily a justification to close a meeting, it does represent a significant factor in considering the need for absolute confidentiality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In weighing the purposes of the privilege, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This matter had taken the first steps towards litigation. The City needed frank legal advice outside the earshot of the potential opposing litigant. Absolute confidentiality between attorney and client was required under these circumstances to facilitate candid and open discussion between the City Council and the City Attorney regarding matters that could affect litigation, including defense strategy and possible areas of reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In weighing the purposes of the OML and the public&apos;s right to be informed, the Council determined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he burden on the interest served by the [OML] is in this case very limited. The public was not deprived of any openly available facts which give rise to the preparation of a separation agreement. The only information the public missed by closing this meeting was the technical details of a legal document and the explanation thereof from the City&apos;s attorney [U]pon complete resolution of the claims, the final separation agreement will be approved at a public meeting and will become a public document. There is almost no detriment to the public in holding the limited closed session at issue, but there would be great harm to the public had the attorney-client privilege been waived and the meeting opened to the opposing party.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees that the balancing test in these circumstances dictates the need for absolute confidentiality and therefore, the Council appropriately relied on the attorney-client privilege exception to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner offers the following additional guidance. Special meeting notices must include the time, date, place and purpose of the meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.) Here, the notice did not identify the &quot;place&quot; of the meeting. Also, it would have been helpful for the Council to include the fact that there was threatened litigation in the &quot;purpose&quot; portion of the notice, so that the &lt;em&gt;Staples World&lt;/em&gt; - and the public in general - could identify and evaluate the authority to close the meeting more easily. Additionally, when closing a meeting, a public body must state on the record the grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3; see also, &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).) The Commissioner encourages public bodies to make the required statement clearly and unequivocally. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267496&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-008&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-266458&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-014&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267684&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-015&lt;/a&gt;, where the Commissioner opines that public bodies should make the statement on the record in open session, prior to closing the meeting.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These provisions of the OML, while technical in nature, ensure that the public has some information in the limited circumstances, like those at issue here, where it is excluded from observing the discussion and activity of its public officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;u&gt;Opinion:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Motley City Council complied with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a special meeting on March 21, 2016, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 22, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266933</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T20:22:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-002</Title><title>Opinion 16 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266991&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-06-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a member of the public asked whether a city council complied with the Open Meeting Law requirement to provide a summary of conclusions following a closed meeting for a performance evaluation (Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a)). Because the council only discussed two salient points the closed session, and the summary given at the next open meeting included the conclusions of those two points, the Commissioner opined that the council had met the statutory requirements.

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 2016, Moorhead City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;John Rowell requested an advisory opinion regarding the Moorhead City Council (Council) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;John Shockley, Moorhead City Attorney, provided comments to the Commissioner, on behalf of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rowell provided the following summary of the facts. On March 21, 2016, the Council held a closed meeting to evaluate the City Manager&apos;s performance. The next meeting was a special meeting held on March 31, 2016. At that meeting, the Council went into closed session pursuant to attorney-client privilege, to discuss a separation agreement with the City Manager. After the closed portion of the meeting:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mayor Williams provided the following (oral) summary of the evaluation of the city manager: During this review, the City Council stated that it was very satisfied with the quality of the work performed by Mr. Redlinger. While the city has been very satisfied with the quality and quantity of the city manager&apos;s performance, a majority of the City Council and Mike Redlinger have mutually decided to enter into a separation agreement. The mayor&apos;s statement, which purports to summarize the Council&apos;s conclusions regarding an evaluation lasting more than two hours, required less than thirty seconds to utter. &lt;strong&gt;(The mayor&apos;s statement is on the video recording of the Council meeting of 3/31/16, available on the city&apos;s website, and is accurately quoted in the news article from The Forum, attached as Item 3.)&lt;/strong&gt; [Original formatting.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Council submitted a copy of the recording with its materials. Mr. Rowell apparently submitted an edited transcript, as is noted below.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Moorhead City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation at the March 31, 2016, special meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, all meetings of a public body must be open to the public, except in limited circumstances. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has discussed the requirement to summarize the conclusions of a performance evaluation in previous advisory opinions. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267635&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267659&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-035&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267675&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;15-002&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266799&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-021&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner provided the following guidance:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed the sufficiency of several evaluation summaries in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266366&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-007&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[In Advisory Opinions 99-018, 02-021, and 02-035] the Commissioner concluded that the following statements were insufficient to fulfill the public bodies&apos; statutory obligations: &quot;[the Board] discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses&quot;; &quot;As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership&quot;; and &quot;areas of growth were identified and [the Superintendent&apos;s] evaluation is an ongoing process.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its submission to the Commissioner, the Council described its approach to the City Manager&apos;s evaluation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Historically, the City Manager&apos;s evaluation has been performed by the entire Moorhead City Council and conclusions about the City Manager&apos;s performance have been determined by a consensus of a majority of the City Council members participating in the performance review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the Council, at the March 21, 2016, meeting, all eight members of the Council and the Mayor participated. Each attendee at the meeting spoke on the subjects raised in the evaluation. The majority opinion became the conclusion on a particular point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Turning to the summary of conclusions here, in the recording of the March 31, 2016, open meeting, the Mayor read the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City Council of the City of Moorhead met on March 21, 2016, and conducted a performance review of Michael J. Redlinger, the City Manager.&lt;/em&gt; During this review, the City Council stated that it has been very satisfied with the quality and the quantity of work performed by Mr. Redlinger. &lt;em&gt;The City Council then discussed the administrative leadership of the City.&lt;/em&gt; While the City has been very satisfied with the quality and quantity of the City Manager&apos;s performance, a majority of the City Council and Michael Redlinger have mutually decided to enter into a separation agreement in order to seek a change in leadership. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement between the City and Mr. Redlinger and the City&apos;s Personnel Policies, the City and Mr. Redlinger will enter into a Separation Agreement detailing the terms of the separation. [Italics indicate the differences between the evaluation summary as presented by Mr. Rowell and the complete statement on the recording as provided by the Council.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the summary, the Council wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The summary provided by Mayor Williams gave much greater detail on the contents of the performance evaluation, than those [at issue in previous advisory opinions], and covered the salient points of the performance evaluation. [Those opinions] are also distinguishable from the present case on the basis of the fact that the evaluation of the Moorhead City Manager was ended early because of the intent to enter into a separation agreement. First, only two prominent substantive issues were discussed during the executive session: (1) the general overall quality of Mr. Redlinger&apos;s work, and (2) how Mr. Redlinger fits within the City Council&apos;s vision regarding administrative leadership of the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council discussed two salient points, came to a consensus on each of those points, and presented those two conclusions in its summary at the next open meeting. While the edited summary presented by Mr. Rowell seems similar to the summaries at issue in previous advisory opinions, upon consideration of the entire summary and the circumstances surrounding it (evaluation process and the truncated nature of the evaluation itself), the Commissioner concludes that the Mayor&apos;s statement complies with the requirement in section 13D.05, subd. 3(a)(1), to provide a summary of the conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Council&apos;s summary was ultimately sufficient, the Commissioner reminds public bodies that the intent of the Open Meeting Law is, &quot;to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies. &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). Although not required by the Open Meeting Law, in unusual situations like this one (where the body&apos;s evaluation of the employee&apos;s performance - &quot;very satisfied&quot; - seems incongruous with the outcome of the evaluation - a separation agreement), the Council could have provided more information to foster a broader understanding of its activities and decisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Moorhead City Council complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation at the March 31, 2016, special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 22, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266991</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-10T16:48:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 16-001</Title><title>Opinion 16 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267232&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2016-02-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a school district asked about the classification of data in a Notice of Removal sent to a school board member who was also a former employee of the District. The Notice of Removal stemmed from a complaint against the individual in his capacity both as an employee and as a school board member. The District stated that it does not consider school board members to be employees for purposes of the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that the data in the Notice of Removal are related to the individual’s conduct as a school board member and therefore are presumed public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 18, 2016, ISD 911 (Cambridge-Isanti)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 17, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Maggie Wallner, attorney for Independent School District 911, Cambridge-Isanti (the District). In her letter, Ms. Wallner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding classification of certain data that the District maintains. The Commissioner asked for additional information, which Ms. Wallner provided on January 5, 2016.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wrote to Karen Kurth, attorney for the data subject, Mr. X, and offered her an opportunity to submit comments on Mr. X&apos;s behalf. Ms. Kurth replied on January 19, 2016.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner provided a summary of the facts. On December 17, 2015, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On or about October 5, 2015, the School District received complaints regarding Mr. &quot;X&quot;, an employee (paraprofessional, assistant coach) and a member of the School Board. After an investigation was completed, the School District informed Mr. X that the complaints were substantiated and that there would be a recommendation to the School Board that his employment be terminated. Mr. X was also offered an opportunity to resign and he did so on November 13, 2015. No disciplinary action was taken; therefore, the only public data regarding the complaints against Mr. X in his status as a former employee is the existence and status of the complaints. Minn. Stat. [section] 13.43, Subd. 2(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 5, 2016, Ms. Wallner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]here is nothing to indicate that the allegations regarding Mr. &quot;X&quot; and/or the information provided in the course of the investigation was based solely on the fact that he is a member of the School Board; rather, both were reasons for the report, the investigation and for providing information to the School Board. In other words, the information was provided to the School District and eventually to the School Board because Mr. &quot;X&quot; was an employee &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; because he is a School Board member. This is not a situation where it is clear that &quot;but for&quot; Mr. &quot;X&apos;s&quot; status as an employee, the School Board would not have been provided the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated in the School District&apos;s request for an opinion, Exhibit A to the School Board&apos;s Resolution is not public data under Minnesota Statutes, [section] 13.43 as it relates to Mr. &quot;X&apos;s&quot; status as a former employee. However, we assume that Exhibit A is public government data as it relates to Mr. &quot;X&apos;s&quot; status as a School Board member, &lt;em&gt;unless&lt;/em&gt;, the classification under Minnesota Statutes [section] 13.43 (private personnel data) takes precedence over the otherwise public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Wallner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data in the Notice of Proposed Removal, required under Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, that Independent School District 911, Cambridge-Isanti, sent to a School Board member who is also a former employee of the District?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on current and former employees, volunteers, and independent subcontractors. Subdivisions 2 and 3, classify some personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are public data. If there is a final disposition of disciplinary action against an employee, then the data documenting disposition, the specific reasons for the discipline and the basis for the discipline become public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4) and (5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In previously-issued advisory opinions, the Commissioner has consistently opined that the classification of data about elected officials depends upon whether the entity considers the elected official to be an employee. (See Advisory Opinions 03-011 and 12-018.) If so, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If not, the data are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, classifies correspondence between elected officials and the public, but that provision is not relevant here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner wrote that the District does not consider school board members to be employees of the school district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the data subject, Ms. Kurth also argued that the data about Mr. X as a school board member are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding members of a school board, Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, subdivision 9, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The board may remove, for proper cause, any member or officer of the board and fill the vacancy; but such removal must be by a concurrent vote of at least four members, at a meeting of whose time, place, and object the charged member has been duly notified, with the reasons for such proposed removal and after an opportunity to be heard in defense against the removal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the data in the Notice of Proposed Removal, required by section 123B.09, relate to Mr. X as a school board member and not as a former employee of the District. Because the District has determined that its board members are not employees for purposes of the Chapter 13, data about board members are presumptively public, and therefore, the data in the Notice are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data related to the complaint against Mr. X as a District employee and maintained by the District, however, are classified pursuant to section 13.43. There was no final disposition of disciplinary action. Therefore, the only public &lt;em&gt;personnel&lt;/em&gt; data related to the complaint against Mr. X, are the existence and status of the complaint (i.e., a complaint exists and the status is closed/resolved). Though this seems like it is an unusual result, it is nonetheless, the result dictated by the statutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Wallner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in the Notice of Proposed Removal, required under Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, that Independent School District 911, Cambridge-Isanti, sent to a School Board member who is also a former employee of the District, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: Ferbruary 18, 2016&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267232</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:18:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-007</Title><title>Opinion 15 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267292&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-12-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a county asked whether it could classify certain appraisal data as confidential or protected nonpublic under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39. A county prepared a second appraisal for a condemnation/eminent domain action. The Commissioner opined that because the proceeding was the type of civil legal action contemplated by section 13.39, and the chief attorney had determined that the action was pending, the County could temporarily classify the appraisal as not public while the civil legal action was pending.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2015, Washington County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 8, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Richard Hodsdon, attorney for Washington County (County). In his letter, Mr. Hodsdon asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the County maintains. The Commissioner asked for additional information, which Mr. Hodsdon provided on December 1, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wrote to David Snyder, attorney for the data requester, and offered him an opportunity to submit comments. The Commissioner received his comments on December 2, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hodsdon provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Washington County commenced an action in eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota Statute [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] Chapter 117 and as required by law obtained an independent appraisal. That independent appraisal was provided to the owner of the subject property as part of the negotiation and pre-condemnation process. That appraisal is not at issue here. However Washington County and the owner were unable to negotiate a resolution of the matter and the case proceeded through the eminent domain process including a hearing before a panel of condemnation commissioners. Rather than utilize and introduce the first appraisal as evidence in the condemnation proceeding the Washington County Attorney&apos;s Office directed Washington County Public Works to obtain a second appraisal, which was obtained solely for the purpose of litigating the eminent domain civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The eminent domain action took place. The appraisal was introduced into evidence before the commissioners but was never filed in the district court because the Commissioner Award was not appealed to the district court. However the size of the ultimate award was such that the owner and his attorney are now seeking a substantial award in addition to the value of the taking in the form of attorney&apos;s fees and costs. That litigation claim is pending before the district court with a hearing to take place in January, 2016. The Washington County Attorney&apos;s office believes that one of the items that may be introduced into evidence at the hearing relevant to the litigation of the attorney fee award and costs is the appraisal it presented to the eminent commissioners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The request has now been made for a copy of that appraisal and the person making the request contends under Minnesota Statute [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] [section] 13.44, subd. 3 because the document was submitted to a condemnation commissioner its confidential status should now be changed to make it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Hodsdon&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the Washington County Attorney&apos;s Office classify an appraisal as confidential or protected nonpublic under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(a), classifies appraisals made for the purposes of the purchase or condemnation of land by a government entity as confidential or protected nonpublic. Not public appraisal data may become public under certain circumstances, one of which is submission to a court-appointed condemnation commissioner. (See subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39, allows government entities to classify data as confidential or protected nonpublic when there is a pending civil legal action. Subdivision 1, provides that a &quot;pending civil legal action includes, but is not limited to, judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. Whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the government entity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, an eminent domain matter advanced through negotiations, a court-appointed panel of commissioners, and is now in district court. The broad and express definition of &quot;pending civil legal action&quot; encompasses this type of proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next question is whether the chief attorney acting for the entity has determined that the civil legal action is pending. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267831&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-016&lt;/a&gt;.) Here, Mr. Hodsdon provided a letter from Washington County Attorney Peter Orput, who wrote: &quot;I have determined this appraisal is part of a case that is still an open, active, and in pending litigation as that term is used in Minnesota Statutes [section] 13.39.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the data requester, Mr. Snyder argued that because the appraisal data are classified as public pursuant to section 13.44, subd. 3, section 13.39 is not applicable. The Commissioner has previously opined on the operation of section 13.39 (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267726&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 94-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267837&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-048&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267385&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;) and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267385#/detail/appId/1/id/267410&quot; title=&quot;99-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-029&lt;/a&gt;, he stated, &quot;whether data may be classified as civil investigative data is substantially the discretion of the government entity&apos;s chief attorney.&quot; Because the chief attorney for Washington County determined that there is a pending civil legal action, of the type defined by section 13.39, the County may temporarily classify public appraisal data as confidential and/or protected nonpublic. Pursuant to section 13.39, subdivision 3, once the data become inactive or become part of a court record, the data will become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Hodsdon raised are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Washington County Attorney&apos;s office may classify public appraisal data as confidential and/or protected nonpublic pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 22, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267292</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appraisals (13.44)</Title><Id>266507</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-006</Title><title>Opinion 15 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267270&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-11-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>a city asked about the classification of data in a draft investigation report about a former city public official. The Commissioner opined that all data related to the complaint or charge in the report are public because the public official resigned before the city finished the report and because the former public official released the city from all claims stemming from the complaint, under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f). The Commissioner further opined that the city could not enter into an agreement with the data subject to restrict access to public data, per section 13.43, subd. 10.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 10, 2015, City of Hastings</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 1, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Margaret Skelton, attorney for the City of Hastings. In her letter, Ms. Skelton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wrote to John Fabian, attorney for the data subject, and offered him an opportunity to submit comments on her behalf. Mr. Fabian referred the Commissioner to his comments to the City, which Ms. Skelton included in the City&apos;s opinion request.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Skelton provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Charlene Stark began working for the City as its Assistant Finance Director and was later promoted to Finance Director. On or about July 7, 2015, the City Administrator received a complaint about Ms.Stark. Following the investigation, the City Administrator prepared a draft investigation report.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After the investigation was concluded, but before the report was completed, Ms. Stark resigned. The City Council accepted her resignation at its September 21, 2015, meeting. No disciplinary action was pending or proposed at the time of her resignation. The investigation report was never finalized.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On or about September 21, 2015, the City received the first request from the media for data related to the complaint against Ms. Stark. The City provided a redacted copy of the initial complaint and an audit conducted by the City in response to the complaint. However, the City did not provide a copy of the draft investigation report based upon an objection by Ms. Stark&apos;s attorney. [Citations and notes omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Skelton&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are data in a draft investigation report prepared by the City of Hastings about a local public official, as designated by Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4), government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, how are the data in the report classified?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the data in the draft report are classified as public, can the City agree to the data subject&apos;s proposed redactions prior to the release of the report?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are data in a draft investigation report prepared by the City of Hastings about a local public official, as designated by Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4), government data?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 7, defines government data as, &quot;all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&quot; Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 1 defines personnel data as &quot;government data on individuals.&quot; Subdivision 2 of that section classifies certain &quot;personnel data&quot; as public, and includes the data described in paragraphs 2(e) and (f).
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the City on behalf of Ms. Stark, Mr. Fabian argued that the term &quot;data&quot; as used in section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f), is not defined, and therefore should be interpreted using a plain language analysis. Relying on a dictionary definition of &quot;data&quot; that omits the statutory definition of &quot;government data,&quot; he concluded that the data in the investigation report cannot be disclosed.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is not persuaded by Mr. Fabian&apos;s argument. Section 13.43, clearly defines personnel data as government data, both of which are defined terms in Chapter 13. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, specifically states &quot;the following &lt;em&gt;personnel data&lt;/em&gt; are public&quot; and then goes on to describe the public elements, including paragraphs 2(e) and (f). Therefore, the data at issue here are government data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, how are the data in the report classified?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subd. 2(e), provides that &lt;em&gt;all data&lt;/em&gt; related to a complaint or charge against certain local public officials are public, subject to the conditions in paragraph (f). A local public official includes directors of departments, divisions, bureaus, or boards of a city or county with more than 7,500 people.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Paragraph (f) provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (4), are public only if:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This paragraph and paragraph (e) do not authorize the release of data that are made not public under other law.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the City, Ms. Skelton wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As the City&apos;s Finance Director, Ms. Stark was a public official&quot; for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Minn. Stat. sect 13.43, subd. 2(e)(4)(iii) Therefore, the draft investigation report must be classified in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) and (f).
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The investigation against Ms. Stark was complete prior to her resignation. The underlying complaint or charge, however, had not been resolved before she resigned. Therefore, it would appear that the complaint or charge was &quot;pending&quot; at the time of the resignation. Moreover, the written resignation agreement contained a release of all claims arising out of Ms. Stark&apos;s employment with the City. Therefore, it appears that &quot;all data&quot; regarding the complaint or charge against Ms. Stark, including the incomplete draft of the investigation report, are public. [Citations omitted.]
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the City&apos;s analysis. It is clear that the investigation report is in draft form and is not final. So, while the investigation was complete, the complaint or charge was still pending when Ms. Stark resigned. Therefore, all data related to the complaint become public pursuant to section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f)(1).
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(2), provides that when a local public official releases potential legal claims related to the complaint or charge, all data related to the complaint or charge become public. The City provided the Commissioner with a copy of Ms. Stark&apos;s resignation agreement.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agreement states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Release of All Claims. In consideration of the amount paid pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Agreement, Ms. Stark, on behalf of herself and her heirs, successors, or assigns, hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges the City from any and all liability for any and all damages, actions, or claims that arise out of or relate to any action, decision, event, fact, or circumstance occurring before Ms. Stark signs this Agreement. Ms. Stark understands and agrees that by signing this Agreement she is waiving and releasing any and all claims, complaints, causes of action, and demands of any kind that are based on any contractual provision or federal or state law, including but not limited to any constitution, statute, regulation, rule, or common law. [Emphasis omitted.]
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All data related to the complaint about Ms. Stark became public data when Ms. Stark resigned while the complaint was pending. The data are also public because Ms. Stark released the City from all claims related to the complaint. Therefore, the data in the draft investigation report are public, except for data otherwise classified as not public (e.g., private personnel data about other employees).
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;If the data in the draft report are classified as public, can the City agree to the data subject&apos;s proposed redactions prior to the release of the report?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;u&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 10(a), provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A government entity may not enter into an agreement settling a dispute arising out of the employment relationship with the purpose or effect of limiting access to or disclosure of personnel data or limiting the discussion of information or opinions related to personnel data. An agreement or portion of an agreement that violates this paragraph is void and unenforceable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the City may not enter into an agreement to redact or otherwise restrict access to the public data in the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Skelton raised are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the data in a draft investigation report prepared by the City of Hastings about a local public official, as designated by Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4), are government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The data in the draft investigation report are classified as public (unless otherwise classified as not public) because Ms. Stark resigned while the complaint was pending and because she released all claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because the data are public, the City may not agree to redact or otherwise restrict access to draft investigation report, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 10.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 10, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267270</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-01-10T14:22:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-005</Title><title>Opinion 15 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268030&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-11-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> a school district asked whether Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.41, subd. 6(c), requires sharing certain private personnel data with another district. That subdivision states that under certain circumstances, a school district must disseminate private personnel data, “[u]nless restricted by … state data practices law….” The Commissioner opined that despite the apparent objective of that provision, the district may not share private personnel data with a requesting district because the Data Practices Act is a “state data practices law” that restricts disclosure of private data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 5, 2015; ISD 535 (Rochester)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 7, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Michael J. Waldspurger and John P. Edison, attorneys for Independent School District 535, Rochester. In their letter, Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the District maintains. Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison provided additional information on August 26 and September 22, 2015.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPAD wrote to Brenda Cassellius, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), and Denise Specht, President of Education Minnesota, to offer them an opportunity to submit comments on the issues the Commissioner will address. IPAD received comments from Commissioner Cassellius on October 13 and from Lisa Needham, attorney for Education Minnesota, on October 12, 2015. 
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison provided a summary of the facts as follows. The District terminated a teacher&apos;s employment. Subsequently, MDE issued a substantiated finding of maltreatment involving the former teacher based on conduct that occurred while the District employed the teacher.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A school in another state has asked the District for certain private personnel data related to the former teacher&apos;s employment at the District.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Based on Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), is Independent School District 535, Rochester, obligated to share private personnel data with a requesting district?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the answer to Issue one is yes, must the District share private personnel data in circumstances other than &quot;[w]hen a teacher is discharged under paragraph (b) or when the commissioner makes a final determination of child maltreatment involving a teacher under Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11&quot;?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), is Independent School District 535, Rochester, obligated to share private personnel data with a requesting district?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), in relevant part, provides that when a teacher is immediately discharged following license revocation, or when the Commissioner (of MDE) makes a final determination of child maltreatment involving a teacher then:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     [&lt;em&gt;u&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;em&gt;nless restricted by&lt;/em&gt; federal or &lt;em&gt;state data practices law&lt;/em&gt; or by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the responsible authority for a school district must disseminate to another school district private personnel data on a current or former teacher employee if the requesting school district seeks the information because the subject of the data has applied for employment with the requesting school district. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison explained the District&apos;s position:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The District&apos;s first question relates to the meaning of the phrase &quot;unless restricted by federal or state data practices law&quot; in the last sentence of Section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c). The District&apos;s position is that a &quot;state data practices law&quot; includes the provisions of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] and that the District may not disclose &quot;private personnel data&quot; to another school district in which a current or former employee is seeking employment unless the disclosure would be permitted under [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Under the cannons of statutory construction, the &quot;legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.&quot; Minn. Stat. section 645.17(2). Moreover, when Minnesota courts engage in statutory interpretation, the &quot;touchstone&quot; of statutory construction is a statute&apos;s plain meaning. &lt;em&gt;See, e.g., Krueger v. Zeman Canst. Co., &lt;/em&gt;758 N.W.2d 881,885 (Minn. App. 2008). Courts also &quot;consider all words and phrases in the statutory language when possible so that none is deemed superfluous.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Id.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Turning to Section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), the requirement that a school district provide &quot;private personnel data&quot; to another school district in which a current or former employee is seeking employment is prefaced by the following: &quot;[u]nless restricted by federal or state data practices law or by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.&quot; The exception in the statutory language for a &quot;state data practices law&quot; would, as a practical matter, be superfluous for Minnesota school districts if Section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c) is to be read as an exception to any restrictions on the disclosure of data outlined in [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In light of the absence of any indication that the MDGPA is not to be considered a &quot;state data practices law&quot; as the phrase is used in Section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), the District&apos;s position is that Section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c) does not create an exception to the provisions of [Chapter 13] and that the District may not disclose &quot;private personnel data&quot; to another school district under this statutory provision if the disclosure would not be permitted by [Chapter 13], particularly Minnesota Statutes section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison further asserted that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 16, is not applicable because that subdivision requires a school district to release private personnel data in certain circumstances under which a teacher resigns. Here, because the district terminated the teacher&apos;s employment, the Commissioner agrees this provision is not applicable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Cassellius commented:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    While MDE is commonly asked to apply [Chapter 13] when processing data requests and managing its own data, MDE has little expertise applying the personnel data provisions of [Chapter 13] at the district level. Disputes over teacher personnel data are typically local matters in which MDE is not involved. Therefore, we believe Admin is in the best position to analyze the facts of this matter and apply the provisions of [Chapter 13] to them. We defer to the expertise of IPAD and Admin as to whether Rochester is required to provide data about the maltreatment incident to the requesting district under 121A.41 [sic], subd. 6.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Needham wrote that given the facts the District presented here (i.e., the Districted terminated the teacher&apos;s employment), &quot;Education Minnesota agrees that the District may not reveal private data about a teacher in response to an inquiry from an out-of-state district regarding an application for employment. Providing that data would be in violation of [Chapter 13].&quot;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner concurs with the District&apos;s analysis. Under a plain language reading of section 122A.41, subdivision 6(c), the final sentence prohibits a school district from disseminating private personnel data on a current or former teacher to another school district, despite its apparent objective. The District cannot share private personnel data with a requesting district, because Chapter 13 is a &quot;state data practices law&quot; that restricts disclosure of private data. Thus, the answer to Issue 1 is &quot;no&quot;.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (However, the Commissioner notes that because the District terminated the teacher&apos;s employment, it does maintain public personnel data on the former teacher, i.e., the specific reasons for and data that document the basis of the disciplinary action, per section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. If the answer to Issue one is yes, must the District share private personnel data in circumstances other than &quot;[w]hen a teacher is discharged under paragraph (b) or when the commissioner makes a final determination of child maltreatment involving a teacher under section 626.556, subdivision 11&quot;?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    See Issue 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Edison raised are as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4, Independent School District 535, Rochester, cannot share private personnel data with a requesting district.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                See Issue 1.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Matthew Massman
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 5, 2015
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268030</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment</Title><Id>266740</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-004</Title><title>Opinion 15 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267317&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-10-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Minnesota Film and TV Board asked whether it was subject to Minnesota&apos;s Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner opined that the Board is not subject to the law because it is not a State board, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 1(a).

The Board was not created by the Legislature; it is a private corporation. Its members and staff are not appointed by the government and its meetings are governed by the Board’s bylaws.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 1, 2015; Minnesota Film and TV Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 12, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Lucinda Winter, Executive Director of the Minnesota Film and TV, dated same. In her letter, Ms. Winter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Board is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wrote to Katie Clark Sieben, the Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development. Commissioner Sieben did not provide comments to the Commissioner of Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Winter follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Film and TV Board is requesting an [OML] advisory opinion because we occasionally receive requests from members of the public to attend our monthly board of directors meetings and we just don&apos;t know whether our organization is subject to the Minnesota [OML]. Several of our board members have requested that we seek an opinion from the state regarding that question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Winter&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Minnesota Film and TV Board subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;State bodies subject to the OML are listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(a), which provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) of a state
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) agency,
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) board,
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) commission, or
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) department,
&lt;br /&gt;
when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting; . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Winter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Film and TV Board is a private, non-profit corporation registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State. Acting as the state&apos;s film commission, its purpose is to support and facilitate the film and television industry and production in the state. For example, the board helps producers find Minnesota acting talent and crew members who work in the industry. It also helps producers identify filming locations and obtain permits to film in specific locations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The organization was incorporated in 1979, functioning with small private contributions and a volunteer staff until the state began funding board operations in the fall of 1983. For the past several years, the Legislature has granted $325,000 per year from the general fund for board operations. The board must match $1 from non-state sources-either in cash or in kind-for every $3 of state funding.That funding is included in omnibus economic development appropriation bills. Currently, the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) provides oversight for state grants to the board. There is no Minnesota statute which created our office or governs its mission and activities. In addition to the program oversight provided by DEED, an 18 member volunteer board of directors meets regularly to provide fiscal oversight and strategic advice and set organizational goals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously considered whether certain bodies are subject to the OML. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267648&quot; title=&quot;08-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the Drug Formulary Committee at the Department of Human Services (DHS) is subject to the OML, pursuant to section 13D.01, subdivision 1(a). The Legislature created the Committee, established its responsibilities, set the qualifications for its members, and gave the Commissioner of DHS the authority to appoint those members. Moreover, the Commissioner (of Administration) concluded the statute required the Committee to transact public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By contrast, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267449&quot; title=&quot;04-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-001&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner determined that the Minnesota FAIR Plan Board is not subject to the OML, despite having enabling legislation and some members appointed by the Commissioner of Commerce. The Commissioner (of Administration) based his decision on the Minnesota Supreme Court case in &lt;em&gt;Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne&lt;/em&gt;, 578 N.W. 2d 362 (Minn. 1998). In that case, the Court held that Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency was not subject to the OML because the enabling legislation creating the Agency specifically stated that it would operate as a private corporation. Similarly, the Fair Plan Board consists of private parties and is administered for the benefit of private parties. As such is not a state public body within the meaning of section 13D.01, subd. 1(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Minnesota Film and TV Board is a private corporation, operated by private volunteers and staff, for the benefit of the film and TV industry. The Board was not created by the Legislature. Its members are not appointed by any government entity or official. Per the Board&apos;s bylaws, existing members of the Board elect new members and the Board determines the number of members on an annual basis. (See Article 4 of the Restated Bylaws of Minnesota Motion Picture and Television Board, adopted 11/18/99.) Board meetings, including quorum requirements, notice provisions, and voting procedures, are also governed by the bylaws. (See Article 2 of the Bylaws.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, like the FAIR Plan Board and the Southern Municipal Power Agency, the Minnesota Film and TV Board is not a State board within the meaning of section 13D.01, subd. 1(a)((2), and thus, not subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that while the Board is not subject to the OML, the Board does have some obligations under the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as a grantee of the Department of Employment and Economic Development and related to its administration of the film production jobs program. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 116U.26).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Winter raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Film and TV Board is not subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 1, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267317</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-003</Title><title>Opinion 15 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267771&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-05-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A member of the public asked about a government contractor’s obligation to respond to a request
for data the contractor maintained in connection with its work for a City. The contractor did not respond to the
request. The Commissioner opined that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, and the
clause in the contract, the contractor was subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, for purposes of data created
and maintained under the contract. Because Chapter 13 required the contractor to respond to a data request in a
prompt and reasonable amount of time, the contractor did not comply. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 21, 2015; Foth, Inc. (Bloomington)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 30, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated March 25, 2015, from John Kysylyczyn. In his letter, Mr. Kysylyczyn asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC (Foth), a contractor with the City of Bloomington. IPAD asked Mr. Kysylyczyn to provide clarification, which he did on April 8, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Krivit, Senior Project Manager at Foth in response to Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 16, 2015, were to inform him of Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for Foth&apos;s position. On May 1, 2015, IPAD received a response, dated same. IPAD also wrote to Jamie Verbrugge, Bloomington City Manager, and invited him to provide comments on behalf of the City of Bloomington. The City did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Kysylyczyn provided them follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the beginning of 2015, I have filed numerous information requests with the City of Bloomington to review communications related to city council efforts to change their trash hauling system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 2013, the city retained Dan Krivit with Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC as their professional consultant for this effort&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On February 20, 2015, I filed a public information request with the city to review a spreadsheet of Bloomington city data that Mr. Krivit stated in emails that he was maintaining in his office&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I received a response from City Clerk Janet Lewis on February 20, 2015 that this spreadsheet was not in the possession of city staff. They informed me that it resided with Forth Companies and provided me their contact information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On February 23, 2015, I sent a written public information request through email directly to Dan Krivit at Foth Companies. I asked to review this spreadsheet along with additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data I am requesting is from a singular project which has been broken up into four phases. I am in possession of two contracts representing what I believe is the first phase of the project, and a second contract that is clearly labeled as the third phase of the project Both contracts clearly state that the contractor is obligated to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It has been over six weeks since I have submitted my information requests to Mr. Krivit. He has failed to make any attempt to contact me or respond to my information request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC respond appropriately to a request for data related to Foth&apos;s contracts with the City of Bloomington to create and implement a solid waste management process?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.) In responding, an entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or inform the requester that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a private party enters into a contract with a government entity to perform any of its functions, the private party must comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in carrying out its duties related to the contract. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and &lt;em&gt;the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity&lt;/em&gt;. All contracts entered into by a government entity must include a notice that the requirements of this subdivision apply to the contract. Failure to include the notice in the contract does not invalidate the application of this subdivision. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kysylyczyn submitted two contracts between Bloomington and Foth to the Commissioner. Both contracts include the following clause:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The Contractor [Foth] will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes, as amended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because Foth entered into a contract with the City of Bloomington to create and implement a solid waste management process, Foth must comply with Chapter 13 as though it is a government entity with regard to data that Foth creates, collects, receives, stores, uses, maintains, or disseminates related to its contractual duties. Responding to data requests is one of the requirements to comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kysylyczyn first requested the data at issue from the City of Bloomington. The City responded that it did not maintain the data and that Mr. Kysylyczyn should request it from Foth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617, 621-622 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), the Court of Appeals held:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a private party fails to comply with the MGDPA, the remedy is against the private party. The statute does not suggest that a governmental entity that does not possess the requested data must informally execute that remedy by obtaining the data from the private party. It appears undisputed that Steele County does not have the data; thus, KKE is the party against whom WDSI needs to seek its MGDPA remedy. [Citation omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, pursuant to &lt;em&gt;WDSI&lt;/em&gt;, the City properly directed Mr. Kysylyczyn to request the data from Mr. Krivit. On February 23, 2015, Mr. Kysylyczyn sent a data request to Mr. Krivit for the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would like to review all internal correspondence, documents, emails, etc, between employees or consultants of your firm, or others in relation to your work for the City of Bloomington, from the beginning of your work with them until the date of this letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would also like to review your Excel spreadsheet with all of the citizen submitted haulers invoice data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kysylyczyn stated that he has not received a response from Foth. The Commissioner has issued a number of opinions stating that no response is not a proper response. (See Advisory Opinions 01-024, 04-008, and 09-027) Here, Chapter 13 requires Foth to respond to requests for public data from members of the public in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time and Foth has not done so. Therefore, Foth has not complied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Mr. Krivit did not address the fact that Foth did not respond to Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s request, he did raise a number of issues related to the classification of the requested data and the Commissioner offers Foth the following guidance in fulfilling its duties under Chapter 13. Firstly, Mr. Krivit suggested that the data are confidential intellectual property, however, the Data Practices Act does not recognize a classification for &quot;intellectual property&quot; or &quot;proprietary information.&quot; Secondly, Mr. Krivit asserted that some of the requested data might be classified as trade secret information, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37. The Commissioner notes that the threshold for classification of data as trade secret information under Chapter 13 is high. Before relying on that provision, the Commissioner encourages Foth to review both the language of section 13.37 and the following Advisory Opinions: &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267385#/detail/appId/1/id/267287&quot; title=&quot;02-041&quot;&gt;02-041&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267385#/detail/appId/1/id/267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267385#/detail/appId/1/id/267811&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586&quot; title=&quot;05-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-024&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586#/detail/appId/1/id/267495&quot; title=&quot;14-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-018&lt;/a&gt;. Given the breadth and nature of Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s request, it seems unlikely that all of the requested data, if any, would qualify for classification under section 13.37. Finally, Mr. Krivit argued that Minnesota Statutes, section 115A.94, subdivision 4d, which governs the process of organized collection by local governments, also classifies the data at issue. However, while that section provides that &quot;meetings and negotiations shall occur exclusively between licensed collectors and the city&quot; for a limited amount of time and under limited circumstances, it does not classify data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Kysylyczyn raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC did not comply with the requirement to respond to a request for data related to Foth&apos;s contracts with the City of Bloomington to create and implement a solid waste management process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 21, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267771</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No response</Title><Id>266300</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-002</Title><title>Opinion 15 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267675&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-05-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked if a City Council had complied with the Open Meeting Law
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D) when closing two meetings to evaluate the performance of an individual subject
to its authority (under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a)). The Commissioner concluded that
when a public body requires more than one closed session to do a performance evaluation, the proper procedure is
to recess and continue a meeting, rather than holding two separate meetings. The Commissioner also opined that
the Council’s summary of the evaluation was not timely and not sufficient.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 2015; Edina City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 23, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Jennifer Janovy, dated February 22, 2015. In her letter, Ms. Janovy asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Edina City Council (Council) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). IPAD asked Ms. Janovy to provide additional information and clarification, which she submitted on March 16, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 20, 2015, IPAD wrote to Mayor James Hovland, Chair of the Council. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Hovland of Ms. Janovy&apos;s request and gave the members of the Council an opportunity to explain their position. On April 2, 2015, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Roger Knutson, City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an advisory opinion, Ms. Janovy stated: &quot;I am writing to request an Open Meeting Law advisory opinion related to how the Edina City Council handled the Edina City Manager&apos;s performance review in January 2015.&quot; According to Ms. Janovy&apos;s opinion request, the Council held two closed meetings, one on January 6, 2015, and one on January 20, 2015, to evaluate the performance of the City Manager. Specifically, Ms. Janovy asked whether the notice for the January 20, 2015, meeting was sufficient, whether the Council properly conducted the meetings, and whether the summary of the performance evaluation was sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Janovy&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), regarding notice for the January 20, 2015, special meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when it closed meetings on January 6, 2015, and January 20, 2015, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to its authority?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation at the February 3, 2015, meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), regarding notice for the January 20, 2015, special meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any meeting that is not on the regular schedule of meetings on file at a public body&apos;s primary offices must be noticed as a special meeting. For a special meeting, a public body must post written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board or the door of the usual meeting room at least three days before the meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.) At issue here, is whether the stated purpose of the meeting was sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that a special meeting notice must provide detail about the purpose of the meeting. The public body&apos;s discussion is then confined to the purpose stated on the notice. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586#/detail/appId/1/id/267355&quot; title=&quot;07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 07-014&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586#/detail/appId/1/id/267304&quot; title=&quot;10-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;.) These requirements inform the public and also allow public bodies to fulfill the requirement to provide special meeting notice to individuals who specifically request notice about particular topics. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 2(d), and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the January 20, 2015, special meeting notice provided:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;THE CITY OF EDINA WITH THIS GIVES NOTICE that the Edina City Council will hold a closed work session for the purposes of completing the City Manager performance review, Tuesday, January 20, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. The work session will be held in the Community Room located on the second floor of Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota.
&lt;br /&gt;
The work session will be closed to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Janovy wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A discussion about an employment agreement may be incidental to a performance evaluation; however, the facts indicate that the primary purpose of the closed session was to review the City Manager&apos;s employment agreement. This conflicts with the meeting notice, which only provided notice of the performance evaluation. That the City Council intended to discuss the performance evaluation is not disputed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson, on behalf of the Council, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The meeting notice stated that the purpose of the closed meeting was &quot;completing the City Manager performance review.&quot; As an integral part of that performance review the City Council discussed the City Manager&apos;s compensation and prospective extension of his employment agreement. These issues are directly linked to his performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Knutson that it is reasonable for an evaluation of an employee&apos;s performance to include a discussion of the employee&apos;s continued employment and compensation. Therefore, &quot;for the purposes of completing the City Manager performance review&quot; provides adequate notice to identify the purpose of the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when it closed meetings on January 6, 2015, and January 20, 2015, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to its authority?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), provides, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Council did not complete its performance review discussion at the closed session meeting on January 6. The January 6 closed meeting was adjourned and a new closed session was held on January 20 to enable the Council to complete Mr. Neal&apos;s performance evaluationThe statute does not limit the number of closed meetings that can be held to evaluate an employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that when a public body must hold multiple closed sessions to evaluate an employee under its authority, it should recess and resume the meeting, rather than adjourning and holding subsequent closed meetings. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner concluded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the Board identified the superintendent as the employee about to be evaluated in July 2005, and if the meeting was recessed and resumed, then it appears that the Board has complied with section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the Board did not identify the superintendent as the employee it was about to evaluate in July 2005, &lt;em&gt;or if the meeting was not recessed and resumed&lt;/em&gt;, then the Board is not in compliance. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City Council convened and adjourned two separate closed meetings. Consistent with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the City should have recessed or continued the closed session to evaluate the performance of the City Manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Janovy also provided the Commissioner with a copy of a memo written by the City Manager following the January meetings. In it, he states that the Council met in closed session on January 6 to discuss his evaluation with the consultant hired to perform the review. Following that meeting, the Council tasked the City Manager with drafting a proposed employment agreement. The City Manager wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I met with Mayor Hovland and Council Member Swenson on January 9. I presented them a proposed employment agreement. They subsequently reviewed that proposal, and &lt;em&gt;then scheduled a closed session to review it with City Council Members on January 20&lt;/em&gt;. HR Director Lisa Schaefer also attended the closed session to assist the Council&apos;s discussion about the proposed agreement. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Janovy noted that the consultant who performed the review did not attend the second meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While these facts alone do not establish that the January 20 closed meeting went beyond the scope of the performance evaluation, the following comments are in order. The Open Meeting Law does not contain a provision allowing public bodies to close meetings for general personnel reasons; meetings can only be closed in the specific circumstances described in section 13D.05 or by other statutes. As discussed in Issue 1, a performance evaluation may naturally include references to &quot;compensation and prospective extension of [an] employment agreement.&quot; However, once a public body has determined that the employee will remain employed with a possible change in pay based on his performance, and the discussion logically turns to the specifics about the employment agreement, the Council is no longer evaluating the performance of an individual per section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a). In these circumstances, contract negotiations must be done in an open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Janovy also raised the issue of whether the Council properly closed the January meetings by making the required statements on the record. When a public body closes a meeting, it must state the specific grounds allowing or requiring the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4.) Mr. Knutson wrote, &quot;Before closing the meeting [sic] Mayor Hovland stated they were closing the meetings for purposes of evaluating the City Manager&apos;s performance.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to emails between Ms. Janovy and the Edina City Clerk, the Council recorded only the public portion of the January 6, 2015, meeting following the closed session. Neither Ms. Janovy nor Mr. Knutson provided the statement closing the meeting. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the Council&apos;s statement was sufficient, with regard to the January 6, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council recorded the open and closed portions of the January 20, 2015, meeting. However, because the Commissioner determined that closing the additional meeting for a performance evaluation was improper, the sufficiency of the January 20 statement is immaterial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, section 13D.05, requires that public bodies record all closed meetings, except those closed per attorney-client privilege. Because the Council did not do so on January 6, it did not comply with that provision of the Open Meeting Law. While Mr. Knutson did not address this issue in his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Hovland wrote, in a February 20, 2015, email to Ms. Janovy, &quot;Going forward, the City staff and the Council will take greater care to refrain from such errors. City staff is committed to being more careful about this responsibility in the future.&quot; The Commissioner is encouraged by Mr. Hovland&apos;s comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the Edina City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation at the February 3, 2015, meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), when a public body closes a meeting for a performance evaluation, at its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Ms. Janovy raised concerns regarding both the timing and the content of the summary provided by the Council. The Council held separate meetings on January 6 and January 20 and provided the summary at its open meeting on February 3, 2015. However, the &quot;next open meeting&quot; following the January 6, meeting, was the open portion of the January 20 meeting, right before the Council went into closed session. Therefore, the summary was not timely. Had the Council announced its intent to &lt;em&gt;continue&lt;/em&gt; the January 6 meeting to January 20 (by recessing and reconvening, instead of adjourning), so that it could finish the performance evaluation, the public would have known to expect the summary at the February 3, meeting, i.e., its next open meeting. (See also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-008&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the content of the summary, the Commissioner offered the following guidance in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-021&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Government entities seeking guidance on what to summarize can look to the language of the Open Meeting Law. Specifically, Chapter 13D directs a governing body to summarize its conclusions regarding a personnel evaluation. How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed the sufficiency of several summaries in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366&quot; title=&quot;14-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-007&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[In Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-021&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267659&quot; title=&quot;02-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-035&lt;/a&gt;] the Commissioner concluded that the following statements were insufficient to fulfill the public bodies&apos; statutory obligations: &quot;[the Board] discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses&quot;; &quot;As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership&quot;; and &quot;areas of growth were identified and [the Superintendent&apos;s] evaluation is an ongoing process.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the February 3 meeting, Mr. Hovland provided the following summary: &quot;summarizing the conclusions of that evaluation, the council concluded that [the City Manager is] doing an excellent job and it&apos;s being reflected in this employment agreement that we are working on.&quot; While the statement provided by Mr. Hovland included a conclusion that the City Manager was &quot;doing an excellent job,&quot; the City did not provide information consistent with guidance in prior advisory opinions that direct public bodies &quot;to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee.&quot; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-021&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Janovy raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Edina City Council complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), regarding notice for the January 20, 2015, special meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Edina City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when it closed meetings on January 6, 2015, and January 20, 2015; the Council held two meetings to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and it failed to record the January 6, 2015, meeting. The Commissioner cannot determine if the Council made a proper statement on the record to close the January 6 meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Edina City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding the summary of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation because it should have provided a summary of the January 6 closed meeting during the open portion of January 20 meeting. As noted in previous opinions, a performance evaluation summary should include salient points of the evaluation so that the public is aware of the rationale upon which the public body based its conclusion.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 7, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267675</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual performance</Title><Id>266629</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 15-001</Title><title>Opinion 15 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267475&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2015-04-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A state agency asked the Commissioner about the classification of data in an application submitted
by a non-registered medical cannabis manufacturer applicant that are not otherwise specifically classified as not
public data under Minnesota Statutes, section 152.25, subdivision 1. The Commissioner opined that after a medical
cannabis manufacturer is registered, data in the application submitted by that applicant are presumptively public
(except for trade secret or security information under section 13.37).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 2015; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: A district court found that the data at issue in this opinion - non-registered manufacturer/applicant submissions - are nonpublic per Minnesota Statutes, section 152.25. See, Cross Nurseries, LLC v. MDH, no. 62-CV-15-7603 (Sept 30, 2016).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 9, 2015, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Dr. Edward P. Ehlinger, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). In his letter, Commissioner Ehlinger asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that MDH maintains. MDH provided additional information on February 27.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD wrote to Conor P. Filter, Chief Executive Officer of Sano Remedies, to offer him an opportunity to submit comments on the issues the Commissioner will address; he did not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Ehlinger provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By way of background, in 2014 the Minnesota Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. sectionsection152.22 through 152.37, pertaining to the production, distribution, and patient use of medical cannabis. Minn. Stat. section152.25, Subd. 1(a) required MDH to register two in-state manufacturers for the production and distribution of all medical cannabis within Minnesota To accomplish this mandate the MDH Office of Medical Cannabis (OMC) published a Request for Application for the Registration of Medical Cannabis Manufacturers (RFA). The RFA instructed applicants with regards to data classifications pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and, more specifically, Trade Secret Information pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.37, Subd. 1(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After evaluating all applications, MDH registered the two highest-scoring applicants as medical cannabis manufacturers. Commissioner Ehlinger stated that OMC staff then reviewed the application materials and redacted all security information and trade secret data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37; financial information, including business plans, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, subdivisions 1 and 2; and criminal history data per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, subdivision 1(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Ehlinger wrote that OMC similarly reviewed the applications submitted by the next two highest-scoring applicants, neither of which was registered as a manufacturer. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The OMC redacted security, trade secret, financial, and criminal background check information from those two applications and forwarded the redacted applications to each applicant with notice that the redacted applications would be posted on the OMC website Each applicant was invited to contact the OMC if they believed additional materials in their application should also be removed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of those two unsuccessful applicants, Sano Remedies, responded that pursuant to section 152.25, subdivision 1, because it was not a registered manufacturer, none of the application materials it submitted were public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Ehlinger further wrote that OMC tried to clarify with Sano whether it was objecting to the release of all portions of its application, or just those portions Sano considers its business plan. If the latter, OMC asked Sano to identify the portions of its application that constituted its business plan, &quot;as Sano did not label or otherwise mark any specific portion of its application as its &apos;Business Plan.&apos;&quot; Sano did not provide MDH with clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Commissioner Ehlinger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an application submitted by a non-registered medical cannabis manufacturer applicant that are not otherwise specifically classified as not public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;To the extent that those application materials include a &quot;business plan,&quot; what is the classification of those data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an application submitted by a non-registered medical cannabis manufacturer applicant that are not otherwise specifically classified as not public data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 152.25, subdivision 1, in relevant part, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data submitted during the application process are private data on individuals or nonpublic data as defined in section 13.02 until the manufacturer is registered under this section. Data on a manufacturer that is registered are public data, unless the data are trade secret or security information under section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Ehlinger explained MDH&apos;s position:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The language in this statute is clear and unambiguous and, as a result, is controlled by the plain meaning of the words and is not subject to interpretation. The statute simply clarifies and emphasizes that all data submitted during the application process by any applicant who is eventually registered as a medical cannabis manufacturer is public data with the exception of Trade Secret or Security Information. Contrary to Sano&apos;s assertion, this statute clearly does not &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt; classify all data and information contained in materials from all non-registered applicants as not public data. Sano misinterprets the phrase &quot;data on a manufacturer that &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; registered &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; public data&quot; as also mandating the contrary: that data on an applicant that is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; registered is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; public data. Sano&apos;s interpretation is without legal merit, in that Sano is simply attempting to place words into this statute that the Legislature intentionally chose not to use. [Emphasis provided; notes omitted.]
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267841&quot; title=&quot;05-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-036&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner (of Administration) addressed a similar issue, about the classification of data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3, which at the time provided: &quot;[t]he following data on all applicants for election or appointment to a public body are public: name, city of residence and prior government service or experience.&quot; The Commissioner opined:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.601, subdivision 3, provides that certain data are public - essentially, restating the general presumption. This does not mean that all other data on applicants for election or appointment to a public body are not public. Given the operation of Chapter 13, if the Legislature intended for all other data on applicants for election/appointment to be not public, the Legislature needed to enact a provision so stating. [The Legislature subsequently amended section 13.601, subdivision 3; it now classifies all data as private except for those elements it specifically states are public.]
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner (of Administration) acknowledges Sano Remedies&apos; confusion regarding the operation of section 152.25, subdivision 1(a), which classifies all data submitted during the application process as not public. That provision does not reverse the general presumption; rather, it classifies applications data temporarily, until a manufacturer is registered. The sentence, &quot;Data on a manufacturer that is registered are public data, unless the data are trade secret or security information under section 13.37,&quot; simply restates the general presumption and continues to classify certain data as not public. Therefore, MDH is correct, application data (except trade secret or security information) submitted by unregistered manufacturers become public, along with the data submitted by registered manufacturers, after a manufacturer is registered.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Ehlinger stated that MDH redacted financial information pursuant to section 13.591, subdivisions 1 and 2. Those provisions do not apply to the data at issue here. They classify data that are &quot;submitted to a government entity by a business requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds.&quot; (Section 13.591, subdivisions 3 and 4 classify data related to a procurement process that MDH did not use.)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. To the extent that those application materials include a &quot;business plan,&quot; what is the classification of those data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591 is not applicable to the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Commissioner Ehlinger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, after a medical cannabis manufacturer is registered, data (except trade secret or security information) in an application submitted by a non-registered manufacturer applicant are presumptively public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, is not applicable to the application materials. Those data are classified as provided in section 152.25, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 3, 2015&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267475</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Health data</Title><Id>344345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical cannabis data (152.25, subd. 1)</Title><Id>267063</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:19:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-020</Title><title>Opinion 14 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267189&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-12-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the classification of certain complaint data it maintained about a former principal.
The principal resigned following an investigation which did not result in discipline. He also signed a Release of
Liability releasing the District from all claims. A Release of Liability is a settlement agreement for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2(f), and therefore all data about the complaint or charge against the principal are public, except those data that identify confidential sources.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 2014; Independent School District 833 (South Washington County Schools)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 14, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Trevor Helmers, attorney for Independent School District 833, South Washington County Schools (the District). In his request, Mr. Helmers asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the entity maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 2014, IPAD wrote to Roger Aronson, attorney for the data subject, former principal Aaron Harper, to invite him to submit comments. Mr. Aronson did not provide comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmers provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to complaints the District received against Principal Harper, the District conducted an investigation. During the course of the investigation, the District interviewed witnesses and reviewed a number of documents After the interview with Principal Harper, the District closed its investigation and the School Board did not take disciplinary action. No final &quot;investigation report&quot; was prepared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subsequent to the close of the investigation, Principal Harper submitted his written resignation letter to the District, effective November 6, 2014, and in a separate document, executed a &quot;Release of Claims,&quot; agreeing to release any and all claims that he may have had against the District prior to signing the release. At its Board Meeting on November 6, 2014, the District accepted Mr. Harper&apos;s resignation and signed the Release of Claims Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After the meeting, the District released public information to [Scott Wente of the &lt;em&gt;South Washington County Bulletin&lt;/em&gt;] regarding the existence and status of the complaints that had been made against Mr. Harper. The District also notified Mr. Wente that Mr. Harper had resigned and provided some details regarding the Agreement between the District and Mr. Harper. Mr. Wente made a formal request the next day for all &quot;public information&quot; related to the complaints and investigation of Mr. Harper&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Harper and the District disagree as to the classification of the information regarding the complaint and the District&apos;s investigation. The District believes that all information related to the complaint and charge against Mr. Harper, other than Attorney-Client Privileged documents, are public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 13.43, Subdivisions 2(f)(1-2), because Mr. Harper and the District entered into a release of Claims Agreement. Mr. Harper disagrees, and believes that this information remains private data because the requirements of Subdivision 2(f)(2) have not been met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Helmers&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by Independent School District 833, South Washington County Schools, relating to a complaint or charge about a school principal who resigned and signed a &quot;Release of Claims,&quot; but was not disciplined?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public data, when an entity does not discipline an employee as a result of the complaint or charge. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).) For employees who are public officials, however, all data relating to a complaint or charge are public if certain conditions are met. Pursuant to subdivision 2(e)(4)(iv), a principal is a public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5), and subject to paragraph (f), upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section, 13.43, subdivision 2(f), applies to certain &quot;local&quot; public officials, including principals, and provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(f) Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (4), are public only if:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the District closed its investigation and did not impose discipline on Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper subsequently offered his resignation to the District. At issue, then, is the application of section 13.43, subdivision 2(f)(2).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmers wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Harper&apos;s disagreement with [the District&apos;s] analysis essentially boils down to two arguments. First he does not believe that his resignation letter and the Release of Claims Agreement between the parties constitutes a &quot;Settlement Agreement,&quot; and second, he argues that he did not specifically release any legal claims that related to the conduct that was the subject of the complaint or charge, and the District never released any claims that it may have had against him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District believes that the Release of Claims agreement constitutes a &quot;Settlement Agreement&quot; sufficient to trigger the release of data under this statute. While the term is not specifically defined in this statute, or elsewhere in the [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], the statute clearly makes public &quot;the complete terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship.&quot; The District believes that this language indicates that any agreement that settles a dispute between a public employer and public employee is thus considered a &quot;Settlement Agreement,&quot; for the purposes of this statute. (Citations omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Helmer&apos;s analysis. The Legislature did not define the meaning of the phrase &quot;settlement agreement&quot; in section 13.43, subdivision 2(f)(2). However, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, provides that words and phrases not defined in statute are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. &quot;Settlement&quot; is defined as &quot;a formal agreement or decision that ends an argument or dispute.&quot; &quot;Agreement&quot; is defined as &quot;an arrangement, contract, etc., by which people agree about what is to be done.&quot; (Merriam-Webster.com. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com (December 2014).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmers provided the Commissioner with a copy of the Release of Liability. The agreement states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In consideration for good and valuable consideration including the district&apos;s agreement to accept Harper&apos;s resignation and release him from his contract, Harper hereby fully and completely releases the District from any and all liability for any and all damages, actions, or claims, regardless of whether they are known or unknown, direct or indirect, asserted or unasserted that arise out of or relate to any action, decision, event, fact, or circumstance occurring before Harper signs this Release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the plain language of section 13.43, subdivision 2(f)(2), and the language of the release, that document is a &quot;settlement agreement,&quot; regardless of the title of the document. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267717&quot; title=&quot;03-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-036&lt;/a&gt;.) Because Mr. Harper signed a settlement agreement releasing the District from liability, all data about the complaint or charge are public, except data that would reveal confidential sources, per subdivision 2(e).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Helmers raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) and (f), all data about the complaint or charge against a former principal maintained by Independent School District 833 are public, because the former principal entered into a settlement agreement releasing the District from potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that was the subject of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 23, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267189</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:21:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-019</Title><title>Opinion 14 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267405&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-12-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A state agency asked about its
classification of data determination related to an
internal audit of one of its grantees, including
supporting documentation and other documents
collected as part of the audit. The grantee is a political
subdivision, subject to Chapter 13. The documentation
includes data about employees, members of the public,
and credit card, bank account, and Social Security
numbers. In addition, it includes the grantee’s response
to the internal audit report, copies of the grantee’s audit
reports, and copies of some board minutes. Some of the
data are classified as private pursuant to sections 13.43,
13.355, and 13.37. The remainder of the data in
question are presumptively public, per section 13.03, or
expressly public personnel data under section 13.43.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 1, 2014; Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 25, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Carolyn Schworer, Chief Privacy Official for the Minnesota Department of Human Services. IPAD required additional information, which Ms. Schworer provided on October 17, and November 10, 2014. Admin accepted the opinion request on November 10, 2014. In her letter, Ms. Schworer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data the Department maintains that relate to an audit of Community Action of Minneapolis (CAM).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD wrote to Anthony Spears, Chief Financial Officer for CAM, and to its Board of Directors, to offer them an opportunity to submit comments. They did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Schworer, the Department&apos;s internal audit office conducted a financial audit of CAM, a grantee. CAM is a private non-profit organization. It is also a community action agency, and therefore is a political subdivision subject to Chapter 13 (see Minnesota Statutes, sections 256E.30 to 256E.32, and section 13.02, subdivision 11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department has published its final audit report. The data at issue are the supporting documentation CAM submitted during the auditing process, and other related data, including data on CAM employees, Board members, and individuals who are neither Board members nor employees. Ms. Schworer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This supporting documentation is in a variety of formats, includes data for which reimbursement under the grant was not requested, and references data subjects that are apparently neither employees of the grantee nor board members. The supporting documentation includes charge account statements, vouchers, and a wide variety of receipts that detail the expenditures for which reimbursement was requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, after the internal audit report was published, the grantee sent a communication to the [Department] in response to the internal audit report. The Department also has paper copies of the grantee&apos;s audit reports dating back to June 30, 2007, which were prepared by the grantee&apos;s outside auditor, and electronic copies of some board minutes, but not agendas or documents distributed at board meetings, dating back to September 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Schworer&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the following data the Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains classified: certain data related to an internal audit, including supporting documentation and other documents collected as part of the audit?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 generally classifies other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a) classifies the following data as public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) name; employee identification number, actual gross salary; salary range; terms and conditions of employment relationship; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) job title and bargaining unit; job description; education and training background; and previous work experience;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Schworer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There is supporting documentation that lists the names of personnel of Community Action of Minneapolis with employee titles, positions, hours worked, amounts paid, etc. The Department has determined that this supporting documentation relating to employees is public as personnel data. The Department would redact any data included on these charts that are not public as personnel data according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. These charts also indicate the percentage of the employees&apos; time that is allocated to the various grants. The Department has determined that these data are public because the data is essentially financial data relating to the grants and grant reimbursement, and is not classified as personnel data because the employee is not the subject of the data. Any other data on employees in the supporting documentation are classified according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3, classifies as private certain data on applicants for appointment and appointees to a public body. According to Ms. Schworer:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There is supporting documentation that includes data on board members. The board members of Community Action of Minneapolis are not employees of the private non-profit. Because they are not employees, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 does not apply to the data. Data on board members are not subject to classification under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601 because Community Action of Minneapolis is a private non-profit organization. Requiring the community action agency to comply with Chapter 13 as a political subdivision does not change the organization into a public body or a government entity as contemplated under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601. Therefore, the board members are neither elected nor appointed officials as described in the statute. Data on individuals who receive benefits from a community action agency are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462 as private. However, the individuals in the supporting documentation are not receiving benefits from a community action agency, and therefore Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462 does not apply and the data are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs with Ms. Schworer&apos;s analysis and the Department&apos;s determinations. The data about CAM employees are either expressly public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), or private per subdivision 4. Also, based upon her description, data on CAM Board members are not classified under either section 13.43 or 13.601, and are therefore presumptively public. Section 13.462 classifies data on individuals who are recipients of benefits from a community action agency, and thus is not applicable to the data at issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Schworer also wrote to the Commissioner that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, subdivision 2, which classifies certain internal audit data, is not applicable to the supporting documentation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he statute requires that the information would not have been provided to the internal audit office or person performing audits without an assurance to the individual that the individual&apos;s identity would remain private. The supporting documentation was not provided under such assurances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, section 13.392 does not classify any of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, Ms. Schworer wrote that the Department also maintains a letter CAM sent to the Department in response to the internal audit report, as well as some CAM audit reports and board minutes, which the Department has determined are presumptively public per section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Schworer also stated that, &quot;[t]he Department has determined that some of the data in the supporting documents, such as credit card numbers and bank account numbers, are private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37 as security data. Social Security numbers would also be classified as private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Schworer wrote, &quot;[t]he Department asks whether [the Commissioner of Administration] concur[s] with the Department&apos;s analysis that these data, the supporting documentation, the communication sent in response to the audit report, the audit reports and minutes, are presumptively public, with the exception of security data, social security numbers, and private personnel data, which are private.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs with Ms. Schworer&apos;s analysis and the Department&apos;s determinations regarding the classification of the data at issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Schworer raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, some of the data the Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains, described above, that relate to an internal audit, including supporting documentation and other documents collected as part of the audit, are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.43, 13.355, and 13.37. The remainder of the data in question are presumptively public, per section 13.03, or expressly public personnel data under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 1, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267405</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal audit</Title><Id>266795</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials (13.601)</Title><Id>266769</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266798</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:21:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-018</Title><title>Opinion 14 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267495&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-11-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A requester asked for access to copies
of contracts and non-disclosure agreements for cell
phone exploitation equipment. The entity said it could
not redact the documents because they contained
inextricably intertwined trade secret data (section
13.37, subdivision 1(b)), and “deliberative process/
investigative techniques” data (section 13.82,
subdivision 25). Contracts and non-disclosure
agreements contain standard clauses that are
presumptively public. Accordingly, the entity must
redact any data that are properly classified under
sections 13.37 and/or 13.82, and release the remaining
public data. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 17, 2014; Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 24, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated September 22, 2014, from Leita Walker, on behalf of Star Tribune Media Company, LLC. In her letter, Ms. Walker asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ramona L. Dohman, DPS Commissioner, in response to Ms. Walker&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 2014, were to inform her of Star Tribune&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position. On October 22, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Drew Evans, Assistant Superintendent for the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a division of DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Walker provided them follows. Star Tribune asked DPS for access to its contracts and non-disclosure agreements for the &quot;Stingray II&quot; and &quot;Kingfish&quot; cellular exploitation equipment. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS cannot withhold the contracts and NDAs, &lt;em&gt;in their entirety,&lt;/em&gt; based on the vague assertion that &quot;a corporation supplying data to a government entity may claim portions are trade secret&quot; and that &quot;[t]he contracting company in this case has taken efforts to protect the data from disclosure.&quot; Rather, the vendor must provide &quot;specific rationales&quot; for its assertion that the contracts and NDAs contain trade secrets, and DPS &quot;needs to make its own determination regarding the appropriateness of those claims.&quot; [See Advisory Opinions 96-035 and 05-024.] There is no indication that the vendor here has provided an explanation as to how disclosure of the contracts and NDAs would reveal its trade secrets. And even if it has, there is no indication that DPS has done anything more than simply take the vendor at its self-interested word. Such unexamined acquiescence to vendor wishes is not permitted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In fact, Star Tribune is highly skeptical that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; data in the contracts or NDAs satisfies the &quot;rigorous definition&quot; of &quot;trade secret&quot; found at Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd. l(b). [See Advisory Opinion 96-035.] The Commissioner &quot;consistently has interpreted the trade secret definition narrowly,&quot; and has concluded that, &quot;given the presumption of openness in Chapter 13 ... the Legislature intended that government entities employ section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), in a limited manner.&quot; [See Advisory Opinion 03-009.] And any supposed &quot;trade secret&quot; that has already been made public - for example, through release of the Hennepin County documents or through release of other contracts for Stingray II and Kingfish equipment - are no longer &quot;secret&quot; and thus ought not be withheld as such. &lt;em&gt;See, e.g., Prairie Island Indian Cmty.&lt;/em&gt; v. &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety,&lt;/em&gt; 658 N.W.2d 876, 886 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (&quot;[I]f data are readily ascertainable by proper means, those data cannot derive independent economic value from nondisclosure.&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Regardless, the existence of some trade-secret information in the requested documents is not a basis to withhold them in their entirety. The protected portions can be redacted, and the rest should be released. &lt;em&gt;See Prairie Island Indian Cmty.,&lt;/em&gt; 658 N.W.2d at 888.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS&apos;s other justification for withholding the contracts and NDAs is that they &quot;would reveal information regarding investigative techniques that would compromise ongoing and future criminal investigations.&quot; DPS has not offered any further explanation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Presumably, the requested contracts, NDAs, and their related attachments describe with some specificity the capabilities of the cellular exploitation equipment. However, to the extent these capabilities have already been publicly disclosed-for example, by DPS in its letter to Senator Dibble, by the media, on the vendor&apos;s own website or in its marketing materials, or in a patent application filed by the vendor-there is no reason to withhold such data. [See Advisory Opinion 95-003.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;And to the extent DPS can establish that the contracts and NDAs get so detailed as to actually jeopardize its ability to apprehend criminals and/or locate individuals in need of help, the solution is to simply redact those portions. There is no basis to withhold the requested documents in their entirety. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Footnotes omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Walker&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond properly to a June 18, 2014, request for access to the Department&apos;s contracts and non-disclosure agreements for the &quot;Stingray II&quot; and &quot;Kingfish&quot; cellular exploitation equipment?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that data in government contracts are presumptively public (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267672&quot; title=&quot;03-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-027&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Evans stated that the contracts and NDAs in question are, in their entirety, nonpublic data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b) (trade secret), and/or protected nonpublic data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 25 (as deliberative processes or investigative techniques).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(b) &quot;trade secret information&quot; means:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per section 13.82, subdivision 25, data &quot;that reflect deliberative processes or investigative techniques of law enforcement agencies&quot; are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Evans stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The BCA understands the technical specifications of the equipment as provided by the vendor. The BCA believes this equipment is unique and the method in which it operates is superior to other competitors. Release of information would give competitors insight into the technical workings of the equipment and jeopardize the competitive advantage of this equipment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, disclosure of any technical information about the equipment in any of the documentation would allow criminals to disrupt use of this technology, develop counter measures, and evade the technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We continue to maintain our original data classification was correct to protect the sensitive nature of this equipment, its proprietary nature, and its effectiveness in criminal investigations and disagree with the classification determination made by other governmental entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not reviewed the data in question, so he cannot determine whether DPS has properly classified any data in the contracts and/or the NDAs as not public under sections 13.37 or 13.82. The Commissioner has consistently said that while the outside person supplying the data to the government entity bears the burden of establishing that the data meet all of the conditions set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), the entity is ultimately responsible for determining whether the data warrant classification as trade secrets. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walker provided a copy of the contract and NDA between Harris Corporation, the manufacturer of the Stingray II and Kingfish equipment, and the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office, which the County released in response to a Star Tribune data request. If any of the same data (or other data Ms. Walker stated have been disclosed to the public) are in BCA&apos;s contracts/NDAs for that equipment, those data cannot be trade secret data, because they are in the public domain, and therefore are &quot;readily ascertainable by proper means.&quot; Chapter 13 does not classify sensitive or proprietary data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walker questioned BCA&apos;s determination not to release any of the data in question, rather than releasing with proper redactions. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Evans wrote, &quot;[t]he documents were withheld in their entirety due to the fact that heavy redaction of the documents was so intertwined with the public data that we were unable to separate the public from the protected data in a meaningful manner.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a government entity may withhold an entire document only when public and not public data are so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt;.) In further support of redacting documents, the Court of Appeals in &lt;em&gt;Prairie Island v. Dept. of Public Safety&lt;/em&gt;, 658 N.W. 2d 876 (Minn. App. 2003), stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We conclude that to the extent there is any sensitive trade-secret information, the statements in question can be appropriately redacted. Although this limits the informational value of the documents, it provides public access to basic information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 generally classifies data elements, not documents. While the Commissioner has opined that an entity must determine which data elements are trade secrets, contracts typically contain some data that do not qualify for protection under section 13.37 (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267586#/detail/appId/1/id/267890&quot; title=&quot;96-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 96-035&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;). For example, typically contracts contain standard clauses such as definitions, general provisions, etc., as well as data specific to the contract, like names of vendors, addresses, dates, total cost, etc., all of which are presumptively public. Similarly, NDAs contain data such as terms, effective dates, names of authorized representatives, etc., all of which are presumptively public. Even if BCA appropriately redacted everything else, those data elements have &quot;informational value&quot; per &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Commissioner has opined that for data to reflect a deliberative process, it must be &quot;data collected, created or maintained that explain or describe the actions, changes or functions that a given law enforcement agency follows to conduct formal discussion or debates of all sides of an issue.&quot; Data about investigative techniques are those data that &quot;describe the systematic procedures used to make detailed inquiries into the commission of crimes.&quot; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267790&quot; title=&quot;95-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-003&lt;/a&gt;). As stated above, contracts and NDAs likely contain general terms and other data that do not qualify for the protection in section 13.82, subdivision 25. However, if any of the data elements in the contracts and NDAs meet the requirements of deliberative process and investigative techniques as previously opined by the Commissioner, DPS/BCA should redact and properly protect those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Walker is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety did not respond properly to a June 18, 2014, request for access to the Department&apos;s contracts and non-disclosure agreements for the &quot;Stingray II&quot; and &quot;Kingfish&quot; cellular exploitation equipment, because it must redact any data they contain that are properly classified under sections 13.37 and/or 13.82, and release the remaining public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 17, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267495</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Deliberative processes (13.82, subd. 25 / subd. 16)</Title><Id>266565</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification generally</Title><Id>266759</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:21:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-017</Title><title>Opinion 14 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267295&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A requester asked whether a
public body properly closed two meetings on the
basis of attorney-client privilege pursuant to
section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b). In applying the
balancing test required by the Minnesota Supreme
Court, the first meeting was improperly closed
because the body had not yet decided to act upon
an underlying issue, which barred the body from
initiating legal action. The potential opposing party
attended a portion of the second meeting, so the
attorney-client privilege exception does not apply
because those circumstances do not dictate the need
for absolute confidentiality. However, the remainder of
the meeting at which the attorney for the body
discussed legal options and strategies with the body was
properly closed.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 28, 2014; City of East Grand Forks</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Issues have been updated in the online version of this opinion to reflect the correct citation. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 8, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Steve Wagner of the &lt;em&gt;Grand Forks Herald&lt;/em&gt;, dated September 5, 2014. In his letter, Mr. Wagner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the City of East Grand Forks City Council (Council) and the East Grand Forks Economic Development and Housing Authority Board (Board) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 12, 2014, IPAD wrote to Craig Buckalew, City Council President. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Buckalew of Mr. Wagner&apos;s request and gave the members of the Council and the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On September 29, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Brad Sinclair, attorney for the public bodies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Wagner follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[W]e believe the East Grand Forks City Council and the [Economic Development and Housing Authority] board violated the state&apos;s open meetings law on June 24, 2014, and Aug. 11, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Newspaper contends the attorney-client privilege didn&apos;t apply in either instance, and the boards didn&apos;t meet the standards for excluding the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For the June 11 [sic] meeting, the City Council announced it would close the meeting, which included the EDHA board, to discuss &quot;possible litigation.&quot; However, there was no indication that East Grand Forks faced the threat of a lawsuit, particularly since it was the aggrieved party claiming it had not been paid for $510,000 loan to Boardwalk Enterprises.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To date, no lawsuit has been filed in state district court to collect the money owed to the city by Boardwalk Enterprises.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the August 11 meeting between the City Council and EDHA board members, officials again elected to close proceedings to the public, citing attorney-client privilege. Again, the Herald, on behalf of the public, argues this was an improper action and notes that Boardwalk Enterprises met with the Council and EDHA members. The newspaper argues the attorney-client privilege does not apply when adverse parties are gathered to discuss the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the Council and the Board, Mr. Sinclair provided additional facts. In October of 1999, the City of East Grand Forks made a loan to Boardwalk Enterprises in the amount of $510,000. Boardwalk Enterprises agreed to begin repayment in 2003. This year, the City discovered that Boardwalk Enterprises had not yet started to repay the loan. Mr. Sinclair wrote: &quot;The Promissory Note provides if a default under the Note occurs, a 60 day written notice of default must be sent to the Borrower and if the Borrower fails to cure the default, [the City] may move forward with enforcement of the Note and the underlying collateral, the Real Estate Mortgage.&quot; At the June 24, 2014, meeting, Mr. Sinclair &quot;made a presentation to the [Council and Board members] solely related to the legal issues surrounding Boardwalk&apos;s Promissory Note and Real Estate Mortgage. The sole purpose of the meeting was to discuss Boardwalk&apos;s obligation, the enforceability of the obligation, defenses to the enforcement, counterclaim and legal strategies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the August 11, 2014, meeting, Mr. Sinclair wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The purpose of the August 11, 2014, meeting was to allow Boardwalk to respond to [the City&apos;s] 60 day Notice of Default, discuss settlementAfter the Boardwalk representatives presented their offer of settlement [the Council and Board] discussed the settlement offer and implemented further litigation strategy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Wagner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), did the East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board properly close the June 24, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), did the East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board properly close the August 11, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), did the East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board properly close the June 24, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law for the public benefit and &quot;[t]he statute will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies.&quot; &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 NW2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, all meetings of a public body must be open to the public. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), permits a public body to close a meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege. While the Legislature enacted subdivision 3(b) in 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized an attorney-client privilege exception to the OML in 1976. See &lt;em&gt;Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority&lt;/em&gt;, 251 NW 2d 620 (Minn. 1976) (&lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In recognizing the common law exception in &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the exception will only apply when balancing the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the OML dictates the need for &lt;em&gt;absolute confidentiality&lt;/em&gt;. While the Court held that HRA, as the defendant in a lawsuit, properly closed the meeting, it cautioned that the exception &quot;is to be employed or invoked cautiously and &lt;em&gt;seldom in situations other than in relation to threatened or pending litigation&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.) &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt; at 626.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2002, the Supreme Court held that the statutory exception in section 13D.05, subd. 3(b), was consistent with its holding in &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt;. See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 NW2d 729 (Minn. 2002). The Court considered the issue of whether the exception would apply in situations where the public body had received a potential threat of litigation. In holding that the public body violated the OML, the Court wrote, &quot;[b]alancing the policies behind the attorney-client privilege and the Open Meeting Law, it is clear to us that when a public body is deciding a matter within its jurisdiction, the threat that litigation might be a consequence of deciding the matter one way or another does not, by itself, justify closing the meeting.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 741.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; advised against using the privilege for general advice. (See also &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul&lt;/em&gt;, 435 NW 2d 64, 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989): &quot;The privilege is not available, however, when a governing body seeks instead to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying proposed enactment which may give rise to future litigation.&quot;) And the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; Court stated that the scope of the privilege is narrower for public bodies than it is for private clients. See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 737.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Supreme Court has declined to endorse a bright-line rule with regard to the timing of when the privilege might apply and instead established the balancing test. The privilege does not automatically apply when a public body is threatened with or engaged in active litigation; conversely, the privilege is not always prohibited prior to pending or threatened litigation. The Commissioner is not aware of a court case that examines the application of the attorney-client privilege exception when the public body is a potential plaintiff in a lawsuit, as is the situation here, or how that might affect the balancing of purposes of the privilege and the OML. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court&apos;s limitations on the privilege, taken together with the obligation to construe the OML in favor of the public, set a high standard for public bodies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sinclair wrote, &quot;the sole purpose of the meeting was to discuss Boardwalk&apos;s obligation, the enforceability of the obligation, defenses to the enforcement, counterclaim and legal strategies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Boardwalk&apos;s obligation under the promissory note is public, as is, to some extent, the enforceability of the note itself. Mr. Sinclair also noted that the Council and Board held several open meetings in May 2014 and again on June 3, 2014, where they discussed the promissory note and mortgage and the decision to hire outside counsel (Mr. Sinclair) to advise them in the matter. He also stated that the promissory note required the City to serve Boardwalk Enterprises with a 60 day notice of default before being able to initiate litigation. At the time of the June 24, 2014, meeting, the City had not yet decided whether to send the notice. Thus, similar to the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; case, the City had not yet decided the underlying issue that may have given rise to actual litigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In turning to the purposes of the OML, collecting on a loan is undoubtedly a subject of public concern about which the public has a right to be informed. Similarly, a public body&apos;s deliberations over whether to pursue litigation may have a significant impact on a community, both fiscally and politically. The public&apos;s right to see its elected officials make decisions about matters of significance to the communities they serve is at the heart of the policy behind the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the Supreme Court&apos;s rulings on the broad interpretation of the law, the narrow application of the privilege, and because public bodies may not invoke the exception for general legal advice, the fact that the City had not yet made the underlying decision to serve Boardwalk Enterprises with the notice of default tips the scales in favor of an open meeting. Because the circumstances here did not meet the high standard of dictating the need for absolute confidentiality, the Council and Board did not comply with the OML when it closed the June 24, 2014, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), did the East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board properly close the August 11, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See analysis in Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the August 11, 2014, meeting, Mr. Wagner noted, and Mr. Sinclair confirmed, that representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises met with the Council and Board in closed session. In applying the balancing test from &lt;em&gt;HRA&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; to that part of the meeting, the Commissioner concludes the participation of Boardwalk Enterprises conflicts with the need for absolute confidentiality between the City and its attorney; the presence of a third-party in these circumstances essentially invalidates the application of the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, the closed portion of the meeting that included Boardwalk Enterprises did not comply with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Had the parties&apos; attorneys, or less than a quorum of the Council or Board, met with Boardwalk Enterprises (i.e., in gatherings that would not be subject to the OML), there would not have been an issue. Then, based on the result of such a gathering, Mr. Sinclair could have met with the Council and Board in closed session in the context of deciding whether to pursue litigation, i.e., for litigation strategy, as discussed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Mr. Wagner properly argued that the privilege did not apply when the adverse parties met in closed session, the Commissioner does not conclude that remainder of the meeting was likewise improper. Mr. Sinclair wrote to the Commissioner: &quot;after the Boardwalk representatives presented their offer of settlement [the Council and Board] discussed the settlement offer and implemented further litigation strategy.&quot; The meeting minutes report that after the closed session, Mr. Galstad provided a summary: &quot;settlement options were discussed and it was determined that more information was needed. The attorney representing the City informed both the City Council and the [Board] about their options along with legal strategy for each option.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner concludes that the Council and Board&apos;s need to confer with legal counsel in closed session, as described by Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Galstad, outweighs the purposes of the OML. The City had taken the first steps toward litigation - serving the notice of default and entering into settlement negotiations. Allowing the opposing party to be privy to the City&apos;s conversation with its attorney at an open meeting at that juncture could have revealed legal advice and put the City at a significant disadvantage in pursuing the public&apos;s interest in the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Wagner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), the East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board did not properly close the June 24, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The East Grand Forks City Council and the East Grand Forks Economic Development/Housing Authority Board did not properly close the first portion of the August 11, 2014, meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege, at which members of Boardwalk Enterprises were present. The remainder of the closed meeting of the Council, Board, and their attorney was properly closed per the privilege.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 28, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267295</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T16:04:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>General</Title><Id>641</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-016</Title><title>Opinion 14 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267321&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An entity asked whether it could
release private data about a decedent to the
decedent’s sister, who was not the personal
representative within the meaning of section 13.10,
subdivision 1(c). However, she is a trustee for
purposes of a wrongful death action under section
573.02, subdivision 3. The county may release
“appropriate” data (however classified) without a
court order to the decedent’s sister, as a trustee in
a wrongful death action as provided in section
13.10, subdivision 3.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 2014; Winona County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 12, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from James R. Andreen, attorney for Winona County. IPAD required additional information, which Mr. Andreen provided on September 30, 2014. In his letter, Mr. Andreen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a question of access to data the County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Andreen:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Winona County has private or confidential data (for the most part welfare data) [about] Person A. Person A is now deceased. There is no personal representative for Person A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Person B is Person A&apos;s sister. Person B has requested data on Person A from the Winona County Community Services Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Person B has been appointed a trustee for the purposes of bringing a wrongful death action pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 573.02 although no such action has yet been brought.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Andreen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may Winona County release private data on a deceased individual to that individual&apos;s sister without a court order?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.10, subdivision 1(a) and (b), confidential or private data on decedents are data which, prior to the death of the individual data subject, were classified as confidential or private data about the individual. Per subdivision 1(c), the &quot;&apos;representative of the decedent&apos; is the personal representative of the estate of the decedent during the period of administration, or if no personal representative has been appointed the surviving spouse, any child of the decedent, or, if there is no surviving spouse or children, the parents of the decedent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.10, subdivision 3:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Rights conferred by this chapter on individuals who are the subjects of private or confidential data shall, in the case of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents, be exercised by the representative of the decedent. Nonpublic data concerning a decedent, created or collected after death, are accessible by the representative of the decedent. Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent access to appropriate data by a trustee appointed in a wrongful death action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Person B is Person A&apos;s sister, but not the personal representative within the meaning of section 13.10, subdivision 1(c). However, she has been appointed a trustee for purposes of a wrongful death action under Minnesota Statutes, section 573.02, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.10, subdivision 4:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Any person may bring an action in the district court located in the county where the data is being maintained to authorize release of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents. The responsible authority for the data being sought or any interested person may provide information regarding the possible harm or benefit from granting the request. The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera. The court may order all or part of the data to be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In deciding whether or not to release the data, the court shall consider whether the harm to the surviving spouse, children, or next of kin of the decedent, the harm to any other individual identified in the data, or the harm to the public outweighs the benefit to the person bringing the action or the benefit of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Andreen stated that the County does not believe Person B is entitled to data about Person A, and that section 13.10, subdivision 3, &quot;suggests that if Person B were to bring a court action under [section 13.10, subdivision 4], nothing would prevent the court from ordering Winona County to provide the data. Otherwise, the legislature simply would have added such a trustee to the list of individuals in subdivision 1(c).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3 bestows upon the personal representative, or if none, certain family members (not including siblings), the full Chapter 13 rights of the decedent. The rights of a trustee appointed in a wrongful death action, however, are limited in subdivision 3 to access to &quot;appropriate&quot; data. Accordingly, the County must determine which data are &quot;appropriate&quot; data, and release them to Person B, as Person A&apos;s trustee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request, Mr. Andreen specifically asked about releasing &lt;em&gt;private&lt;/em&gt; data on Person A to the trustee. However, the trustee has access to &lt;em&gt;appropriate&lt;/em&gt; data, not just private data. For example, a personal representative is not entitled to get access to confidential data on a decedent, because while alive, the decedent was not entitled to get access to confidential data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 3.) So although a trustee may not exercise the full Chapter 13 rights of the decedent, the trustee potentially may be entitled to gain access to more data than a personal representative, under the operation of subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the County determines that it must withhold some of the data it maintains on Person A as not appropriate, and Person B disagrees with that determination, she may bring an action under subdivision 4 to obtain the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Andreen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Winona County may release &quot;appropriate&quot; data, however classified, on a deceased individual to that individual&apos;s sister, as a trustee in a wrongful death action, without a court order, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.10, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 28, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267321</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents (13.10)</Title><Id>266471</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:21:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-015</Title><title>Opinion 14 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267684&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked
whether a city council’s conduct under the OML
was proper on eight different occasions. The
council’s “work sessions” were special, not regular
meetings, but the Commissioner could not
determine whether the council complied with the
special meeting notice requirements under section
13D.04, or held an improper meeting via email. The
council did not properly close meetings and
discussed impermissible topics in closed session,
per section 13D.01, subdivision 3, and section
13D.05. The council also improperly excluded
members of the public who were not disruptive. It
did not comply with section 13D.05, subdivision 3
(a), because it did not provide the required
summary of a performance evaluation. It did not
comply with section 13D.01, subdivision 6, because
a public copy of members’ materials was not
available.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 2014; City of Crystal</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 25, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Michelle Gross, President of Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB), dated August 24, 2014. In her request, Ms. Gross asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Crystal City Council members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). IPAD required additional information/clarification, which Ms. Gross provided on September 3, 2014.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 9, 2014, IPAD wrote to Crystal City Mayor Jim Adams, Chair of the City Council, to inform him of Ms. Gross&apos;s request and give the members of the Council an opportunity to explain their position. On September 23, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Michael Norton and Susan Torgerson, attorneys for the Council.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Gross follows. CUAPB alleges that the City Council violated various provisions of the OML at numerous Council meetings in 2013 and 2014 (discussed in detail below).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Gross&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Crystal City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, in email communications with the City Manager on July 31, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the Council meeting held August 5, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on August 20, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the meeting held on September 3, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on September 17, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on October 1, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on December 3, 12 and 17, 2013?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on February 18, 2014?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has found that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law are to be interpreted in favor of the public. The Court said:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W. 2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W. 2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law &quot;will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies.&quot;) See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader,&lt;/em&gt; 642 N.W. 2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Crystal City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, in email communications with the City Manager on July 31, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City Manager emailed all council members, recommending that they postpone an item on the agenda for the August 5, 2013, meeting about a proposed ordinance. She wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In light of the proposed Communities United rally on Monday and the Council&apos;s need to NOT discuss any of Communities United issues due to pending litigation, I am concerned about how it might be perceived if the Council proceeds with consideration of the ordinance amending the city code regarding chickens (the perception that you&apos;re not discussing allegations regarding corruption in the PD but you are willing to consider changes in the city code to allow chickens). I recommend you consider rescheduling the chicken discussion to August 20 - but it is your meeting. Just offering my thoughts - let me know yours.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At least a quorum (four or five) responded only to her; she forwarded each response to all members. In their responses, two members said yes or no, two discussed community perceptions and gave their reasons for their positions; two used the word vote regarding their preferences.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross wrote, [a] meeting was conducted via email exchange among council members in which voting occurred The topic discussed concerned a strategy for managing public perceptions of issues raised by [CUAPB] at their next meeting while still being able to deal with another issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response to the Commissioner, Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson stated that the council did not hold an improper meeting via email:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Rather, the emails show simply that the City Manager gave information to Council members about a meeting agenda scheduling issue. Some of members gave feedback, but they did not discuss the matter amongst Council members, and they did not make a decision - the decision was made by the City Manager. They did not vote , but conveyed some individual opinions to the City Manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court provided guidance about what constitutes a meeting under the OML: Those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. (See &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that communication via telephone or the exchange of emails can lead to a violation of the OML. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022&quot; title=&quot;06-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267446&quot; title=&quot;09-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-020&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267388&quot; title=&quot;13-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-015&lt;/a&gt;.) In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267446&quot; title=&quot;09-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-020&lt;/a&gt;, a quorum of a public body exchanged emails in an attempt to agree on language for a press release. The Commissioner said that a quorum commented on and provided direction to the Chair. The Commissioner concluded that the exchange was tantamount to a virtual meeting that was required to be open pursuant to the OML.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the administrator emailed each Council member, a quorum responded to her, and she then forwarded all of their responses to all members. IPAD reviewed the emails Ms. Gross submitted. She characterized the exchange as a discussion of a public relations matter, which is an issue related to official business (similar to the situation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267446&quot; title=&quot;09-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-020&lt;/a&gt;), but Mr. Norton and Ms. Togerson asserted that some Council members simply gave feedback to the administrator. Given the differences in opinion here, the Commissioner cannot determine that the Council violated the OML. However, the Commissioner strongly cautions the Council per &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, not to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group, which would constitute a meeting required to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the Council meeting held August 5, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part A&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Special meetings&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Pursuant to Chapter 13D, public bodies may hold three types of meetings: regular, special, and emergency. For regular meetings, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, requires a public body to keep a schedule on file at its primary offices. No additional notice is required. A meeting that differs in date, time or location from a regular meeting is a special meeting. Pursuant to subdivision 2, a public body must post written notice of a special meeting on its principal bulletin board or regular meeting room door at least three days before the meeting and it must include the date, time, place, and purpose for the meeting on the notice. (Emergency meetings are not at issue here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Gross, the August 5 work session was not listed on the City&apos;s schedule of regular meetings, &quot;making it a special meeting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson responded to the Commissioner that the Council followed proper procedures, as evidenced by the minutes of the August 5 regular meeting and August 5 work session. They wrote that the Council treats the workshops as regular meetings, &quot;and appropriate notice is given even if they were to be seen as special meetings. The city posts notice of the workshops on its bulletin board and website by Friday of the prior week for Tuesday meetings and by Thursday of the prior week for Monday meetings.&quot; As evidence of those postings, they referred to the workshop agenda.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the August 5 workshop session was a regular meeting. It was not listed on the Council&apos;s regular meeting schedule, and as such was a special meeting, subject to the notice requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part B. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Special Meeting Notice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson stated that the Council posts notice of the workshops &quot;on its bulletin board and website by Friday of the prior week for Tuesday meetings and by Thursday of the prior week for Monday meetings,&quot; thus fulfilling the special meeting notice requirements. The only documentation they provided in support are meeting minutes and a preliminary agenda for the workshop, neither of which definitively documents that the Council posted notice on its bulletin board at least three days prior to the August 5 special meeting work session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross stated, &quot;this special meeting was not properly noticed as there was no listing in the newspaper of note for the city, the Sun Post.&quot; However, the Council was not required to post notice of the special meeting in the newspaper, unless it had received a written request for notice of special meetings. If so, then publishing in the newspaper of record is one way a public body may fulfill its obligation to provide notice to persons who have specifically asked to be notified of special meetings. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agenda indicated that the Council would hold a closed work session immediately following the regular council meeting in Conference Room A, and stated that the purpose of the closed work session would be to &quot;discuss pending personnel litigation regarding [two City peace officers].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parties disagree and the Commissioner cannot verify that the Council properly noticed the August 5 special meeting work session. The August 5 &lt;em&gt;agenda&lt;/em&gt; does contain the required content for notice of a special meeting, i.e., the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. If the Council posted the agenda as its special meeting notice on its bulletin board three days prior to the meeting, it fulfilled its obligation under section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part C. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Closed Meetings: Statement on the Record.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Ms. Gross also contends that the Council did not make the required statement on the record before closing the workshop meeting. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, states, &quot;[b]efore closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This subdivision requires that a public body do three things before closing a meeting: (1) make a statement on the record; (2) give the specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting; and (3) describe the subject to be discussed. Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Court of Appeals has provided direction on how this language is to be interpreted. In &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), the Court was asked to decide if a statement that a meeting is &quot;being closed for a discussion of pending litigation under the attorney-client privilege&quot; met the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 3. In analyzing that statement used by Blue Earth County, the Court found that &quot;attorney client privilege&quot; provided the grounds and &quot;pending litigation&quot; &lt;em&gt;identified&lt;/em&gt; the subject to be discussed, but did not &lt;em&gt;describe&lt;/em&gt; the subject as required by the statute. &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; at 476 (emphasis in the original).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mayor Adams mentions the closed meeting to follow the regular council meeting but no formal statement on the record was made. Adams merely stated the purpose was to hear from staff regarding complaints related to [two police officers]. . There was no claim that the meeting was being closed for attorney-client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson stated that the Council began the work session as an open meeting. They wrote, &quot;[a]fter the start of the work session, the Mayor introduced a closed session for attorney client privileged discussion about pending litigation.&quot; Per &lt;em&gt;Free Press&lt;/em&gt;, the Mayor&apos;s statement does not adequately describe the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, according to the work session meeting minutes, the Council voted to close the session, &quot;for discussion regarding pending litigation.&quot; The only support Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson provided was the agenda, which was created before the meeting, and the minutes, which were created afterwards. Neither provides the evidence that the Council made the required verbal statement on the record, giving the specific grounds allowing it to close the meeting, and describing the subject to be discussed. As discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/266458&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Chapter 13D does not define the phrase &quot;on the record&quot; in sections 13D.01 and 13D.05. However, the Commissioner has issued numerous opinions on the requirements to close a meeting (see Advisory Opinions 07-018, 13-012, 14-004, and 14-005) and has consistently interpreted those provisions to mean a verbal statement in open session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, based on the record as presented to the Commissioner, and per the holding in &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt;,the City did not comply with section 13D.01, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part D. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Closed Meetings: Permissible Topics.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;After a public body gives the statement on the record, it can discuss only those items it adequately described in the statement, and which are permissible topics to discuss in closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross contends that the Council discussed a number of issues that were not described on the agenda, including talking points &quot;for addressing community concerns over a crime Crystal police had refused to investigate and ways to deflect community concerns over police administration corruption&quot; She provided copies of emails among Council members, City administration, and a private citizen &quot;confirming that these matters were discussed during the closed session.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson wrote, &quot;[t]he discussion was privileged, and the emails provided as &quot;proof&quot; of the improper discussion are not supportive of the allegation. Litigation status and strategy were the sole topics of the meeting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the attorney-client privilege exception to close a meeting will only apply when balancing the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the OML dictates the need for &lt;em&gt;absolute confidentiality&lt;/em&gt;. While the Court has held that an entity as a defendant in a lawsuit can properly close a meeting, it cautioned that the exception &quot;is to be employed or invoked cautiously and &lt;em&gt;seldom in situations other than in relation to threatened or pending litigation&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.) (See &lt;em&gt;Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority&lt;/em&gt;, 251 NW 2d 620 (Minn. 1976) and &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 NW 2d 729 (Minn. 2002)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City Administrator sent an email to Council members (and the attorney and staff) on August 6, 2013:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As discussed last night, attached is a draft of talking points for use regarding last night&apos;s closed session discussion. Please review and let me know if you&apos;re okay with it. If so, I will use it in responding to calls from the media as well as residents. As we discussed last night, it&apos;s important that we all have use [sic] the same message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Administrator also sent the following to a member of the public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At its August 5 meeting, the Crystal City Council met in closed session to discuss matters protected by attorney-client privilege. A summary of the Council&apos;s discussion during this session is:
&lt;br /&gt;
- The city council has full confidence in city and police management
&lt;br /&gt;
- The council has been briefed on [certain officers] [and] understands the seriousness of personnel issues.
&lt;br /&gt;
- The council has faith in the process currently underway, but acknowledges that
&lt;br /&gt;
- The council&apos;s goal is to have the process completed and issues resolved as expeditiously as possible.
&lt;br /&gt;
- Once the process is complete, the council will provide further information to the public&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The content of the emails demonstrates that the Council&apos;s discussion in closed meeting went beyond &quot;litigation status and strategy,&quot; as evidenced by the bulleted statements above, and the OML does not provide grounds for closing a meeting to discuss those additional topics. Accordingly, the Council improperly discussed the issues detailed above in closed session, because those topics are not among those allowable under Chapter 13D. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on August 20, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to the minutes of the closed work session, the council concluded the closed meeting then voted to open the meeting. However, they stayed in the closed meeting room and did not return to the regular council chambers nor did they notify the public, so individuals would not have known they could now enter the meeting to attend the public portion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Requestor misunderstands the format of the Council meeting. First, the regular meeting convenes in the large Council chambers. After the regular meeting concludes, the Council holds another open meeting as a &quot;work session&quot; in a smaller room. The work session began as an open meeting. Then the Council may close the meeting with a statement as required by the OML. No violation of the OML occurred. The meeting was closed for attorney-client privileged discussion of pending litigation regarding employee RE. The discussion held was proper and the process for closing and reopening the meeting was appropriate. There is no &quot;closed meeting room&quot;, just a smaller conference room often used for part of the Council meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the OML is to provide the public with full access to the decision-making process of public bodies. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-008&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner commented, &quot;he Board needs to review its process and procedures regarding its schedule of regular meetings, and its &apos;workshops&apos; in order to avoid the kind of confusion that resulted here.&quot; The same advice holds for the Council&apos;s meeting format, as it functionally does not assure the public&apos;s right to be informed about the Council&apos;s official actions.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-008&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the OML is silent on whether a public body may adjourn a meeting in closed session, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that meetings should be adjourned or otherwise concluded in open session. Otherwise, the public cannot know if a meeting is adjourned, recessed or continued. As the issues Mr. Wente raised illustrate, whether or not a meeting has been adjourned, rather than recessed or continued, has implications for a public body&apos;s conduct at subsequent meetings. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), and section 13D.04, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also discussion of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record), for other issues Ms. Gross raised about this meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the meeting held on September 3, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Gross:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The mayor suddenly announced at the beginning of the open forum that the council will not accept public comment on certain subjects This prohibition was not posted on the meeting agenda or meeting notice, which people relied upon to decide to attend the meeting. One person spoke up to respectfully object. The Mayor recessed the meeting to avoid hearing from people. This prevented a community member from speaking about a concern having nothing to do with one of the prohibited subjects. After some time, the meeting reconvened. Individuals attempted to re-enter the meeting however the chamber doors were closed and police blocked people out of the balance of the meeting. Police stated that under orders of the mayor, no members of the public would be allowed back into the room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Requestor alleges that a change to procedures for the &quot;open forum&quot; somehow violated the OML. However, local open forum procedures are not an appropriate topic for this review. No provision of the OML applies to this allegation. The Council is allowed to regulate the length and topics addressed in the open forum. &lt;em&gt;Minn. Stat.&lt;/em&gt; 412.191 &lt;em&gt;Subd 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Requestor alleges that the City&apos;s refusal to allow boisterous persons into the Council chamber somehow created an illegal &quot;closed&quot; meeting. That is not the case. Disruptive individuals need not be allowed into the public meeting room. The Council may maintain order at its meetings. &lt;em&gt;Minn. Stat.&lt;/em&gt; 412.191 &lt;em&gt;Subd 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson are correct; the OML does not require public bodies to allow for public comment, nor does it prohibit it. In addition, a public body may alter the agenda of a regular meeting as it sees fit. While the result may disappoint or inconvenience a member of the public, the Council&apos;s conduct did not violate the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to statements Ms. Gross submitted, the Council barred members of the public who remained silent. The Council could properly bar disruptive persons under section 412.191, but did not have authority under the OML to exclude all non-disruptive members of the public, thereby creating a &lt;em&gt;de facto&lt;/em&gt; closed meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 5&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on September 17, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See discussion of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 6&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on October 1, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See discussion of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 7&lt;em&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3(a), section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on December 3, 12 and 17, 2013?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Gross and Mr. Norton, at the December 3 work session, the Council postponed its evaluation of the City Manager until December 12. That work session was convened as an open meeting and was then closed to discuss labor negotiations and the evaluation of the City Manager. The council held a work session on December 17. At its January 7, 2014, meeting, the Council passed a resolution summarizing its evaluation and reappointing the City Manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), a public body may close a meeting &quot;to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council evaluated the City Manager&apos;s performance at its December 12, 2013, meeting. Its next open meeting was December 17, 2013, but it did not summarize its evaluation at that meeting, as it was required to do. Thus, the Council did not comply with the OML regarding its summarization of the City Manager&apos;s performance evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also discussion of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;. Did the City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, section 13D.04, and section 13D.05, at the meeting held on February 18, 2014?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gross wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the open forum section of the city council meeting, the mayor abruptly stated that the meeting was recessed [at 7:37 p.m.]. .... Council members (except for one member) left the chambers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After several minutes, police officers came to the chambers and spoke privately to individuals to tell them that the meeting was resuming in another location Members of the public were not notified of the new location of the meeting or that it had resumed and thus, they continued to wait for the city council members to return to chambers. Throughout this period, notice was projected on the screen in the council chambers, in the lobby, and on the public access television that the meeting was in recess.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to statements submitted to the Commissioner, three members of the public followed the officers, and discovered that the Council had resumed meeting in a downstairs room, which was locked. Officers standing at the doors would not admit them without the police chief&apos;s approval, which she gave a few minutes later. One of the three returned to the regular meeting room and notified some other members of the public that the Council had resumed the meeting downstairs. At 8:33 p.m., the City Manager told those remaining in the regular meeting room that the meeting was in progress in the other room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Gross:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While the regular city council meeting was in recess, the council began work session 2 listed on the agenda as starting after the council meeting. They completed one item on that work session agenda, adjourned the work session (using that exact language) and then reconvened the recessed city council meeting. At 8:57 p.m. they adjourned the regular council meeting and returned to the work session 2 agenda although that meeting was previously adjourned. Later, the mayor &quot;adjourned&quot; the work session without receiving a motion to adjourn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the meetings downstairs, no documents related to the meetings were available to the public.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The allegation is that the meeting was recessed and reconvened in another location. As shown in the minutes the Mayor called for a recess because of disruption of the meeting by certain persons who were refusing to comply with open forum requirements The Mayor then reconvened the meeting in another location within the building.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Those who had engaged in the disruption were allowed to attend the continued meeting once they had ceased their disruptive behavior. The Mayor is allowed to adjourn or relocate a meeting because of disruption/disorderly behavior in the meeting. &lt;em&gt;Minn. Stat.&lt;/em&gt; 412.191 &lt;em&gt;Subd 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See discussion of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Again, Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson are correct that the Council may eject individuals who disrupt a meeting, and the OML is silent regarding a public body&apos;s right to reconvene a public meeting in a different room. However, by not giving notice to the public, those who remained in the regular meeting room waiting for the recess to end had no opportunity to attend the public meeting the Council was conducting in the downstairs room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, Mr. Norton and Ms. Torgerson did not refute Ms. Gross&apos;s statement that a public copy of members&apos; materials was not available in the downstairs meeting room, as required under section 13D.01, subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the above reasons, the Council did not comply with the OML in its conduct of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Gross raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of Crystal City Council complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, in email communications with the City Manager on July 31, 2013.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Council&apos;s August 5, 2013, &quot;workshop meeting&quot; was a special, not regular meeting. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City complied with the notice requirements of the OML, regarding Part A (special meetings), or B (special meeting notice). The Council did not properly close the meeting, per section 13D.01, subdivision 3, and section 13D.05 (Part C, statement on the record), and discussed impermissible topics in closed session (Part D).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Council&apos;s August 20, 2013, workshop was a special meeting. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City complied with the notice requirements of the OML. The Council did not properly close the meeting, per section 13D.01, subdivision 3, and section 13D.05 (Part C).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the meeting held on September 3, 2013, because it improperly excluded members of the public who were not disruptive.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See 2, regarding Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See 2, regarding Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See 2, regarding Part A (special meetings), B (special meeting notice) and C (statement on the record). The City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), at the December 17, 2013, meeting, because it did not provide the summary of its evaluation of the City Manager&apos;s performance.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See 4. Also, at the meeting held on February 18, 2014, the Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, because a public copy of members&apos; materials was not available in the downstairs meeting room.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 23, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267684</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Meeting calendar</Title><Id>266286</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement on record</Title><Id>266288</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public comments</Title><Id>266291</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-24T14:39:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-014</Title><title>Opinion 14 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266458&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether
a public body properly closed two meetings to discuss
the purchase of property, pursuant to section 13D.05,
subdivision 3(c)(3). At the meetings, both the Mayor
and the City Attorney made comments preceding the
closing of the meetings. The statements were
insufficient under the OML because the statement must
be given by the public body, include the grounds
permitting or requiring the meeting to be closed, and
specifically describe the subject of the meeting.
Additionally, for sale or purchase of property, the
statement must identify the particular properties. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 13, 2014; City of Corcoran</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 13, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Chuck Lymangood, dated August 12, 2014. In his letter, Mr. Lymangood asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Corcoran City Council members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD requested additional information/clarification from Mr. Lymangood, which he provided on August 27, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 29, 2014, IPAD wrote to Mayor Ken Guenthner, Chair of the City Council (Council). In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Guenthner of Mr. Lymangood&apos;s request and gave the members of the Council an opportunity to explain their position. On September 17, 2014, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated September 16, 2014, from Jeffrey Carson, Corcoran City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Lymangood follows. The Council held two closed meetings, one on March 13, 2014, and one on June 12, 2014, to discuss obtaining an easement across a number of properties. Mr. Lymangood raised several issues with respect to those meetings and a subsequent data request. He wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The individual properties discussed during the closed session were not properly disclosed at the meetings.At the first meeting, March 13, 2014, no disclosure was provided to the public of any of the properties that were to be discussed at the closed meeting (the city attorney simply stated, &quot;the 13 properties&quot;). At the second meeting, June 12, 2014, the city attorney, Jeff Carson, who is not a member of the public body, made an attempt to list the properties to be discussed at the closed meeting. He disclosed 11 property addresses and stated, &quot;2 unassigned addresses on 101, the McGee property&quot;.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The City of Corcoran did not properly respond to my request for data on July 14, 2014.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mayor, as a member of the public body, did not properly state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed. Based on the tapes of the meetings, the transcripts and the copy of the council minutes provided with this narrative, Mayor Guenthner, in my opinion did not state on the record the &quot;specific grounds&quot; permitting the meeting to be closed. Further, as mentioned above, the statements of the city attorney, Jeff Carson, do not relieve the public body from making the proper statement on the record as Mr. Carson is not a member of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Lymangood&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3 and 13D.05, subdivision 3, did the Corcoran City Council properly close the March 13, 2014, meeting to discuss the sale or purchase of property?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3 and 13D.05, subdivision 3, did the Corcoran City Council properly close the June 12, 2014, meeting to discuss the sale or purchase of property?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Corcoran respond appropriately to a July 14, 2014, data request for all public data regarding easement negotiations?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3 and 13D.05, subdivision 3, did the Corcoran City Council properly close the March 13, 2014, meeting to discuss the sale or purchase of property?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, provides: &quot;before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This subdivision requires that a public body do three things before a meeting is closed: (1) make a statement on the record; (2) give the specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting; and (3) describe the subject to be discussed. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13D does not define the phrase &quot;on the record&quot; in sections 13D.01 and 13D.05. However, the Commissioner has issued numerous opinions on the requirements to close a meeting (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267617&quot; title=&quot;07-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 07-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266988&quot; title=&quot;13-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267354&quot; title=&quot;14-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-004&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267821&quot; title=&quot;14-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;14-005&lt;/a&gt;) and has consistently interpreted those provisions to mean a verbal statement in open session. In addition, the Commissioner recently opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267821&quot; title=&quot;14-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 14-005&lt;/a&gt;, that per the plain language of section 13D.01, subdivision 3, the public body is responsible for making the statements and that a statement by the body&apos;s attorney is not sufficient to meet the strict language of the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c)(3), permits a meeting to be closed, &quot;to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property.&quot; That clause further provides that the public body &quot;must identify on the record the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the closed meeting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lymangood provided the Commissioner with a partial transcript of the March 13, 2014, meeting. Shortly before going into closed session, the following exchange took place:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Guenthner: With that, the one remaining item on the agenda is a closed session. We have been informed by the city attorney that he would like to present us information pertaining to easement acquisition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Carson: Yes, Mayor it is to view the appraisals that we now have for the 13 properties in the southeast sewer and water project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Mayor then addressed a boy scout who was in attendance.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Guenthner: Ok, so with that I will recess the public session. We will reconvene in closed session across the hall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, while Mr. Guenthner made a statement in open session, he did not state the grounds for closing the meeting and he did not provide a particularized description of the subject of the closed meeting. As the Commissioner has suggested in previous opinions, the simplest way to state the grounds for closing a meeting is to cite to the statutory provision allowing or requiring the closing. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;.) While &lt;em&gt;Mr. Carson&lt;/em&gt; identified a broad subject of the closed meeting - the southeast sewer and water project - it is the Council&apos;s responsibility to make the required statement, and that responsibility cannot be delegated to an attorney. Further, the statement made by a member of the public body must also state the grounds for closing the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to identifying the particular real property on the record, as required by section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)(3), Mr. Carson wrote, &quot;the identification of the 13 properties being considered for utility easement acquisition as printed on the public agenda could only have meant the Southeast Sewer and Water Project properties.&quot; The agenda Mr. Carson submitted to the Commissioner for the March 13, 2014, meeting does not contain a list of properties. Nevertheless, listing the specific properties on an agenda would not satisfy the requirement to identify the properties on the record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As reflected in Mr. Carson&apos;s comment below, the Commissioner appreciates and is encouraged by the City&apos;s effort to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13D going forward:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding our assertion that the public was well-informed and well-aware of those properties that were the subject of the closed meetings on March 13, 2014 and June 12, 2014, I believe that we can provide a clearer path to statutory conformity with the closed session requirements. City staff has met and reviewed the above complaints, together with the statutory requirements and we are developing a more deliberate process for closing meetings that will comply with the letter of the law. This review of the law, process and procedure has proven very helpful to the City. (Citations omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3 and 13D.05, subdivision 3, did the Corcoran City Council properly close the June 12, 2014, meeting to discuss the sale or purchase of property?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lymangood&apos;s transcript of the June 12, 2014, documents the following exchange:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Guenthner: So we have a scheduled closed session related to sewer and water. Jeff, did you want to comment before we do that?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Carson: Thank you Mayor. What we will be doing is recessing in the closed session to consider negotiations for the sewer and water easements project for the following properties. They are all on County Road 101. That would be: 6635, 6705, 6735, 6801, 6819, 6851, 6863, 6901, 6951, 7205, 6648, and two unassigned addresses on 101 the McGee property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Guenthner: Ok, thank you Jeff, with that then the council we will recess the public session and reconvene in closed session after we receive information on the negotiations in closed session we will come back into public session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis here is the same as Issue 1: the statement was inadequate and made by the Council&apos;s attorney, instead of the members of the public body. An example of a statement that would be sufficient in these circumstances is: &quot;The Council is going into closed session under section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)(3) to discuss south east sewer and water easement negotiations for the following properties: [identify the properties].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, and notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Carson&apos;s statements on the record were insufficient, Mr. Lymangood raised the issue of whether the statement &quot;two unassigned addresses on 101 the McGee property,&quot; appropriately identified the particular properties that were the subject of the closed meeting. The Commissioner offers the following guidance. If there was information that would more clearly identify the location of the properties, then the identification was not &quot;particular,&quot; within the meaning of section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)(3). If, on the other hand, Mr. Carson&apos;s statement reflects how the properties are actually identified (i.e., in property records, on maps, etc.), then the identification would likely have been sufficient had it been provided by the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.  &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Corcoran respond appropriately to a July 14, 2014, data request for all public data regarding easement negotiations?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lymangood made the following data request to the City of Corcoran:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This data request is for all public data regarding the SE Sewer and Water easement negotiations. The request includes, but is not limited to, tapes of council meetings in open session where the easement is discussed, council meeting minutes where the easement is discussed, etc. This request includes the city council meetings of March 13, 2014 and June 12, 201, as well as any other meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Lymangood wrote, that he only received five items and did not receive copies of the Council meeting minutes, legal billing statements regarding the easements, or a resolution that the Council approved at a previous meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Carson in his letter to the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[I]t appears to be true that certain of the requested data was omitted. The omission of the [requested information] was inadvertent and clearly not intentional&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to the billings of the attorneys mentioned by Mr. Lymangood, I am not sure that in the normal course of events anyone would think to include such billing statements unless they were specifically asked for in the data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lymangood requested &quot;all public data&quot; about the easement negotiations. He specifically noted that he wanted access to council meeting minutes. The Commissioner realizes that when a government entity receives a data request for &quot;all data&quot; on a particular subject, it may not initially recognize the full scope of the request. In those instances, it is the responsibility of the government entity to clarify with the requester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner urges both requesters and government entities to work together to resolve data requests in a timely and appropriate manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Lymangood raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Corcoran City Council did not properly close the March 13, 2014, because it did not make the required statement on the record, as required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3, and 13D.05, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Corcoran City Council did not properly close the June 12, 2014, because it did not make the required statement on the record, as required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01, subdivision 3, and 13D.05, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Corcoran not respond appropriately to a July 14, 2014, data request for all public data regarding easement negotiations because the City did not provide access to all of the responsive data it maintained.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 13, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266458</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property sale or purchase (13D.05, subd. 3(c))</Title><Id>266445</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-16T18:47:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-013</Title><title>Opinion 14 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267397&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A requester asked for service and
response or incident law enforcement data made public
pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6. The
entity cited section 13.82, subdivisions 7 (active
investigative data) and 13 (victim access to investigative
data) and section 260B.171, subdivision 5 (peace officer
records of children) to deny access to all data. The
provisions cited by the entity are not applicable to the
requests; the entity should have provided the requester
with all public data that was responsive to her request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 13, 2014; City of Waite Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 26, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 25, 2014, from Amy Kantorowicz. In her letter, Ms. Kantorowicz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her right to gain access to certain data that the City of Waite Park (City) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Shaunna Johnson, City Administrator, in response to Ms. Kantorowicz&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 29, 2014, were to inform her of Ms. Kantorowicz&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for City&apos;s position. On September 9, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same from Gordon Hansmeier, City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Kantorowicz provided them follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After [contacting IPAD], I contacted the City of Waite Park by phone and requested a copy of the [City&apos;s data practices] policy. I also requested it twice in writing. Despite the requirement in Minnesota Section 13.025, subd. 4 to make the policies available to the public, I have not received a copy of the policy. I did receive an email indicating that Shaunna Johnson is the designated responsible authority for the City of Waite Park.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 19, 2014, I sent three requests for data to the responsible authority, Shauna Johnson. One of the requests was resolved and the records were provided. The other two are attached.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her first request at issue here, Ms. Kantorowicz wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 13.82 subd. 6and subd. 3 I am requesting the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All requests for service and response and incident data for [X]. [Two reports] are still pending cases and are private data so I have included a signed release from [Y] whom I believe to be a party in both incidents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, please provide a copy of the incident report for an accident on January 10, 2014 where [Y] was the driver. (Emphasis omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kantorowicz included Ms, Johnson&apos;s reply to this request in her submission to the Commissioner. Ms. Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We will not be providing the data in your Request for Law Enforcement Data involving [X and Y]. The requested data remains confidential or protected non public [sic] data. See Minn. Stat. Section 13.82, subd. 7. Further, based on the relationship and the history of the parties involved, we reasonably believe that the release of the requested data will interfere with an open investigation, as well as the justice process. See Minn. Stat. Section 13.82, subd. 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After further communication with the City regarding this request, Ms. Kantorowicz received a letter from Mr. Hansmeier, dated March 25, 2014, which she also provided to the Commissioner. Mr. Hansmeier wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide me with a copy of the &quot;signed release&quot; mentioned in the [X/Y request]. Please also provide a detailed explanation, with appropriate legal citations, why you believe you are entitled to the following information at this time and without limitations on the use or dissemination of the information through a protective order, etc. [Mr. Hansmeier then restated the data request for X and Y.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her submission to the Commissioner, Ms. Kantorowicz noted, &quot;to date, I have received no data pertaining to this request.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the second data request at issue here, dated March 19, 2014, Ms. Kantorowicz wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 13.82 subd. 6and subd. 3 I am requesting the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All requests for service and response and incident data for [Z]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Johnson&apos;s responded by letter on April 10, 2014. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are in the process of obtaining documents responsive to your data request. Please confirm that someone in your office represents [Z]. If so, please provide a signed retainer agreement or a copy of any other document substantiating the attorney/client relationship. Please also confirm that the requested data is on behalf of [Z]. This information is necessary because of Minn. Stat. Section 260B.171, subd. 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the City&apos;s response to this request, Ms. Kantorowicz wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First, [the City] requested a signed retainer agreement showing that our office represents the subject of the data practices request [Z]. Second, they quoted a statute that pertains to juvenile records which is not applicable in this case because [Z] is an adult.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Kantorowicz&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Waite Park respond appropriately to two data requests dated March 19, 2014, for certain law enforcement data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Waite Park respond appropriately to a request for a copy of the policy required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Waite Park respond appropriately to two data requests dated March 19, 2014, for certain law enforcement data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Subdivision 7 of that section allows a law enforcement agency to classify some law enforcement data as confidential or protected nonpublic while there is an active investigation. Certain other law enforcement data are always public, regardless of whether there is an active investigation. Section 13.82, subdivisions 2 (arrest data), 3 (request for service data), and 6 (response or incident data), list data that are always public.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;March 19, 2014, request for data about X and Y.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In her first March 19, 2014, request, Ms. Kantorowicz requested copies of, &quot;all response or incident or request for service data&quot; for a specific individual. She also requested a copy of an incident report involving a traffic accident for another individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Kantorowicz requested public data, but then stated that some of the data are &quot;pending cases and are private,&quot; and included a signed release from Y with the request. However, data listed in section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, are always public, regardless of whether there is an active investigation, and therefore a signed release (consent) is not necessary. In contrast, data classified by section 13.82, subdivision 7, are confidential or protected nonpublic (not private). Consequently, even with a signed release, Ms. Kantorowicz, or any other member of the public could not get access to active investigative data. (Individuals may not consent to release of confidential data about themselves. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267555&quot; title=&quot;11-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-015&lt;/a&gt;.) To the extent, the release Ms. Kantorowicz provided contributed to confusion about the appropriate response, the City was responsible for clarifying the request. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266994&quot; title=&quot;06-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267419&quot; title=&quot;06-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-029&lt;/a&gt;.) Here, the City denied Ms. Kantorowicz access to all of the data she requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 13, does not apply to this situation. This section allows a &quot;prosecuting authority&quot; to release investigative data to a victim of a crime or an alleged crime. Ms. Kantorowicz did not request access to investigative data as a crime victim or a crime victim&apos;s representative; she requested public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, contrary to Mr. Hansmeier&apos;s March 25 letter, Chapter 13 does not allow government entities to require a person &quot;to identify themselves, state a reason or justify a request to gain access to public government data&quot; unless authorized by statute. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12.) Members of the public may have access to public data for any reason.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City should have provided Ms. Kantorowicz with all public request for service and response or incident data for X and any public data in the traffic incident report for Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;March 19, 2014, request for data about Z.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While section 13.82 applies to most law enforcement data, peace officer records about children who are or may be delinquent, or who may be engaged in criminal acts are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5. Generally, that section classifies those data as private. (Similar to section 13.82, subdivision 13, section 260B.171, also contains a provision that allows for a victim of an allegedly delinquent juvenile to obtain access to certain data about the juvenile. See section 260B.171, subdivision 5(h).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the Commissioner&apos;s letter, Mr. Hansmeier wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The voluminous documents that were gathered by the City of Waite Park in response to the [Y] request contain multiple references to &quot;children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts&quot;. This information is clearly &quot;private&quot; data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 260B.171, subd. 5. In order to determine the permissible scope of information to release, the City of Waite Park needed to know whether Ms. Kantorowicz was a representative of the &quot;child&apos;s parent or guardian&quot;. If she was not, the &quot;Peace officer records of children&quot; could not be disclosed to Ms. Kantorowicz because the request was not made by the &quot;child&apos;s parent or guardian.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hansmeier is correct; the City has an obligation to protect not public data, including peace officer records of children. However, Ms. Kantorowicz requested public request for service and response or incident data about Z, who is an adult. She did not request private data on Z, nor did she request private data on any other individuals. Therefore, while an entity is responsible for clarifying an ambiguous request, the City&apos;s response here is incongruous with the data request. The City argued that it could not respond to the data request based on the classification of data that Ms. Kantorowicz had not requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City should have provided Ms. Kantorowicz with the public data that were responsive to her request and redacted any data that were otherwise not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Waite Park respond appropriately to a request for a copy of the policy required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, the responsible authority &quot;must prepare a written policy detailing its data access policies.&quot; Further, it provides that the responsible authority &quot;shall make copies of the policies available to the public.&quot; The responsible authority may fulfill that obligation by distributing free copies, posting the policies in a conspicuous place, or posting it on the entity&apos;s website. Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205 also provides guidance about access procedures for members of the public and data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued numerous opinions on the access policies and procedures required by Chapter 13. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267246&quot; title=&quot;04-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 04-049&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266477&quot; title=&quot;05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266427&quot; title=&quot;13-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-007&lt;/a&gt;.) The requirement for access policies is longstanding. The Legislature enacted the requirements in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, in 1999 and they went into effect January 1, 2001. The Legislature transferred the access policy provisions to section 13.025 in 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Ms. Kantorowicz asked the City for a copy of the policy required by section 13.025, identifying the responsible authority. Mr. Hansmeier replied and stated, &quot;Shaunna Johnson is the designated person for data practices for the City of Waite Park.&quot; He then directed Ms. Kantorowicz to forward all requests to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hansmeier, in response to the Commissioner, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to the request for the City of Waite Park&apos;s written policy, the City of Waite Park&apos;s written policy is memorialized in Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. In responding to government data requests, the City of Waite Park complies with applicable provisions of Chapter 13 including but not limited to Minn. Stat. Section 13.03, Minn. Stat. Section 13.04, Minn. Stat. Section 13.05 and Minn. Stat. section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Hansmeier&apos;s position. Reference to Chapter 13 is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for written access policies. The provision requires that the responsible authority proactively prepare written data access policies. In the absence of written policies identifying designees, the responsibility for responding to data requests is retained by the responsible authority. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267605&quot; title=&quot;00-21&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-021&lt;/a&gt;.) While Mr. Hansmeier identified Ms. Johnson as the &quot;responsible person for data requests,&quot; the City did not provide documentation that Ms. Johnson was appointed as the responsible authority or a designee for the City, nor did it provide documentation that Mr. Hansmeier had that authority. More specifically, the purpose of the statutory requirement &quot;to prepare a written policy detailing its data access policies&quot; is to articulate to whom the public should direct data requests and what procedures the City will follow to comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kantorowicz is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Waite Park did not respond appropriately to requests for public law enforcement data about X, Y, and Z.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Waite Park did not respond appropriately to a request for a copy of the policy required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 13, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267397</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:21:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-012</Title><title>Opinion 14 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267489&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-10-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A requester asked for the “raw
data file” that contained de-identified employee
responses to a survey. The request was denied
based on section 13.43, subdivision 7(a), which
classifies the data as private personnel data.
Personnel data are defined as “data on individuals”;
the data in question are not data on individuals
because an individual cannot “be identified as the
subject of that data” (section 13.02, subdivision 5).
Therefore, the data are not personnel data, and are
presumptively public. The city’s contractor that
conducted the survey said it would “sanitize” the
raw data to remove the identity of responders
before providing the “raw data file” to the entity;
any data that could identify an employee who was
the subject of a suggestion are private personnel
data.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 8, 2014; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 20, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Curtis Gilbert, on behalf of Minnesota Public Radio (MPR). In his letter, Mr. Gilbert asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Casey Joe Carl, City Clerk and responsible authority for the City, in response to Mr. Gilbert&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 26, 2014, were to inform him of Mr. Gilbert&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 8, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated September 2, 2014, from Mike Bloom, Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Gilbert provided them follows. In various communications in June and July of 2014, Mr. Gilbert asked for access to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data contained in employee responses to the city&apos;s 2014 Employee Engagement Survey.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This data I seek is described in the city&apos;s contract with Kenexa as the &quot;raw data file.&quot; That section spells out procedures for sanitizing the data to remove personally identifiable information such as employee numbers. To be clear, I am requesting the sanitized data. I am not seeking any information that would identify individual employees&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s contract with Kenexa contains the following provision:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kenexa will, upon written request, provide Customer with a raw data file The data file will include Individual responses to the survey including answers to opinion questions and coding demographics Prior to providing the data file, Kenexa and Customer will agree on a reasonable sanitization that Kenexa will perform on the data file solely for the purpose of maintaining assurances of respondent confidentiality and anonymity (such as removal of employee IDs).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City denied Mr. Gilbert&apos;s request. Subsequently MPR&apos;s attorney objected; Mr. Bloom responded that the City believed that the &quot;raw data file&quot; is classified as private data on City employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Gilbert&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond properly to a request for the &quot;raw data file&quot; related to the City&apos;s 2014 Employee Engagement Survey?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Data on individuals&quot; means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data. (Minnesota Statutes, section13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, &quot;personnel data&quot; are defined as &quot;government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by a government entity.&quot; Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public; subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Thus, the general presumption that all government data are public is reversed in section 13.43; personnel data are presumptively private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 7(a):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Personnel data includes data submitted by an employee to a government entity as part of an organized self-evaluation effort by the government entity to request suggestions from all employees on ways to cut costs, make government more efficient, or improve the operation of government. An employee who is identified in a suggestion shall have access to all data in the suggestion except the identity of the employee making the suggestion.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Gilbert stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our position is that the data are not &quot;data on individuals,&quot; and thus are presumed to be public government data. According to the city&apos;s contract the company is required to perform &quot;reasonable sanitization on the data file solely for the purposes of maintaining assurances of respondent confidentiality and anonymity&quot; before furnishing the file to the city. In other words, the raw data file comes to the city already stripped of &quot;government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data,&quot; and thus it could not be &quot;data on individuals&quot; as defined in section 13.02, subd. 5.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Bloom, the &quot;raw data file&quot; related to the City&apos;s 2014 Employee Engagement Survey is classified as private personnel under section 13.43. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The &quot;raw data file&quot; in question consists of data submitted to the City by its employees as part of the City&apos;s organized self-evaluation effort through which the City requested suggestions from its employees on ways to cut costs, make government more efficient, or otherwise improve government operation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 7a is silent as to the classification of employee suggestion data. Because employee suggestion data is not classified as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2, it is private data on individuals under section 13.43, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MPR&apos;s position is that the data being requested are not &quot;data on individuals,&quot; and thus are presumed to be public government data. MPR&apos;s position has no merit. Section 13.43, subd. 7a provides that the employee suggestion data being requested is &quot;personnel data.&quot; Personnel data is defined as &quot;government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of ... a government entity.&quot; By stating that personnel data includes employee suggestion data, the legislature has already determined that employee suggestion data is data on individuals. The language in Section 13.43 is clear and unambiguous and dictates the result - that employee suggestion data is personnel data that the data is classified as private. Moreover, there is no need to ascertain whether employee suggestion data also meets the statutory definition contained in section 13.02, subd. 5. This is because Section 13.43, subd. 4, protects as private all personal data not listed in subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon examining section 13.43, subd. 7a, it is clear the Legislature intended that employee suggestion data collected from employees be protected. Had the legislature intended a different result, it would not have placed employee suggestion data in section 13.43. Likewise, the Legislature could have easily provided that employee suggestion data are public by simply including employee suggestion data in subdivision 2. Instead, by operation of section 13.43, the Legislature ensured that employee suggestion data would remain private, since it falls under subdivision 4. [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Bloom&apos;s arguments regarding the application of section 13.43, subdivision 7a, but respectfully disagrees with the City&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order to be personnel data subject to classification under section 13.43, the data must be data on individuals. De-identified data are not data on individuals because an individual cannot &quot;be identified as the subject of that data&quot;. Mr. Bloom stated that because employee suggestion data are included in the definition of personnel data, even de-identified data are private under the operation of section 13.43. However, once &quot;sanitized&quot; or de-identified, the data in question are no longer personnel data, because they are not data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, in order for de-identified data to be inaccessible to the public, they would need to be classified as &lt;em&gt;nonpublic&lt;/em&gt; data. (Section 13.02, subdivision 9.) There is no statute that classifies the data held by the City as nonpublic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Bloom noted, section 13.43, subdivision 7a, does not classify suggestion data. Instead it clarifies that in data that are not de-identified, an &quot;employee who is identified in a suggestion shall have access to all [otherwise private personnel] data in the suggestion except the identity of the employee making the suggestion.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that per the City&apos;s contract with Kenexa, they &quot;will agree on a reasonable sanitization that Kenexa will perform on the data file solely for the purpose of maintaining assurances of &lt;em&gt;respondent confidentiality&lt;/em&gt; and anonymity.&quot; It is not clear whether the &quot;sanitization&quot; also removes identifying data on any employees mentioned by employee respondents. If the raw data file the City maintains contains data that identify an employee who is the subject of another employee&apos;s suggestion, those data are private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gilbert also questioned whether the purpose of the City&apos;s employee engagement survey fits the description of the specific kind of survey to which section13.43, subdivision 7(a), applies. However, in this context it doesn&apos;t matter what kind of employee survey the City conducted. Mr. Gilbert asked only for data in which an individual cannot be identified, and per the terms of its contract, Minneapolis maintains those data. Thus, Mr. Gilbert did not ask for access to private personnel data. He asked for the &quot;sanitized&quot; raw data file, which does not contain data in which an individual employee is identified. Therefore, those data are presumptively public under section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Gilbert is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Minneapolis did not respond properly to a request for the &quot;raw data file&quot; related to the City&apos;s 2014 Employee Engagement Survey. The City must redact data that identify a City employee, if the file contains such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 8, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267489</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee survey data</Title><Id>266720</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-011</Title><title>Opinion 14 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267574&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-09-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A requester asked for all data
submitted in response to RFPs for third party
auditors to conduct, or help conduct certain audits,
and all resulting contracts. The request was denied
based on the entity’s conclusion that all of the data
are not public data that “relate to an audit” under
section 3.979, subdivision 3(a). Section 13.591,
subdivision 3, generally classifies most of the data
in question as public, once the selection/evaluation
process is complete (except trade secrets), other
than data “relating to an audit” under section
3.979, subdivision 3(a).
*Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072,
subdivision 2, “[t]he commissioner … shall indicate
when the principles stated in an opinion are not
intended to provide guidance to all similarly situated
persons or government entities.” The Commissioner
does not intend for this opinion to be generally
applicable.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 17, 2014; Office of the Legislative Auditor</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 2, &quot;[t]he commissioner shall indicate when the principles stated in an opinion are not intended to provide guidance to all similarly situated persons or government entities.&quot; The Commissioner does not intend for this opinion to be generally applicable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 29, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated July 28, 2014, from JT Haines, on behalf of Public Record Media (PRM). In his letter, Mr. Haines asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James R. Nobles, the Legislative Auditor, in response to Mr. Haines&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 30, 2014, were to inform him of Mr. Haines&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for OLA&apos;s position. On August 4, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated July 31, 2014, from Mr. Nobles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Haines provided them follows. In a letter dated April 22, 2014, PRM requested access to certain data maintained by OLA. Of relevance here, PRM asked for:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Any and all RFPs issued by the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota that seek accounting firms or other entities to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subd. 9(d);&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Any and all bids submitted in response to the RFPs identified in Item 1, above;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. Any and all contracts executed between the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota and any entity contracted to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subd. 9(d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Haines wrote that OLA responded on April 29, 2014, by providing an RFP responsive to Item 1 of PRM&apos;s request, and an OLA &quot;project description&quot; document dated January 2014, entitled &quot;Managed Care Organizations&apos; Administrative Expenses.&quot; He wrote that OLA stated, &quot;&apos;all of the other data listed in your request are currently classified as not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2013, 3.979, until we release our final report,&apos; and that &apos;any information or data that is otherwise classified as not public will continue to retain such classification following release of our report later this year.&apos;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, in a letter dated May 8, 2014, PRM wrote to OLA:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. 13.591, Subd. 3(b) states that &apos;data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal; as defined in section 16C.02, subdivision 12, are private or nonpublic until the time and date specified in the solicitation that proposals are due, at which time the name of the responder becomes public.&apos; The same is true of the names of bidders submitting in response to a request for bids under Minn. Stat. 13.591, Subd. 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to the RFP produced by your office, proposals and/or bids were due on August 23, 2013. As of that date, the names of all responders and/or bidders were public data, and thereby should be released in response to Item 2 of my request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;And, if OLA has completed its selection and/or evaluation process for the proposals it solicited, all remaining data submitted by responders/bidders is public, with the exception of trade secret data, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.591, Subd. 3(a), (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If all responses/bids were rejected after the completion of the selection/evaluation process, all of the data described in the paragraph above would be public, and should be produced as responsive to Item 2 of my request, with one exception: If a government entity plans a resolicitation of proposals/bids within one year of the proposal/bid opening date, all data except the names of responders/bidders are private or nonpublic during that time. If this is the case, please clarify as much, as is obligated by Minn. Stat. 13.03, Subd. 3(f) (which requires that you describe the &apos;specific statutory section, temporary classification&apos; upon which a denial is based).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Item 3 of my request seeks &apos;any and all contracts executed between (OLA) and/or the State of Minnesota and any entity contracted to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, Subd. 9d.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If any such contracts exist, they are presumptively public pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.03, Subd. 1, which states that &apos;all government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification&apos; as not public data of any kind. See Data Practices Advisory Opinion 03-027 for its discussion of the presumptively public status of state contracts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to OLA&apos;s RFP, with the exception of any trade secrets, &quot;[a]ll materials submitted in response to this RFP will become property of OLA and will become public record in accordance with Minnesota Statutes [section] 13.591, after OLA completes evaluation of the proposals.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request to the Commissioner, Mr. Haines stated that PRM wrote again to OLA on May 30, 2014, and also contacted OLA by telephone, asking for a response to its May 8 letter to OLA. He wrote, &quot;[n]o response has been provided to date.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Haines&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Office of the Legislative Auditor respond appropriately to a request for the following data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All bids submitted in response to the RFPs issued by the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota that seek accounting firms or other persons to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subdivision 9(d).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All contracts executed between the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota and any person contracted to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subdivision 9(d).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 256B.69, subdivision 9(d) is a relatively new section of law that requires that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The legislative auditor shall contract with an audit firm to conduct a biennial independent third-party financial audit of the information required to be provided by managed care plans and county-based purchasing plans under subdivision 9c, paragraph (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Under Chapter 13, government data include procurement data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 3.979, subdivision 1, the Legislative Auditor is subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nobles stated,
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing to inform you that the documents Mr. Haines seeks are part of an ongoing OLA audit and are, therefore, currently classified as not public. &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Statutes&lt;/em&gt; 2013, 3.979, subd. 3(a), states the following:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;... Data relating to an audit are not public or with respect to data on individuals are confidential until the final report of the audit has been released by the legislative auditor or the audit is no longer being actively pursued. Upon release of a final audit report by the legislative auditor, data relating to an audit are public except data otherwise classified as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This provision of law is clear. It classifies all documents that are &apos;related to&apos; an ongoing audit as not public, even documents that are otherwise public. The not public classification does not end until the Legislative Auditor completes the audit and issues a final report, or is no longer conducting the audit. We anticipate that our audit of managed care organizations will be completed this fall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To grant Mr. Haines access to the documents would violate state law and damage an important safeguard in the audit process. In fact, even legislators, including members of the Legislative Audit Commission, are not given access to OLA work papers until an audit is completed. In sum, Mr. Haines will have to be patient and allow the law to work as intended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges the broad authority OLA has to protect &quot;data relating to an audit&quot; under section 3.979 subdivision 3(a). The Commissioner also understands that section 13.591 provides for public access to the procurement process, including bids/responses related to the solicitation of contracted services. Here, the statutes appear to be irreconcilable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, sets forth the rules for determining which provision prevails when a general provision conflicts with a special provision in the same or another law. However, here, there appear to be two special provisions, and the general canons of statutory construction do not provide clear guidance to resolve the conflict as to which provision prevails in this situation. (See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645.). Consequently, this opinion seeks to distinguish between procurement related information which is public, and data related to an audit, which are also public but not until the audit is complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data in government contracts are presumptively public (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267672&quot; title=&quot;03-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-027&lt;/a&gt;). The proposals/bids were due August 23, 2013, and the names of the bidders/responders were public on that date under section 13.591, subdivision 3. All of the remaining data (except for any trade secrets) a business/vendor provides become public when the government entity either completes the &quot;selection process&quot; for bids, or completes the &quot;evaluation process&quot; for proposals (see section 13.591, subdivision 3(a) and (b)). Assuming the evaluation process is complete, then the responses are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not reviewed the data in question, but expects the data predominantly consist of procurement information. As noted above, data related to the procurement process, generally are public under section 13.591, subdivision 3. For example, the names of the responders, their experience conducting this kind of audit, and the names/qualifications of their personnel are likely data that OLA maintains, but are not data related to an audit. Any other data of this sort are also data that are public under section 13.591.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly, data in contracts OLA maintains are presumptively public, and likely not data that qualify for protection under section 3.979. For example, names of the firms(s) with whom OLA enters into a contact, the firm&apos;s qualifications, the contractual period, and the dollar amount the parties agree to, are not data subject to section 3.979.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following OLA&apos;s reasoning that all of the procurement and contract data are protected as data relating to an audit, and consequently not public, then OLA would be unable to share those data with anyone in the public until the audit is complete. Per section 3.979, subdivision 4, before releasing a report, OLA has authority to share data relating to an audit only &quot;for the purpose of review and verification of the data&quot;. The practical effect of that provision is that if OLA determines that PRM is not entitled to get access to the bids/responses and contract(s), then neither are the managed care plans who are being audited, or any other member of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, Chapter 645 does not provide clear guidance here. However, section 645.17 (1), provides that &quot;the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, OLA may rely on the data classifications provided in section 13.591, in order to effectively perform its legislative duties while properly protecting not public data. Under section 13.591, OLA may share with the managed care firms (and the public), public data such as name of bidders and bid documents, professional experience of the vendor, and information about the vendor, name of vendor(s) contracted with and how much they are paid, and still protect data related to an audit under section 3.979.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Haines is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Office of the Legislative Auditor must provide appropriate access to the data in question as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All bids submitted in response to the RFPs issued by the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota that seek accounting firms or other persons to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subdivision 9(d)c, other than data &quot;relating to an audit&quot; under section 3.979, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All contracts executed between the Office of the Legislative Auditor and/or the State of Minnesota and any person contracted to conduct, or help conduct, the audits required by Minn. Stat. 256B.69, subdivision 9(d), other than data &quot;relating to an audit&quot; under section 3.979, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Matthew Massman
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 17, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267574</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts are public</Title><Id>266806</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of the Legislative Auditor</Title><Id>266256</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-010</Title><title>Opinion 14 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266929&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-08-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A member of the public asked about the
copy of printed materials at a township meeting.
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 6, requires
public bodies to make at least one copy of any printed
materials distributed to the public body members
available during a public meeting. The member of the
public stated that the Township Planning Commission did
not include a copy of the draft comprehensive plan. The
Township’s attorney responded that the Commission did
include the comprehensive plan in the public packet of
materials. Though the Commissioner could not resolve
the factual dispute, he offered some practical advice to
the Township, including offering more than one copy of
the materials, posting the materials online, or listing the
contents of the materials</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 5, 2014; Baldwin Township Planning Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 23, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Chuck Nagle, dated June 19, 2014. In his letter, Mr. Nagle asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Baldwin Township Board members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 24, 2014, IPAD wrote to Jay Swanson, Chair of the public body. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Swanson of Mr. Nagle&apos;s request and gave the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On July 16, 2014, 2013, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Robert Ruppe, attorney for the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Nagle follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 7, 2011, the Baldwin Township Board approved Ordinance 200, establishing a planning commission. The ordinance provides that the Baldwin Town Board will appoint planning commission members&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 22, 2014 the Baldwin Planning Commission met in special session. The meeting was properly noticed. There was a printed materials packet available for public inspection at the front table. It contained only the prior meeting draft meeting minutes for approval. The consulting planner[-]prepared draft of the Baldwin comprehensive plan was distributed to all planning commission members and discussed in detail. No copy was made available for public inspection in any form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 23, 2014 the Baldwin Town Board met in special session. The meeting was properly noticed. During the Citizens Open Forum agenda item I stated the facts above and asked if a copy of the comprehensive draft plan be made available for me to view [sic]. The response from Chairman Swanson was that it was only a draft and the consulting planning [sic] would need to be contacted to determine her wishes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ruppe clarified the dates in Mr. Nagle&apos;s opinion request. The Planning Commission reviewed the comprehensive plan at a meeting on May 21, 2014, and the Town Board held a subsequent regular meeting on May 22, 2014, which is also reflected by the meeting minutes submitted by Mr. Nagle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Nagle&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Baldwin Planning Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the May 21, 2014, meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that the Planning Commission is subject to the Open Meeting Law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c)(3), includes a &quot;commission of a public body.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Public copy of members&apos; materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nagle contends that the Planning Commission did not provide a copy of the comprehensive plan in its members&apos; materials at its May 21, 2014, meeting. On behalf of the Town Board, Mr. Ruppe wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission had available for public inspection all of the documents that were being discussed by the Planning Commission at the meeting. Contrary to Mr. Nagel&apos;s [sic] allegations, the documents available for public inspection included a copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan being worked on by the Planning Commission. As such the Planning Commission has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statute, section 13D.01, subdivision 6. Further, Planning Consultant Bridget Chard read the entire draft of the Comprehensive Plan aloud at the May 22nd meeting so that all members of the public could follow along with the Planning Commission. If the materials were missing from the packet as alleged by Mr. Nagel [sic] it was most likely removed by a member of the public interested in the issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute. To the extent that the Planning Commission did not include a draft of the comprehensive plan in the public copy of the members&apos; materials, it did not comply with section 13D.01, subd. 6. If, on the other hand, the draft was included in the materials as Mr. Ruppe suggests, the Commission complied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Managing the public copy of the members&apos; materials is a common issue for public bodies and members of the public. The Commissioner would like to offer the following guidance. The plain language of section 13D.01, subdivision 6, requires that the public body make &quot;at least one copy&quot; of members&apos; materials available to the public at the meeting. In providing only one complete copy, the body fulfills its obligation. However, as people review its contents, there is a greater chance that the packet may be altered so that others do not have access to it, as Mr. Ruppe suggests may have happened here. In fulfilling the requirement, it is the public body&apos;s responsibility to make certain that the packet is complete. Public bodies may consider the following optional strategies, in addition to providing the one copy during the meeting: posting the information on their websites, providing multiple copies, or including a cover-sheet on the public packet listing its contents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is sensitive to the fact that members of the public living in certain non-metro townships encounter challenges when trying to access information from their local governments. Because those bodies are not &quot;government entities&quot; subject to the Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13), the access provided for in the Open Meeting Law is vital to township citizens&apos; participation in and oversight of their government bodies. The Commissioner strongly encourages all public bodies to develop ways to guarantee meaningful access to the information required by section 13D.01.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Nagle raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Baldwin Planning Commission complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the May 21, 2014, meeting because there is a factual dispute as to whether the Commission included a draft of the comprehensive plan in the public members&apos; materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 5, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266929</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T18:03:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-009</Title><title>Opinion 14 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266966&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-07-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An educational entity asked whether it
could designate limited directory information as
described in the federal Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act’s (FERPA) regulations consistent with Chapter
13. Educational entities can designate limited directory
information and the federal government affords greater
privacy protection to limited directory information such
that access could be restricted to specific parties, for
specific purposes, or both.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 18, 2014; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2023, the legislature amended Minnesota Statutes section 13.32, subdivision 5, to limit what data may be designated as directory or limited directory information. This statutory change does not apply to post secondary institutions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 4, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Kristine Legler Kaplan, Deputy General Counsel for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU). In her letter, Ms. Kaplan asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the treatment of certain data that the entity maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kaplan provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On behalf of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU), I am writing to request an Advisory Opinion on a matter concerning the interplay between the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)... The regulations implementing FERPA have, in many respects, been incorporated into the MGDPA to avoid inconsistency between the state and federal laws. Among those incorporated regulations is 34 [Code of Federal Regulations] 99.31, which enumerates exceptions to the general rule [e.g. directory info] that student consent is required for a college or university to release personally identifiable student information to third parties.
&lt;br /&gt;
. . . .
&lt;br /&gt;
To provide schools with additional flexibility the Department of Education amended the FERPA regulations in 2011 to permit (but not require) educational institutions to designate certain directory information as &quot;limited directory information&quot; that it will disclose only to specified parties, for specified purposes or both. All directory information, regardless of whether it is so designated, is subject to the longstanding conditions described in 34 CFR 99.37(a) (annual notice to students of the school&apos;s FERPA policies and the right to &quot;opt-out&quot; of the disclosure of directory information.) We are requesting an Advisory Opinion as to whether MnSCU institutions can, consistent with the MGDPA, utilize the limited directory information designation, now authorized under FERPA.(Footnotes, emphasis, and citations omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Kaplan&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the treatment of educational data that a government entity designates as &quot;limited directory information&quot; as described by 34 CFR 99.37(d)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted by Ms. Kaplan above, both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies educational data and incorporates much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 USC 1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 CFR Part 99. In general, data about students are private and may not be released without consent. (See section 13.32, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, section 13.32, subdivision 5, classifies data designated as directory information pursuant to 34 CFR 99.37(a), as public data. Directory information &quot;means information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.&quot; (See 34 CFR 99.3). Directory information may include a student&apos;s name, address, photograph, and participation in sports or activities, among other data elements. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267591&quot; title=&quot;01-078&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-078&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268007&quot; title=&quot;04-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267868&quot; title=&quot;04-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-065&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267142&quot; title=&quot;09-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-021&lt;/a&gt;, which discuss directory information further.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 2011 changes to the regulations implementing FERPA, described by Ms. Kaplan, allow for educational agencies and institutions to designate &quot;limited directory information.&quot; 34 CFR 99.37(d) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In its public notice to parents and eligible students in attendance at the agency or institution that is described in paragraph (a) of this section, an educational agency or institution may specify that disclosure of directory information will be limited to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both. When an educational agency or institution specifies that disclosure of directory information will be limited to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both, the educational agency or institution must limit its directory information disclosures to those specified in its public notice that is described in paragraph (a) of this section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Kaplan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In part because of the MGDPA&apos;s &quot;all-or-nothing&quot; rule on public data, a number of MnSCU schools have adopted very limited definitions of directory data in order to protect their students from unwanted contacts, such as marketing campaigns, or even targeting for criminal acts. Such a policy creates administrative barriers and prevents colleges and universities from &quot;disclosing&quot; student information for educationally-related purposes without additional consent procedures. For example, a two-year college that does not list mailing addresses as directory information is limited in providing that contact information to MnSCU universities to assist in recruitment for four-year college degree programs; a university that does not include photos as directory information cannot create a graduation program with photos absent specific consent; and MnSCU schools must seek consent to provide student email addresses to other students or their affiliated foundations unless they are directory information also available to the general public.
&lt;br /&gt;
. . . .
&lt;br /&gt;
We believe that recognition of the limited directory information under the MGDPA would not be inconsistent with [section 13.32, subd. 5] since it does not change the list of information designated as directory information in the FERPA Regulations as of January 1, 2007, nor would it alter a student&apos;s rights to the notice and &quot;opt-out&quot; provisions that continue to be applicable to all directory data under 34 CFR 99.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees that MnSCU, as well as other educational agencies and institutions, may designate limited directory information consistent with Chapter 13. However, with regard to access to such data, Chapter 13 is preempted by the FERPA regulations. (Where a state and a federal law conflict, the federal law governs. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267487&quot; title=&quot;04-068&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-068&lt;/a&gt;, discussing FERPA&apos;s preemption of the six month limitation on a data subject&apos;s access to data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Limited directory information is one of the few situations where the federal government has provided greater privacy protection for certain data than the State. Therefore, unlike general directory information, which is accessible to anyone, for any reason, educational agencies and institutions may restrict access to limited directory information to those specific parties and/or for those specific purposes identified in the annual FERPA notice. Consequently, entities that choose to designate limited directory information may have two sets of data: one that is general directory information and one that is limited directory information (pursuant to 34 CFR 99.37(d)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Kaplan raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a government entity may designate certain educational data as &quot;limited directory information&quot; as described by 34 CFR 99.37(d), and may release those data to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both, as identified by the entity in its public notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 18, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266966</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limited directory information</Title><Id>266965</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-08-18T19:56:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-008</Title><title>Opinion 14 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267005&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-07-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A School District planned to fill an
open seat on its school board by appointment. The
media asked for public data about the applicants
under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601. The
District first responded that the data were private
under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, but gave
the data to the media six days after the application
period ended, after the school board approved a
resolution that it no longer considered board
members to be employees. The District’s initial
response was incorrect, but because the District
was obligated to redact private applicant data per
section 13.601, the District’s eventual response was
prompt and reasonable.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 2014; Independent School District 833 (South Washington County Schools)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 10, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Scott Wente, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;South Washington County Bulletin&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Wente asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data Independent School District 833, South Washington County Schools, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Wente&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Keith Jacobus, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated June 11, 2014, were to inform him of Mr. Wente&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 26, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Michael J. Waldspurger, attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wente provided them follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;District 833 planned to fill an open seat on its School Board by appointment following the resignation of a board member. The district established an application period of May 19-30, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[On May 22, 2014], [t]he &lt;em&gt;Bulletin&lt;/em&gt; requested verbally and in writing that District 833 provide public information about the applicants as their applications were received during the filing period, pursuant to Section 13.601, subd. 3, of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. [In his May 22, 2014, written request, Mr. Wente asked for the following data: &quot;[a]ll public candidate applications/materials for the open seat on the South Washington County School Board.&quot;]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;District 833, through its attorney, verbally denied the request. In support of its position, it cited Minnesota Statute 13.43, sudb. [sic] 3; Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 07-022; and District 833&apos;s policy of treating School Board members as district employees for the purposes of the Minnesota Data Practices Act. In effect, the District contended that because the board members were treated as employees by the District, section 13.43, subd. 3, governed access to information about the applicants, and not section 13.601, subd.3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;District 833 did eventually provide public information about the School Board applicants to the Bulletin on June 5 - six days after the application period ended, and after the conclusion of a School Board meeting that included approval of a resolution changing the District&apos;s policy to treat board members as elected officials rather than employees.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bulletin believes that Section 13.601, subd. 3, is the applicable statute governing public access to data on applicants for appointment to a school board, whether they are considered to be employees or elected officials. As such, it is the position of the Bulletin that District 833 did not properly comply with the newspaper&apos;s request for public information about applicants to the School Board as they submitted their applications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Wente&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 833, South Washington County Schools, respond appropriately to requests for access to data about applicants for an open seat on the School Board?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 1, defines &quot;personnel data&quot; as &quot;government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.&quot; Pursuant to subdivision 3, certain data on applicants, including their names, are private until &quot;selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to a 2005 amendment, the definition of personnel data included data &quot;on an individual who is a member of &lt;em&gt;or an applicant for&lt;/em&gt; an advisory board or commission.&quot; That year, the Legislature removed those individuals from the definition of personnel data and enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3, which classified data on &quot;all applicants for &lt;em&gt;election or appointment&lt;/em&gt; to a public body, including those subject to chapter 13D&quot; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature amended section 13.601, subdivision 3(a), as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data about &lt;em&gt;applicants for appointment to a public body&lt;/em&gt; collected by a government entity as a result of the applicant&apos;s application for appointment to the public body are private data on individuals except that the following [data described in sub-clauses 1-9, including applicant&apos;s name] are public [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waldspurger noted that the Commissioner has issued numerous advisory opinions that state that it is up to the government entity to determine whether an appointed or elected official is an employee for purposes of Chapter 13. He stated that the Board &quot;had historically considered its members to be employees for purposes of section 13.43. .... At a duly scheduled meeting on Thursday, June 5, 2014, the School Board adopted a resolution declaring that members of the Board are not &apos;employees&apos; for purposes of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Wente asked the Commissioner whether data on applicants for appointment to the School Board were classified by section 13.43, or section 13.601. The advisory opinions to which Mr. Waldspurger referred were issued prior to the 2008 amendments to section 13.601, and therefore are not applicable here. (Mr. Waldspurger also referenced a 2006 opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General. Again, because that opinion was issued prior to 2008, the Commissioner does not believe that it is applicable to this discussion.)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, data on &lt;em&gt;applicants for appointment&lt;/em&gt; to a public body, such as the School Board, are classified under section 13.601, not section 13.43. The data enumerated at section 13.601, subdivision 3(a), were public when the District received the applications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the timeliness of the District&apos;s response, Mr. Wente stated that he asked the District to provide him with public data on School Board applicants as the Board received them. Mr. Waldspurger disputes that claim. However, in a May 23, 2014, email to Mr. Waldspurger, Mr. Wente wrote that he wanted to clarify that the data on applicants were, &quot;public when they apply, based on statute 13.601. &lt;em&gt;I&apos;ve already requested that the district provide public data in 13.601 as applications are received,&lt;/em&gt; but I want to clarify that the district is on the same page as far as what is public and what is not public.&quot; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger wrote in response to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District received the first application on Thursday afternoon, May 29, 2014. The District received the remaining six applications shortly before the 4:00 p.m. deadline on Friday afternoon, May 30, 2014. Because the majority of applications were received shortly before the close of business on Friday, the District did not have an opportunity to review and process the application materials until Monday, June 2, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, immediately following the June 5, 2014, School Board meeting (at which it passed a resolution that Board members are not employees), the District gave Mr. Wente copies of all of the data it maintained that were responsive to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District was not correct that the data on applicants for the open seat on the School Board were classified as private under section 13.43; however, not all data on an applicant for appointment are public under section 13.601, subdivision 3. Therefore, the District was obligated to review the applications and redact as necessary before releasing public applicant data. The District received the first application on May 29, and provided Mr. Wente with copies of all of the data he requested on June 5, 2014. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner believes the District&apos;s response was prompt and reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wente is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 833, South Washington County Schools, responded appropriately to requests for access to the data about applicants for an open seat on the School Board that are public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 11, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267005</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for appointment to a public body and public body appointees</Title><Id>267004</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:55Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-007</Title><title>Opinion 14 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266366&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-06-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A member of the public asked
whether a City had complied with Minnesota
Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 3(a), regarding a
summary of the conclusions of an employee’s
performance evaluation at the next open meeting.
The City did not comply when it failed to provide a
summary at the next open meeting and because
the statement provided at a subsequent meeting
was insufficient.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 18, 2014; Newport City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 30, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Pauline Schottmuller, dated April 27, 2014. In her letter, Ms. Schottmuller asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Newport City Council (the Council) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 2, 2014, IPAD wrote to Mayor Tim Geraghty, Chair of the City Council. In its letter, IPAD informed Mayor Geraghty of Ms. Schottmuller&apos;s request and gave the members of the Council an opportunity to explain their position. On May 19, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Frederic Knaak, attorney for the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Schottmuller follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A closed meeting was held March 6, 2014 to conduct a performance evaluation of [the], city administrator. The Minnesota Open meeting law requires a summary of the conclusions of the evaluation at the next open city council meeting. That meeting, a regularly scheduled council meeting, occurred March 20th. No summary was presented. The South Washington County Bulletin published an article about the violation in the March 26th edition. On April 3rd, Mayor Geraghty references the newspaper article and the evaluation at the council meeting. I don&apos;t believe that his brief remarks constitute a summary of the conclusions of the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Schottmuller provided the Commissioner with copies of the meeting minutes of the three City Council meetings. The March 6, 2014, minutes provide: &quot;The City Council closed the meeting to the public to discuss [the City Administrator&apos;s] performance evaluation at 8:05 p.m. The City Council opened the meeting to the public at 8:37 p.m.&quot; The April 3, 2014, minutes report the following comment from Mayor Geraghty:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The other item I wanted to talk about which was put in the newspaper was [the City Administrator&apos;s] performance evaluation that was done at the March 6 workshop during a closed session. I wasn&apos;t at the actual workshop but I&apos;ll summarize what I think happened. We talked about [the City Administrator&apos;s] performance, her strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I think it was satisfactory. It wasn&apos;t mentioned at the last meeting because of an oversight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Schottmuller&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Newport City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the city administrator&apos;s performance evaluation it conducted at a closed meeting on March 6, 2014?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3 (a), [a] public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. . . . . At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed this issue in several previous opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 99-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-021&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267659&quot; title=&quot;02-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-035&lt;/a&gt;.) In those opinions, the Commissioner concluded that the following statements were insufficient to fulfill the public bodies&apos; statutory obligations: &quot;[the Board] discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses&quot;; &quot;As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership&quot;; and &quot;areas of growth were identified and [the Superintendent&apos;s] evaluation is an ongoing process.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, according to the video of the April 6, 2014 meeting, submitted by the Council, Mayor Geraghty said:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The other item that I wanted to talk about that was put into the newspaper was our evaluation for [the City Administrator] that was conducted at our March 6, workshop, it wasn&apos;t at the Council meeting it was at the workshop. It was done in a closed session. And I wasn&apos;t at the actual workshop because I was out of town. But I&apos;ll summarize what I think what happened and you guys can affirm it. Basically we talked about [the City Administrator&apos;s] performance, her strengths, weaknesses, where she needs improvement. Overall, I think it was satisfactory. And it wasn&apos;t mentioned at the last meeting just because of an oversight. I guess nobody thought of it at the table here. With that, if anyone wants to clarify or add anything.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two Council members responded, &quot;nope, that&apos;s about right&quot; and &quot;that&apos;s pretty close.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knaak wrote on behalf of the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the City&apos;s position that no violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statute does not define its use of the term &quot;summarize&quot;, or what &quot;conclusions&quot; must be reported. In this particular process, no formal &quot;conclusions&quot; of any kind were reached or were considered to be part of the review process undertaken by the City during a routine review where no specific performance issues were raised prior to the review. The statute would not appear to require the City create &quot;conclusions&quot; to summarize if none were part of the process the City was undertaking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Mr. Knaak is correct in that the Legislature did not define the word, &quot;conclusions.&quot; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, words are construed &quot;according to their common and approved usage.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Tenth Edition, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines &quot;conclusion&quot; as: &quot;a reasoned judgment.&quot; According to Mayor Geraghty&apos;s statement at the April 6, 2014, meeting, which was validated by other Council members, the Council discussed the City Administrator&apos;s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. In doing so, the Council necessarily must have made judgments that the City Administrator had, in fact, demonstrated strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. If, however, the Council did not come to a conclusion on any of those items, that itself is a conclusion which the Council was required to summarize pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Secondly, Mayor Geraghty clearly acknowledged that the Council&apos;s summary was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner reminds public bodies that regardless of terminology, &quot;workshops,&quot; which a quorum of members attends, are also &quot;meetings&quot; for purposes of Chapter 13D. Whether public bodies consider &quot;workshops&quot; to be separate meetings can have an effect on the timing of the required summary. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-008&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Schottmuller raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Newport City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), when it failed to provide a summary of conclusions of the city administrator&apos;s performance evaluation conducted at a closed meeting on March 6, 2014, at its next open meeting.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 18, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266366</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-25T18:24:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-006</Title><title>Opinion 14 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267728&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-06-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 15, 2014, request for data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 25, 2014, request for data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 5, 2014; Independent School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 22, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated April 21, 2014, from Tim Finnegan. In his letter, Mr. Finnegan asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data Independent School District 625, St. Paul (the District), maintains, as well as his rights as a subject of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Superintendent Valeria Silva, data practices responsible authority, in response to Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2014, were to inform her of Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 12, 2014, IPAD received a response to Issue 1, dated same, from Jeffery Lalla, General Counsel to the District. On May 12, 2014, IPAD received a response to Issue 2, dated same, from Nancy Cameron, Deputy General Counsel for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the materials Mr. Finnegan submitted to the Commissioner, a summary of the facts follows. On March 14, 2014, Mr. Finnegan sent an email data request to Superintendent Silva, in which he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I seek access to the following: Any and all data that document ISD 625&apos;s public data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated regarding, [an employee], once employed by ISD 625 and just recently resigned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting all data as defined in Minnesota Statutes 13.43 Personnel Data, Subd. 2, (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (b), [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am also requesting any data that document all other persons or entities that have requested public data pertaining to [the employee] from February, 2014 through March 14, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District provided Mr. Finnegan access to some of the requested data. On April 3, 2014, Mr. Finnegan wrote to Ms. Silva, asking for the statutory basis for denying him access to two of three complaints against the former employee, as well as the data that document persons or entities requesting public data about him. On April 4, 2014, Mr. Lalla responded on behalf of the District stating that the data were classified as private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 25, 2014, Mr. Finnegan submitted another data request to the District seeking access to data of which he is the data subject. He wrote: I seek access to the following: Any and all data that document ISD 625&apos;s data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated regarding me, Tim Finnegan, an employee of ISD 625 .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 4, 2014, Mr. Finnegan received a response from Laurin Cathey, Executive Director for Human Resources on behalf of the District. Mr. Cathey noted that Mr. Finnegan had previously requested and received access to data of which he was the data subject. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am unclear as to what new or additional data you are asking to inspect. Please identify what new or additional data you would like to inspect, and the District will consider your request further.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Finnegan&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 15, 2014, request for data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 25, 2014, request for data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 15, 2014, request for data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5) classify the following data about complaints against the employee and disciplinary actions as public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body[.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 15, 2014, Mr. Finnegan requested access to data regarding a certain former public employee. At issue here, are data related to complaints against the employee and data documenting any persons or entities that had requested public data about the same employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Finnegan, on April 4, 2014, Mr. Lalla wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Complaints (as contrasted with disciplinary actions) against employees are not public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Rather, this section not the law only makes public &quot;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee.&quot; See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4). Yesterday you were advised that there were three complaints against [the former employee], one of which resulted in discipline. The status of the two complaints which did not result in discipline are &quot;closed&quot;. You were provided with documentation pertaining to the one complaint which resulted in discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the complaint data, the Commissioner agrees that the District was not required to provide any more data regarding the two complaints that did not result in discipline. Mr. Finnegan was made aware of the existence of the complaints and Mr. Lalla informed him that the status of both complaints is &quot;closed.&quot; Because no discipline resulted, the underlying data about the complaint are private and Mr. Finnegan, as a member of the public, was not entitled to access that data. (Mr. Finnegan did not challenge his access to the data regarding the third complaint.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Finnegan also requested access to &quot;any data that document all other persons or entities&quot; that requested public data about the employee. In his April 4, 2014 email, Mr. Lalla responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data dealing with data requests about an employee is not data declared to be public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 or any other statute. Thus the School District is prohibited from providing you with data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. As the Commissioner has stated before, Chapter 13 generally classifies data elements, not documents. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267717&quot; title=&quot;03-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 03-036&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267558&quot; title=&quot;05-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-033&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267001&quot; title=&quot;12-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;12-006&lt;/a&gt;.) Data related to individuals requesting public data is not data collected, created, or maintained because the individual is an employee of a government entity. Moreover, &quot;an entity&quot; requesting public data is not an &quot;individual.&quot; Therefore, &quot;data that document all other persons or entities&quot; requesting public data cannot be private personnel data pursuant to section 13.43. Because Chapter 13 does not classify data related to public data requesters, those data are presumptively public. As such, the District should provide Mr. Finnegan with all public data responsive to his request, if any, in a prompt and reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f) requires the responsible authority or designee to state the grounds upon which a requester is denied access to data by citing to the specific statute, federal law, or temporary classification. Here, Mr. Lalla ultimately provided Mr. Finnegan with a determination, but not until after Mr. Finnegan had inspected the data and subsequently requested the basis for the denial. The Commissioner reminds entities that section 13.03 requires the responsible authority or designee to inform the requester of the not public classification, &quot;either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible.&quot; The requester should not need to inquire about the determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 25, 2014, request for data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a government entity receives a data request from a data subject:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 3, also provides that an entity is not required to allow a data subject access to private data, if the data subject has accessed the same data within the last six months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 25, 2014, Mr. Finnegan requested: &quot;Any and all data that document ISD 625&apos;s data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated regarding me, Tim Finnegan, an employee of ISD 625.&quot; Eight days later on April 4, 2014, Mr. Cathey, on behalf of the District replied, &quot;I am unclear as to what new or additional data you are asking to inspect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner on behalf of the District, Ms. Cameron wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Prior to [the March 25, 2014] request, Finnegan had also made a number of requests for public and private data on himself. The District answered all of those requests. Finnegan inspected data about himself and received copies of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Against this backdrop [Mr. Cathey] responded to Mr. Finnegan. On April 4, 2014, Mr. Cathey wrote to Finnegan seeking clarification of the March 25, 2014 data request.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Mr. Cathey sought clarification, to date Finnegan has not clarified what specific data he would like to inspect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District does not know what data Mr. Finnegan would like to inspect(Exhibit references omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267823&quot; title=&quot;01-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-016&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved ISD 625, a parent requested access to a complete record of his/her child&apos;s education data. There, the District argued, in part, that its delay in providing the requester with the data was due to a need to clarify and its attempts to call the requester. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First, X&apos;s request seems quite clear; s/he wanted a copy of everything the District maintained about his/her children. Second, X specifically asked to have communications conducted in writing. It is not clear why the District did not send X a letter.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above, section 13.04, subdivision 3, requires that government entities respond [i.e., provide access to the data by inspection or copies] to data subject requests within ten working days. The statute does not allow for exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation is the same here: Ms. Cameron argued that because Mr. Finnegan had asked for data about himself in years past, the District was unsure as to what his March 25, 2014, request meant and required clarification. However, Mr. Finnegan clearly requested all data that the District maintains about him. The plain language of section 13.04, subdivision 3, required the District to provide access to the data immediately, if possible, or within 10 days. (The six month limitation on access to private data noted above is not relevant here; Mr. Finnegan and the District agree that Mr. Finnegan&apos;s last request for private data was in December 2012.) While the Commissioner finds Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request to be straightforward here, when a data subject&apos;s request is vague or ambiguous, entities may need to seek clarification. In doing so, they must act in a timely manner that does not interfere with their obligations under section 13.04. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-026&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, while the Commissioner acknowledges the District&apos;s efforts to communicate with Mr. Finnegan, Mr. Cathey&apos;s April 4, 2014, response impermissibly limited Mr. Finnegan&apos;s right to access data about himself to &quot;new or additional data.&quot; As noted above, entities may only limit a data subject&apos;s access to private data within six months and in certain circumstances. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267240&quot; title=&quot;95-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 95-051&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267363&quot; title=&quot;98-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the District failed to provide Mr. Finnegan access to the data he requested within 10 days, it did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Finnegan is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 625, St. Paul, responded appropriately to a March 15, 2014, request for complaint data about a former employee. The District did not respond appropriately to a request for data relating to persons or entities requesting public data about a former employee; those data are presumptively public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 625, St. Paul, did not respond appropriately to a March 25, 2014, request for &quot;any and all data&quot; about a data requester, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, because it did not comply in a timely manner.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 5, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267728</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days</Title><Id>266515</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:55Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-005</Title><title>Opinion 14 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267821&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-06-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Houston County Board of Commissioners comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at its April 8, 2014, meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 2, 2014; Houston County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 15, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Ken Tschumper, dated April 14, 2014. In his letter, Mr. Tschumper asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Houston County Board of Commissioners members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 23, 2014, IPAD wrote to Teresa Walter, Chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Ms. Walter of Mr. Tschumper&apos;s request and gave the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On May 8, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jay T. Squires, attorney for the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Tschumper follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For several years the Houston County Board has dealt with matters relating to the Erickson Quarry, proposed silica sand mine located in Yucatan Township, Houston County. It is also currently considering various options for amending the County Zoning Ordinance to prohibit or regulate silica sand mining.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Tuesday, April 8th, 2014, the Board, at the suggestion of their attorney Jay Squires, closed their weekly meeting for the stated purpose of general discussion of ongoing matters related to the Erickson Quarry. In addition, it appears the closed meeting also included discussion related to amending the Zoning Ordinance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Tschumper, Mr. Squires participated in the April 8 meeting via speaker phone. Mr. Tschumper provided a transcript of the recording of the meeting. Mr. Squires&apos; comments to the Board follow:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As I understand, there are a couple issues that the board wishes to talk about today. One involves specifically the Erickson property and the status of that property with respect to the history of events and Mr. Erickson&apos;s request to recommence mining.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The second issue I understand involves the county&apos;s consideration of discussion of potential future ordinances in the area of silica sand mining.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I think the issues are separate, and with respect to the former, there have been a number of threats of litigation, and, of course there is a history of past litigation. I would like to be able to talk to the county board candidly about the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions that the county may have in response to Mr. Erickson&apos;s pending request and in light of the threats of litigation and in light of that, that would be a proper topic of a closed meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In discussing the second topic, in discussing future ordinances, that would not, in my judgement, be a proper topic of a closed meeting, so what I recommend to the board, [y]ou could convene into closed session on the basis of the attorney client privilege exception in the open meeting law for the reason that&apos;s discussed. There would be no discussion of the ordinance options of a more general nature which would be in closed session, we would reopen and then if the board wishes [to discuss] that second topic&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Tschumper&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Houston County Board of Commissioners comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at its April 8, 2014, meeting?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, states, &quot;[b]efore closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed the three requirements to close a meeting in previous opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267613&quot; title=&quot;06-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 06-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267617&quot; title=&quot;07-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-018&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266988&quot; title=&quot;13-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-012&lt;/a&gt;.) In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner described those requirements as: &quot;1) a statement on the record; 2) the specific grounds allowing the meeting to be closed (the statutory authority); and 3) a description of the subject to be discussed (the description must go beyond simply identifying the subject).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tschumper asked whether the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by &quot;failing to meet the specific legal requirements for closing the meeting, namely did they cite the specific statutory section that permits them to close the meeting, or identify the statutory authority to permit closing the meeting?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Squires wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Tschumper asserts in his April 14, 2014, letter, incorrectly, that the County did not comply with the [section 13D.01, subdivision 3], requirement because the County did not &quot; ... identify any specific statutory authority ....&quot; Mr. Tschumper&apos;s letter references &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;IPAD Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;, seemingly relying on this opinion for his position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;IPAD did not, as Mr. Tschumper would seem to imply, opine that citation to a statute subdivision or subpart was necessary to state the &quot;specific grounds&quot; for closure. Rather, the opinion only suggests that citation to the particular subdivision or subpart is an &quot;efficient way&quot; to state the specific grounds. In fact, the statute itself does not require the statement of a statutory citation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Squires is correct, the plain language of the OML does not require a public body to cite the specific statute upon which it relies to close a meeting. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner suggested that doing so is the simplest way for a public body to fulfill its obligation to inform the public of its grounds for closing a meeting, i.e., here, the Board could have cited section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b). Instead, Mr. Squires advised the Board it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; do so based on the attorney-client privilege. The Commissioner still recommends that public bodies cite the specific provision of the OML (or other law) that permits closing a meeting, in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tschumper also asserted that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law because it did not &quot;specifically state what exactly will be discussed&quot; in closed session. He cited a Minnesota appellate court case, &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) in support of his position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the Court&apos;s holding:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The final element to be considered is whether the notice that the Board has used
&lt;br /&gt;
&quot;describes the subject to be discussed.&quot; The Court of Appeals has provided direction on how this language is to be interpreted. In &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt;, the Court was asked to decide if a statement that a meeting is &quot;being closed for a discussion of pending litigation under the attorney-client privilege&quot; met the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 3. In analyzing that statement used by Blue Earth County, the Court found that &quot;attorney client privilege&quot; provided the grounds and &quot;pending litigation&quot; &lt;em&gt;identified&lt;/em&gt; the subject to be discussed, but did not &lt;em&gt;describe&lt;/em&gt; the subject as required by the statute. &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; at 476 (emphasis in the original).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, before closing a meeting, a public body must describe both the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Squires wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Again, a simple reading of the transcript excerpt of the pre-closure discussion refutes Mr. Tschumper&apos;s assertions. In particular, the transcript indicates legal counsel, referencing the Erickson property, litigation, and the pending request to recommence mining, stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;... I would like to be able to talk to the County Board candidly about the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions the County may have in response to Mr. Erickson&apos;s pending request and in light of the threats of litigation ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Contrary to Mr. Tschumper&apos;s unsupported assertion, the above statement clearly identifies the &quot;subject to be discussed&quot; in closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Applying the holding from &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; to these facts, The Commissioner believes that Mr. Squires &quot;described the subject to be discussed&quot; with the specificity required by the Court. In support of that conclusion, Mr. Squires referred specifically to the legal issues involving the Erickson property, including and &quot;the status of that property with respect to the history of events and Mr. Erickson&apos;s request to recommence mining.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, having said that the Board&apos;s &lt;em&gt;attorney&lt;/em&gt; adequately described the grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and described the subject to be discussed, section 13D.05, subdivision 3, requires &lt;em&gt;the public body to make a statement on the record&lt;/em&gt; before closing a meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Squires repeated what he told the Board at the meeting: &quot;[y]ou &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; convene into closed session on the basis of the attorney client privilege exception in the open meeting law for the reason that&apos;s discussed.&quot; The Board then voted directly to go into closed session; no Board member made the required statement on the record. After they voted yes, Mr. Squires said &quot;on the basis as discussed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board, not its attorney, has the authority to close a meeting, and it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Board&apos;s reliance on its attorney&apos;s statements did not meet the strict statutory requirement. The Board simply needed to state its clear intention to close the meeting for the reasons Mr. Squires advised, i.e., on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, to discuss the Erickson property, etc., as noted above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Tschumper stated his belief that the Board violated the OML &quot;by discussing a matter not described or proposed for discussion in the closed meeting.&quot; He wrote that &quot;there is evidence&quot; that the Board discussed the proposed silica sand mining ordinances during the closed portion of the April 8 meeting. According to Mr. Tschumper:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Immediately after reconvening in open session a motion was made and passed releasing to the public a communication between [Mr.] Squires and [County staff] relating to ordinance development. There was no discussion of taking this action prior to the meeting being closed. There was no announcement that this matter was to be discussed in closed session or why. But from the video the conclusion is that some kind of discussion on this matter took place during the time the meeting was closed to when it was reopened.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the transcript, when the Board reconvened the meeting in open session, it announced a decision made in closed session, and then a Board member stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We had Mr. Squires look at some information for us as far as whether a ban would be possible. We did get a document back from him, and I would make a motion that that [sic] we waive attorney client privilege on that particular document and make it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tschumper believes that statement is evidence that the Board discussed the proposed ordinance amendments during closed session. According to the transcript, Mr. Squires did not propose to the Board that it could discuss whether or not to waive the privilege regarding that document in closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Squires stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Tschumper&apos;s last stated issue asserts the County discussed matters not related to the Erickson property and litigation, namely, the adoption of a regulatory ban on silica sand mining. However, Mr. Tschumper offers no factual evidence in support of such a claim. Rather, he suggests the Board must have had substantive discussion on this topic because, after reconvening in open session, the Board voted to release a privileged opinion letter from legal counsel on banning silica sand mining.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board did not, in fact, engage in substantive discussions that Mr. Tschumper baldly asserts occurred. Here, the transcript excerpt includes a discussion with the Board that the silica sand mining ban topic would not and could not be discussed in the closed session. Why would the Board then close the meeting and discuss the very matters they had just been told would and could not be discussed?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In short, IPAD has been provided with no facts by Mr. Tschumper that the subject of a silica sand mining ban was discussed in closed session. Consequently, IPAD cannot conclude or determine a violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The statement the Board member made is ambiguous, and the Commissioner believes Mr. Tschumper&apos;s interpretation is reasonable. Mr. Squires states that the Board did not engage in &quot;substantive&quot; discussion of matters not covered by the attorney-client privilege. He does not specifically deny that the Board had &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; discussion about waiving the privilege regarding the document in question. Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), the Board was not required to electronically record the closed session per the privilege. Thus, there is no record of the closed meeting, and the Commissioner therefore cannot determine whether the Board improperly discussed waiving the privilege in order to release the document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Tschumper raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Houston County Board of Commissioners did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at its April 8, 2014, meeting, because the Board did not make a statement on the record before closing the meeting, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3.Had the Board made the statements the attorney did, i.e., providing the grounds and describing the subject it would discuss, the Board would have complied with Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 2, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267821</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement on record</Title><Id>266288</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T16:08:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-004</Title><title>Opinion 14 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267354&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-05-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the February 11, 2014, closed meeting?
Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed the February 26, 2014, meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 12, 2014; City of Cold Spring</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 19, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Mark Anfinson on behalf of the St. Cloud Times (the Times), dated same. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Cold Spring City Council members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 27, 2014, IPAD wrote to Mayor Doug Schmitz, Chair of the public body. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Schmitz of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and gave the members of the City Council an opportunity to explain their position. On April 14, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Susan Kadlec, attorney for the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson follows. In the course of hiring a new police chief, the City of Cold Spring considered the application of Eric Johnson. The City interviewed Mr. Johnson and subsequently extended him an offer of employment, provided he pass several examinations. On February 10, 2014, the City Administrator, Paul Hetland, emailed Mr. Johnson and told him that he had passed his examinations and that he could resign his current position so as to take up the position in Cold Spring.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, on February 11the City Council held a regular council meeting. The last item on the agenda for this meeting was a closed session to discuss the potential sale of a parcel of property in the city&apos;s business park (a copy of the agenda is enclosed). The Council cited Minn. Stat. section13D.05, subd. 3(c) as the basis for closing the meeting. No other grounds for closing the meeting were stated, yet it appears that the Council also discussed issues relating to Mr. Johnson in this closed meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...As we understand it, the Council never resumed a public meeting after discussing the possible land sale in closed session, but instead moved directly to a discussion concerning the allegations against Johnson in the same closed meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The minutes of the February 11 closed meeting also state that during the meeting, a &quot;no-confidence&quot; motion was made relating to Johnson, and that the motion was adopted on a 3-0 vote....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On February 26, the City Council held another regular meeting. The agenda included an item described as &quot;Closed Session Regarding the Contract for Chief of Police&quot;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...When pressed for the specific statutory basis for closing its meeting on February 26, the Council responded by citing Minn. Stat. section13D.05, subd. 2(b), claiming that it needed to review the allegations against Johnson, and that he was &quot;an individual subject to its authority&quot; within the meaning of this Open Meeting Law exception.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the February 11, 2014, closed meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed the February 26, 2014, meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the February 11, 2014, closed meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This subdivision requires that a public body do three things before a meeting is closed: (1) make a statement on the record; (2) give the specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting; and (3) describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the Council, Ms. Kadlec, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;For the purpose of this response, the City does not contest that no express statement was provided to the public prior to closing the meeting on February 11, 2014, to indicate that Mr. Johnson would be discussed during the closed session. It is the City&apos;s position, however, that both the February 11, 2014, and February 26, 2014, were properly closed under Minn. Stat. section13D.05, Subd. 2(b), for preliminary discussion of allegations against Mr. Johnson.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The salient question, then, is whether Mr. Johnson is, &quot;an individual subject to [the City Council&apos;s] authority.&quot; Ms. Kadlec argued that he is:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City Council can determine whether the conclusions of the investigation will have an impact on Mr. Johnson&apos;s commencement and/or continuation of employment with the City of Cold Spring....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;[Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b)] should be considered in conjunction with the treatment of personnel data under the Data Practices Act [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13]. Under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 4, the allegations considered by the City Council are private data - as to an applicant, the allegations remain private data in perpetuity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, while there is certainly interplay between the Data Practices Act (Chapter 13) and the Open Meeting Law (Chapter 13D), the classification of data as not public pursuant to Chapter 13 does not necessarily require or permit the closing of meetings under Chapter 13D. Indeed, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, specifically allows public bodies to discuss not public data in open meetings when the data relate to a matter within the scope of the body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct business. Additionally, the plain language of subdivision 2(a) requires meetings to be closed based on the &quot;types of data&quot; to be discussed and refers to specific provisions in Chapter 13. (Subdivision 2(a) cites Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.82, 13.32, 13.3805, 13.384, and 13.46.) By contrast, subdivision 2(b) does not refer to &quot;data&quot; and does not contain a reference to section 13.43 (personnel data). As the Commissioner has previously stated, Chapter 13D does not contain a general exception that would allow meetings to be closed to discuss general personnel matters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the Legislature did not define the phrase, &quot;an individual subject to its authority.&quot; Under Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage. Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines &quot;subject&quot; as &quot;owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another.&quot; The second sentence of section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) provides additional context. That sentence states that if a public body decides to impose discipline on the individual, the subsequent meetings must be open. Thus, a public body&apos;s ability to impose discipline and an individual&apos;s obligation to submit to the authority of the body are what make an individual subject to that authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Johnson has been extended a conditional offer of employment. The City considers him an applicant; he is not currently an employee. As such, the City has no authority to discipline Mr. Johnson or indeed, to direct his actions in any way. Mr. Johnson has the ability to decline the position and act irrespective of the City&apos;s authority. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the ability to hire is insufficient to subject an individual to the City&apos;s authority, for purposes of section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the Cold Spring City Council did not have authority to close the meeting for a discussion regarding the Mr. Johnson, the City&apos;s lack of statement on the record at the February 11, 2014, meeting is irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional concern raised by the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; is the Council&apos;s no-confidence vote at the February 11, 2014, meeting. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s letter to the Commissioner states: &quot;[t]he minutes of the February 11 closed meeting also state that during the meeting, a &quot;no-confidence&quot; motion was made relating to Johnson, and that the motion was adopted.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kadlec, in her response to the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As shown in the minutes for the February 11, 2014, meeting,&lt;/em&gt; following the closed session&lt;em&gt;, the Council adopted a &quot;vote of no confidence for Eric Johnson to be appointed as Chief&quot; and the meeting was thereafter adjourned.&quot; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The meeting minutes reflect a two minute recess prior to closing the meeting for consideration of the sale of land to &quot;resituate&quot; for the closed session. The next entry is, &quot;Closed session: consideration of the sale of land in the Cold Spring Business Park.&quot; The following item is, &quot;Police Chief contract negotiation,&quot; and the accompanying description notes a motion for a no confidence vote. There is an inconsistency between Mr. Anfinson&apos;s account and Ms. Kadlec&apos;s account; it is not clear whether the vote occurred in closed session or in open session and the meeting minutes do not provide clarification. The Commissioner cannot resolve factual disputes. To the extent that the Council conducted the no confidence vote in closed session, it did not comply with Chapter 13D. (See &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press v. City of Mankato&lt;/em&gt;, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. App. 1997), holding that a City should not hold secret votes, even if the results are made public at a later date and time.) If on the other hand, the members voted in open session, the vote itself did not violate Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes, however, that given the potential effect on future meetings or issues that may come before the Council, the Council should be able to demonstrate when a meeting is open and when it is closed. For instance, on the basis of the minutes as submitted to the Commissioner, it is not clear whether the Council adjourned the February 11, 2014, meeting in open or closed session. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267496&quot; title=&quot;12-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 12-008&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Did the Cold Spring City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed the February 26, 2014, meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City did not have authority to close the meeting pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), because the individual discussed was not subject to the City Council&apos;s authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Cold Spring City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed the February 11, 2014, because it lacked statutory authority; the individual discussed was not subject to the City Council&apos;s authority and votes must be conducted in open session.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Cold Spring City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed the February 26, 2014, meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), because the individual discussed was not subject to the City Council&apos;s authority.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 12, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267354</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual subject to authority</Title><Id>266716</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Discussion of not public data in an open meeting</Title><Id>266717</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-003</Title><title>Opinion 14 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266899&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-04-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a request for data related to Institutional Review Boards, specifically: studies, reports, meeting minutes and correspondence?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 2014; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 5, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Carl Elliott. In his letter, Mr. Elliott asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data that the University of Minnesota (the University) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Susan McKinney, data practices responsible authority for the University, in response to Mr. Elliott&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 17, 2014, were to inform her of Mr. Elliott&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On April 2, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Tracy Smith, attorney for the University.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Elliott provided them follows. In his opinion request to the Commissioner, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In [my October 20, 2013 data] request, I asked for the minutes of any IRB [Institutional Review Board] meeting in which Serious Adverse Events were discussed for studies conducted by [four psychiatrists]I also asked for any correspondence regarding Continuing Review of these studies, and the minutes of any IRB Executive Committee meeting in which these Serious Adverse Events in these studies were discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 28, 2013, Mr. Elliott followed his October 20, 2013, request with a request for: &quot;the Form 1572, all Adverse Event reports and any other correspondence from the [CLEARS study].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Elliott continued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Despite a number of email reminders, I did not receive an answer to this request for four weeks. On November 21, I was told that in order to get this information I would need to send a check for a total of approximately $9,419, not including photocopying costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;n December 1, I asked [to inspect the data], and on December 12, I narrowed my request considerably in order to speed things up. After several more reminders, I was finally allowed to inspect the records for a single study on January 8, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 11, I asked again about a visual inspection of the Serious Adverse Event Reports for a particular study: the so-called CLEARS study, which was conducted by AstraZeneca. On January 14, I was notified that AstraZeneca had marked the study as &quot;proprietary&quot; and that the company was being contacted for permission. It has been seven weeks since then, and I have still not gotten a reply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the meantime, I have repeatedly asked when I will be allowed to see the Serious Adverse Event reports and/or Continuing Review reports for the other studies conducted by [the two psychiatrists], but I have still not been allowed to see them, or even received a response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Elliott&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a request for data related to Institutional Review Boards, specifically: studies, reports, meeting minutes and correspondence?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a preliminary matter, the Commissioner wishes to note that Mr. Elliott has made a number of data requests to the University throughout the past year, which are documented in the University&apos;s response to the Commissioner&apos;s letter. While the other requests provide relevant context to the University&apos;s response, this opinion focuses on the University&apos;s response to the October 20, 2013, request and the follow-up request on October 28, 2013, referenced in Mr. Elliott&apos;s letter to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), when a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See also, Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions that it is relative to the nature or complexity of the request and amount of data requested. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267656&quot; title=&quot;98-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 98-040&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266715&quot; title=&quot;02-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-020&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have established that, when responding to data requests, government entities should respond in one of three ways: (1) provide the data; (2) advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access; or (3) inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Elliott made his request on October 20, 2013. He made the follow-up request for data about the CLEARS study on October 28, 2013. Despite Mr. Elliott&apos;s assertion that the University did not respond to those requests for four weeks, the University provided the Commissioner with an email dated October 28, 2013, in which Ms. McKinney wrote, &quot;I have received all of your requests. We are working on gathering the information you requested.&quot; On November 21, 2013, Ms. McKinney wrote to Mr. Elliott and provided him with an estimate for the copies he requested, which included the requests dated October 20, 2013, and October 28, 2013, and a recap of his remaining unresolved data requests. On December 1, 2013, Mr. Elliott responded to that email and changed his request to inspection instead of copies. Mr. Elliott and Ms. McKinney continued to correspond about other data requests and on December 12, 2013, Ms. McKinney provided Mr. Elliott with a list of 83 studies that contained data responsive to his request and offered him the opportunity to choose which studies he wanted to review first. Mr. Elliott and Ms. McKinney continued to be in contact with one another for the remainder of the month on these and other requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 22, 2014, in reply to an email from Ms. McKinney, Mr. Elliott further refined his request and identified his priorities with regard to inspecting the data. Two days after Mr. Elliot requested this opinion, on March 7, 2014, Ms. McKinney notified Mr. Elliott that the University had hired an individual to assist in fulfilling his October data requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the University, Ms. Smith, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is important to understand the complexity of identifying and locating the records Prof. Elliott requested. Neither serious adverse event reports nor continuing review correspondence are kept together in some central University file organized according to serious adverse events reports or continuing reviews, nor are such documents organized or maintained according to researcher. Rather, the records are organized and maintained according to the IRB protocol for the applicable research project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Smith went on to explain the involved process necessary to identify and prepare the relevant data, which include studies for a period of nearly 20 years. She wrote, &quot;[e]ven to find that no records exist in a file requires a careful review of a file.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the complexity of the request and the fact that the University has been in continual communication with Mr. Elliot, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the University has acted appropriately in responding to Mr. Elliott&apos;s October 20, 2013, request. It seems reasonable that the request might warrant the time that has elapsed, especially in the context of Mr. Elliott&apos;s various other requests. In her April 2, 2014, letter to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith wrote, &quot;[r]eview of the documents will be completed by next week (the week of April 7), and any public records produced to Prof. Elliott by the end of that week.&quot; If the University has not already done so, the Commissioner encourages it to provide Mr. Elliott with the data as soon as practicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to Mr. Elliott&apos;s October 28, 2013, request for data associated with the CLEARS study, Ms. McKinney wrote in a January 14, 2014, email:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information from the CLEARS study will not be available for you to review this week. The study sponsor, Astrazeneca, has marked the information as proprietary. I am contacting them about your data request and will be back in touch with you as soon as I have more information to share.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a follow-up letter dated April 22, 2014, Ms. Smith wrote, &quot;since my last response, we have been able to get confirmation from AstraZeneca that it does not assert that the SAEs constitute trade secret information.&quot; She went on to state that the University will provide Mr. Elliott with the reports related to the CLEARS study within the week.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), requires an entity to inform a data requester, either orally at the time of the request or in writing shortly thereafter, if the data are classified as not public. Here, the University received Mr. Elliott&apos;s request for access to the CLEARS study on October 28, 2013, but did not state that the data were potentially classified as nonpublic until January 14, 2014, and at that time, Ms. McKinney did not assert that the data were classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37 (trade secret). While the University should have informed Mr. Elliott of the CLEARS study&apos;s classification in a timelier manner, given the lengthy, on-going correspondence between the parties, the Commissioner believes that University acted in good faith.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Elliott is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the University of Minnesota responded appropriately to a request for data related to Institutional Review Boards, specifically: studies, reports, meeting minutes and correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 23, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266899</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-002</Title><title>Opinion 14 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267615&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-04-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an arbitration decision that sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action against a public employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 15, 2014; Bureau of Mediation Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 3, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Josh Tilsen, Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services (Bureau). In his letter, Mr. Tilsen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Bureau maintains. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Tilsen provided on March 7, 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tilsen provided a summary of the facts as follows. The Bureau has a statutory duty, under Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3(a)(7), to &quot;receive, catalogue, file, and make available to the public all decisions of arbitrators Mr. Tilsen asked about the interaction of that provision and the relevant provision in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), which states, &quot;[a] disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tilsen also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As background, please be aware that publication of arbitration awards serves important purposes. First publication of awards provides transparency to the process and standards Minnesota uses in resolving disputes concerning the conduct of public employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Second, arbitrator reasoning and standards that appear in published decisions serve as guidance to other public employers in making decisions concerning similar issues. Finally, other arbitrators regularly refer to reasoning and standards in published decisions when examining new cases. This is the way the law of labor arbitration develops and improves.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Tilsen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an arbitration decision that sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action against a public employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public; subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.21, subdivision 3:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Arbitration decisions authorized or required by a grievance procedure are subject to the limitations contained in section 179A.16, subdivision 5. The arbitrator shall send the commissioner a copy of each grievance arbitration decision and any written explanation. If any issues submitted to arbitration are settled voluntarily before the arbitrator issues a decision, the arbitrator shall report the settlement to the commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3(a)(7), the Commissioner of the Bureau shall, &quot;receive, catalogue, file, and make available to the public all decisions of arbitrators and panels authorized by sections 179A.01 to 179A.25, all grievance arbitration decisions to the extent the decision is public under section 13.43, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), and the commissioner&apos;s orders and decisions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, section 13.43, subdivision 2(b) provides, &quot;[a] disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data related to a disciplinary action that an entity imposes on a public employee, which was subsequently completely reversed in arbitration, are not enumerated as public pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.43; therefore the data are private per subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Bureau&apos;s current practice is to publish this type of decision with the employee&apos;s name redacted. However, the fact that an employee was disciplined, and the discipline was completely reversed in arbitration, is not public under section 13.43. Thus, in this context, the employee&apos;s name is private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the Bureau may not publish or in any other way make public arbitration decisions (that arbitrators must forward to it) that reverse all aspects of disciplinary action, as section 179A.04 otherwise requires, because the entire decision is private under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges and appreciates Commissioner Tilsen&apos;s comments that the decisions are instructive to the public and other arbitrators, and offers the following guidance to the Bureau in response to its questions about whether it can release any data in the circumstances at issue here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Bureau can always seek the employee&apos;s consent to release the arbitrator&apos;s decision to the public. In addition, although government entities are not required to create data under Chapter 13, the Bureau may elect to redact or summarize a decision and make it public, if it can do so without disclosing private personnel data. In that case, the Bureau might seek to work with the employer, who is in the best position to decide which specific data in the decision do or could identify the employee. However, particularly in high-profile situations, when details of the disciplinary action are known to the public, the Bureau may need to secure the data subject&apos;s consent to release any data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner emphasizes that the Bureau cannot release private data, and is not obligated to take any measures in order to do so. Thus any of the preceding options is entirely discretionary, and the Bureau should make those determinations on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Tilsen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data in an arbitration decision that sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action against a public employee are private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 15, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267615</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Bureau of Mediation Services data (13.708)</Title><Id>266464</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Grievance sustained</Title><Id>266960</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 14-001</Title><title>Opinion 14 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267002&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2014-03-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board respond appropriately to a request for data about the January 7, 2014 executive session related to a conciliation agreement between the Board and the Minnesota Senate DFL Caucus?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 26, 2014; Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 4, 2014, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Senator Scott Newman. In his letter, Sen. Newman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (the Board) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the Commissioner, IPAD wrote to Gary Goldsmith, Executive Director and data practices responsible authority of the Board, in response to Sen. Newman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 13, 2014, were to inform him of Sen. Newman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On February 28, 2014, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Goldsmith.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his opinion request, Sen. Newman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I recently requested that The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board release public information from their investigation of the Senate DFL Caucus independent expenditure violations. The Board declined to release the information requested stating the investigation is &quot;confidential&quot; under Minnesota Statutes Section 10A.02, subdivision 11(d) and Minnesota Rules Part 4525, subpart 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Goldsmith provided the following facts:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The investigation involved thirteen candidates and two units of the DFL party and was long and complex, requiring the discovery of many documents and the taking of many depositions;
&lt;br /&gt;
At its meeting of December 17, 2013, the Board discussed the proposed stipulation of facts, the proposed settlement agreement, and a draft of possible findings, order, and memorandum that staff had prepared for Board consideration. Legal counsel for the [DFL candidates and units] addressed the Board as did Board staff&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;These three documents were published to the Board&apos;s website on the afternoon of December 17, 2013. With the release of the findings, the official record of the investigation was also made public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The official record of any Board investigation includes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The complaint or complaints&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Notices advising respondents of the complaints&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Notices advising respondents of any expansion of the investigation&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Requests to respondents for documents or for answers to questions&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Any responses received from respondents&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Transcripts of any depositions taken during the investigation&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Staff notes regarding any evidentiary conversation that took place as part of the investigation&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Other evidence that the Board considered in making its decision.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;What is excluded from the official record of the investigation are:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Staff memoranda to the Board regarding the investigation&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Internal staff notes or memoranda that were not provided to the Board.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Recordings of executive session meetings at which the investigation was discussed&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minutes of executive session meetings at which the investigation was discussed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In preparation for the January 7, 2014, meeting I placed an item on the Board&apos;s regular session agenda listed as &quot;Follow-up on investigation of expenditures by the DFL Senate Caucus.&quot; After conversations with the Board&apos;s legal counsel, the Board Chair, and senior staff, I concluded that the item should have been placed on the executive session [a meeting closed to the public] agenda. As a result, the regular session agenda was re-issued without the improperly placed item.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of his advisory opinion request, Sen. Newman included a letter he wrote on January 15, 2014, to Board Chair Deanna Wiener, requesting the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All statements, documents, emails, phone calls, or other matter associated with the decision to move the agenda item to executive session.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All statements, documents, emails, phone calls, or other matter of record from the executive session.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In replying to Sen. Newman&apos;s request, Mr. Goldsmith wrote, &quot;the materials you have requested are considered confidential under Minnesota Statutes Section 10A.02 and under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Sen. Newman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board respond appropriately to a request for data about the January 7, 2014 executive session related to a conciliation agreement between the Board and the Minnesota Senate DFL Caucus?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before discussing the issue presented in this advisory opinion, the Commissioner wishes to address the scope and jurisdictional concerns raised by Mr. Goldsmith in his response. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Goldsmith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board considers Senator Newman&apos;s complaint to be primarily based on Minnesota Open Meeting Law, not on the Data Practices Act. This issue, arising under the Open Meeting law, is not subject to the advisory opinion process defined in Chapter 13 and thus, would not be in the Commissioner&apos;s jurisdiction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Firstly, while the facts in this advisory opinion relate to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, and the Data Practices Act, Chapter 13, this opinion will address only the Board&apos;s response to Sen. Newman&apos;s data request pursuant to Chapter 13, as stated in the issue above. Secondly, the Commissioner does have authority to issue advisory opinions involving Chapter 13D, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 1(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional point of clarification, Mr. Goldsmith notes that the agreement was not a &quot;conciliation agreement&quot; as Sen. Newman characterized in his opinion request to the Commissioner. However, that fact, Mr. Goldsmith writes, &quot;does not affect the issues involved in this advisory opinion request.&quot; The Commissioner notes it here, simply because the issue refers to a conciliation agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.607, subdivision 2, states, &quot;disclosure by the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board of information about a complaint or investigation is governed by section 10A.02, subdivision 11.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.02, subdivision 11(d), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A hearing or action of the board concerning a complaint or investigation other than a finding concerning probable cause or a conciliation agreement is confidential. Until the board makes a public finding concerning probable cause or enters a conciliation agreement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) a member, employee, or agent of the board must not disclose to an individual information obtained by that member, employee, or agent concerning a complaint or investigation except as required to carry out the investigation or take action in the matter as authorized by this chapter; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(2) an individual who discloses information contrary to this subdivision is subject to a civil penalty imposed by the board of up to $1,000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 defines &quot;confidential&quot; as data on individuals that &quot;are made not public by statute or federal law and are inaccessible to the subject of the data.&quot; An &quot;individual&quot; is defined as a natural person. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules, part 4525.0200, subpart 5, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Any portion of a meeting during which the board is hearing testimony or taking action concerning any complaint, investigation, preparation of a conciliation agreement, or a conciliation meeting must be closed to the public. The minutes and tape recordings of a meeting closed to the public must be kept confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In denying Sen. Newman&apos;s data request, Mr. Goldsmith cited section 10A.02, subdivision 11, and Minnesota Rule, part 4525.0200, subpart 5, and wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Historically these provisions have been interpreted to mean that the investigative process is confidential except for the publicly released findings, conclusions, and orders and the official record. Minutes or records of the Board deliberations, discussions, direction to staff or votes regarding investigations are never made public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner has previously opined that the plain language of section 13.03, subdivision 1, precludes classification by state rule. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267668&quot; title=&quot;98-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 98-054&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267559&quot; title=&quot;06-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-015&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, the Board may rely only upon the plain language of the statute to determine the classification of the data at issue here. In addition, data not specifically classified as not public are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The challenge confronting the Board is that the plain language of section 10A.02 is incongruous with the current data practices classification scheme, as provided in Chapter 13, as well as the Board&apos;s investigative process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 10A.02, subdivision 11(d), states that hearings or actions are &quot;confidential.&quot; As noted above, &quot;confidential&quot; classifies data on individuals that are not accessible to those individuals. To the extent that the Board collects, creates, or maintains data not on individuals (i.e., political parties or units), those data are not classified by the plain language of that section. (Mr. Goldsmith also stated that counsel for the DFL candidates and units participated in the December 17, 2013, closed meeting, suggesting that the data subjects may have had access to some of the data classified by the statute as confidential.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sen. Newman argues that the investigative data are classified only temporarily as confidential by section 10A.02, subdivision 11(d), and that the data become public as demonstrated by subdivision 11a, which allows the Board to classify data as private under certain circumstances. This argument discounts the confidential classification in subdivision 11(d). However, it does illustrate another inconsistency; section 10A.02 does not explain when (or if) confidential data classified in subdivision 11(d) change classifications. Currently, the Board makes a distinction between the &quot;official record,&quot; which becomes public, and items that it excludes from the official record and maintains as &quot;confidential.&quot; Section 10A.02, however, does not contain a provision that supports that distinction. The section does provide that the threat of penalty in subdivision 11(d)(2), for disclosing information ceases once the Board issues a probable cause finding or enters into a conciliation agreement, which suggests that some data does indeed change classifications. It is unclear, however, which data a member, employee, or agent of the Board may disclose with impunity, after a finding or an agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another example of the disparity between section 10A.02 and Chapter 13, is the plain language of section 10A.02, subdivision 12(c), which also purports to classify data. It provides that the Board may issue advisory opinions, but the request and the resulting opinion are &quot;nonpublic.&quot; &quot;Nonpublic data&quot; are defined as data &lt;em&gt;not on individuals&lt;/em&gt; that are &lt;em&gt;not public&lt;/em&gt; but are accessible to the data subject (e.g., a corporation), if any. (See section 13.03, subdivision 9.) Section 10A.02, subdivision 12(c) also states that the Board may publish advisory opinions (i.e., make them public) and may withhold certain identifying information about the data requester (i.e., an individual). Neither of those provisions is consistent with a &quot;nonpublic&quot; classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in addition to the statutory and rules-based arguments, Mr. Goldsmith also based his denial of Sen. Newman&apos;s data request on the doctrine of &quot;attorney-client privilege.&quot; In his letter to Sen. Newman and his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Goldsmith argued that the January 7, 2014, meeting was permitted to be closed by the attorney-client privilege and as a result, Sen. Newman could not have access to the data he requested. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b).) The Commissioner wishes to remind government entities and public bodies that Chapter 13D does not classify data; a validly closed meeting does not classify data as not public. However, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 governs certain types of data generated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity and permits those data to be withheld from disclosure because they are not regulated by Chapter 13. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-075&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266767&quot; title=&quot;03-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-003&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/list/appId/1/filterType/Date/filterValue/2005-02/page/1/sort//order/&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, the Board may properly withhold data Sen. Newman requested to the extent that the data are subject to section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously considered statutory provisions where the Legislature has indicated an intention to protect some data from public disclosure but has not done so clearly or used the Chapter 13 classification terminology. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267775&quot; title=&quot;94-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 94-046&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267701&quot; title=&quot;00-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-004&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267391&quot; title=&quot;07-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-005&lt;/a&gt;.) In those opinions, as here, it is difficult for the Commissioner to ascertain the Legislature&apos;s full intent, and must therefore rely upon the plain statutory language. Because of the flaws in section 10A.02, the Commissioner is unable to determine which data the Board maintains are responsive to Sen. Newman&apos;s request, if any. To the extent that the Board maintains data in recorded statements, documents, emails, phone calls, or other matter of record from the January 7, 2014 executive session that are appropriately classified as confidential data on individuals, the Board properly denied access to them. The Board must review Sen. Newman&apos;s request in light of the discussion above and respond accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner understands the competing policy considerations regarding the Board&apos;s investigative process. He also appreciates that the Board&apos;s practices are long-standing. However, the Board does not have the statutory support that it needs to justify those practices. It can rely only upon the plain language of the statute to classify data. The Commissioner encourages the Board to seek clarification from the Legislature, so that the important work of the Board may be protected and disclosed appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Senator Newman is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board responded appropriately to a request for data about the January 7, 2014 executive session related to a conciliation agreement between the Board and the Minnesota Senate DFL Caucus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 26, 2014&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267002</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Campaign finance and public disclosure (Chapter 10A)</Title><Id>266669</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:20:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-015</Title><title>Opinion 13 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267388&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-12-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked various questions about whether a township’s park commission was subject to Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML) and whether the township complied with various other provisions of the OML. The Commissioner concluded that the Park Commission was subject to the OML based on the ordinance creating the commission. The OML is silent with respect to whether public bodies should create agendas, but if an agenda was provided to commission members, a copy must be made available at the meeting pursuant to section 13D.01, subd. 6. To the extent that an email from the chairman was a one way communication, it did not violate the OML. Finally, because the Board changed the time and place of a regular meeting and the place of a previously-noticed special meeting, it was required to provide notice of a special meeting – three days notice, listing date, time, place, and purpose. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 2013; Florence Township</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 30, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Jim Reitter, dated October 28, 2013. In his letter, Mr. Reitter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Florence Township Board of Supervisors (the Board) members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Reitter provided on November 6, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 12, 2013, IPAD wrote to Mike Blair, Chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Blair of Mr. Reitter&apos;s request and gave the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On December 5, 2013, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Einar Hanson, attorney for the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts provided by Mr. Reitter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 19, 2013, the Florence Township Park Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Township Hall, which Mr. Reitter attended and recorded. During the meeting, Mr. Reitter asked for and received a copy of the agenda. He then inquired as to whether the Commission made agendas available prior to the meetings, and the Chairman, Brad Stone, responded that the Commission did not publish agendas.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Park Commission meeting also included a discussion of an email that Mr. Stone had sent to a number of people, including all other Park Commission members, chairs of the other Township commissions, a Township Board supervisor, and several members of the public. The Park Commission provided Mr. Reitter a copy of the email to review during the meeting and Mr. Stone later sent Mr. Reitter a copy. The email encouraged the recipients to attend the August 19, 2013, Park Commission meeting and the August 26, 2013, Township Board meeting. The email also provided information about the possible sale of certain property within the Township and arguments for opposing the sale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Reitter continued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Sunday, August 25, I went to the Florence Township Town Hall and reviewed an announcement which had been posted for a special meeting identified as Florence Township will have a special meeting on Monday, August 26th at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall for approval of an updated comprehensive plan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I arrived to attend the Florence Township Board regularly scheduled meeting on August 26, 2013 scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Florence Township Town Hall. Upon arriving at the town hall, there was an announcement posted that the meeting location had been moved to the Florence Township Community Center. The meeting started at 6:15euro;brvbar;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At 7:00 p.m., an announcement was made that the remainder of the regular town board meeting was going to be suspended/postponed so that the special meeting to review the updated comprehensive plan could occur. After the review of the updated comprehensive plan, it was announced that the remainder of the regular town board meeting would continue and the township board business from the prior suspended/postponed agenda continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Reitter&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Is the Florence Township Park Commission subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Did the Chair of the Park Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when he sent an email to various members of the public and the government?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, are the Florence Township commissions required to provide copies of agendas?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Did the Florence Township Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the August 26, 2013 special meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Is the Florence Township Park Commission subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that the Florence Township Board of Supervisors is subject to the OML. The question before the Commissioner is whether the Township Park Commission is also subject to the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states in pertinent part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(c) of any&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) committee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(2) subcommittee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(3) board,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(4) department, or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(5) commission,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;of a public body&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Hanson described the Park Commission as being, under the authority of the Board of Supervisors and that it provides recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning matters within the scope of the Commissions duties, as expressly stated in the ordinance creating it. Mr. Hanson provided the Commissioner with a copy of the ordinance. Article 1 establishes the Commission and provides that the Commission will be made up of five residents and an ex-officio member, all selected by the Board. Article 2, establishes the Commission&apos;s powers, duties and procedures. Amongst these, are the powers: to advise the other Township commissions; to draft and maintain a park management plan; to draft and maintain an application procedure for Town residents; to recommend to the Board the acquisition of land; and to recommend to the Board the use of eminent domain and variances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 2.01, subsection (1) of Article 2, also states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Business shall be conducted by the Commission at regularly scheduled public meetings as prescribed in its bylaws and the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The Commission shall make every effort to preserve the public nature of its meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hanson argued that the Park Commission is not subject to Chapter 13D based on the holding in &lt;em&gt;Sovereign v. Dunn&lt;/em&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (&lt;em&gt;rev. denied&lt;/em&gt;). However, the Commissioner is not persuaded that &lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; applies here based on the plain language of section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c) and the ordinance creating the Commission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously addressed the issue of an all-citizen advisory panel that was created in statute, with duties both complementary and distinct from the public body under which it was created. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266807&quot; title=&quot;08-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-007&lt;/a&gt;.) In concluding that the advisory panel was subject to Chapter 13D, as a committee of a public body, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All of these functions are actions taken on behalf of citizens who will be impacted by the decisions that are made about providing energy to the Rock Tenn recycling operation. As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; case, these are the types of discussions that should occur in public and any decision should be made in public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concludes that the Park Commission is a commission of a public body, and subject to the requirements of the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Chair of the Park Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when he sent an email to various members of the public and the government?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that the exchange of emails can lead to a violation of the OML. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267446&quot; title=&quot;09-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-020&lt;/a&gt;.) In that opinion, a quorum of the Metro Gang Strike Force Advisory Board exchanged at least seven emails in an attempt to agree on language for a press release. The Commissioner concluded that the exchange was tantamount to a virtual meeting that was required to be open pursuant to the OML. Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267446&quot; title=&quot;09-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-020&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that Minnesota courts have not ruled definitively on this issue. However, given the facts here, the Commissioner believes that per [&lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983)] and [&lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)], the conduct of the Advisory Board constituted a meeting, which was required to be public, and as such is impermissible under the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If Mr. Allen had sent his suggestion only to Mr. Shaver, and if Mr. Shaver had taken action without consulting a quorum of the Board, then, in the Commissioner&apos;s view, that conduct would be permissible. It seems reasonable that one-way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Stone sent an email to various members of the public and to all of his fellow Commission members. However, it is not clear from the record whether he received any response to it or engaged in any further discussion with a quorum or more of his colleagues on the Park Commission. (Any concern about Mr. Stone&apos;s communication with the public is not within the scope of the OML.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent that Mr. Stone&apos;s email was a one-way communication, the Commissioner concludes that it did not violate the OML. The Commissioner reminds public bodies to be cautious in their use of email as a tool to conduct public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, are the Florence Township commissions required to provide copies of agendas?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13D is silent with respect to agendas; it neither requires nor prohibits them. However, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(3) available in the meeting room to all members;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hanson writes that subdivision 6(a), does not say that copies of the agenda must be provided. Though Mr. Hanson is correct that the subdivision does not use those specific words, an agenda is comprised of the actual agenda items and as such, an agenda is the clearest example of material relating to the agenda items of the meeting. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that it is unreasonable for the Board to take the position that the subdivision would not to apply to the agenda itself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent that an agenda is prepared or distributed to members of the body, Chapter 13D requires that at least one copy is made available to the public at the meeting. (See also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267899&quot; title=&quot;01-058&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-058&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267355&quot; title=&quot;07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267288&quot; title=&quot;07-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-024&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267319&quot; title=&quot;08-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-015&lt;/a&gt;.) (The Commissioner notes that certain public bodies subject to Chapter 13D may be required to create an agenda pursuant to other authority applicable to those bodies.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Hanson that the OML does not require the Board to make agendas available in advance of meetings. (Non-metro townships are not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Data Practices Act. In government entities subject to Chapter 13, members of the public may request and must receive copies of agendas prior to meetings, if any such agendas exist.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Florence Township Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at the August 26, 2013 special meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13D, public bodies may hold three types of meetings: regular, special, and emergency. For regular meetings, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, requires public bodies to keep a schedule on file at its primary offices. A meeting that differs in date, time or location from a regular meeting, is a special meeting. Pursuant to subdivision 2, a public body must post written notice of a special meeting at least three days before the meeting and include the date, time, place, and purpose on the notice. An emergency meeting, as defined by subdivision 3(d), is called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Board changed the place and time of the August 26, 2013, regularly scheduled meeting on the day of the meeting. By doing so, that meeting became a special meeting requiring three days&apos; notice. The Board had previously noticed a special meeting for the same date, for which the location was also changed, thus requiring the Board to re-notice the meeting. Mr. Hanson explained that due to the weather and a lack of air conditioning in the Town Hall meeting room, the Board moved the meetings for the comfort of the attendees. He asserted that the need to move the meeting could be considered an emergency and the notice given by posting it at the bulletin board of the regular meeting place was sufficient notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that, examples of emergency situations would include holding a meeting to respond to a natural disaster or to a health epidemic caused by an event such as an accident or terrorist activity. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267124&quot; title=&quot;06-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-027&lt;/a&gt;.) Because an emergency meeting is one in which a public body considers the response to an emergency situation, neither the Board&apos;s regularly-scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. nor the special meeting at 7:00 p.m. constituted an emergency meeting, such that a change of location would not require three days&apos; notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When conditions that require a change in the regular or previously-noticed schedule occur but fall short of requiring immediate consideration, the Board must provide three days&apos; notice that includes the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. Changes to any of those notice requirements that occur before the meeting but after notice is posted require an additional three days&apos; notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner understands that occasionally unforeseen circumstances arise that might require a reasonable change of location (i.e., a room in a different building nearby). He encourages the Legislature to consider including language in Chapter 13D that would allow a reasonable change of location for meetings that are currently required to be cancelled and rescheduled for a date at least three days later.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Reitter raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. The Florence Township Park Commission is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. To the extent that Mr. Stone&apos;s email was a one-way communication that did not result in a continued discussion with a quorum or more of the Park Commission members, the email complied with the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D is silent with respect to agendas. To the extent that Florence Township Commissions create agendas, they should be made available to the public as part of the members&apos; materials, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Because the Board changed the time and location of a regularly scheduled meeting and the location of a previously noticed special meeting, the August 26, 2013 meetings were special meetings requiring a notice of at least three days, which should have included the date, time, place, and purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 23, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267388</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Agendas</Title><Id>267146</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special vs. emergency meeting</Title><Id>267051</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-014</Title><title>Opinion 13 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267778&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-11-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A government entity asked whether its method of creating summary data complied with Chapter 13. The data requester argued that the entity’s method did not create a risk of uniquely identifying an individual. In concluding that the entity is in the best position to make these types of determinations, the Commissioner noted that entities must balance their duty to provide access to public data with their responsibility to protect private data. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 27, 2013; Minnesota Housing Finance Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 9, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Barbara Sporlein, Deputy Commissioner and Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (Minnesota Housing). In her letter, Ms. Sporlein asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data Minnesota Housing maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Luce at the Institute of Metropolitan Opportunity (Institute), the original data requester, in order to offer him an opportunity to submit comments. In a letter dated, November 4, 2013, Jack McCann, Senior Staff Attorney and Myron Orfield, Executive Director of the Institute, responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Sporlein provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Institute of Metropolitan Opportunity (the Institute ) requested Minnesota Housing to provide it with the following data for each household in each [low-income housing tax credit] development monitored by Minnesota Housing: race, ethnicity, use of rental assistance, disability status, family composition (children or no children), age (under 62 or 62 and over), income, and monthly rental payments. The requested data is associated with one tenant in a unit, namely, the head of household for that unit (with the exception of the family composition characteristic and the disability status characteristic, which reflect all of the tenants in the unit).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Housing is willing to provide the requested data to the Institute as summary data, provided that: (1) a certain amount of suppression is applied in order to protect the identity of an individual or characteristics that could uniquely identify an individual and (2) the Institute pays for the preparation of summary data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subdivision 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Institute disagrees with Minnesota Housing&apos;s suppression method.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Sporlein&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency&apos;s method in preparing summary data comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain benefit data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Summary data are derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 7, classifies summary data as public. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, and 1205.0700, provide additional guidance regarding summary data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Advisory Opinion 00-011, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, classifies certain benefit data related to applicants and recipients of benefits or services from various housing programs administered by government entities. Subdivision 2, classifies some data as public; however that subdivision does not apply to individuals seeking or receiving rental assistance. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267677&quot; title=&quot;05-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267289&quot; title=&quot;08-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-002&lt;/a&gt;.) Subdivision 3, classifies all other benefit data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Institute and Minnesota Housing agree that the summary data at issue here are derived from solely private data as classified pursuant to section 13.462.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Sporlein wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Housing is willing to provide the data as summary information after applying the following two suppression factors: (1) it would suppress the data for developments that contain 12 or fewer reporting households, and (2) it would provide aggregate numbers for a characteristic for a particular development so long as the minimum cell size for non-predominant households reporting a status was met. The minimum cell size is based on a sliding scale. The result is that summary data about a particular characteristic would be suppressed in developments in which households with the predominant characteristic make up at least 90% of the households in the development. This ensures that someone would not have a 90% or more probability of correctly identifying a tenant or characteristics of a tenant by choosing the predominant characteristic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Institute does not object to the 12 household suppression threshold. The Institute does object to Minnesota Housing&apos;s suppression method.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Institute&apos;s comments to the Commissioner, Mr. McCann and Mr. Orfield, argue that, there clearly is a bright line rule regarding summary data: it is to be suppressed only to the extent it uniquely identifies a specific individual. They further wrote that revealing a characteristic is a concern only with respect to data on individuals, when individual identities are known.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Commissioner believes that the method described by Minnesota Housing does not seem to disclose private data, he is unable to determine whether the method provides appropriate access to public summary data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined on the disclosure of data about students and public employees, concluding that entities may not release de-identified private data where there is a risk that an individual will be uniquely identified. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267188&quot; title=&quot;09-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-004&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267851&quot; title=&quot;01-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-053&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266974&quot; title=&quot;07-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-001&lt;/a&gt;.) In those instances, however, various other data elements including the ultimate unique identifier - an individual&apos;s name - are, or could be, public (students&apos; names may be public directory information). Thus, when the de-identified data are matched against the public data, private data on an individual could be revealed. Here, where the requested benefit data are private, the likelihood of uniquely identifying a specific renter seems somewhat remote. Moreover, Minnesota Housing notes that not all units report the demographic characteristics requested by the Institute and some of the requested elements apply to the heads of household, whereas other data elements (like disability status) apply to all tenants in the rental unit. Both of these factors would also seem to reduce the risk that Minnesota Housing would disclose private data about a specific individual. (See also, Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266906&quot; title=&quot;99-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-045&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, whether the 90% threshold described by Minnesota Housing impermissibly withholds public summary data, as the Institute argues, is not an issue the Commissioner can resolve. In the absence of clearer guidance from state or federal law, the Commissioner believes that Minnesota Housing is in the best position to make that decision. He has repeatedly opined that government entities are in the best position to make these types of determinations based on their familiarity with the data and the context in which they are administered. Minnesota Housing has an obligation to provide summary data to the Institute. In doing so, it must balance its obligations to protect the private data upon which the summary data are based and to provide all of the public data that are responsive to the Institute&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Sporlein raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Minnesota Housing&apos;s method of creating summary data complies with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 27, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267778</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity in best position to determine</Title><Id>266901</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-013</Title><title>Opinion 13 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267667&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-09-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A City asked about the classification of data on a driver’s license magnetic stripe and driving citations that it wanted to collect, create, and maintain. The City argued that the data were public arrest data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subd. 2. The Commissioner opined that the elements identified by the City as citation data were always public pursuant to section 13.82, subd. 2, for adult drivers. And, except for the name, sex, and address of adult drivers, which are public arrest data, the data on a driver’s license magnetic stripe are presumptively public, unless the data are a part of an active investigation.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 6, 2013; City of Spring Lake Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 17, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Dawn Speltz, attorney for the City of Spring Lake Park. In her letter, Ms. Speltz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding classification of certain data that the City would like to collect and administer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the Commissioner, IPAD wrote to Department of Public Safety Commissioner, Mona Dohman. The purpose of this letter, dated July 19, 2013, was to invite her to provide comments. Commissioner Dohman did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Speltz provided, follows. The City of Spring Lake Park is considering options to allow individuals who commit traffic offenses to participate in an online education program in lieu of appearing in court. In the course of these discussions, a question arose regarding the classification of the data involved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To utilize the traffic education programs, the data collected at the time of the traffic offense to issue the resulting citation, including data on the individual and their driver&apos;s license information would be submitted to the vendor of the traffic education program&apos;s server at the time of the traffic stop. This data would be submitted by swiping the offender&apos;s driver&apos;s license, and the data contained on the mag stripe would be submitted to the vendor and maintained on their server, to allow the vendor to verify that the individual qualifies for the program, and to access the applicable information to allow the offender to complete the program online through the vendor&apos;s website. No data is transmitted to or from [the Department of Public Safety] as part of this process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Speltz&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data on a driver&apos;s license magnetic stripe and a driving citation, collected, created, or maintained by the Spring Lake Park Police Department?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most data collected, created, and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivision 2, provides that arrest data, &quot; created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document any actions taken by them to cite, arrest, incarcerate, or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty shall be public at all times.&quot; Subdivision 7, classifies investigative data that a law enforcement agency collects or creates in order to prepare a case against a person, as confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Speltz identified the specific data at issue in the City&apos;s opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are two separate components of data that would be shared with the traffic education program vendors. 1) Data stored on the mag stripe on the individual driver&apos;s license that would be swiped by the officer to input into the system. 2) Data relating to the offense and resulting citation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data contained on the mag stripe is as follows: 1. Individuals (sic) Name, 2. Address, 3. Height, 4. Weight, 5. Eye Color, 6. Birth Date, 7. Sex, 8. Expiration Date, 9. License Number. The data from the citation would include the time, date and place of action, the charge and arrest information, the identity of the agency and the unit within the agency issuing the citation, the name, age, sex and last known address for the individual cited, response or incident report number. It is the City&apos;s position that all of these elements are classified as public pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All of data elements Ms. Speltz identified, as relating to the offense and resulting citation are arrest data, per section 13.82, subdivision 2, paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (j), and (m), and are public at all times.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the data on the magnetic stripe are also classified as public, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 2: name, sex, and address. The remaining elements - height, weight, eye color, birth date, expiration date, and license number - are not specifically classified as public under subdivision 2; they are presumptively public per section 13.03. While data classified under section 13.82, subdivision 2, are always public, law enforcement data that are presumptively public may be classified as confidential or protected nonpublic while there is an active investigation, per section 13.82, subdivision 7. While Ms. Speltz did not state whether the data at issue will be part of an active investigation, it appears unlikely in the scenario she described.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City did not raise the issue of juvenile drivers in its opinion request and therefore, did not state whether juvenile drivers would be eligible for the online education program. Nevertheless, the Commissioner notes that records related to juvenile drivers may be classified differently than adult drivers, depending upon the circumstances of the offense. For instance, some of the data, including the juvenile driver&apos;s name and driver&apos;s license data may be classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5. (See also, Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.225.)&lt;/p&gt;
Finally, the Commissioner notes that because the data are collected directly from the driver and no data are transmitted to or from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, the Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2721 et seq.) is not applicable here.
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Speltz raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, the following data on adult drivers not part of an active investigation that the City of Spring Lake Park Police Department wishes to collect, create, and maintain are public: height, weight, eye color, birth date, expiration date, and license number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section, 13.82, subdivision 2, the following data that the Department wishes to collect, create, and maintain are public: the time, date and place of action, the charge and arrest information, the identity of the agency and the unit within the agency issuing the citation, the name, age, sex and last known address for an adult individual cited, response or incident report number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 6, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267667</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Driver&apos;s license data (see also Drivers Privacy Protection Act)</Title><Id>267028</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-012</Title><title>Opinion 13 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266988&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether a city council had properly closed a meeting for labor negotiation strategies and developments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13D.01 and 13D.03. The Commissioner opined that the City did not comply with section 13D.01, because it did not identify the authority to close the meeting or describe the subject of the meeting. The City did not comply with section 13D.03, because it failed to vote in open session to hold a closed meeting, as required, and because the Council also discussed subjects beyond the scope of labor negotiations and developments.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 09, 2013; City of Mound</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On June 6, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from John McKinley. In his letter, Mr. McKinley asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Mound City Council members&apos; conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). IPAD requested additional information/clarification, which Mr. McKinley provided on June 26, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On June 27, 2013, IPAD wrote to Mayor Mark Hanus, Chair of the Mound City Council. In its letter, IPAD informed Mayor Hanus of Mr. McKinley&apos;s request and gave the Council an opportunity to explain its position. On July 19, 2013, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Sarah Sonsalla, attorney for the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. McKinley follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On June 26, 2012, the Mound City Council held a regularly scheduled City Council meeting… Item number 9 on the agenda was listed as Executive Session for labor negotiations…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;There were three labor unions the City of Mound were in negotiations with for the 2011/2012 union contracts. There had been no settlement with any of the unions for the 2011-2012 contracts at the end of 2011, so both the Police Supervisor Union and the Patrol Union went though (sic) mediation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The mediation did not prove fruitful so the Police Supervisors Union filed for binding arbitration in the beginning of 2012… This arbitration award was what was being presented to the City Council at this executive session on June 26, 2012.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The third union the city negotiates with is the Public Works Department. This unit did not come to any settlement with the city until both the Police Supervisors and the Police Patrol units (sic) contracts were settled.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At 8:05 pm on June 26, 2012, the City Council went into closed meeting. The closed meeting was recorded ... and was made available to the public after all labor negotiations for contract years 2011-2012 were concluded on, or about 11-20-2012.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City Council did not vote to go into the closed meeting ... Mayor Hanus simply stated the City Council would be going into &quot;executive session&quot; to discuss labor negotiations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. McKinley requested and reviewed the audiotape of the closed meeting and offered the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;For just over the first 10 minutes of the meeting, [the Council] did discuss the arbitration award and the implications on the other two labor unions and the City of Mound.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At about the 10 minute and 15 second mark on the tape, [the Finance Director] announces they are going on to &quot;page two&quot;. [She] states she believes, &quot;it is related because it will have labor implications ...&quot;. For the next approximately 42 minutes [the Council] discuss [various issues - Mr. McKinley provided approximately a page and a half of topics].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. McKinley provided the Commissioner with the recording and a transcript of that meeting. The City also provided a transcript, including portions Mr. McKinley did not transcribe. The Commissioner was not provided with the document to which the Finance Director referred (&quot;going on to page two&quot;) and therefore, has not had an opportunity to review it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. McKinley&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Mound City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, when it a closed meeting on June 26, 2012 by stating, &quot;the Council is going to go into an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Mound City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, when it held a closed meeting to consider strategies for labor negotiations?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Mound City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, when it a closed meeting on June 26, 2012 by stating, &quot;the Council is going to go into an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations&quot;?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, states, &quot;[b]efore closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has addressed the requirements of closing a meeting in previous opinions. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267613&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267497&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267617&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-018&lt;/a&gt;). In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267497&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed at length the three requirements contained in subdivision 3: 1) a statement on the record; 2) the specific grounds allowing the meeting to be closed (the statutory authority); and 3) a description of the subject to be discussed (the description must go beyond simply identifying the subject).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mayor Hanus closed the Mound City Council meeting by issuing the following statement in open session:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Council is going to go into an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations and so that&apos;s where we&apos;re going to be. We will be coming out after that&apos;s completed. I don&apos;t know how long that&apos;s going to be, but we will be back to close out the meeting when that has completed. So with that we will proceed to Executive Session.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While the City had the authority to close the meeting for labor negotiation strategies or developments, it did not meet its obligations under section 13D.01. Mayor Hanus&apos; statement satisfied the first requirement of subdivision 3, but, it did not satisfy the second and third requirements. The statement should have also identified the authority to close the meeting (i.e., Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03) and specifically described the subject (e.g., labor negotiations/strategy involving the City&apos;s negotiations with the Police Supervisors&apos; union).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Mound City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, when it held a closed meeting to consider strategies for labor negotiations?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 1, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) Section 13D.01, subdivisions 1, 2, 4, 5, and section 13D.02 do not apply to a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this section. 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) The governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) The time of commencement and place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;
(d) A written roll of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting shall be made available to the public after the closed meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. McKinley stated that the Council did not vote before going into the closed meeting. Ms. Sonsalla responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While the Council may not have a formal vote on the record, the Council closed the meeting by consent of the Council as a whole ... While the members did not hold a vote, the Council clearly agreed not by a majority, but unanimously, to close the meeting for the specific purpose set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13D.03.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The plain language of section 13D.03, subdivision 1, requires a vote by a majority of the members in a public meeting and an announcement of the time and location of the closed meeting. Here, again, the Council had the authority to go into closed session, but did not fulfill one of the requirements to exercise that authority. The Commissioner notes that, while section 13D.03, subdivision 1(a), does not require votes taken &lt;em&gt;at&lt;/em&gt; a meeting closed for discussion of labor negotiation strategies to be recorded in a journal of votes, the vote taken to close the meeting is required to be recorded in a journal. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4.) Because the Council did not vote, it could not be recorded in the journal of votes as required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Another issue raised by Mr. McKinley, is whether the closed meeting went beyond the scope of what is allowable under section 13D.03, subdivision 1(b): &quot;a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.&quot; Both Mr. McKinley and the City agree that the first 10 minutes of the recording involved discussion of the arbitration award for the police supervisors union, which falls squarely within the statutory provision. The remaining approximately 42 minutes is in dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Sonsalla summarized the discussion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the context of the arbitration award&apos;s impact and future negotiations, [the Finance Director] also discussed other budget alternatives for police services, including keeping and adding needed in-house officers; contracting for services with a neighboring community; or combining services with a neighboring community. Specifically, [she] informed the Council that her purpose was to discuss managing expenses related to the police department, including the cost of negotiation results with the in-house department, while continuing to address the City&apos;s deficit…&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As [she] presented the information, the Council engaged with [her] and each other, posing several questions about the impact of the existing and future police labor costs on the budget. In the context of the information regarding the arbitration award, police labor costs and the impact of labor negotiations, the Council also engaged with [her] on the possible alternatives to the in-house police department. [Citations omitted.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, limits the discussions in a meeting closed to consider strategy for labor negotiations or developments conducted &lt;em&gt;pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.01-179A.25&lt;/em&gt;. The phrase &quot;labor negotiations&quot; must be read in conjunction with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 179A, which governs collective bargaining for public employees. Meetings cannot be closed for general personnel or budgetary discussions. The transcript of the closed meeting suggests that the Council was aware of the boundaries established by the Open Meeting Law and made a good faith effort to act within them. However, while the make-up of its police force certainly has an impact on the City&apos;s budget and the discussion about contracting with another municipality for police services may fall under that umbrella of collective bargaining negotiations or developments, issues of city hall personnel, transferring staff to a new building and renting out the current city hall building are outside the scope of a meeting closed under section 13D.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner understands that permissible labor negotiation discussions might reasonably raise other issues for public bodies, particularly with regard to budgetary matters. However, public bodies must be mindful of the limitations that Chapter 13D imposes with regard to subjects discussed in closed meetings, and restrict themselves to those topics. Fulfilling the obligations discussed in Issue 1 can aid public bodies in meeting that requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues Mr. McKinley raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Mound City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, when it a closed meeting on June 26, 2012 because it did not identify the authority for closing the meeting and did not describe the subject of the meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Mound City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 1(b), when it failed to take a public vote to go into closed session for consideration of labor negotiations. The Council did not comply with section 13D.03, when it discussed various topics related to city hall personnel, transferring staff to a new building and renting out the current city hall building.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;August 9, 2013&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266988</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor negotiations</Title><Id>266350</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-10T15:13:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-011</Title><title>Opinion 13 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266924&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-06-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district interviewed a
student about his/her alleged involvement in an
incident off school property. The district gave the
student an oral Tennessen warning, which did not
meet the full statutory notice requirements. The oral
notice was not adequate because the district did not
clearly state the consequences to the student of
providing or not providing the requested data when it
knew of at least one consequence to the student if he/
she provided data that confirmed his/her involvement
in the incident. Also, the district did not identify those
persons outside the district to whom it was authorized
to disseminate the data, regardless of its intention to
do so. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 14, 2013; Independent School District 743 (Sauk Centre)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 25, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from &quot;X,&quot; in which X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about whether Independent School District 743, Sauk Centre, violated his/her child&apos;s (&quot;Y&quot;) rights as a data subject. Parents of two other District students provided statements in support of X&apos;s description of the issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Brooks, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 2013, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 13, 2013, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Susan E. Torgerson, attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X provided them follows. X wrote that Y, a District student, was questioned by two District staff regarding an incident that occurred off school property. According to X, the District staff questioned Y &quot;about [Y&apos;s] actions in the incident, where [Y] was, and who [Y] was with. [Y] was not given the Tennessen warning orally or in writing prior to the questioning. I was present during the questioning.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District also questioned the other students about their involvement in the incident. The parents, who were present when the District questioned their children, stated that the District also did not give their children Tennessen warning notices.&lt;/p&gt;
According to X, &quot;[t]he private data collected from those interviews was then used to suspend some of the students from sports via the Minnesota State High School Leagues&apos; [MSHSL] code of conduct.&quot;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 743, Sauk Centre, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students, and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, data about students and their parents are private, and may not be released without statutory authority or consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity collects private or confidential data about an individual from that individual, the entity must provide a notice, commonly referred to as a Tennessen warning. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.) This notice must contain the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the data; (b) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (c) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities outside of the collecting agency authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined that if an entity does not give an individual a Tennessen notice when circumstances warrant it or if an entity&apos;s notice is inadequate, the entity cannot store, use, or disclose any of the data it collected from the individual. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Torgerson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....The student received the notice required by law. The District obtained information about [Y] from a variety of sources, including the data subject, after an incident in the fall of 2011. The information about [Y&apos;s] violation was not shared outside the District by anyone in the District. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....
&lt;br /&gt;
At the start of each interview, each interview subject, including [Y], was told by [District administrator] the purpose/reason for the interview, that they had the right to refuse responding to the questioning, and that the information was to be used to help in the determination of their involvement in the situation and potential disciplinary action. They were also informed that the information would remain within the School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Torgerson submitted an affidavit from the District employee who questioned the students&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I interviewed 13 students with regard to the incident I gave each of them the same notice at the beginning of the interview. I told them:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a. The purpose of the interview was to find out who was responsible for the [incident of vandalism]
&lt;br /&gt;
b. I stated this clearly and repeatedly that they did not have to answer questions;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. If they did not answer I would need to draw conclusions without their input;
&lt;br /&gt;
d. That the information would be used to determine consequences/discipline for them and maybe for others; and
&lt;br /&gt;
e. That the information would be used within the District as necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has discussed in many previous advisory opinions, the purpose of the Tennessen notice is to provide individuals with sufficient information to decide whether to provide the requested data. Here, the District told Y why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data, and that Y was not legally required to answer. However, the oral notice described above does not meet the full statutory notice requirements for the following reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, it doesn&apos;t clearly state the consequences &lt;em&gt;to Y&lt;/em&gt; of providing or not providing the requested data. It just states that if Y does not provide the data, the District will reach its conclusions without Y&apos;s input. According to Ms. Torgerson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The MSHSL (Minnesota High School League) rules do apply to student athletes. The District&apos;s activities director determined that [Y]&apos;s participation in the incident constituted a violation of MSHSL Bylaw 206, Good Standing and General Eligibility requirements. [Y] was required to refrain from participation in actual contest activities for a period of two weeks. Each student athlete and a parent, sign an MSHSL Eligibility Statement at the start of the school year. The Eligibility Statement acknowledges the expectations and the consequences of violations. In this instance, the nature of the violation allowed the local district to impose the consequence and did not require any reporting of the violation to the MSHSL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Evidently the District knew of at least one consequence to Y if Y provided data that confirmed his/her involvement in the incident, and it should have included that in its Tennessen notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the District told Y that the data would be used within the District &quot;as necessary,&quot; but it did not identify those persons outside the District to whom it was authorized to disseminate the data, regardless of its intention to do so. For example, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 8(b)(5), the District had authority under certain conditions to disseminate the data about Y to the juvenile justice system. In addition, the District had authority to share the data pursuant to a court order. At minimum, the District needed to inform Y of those authorized disseminations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that although section 13.04 does not require written Tennessen notices, the factual dispute here demonstrates the importance for an entity to document in some manner that it gave proper notice. A simple way to do that is to provide the notice in writing, and ask the data subject to sign and date it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Independent School District 743, Sauk Centre, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the full notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 14, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266924</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-010</Title><title>Opinion 13 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267892&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-04-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public sought access
from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety/
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (DPS/BCA) Archive
Service Repository to certain license plate data. BCA
and the local law enforcement agency have a joint
powers agreement that governs the collection and
maintenance of the data; however, neither DPS/BCA
nor the agency maintains all of the data that together
were responsive to the request. The Commissioner
also discussed whether any of the requested data are
system log files and/or audit trail data subject to a DPS
security information declaration under section 13.37,
as well as the applicability of the federal Driver’s
Privacy Protection Act to the classification of the data.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 11, 2013; Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 26, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Ian Bratlie, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN). In his letter, Mr. Bratlie asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about ACLU-MN&apos;s right to gain access to certain data the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains. IPAD asked Mr. Bratlie to withdraw his request, pending the issuance of a report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Mr. Bratlie renewed his request on February 26, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ramona L. Dohman, DPS Commissioner, in response to Mr. Bratlie&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 5, 2013, were to inform her of Mr. Bratlie&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position. On March 19, 2013, IPAD received a response, dated same, from E. Joseph Newton, General Counsel and Data Practices Compliance Official for DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Bratlie provided them follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The ACLU-MN is greatly concerned about racial profiling by law enforcement officers in Minnesota. We believe that law enforcement officials in Sibley County regularly run license plates of cars that they believe to belong to minorities. They can run license plates in two ways, they can either do it through dispatch or they can do it through on-board computers. When the searches are done through the on-board computer, the data stream is controlled by BCA. BCA and Sibley County Sheriff&apos;s Office have entered into a joint powers agreement to gather and store this information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To combat this discriminatory practice, the ACLU-MN requested information relating to searches made by Sibley County Sherriff&apos;s Office (hereafter SCSO). Our first request was to SCSO itself. However, they told us the information was held by BCA. They made a request to BCA for the data but were told by BCA that they could not provide the information to SCSO.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Bratlie, ACLU-MN then asked BCA for access to the data SCSO did not maintain, namely three items of data: 1) license plate number queries run through on-board computers, by officer and date, 2) the data transmitted from BCA in response to those queries, and 3) the number of transactions per officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, BCA told Mr. Bratlie it had &quot;no data responsive&quot; to any of his requests. BCA &quot;also suggested that information we were seeking might be protected by the Driver&apos;s Privacy Protection Act [of 1994, or &quot;DPPA&quot;].&quot; (18 U.S.C. section 2721.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bratlie objected to DPS&apos;s position, and again asked BCA for access to the three items of data. According to Mr. Bratlie, BCA &quot;now claimed&quot; that the data were not accessible because data responsive to item 1) were &quot;security information&quot; per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, item 2) were protected by DPPA, and that BCA had no data responsive to item 3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Bratlie&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for the following data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing all license plate numbers run through Sibley County Sheriff patrol cars on-board computer system, by officer and date, from January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing the response to those Sibley County squad car license plate initiated requests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing the total number of transactions requested, by officer, from January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton described BCA&apos;s &quot;Archive Service&quot; repository, which documents transactions made over its secure network to and from more than 20 repositories of data. According to Mr. Newton, the various repositories of data on individuals &quot;include more than license plate data.&quot; He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One type of transaction recorded in the Archive Service is a query that requests information maintained by the DPS Driver and Vehicle Services Division (DVS). An authorized criminal justice agency employee can retrieve DVS data by entering a license plate number. DVS returns data about the vehicle associated with the license plate and the registered owner. Those returned data elements are: the license plate, year and type of registration, the name, address and date of birth of the registered owner, the vehicle identification number or VIN, the year, make, model and color of the vehicle, the month the plate expires and the sticker number attached to the plate. Depending on the query used, driver&apos;s license information for the registered owner may also be returned. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to retrieve data over the secure network, authorized agencies identify the devices that submit and receive data. If the device is a fixed computer in the offices of the authorized agency, a unique value is assigned for each user of that device and that information is stored in Archive Service. For a mobile device like a laptop that connects to the secure network, only the device identifier is known or stored, no information about the identity of the mobile user is available. Because the mobile devices may be shared by agency employees, the joint powers agreement between the agency and BCA requires that the agency be able to tell BCA which employee was using a mobile device at a particular date and time, if that information is needed to evaluate usage or resolve some other issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton stated that BCA maintains &quot;license plate&quot; data only in the Archive Service, and that those data &quot;are classified as private data on individuals or non public data by a security information declaration issued by the DPS responsible authority. The query and response data requested in the first two items are both covered by the declaration.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), in relevant part, defines security information as: &quot;government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&quot; Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Recognizing the jeopardy that could result to law enforcement officers, victims of crime and the general public if this quantity of data concerning the activities of criminal justice agencies and their employees was available to the public, the BCA requested that the DPS Commissioner ... issue a security information declaration to protect the data in the Archive Service. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her written determination classifying &quot;all government data contained in the system log files and the audit trail&quot; as security information under section 13.37, Commissioner Dohman stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department of Public Safety&apos;s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has a division whose primary responsibility is to facilitate the sharing of data among criminal justice agencies. The division is called Minnesota Justice Information Services or MNJIS. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As part of its operations, MNJIS stores system log files which are used primarily for internal troubleshooting. MNJIS also maintains an audit trail of queries and responses made by criminal justice agencies.... These files and audit trail, if accessible to the public, would permit those engaged in illegal activities to determine what investigations were underway as well as the data returned in response to queries made by criminal justice agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton stated that the security declaration applies to all data in the Archives Services, but the declaration states only that the system log files and the audit trail data are protected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Newton correctly noted that the Commissioner has deferred to another entity&apos;s expertise in making determinations about classifying otherwise public data as security information. However, per Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267835&quot; title=&quot;02-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2, may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wants to emphasize that, in the exercise of this discretion, a government entity must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would likely lead to substantial jeopardy. The entity cannot simply protect data from disclosure under section 13.37 on an arbitrary basis, but must base the determination on reasoned analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner accepts, in general, Commissioner Dohman&apos;s reasons, as set forth in her written declaration, that there are times when &lt;em&gt;otherwise public&lt;/em&gt; data in the Archive Service may be protected as security information. In addition to the rationale provided in the declaration that public access to system log files and audit trail data would &quot;permit those engaged in illegal activities to determine what investigations were underway as well as the data returned in response to queries made by criminal justice agencies,&quot; the Commissioner (of Administration) is aware that a fundamental purpose to maintain audit trails is to safeguard access and use of those systems against both internal and external misuse and tampering. Audit trails also provide a means to verify system activity and the accuracy of the data. Public access to individual queries and resulting data returned from those queries, unless aggregated, may also reveal vulnerabilities in the robustness of a system&apos;s ability to prevent and track misuse and tampering With that said, the Commissioner encourages DPS to reconsider whether any of the data ACLU-MN requested are not system log files and/or audit trail data, and therefore are not subject to the security information declaration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions, section 13.37 provides entities broad discretion to address security concerns. It is up to the Legislature to weigh those concerns with other sometimes competing interests, i.e., public accountability and data subjects&apos; rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Note: In 2012, the Legislature amended section 13.37, subdivision 2, so that if an entity denies a data request based on the responsible authority&apos;s determination that the data are security information, then, &quot;upon request, the government entity must provide a short description explaining the necessity for the classification.&quot; DPS should re-evaluate its declaration to determine whether the description provided fully articulates the necessity of the declaration in a manner that the public can understand.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton discussed another justification for denying Mr. Bratlie&apos;s request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The ACLU-MN is also not able to have access to the license plate data based on federal law. The license plate data maintained in the Archive Service are retrieved from the DVS repository. As noted in Minnesota Statutes, section168.346, subd. 1, license plate data, also known as vehicle registration data, are treated as provided in 18 United States Code section 2721. Pursuant to that federal law, the public is not allowed access to license plate data for individual registered owners. See section2721(a)(l). Because the registered owner can have access under the federal law, the closest state classification is &quot;private data on individuals.&quot; Because the classification of the data &quot;travels&quot; with the data, DPS/BCA cannot disclose the data to a member of the public like the ACLU-MN.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to DPPA, a &quot;State department&quot; of motor vehicles&lt;em&gt;,&lt;/em&gt; such as DPS, is generally prohibited from disclosing to the public &quot;personal information&quot; about an individual obtained by DPS in connection with a &quot;motor vehicle record.&quot; Section 2725 of DPPA defines those terms as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Personal information: information that identifies an individual, including an individual&apos;s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver&apos;s status.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Motor vehicle record: any record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator&apos;s permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, DPPA sets forth permissible uses under certain conditions. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 168.346, &quot;data on an individual provided to register a vehicle shall be treated as provided [by DPPA] and shall be disclosed as required or permitted by that section.&quot; (Mr. Newton did not address how DPS can fulfill its obligation under this section to provide appropriate access to those data in light of DPS&apos;s security information declaration.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that DPPA applies to data item 1. License plate numbers entered into the Archive Service by local law enforcement officers are not protected by DPPA, because the officer gained access to the number by looking at the license plate on a vehicle, not from the Archive Service.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding data item 2), Mr. Bratlie wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information protected by DPPA, and cited in Minn Stat section 168.346, is personal information. .... Thus, at a minimum, BCA has given no explanation for why the ACLU-MN was not entitled to information on zip codes, vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver&apos;s status that would have been in the replies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The BCA has made an incorrect reading of Minn Stat section 168.346 which does permit them to share the data under the rules set up in the DPPA. .... DPPA permits information to be shared in 14 different scenarios. At least three of them apply here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bratlie discussed the permissible uses that he believes apply to ACLU-MN&apos;s request. The Commissioner acknowledges his position. However, per DPPA, it is up to Commissioner Dohman to determine whether any of the permissible uses apply to Mr. Bratlie&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bratlie noted, and Mr. Newton concurred, that DPPA does not protect 5-digit zip codes. (In his comments, Mr. Newton stated, &quot;[i]t is not clear what value zip codes have in determining whether racial profiling is occurring in Sibley County.&quot; Whether or not an entity believes public government data have &quot;value&quot; does not affect a person&apos;s access rights. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton also stated that even if DPS &quot;provided ACLU-MN with the zip codes for the license plates queried by Sibley County in early 2012, those are the only data they would be entitled to receive under the DPPA.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The ACLU-MN also argues that BCA is somehow required by language in Minnesota Statutes, section168.346 to produce the data it has requested. This argument has no merit; chapter 168 directs the commissioner of public safety to take certain actions. See section 168.002, subd. 5. While BCA reports to the commissioner of public safety, BCA&apos;s operation of the Archive Service is not controlled by section 168.346. As was stated in BCA&apos;s November response to ACLU-MN, the part of DPS that controls access under the DPPA is Driver and Vehicle Services Division.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 168.346, subdivision 1(a), provides: &quot;[d]ata on an individual provided to register a vehicle shall be treated as provided by United States Code, title 18, section 2721, and shall be disclosed &lt;em&gt;as required or permitted&lt;/em&gt; by that section.&quot; (Emphasis added.) The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Newton&apos;s position that DVS makes that determination. As noted above, DPPA regulates disclosure of data by a &lt;em&gt;State department&lt;/em&gt; of motor vehicles. Per section 168.346, the Commissioner of Public Safety must determine if DPPA requires or permits disclosure of the data ACLU-MN requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to data item 3), Mr. Bratlie wrote, &quot;BCA claimed that there is no responsive data to this request. This reply makes no sense.&quot; Mr. Bratlie asserted that per the Joint Powers agreement, section 2.11, BCA should maintain the data. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As BCA stated they created the software for tracking &quot;direct access&quot; &quot;indirect access&quot; and &quot;computer to computer interface. Direct Access is done when a deputy uses SCSO equipment, such as a squad car computer, to access the BCA systems, such as entering a license plate number. Under the joint powers agreement with SCSO, there must be a method in the software for identifying which individual officers at SCSO conducted a particular transaction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The BCA Data Inventory list confirms this as it requires BCA to have data showing who queried a BCA database and when that query happened. Even the determination form signed by Ramona L. Dohman states that information it holds will be shared with a criminal justice agency to discipline an employee who has misused the data system. Dohman stated that &quot;resolution of allegations of misuse will promote public safety by helping to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice community.&quot; Thus, as required by the FBI, joint powers agreement and even as BCA policy, there is a way to determine which deputy made requests to the BCA for information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as noted above, Mr. Newton stated that BCA stores only the device identifier, not data that identify the officer who made the query. The joint powers agreement between the agency and BCA requires that the agency tell BCA which employee was using a mobile device at a particular date and time, if BCA determines &quot;that information is needed to evaluate usage or resolve some other issue.&quot; Accordingly, neither DPS nor SCSO maintains all of the data that together are responsive to ACLU-MN&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, apparently ACLU-MN cannot get access to the data it seeks from DPS, because BCA does not maintain the data &lt;em&gt;by officer&lt;/em&gt; conducting the query via a mobile device, which is what ACLU-MN asked for. It may want to ask again for aggregate data, including zip codes, not by officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. Mr. Bratlie also asserted that the data he requested are public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivisions 6 (response or incident data) or 7 (inactive criminal investigative data):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;BCA is incorrect to argue that this information is private driver data. It is, after being sought by a deputy, investigative data which makes it available to the ACLU-MN. .... Upon commencing an investigation, even one based on racial animus, the deputy has created a search that is presumed to be public. While the investigation may be short - finding out whether or not the car belongs to a minority - the deputy has made both incident data and criminal investigation data....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Bratlie&apos;s position, but the problem here is that SCSO does not maintain the data in question. However, if, by virtue of running a license plate number query the local law enforcement officer creates response or incident or criminal investigative data, and those data are an official record for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, then the local law enforcement agency (here, SCSO) should maintain the data per Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, and provide appropriate public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: References to footnotes and exhibits omitted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Bratlie is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for the following data, because it does not maintain the data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing all license plate numbers run through Sibley County Sheriff patrol cars on-board computer system, by officer and date, from January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing the response to those Sibley County squad car license plate initiated requests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data showing the total number of transactions requested, by officer, from January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, DPS may need to reconsider whether any of the data ACLU-MN requested are not system log files and/or audit trail data, and therefore are not subject to the security information declaration pursuant to section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 11, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267892</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)</Title><Id>266368</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official Records Act (15.17) See also: Records management</Title><Id>266369</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:49:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-009</Title><title>Opinion 13 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267172&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-03-20T01:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city council held a meeting using
Skype to include a council member at a remote location
outside of Minnesota, meeting all requirements in
section 13D.02. The council complied with
section13D.02, because it used Skype as it might have
used interactive television to conduct its meeting in a
manner that allowed it to meet its obligations. Further,
the plain language of the statute does not forbid a
member of a public body from “attending” a public
meeting at a location “open and accessible to the
public” outside of the entity’s geographic area, as long
as all other conditions of that section are met.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 2013; City of Cohasset</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from David Decker, Finance Manager for the City of Cohasset, dated February 1, 2013. In his letter, Mr. Decker asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the City Council of Cohasset&apos;s conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Decker follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Cohasset City Council] recently held a City Council meeting utilizing Skype on the City&apos;s computer which was projected on a large screen television in the City Council Chambers in order to include a council member at a remote location outside the State of Minnesota. We followed the relevant state statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 13D.02, in preparing for this meeting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We made sure that all members of the City Council could hear and see one another. Members of the public at the council&apos;s regular meeting location could see and hear all discussions, etc. There were four (4) members of the council at the regular meeting location. The council member at the remote location posted notice at that location and that location was accessible to the public. We also posted notice at the regular meeting location stating that a council member would be participating from a remote location. The member at the remote location did participate in the City Council proceedings, but all formal action which was taken at the meeting was passed with a unanimous vote, so the vote of the member at the remote location was not required for passage of any item.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After the meeting, an article appeared in a local newspaper suggesting that the meeting violated the OML because the remote location of the member participating via Skype was not accessible to residents of Cohasset.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Decker wrote, &quot;[w]e continue to contend that the reference to &apos;the public&apos; in the statute is not restricted to the residents of the City of Cohasset.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Decker&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Cohasset comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, when it held a meeting at which a city council member attended via Skype from a remote location?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, subdivision 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A meeting governed by section 13D.01, subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and this section may be conducted by interactive television so long as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members of the body;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not had the occasion to opine on the meaning of &quot;interactive television,&quot; as it is used in section 13D.02. However, the Commissioner has opined previously on other questions about use of technology as it relates to an entity&apos;s obligations under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The issue Mr. Decker raised is analogous.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267815&quot; title=&quot;00-043&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-043&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner was asked, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, what a government entity&apos;s obligation is to include a data subject&apos;s &quot;statement of disagreement&quot; regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data when the entity discloses the data in dispute on its website. The Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Regarding data that exist in electronic form the Commissioner again recommends a common sense approach. The Commissioner&apos;s understanding of web-based technology is that in most situations when a document(s) or database is posted to a website, it is possible to create a link in that document or database directly to another document. This process seems akin to physically attaching a paper copy of a disagreement statement to a paper copy of data in dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267322&quot; title=&quot;97-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-049&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that in the electronic age, a public employee&apos;s e-mail address is also part of the employee&apos;s work location. An employee&apos;s e-mail address simply provides another means, in a different medium, for the public to communicate with its government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267358&quot; title=&quot;03-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267479&quot; title=&quot;07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-266661&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;11-006&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
Here, the Council used Skype, as it might have used interactive television, to conduct its meeting in a manner that allowed it to meet its obligations under section 13D.02. Further, the plain language of the statute does not forbid a member of a public body from &quot;attending&quot; a public meeting at a location &quot;open and accessible to the public&quot; outside of the entity&apos;s geographic area, as long as all other conditions of that section are met.
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Decker raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Cohasset complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, when it held a meeting at which a city council member attended via Skype from a remote location, because the meeting met each of the four requirements in section 13D.02.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267172</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interactive Television (Skype)</Title><Id>267150</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T22:02:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-008</Title><title>Opinion 13 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266956&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-03-19T14:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> Each administrator of a Minnesota
Veterans Home is a “public official” for purposes of
section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(3), because under section
198.005, each administrator acts as the administrative
head for his/her veterans home. 
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 2013; Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Dennis M. Devereaux, legal analyst for the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs. In his letter, Mr. Devereaux asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the Department maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Devereaux provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs operates [five] Minnesota Veterans Homes Each Home has an Administrator, who is responsible for the 24/7 operation of the Home. Each Administrator is appointed and receives their authority to act under Minnesota Statutes section198.005 which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The commissioner shall appoint an administrator for each of the veterans homes. The administrators act as the administrative head for their respective veterans homes. The administrators serve at the pleasure of the commissioner and report directly to the commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question that we request an Advisory Opinion on is, whether an Administrator of a Minnesota Veterans Home is or is not a &quot;Public Official&quot;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statute section13.43 Subdivision 2(e)(3) provides [that]executive or administrative head of departments, bureaus, divisions or institutions [are public officials]. We contend that a Minnesota Veterans Home is clearly an institution within the meaning of the Statute and that each Administrator is clearly the administrative head based upon their appointment and their authority to act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Devereaux&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is an Administrator of a Minnesota Veterans Home a &quot;public official&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of, as well as applicants for, a government entity. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, certain personnel data are classified as either private or public, depending on whether the employee is or is not a &quot;public official.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), the following public employees are considered to be public officials: &quot;executive or administrative heads of departments, bureaus, divisions, or institutions within state government.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Devereaux stated, &quot;a Minnesota Veterans Home is clearly an institution within the meaning of the Statute and each Administrator is clearly the administrative head based upon their appointment and their authority to act.&quot; The Commissioner concurs. According to the plain language of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), each administrator of a Minnesota Veterans Home is a public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Devereaux raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An Administrator of a Minnesota Veterans Home is a &quot;public official&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266956</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-007</Title><title>Opinion 13 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266427&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-03-19T10:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public requested a school district’s data practices access policies and procedures required by sections 13.025 and 13.03. The district replied that it did not maintain a single written document that details its public data access procedures, but that it follows the procedures set forth in statute. The district did not fulfill its obligation to produce a “written data access policy” that “is easily available to the public.” </ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 2013; Independent School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Tim Finnegan. In his letter, Mr. Finnegan asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his requests for access to certain data from Independent School District (ISD) 625, St. Paul. IPAD asked for additional information, which Mr. Finnegan provided on January 31, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Valeria Silva, Superintendent of ISD 625. The purposes of that letter, dated January 31, 2013, were to inform her of Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. Nancy L. Cameron, Deputy General Counsel for the District, responded on February 25, 2013. A summary of the facts follows. Mr. Finnegan wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting your consideration in issuing an advisory opinion to the Saint Paul Public School District, ISD 625, for refusing to comply with Minnesota Statute 13.025, Subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I tried to get information from the school district&apos;s Executive Director of Human Resources, Tim Caskey on how to file a data request with ISD 625. Mr. Caskey referred me to Board Policy 304.00 which only states who the Responsible Authority is. Mr. Caskey went on to state that &quot;Detailed procedures for access to public data do not exist in a single written document. Nevertheless, the District follows the procedures set out in Minn. Stat.13.03, subd. 3. ....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD asked Mr. Finnegan to direct his data request to Valeria Silva, the superintendent for the District, before accepting his opinion request. (A person&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 are invoked when the person makes a request for access to government data to the responsible authority/designee of the government entity.) He did so on December 18, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Finnegan provided the Commissioner a copy of Board Policy 304.00, which states that the responsible authority for the District is the superintendent, but does not identify Ms. Silva by name.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Finnegan&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a request for the District&apos;s data practices access policies and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.025 and 13.03?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) states, &quot;[t]he responsible authority in every government entity shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&quot; Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205 also provides guidance about access procedures for members of the public and data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
A 2012 legislative change moved some of the requirements for data practices policies and procedures formerly located at Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.05, to a new section, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025. Of relevance here, section 13.025, subdivision 2, requires:
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare &lt;em&gt;a written data access policy&lt;/em&gt; and update it no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public&apos;s ability to access data. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall make copies of the policies required under subdivisions 2 and 3 &lt;em&gt;easily available to the public&lt;/em&gt; by distributing free copies to the public or by posting the policies in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public or by posting it on the government entity&apos;s Web site. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote that Mr. Caskey, in response to Mr. Finnegan&apos;s request for the written data access policy required per section 13.025, subdivision 2, wrote to Mr. Finnegan in August, 2012:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You have asked for copies of the District&apos;s procedures, as defined by Minn. Stat. section13.03, subds. 2(a)-(b). The District has designated the Responsible Authority to be the Superintendent. See Board Policy 304.00. You can obtain Board Policy 304.00 at [website address].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Detailed procedures for access to public data do not exist in a single written document. Nevertheless, the District follows the procedures set out in Minn. Stat. section13.03, subd. 3. In addition, pursuant to District practice, if data is requested, the requester must put the request in writing and send it to the Responsible Authority. Sometimes, requesters send data requests directly to District personnel - e.g., to the Director Office [sic] of Communications, Executive Director of Human Resources, General Counsel, etc. The Responsible Authority or other person assigned to respond to the request, complies with [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] by following the procedures in Minn. Stat. section13.03, subd. 3 and by responding to the request within a reasonable time. If clarification is needed, clarification is sought from the requester. If no clarification is needed, the District typically invites the requester to inspect the data, if public, or informs the requester that the data is not public and the legal reason for that conclusion. If copies or electronic transmittal are requested after inspection, the District requires the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data. However, if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal size paper copies are requested, the District charges 25 cents for each page copied. If the District is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies are supplied as soon as reasonably possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Cameron wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;These written procedures provided by the Executive Director of Human Resources accurately describe how the District handles requests for data under [Chapter 13] and meet the requirements of the law. They (1) were in writing, (2) provided the specific procedures used by the District for access by data subjects to public or private data on individuals, and (3) were distributed for free to [Mr.] Finnegan, as a member of the public. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined on the statutory provisions requiring access procedures (see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266355&quot; title=&quot;94-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267246&quot; title=&quot;04-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-049&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266477&quot; title=&quot;05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;). Here, Mr. Finnegan requested the procedures required by sections 13.025 and 13.03 from the District. According to Ms. Cameron, Mr. Caskey&apos;s response (reproduced in its entirety above) complied with the District&apos;s obligations under section 13.025. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Mr. Caskey&apos;s response to Mr. Finnegan did not fulfill the District&apos;s obligation to produce a &quot;written data access policy&quot; that &quot;is easily available to the public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it ought not to be difficult for members of the public to identify a government entity&apos;s responsible authority. The statement in the District&apos;s Policy 304.00, that the superintendent is the responsible authority, does not comply with the requirement under statute and rule that the District appoint a specific individual as responsible authority, and so identify that individual in the public document required. (See section 13.025, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1200, subpart 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: References to footnotes and exhibits omitted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Finnegan raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Independent School District 625, St. Paul, did not respond appropriately to a request for the District&apos;s data practices access policies and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.025 and 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266427</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-11-02T14:13:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-005</Title><title>Opinion 13 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267312&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-03-06T02:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Note: this opinion relates to 13-001. A member of the public sought access to data related to a
request for proposal (RFP) under section 13.591, subd. 3(b) and 4(a). The entity cancelled procurement for the
original contract prior to completion of the evaluation process, and three weeks later, re-solicited two new RFPs for
the project. Although the entity plans to issue more RFPs in connection with the project, the evaluation process for
the two re-solicited RFPs is complete, and all data submitted in response to the original RFP are now public (except
trade secret) under section 13.591, subd. 3(b). For the same reasons, “evaluative data,” are also public, pursuant to
section 13.591, subd. 4(a), except trade secret data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 5, 2013; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 14, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Patrick P. Born, Regional Administrator and responsible authority for the Metropolitan Council. In his letter, Mr. Born asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Council maintains. Jay R. Lindgren and Leita Walker, attorneys, submitted comments on behalf of URS and Star Tribune Media Company, LLC, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: Data at issue here were also the subject of Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267196&quot; title=&quot;13-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-001&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Born provided them follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Born wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On October 21, 2011, the Council issued a Request for Proposals ( RFP ) for engineering services for the [Southwest Light Rail Transit] SWLRT line. Under that solicitation the Council would have awarded a consultant contract ( Contract No. 11P173 ) encompassing five phases of engineering and support services....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;URS was one of two firms that submitted proposals. Mr. Born described ensuing events, and stated that the Council voted in July, 2012, to cancel the procurement for Contract 11P173, and inter alia, &quot;[d]evelop and issue new Requests for Proposals for Engineering Services Consultant(s) for developing engineering documents to 30% completion of project engineering.&quot; He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On August 17, 2012, the Council issued two new RFPs for preliminary engineering consultant services for the SWLRT Project. .... The Council has not yet issued a &quot;new RFP for engineering services to complete final design work and provide design support services during construction,&quot; and therefore has not resolicited new proposals for those phases of the engineering work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The last three phases of engineering services that are not covered by Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177 will be the subject of one or more RFPs which will be issued as initial design work nears completion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;.... The two contracts cover only the first two phases (30% preliminary engineering) of the five phases that were the subject of the RFP for Contract No. 11 P173. Both preliminary engineering services contracts were signed on or about December 17, 2012. [URS submitted a proposal in response to the resolicitations but was not awarded a contract for those services.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Born stated that the evaluation process for Contract No. 11 P173 was not completed, because the Council cancelled that procurement and has not yet re-solicited proposals for the last three phases of that RFP. Furthermore, because the Council did not re-solicit those proposals within one year, &quot;the Council believes the proposals (except for any trade [secret] information) and the &quot;remaining data&quot; associated with that solicitation (including data created or maintained by the Council as part of its proposal evaluation processes) now are public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Born&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the Metropolitan Council?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the Request for Proposal (RFP) and procurement process data for Contract No. 11P173&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, subdivision 3(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name of the responder is read and becomes public. All other data in a responder&apos;s response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. For purposes of this section, &quot;completion of the evaluation process&quot; means that the government entity has completed negotiating the contract with the selected vendor. After a government entity has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If all responses to a request for proposal are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than that made public at the response opening, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the requests for proposal results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the purchase. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.591, subdivision 4(a), &quot;[d]ata created or maintained by a government entity as part of the selection or evaluation process referred to in this section are protected nonpublic data until completion of the selection process or completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lindgren wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Met Council decided to break the procurement for the five phases of engineering for the Southwest Light Rail into multiple contracts. However, it did not abandon the purchase and, as the Commissioner noted in Advisory Opinion 13-001, &quot;the project that is the subject of the RFPs is unchanged.&quot; ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;URS&apos;s proposal submitted a single proposal for all five phases of the work. It will not be public data until the Met Council has completed the evaluation process and awarded contracts for all five phases of the work that was originally to be included in Contract 11P173.....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;.... The classification of the evaluation data is governed by [section 13.591], [s]ubdivision 4(a), which requires that the data be kept as protected nonpublic data until the evaluation process is complete. It can only be released, therefore, once the Met Council has completed the procurement process for the entire purchase by entering into contracts for all five phases of the engineering work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Walker wrote in opposition to URS&apos;s position:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It simply is not consistent with legislative intent, the policy of government transparency underlying [Chapter 13], or the plain language of Minn. Stat. 13.591, subd. 3(b), to hold that a government entity could request proposals on a large, multi-million dollar contract, receive proposals, cancel the contract, and then, over the course of months or even years, carve out smaller RFPs that cover bits and pieces of the canceled contract, all the while keeping the original, rejected bids away from public scrutiny.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;URS&apos;s argument that the data at issue are nonpublic because the Council has not abandoned the SLRT [sic] project is overly simplistic. Proposals for the last three phases of work were not resolicited within the one-year time frame, and thus URS&apos;s original proposal on this work is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It should not matter that the Council may &lt;em&gt;intend&lt;/em&gt; to eventually resolicit proposals for these three phases: The statute does not contain an &quot;intent&quot; exception [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To summarize, in 2011 the Council issued an RFP for contract No. 11P173 and received two responses, one of them from URS. Subsequently, the Council canceled procurement of that contract, and within one year, re-solicited the RFP, as Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177. According to Mr. Born, the Council has completed the evaluation process (i.e., it has signed the contracts) for those two RFPs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Born, Mr. Lindgren and Ms. Walker all discussed the fact that the subsequent two RFPs do not cover the entire scope of the original RFP, and expressed differing views on whether that is significant in terms of the classification of the data at issue. Mr. Born believes the data are public because although the Council did not complete the evaluation process for three of five phases of the SWLRT, it did not re-solicit proposals within one year of the proposal opening date. Mr. Lindgren argues that the data are classified as not public because the Council has not completed the evaluation process for the entire SWLRT project. Ms. Walker argued that the Commissioner erred in his conclusions in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267196&quot; title=&quot;13-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-001&lt;/a&gt;, but also asserted the data are public because the Council failed to re-solicit within the one-year time frame.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges each analysis, but respectfully disagrees with all of them. Under section 13.591, subdivision 3(b), any differences between an original RFP and re-solicited RFPs do not affect the classification of the data. As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267196&quot; title=&quot;13-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;13-001&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;[g]iven the process set forth in section 13.591, it is clear that the Legislature contemplated that aspects of public projects could change and necessitate re-solicitation of RFPs, and that is the case here.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the plain language of the statute, in the case of a re-solicitation, &quot;all data [with exceptions] remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the requests for proposal results in completion of the evaluation process &quot; When the evaluation process is complete, &quot;&lt;em&gt;all remaining data&lt;/em&gt; [except trade secret] submitted by all responders are public.&quot; (See section 13.591, subdivision 3(b); emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the RFP for Contract No. 11P173 was re-solicited as two RFPs. Accordingly, the evaluation process for the two re-solicited RFPs is complete, and therefore, all data (except trade secret) submitted to the Council in response to the RFP for Contract No. 11P173 are now public under section 13.591, subdivision 3(b), even though the Council intends to issue more RFPs in connection with the SWLRT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the same reasons, &quot;evaluative data,&quot; i.e., data the Council created or maintains as part of the evaluation process for Contract No. 11P173, are also public, pursuant to section 13.591, subdivision 4(a), except trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Born raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, the following data maintained by the Metropolitan Council are public (except for any trade secret data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the Request for Proposal (RFP) and procurement process data for Contract No. 11P173&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 5, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267312</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-006</Title><title>Opinion 13 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267339&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-03-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An entity asked about the classification of grades and GPAs on undergraduate and graduate
transcripts provided to the entity. Section 13.43, classifies “education and training background” data as public, but
does not define “education and training background.” Previous opinions have addressed the scope of those terms
only as it relates to dates, specific institutions of learning, and places of employment. Using common dictionary
definitions, grades and GPAs are not “education and training background.” A specific grade or GPA is not part of the
general education and training background of an employee or applicant and does not describe the knowledge,
development, or experience that an applicant or employee has achieved. Accordingly, those data are private.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 5, 2013; Independent School District 47 (Sauk Rapids-Rice)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 23, 2013, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Daniel Bittman, Superintendent of Independent School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, dated January 22, 2013. In his letter, Mr. Bittman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the District maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which the District provided on February 1, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bittman provided a summary of the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 16, 2013, a community member requested, a complete copy of the transcripts the school district maintains for each middle and high school math and science teacher. More specifically, the community member requested grades teachers received in each course, as well as grade point averages [GPAs].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statute 13.43, Subd. 2 identifies public data such as, but not limited to name, employee identification number, salary, &lt;em&gt;education and training background&lt;/em&gt;, and dates of employment. However, it does not specify whether education and training background includes course grades and/or grade point average. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 4, the District provided the Commissioner with a copy of a transcript to review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Bittman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following personnel data maintained by Independent School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;undergraduate and graduate transcripts of certain teachers including grades and grade point averages&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of, as well as applicants for, a government entity. Subdivisions 2 and 3 list the types of personnel data that are public, which include &quot;education and training background.&quot; Subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 does not define &quot;education and training background,&quot; and in previous opinions, the Commissioner has addressed the scope of those terms directly only as it relates to dates, specific institutions of learning, and places of employment. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267737&quot; title=&quot;94-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-022&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267527&quot; title=&quot;95-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-001&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Where terms are not defined, they are interpreted according to their common and approved usage. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08.) Merriam-Webster defines &quot;education&quot; as, &quot;the knowledge and development resulting from an educational process&quot;; &quot;training&quot; as, &quot;the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one that trains&quot;; and &quot;background&quot; as, &quot;the total of a person&apos;s experience, knowledge, and education.&quot; Using those common definitions, the Commissioner is of the opinion that grades and grade point averages are not &quot;education and training background.&quot; A specific grade or GPA is not part of the general education and training background of an employee or applicant and does not describe the knowledge, development, or experience that an applicant or employee has achieved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bittman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District believes that providing transcripts, which identify information such as degrees obtained and university(s) attended is considered to be public data. However, the District does not believe information related to specific course grades and/or grade point averages is included.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs with the District that that it must redact grades and/or GPAs from transcripts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Bittman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, the following personnel data maintained by Independent School District #47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, are classified as private: grades and grade point averages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 5, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267339</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Education/training background, job history, previous work experience</Title><Id>266583</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-004</Title><title>Opinion 13 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267180&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-02-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked for
access to data related to the departure of a director
in a city, pursuant to 2012 amendments to section
13.43, subdivision 2(e)(iii). Although the director
worked in a management capacity for the city, which
has a population of more than 7,500, he did
not report to “the chief administrative officer
or the individual acting in an equivalent
position.” Therefore, under the plain language
of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(iii), he is not
a public official, and neither are the City’s
police and fire chiefs, among others in City
management positions</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 12, 2013; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Subsequent to this opinion the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iii), to broaden the public official employees that are described in that provision. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 17, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated December 11, 2012, from Leita Walker, on behalf of Star Tribune Media Company, LLC. In her letter, Ms. Walker asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data the City of Minneapolis maintains. IPAD wrote to Ms. Walker that the Commissioner would accept her request as of January 9, 2013.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Casey Joe Carl, City Clerk, in response to Ms. Walker&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 17, 2013, were to inform him of Ms. Walker&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 30, 2013, IPAD received a response from Peter Ginder, Deputy City Attorney, Civil Division.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Walker provided them follows. On August 17, 2012, a Star Tribune reporter asked the City for &quot;documents associated with a complaint or charge made against Greg Stubbs, including, but not limited to, any investigation of a complaint or charge.&quot; According to Ms. Walker, there was a complaint pending against Mr. Stubbs at the time of his &quot;recent departure&quot; as the City&apos;s regulatory services director.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 30, 2012, the City Attorney&apos;s Office wrote in response to Star Tribune&apos;s data request that the City did not impose final discipline on Mr. Stubbs, and further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although Mr. Stubbs works in a management capacity for the City of Minneapolis, which has a population of more than 7,500, he does not report to the chief administrative officer or the individual acting in an equivalent position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Stubbs does not meet the definition of a public official under [Minnesota Statutes,] section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iii) because as Director of Regulatory Services he did not report directly to the chief administrative officer (a position that does not exist in the City of Minneapolis) or an individual acting in an arguably equivalent position (the City Coordinator). As a result, Mr. Stubbs is not a public official as defined by section 13.42 [sic], subdivision 2(e). The data you seek is therefore private personnel data under 13.43, Subd. 4, and may not be disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walker discussed in-depth the structure of Minneapolis City government, as well as that of the other five largest cities in Minnesota, and asserted that Mr. Stubbs should be considered a public official for purposes of section 13.43. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the City&apos;s interpretation of Minn. Stat. section13.43 subd. 2(e)(4), the following individuals are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; public officials and complaint data about them is &lt;em&gt;private&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- City Assessor
&lt;br /&gt;
- City Attorney
&lt;br /&gt;
- Fire Chief
&lt;br /&gt;
- Police Chief
&lt;br /&gt;
- Director of the Department of Civil Rights
&lt;br /&gt;
- Director of the Department of Community Planning Economic Development
&lt;br /&gt;
- Director of the Department of Health and Family Support
&lt;br /&gt;
- Director of Public Works
&lt;br /&gt;
- Director of Regulatory Services
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Meanwhile, individuals such as the heads of Emergency Management, the Minneapolis Convention Center, and the City&apos;s human resources department are public officials. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Walker&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue::&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond properly to a request for data related to a complaint/charge against a city employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on current and former public employees. Certain personnel data are public and all other personnel data are private. (See section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) The existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public. If an entity disciplines an employee, the final disposition, the specific reasons for and data documenting the basis of the discipline become public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5), and subject to paragraph (f), upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2012, the Minnesota Legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), by expanding the definition of &quot;public official.&quot; Of relevance here, &quot;public official&quot; now includes, in cities like Minneapolis with populations greater than 7, 500, &quot;individuals in a management capacity reporting directly to the chief administrative officer or the individual acting in an equivalent position.&quot; (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iii).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2(f), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (4), are public only if:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement with another person.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 27, 2012, Ms. Walker asked the City to reconsider its position on whether Mr. Stubbs was a public official, given that he reported to the Executive Committee, which oversees both the City Coordinator and the Director of Regulatory Services. Ms. Walker wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Star Tribune argued in its letter that the &quot;equivalent&quot; language in section 13.43 subd. 2(e)(4)(iii) should be read to mean equivalent or &quot;more than equivalent.&quot; In other words, public officials should include individuals who report to (1) the chief administrative officer, (2) the equivalent of that position (arguably the City Coordinator), and/or (3) individuals to whom the &quot;equivalent position&quot; reports (the Mayor, the President of the City Council, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ginder also discussed the structure of Minneapolis&apos;s government. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Star Tribune argues that if the City Coordinator is the &quot;equivalent&quot; of a chief administrative officer, and both the City Coordinator and the Director of Regulatory Services report directly to the Executive Committee, then both the City Coordinator and the Director of Regulatory Services should be &quot;public officials.&quot; Additionally, the Star Tribune argues that its interpretation meets the perceived spirit and intent of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iii). .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Simply stated, the Executive Committee does not have the broad administrative duties of the City Coordinator and does not act in a position equivalent to a chief administrative officer. By its charter, the City has created the position of city coordinator and given that position the duties of a chief administrative officer. Although every department head may not report to the city coordinator, many do.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Stated another way, if the legislature had intended to capture all department heads appointed by a city as a &quot;public official&quot;, it could have simply stated so as it did in the case of state agencies, departments, bureaus, boards, commissions and institutions (See Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subdivision 2( e), clauses (1), (2) and (3)) or as it did when it identified specific positions in school districts (Minn. Stat. section13.43, subdivision (2)(e)(iv)). Under the plain language of the statute, only certain management positions are considered &quot;public officials&quot;. As described above, the duties and responsibilities of the city coordinator clearly are those of a chief administrative officer or the individual acting in an equivalent position and Stubbs did not report to the City Coordinator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, &quot;[w]hen the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.&quot; Here the plain words of the statute are unambiguous. Under Minneapolis&apos;s structure, Mr. Stubbs is not a public official, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(iii), just as its police and fire chiefs, etc., are not.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Commissioner acknowledges Ms. Walker&apos;s analysis regarding legislative intent, and that, in light of the strong legislative policy of public accountability that underlies much of Chapter 13, this may appear as a puzzling result. However, it is the result dictated by statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(f), provides that if a complaint or charge against a local public official does not result in disciplinary action, then data relating to the complaint or charge are public only if the employee resigns or is terminated from employment &lt;em&gt;while the complaint or charge is pending&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Star Tribune stated that a complaint or charge was pending against Mr. Stubbs at the time he resigned. The City stated that it did not impose &quot;final discipline&quot; on Mr. Stubbs, but in the record before the Commissioner, it did not state clearly whether or not there was a pending complaint or charge at the time he left City employment. (The existence and status of any complaints or charges are classified as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) Therefore, it is possible that the data the Star Tribune requested might not be public even if Mr. Stubbs were a public official for purposes of this section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Note: all footnotes and references to exhibits omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Walker is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Minneapolis responded properly to a request for data related to a complaint/charge against a city employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 12, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&amp;gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267180</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-003</Title><title>Opinion 13 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267963&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-01-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked
whether an entity responded appropriately to a
request for property inspection data. The requester
made her original request in December of 2011,
after which the entity stated that she had received
all data related to that request. She subsequently
received data she considered responsive to that
request in June 2012. Due to the nature of the
correspondence between the requester and the
entity, the Commissioner was unable to come to a
conclusion as to whether the entity responded
appropriately, though it appeared it acted in good
faith throughout the communications.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 23, 2013; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 30, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Cynthia Charest, dated the same. In her letter, Ms. Charest asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Ms. Charest provided on December 7, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated, December 7, 2012, the Commissioner offered Casey Joe Carl, Minneapolis City Clerk and data practices responsible authority, an opportunity to comment. IPAD received Mr. Carl&apos;s response on December 28, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Charest wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Dec 14, 2011, I emailed a data request to Mr. Craig Steiner, [former] Responsible Authority for the City of Minneapolis, regarding a 2009 inspection,: Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Please provide any and all public data for the following (inspection) RFS: 09-0730373.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Dec 14th, 2011, I received computer screen-shots but no inspection data from Regulatory Services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On December 16, 2011, Craig Steiner, Responsible Authority for the City of Minneapolis, stated that I had received all the data associated with the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I believe that further data was available pursuant to my 12/14/11 data request to the City of Minneapolis because:&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 15th of 2012, further data was released to me by Mr. Steiner regarding RFS 09-0730373: specifically, a form signed by an inspector, showing that a housing inspection had been completed on 10-29-09 under RFS 09-0730373. As well as letters to the owner and tenants, showing that in Oct of 2009, Regulatory Services was planning on conducting an inspection on the property.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I was not told that this data had been classified as confidential or private prior to its release in June of 2012. Or given reason under Chapter 13 why it would have been classified as private or confidential prior to its release in June of 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Charest&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond properly to a request for housing inspection data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267434&quot; title=&quot;95-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267325&quot; title=&quot;04-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-027&lt;/a&gt;.)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, previously issued advisory opinions have established that, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access (see section 13.03 subdivision 3(f)), or inform the requester that the data do not exist (see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267776&quot; title=&quot;00-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267983&quot; title=&quot;02-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-017&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267846&quot; title=&quot;08-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-026&lt;/a&gt;).
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this instance, on December 14, 2011, Ms. Charest requested data for an inspection conducted in 2009. On the same day, the City responded by providing computer screen shots related to the request. The City followed up two days later stating that it had provided Ms. Charest with all data responsive to her request. On June 15, 2012, Ms. Charest received additional data related to the 2009 inspection&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the City&apos;s response, Mr. Carl wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present case, Ms. Charet [sic] filed 16 requests (identified in attached spreadsheet as requests A-P) for data or clarification, all of which were regarding the same issue, but which sought different specific information. Ms. Charet requested data from a variety of sources throughout the City, and as her understanding of the City&apos;s system grew, so did the detail of her requests. [Craig Steiner, former responsible authority] worked to fulfill all requests made by Ms. Charet and worked with staff from throughout the City to do so. As can be seen in emails contained in Exhibit 2, at times Ms. Charet&apos;s understanding about what was contained within the record was limited, necessitating Mr. Steiner and other City staff to explain an increasing and diversifying array of City programs and processes. Ultimately, much of the data Ms. Charet requested did not exist within the KIVA system, and therefore could not be provided to her. However, at all points during the process, any requested information available to the City staff was provided to Ms. Charet. Any supplemental data provided to Ms. Charet throughout the process, was either not available at the time of the initial request, or was provided as a result of a different type of request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The record of correspondence between Ms. Charest and the City is lengthy and involves a number of individuals at the City. It is not always clear when Ms. Charest was making a new request and when she is asking for clarification of a previous request. Ms. Charest requested &quot;all&quot; data related to the 2009 inspection. The City responds that any additional data provided to Ms. Charest was either unavailable at the time of the request or provided as a result of the ongoing communication and clarification between Ms. Charest and the City. There continued to be ongoing correspondence between Ms. Charest and the City throughout December 2011 and the fall of 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the nature of the communication between Ms. Charest and the City and the record available, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the City&apos;s response was appropriate. However, the record demonstrates that the City seemingly acted in good faith and was in near-constant communication with Ms. Charest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opportunity for the Commissioner to remind data requesters and government entities that both play a role in the resolution of data requests. Where a data request is perhaps confusing or overly-broad, a government entity should seek clarification from the data requester as soon as possible (see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267593&quot; title=&quot;04-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-066&lt;/a&gt;) and where possible provide information for the data requester to make a more specific, focused request. Likewise, the data requester should provide that clarification in a timely manner. By doing so, the entity and the requester ensure that requests will be reasonably made and fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Charest raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of the nature of the correspondence between the City and the data requester, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the City responded properly to a request for inspection data, despite the City&apos;s good faith effort to respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 23, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267963</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-002</Title><title>Opinion 13 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267211&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-01-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked
whether an entity responded properly to a request
for certain personnel data it maintained. The
requester asked for copies of the job application and
supplement of a current employee. The entity
responded by creating a list of public data elements
but did not make copies of the actual documents.
The entity did not respond appropriately; it should
have provided access to the actual data after
redacting not public portions of the documents. The
plain language of section 13.03, subdivision 3, states
that requesters “shall be permitted to inspect and
copy public government data.”
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 14, 2013; Scott County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 9, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an advisory opinion request from Michelle Boeck, dated November 8, 2012. In her letter, Ms. Boeck asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that Scott County maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Ms. Boeck provided on November 26, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated, December 4, 2012, the Commissioner offered Gary Shelton, Scott County Administrator and responsible authority, and the data subject, an opportunity to comment. Jeanne Andersen, Assistant Scott County Attorney, responded on behalf of the County on December 14, 2012. The data subject did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Boeck wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On or around February 21, 2012 I first requested copies of all public personnel data on the application and application supplement for [X]. From February 21, 2012 to June 25, 2012, I contacted several Scott County employees, by email, including the subject of the data, to try to obtain copies of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the County&apos;s response to Ms. Boeck&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Andersen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The request in question asked for all the public data regarding a specific applicant for a specific employment position within the County. The County responded by providing listed data and did not provide copies of any actual documents maintained in the applicant file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Boeck&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, did Scott County respond appropriately to a data request for copies of public personnel data from an employment application and application supplement by providing the requester with a list of data instead of copies of the actual data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of, as well as data on applicants for, a government entity. Subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public, including job description, education and training background, and previous work experience. Subdivision 3, classifies certain data about applicants as public including veteran status, relevant test scores, rank on eligible list, job history, education and training, and work availability. Subdivision 4, classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
The Commissioner has opined in numerous opinions that data requesters are entitled to access the actual data that they are requesting. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267737&quot; title=&quot;94-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-022&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267527&quot; title=&quot;95-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267694&quot; title=&quot;04-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-021&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267541&quot; title=&quot;12-009&quot;&gt;12-009&lt;/a&gt;.)
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;In Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267866&quot; title=&quot;04-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-031&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Minnesota Statutes,] Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that individuals shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. This means that when an individual asks to inspect public data, the entity shall provide the requestor with the actual data. This ensures that the requestor will be able to gain an understanding of the context relating to the data s/he is seeking, especially if the entity has redacted (blacked/whited out) surrounding data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that some entities might prefer to lift public data from a document and place those data on an otherwise blank document for the individual to inspect (cut-and-paste). This is problematic because (1) the entity is withholding the actual data and (2) the possibility exists that the entity will make an error transferring the data from its original source onto another document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Boeck&apos;s request for copies of public data in an applicant&apos;s application and application supplement, the County provided Ms. Boeck with a list of data elements it determined to be public under section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3, instead of providing redacted copies of the application and application supplement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Andersen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County bases its actions on the Minnesota Court of Appeals holding in &lt;em&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis,&lt;/em&gt; 438 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. App. 1992). In that case, the Court specifically held, that while certain pieces of personnel data from or about a complaint against an employee were public, &quot;the statute does not compel disclosure of the complaint itself.&quot; As such, forms containing public data were specifically recognized as private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section13.43 and deemed not subject to disclosure; only information about the form in general and specific data items are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Demers&lt;/em&gt; case involved a data requester seeking access to complaint forms about alleged police officer misconduct, arguing, in part, that the data were classified as public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5 (now, subdivision 7). The Court held that the data were more properly classified as personnel data, under section 13.43. The Court&apos;s holding specifically addressed the narrow issue of the classification of and access to the actual complaint forms:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Complaint forms&lt;/em&gt; and other data created during an internal investigation into the use of force by a police officer are private personnel data unless disciplinary action is taken against the officer. (Emphasis added.) &lt;em&gt;Demers&lt;/em&gt; at 832.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Indeed, as Ms. Andersen points out, the Court also stated, &quot;the statute does not compel disclosure of the &lt;em&gt;complaint &lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.) &lt;em&gt;Demers&lt;/em&gt; at 831. The Court did not address the broader issue of access to &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; personnel-related documents, such as routine application materials; the discussion was confined to the issue of complaint-related data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The clear language of the statute mandates the city to tell Demers (a) whether complaints or charges have been filed against individual police officers, (b) the status of complaints or charges, and (c) the specific reasons for and final disposition of any disciplinary action taken against an officer, together with supporting data. &lt;em&gt;Demers&lt;/em&gt; at 831.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plain language of section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that data requesters &quot;&lt;em&gt;shall&lt;/em&gt; be permitted to inspect and copy public government data.&quot; (Emphasis added.) This section, read together with the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified, requires that data requesters have access to the actual data that they request. (Additionally, in reviewing the blank application and application supplement at issue here, it is apparent that there are data not on individuals included on the documents that would not be classified under section 13.43 and are presumptively public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Chapter 13 does not generally require government entities to create data in order to respond to data requests. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267600&quot; title=&quot;00-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-048&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267945&quot; title=&quot;01-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-011&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267507&quot; title=&quot;01-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-012&lt;/a&gt;.) Here, the County&apos;s interpretation would suggest that requests for the public data classified in section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3, require the creation of data by setting out the data in a separate document from the original. However, Chapter 13 contains no such requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would like to provide a final note. In the course of her data request, Ms. Boeck corresponded with a number of different individuals at the County. She included in her opinion request materials, &lt;em&gt;Scott County Guidelines and Procedures for the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act&lt;/em&gt;. Appendix C of the document identifies Mr. Shelton, County Administrator, as the Responsible Authority. The document also identifies (by names) a designee, a Compliance Official, and a list of &quot;Responsible Authorities for Divisions.&quot; Generally, Chapter 13 requires one responsible authority and one data practices compliance official per entity (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 13). The appointment of designees is optional and they may perform a variety of duties (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 6). The County may be able to streamline some of its data practices correspondence and avoid confusion in the future by clearly identifying its data practices contacts and directing data requesters to those specific parties empowered to respond to particular requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Boeck raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, Scott County did not respond appropriately to a data request for copies of public personnel data from an employment application and application supplement; the County should have provided the requester with redacted copies of the actual data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 14, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267211</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 13-001</Title><title>Opinion 13 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267196&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2013-01-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public sought access
to data related to a request for proposal (RFP) under
the process in section 13.591, subd. 3(b). The entity
cancelled procurement for the original contract prior
to completion of the evaluation process, and three
weeks later, re-solicited two new RFPs for the project.
The entity‘s decision to cancel the
RFP did not mean it “abandon
[ed] the purchase” (at which
point data that are otherwise
protected become public), even
though the scope of the resolicited RFPs differed from the
original, the project that is the
subject of the RFPs is unchanged.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 8, 2013; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 29, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated October 26, 2012, from Leita Walker, on behalf of Star Tribune Media Company, LLC. In her letter, Ms. Walker asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data the Metropolitan Council maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Ms. Walker provided on November 8 and 16, 2012.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Susan Haigh, Council Chair, in response to Ms. Walker&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 19, 2012, were to inform her of Ms. Walker&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Council&apos;s position. On December 10, 2012, IPAD received a response from Dave Theisen, Deputy General Counsel for the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Walker provided them follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On October 21, 2011, the Metropolitan Council issued a Request for Proposal for Contract No. 11P173, seeking Engineering Services for Southwest Light Rail Transit Line. Attachment 1 to the Request for Proposal covered the scope of work and described that scope as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Various services in support of COUNCIL performed Project Management activities.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. 30% Preliminary Engineering (PE) for all aspects of the light rail system;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Advanced Preliminary Engineering for all aspects that require up to 90% completion to gain entry into Final Design;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Final Design; and
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Design Support Services During Construction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, no bid was ever accepted and, at a July 25, 2012, meeting of the Metropolitan Council, the following motion carried:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;That the Metropolitan Council authorize the Regional Administrator to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cancel&lt;/em&gt; the procurement for Contract 11P173 for an Engineering Services Consultant for Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT);
&lt;br /&gt;
Develop and issues [sic] &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; Requests for Proposals for Engineering Services Consultant(s) for developing and engineering documents to 30% completion of project engineering;
&lt;br /&gt;
Develop and issue a &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; Request for Proposal for an independent engineering peer review consultant tasked with review of contract deliverables generated by the Engineering Services Consultant(s).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In August 2012, the Metropolitan Council issued two new Requests for Proposal: Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177. These contracts differ substantially from Contract No. 11P173. They cover only preliminary engineering, not advanced design work, and each contract is for a portion of the southwest corridor line, not the entire route as called for in Contract No. 11P173. The estimated cost of the new contracts is also substantially less than the $94 million estimated cost of Contract No. 11P173.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Emphasis provided; notes omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2012, Star Tribune asked for access to data &quot;regarding the recently canceled procurement for Contract 11P173,&quot; which the Council denied in part. Ms. Walker wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On September 5, 2012, Star Tribune asked the Metropolitan Council to reconsider its decision to withhold data regarding the evaluation processes for procurement for the canceled purchase. Star Tribune referenced Minn. Stat. section 13.591 subd. 3 and noted both that the Metropolitan Council had explicitly canceled Contract No. 11P173 and that Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177 were significantly different in scope and cost. As Star Tribune explained, these new Requests for Proposal were not &quot;initial&quot; or &quot;subsequent&quot; procurements for the same engineering work, but completely separate procurements for vastly different work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Council responded on September 14, 2012. Despite the clarity of the July 25 meeting minutes, it denied that the Council had &quot;abandoned&quot; the purchase for Contract No. 11P173, and it characterized the new contracts as a &quot;re-packaging&quot; of the work envisioned by Contract No. 11P173. Specifically, it stated,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Data regarding the evaluation process for contract 11P173 remains protected nonpublic data. The Council has not abandoned the purchase and the evaluation process for Contract 11P173 was not completed. Contract 11P173 contained preliminary engineering work for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail line and 12P176 and 12P177 also contain preliminary engineering work for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail line. Significant elements of the work remain the same, although they are packaged differently....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walker wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Council does not deny that it &quot;Cancel[ed] the procurement for Contract 11P173.&quot; That decision is determinative. This is not a case where the Metropolitan Council rejected all the bids but left open the possibility of a re-solicitation (in which case the requested data would remain private/nonpublic for a year). Instead, this is a case where the Metropolitan Council affirmatively and explicitly canceled - i.e., &lt;em&gt;abandoned&lt;/em&gt; - a purchase. Therefore, all of the data in the bidders&apos; responses to the Request for Proposal should be disclosed, with the exception of trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Council nevertheless refuses to disclose the data based on the argument that, although it might have canceled Contract No. 11P173, it has not abandoned the southwest corridor &lt;em&gt;project&lt;/em&gt;. As its legal staff explained, &quot;Significant elements of the work remain the same, although they are packaged differently.&quot; However, Minn. Stat. section 13.591 subd. 3, does not speak of &lt;em&gt;projects&lt;/em&gt; or &quot;&lt;em&gt;the work&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; Instead, it refers to &quot;abandon[ment] of the &lt;em&gt;purchase&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, the &quot;purchase&quot; has been abandoned. The Metropolitan Council will not be purchasing preliminary engineering and advanced design work for the entire southwest corridor line at a cost of $94 million from a single vendor. Instead, it will be purchasing something else, in response to separate Requests for Proposal. The Metropolitan Council cannot protect the data about abandoned Requests for Proposal simply by carving up projects and then issuing new Requests for Proposal. It cannot avoid the clear requirements of section 13.591 with a claim of &quot;repackaging.&quot; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Walker&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data of correspondence from January 1, 2012, to the present between URS Corporation or AECOM and Metropolitan Council staff regarding the recently canceled procurement for contract 11P173 for an engineering services consultant for Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). The data include emails, letters and any other written correspondence.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, subdivision 3(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name of the responder is read and becomes public. All other data in a responder&apos;s response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. For purposes of this section, &quot;completion of the evaluation process&quot; means that the government entity has completed negotiating the contract with the selected vendor. After a government entity has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If all responses to a request for proposal are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than that made public at the response opening, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the requests for proposal results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the purchase. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Council began, but did not complete, negotiation of Contract 11P173, and therefore did not &quot;complete the evaluation process.&quot; Hence, the classification of the data in question depends upon whether the Council re-solicited the request(s) for proposal, or abandoned the purchase.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did not define the meaning of the phrase &quot;abandon the purchase&quot; in section 13.591, subdivision 3. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, provides that words and phrases not defined in statute are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. Collins English Dictionary - Complete Unabridged 10th Edition (2009) defines &quot;abandon&quot; as &quot;to forsake completely;&quot; &quot;to give up completely;&quot; &quot;to give up (something begun) before completion: to abandon a job.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Theisen reiterated much of what the Council told Star Tribune. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Except for the geographical focus of the two RFPs, the preliminary engineering services covered by the August 17, 2012 RFPs are substantially the same as the preliminary engineering services that were covered by the first two phases (Initial Preliminary Engineering and 30% Complete Preliminary Engineering) of the engineering services contract (Contract No. 11P173) that would have been procured under the RFP issued in October 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Theisen stated, &quot;[t]he Council did not &apos;abandon&apos; the &apos;purchase&apos; of engineering services for the SWLRT Project when it cancelled the procurement of Contract No. 11P173. The Council is proceeding to &apos;purchase&apos; essentially the same preliminary engineering services under the RFPs for Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177 that it solicited under the October 2011 RFP for Contract No. 11P173.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He commented further on details of the differences in the RFPs and stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to SWLRT Project Office staff, none of these new provisions or clarifications changes the scope of the preliminary engineering services that were the subject of the October 2011 RFP. The preliminary engineering services that will be procured under the RFPs for Contract Nos. 12P176 and 12P177 are essentially the same preliminary engineering services that would have been procured under the October 2011 RFP for Contract No. 11P173.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.591, subdivision 3(b), states that data that are otherwise protected become public if an entity abandons the purchase of the subject of the RFP. Here, the Council cancelled procurement for Contract 11P173, thereby rejecting all responses to the RFP for engineering and related services for the SWLRT, prior to completion of the evaluation process. Three weeks later, the Council re-solicited two new RFPs for the project. It did not abandon the project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The scope of Contract 11P173 differs from Contracts 12P176 and 12P177, but the project that is the subject of the RFPs is unchanged. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Walker&apos;s assertions that the Council&apos;s action to cancel procurement of Contract 11P173and issue new RFPs is an &lt;em&gt;abandonment of the purchase&lt;/em&gt;. The purchase is for engineering and related services for the SWLRT. Given the process set forth in section 13.591, it is clear that the Legislature contemplated that aspects of public projects could change and necessitate re-solicitation of RFPs, and that is the case here.&lt;/p&gt;
The Commissioner notes that the Council might have used clearer language that could have helped avoid this kind of confusion. For example, its July 25, 2012, motion could have stated that the Council authorized the Regional Administrator to cancel and re-solicit the procurement for contract 11P173, thus clearly stating its intent to re-solicit, rather than abandon, the purchase of engineering and related services for the SWLRT.
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Walker is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Metropolitan Council complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data of correspondence from January 1, 2012, to the present between URS Corporation or AECOM and Metropolitan Council staff regarding the recently canceled procurement for contract 11P173 for an engineering services consultant for Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). The data include emails, letters and any other written correspondence.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 8, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267196</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:23:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-019</Title><title>Opinion 12 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267413&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-12-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An entity asked whether
communications sent by its board members from their
personal accounts and equipment were government
data and if so, how those data were classified. When
the board members were acting in their official
capacity in calling, emailing, or writing, the data were
government data subject to Chapter 13. The
communications are classified as public under the
general presumption, and residential address and
email or telephone number are public data as well,
pursuant to section 13.601, subd. 3(b), as well.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 2012; Duluth Airport Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 25, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Joan Christensen, attorney for the Duluth Airport Authority (Authority), dated October 23, 2012. In her letter, Ms. Christensen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the Authority maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated, October 29, 2012, the Commissioner offered Allegiant Air, LLC (Allegiant), and the Authority board member data subjects, an opportunity to comment. On November 13, 2012, Aaron A. Goerlich and Jason E. Maddux, attorneys for Allegiant, submitted comments on Allegiant&apos;s behalf. The board member data subjects did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Christensen wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Authority consists of seven appointed Board members who are not employees of the Authority. The Authority does not provide Board members with or reimburse Board members for cell phones or computers. Additionally, Board members do not utilize an Authority email address or telephone number/extension.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On September 24, 2012, the Authority received a request from Allegiant under the Freedom of Information Act (1966) and the Minnesota Data Practices Act (2011) requesting that the Authority provide:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;... all data and information pertaining to any conversations, communications, or correspondence, including but not limited to: emails, letters, and text messages, between all employees, representatives, officers, directors, and any other individuals speaking for or on behalf of Monaco Air, and any members of the Authority and/or [Duluth International Airport] staff within the last two years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Allegiant also requested data regarding meetings among the Authority, airport staff and Monaco Air, which are not the subject of this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Christensen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are text messages, emails, and letters between board members of the Duluth Airport Authority and employees or representatives of Monaco Air, government data, when sent to or from the Board Members&apos; personal cellphones, computers, or home addresses?
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. If the answer to the first issue is yes, how are the data classified?
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are text messages, emails, and letters between board members of the Duluth Airport Authority and employees or representatives of Monaco Air, government data, when sent to or from the Board Members&apos; personal cellphones, computers, or home addresses?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, &apos;government data&apos; means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2008, the Commissioner opined that when a superintendent used a personal data recorder to record portions of a school board meeting, he was acting in his official capacity and therefore, the recording was government data. The Commissioner stated, there often are situations in which government employees use their own equipment (cars, computers, cell phones, pagers, etc.) for work related purposes. It is not reasonable to conclude that in those situations, related data could not be considered government data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266866&quot; title=&quot;08 028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-028&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Christensen stated that the Board members are not employees of the Authority. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267335&quot; title=&quot;03 011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-011&lt;/a&gt;.) In a 2010 advisory opinion, the Commissioner noted that regardless of the facts that a mayor corresponded with an organization using his personal email address and did not use official letterhead, the data in the email were still considered government data because he was acting in his official capacity as an elected official. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266863&quot; title=&quot;10 023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-023&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the data requester, Allegiant, asked the Authority to provide data documenting conversations and correspondence between the Authority and Monaco Air. Some of the correspondence between Authority board members was sent to and received from personal email accounts, phones and home addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Goerlich and Mr. Maddux wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is thus irrelevant whether the Authority&apos;s Board members communicated with Monaco Air using Authority email addresses, telephone numbers, cellphones and/or computers. If the Board members communicated in their capacity as Board members the resulting data is unquestionably government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees. As long as the members of the Authority, or staff of the Airport, were communicating in their capacity as board members or public employees, the data are government data, subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to the first issue is yes, how are the data classified?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the Authority does not consider its board members to be employees. Therefore, data collected and maintained about them are not classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, provides, &quot;[c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per the plain language of that section, subdivision 2 only applies to elected officials. Because the Authority is comprised of seven appointed officials, section 13.601, subdivision 2, does not apply to the Authority&apos;s board members. (The Commissioner also wishes to note that section 13.601 applies only to correspondence between an elected official and an individual, not an organization. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266863&quot; title=&quot;10 023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-023&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.601, subdivision 3(b), does classify the residential address and either a telephone number or electronic mail address where the appointee can be reached (or both at the request of the appointee) as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, data documenting correspondence or communication between the board members and Monaco Air are public data pursuant to the general presumption. Residential address and email or telephone number are public data, pursuant to section 13.601, subdivision 3(b), as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Christensen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Text messages, emails, and letters among between members of the Duluth Airport Authority and employees or representatives of Monaco Air, are &quot;government data&quot; when the board members are acting in their capacity as public officials, regardless of whether the correspondence was sent to or from the Board Members&apos; personal cellphones, computers, or home addresses.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Correspondence between the Authority board members and Monaco Air are public data pursuant to the general presumption. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 11, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267413</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal email, phone account - business use</Title><Id>266982</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-018</Title><title>Opinion 12 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267164&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-12-06T02:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether
an entity improperly released private data about a
board member. At the time it released data to the
public, the entity’s human resources director
considered board members to be entity employees.
The board passed a resolution that members are not
employees six weeks later, and there was no evidence
in the record that the entity had taken any other
affirmative action regarding their employment status
before then. Accordingly, the data were personnel
data about the board member, regardless of any
action to the contrary the board took subsequently.
The entity was obligated to determine the
classification of data before releasing it to the public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2012; Independent School District 15 (St. Francis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 19, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email dated October 10, 2012, from Matthew Rustad, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his rights as a subject of data Independent School District 15, St. Francis, maintains. IPAD asked for additional information/clarification, which Mr. Rustad provided on October 25, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Lindberg, the District&apos;s Human Resources Director and Responsible Authority, in response to Mr. Rustad&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 29, 2012, were to inform him of Mr. Rustad&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 14, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Amy E. Mace and Courtney R. Sebo, attorneys for the District. Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo provided additional information on November 19, 2012, in response to a request from IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Rustad provided them follows. Mr. Rustad is a member of the District school board. On September 10, 2012, he met with Mr. Lindberg, the board chair, the superintendent, and the editor of the newspaper, to discuss the issue of censure of Mr. Rustad in response to a complaint against him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 11, 2012, Mr. Lindberg sent an email to a member of the public, in which he discussed the specific nature of that complaint. In his email, Mr. Lindberg wrote about the September 10 meeting:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Administration felt that it was important for the board members to be aware of the issue in a timely manner and give the board member involved in the issue an opportunity to discuss the situation in an appropriate context. The group arrived at a consensus decision to place an agenda item on the next school board meeting to censureMatt Rustad. The consensus of the group for the censure agenda item will be regarded as the final disposition of this matter in relation the the [sic] MN Govt. data practices act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That same member of the public then asked Mr. Lindberg if school board members were employees of the District, to which Mr. Lindberg replied, in a September 19, 2012, email, &quot;[y]es they are considered employees for specific contexts such as the purpose of that [life insurance] benefit and for MN Data Practices Act purposes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rustad wrote to the Commissioner that the board met on September 24, 2012, &quot;to vote on the censure as the final disposition.&quot; He asked whether Mr. Lindberg had the authority to release the details of the complaint against him to the public, &quot;before the authorized authority (School Board)&quot; made a final decision, and whether the District violated Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, &quot;by stating that a final disposition had been made&quot; prior to the board&apos;s vote. He also asked whether the District had violated his rights &quot;by allowing the editor of the newspaper to be present at the private meeting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Rustad&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 15, St. Francis, violate a school board member&apos;s rights when it released certain data about him to the public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public. If an entity disciplines an employee, the final disposition, the specific reasons for and data documenting the basis of the discipline become public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).) Subdivision 2(b) provides when disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Not of relevance here, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, classifies certain data on elected officials as not public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his September 19, 2012, email to the member of the public, Mr. Lindberg stated that board members were District employees for MN Data Practices Act purposes. Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo correctly stated that the Commissioner has consistently opined that it is up to an entity to determine whether its elected officials, such as school board members, are employees for purposes of Chapter 13. (See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267335&quot; title=&quot;03-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-011&lt;/a&gt;.) They wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he District does not consider its School Board members to be employees; rather, it considers them to be elected officials. The School Board has never passed a resolution finding that School Board members are employees. In fact, the School Board has adopted a resolution finding that School Board members are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; employees of the District. As such, the provisions of Section 13.43 do not apply to Mr. Rustad as an elected official, and all data maintained by the District about him, including the data in the email sent by Mr. Lindberg to the citizen, are public pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo provided an undated copy of the resolution to which they refer. However, they provided supplemental documentation that the board adopted the resolution at its October 22, 2012, board meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo discussed Mr. Lindberg&apos;s September 19, email, referenced above:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Despite Mr. Lindberg&apos;s statement, there is no evidence that the governing body of the District, i.e., the School Board, considers Board members to be District employees. r. Lindberg is the responsible authority under [Chapter 13] for receiving and responding to data requests. Mr. Lindberg, however, does not have the authority to determine whether Board members are employees .... The determination of whether a position within a governmental entity enjoys the status of employee is not one of the responsibilities [of responsible authorities listed in Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0900.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo are correct that responsible authorities do not have a statutory duty to determine the employment status of individuals in an entity. However, Mr. Lindberg is also the District&apos;s human resources director, and at the time he publically released data about Mr. Rustad, he considered the school board members to be District employees. The school board passed its resolution that members are not employees six weeks later, and there is no evidence in the record that the District had taken any other affirmative action regarding their employment status before October 22, 2012. Accordingly, the data Mr. Lindberg released were personnel data about Mr. Rustad, regardless of any action to the contrary the board took subsequently.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an employee, absent a final disposition of disciplinary action, personnel data detailing the nature of the complaint/charge against Mr. Rustad were private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5). As the District&apos;s responsible authority, Mr. Lindberg was obligated to determine the classification of District data before releasing it to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
According to Ms. Mace and Ms. Sebo, the &quot;newspaper editor&quot; who attended the September 10, 2012, meeting was the District&apos;s Assistant Director of Community Education, who has responsibility to publish the District newsletter. It was appropriate for him to attend only if his &quot;work assignment reasonably require[d]&quot; him to get access to those private data about Mr. Rustad. (See Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400.)
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Rustad is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 15, St. Francis, violated a school board member&apos;s rights when it publicly released certain personnel data about him, which were private, because it apparently considered board members to be employees at the time it released the data.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently the board passed a resolution clearly stating that board members are not employees for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 5, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267164</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-017</Title><title>Opinion 12 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267599&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-11-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A reporter asked a county attorney
for access to data about a crime lab. The attorney
stated to the Commissioner that the requested data
are used, collected, stored and disseminated
exclusively in connection with his professional
activities as a prosecuting attorney, and that the
crime lab data relate to on-going as well as previous
criminal prosecutions. As such, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, those data are
exempt from disclosure.
The Commissioner did not review the data in
question and cannot determine whether the county
attorney maintains any other data regarding the
crime lab that are not exempt from disclosure under
section 13.393. For example, if the county attorney
maintains data related to any agreements his office
has entered into with the lab, those data likely are
not protected by section 13.393</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 5, 2012; Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 20, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Madeleine Baran, of Minnesota Public Radio. In her letter, Ms. Baran asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her right to gain access to certain data the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, in response to Ms. Baran&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 27, 2012, were to inform him of Ms. Baran&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. Mr. Backstrom responded on October 9, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Baran provided them follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Sept. 5, 2012, I emailed a Data Practices request to Mr. Backstrom to request access to: [a]ll written communication received or created by employees of the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office regarding the St. Paul Police Department crime lab from January 1, 2012 to September 5, 2012. This data includes but is not limited to emails, meeting notes, reports, and memos.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Backstrom replied via email the same day. He wrote:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Data generated and maintained by the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office, including Emails and other correspondence sent or received related to criminal prosecution files, are not subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act [MGDPA] pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.393. .... All aspects of this issue will be handled in the courtroom through the continuing litigation pertaining to this matter and in the litigation relating to prosecutions of individual pending drug cases. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[In response, I wrote], [i]t is my understanding that Minnesota Statute does not state that all data generated and maintained by a county attorney&apos;s office is private. Rather, it provides a list of specific types of data that are private, and everything not specified as private is public. In this case, there may be some data that is private and some data that is public that pertains to the crime lab.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Backstrom [responded]:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;You have accurately stated the general rule of the Data Practices [Act], i.e., that government data not specifically made private is considered to be public. However, by virtue of Section 13.393 of the same Act, the general rule does not apply to data in the office of a government attorney. Section 13.393 clearly states on its face and that I am not obligated by the Data Practices Act to share emails maintained in my Office with members of the public or the press.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I believe Mr. Backstrom&apos;s interpretation of statute is overly broad. I do not believe the statute is meant to make private all data held by a county attorney&apos;s office. If that was the case, for example, the public would not have access to data about the county attorney&apos;s office&apos;s budget or an official list of job responsibilities for the position of county attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In regards to my specific data request, I believe that administrative data related to the crime lab that does not involve an active case is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Further, I have filed Data Practices requests in the past with the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office and they have provided access to data without objection, to the extent allowed by statute. On a related note, I have also filed Data Practices requests with the St. Paul Police Department regarding the crime lab and have received an extensive amount of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Baran also provided the Commissioner with copies of her correspondence with Dakota County Sheriff David Bellows, in which Ms. Baran requested access to &quot;[a]ll written communication received or created by employees of the Dakota County Sheriff&apos;s Office regarding the crime lab [including but not] limited to emails, meeting notes, reports, and memos. This also includes but is not limited to employees of the Dakota County Drug Task Force.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, Mr. Bellows wrote to Ms. Baran:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We searched our files and found two email messages from our attorney that pertain to the St. Paul police department crime lab. However I have been advised by the County Attorney&apos;s office that these email messages are classified as nonpublic pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.393, because they constitute attorney work product prepared in conjunction with its response to discovery requests made in a legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Baran&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All written communication received or created by employees of the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office regarding the St. Paul Police Department crime lab from January 1, 2012, to September 5, 2012.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data created, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). In finding that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine protected attorney billing records in their entirety, the Court wrote that the attorney-client privilege protects those parts of the billing records that &quot;communicated legal advice that would not have been disclosed but for the existence of the privilege&quot; and, in order to be protected by the work product doctrine, &quot;material must contain opinions, conclusions, legal theories, or mental impressions of counsel, and it must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 must be applied in a way that harmonizes its provisions with the requirements of Chapter 13, as well as other provisions of statute and rule. Given the limiting language in the last phrase of section 13.393, i.e., &quot;or shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17,&quot; clearly the Legislature did not intend that any and all data used, collected, stored, or disseminated by a public attorney, or government data held by a government entity that relate to the conduct of its legal affairs, are exempt from disclosure under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Backstrom stated that the data to which he denied access are data that are &quot;used, collected, stored and disseminated exclusively in connection with the County Attorney&apos;s professional activities as prosecuting attorney in Dakota County for the State of Minnesota.&quot; According to Mr. Backstrom, the crime lab data relate both to on-going as well as previous criminal prosecutions handled by the County Attorney. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the crime lab data is not subject to disclosure by the provisions of the MGDPA. The clear intent of Section 13.393 is to exclude such data from the requirements of the MGDPA while acknowledging that other statutes, rules and professional standards do regulate disclosure of the crime lab data. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.393, however, does not exempt all data in the County Attorney&apos;s Office from the reach of the MGDPA. Data in the County Attorney&apos;s Office that are used, collected, stored and disseminated by the County Attorney acting in his capacity as the head of a County department and not in a professional capacity (either as a prosecutor or as counsel to the county board) is governed by the MGDPA. This would include, by way of example, information about the County Attorney&apos;s Office organizational structure, County Attorney programs not constituting legal work, budget and financial information, personnel data, general office policies and procedures, press releases, statistical information (when available), and contracts. The County Attorney&apos;s obligation to release or withhold any of this data is governed by the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Baran asked for access to &quot;all written communication received or created by employees of the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office regarding the St. Paul Police Department crime lab &quot; She suggested that the Office might maintain data on the crime lab that are more administrative in nature and therefore, accessible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not reviewed the data in question and cannot determine whether the Office maintains any data regarding the crime lab that are not exempt from disclosure by section 13.393. For example, if the Office maintains data related to any agreements it has entered into with the lab, those data likely are not protected by section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Backstrom did not address that the Dakota County Sheriff denied Ms. Baran access to two emails because the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office instructed him to do so. The Commissioner encourages Mr. Backstrom to review the possibility that the Dakota County Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains data on the crime lab, other than the two emails, that should be accessible to Ms. Baran, i.e., data not governed by section 13.393 and not otherwise classified as not public. For example, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, inactive criminal investigative data are public (with exceptions), and any investigative data presented as evidence in court are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Baran is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the requested data, if all of the data it maintains regarding the crime lab are used, collected, stored and disseminated exclusively in connection with the County Attorney&apos;s professional activities for Dakota County, and thus are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 5, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267599</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-016</Title><title>Opinion 12 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266868&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-10-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A newspaper asked whether a
county responded appropriately to its request for
access to voter challenge status data. The County
responded that the names and/or numbers of voters
whose eligibility was challenged by the County were
not accessible to the public under Minnesota Statutes,
section 201.091. Section 201.091, subdivision 1
restricts access to the “master list”; however, voter
challenge status is not an element on that list.
Subdivision 2 grants access to the “public information
list” as well as “other information from the statewide
registration system.” Based on the plain language of
the law, Minnesota Rules, part 8200.9120, and
advisory opinion 00-038, the Commissioner opined
that the newspaper should have been given access to
the voter challenge status data.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 22, 2012; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: See the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s opinion in &lt;em&gt;Cilek v. Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State&lt;/em&gt;, No. A18-1140 (Minn. April 8, 2020), regarding access to data at issue in this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 7, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated August 20, 2012, from Jennifer Martin-Romme of the &lt;em&gt;Zenith City Weekly&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Martin-Romme asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about the classification of certain data administered by St. Louis County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Eckenberg, Deputy St. Louis County Administrator and Data Practices Compliance Official for the County, in response to Ms. Martin-Romme&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 14, 2012, were to inform him of Ms. Martin-Romme&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. In an email dated October 10, 2012, Mr. Eckenberg wrote, I believe you have the position of the St. Louis County Auditor and the St. Louis County Attorney regarding this Data Practices Information Request, as conveyed to the Zenith City Weekly through earlier communications. IPAD also solicited comments from Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. Bert Black, Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State, responded on October 5, 2012, in a letter dated the same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Martin-Romme wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 4, we called St. Louis County Director of Elections Patricia Stollee [sic] to request the names and/or number of voters in Morse Township whose eligibility to vote was challenged by the St. Louis County Board of Elections with regards to the March 13, 2012 election and the reason(s) their eligibility to vote was challenged. Ms. Stollee [sic] asked us to send her the request in writing, which we did on April 9.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, Ms. Stollee [sic] responded in writing that the data are not public pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes, section] 201.091.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 23, we resubmitted our request, citing [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267265&quot; title=&quot;00-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-038&lt;/a&gt;]. On May 3, we received a reply from Deputy Administrator Gary Eckenberg, indicating that the county attorney had denied our request: [I]t remains the opinion of the County Attorney that Minn. Stat. 201.091 prohibits the release of the information you have requested. The statute has been amended several times since the IPAD opinion you provided was written.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Zenith City Weekly&lt;/em&gt; resubmitted its request on July 2, 2012, asking for summary data. Mr. Eckenberg responded in a letter dated July 10, 2012, stating, my May 3 response to your initial Data Practices Information Request represents St. Louis County&apos;s final position on this matter.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Martin-Romme&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, did St. Louis County respond appropriately to a request for the names and/or numbers of voters in Morse Township whose eligibility to vote was challenged and the reasons for those challenges, by stating that the data were not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, subdivision 1, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Each county auditor shall prepare and maintain a current list of registered voters in each precinct in the county which is known as the master list. It must show the name, residence address, and date of birth of each voter registered in the precinct. The information contained in the master list may only be made available to public officials for purposes related to election administration, jury selection, and in response to a law enforcement inquiry concerning a violation of or failure to comply with any criminal statute or state or local tax statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 201.091, subdivision 1, does not classify data, instead it restricts public access to the master list. Subdivision 4, however, refers to other data in the statewide registration system that are accessible to the public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The county auditor shall make available for inspection a public information list which must contain the name, address, year of birth, and voting history of each registered voter in the county. The telephone number must be included on the list if provided by the voter. The public information list may also include information on voting districts... The secretary of state may provide copies of the public information lists &lt;em&gt;and other information from the statewide registration system&lt;/em&gt; for uses related to elections, political activities, or in response to a law enforcement inquiry from a public official concerning a failure to comply with any criminal statute or any state or local tax statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Requests to examine or obtain information from the public information lists &lt;em&gt;or the statewide registration system&lt;/em&gt; must be made and processed in the manner provided in the rules of the secretary of state. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plain language of section 201.091, subdivision 4, anticipates providing access to data on the public information lists, and other information from the statewide registration system. Access to the master list is restricted, however, not all of the data in the statewide registration system are treated thus. The statute provides that the Secretary of State will provide rules regarding access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2000, the Commissioner opined on the classification of voter challenge status data that were the subject of a rule then &lt;em&gt;proposed&lt;/em&gt; by the Secretary of State. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267265&quot; title=&quot;00-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-038&lt;/a&gt;.) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.10, voters must sign a polling place roster, which is a list of voters within a given precinct. The polling place roster includes: the voter&apos;s name, address, entire date of birth, and voter registration status. Voter registration status includes, &apos;active&apos;; &apos;challenged&apos; (usually due to residency questions); &apos;felon&apos; (disfranchised until the restoration of voting rights); or &apos;guardianship&apos; (disfranchised until the guardianship of the person is ended). At that time, no statute or rule specifically addressed the issue of inspecting polling place roster data. The proposed rule included a provision to deny access to voter challenge status. After a hearing on the rule, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that voter challenge status data are public based on the general presumption. In 00-038, the Commissioner agreed.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Secretary of State subsequently promulgated Minnesota Rules, part 8200.9120, which provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An individual who asks to inspect a polling place roster used on election day must provide the county auditor with identification and a written request stating the information required by Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, subdivision 4. Before fulfilling the request for inspection, the auditor must conceal the month and day of birth of each person on the roster.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read together, Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rule, part 8200.9120, provide that the data on the polling place roster (which includes voter challenge status) should be treated substantially the same as the data elements contained in the public information list, i.e., publically accessible for the purposes specified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black, on behalf of the Secretary of State, argues that, &lt;em&gt;McGrath v. Minnesota Secretary of State&lt;/em&gt;, No. 15-3500-21801-HV (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), answers the question at issue in this opinion: &quot;[w]e believe that election data, in the wake of the &lt;em&gt;McGrath&lt;/em&gt; opinion, is private unless otherwise designated.&quot; The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. (Before discussing this unpublished opinion, it is important to note that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 480A.08, subdivision 3(c), unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are not precedential.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;McGrath&lt;/em&gt; involved a Help America Vote Act (HAVA) complaint against the Secretary of State. One of the issues on appeal was whether the relators had adequate opportunity for discovery. Specifically, they wanted access to a complete master list of voting history for each registered voter. (While voting history is an element of the public information list, the public information list is not as &quot;complete&quot; as the master list, since some voter information may be withheld or removed from the public information list based on various factors or circumstances.) The Court stated, &quot;[i]t was relators&apos; wish to have access to the private master list. But by statute the only &lt;em&gt;list&lt;/em&gt; available for inspection by members of the public is the public information list.&quot; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the plain language of section 201.091, subdivision 4, makes clear that other voter information, in addition to the elements identified on the public information list, may be accessible by the public. Furthermore, while the master list is properly withheld from the public, the &lt;em&gt;Zenith City Weekly&lt;/em&gt; was not requesting access to it. In fact, voter challenge status is not an element on the master list. The general presumption that government data are public is not reversed in the case of data on registered voters. Here, where there is no statutory classification of data, the data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
The Commissioner reiterates his comments in 00-038, that the best way to eliminate confusion over access to data maintained in the statewide registration system is for the Legislature to provide statutory clarity.
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. McVeigh raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, St. Louis County did not respond appropriately to a request for the names and/or numbers of voters in Morse Township whose eligibility to vote was challenged and the reasons for those challenges, by stating that the data were not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 22, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266868</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Voter registration files (201.091)</Title><Id>266385</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-015</Title><title>Opinion 12 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267975&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-10-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A charter school asked whether it
was required to share not public data with the
Minnesota Board of Teaching, following an initial
report to the Board by the school. The Commissioner
determined that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 122A.20, a school is required to share with the
Board any termination or disciplinary proceeding, any
settlement or compromise, or any investigative file in
the school’s files, regardless of any provision in
Chapter 13.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 8, 2012; Concordia Creative Learning Academy (CCLA)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 17, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Ellen McVeigh, attorney for the Concordia Creative Learning Academy (CCLA), dated the same. In her letter, Ms. McVeigh asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that CCLA maintains.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In letters dated, August 22, 2012, the Commissioner offered the teachers involved and Leonard Runck, chair of the Minnesota Board of Teaching (the Board), an opportunity to comment. Mr. Runck did not respond. On September 24, 2012, Cindy Lavorato, attorney for the involved teachers, submitted comments on their behalf.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts follows. Ms. McVeigh wrote in her opinion request:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              During the academic year 2011-2012, three licensed teachers were employed under at will contracts by CCLA. On March 27, 2012, the Board of Directors placed the three employees on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation of conduct that was the subject of a complaint to CCLA&apos;s authorizer, Concordia University. Within ten days of the placement of the employees on paid administrative leave, the school made reports to the Board of Teaching and the Board of School Administrators, pursuant to Minn.Stat. Section 122A.20, subd. 2, indicating that the employees were on administrative leave pending an investigation of their conduct.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              ...
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The Minnesota Board of Teaching requested additional information on each employee, specifically:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              1. Date employee began employment with ISD No. 4035;
              &lt;br /&gt;
              2. Subject matter taught by each employee during his/her tenure with ISD No. 4035;
              &lt;br /&gt;
              3. Whether any of the employees has been the subject of reports, allegations, complaints or any other type of charges that allege inappropriate behavior or conduct unbecoming a teacher;
              &lt;br /&gt;
              4. The specific nature of the behavior which was the subject of the reports, allegations, complaints or other type of charges referred to in paragraph 3;
              &lt;br /&gt;
              5. The outcome of any investigation or other type of inquiry conducted into the allegations referred to in paragraph 3 above, including but not limited to whether any disciplinary action was taken by the district, and the final outcome of that disciplinary action;
              &lt;br /&gt;
              6. Whether the employee filed a grievance against any proposed disciplinary action by the district and if so, the current status of the grievance process; and,
              &lt;br /&gt;
              7. Whether CCLA was aware of any involvement by local law enforcement, including investigation, in the allegations referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 above.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The Board indicates that its request pertains to current and prior allegations, and requests copies of all memoranda, letters, investigative notes, written reprimands and any other type of correspondence generated in response to all incidents covered by paragraphs 3 and 5.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              ...
              &lt;br /&gt;
              As part of the settlement [with the involved teachers], CCLA wrote to [the Board]..., indicating that it believed that its initial reports under Minn.Stat. Section 122A.20, subd. 2, were premature and requesting that [the Board] discontinue any investigation of the employees based on CCLA&apos;s initial reports. [The Board] has written to CCLA, declining to discontinue its investigation.
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. McVeigh then asked for this opinion, asking whether CCLA is required to share private data with the Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.20, subdivision 2.
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Based on Ms. McVeigh&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would Concordia Creative Learning Academy (CCLA) violate the rights of certain employees (licensed teachers) if it releases private personnel data about them to the Minnesota Board of Teaching under Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.20, subdivision 2?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An employee&apos;s dates of employment and job description are public data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(2) and (3). However, data related to complaints or charges against an employee may be public and/or private. The existence and status of a complaint or charge are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). When an entity has disciplined an employee, the final disposition, the specific reasons and data documenting the basis of the discipline become public. Where an employee is not disciplined, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In Item 3, the Board seems to be requesting the existence of any complaints or charges, which would be public. However, Items 4 and 5 ask for additional data, some of which, if they exist, might be private data. Specifically, Item 5 requests:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The outcome of any investigation or other type of inquiry conducted into the allegations referred to in paragraph 3 above, &lt;em&gt;including but not limited to whether any disciplinary action was taken by the district&lt;/em&gt;, and the final outcome of that disciplinary action; (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If there are any complaints or charges against the involved teachers which did not result in a final disposition of disciplinary action, only the existence and status of the complaint or charge are classified as public. Additionally, Items 6 and 7 might also include not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2, restricts access to private data to the data subject, individuals given express written permission by the data subject, employees within the entity whose work assignment reasonably requires access, and entities and agencies who are authorized by statute or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.20, subdivision 2, requires the Board to investigate reports made to it regarding licensed teachers: [t]he licensing board to which the report is made &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; investigate the report for violation of subdivision 1 and the reporting board must cooperate in the investigation. (Emphasis added.) As part of its investigation, the Board may access data regardless of its classification under Chapter 13. Subdivision 2 further provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Notwithstanding any provision in chapter 13 or any law to the contrary, upon written request from the licensing board having jurisdiction over the license, a board or school superintendent shall provide the licensing board with information about the teacher or administrator from the district&apos;s files, any termination or disciplinary proceeding, any settlement or compromise, or any investigative file.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, the plain language of the law requires CCLA to provide the Board with the requested data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Lavorato argued in her comments that lack of a proper Tennessen Warning before the initial report precludes CCLA from sharing private data responsive to the Board&apos;s request. However, the Tennessen Warning is a requirement of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, and 122A.20, subdivision 2, clearly states that a school board or superintendent shall provide the Board with certain data from the district&apos;s files, notwithstanding any provision of chapter 13. Therefore, the plain language would relieve CCLA from any restrictions imposed on data collected directly from a data subject, should CCLA have failed to provide an appropriate Tennessen warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner notes that the involved teachers strongly objected to the initial report that CCLA made to the Board. It is their position that a defect in the initial reporting forestalls any subsequent release of data to the Board. In her comments, Ms. Lavorato stated, [t]he advisory opinion, as [IPAD has] framed it, is predicated on the assumption that CCLA&apos;s original report to the Minnesota Board of teaching was legal. The Commissioner acknowledges Ms. Lavorato&apos;s concerns. However, this opinion is predicated on the fact that despite CCLA&apos;s statement to the Board indicating that its initial report was premature, the Board has made the determination that its investigation will continue. The Commissioner was not presented with any arguments, statutory provisions or case law that suggests that a report under section 122A.20 can be withdrawn or rescinded (and a subsequent investigation halted), nor can the Commissioner comment on the Board&apos;s internal policies or procedures for receiving, evaluating, or investigating a report. Given those facts, CCLA is now being asked to share private data with the Board. Because of the broad powers granted to the Board by the plain language of section 122A.20, CCLA is required to provide the requested data to the Board regardless of its classification under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. McVeigh raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Concordia Creative Learning Academy (CCLA) is required to release private personnel data about the involved teachers to the Minnesota Board of Teaching under Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.20, subdivision 2.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Spencer Cronk
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 8, 2012
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267975</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Charter schools</Title><Id>266570</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-25T15:49:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-014</Title><title>Opinion 12 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267306&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-09-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A County asked whether
implementing a web-based automated crime mapping
program would violate the rights of data subjects. The
Commissioner opined that certain data subjects’ rights
could be violated by the automated system as
described by the County. The program, which uploads
law enforcement data to the program automatically
each evening, did not allow for the County to perform
its duty to exercise discretion in certain situations as
required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 18, 2012; Stearns County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Matthew Quinn, Chief Deputy County Attorney for Stearns County, dated July 27, 2012. In his letter, Mr. Quinn asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the use of an automated law enforcement data mapping program in Stearns County and the City of St. Cloud and the program&apos;s possible effect on data subjects&apos; rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated August 13, 2012, the Commissioner offered James Miller, Executive Director of the League of Minnesota Cities, and Jeff Spartz, Executive Director of the Association of Minnesota Counties, an opportunity to comment. Both declined to comment.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Mr. Quinn wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing to request an advisory opinion regarding the use of an automated law enforcement data mapping program that publishes law enforcement data to the public via a program displayed on the [web]. The program in use in approximately 60 Minnesota municipalities and counties, known as CrimeReports(.com), is being considered for implementation in both Stearns County and the City of St. Cloud, MN.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;CrimeReports combines law enforcement data with a mapping program and an analytics module so that members of the public can view data within a choice of descriptive formats. Put simply, nightly comprehensive law enforcement data is sent from law enforcement&apos;s records management system (RMS) and computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems to a CrimeReports server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he version of the application that is being considered for implementation - is the publicly viewable version which is proposed to be made available via a link within Stearns County&apos;s official website and populated with data from the Stearns County law enforcement RMS. The RMS stores arrest data, request for service data, response or incident data, and criminal investigative data. Other variable parameters that may be searchable in CrimeReports include date ranges which are limited potentially only by the availability of the data in the source database, as well as selected locations including cross streets, areas as small as frac14; mile from a landmark (school, park, or major street), within certain boundaries (neighborhood or crime watch area) and also &lt;em&gt;specific addresses&lt;/em&gt;. It stores other data as well, but the named categories[, which] are the bulk of the data in question here, are regulated by Minn. Stat. [section] 13.82. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Quinn&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Would a data subject&apos;s rights be violated if certain data about him/her were automatically uploaded to an automated crime mapping system as described above?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events or the existence of certain conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3 and 6, identify law enforcement data that are always public: arrest, request for service, and response or incident data. Inactive investigative data are also public, pursuant to subdivision 7. The data displayed in &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; are automatically populated from these generally public data. However, one of the circumstances in which data are never public is when those data qualify for protection under subdivision 17. Subdivision 17 classifies certain identification data as private, including: the identity of a victim or alleged victim of criminal sexual conduct, the identity of a witness or victim of a crime who requests that his/her identity be withheld, the identity of a person who placed a call to the 911 system, the identity of certain juvenile witness, and the identity of individuals required by statute to report certain crimes to the authorities. The government entity is required to evaluate each situation and to exercise its discretion to determine whether an individual&apos;s identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Except for records relating to an offense where proceedings are public under section 260B.163, subdivision 1, peace officers&apos; records of children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts shall be kept separate from records of persons 18 years of age or older and are private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 260B.171 also requires prior evaluation before determining whether data are private or accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 4, states that data are, data on individuals if the data element identifies an individual in itself, or if it can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual. (See also, Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266974&quot; title=&quot;07-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-001&lt;/a&gt;.) In his opinion request, Mr. Quinn provided corresponding address and homeowner information, which are available to the public on the Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer website, for each of the examples he provided, illustrating how protected identifying information might be inadvertently disclosed. However, when data are sufficiently de-identified, the data are no longer data on individuals and therefore, an entity is not at risk of disclosing private or confidential data.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Quinn provided three examples of the type of data that &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; makes automatically available to the public, including the incident identification information and the corresponding maps.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Example 1:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Incident identification information
&lt;br /&gt;
Date: 10-10-2011
&lt;br /&gt;
Address: xxx Block of xxxxx Ave (Stearns County, MN)
&lt;br /&gt;
Identifier (ICR) Number: ########
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; displays the call as Juvenile Problem&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While not publically available, the Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) notes indicate that this call was for the transportation of a child with mental health issues to a hospital via an ambulance. It is not clear in this example whether these data would reveal a protected identity (possibly under section 13.82, subdivision 17(f)), how remote a possibility that might be, or whether the data are sufficiently de-identified. But the County and the City have to make the required determinations about the classification of the data, &lt;em&gt;prior&lt;/em&gt; to uploading them to &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Example 2:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Incident identification information
&lt;br /&gt;
Date: 10-09-2011
&lt;br /&gt;
Address: xxxxx Block of CR xxx (Stearns County, MN)
&lt;br /&gt;
Identifier (ICR) Number: ########
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; displays the call as Juvenile-Alcohol Offender&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The CAD notes indicate that this call involved citations for minor alcohol consumption and other concerns related to substance use. The map corresponding to this incident report identifies five houses on the block specified. Assuming that one of the five addresses in the block reveals the juvenile&apos;s residence, there is a slight possibility of disclosing protected data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Example 3:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Incident identification information
&lt;br /&gt;
Date: 2-12-2012
&lt;br /&gt;
Address: xxxxx Block of xxx Road (Stearns County, MN)
&lt;br /&gt;
Identifier (ICR) Number: ########
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; displays the call as Juvenile Problem&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The CAD notes indicate that this incident report was sent to the County Attorney for review of possible felony charges. Section 260B.171 makes data on juveniles private where proceedings about an alleged offense are not public. At the point in time when the data are uploaded from Stearns County or the City of St. Cloud to &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; (apparently, the day the call is reported), it is not necessarily clear whether the incident will be the subject of public proceedings or whether the incident identification information reveals the juvenile&apos;s address. Therefore, in this example, there is a possibility that displaying the data may violate that juvenile&apos;s rights as a data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These examples also highlight the challenges posed by &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt;&apos; automated mapping system, especially in rural or less densely-populated areas where the identification of the block and the street could potentially reveal protected data even not in combination with any additional data. (Example 2 involves a block with five houses, but it is entirely plausible that an incident might be reported where there is only one property on the specified block.) In areas where rental housing may be more prevalent or where the population is denser (e.g., more multi-family residences), the risk of identification would likely be lessened.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many cases, a system displaying data made public by section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, 6, and 7, may be appropriate and the risk of revealing a protected identity remote. However, in addition to the examples Mr. Quinn provided, there are other situations where the entity is required by Chapter 13 to exercise discretion, notably the provisions of section 13.82, subdivision 17. For instance, before protecting the identity of a victim or witness who requests protection under subdivision 17(d), the government entity must complete a two-part evaluation. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267758&quot; title=&quot;01-069&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-069&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; apparently does not have a mechanism to conduct this required evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined on an issue similar to the one raised in this opinion, in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266834&quot; title=&quot;10-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-016&lt;/a&gt;. There, he stated that the mere possibility that a data subjects&apos; rights might be violated did not preclude disclosure of the data. Rather, an entity&apos;s responsibility to respond appropriately to a data request requires that the entity, &quot;must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether certain data related to an incident must be protected,&quot; instead of declining to fulfill the request based on a potentiality. The situation here, though reversed, leads to the same conclusion; the City and the County cannot make all of the specified data automatically public, without first having made the required determinations regarding the classification of the data, however likely or unlikely the risk of inappropriate disclosure. &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt;, as described by Mr. Quinn, does not appear to allow for those determinations to be made and insofar as &lt;em&gt;CrimeReports&lt;/em&gt; is unable to do so, data subjects&apos; rights may be at risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner recognizes the difficulties entities face when attempting to use existing computer programs and web applications as more efficient means of providing access to public data. He agrees that the requirements of Chapter 13 cannot always be adequately addressed by a wholly automated system. However, the limitations of technology cannot relieve a government entity of its responsibility to exercise discretion under Chapter 13. The Commissioner encourages entities to use caution when evaluating how best to use these types of programs, to ensure that the rights of data subjects are not put at risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Quinn raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A data subject&apos;s rights may be violated if certain data about him/her were automatically uploaded to an automated crime mapping system as described.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 18, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267306</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-013</Title><title>Opinion 12 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267320&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-08-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>The Commissioner determined that
an entity appropriately denied a request for access
to all data about a particular program, including data
on employees who participated in the program,
because the program as a whole is under active
criminal investigation, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, and the data
are therefore classified as confidential/protected
nonpublic.

The requester also asked for access to “Statements
of Charges,” referred to in public memoranda, to the
extent they contained the specific reasons for, and
data that document the basis of, final disciplinary
action the entity took against an employee.
(Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)
(5).) The Commissioner opined that because the
memoranda refer to the employee’s actions as
“outlined in the Statements of Charges,” and given
the entity’s description of the data contained
therein, at least some, if not all, of the data in the
Statements are public.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 20, 2012; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2012). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 29, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Laura Yuen, of Minnesota Public Radio. In her letter, Ms. Yuen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her right to gain access to certain data the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ramona L Dohman, DPS Commissioner, in response to Ms. Yuen&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 2, 2012, were to inform her of Ms. Yuen&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position. On July 13, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated same, from E. Joseph Newton, General Counsel and Data Practices Compliance Official for DPS. (IPAD also solicited comments from the data subject, who did not respond.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Yuen provided them follows. She wrote that on May 17, 2012, she asked DPS for access to certain data (see below) pertaining to the state&apos;s Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) program, which is administered through the Minnesota State Patrol. The outcome of a criminal investigation into the program is pending, and that is the chief reason most of my requests were denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. Yuen asked for access to any and all charges and complaints filed against two state patrol employees. On June 8, 2012, DPS provided a summary pertaining to the existence and status of charges and complaints. The first employee was the subject of an active investigation. The second employee had received nine complaints; investigations into all nine were complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Yuen stated to the Commissioner that on June 11, 2012, she wrote again to DPS:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I clarified that I was not requesting summary information, but rather the data that stated the sustained charges, as well as the letters of reprimand. In the email, I wrote that I was seeking to inspect any and all data that documents the final disposition of any disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the action, and the data documenting the basis of the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 13, 2012, [Mr.] Newton responded and provided me with three disciplinary memos issued against the second employee. Mr. Newton, however, did not provide the Statements of Charges that outline the employee&apos;s actions which resulted in the disciplinary action. After I asked for a written explanation as to why he was withholding the Statements of Charges, he responded, on June 14, 2012:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;That data is part of the Internal Affairs Division&apos;s Personnel investigation. That would be private data on the employee. As stated below I have provided the discipline memos which constitute the specific reasons for the [discipline] and data documenting the basis for the action.&apos; Minn. Stat. 13.43 subd. 2 a (5). The memos spell out the discipline and the basis for the discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My understanding is that Statements of Charges and other data are public under Minnesota Statute 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), particularly because the charging statements provide the basis for the disciplinary action. The letters specifically refer to the employee&apos;s actions as outlined in the Statement of Charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Yuen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;1. Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data?&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;- Names of Minnesota State Patrol employees who facilitate the Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) program;
&lt;p&gt;- Names of law enforcement officers who have received DRE certification since 2002;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Names of law enforcement officers enrolled in this year&apos;s class.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;2. Did DPS comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for the following data related to disciplinary action it took against an employee?
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;- Statements of Charges, and any other data that document the final disposition of disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the action, and the data documenting the basis of the action.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Names of law enforcement officers who have received DRE certification since 2002;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Names of law enforcement officers enrolled in this year&apos;s class.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Newton stated that DPS denied Ms. Yuen access to the data described above because:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS, through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), had an active criminal investigation looking into the entirety of the DRE program, subjecting all past and present members and participants. The investigation has been referred to the prosecuting authority for determination of charges. Because the entire DRE program was subject to the investigation and everyone was subject to scrutiny, the data was withheld, as is required by statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, provides that active criminal investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. According to Mr. Newton, all of the data Ms. Yuen requested related to the DRE are active criminal investigative data. Accordingly, those data are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton also stated that even when the investigation is inactive, DPS would or could still deny access to data about the law enforcement officers involved (with the exception of any state troopers), because these law enforcement officers are or would be undercover and DPS will not put at risk those officers who have, are currently, or may be in the future, working in an undercover capacity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, inactive investigative data are public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17, which, in relevant part, states, (a) when access to the data would reveal the identity of an undercover law enforcement officer, as provided in section 13.43, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 5, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All personnel data maintained by a government entity relating to an individual employed as or an applicant for employment as an undercover law enforcement officer are private data on individuals. When the individual is no longer assigned to an undercover position, the data described in subdivisions 2 and 3 become public unless the law enforcement agency determines that revealing the data would threaten the personal safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, when the criminal investigation into the DRE is inactive, DPS must protect data about law enforcement officers who are currently employed as undercover officers. It may protect the identities of former undercover officers only if it determines that revealing the data would threaten the personal safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Did DPS comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for the following data related to disciplinary action it took against an employee?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public; subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Pursuant to subdivision 2(a), (4) and (5), the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action Subdivision 2(b) provides when disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to her request for access to data that document the specific reasons for and basis of the disciplinary action DPS took against the second trooper, DPS provided Ms. Yuen with three disciplinary memos.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One memorandum, dated March 31, 2010, contains the following statement:[t]his is to inform you of my decision to take disciplinary action against you in the form of a 10 day unpaid suspension for your &lt;em&gt;violations of the General Orders outlined in the Statement of Charges&lt;/em&gt; dated March 5, 2010. (Emphasis added.) It contains no other data about those violations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A letter of reprimand, dated January 4, 2012, states: [t]his memo shall serve as a written reprimand for your actions on August 4, 2011, &lt;em&gt;as outlined in the Statement of Charges&lt;/em&gt; dated December 29, 2011. Your actions constituted violations of General Order R 02-10-029, IV.B.4 and 8, IV.E.1 and 2, and General Order 09-20-006, V.A. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third document DPS provided to Ms. Yuen states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You are hereby reprimanded for your actions at an incident on October 9th 2008 This disciplinary action is being taken because of sustained charges: -Violation of GO #R 02-10-029 - Conduct sworn members:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- IV.B Public Trust
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- IV.E Exercise reasonable courtesy with public&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That document also contains a narrative of the trooper&apos;s actions that resulted in discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Newton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To be clear, the Statement of Charges is not what its name may imply. The name is a misnomer from the historical past that is not used as a charging document in any proceeding before any tribunal. The Statement of Charges is prepared only to summarize the investigation for the benefit of the employee;..[sic] it is a summary of the investigative file. This is done so the employee can properly grieve the discipline or otherwise respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Statement of Charges and other investigative data neither states the specific reasons for the discipline, nor do they contain data documenting the basis for the action. In fact, the requester received the public personnel data that included the reasons for and the basis of the discipline. The three documents that were provided specifically stated the discipline and the reason therefore, and indeed, are the documents that are used by (and signed by) the disciplining authority to memorialize the disciplinary action. In this case, the documents included the fact that the employee was disciplined for violations of General Orders and the specific portions of those orders.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton concluded by stating, he Statement of Charges and related data are private personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.43 subd 2 (a) [sic]. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, classifies data, not documents. Accordingly, regardless whether Statement of Charges is a misnomer, and irrespective of the reason(s) DPS created the Statements, or how they are used, any data contained in them that constitute the specific reasons for or document the basis of final disciplinary action are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the March 31, 2010, document states only that DPS was taking disciplinary action due to the employee&apos;s violations of the General Orders outlined in the Statement of Charges, and contrary to Mr. Newton&apos;s assertion, contains no data about the specific reasons for or basis of that disciplinary action. (In correspondence to Ms. Yuen, Mr. Newton noted that the memo related to violations of several provisions of General Orders, which he specified.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, given that the memoranda refer to the employee&apos;s actions as outlined in the Statements of Charges, and Mr. Newton&apos;s description of the data contained therein, at least some, if not all, of those data are public. Thus, DPS should provide Ms. Yuen with the public data in those Statements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Yuen is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;1. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to active criminal investigative data related to the Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) program.
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;2. DPS did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it denied access to reasons for and data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action it took against an employee contained in the Statements of Charges.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 20, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267320</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Undercover officers</Title><Id>267056</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-012</Title><title>Opinion 12 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267954&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-07-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A County asked about the
classification of the name and cancelled check of a
donor to a County project who wished to remain
anonymous. The Commissioner determined that the
data are not classified under Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.792, and are presumptively public. The
Commissioner also commented that, given some of
the data relate to the donor’s checking account and
bank routing numbers, the County might want to
consider whether those data might be classified under</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 2012; Wabasha County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 24, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Michael Plante, attorney for Wabasha County. In his letter, Mr. Plante asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the County maintains.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Plante, a donor, who wished to remain anonymous, sent a check to the County for a specific purpose. Subsequently, an individual made a data request for the donor&apos;s identity or a copy of the check.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Based on Mr. Plante&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by Wabasha County?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The name of a donor to the County, who wishes to remain anonymous, and data contained in the donor&apos;s check
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Mr. Plante wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The County has also reviewed Advisory Opinion 10-018 which, in part, reviews the applicability of Minnesota Statutes [section] 13.792. That Statute classifies, as not public, certain gift data maintained by several specific organizations, i.e., the Minnesota Zoological Garden, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, the Twin Cities Regional Parks Foundation, and State Services for the Blind. The statute also specifically states that names of donors and gift ranges are public data. However, it is Wabasha County&apos;s belief that is [sic] not one of the entities that was intended to be covered by section 13.792.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Additionally, the County recognizes that Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires that government entities create and maintain records that document their official activities. Under section 15.17, these data are records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [the entity&apos;s] official activities and, as such, should be maintained by the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    With this information in mind it is the County&apos;s belief that the data in question is presumptively a public document. However, the County is requesting an opinion as to whether the County is subject to Minnesota Statute 13.792 and whether or not it can accept a donation from a donor that is requesting to remain anonymous.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As Mr. Plante noted, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.792, classifies certain data maintained by several specific entities; Wabasha County is not one of them. Accordingly, the data in question are presumptively public. However, given that some of the data relate to the donor&apos;s checking account and bank routing numbers, the County might want to consider whether Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), applies to those data.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Plante raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data maintained by Wabasha County are presumptively public: the name of a donor to the County, who wishes to remain anonymous, and data contained in the donor&apos;s check.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Spencer Cronk
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 11, 2012
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267954</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-011</Title><title>Opinion 12 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267021&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-05-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> A gathering of “ditch viewers”
appointed by a Watershed District Board (drainage
authority) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
103E, is not subject to the Open Meeting Law
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D). The ditch viewers
are not a separate public body subject to the OML, and
given the nature of the viewers’ statutory duties, they
are also not a committee, subcommittee, board,
department or commission of the Board. The Board
appoints the viewers, whose duties and
responsibilities are described in statute, but it has the
final authority to make determinations regarding any
drainage project.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 29, 2012; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 16, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated April 11, 2012, from Wayne H. Swanson, an attorney, on behalf of a number of clients. In his letter, Mr. Swanson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) Board&apos;s conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Hille, President of the Board, in response to Mr. Swanson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 2012, were to inform him of Mr. Swanson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On May 7, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated May 1, 2012, from Gerald W. Von Korff, attorney for the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Swanson provided them follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Swanson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Viewers appointed by a watershed district or a county have statutory authority. Qualifications and duties are found in Minnesota Statutes 103E.305 and 103E.311. 103E.11 states, The viewers, with or without the engineer, shall determine the benefits and damages to all property affected by the proposed drainage project and make a viewers&apos; report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Swanson referred to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266807&quot; title=&quot;08-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-007&lt;/a&gt;, and stated,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the Commissioner has ruled in this similar situation that when statutory authority is given to a committee or group, the appointed committee or group is, in fact, subject to Minnesota&apos;s Open Meeting Law. [And] the duties and responsibilities of viewers are clearly defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103E, as well as their statutory authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Swanson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Are meetings of the ditch viewers, appointed by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) Board of Managers pursuant to statutory authority, subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Did the MSTRWD Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a meeting of the appointed ditch viewers held on February 28, 2012, and subsequent meetings of the viewers?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute between the parties that the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Are meetings of the ditch viewers, appointed by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) Board of Managers pursuant to statutory authority, subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, the OML applies to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions
&lt;br /&gt;
. . .
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) of any
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) committee,
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) subcommittee,
&lt;br /&gt;
. . .
&lt;br /&gt;
of a public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Von Korff wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A Watershed District is governed by Managers, who have legislative and adjudicative powers under Chapter 103D. The Managers meet and make decisions in the same way that City Councils, County Commissioners, or school boards meet and make decisions. The meetings of managers are subject to the open meeting law, to the same extent as school boards or City Councils, of course.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....The primary function of viewers or appraisers is to visit and view the farms and other lands of potentially impacted landowners and to make a recommendation to the managers on the extent of benefits to each parcel of land. For this reason, they are granted the right of entry on potentially impacted lands. The majority of their work thus occurs at farm locations, where they inspect (view) the farm or other property, make notes of soil conditions, inquire of the landowner and discuss particular land conditions at each location. They also visit county and other land records to obtain land valuation information. The suggestion that viewers [sic] activities are public meetings would cripple and destroy the statutory purpose. The result would be that the viewers could not visit sites together, and that if any two of the viewers exercised their right of inspection together, it would constitute a public meeting, located on the property of a private citizen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....Often viewers wait until significant rain events or flooding conditions in order to collect data regarding direction and velocity of surface drainage. That means that in many circumstances, it is essential that viewers must be able to visit landowner locations at times that they cannot set in advance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....The viewers don&apos;t even have to agree or adopt the same conclusions. If individual viewers come to different conclusions, each one can file his own report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Korff further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Swanson suggests that [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266807&quot; title=&quot;08-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-007&lt;/a&gt;] should drive the outcome of his request. We completely disagree. As pointed out above, [08-007] deals with a statutorily created entity, an advisory board specifically created as an entity by the legislature. There is no identified viewing entity that has legal existence. The IPAD opinion specifically states that the reason that the open meeting law applied to [an advisory panel of the Saint Paul Port Authority] was that the [panel] had standalone legal authority to issue recommendations on these study topics that are separate from those presented by [the Authority.] That is not the case here. Viewers have no independent function apart from the managers. Their recommendations must implement manager policy, and if the managers find that the viewers have failed to implement that policy, they can, and often do, instruct them to go back and do their job over again, implementing manager decided policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Swanson is suggesting, evidently, that in order to conduct their viewing process, the viewers would need to contact each landowner and arrange for a public meeting date for the viewers to visit the property, and then the viewers would have to publicly announce the time and place of that meeting, and further advise the landowner to prepare for the possibility that the property will be inspected by a group of citizens who will follow along with the viewers. If the landowner were to cancel the viewing, for some reason, then the viewers would have to notify the public that the meeting is cancelled, and failing that, members of the public would arrive at the private property for the expected meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On the District&apos;s current Brandt/Angus project, for example, there are now 116 different 40 acre tracts or sub-parcels, with 38 different ownership entities (individual owner, joint owners, tenants in common, life tenants/remaindermen, trustee(s), or corporations). Consequently, for many of these parcels, meeting with the owner means meeting with more than just one person on each piece of land. It would be preposterous and unworkable if for every individual viewer recommendation there have to be 3 days posted notice each time two viewers want to meet with an owner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103E, sets forth how a drainage authority, like the Board, must conduct drainage proceedings. The Board appoints the viewers, whose duties and responsibilities are described in statute, but it has the final authority to make determinations regarding any drainage project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Swanson argued that the ditch viewers are like the Port Authority&apos;s advisory panel, because the duties and responsibilities of viewers are clearly defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103E, as well as their statutory authority and are therefore subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, according to the Port Authority&apos;s advisory panel&apos;s enabling legislation, it was required to meet regularly &lt;em&gt;as a group&lt;/em&gt;, and was able to include its separate recommendations as part of the Port Authority recommendations. (See 2007 Session Laws, Chapter 57, Article 2, Section 3.) The advisory panel is subject to the OML because it is a committee of the Port Authority; it is not a separate public body.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The ditch viewers are not a separate public body subject to the OML. Given the nature of the viewers&apos; duties, as set forth in Chapter 103E, and per Mr. Von Korff&apos;s description of the way they perform those duties, they are also not a committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission of the Board. They gather largely on an &lt;em&gt;ad hoc&lt;/em&gt; basis on private property, they are permitted to act individually, and the Board may accept, amend or reject the viewers&apos; report(s), all of which distinguishes them from the Port Authority&apos;s advisory panel. Furthermore, the viewers perform duties more like employees or contractors, not a sub-body, under the control of the Board. Accordingly, gatherings of the ditch viewers are not subject to the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the MSTRWD Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a meeting of the appointed ditch viewers held on February 28, 2012, and subsequent meetings of the viewers?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Swanson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Meetings of the ditch viewers, appointed by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) Board of Managers pursuant to statutory authority, are not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. See Issue 1. Thus, the MSTRWD Board did not have to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding a February 28, 2012, gathering of the ditch viewers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 29, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267021</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-010</Title><title>Opinion 12 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267661&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-05-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An individual who was pulled over by
peace officers and subjected to a strip search asked for
access to the squad car video of the incident. The City
denied access, saying it was private personnel data
because there is an active internal affairs investigation.
The videotape contains arrest and/or response/incident
data, and as such, may not be classified as private
personnel data, even if the City is now using those data in
its internal affairs investigation of the officers.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2012; City of Minneapolis Police Department</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 19, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated March 14, 2012, from Ryan Vettleson, an attorney, on behalf of a client. In his letter, Mr. Vettleson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the response to a data request Mr. Vettleson made to the City of Minneapolis Police Department. IPAD asked for additional information/clarification, which Mr. Vettleson provided in a letter dated March 27, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 5, 2012, the Commissioner invited Craig Steiner, Responsible Authority for the City, as well as Y and Z , data subjects whose rights may be affected by this opinion, an opportunity to comment. IPAD received comments on April 25, 2012, from Caroline Bachun, Assistant City Attorney. The data subjects did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vettleson provides the facts as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....[My client] was pulled over and subjected to a strip search by Minneapolis police officers .... The officers never found any drugs or other criminal contraband on [my client] and released him at the scene. The incident was captured on the officer&apos;s squad video. Shortly after the incident, [my client] filed a complaint with the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 8, 2010, this firm faxed to the Minneapolis Police Department, Police Reports Videos, a letter requesting: &quot;a complete copy (public and non-public) of your file relating to the investigation of the [April 9, 2009] incident, including ... videotapes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On August 18, 2010, this firm contacted Sergeant William Palmer, Public Information Officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, and again requested the squad video(s) of the April 9, 2009 incident. .... On August 31, 2010, Sergeant Palmer responded that the requested data would not be disclosed, on the ground there was an active internal investigation regarding the incident, and, as such, the requested data was non-public under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. [2(a)(5)], unless the complaint is sustained and the final disposition of any discipline has been reached. [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Vettleson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a June 8, 2010, request for data contained in a law enforcement squad car video?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, section 13.82, subdivisions 2 and 6, provide that arrest and response or incident data are public. Arrest data are, data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents any actions taken by them to cite, arrest, incarcerate &lt;em&gt;or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty [and] shall be public at all times in the originating agency&lt;/em&gt;.... [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Response or incident data are, data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents the agency&apos;s response to a request for service including, but not limited to, responses to traffic accidents, or which describes actions taken by the agency on its own initiative [and] &lt;em&gt;shall be public&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Pursuant to subdivision 2(a)(5), the following data are public: &quot;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.&quot; Subdivision 2(b) provides when disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both Mr. Vettleson and the City reference the Minneapolis Police Department&apos;s policies regarding the use of Mobile Video Recording equipment (MVR), section 4-218, which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The purpose of utilizing mobile video recording (MVR) equipment in Minneapolis Police Department vehicles is to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;capture video evidence for criminal, civil and traffic-related court cases.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;assist officers with recalling facts or other details captured by the equipment that will help them accurately articulate a chain of events when writing reports.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;allow supervisors to review the contents of the recorded media as a management tool within their chain of command.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;be used as a training tool for officer safety and best practices in the MPD.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;assist in the assessment of contacts between officers and the public by reviewing procedures and interpersonal action.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City argues that the data are private personnel data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;....The purposes for the collection of squad video and implementation of those purposes are enumerated in Section 4-218 of the Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Procedures. Because one of the purposes relates to the conduct of police officers, and the video being sought by [Mr. Vettleson&apos;s law firm] is part of an active [Civilian Review Authority] investigation, the video at issue is private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section 13.43 and cannot be released at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vettleson argues the data constitute public law enforcement data pursuant to section 13.82:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;.... The first and second purposes - to capture video evidence and to help refresh the recollection of officers when they author reports - are undoubtedly the primary reasons the Minneapolis Police Department utilizes squad cameras. These purposes are necessarily connected to law enforcement activities. ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.26, subdivision 1, provides that if two provisions are irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267616&quot; title=&quot;03-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-021&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges the care with which the Legislature has adopted policy concerning the classification of personnel data. It is also clear, based on the language in section 13.82, that the Legislature intended certain data about law enforcement employees to be public. .... Furthermore, while section 13.43 is specific in its classification of personnel data, section 13.82 is more specific in that it classifies personnel data maintained by law enforcement agencies in particular.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267234&quot; title=&quot;08-032&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-032&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed this issue as it related to inactive criminal investigative data, which are also explicitly public under section 13.82:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;.... Section 13.82 temporarily classifies active investigative data as not public; once any of three events occurs, data that had been protected become public when the investigation is no longer active. However, private personnel data don&apos;t become public unless the entity takes final disciplinary action against an employee. If an entity could protect otherwise public inactive criminal investigative data as private personnel data, the Legislature&apos;s intent, i.e., that protected criminal investigative data become public, could be thwarted (in a situation in which the entity does not take final disciplinary action.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges the complexity of the issues in situations when a government entity that is conducting an investigation into employee misconduct is both the employer and a law enforcement agency, as is the case here. He stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267616&quot; title=&quot;03-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-021&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... because the Legislature adopted section 13.82 after adopting section 13.43, it clearly understood that certain information about personnel carrying out law enforcement functions would be public. Another indication the Legislature was aware that certain law enforcement personnel data would be public is that the Legislature specifically excluded undercover law enforcement officers from having to make data about themselves public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(b). Thus, the Commissioner opines that the data at issue are public pursuant to section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis here is similar. The squad car video data were created for law enforcement purposes. The first two purposes listed in the City&apos;s policies (collecting evidence and assisting officers with writing reports) apply to every situation in which a peace officer engages in a law enforcement activity, such as a traffic stop, and appear to be the primary reasons for creating the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the Legislature classified certain law enforcement data as public pursuant to section 13.82, it did not create an exception for law enforcement data that may also be part of an internal investigation of an enforcement officer. Accordingly, the videotape contains arrest and/or response/incident data, and as such, may not be classified as private personnel data, even if the City is now using those data in its internal affairs investigation against the officers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Vettleson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a June 8, 2010, request for data contained in a law enforcement squad car video.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 16, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267661</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-009</Title><title>Opinion 12 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267541&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-05-03T01:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In response to a request for a copy of the
superintendent’s contract, a school district provided
access to public personnel data it extracted from the
contract, but refused to provide a redacted copy of the
contract itself. The District should have provided a copy of
the actual contract, with appropriate redactions if
applicable.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 2, 2012; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 28, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Carter Glendenning. In his letter, Mr. Glendenning asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Glendenning&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 30, 2012, were to inform him of Mr. Glendenning&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 12, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated April 10, 2012, from Dennis O&apos;Brien, attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Glendenning provided them follows. In an email dated November 30, 2011, Mr. Glendenning asked Dr. Peterson for a copy of his compensation contract. Dr. Peterson responded the same day, stating, [o]ur attorney will be in contact with you. The contract is not a public document. You may obtain all of the data from it that is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 9, 2011, Mr. O&apos;Brien wrote to Mr. Glendenning, and stated, [s]ince you have requested information relative to Dr. Peterson&apos;s employment with the Minnetonka School District, I am summarizing that data which is public. Mr. O&apos;Brien listed 21 categories of data with details about each, such as, salary, incentive compensation, vacation, medical leave, tax-sheltered annuity, severance and post-employment benefits, etc.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Glendenning&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for a copy of its Superintendent&apos;s employment contract?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. O&apos;Brien, on behalf of the District, provided Mr. Glendenning with a summary of data in the contract. However, Mr. Glendenning asked for a copy of the contract, not a summary of its contents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. O&apos;Brien wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question at issue is whether the superintendent&apos;s contract is a public document. Under the plain terms of the statute, the contract &lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt; is not public data. Some of the information contained &lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; the document is public data, as enumerated in the statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Any other information remains private data and need not be revealed except pursuant to a court order. It is not incidental to note that the Personnel Data Privacy Act [sic] does not broadly define documents themselves as public, but only the data contained therein.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined numerous times that Chapter 13 classifies data, not documents. However, in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267866&quot; title=&quot;04-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-031&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Minnesota Statutes,] Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that individuals shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. This means that when an individual asks to inspect public data, the entity shall provide the requestor with the actual data. This ensures that the requestor will be able to gain an understanding of the context relating to the data s/he is seeking, especially if the entity has redacted (blacked/whited out) surrounding data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that some entities might prefer to lift public data from a document and place those data on an otherwise blank document for the individual to inspect (cut-and-paste). This is problematic because (1) the entity is withholding the actual data and (2) the possibility exists that the entity will make an error transferring the data from its original source onto another document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the District should have provided Mr. Glendenning a copy of the actual contract, rather than a summarization of public data contained therein. Mr. O&apos;Brien stated that all data in the contract other than those he summarized are private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. It is possible that the contract contains private data on Dr. Peterson, and if so, the District should redact those data. That enables Mr. Glendenning, or any member of the public, to understand the context of any redactions. It is also possible that the contract contains data that are not about Dr. Peterson, and which are presumptively public. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267490&quot; title=&quot;08-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-023&lt;/a&gt;.)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Glendenning is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for a copy of its Superintendent&apos;s employment contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 2, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267541</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual physical data</Title><Id>266983</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment contract</Title><Id>266741</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T21:19:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-008</Title><title>Opinion 12 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267496&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-05-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A newspaper asked if a school district
complied with the Open Meeting Law regarding its
summary of the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation.
The Board conducted the evaluation during a closed
“workshop” meeting held before its regular meeting, and
provided a summary at a regular meeting the next month
(see Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a)).
The workshop was a special meeting pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, and
therefore separate from the regular meeting that
immediately followed adjournment of the special meeting.
Thus, the Board should have provided the summary at that
regular meeting, because it was its next open meeting.
Also, public bodies should convene and adjourn or
otherwise conclude meetings in open session.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 2, 2012; South Washington County School Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 2, 2012, from Scott Wente, of the &lt;em&gt;South Washington County Bulletin&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Wente asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about the South Washington County School Board&apos;s conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Mr. Wente submitted an addendum to his request on February 17, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Leslee Boyd, Board Chair, in response to Mr. Wente&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 2012, were to inform her of Mr. Wente&apos;s request and to ask her, members of the Board, or their attorney to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On March 6, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated March 5, 2012, from Michael J. Waldspurger, attorney for the School Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 16, 2012, Mr. Wente submitted additional information, including a copy of the School Board&apos;s regular meeting schedule, to be included as part of the record. In response, the Commissioner wrote again to Ms. Boyd, in a letter dated March 19, 2012, seeking comments on the additional information. Mr. Waldspurger responded on April 4, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wente provided them follows. Mr. Wente wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Bulletin&apos;s initial request for an advisory opinion sought to clarify whether the District 833 School Board had followed the law by summarizing Superintendent Mark Porter&apos;s annual performance evaluation at a Jan. 26, 2012 regular meeting....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School Board discussed Porter&apos;s performance review in a closed workshop Dec. 15, 2011. It then adjourned from that workshop and minutes later convened for a regular meeting, which was open to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) of the Open Meeting Law allows a public body to close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the School Board convened and adjourned its Dec. 15 closed-session workshop, we believe the body&apos;s next open meeting occurred when the School Board convened an open, regular meeting that same evening.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If that Dec. 15 regular meeting is determined not to be the School Board&apos;s next open meeting following its closed session to discuss the performance evaluation, then certainly the Jan. 12 [special] meeting and workshop [which were open to the public] would have constituted the next open meeting. Yet, as noted previously the School Board did not summarize the performance evaluation until a Jan. 26 meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Wente&apos;s request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the South Washington County School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation it conducted at a meeting held December 15, 2011?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the OML, public bodies hold three types of meetings: regular meetings, special meetings, and emergency meetings. Every public body is required to provide members of the public with notice of its meetings, regardless of the type of meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For regular meetings, the only notice requirement is that the public body keeps a schedule of its regular meetings on file at its primary offices. The schedule must include the date, time, and location of all regular meetings. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A special meeting is any meeting, other than an emergency meeting, that is not a regularly scheduled meeting. For a special meeting, the public body shall post written notice, at least three days before the meeting, of its date, time, place, and purpose. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 2.)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), a public body may meet in closed session to conduct a performance evaluation. At its next open meeting, the body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The schedule of regular School Board meetings Mr. Wente provided contains the heading:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Workshops at 6:00 p.m.
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular meetings at 7:00 p.m. (workshops may be added)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The December 15, 2011, Board meeting is listed on the schedule as a regular meeting; no workshop is listed on the schedule for that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the Board minutes, a quorum of the Board met in a workshop on December 15, 2011, which was called to order at 5:30 p.m., and adjourned at 6:55 pm. The Board then called a regular meeting to order eight minutes later, at 7:03 p.m.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waldspurger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board was not required to provide additional notice that part of the regular [December 15, 2011] meeting would be closed. Nothing in the law states or implies that the absence of additional notice for a closed session converts the closed session into a special meeting. [Citations omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In summary, the Board was not required to summarize its conclusions regarding the superintendent&apos;s evaluation during the open meeting that occurred on December 15, 2011. Only one meeting of the Board occurred on December 15, 2011. The portion of the meeting during which the Board met in closed session was referred to as a workshop, and the portions of the meeting during which the Board met in open session was referred to as a regular meeting. The fact that the District used this terminology to describe different parts of the meeting does not mean that two meetings were held.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Mr. Waldspurger is correct that that the Board is not required to give additional notice that a portion of a regular meeting will be closed, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the December 15, 2011, closed workshop meeting was a regular meeting. As noted above, the workshop was not on the schedule of regular meetings for December 15. Furthermore, it started at 5:30 p.m., 30 minutes before regular workshops are scheduled to start. Accordingly, the workshop was a special meeting, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger discussed efforts the Board took to ensure compliance with the OML. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board acknowledges that an inadvertent error occurred in this case. Through its Chair, the Board undertook diligent efforts to ensure compliance with the OML. Those efforts included consulting with a well regarded and experienced representative from the [Minnesota School Boards Association.] Unfortunately, in this instance, the representative made a misstatement, and the Board relied on that misstatement. As a result, the Board did not summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation at the meeting on January 12, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, he acknowledges that the Board sought advice to assist it in determining its obligations regarding when it needed to provide its summary of the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation. Second, the Board needs to review its process and procedures regarding its schedule of regular meetings, and its workshops in order to avoid the kind of confusion that resulted here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, according to the plain language of section 13D. 05, subdivision 3(a), the next open meeting of a public body may be a regular, special or emergency meeting. Given the special circumstances that warrant an emergency meeting, it is likely to be unreasonable for a public body to be obliged to summarize a performance evaluation at an emergency meeting. The Legislature might want to consider amending that provision to avoid such a result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, a comment regarding the Board&apos;s having convened and adjourned the December 15, 2011, workshop while in closed session. According to Mr. Wente:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;That Dec. 15 meeting was a closed session workshop. Board members gathered in a conference room used for closed-session meetings, convened the workshop in that room, discussed the performance evaluation and other agenda items that can be discussed in closed session, and then adjourned while still in the room closed to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. Accordingly, the Board should have convened the special workshop meeting in open session, stated on the record its grounds for closing the meeting and the specific subject(s) to be discussed, and then closed the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the OML is silent on whether a public body may adjourn a meeting in closed session, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that meetings should be adjourned or otherwise concluded in open session. Otherwise, the public cannot know if a meeting is adjourned, recessed or continued. As the issues Mr. Wente raised illustrate, whether or not a meeting has been adjourned, rather than recessed or continued, has implications for a public body&apos;s conduct at subsequent meetings. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), and section 13D.04, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Wente raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The South Washington County School Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), regarding its summary of the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation it conducted at a special meeting held December 15, 2011, because the Board did not provide the summary at its next meeting, which was its regular meeting that immediately followed the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 2, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267496</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement on record</Title><Id>266288</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recessed/continued meetings</Title><Id>267024</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-007</Title><title>Opinion 12 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266957&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-04-21T01:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A city asked about the classification of
certain data it collected and maintained about a candidate
for public office. The candidate submitted an Affidavit of
Candidacy and a copy of her driver’s license as proof of
residency. Both the Affidavit and the copy of the driver’s
license are public pursuant to the general presumption</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 20, 2012; City of Emily</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 16, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated March 12, 2012, from Steven Qualley, attorney for the City of Emily. In his letter, Mr. Qualley asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Mr. Qualley provided on March 19, 2012. On April 4, 2012, IPAD invited Jan Mosman, data subject, to comment. Ms. Mosman did not submit comments.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Qualley wrote the following regarding a data request received by the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The requested data relates to data collected by the City of Emily and the residency requirements for a member of the City Council. The data requested is a copy of the council members [sic] driver&apos;s license that was provided when the council member filed a request to run for a seat on the City Council, and the other data submitted when that person filed, such as the Affidavit of Candidacy. The City is unable to determine how that data is to be classified, and whether the City must or can disclose the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City provided the Affidavit of Candidacy and the copy of the driver&apos;s license to the Commissioner for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Qualley&apos;s request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by the City of Emily related to the residency requirements for a candidate for public office?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states the general rule that all government data are public unless classified otherwise.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 205, governs municipal elections. Minnesota Statutes, section 205.13, subdivision 1, requires candidates for city office to submit an affidavit of candidacy with the municipal clerk. Subdivision 1 also requires that the affidavit be, in substantially the same form as that in [Minnesota Statutes,] section 204B.06, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Emily uses an Affidavit of Candidacy form found on the Minnesota Secretary of State&apos;s website. The form collects name, office sought, address, phone number, campaign address, website, and email address. The form also states, [a]ll information on this form is available to the public. Consistent with the requirements of section 204B.06, subdivision 1b(a), the form also contains a provision allowing a candidate to request that his or her residential address be maintained as private data. Ms. Mosman did not request the private classification for her residential address. Except for the provision in section 204B.06, subdivision 1b(a), nothing in Chapters 204B or 205 (or the Minnesota Election Law, generally) classifies the data in the affidavit as not public. Therefore, under the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, the data in the Affidavit of Candidacy are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Emily also maintains a photocopy of Ms. Mosman&apos;s driver&apos;s license, collected from her at the time she filed her Affidavit for Candidacy, apparently as proof of her residence within the City. The Commissioner is not aware of any laws classifying driver&apos;s license data submitted to a local government entity by a candidate for office as not public. The federal law and corresponding state law that require the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to treat driver&apos;s license data as not public are not applicable in this situation. (See 18 U.S.C. 2721 and Minnesota Statutes, section 171.12, subdivision 7.) Unlike a Social Security number, which is classified by state and federal law as private regardless of the manner of collection, a driver&apos;s license number is private only when a government entity receives it from the Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the photocopy is also public under the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. (Not raised here is the issue of whether Ms. Mosman, as a city council member, is an employee of the City and whether the data could be classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267446#/detail/appId/1/id/267335&quot; title=&quot;03 011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-011&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would like to remind government entities that they may only collect and store data on individuals that are necessary for the administration and management of programs authorized by law. (See, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 3.) Here, the City of Emily collected a signed and notarized Affidavit of Candidacy, stating the candidate&apos;s address. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the additional step of collecting the driver&apos;s license was also necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Qualley raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Affidavit of Candidacy and the photocopy of a driver&apos;s license maintained by the City of Emily related to the residency requirements for a candidate for public office are classified as public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 20, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266957</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266599</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-006</Title><title>Opinion 12 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267001&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-04-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the
classification of certain data in a separation agreement
between the district and a former employee. The district
provided redacted copies of the agreement in response to
data requests by the media, stating that the redacted
portions contained data classified as private by Minnesota
Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4. Some of the
redacted data were public under Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), as well as the general
presumption. Also, some of the data were properly
classified as private personnel data</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 20, 2012; School District 191 (Burnsville-Eagan-Savage)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 24, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 21, 2012, from Maggie Wallner, attorney for Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage. In her letter, Ms. Wallner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD asked for additional information/clarification, which Ms. Wallner provided on March 2, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated, March 5, 2012, the Commissioner invited Leita Walker, attorney for the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; and Christopher Magan, reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;, as well as Tania Chance and X (a pseudonym), data subjects whose rights may be affected by this opinion, an opportunity to comment. IPAD received Ms. Walker&apos;s comments on March 13, 2012, and Mr. Magan&apos;s on March 16, 2012. The data subjects did not submit comments.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Wallner wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District has received data requests from the media, including the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, regarding a Separation Agreement entered into between the School District and the School District&apos;s former Executive Director of Organizational Development, Tania Z. Chance.
&lt;br /&gt;
...
&lt;br /&gt;
Pioneer press reporter, Christopher Magan, has requested reasons for the Separation Agreement beyond the reasons set forth in the written Agreement&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Likewise, Leita Walker, legal counsel for the Star Tribune contends that the Separation Agreement does not contain specific reasons for the Agreement and requests that the District &quot;separately provide a list of such reasons.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the initial data requests by Mr. Magan and Ms. Walker, the District released a redacted copy of the separation agreement; they then requested unredacted copies of the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[I]t is the School District&apos;s position that it has provided the requestors the reasons for the Separation Agreement. It is the School District&apos;s position that the entire Separation Agreement is not classified as public data; rather, public data is limited to the language in the Agreement that constitutes terms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District provided the Commissioner with an unredacted copy of the separation agreement to review, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Wallner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage, redacted under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivisions 1 and 4, in response to a request for terms of and specific reasons for a separation agreement between the District and an employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. To the extent that the redacted separation agreement does not contain specific reasons for the agreement as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), must the district provide that data to the public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage, redacted under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivisions 1 and 4, in response to a request for terms of and specific reasons for a separation agreement between the District and an employee?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6) states that the following data are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the District, Ms. Wallner has argued that certain data within the agreement should be classified as private, despite the language in section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), because the data relate to conditions rather than terms. In her supplemental material, she states that the classification of the data at issue hinged on the difference between a term and a condition, using definitions from Black&apos;s Law Dictionary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, under Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage. While the distinction between a term and a condition might be pertinent in resolving an issue related to the actual performance of duties under the agreement at issue, in interpreting the provisions of Chapter 13, the Commissioner looks to the plain language of the law and its common and approved usage. &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines terms as, provisions that determine the nature and scope of an agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner further argued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The classification of the redacted language in Section II(c)(d) of the Separation Agreement is classified as private data in the possession of another government entity. Absent a &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; statute changing the classification of the data to public data, it retains its private classification in the possession of the School District. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in this case, there is a specific statute that alters the classification of otherwise not public data: section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6). The Commissioner has previously opined that not public data could be included in the terms of a settlement agreement and that the operation of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), is such that those data elements would become public. In Advisory Opinion 97-017, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[I]t seems reasonable to assume that if the Legislature intended for medical data, which are part of a settlement agreement, to remain private, it (the Legislature) would have enacted the appropriate language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-024 further refined that argument:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes that the [parties] could have agreed to include in the settlement agreement additional information related to the dispute that otherwise are not public. As terms of the agreement, those data would then be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, all terms of an agreement, in their entirety, regardless of the classification elsewhere, are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It does not follow that every data element within the four corners of a separation agreement is public data, however. Ms. Walker, from the Star Tribune, quotes language in Advisory Opinion 94-051 to support her argument that all data within a separation agreement are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The terms of settlement agreements resolving disputes arising out of the employment relationship are always public data for purposes of Chapter 13 Wherever a settlement agreement appears in these exhibits, &lt;em&gt;the complete contents of that agreement are public data.&lt;/em&gt; (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Ms. Walker emphasized certain language, the operative language in that sentence is, &quot;&lt;em&gt;in these exhibits&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; which pointedly refers to the specific exhibits at issue in that Opinion, rather than settlement agreements generally. More important is the first quoted section, which is consistent with the interpretation in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267364&quot; title=&quot;97-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-017&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267283&quot; title=&quot;09-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-024&lt;/a&gt;, that the entire agreement is not necessarily public, but the &lt;em&gt;terms&lt;/em&gt; of these types of agreements are always public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because terms are always public data, it follows then, that in order for data to be classifiable as not public, the data cannot be terms of the agreement. Indeed, Chapter 13 contemplates this possibility in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08, subdivision 6, which provides immunity for the release of not public data in a settlement agreement that may become public by operation of a later-enacted statute. As Ms. Wallner argues, &quot;[t]he immunity provided in the statute would not be necessary if all data contained in a settlement agreement is classified as public upon execution.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the opinion of the Commissioner that the redacted portions of Section II of the separation agreement describe actions to be taken in order for the parties to fulfill their obligations to one another, thus defining the nature and scope of the agreement. Therefore, the redacted portions constitute &quot;terms&quot; within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6) and are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner further opines that the reference letters marked Attachment 1 and 2 of the separation agreement, which the District wholly redacted, are not terms of the agreement. Section VI of the separation agreement states that the District will provide Ms. Chance with two letters of recommendation upon the satisfaction of other conditions within the agreement. That is a &quot;term&quot; of the agreement, setting forth the conditions upon which the letters will be signed and distributed. The letters themselves, however, are non-term data about Ms. Chance as a former employee of the District and possibly about other individuals associated with the District. Therefore, the data in the letters are not made public as terms and are classified according to other provisions in section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Chapter 13 classifies data elements, not entire documents. After reviewing the contents of the letters, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that portions of the letters contain data made public by other provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2, and should not have been redacted. For example, employee names, terms and conditions of employment, job title, job description, and date of first and last employment are public data. Other data in the letters of recommendation were properly redacted as data in the nature of a performance evaluation, which are private under subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
As to whether any of the data the District redacted constitute &quot;specific reasons&quot; for the agreement, the Commissioner addressed that issue in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267283&quot; title=&quot;09-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-024&lt;/a&gt;. In that Opinion, the Commissioner also looked to the common and approved usage of the statutory language and concluded that the agreement at issue there contained the specific reasons for the agreement:
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.43 does not define &quot;specific reason.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines &quot;specific&quot; as &quot;free from ambiguity: accurate&quot; and defines &quot;reason&quot; as &quot;a statement offered in explanation or justification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that Opinion, the District argued, and the Commissioner agreed, that the specific reasons for the agreement were provided throughout the 17- page agreement and that the phrase &quot;specific reasons&quot; meant, &quot;explanation sufficient to show that the payment was not a gift under guise of a compromise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In applying those arguments to Ms. Chance&apos;s agreement, the Commissioner opines that to the extent that the redacted terms in Section II also provide justification or explanation for the agreement, they constitute &quot;specific reasons for the agreement,&quot; and as such, they are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in the letters, however, do not provide specific explanation or justification for the agreement, and therefore, because they do not constitute specific reasons, the data may not be classified as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6) (though some of the data may be classified as public pursuant to another provision of section 13.43, as discussed above).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the extent that the redacted separation agreement does not contain specific reasons for the agreement as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), must the district provide that data to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 contains few provisions requiring the creation of data. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), is one such provision; entities must include the specific reasons for the agreement in any settlement agreement that involves a payment of $10,000 or more. However, government entities are not required to create data to respond to data requests. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267600&quot; title=&quot;00-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-048&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267945&quot; title=&quot;01-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-011&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267507&quot; title=&quot;01-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-012&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When drafting these agreements, the District must also be mindful of its responsibilities under the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, which requires government entities to create and maintain records sufficient to document their official activities. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267773&quot; title=&quot;99-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-005&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267846&quot; title=&quot;08-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-026&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266763&quot; title=&quot;10-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-017&lt;/a&gt;.) The Commissioner understands that government entities must balance a variety of interests when negotiating and drafting settlement agreements. He encourages them to find ways to achieve that balance while meeting their obligations both to the public and to data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner is aware that the current Legislature is working to provide clarity to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Wallner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data redacted in Section II of the separation agreement between Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage and Tania Chance are terms and/or data documenting the specific reasons for the agreement, and are therefore public. Data redacted from the letters of recommendation are neither terms nor data that document the specific reasons for the agreement; they are therefore classified as public or private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. It is also possible that some of the data in the letters are not personnel data, or even data on individuals, and are therefore presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left: 2em&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Pursuant to Chapter 13, the District does not need to create data to respond to a data request. When drafting these types of agreements, the District must be mindful of its responsibilities under the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 20, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267001</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-005</Title><title>Opinion 12 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267944&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-04-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An individual requested access to the
dates applicants for public employment applied and took
qualifying tests. The dates alone, i.e., not associated with
any individual, are not data on individuals, and therefore
cannot be private personnel data. The entity stated that in
response, it had to prepare “summary data” per
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19.
However, summary data must be derived from what is
otherwise completely private or confidential data.
Accordingly, summary data cannot be derived from
applicant data, which are both public and private. To
comply with the data request, the entity simply needed to
redact all data from the applications and tests except the
dates, rather than prepare a summary of the data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 2012; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 27, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 23, 2012, from Richard Paulson. In his letter, Mr. Paulson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his right to gain access to certain data Independent School District 709, Duluth, maintains.
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Gronseth, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Paulson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 2, 2012, were to inform him of Mr. Paulson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 16, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kevin J. Rupp and Trevor S. Helmers, attorneys for the District.
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts as Mr. Paulson provided them follows. He wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              On August 25, 2011, I emailed William Hanson at Independent School District 709 and asked for access to certain data. I inspected data on October 24, 2011, and I believe the District did not provide me with some of the data I requested. I am enclosing copies of my data request, and the District&apos;s responses.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              My request asked to inspect all documents, correspondence, confirmations, and contracts between PEIP and the Duluth School District since the District contacted PEIP for health insurance coverage effective 1/1/10.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The District responded by providing a mostly blank copy of the PEIP Group Application form, which is not a contract... No other documents between PEIP and the District were available for my inspection. I told Mr. Hanson the Group Application was not what I wanted, and that I wanted to see the confirmation PEIP gave the District to start this coverage and any other documents and correspondence. Mr. Hanson said he would provide the data, but hasn&apos;t done so as of this date.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I also asked to inspect all notes, memos, and emails between the District, Union, and School Board regarding negotiations and costs of health insurance coverage with PEIP. In Mr. Hanson [sic] response October 18, 2011, Mr. Hanson said information is available but I have not been provided with any.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Based on Mr. Paulson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          1. Did Independent School District 709, Duluth, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect all documents, correspondence, confirmations, and contracts between the Minnesota Public Employees Insurance Program (PEIP) and the District since the District contacted PEIP for health insurance coverage effective 1/1/10?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          2. Did the District comply with Chapter 13 in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect all notes, memos, and emails between the District, Union, and School Board regarding negotiations and costs of health insurance coverage with PEIP?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; Did Independent School District 709, Duluth, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect all documents, correspondence, confirmations, and contracts between the Minnesota Public Employees Insurance Program (PEIP) and the District since the District contacted PEIP for health insurance coverage effective 1/1/10? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Rupp and Mr. Helmers, Mr. Paulson&apos;s August 25, 2011, data request, followed a long line of requests and communications between Mr. Paulson and the District... regarding these issues. They wrote that Mr. Paulson&apos;s request was quite broad, and as written, sought documents which contained private personnel data, as well as possibly other not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Hanson contacted Mr. Paulson by email on September 13, 2011, and also by telephone, in order to discuss the request and to attempt to make it more specific. Mr. Hanson wrote Mr. Paulson on October 18, 2011: [y]ou previously asked for &apos;contract&apos; information with PEIP and it was previously provided. Additional correspondence deals with personal data that you indicated that you did not want. Other documents are available.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Mr. Rupp and Mr. Helmers wrote to the Commissioner:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Paulson appears to believe that the District withheld documents on October 24, 2011... However, all documents which were referenced by Mr. Hanson in his October 18, 2011, email were provided to Mr. Paulson for his review.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The District has no confirmation or contract with PEIP regarding the health insurance coverage for District employees. The only documents which the District had with PEIP were the Group Application, dated January 1, 2010, and the Summary of Benefits Documents. Both of these documents were provided to Mr. Paulson on May 16, 2011. The District is not aware of whether the union signed any contract or documents with PEIP, and does not have access to those documents... On May 26, 2011, Mr. Hanson again notified Mr. Paulson that there was no contract between the District and PEIP.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Hanson informed Mr. Paulson of the fact that there was no contract again on October 24, 2011. The District is not required to create new data to respond to data requests...&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Paulson wrote that when he inspected the data the District made available on October 24, 2011, I told Mr. Hanson the Group Application was not what I wanted, and that I wanted to see the confirmation PEIP gave the District to start this coverage and any other documents and correspondence. Mr. Hanson said he would provide the data, but hasn&apos;t done so as of this date.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Rupp and Mr. Helmers, the District provided Mr. Paulson with access to all data it maintains that are responsive when he inspected data on October 24, 2011. The Commissioner cannot resolve that factual dispute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Rupp and Mr. Helmers are correct; the District is not required to create data in response to a request. However, given the nature of the data Mr. Paulson is seeking, the Commissioner encourages the District to review its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [its] official activities.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the District comply with Chapter 13 in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect all notes, memos, and emails between the District, Union, and School Board regarding negotiations and costs of health insurance coverage with PEIP? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his October 18, 2011 email to Mr. Paulson, Mr. Hanson stated, [i]nformation is available. Mr. Rupp and Mr. Helmers wrote to the Commissioner:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The District also provided all documents related to the negotiations and costs of health insurance coverage with PEIP on October 24, 2011.... Again, the District has no obligation to create new data, and simply provided the documents that were in its possession which were responsive to the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Hanson wrote in his October 18, 2011, email that information is available, but Mr. Paulson stated that he has not been provided with any. Again, the Commissioner cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties, but suggests the District review its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Kramer raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              1. The Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 709, Duluth, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect &quot;all documents, correspondence, confirmations, and contracts between the Minnesota Public Employees Insurance Program (PEIP) and the District since the District contacted PEIP for health insurance coverage effective 1/1/10.&quot;
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                2. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the District complied with Chapter 13 in its response to an August 25, 2011, request to inspect &quot;all notes, memos, and emails between the District, Union, and School Board regarding negotiations and costs of health insurance coverage with PEIP.&quot;
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Spencer Cronk
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 3, 2012
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267944</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-004</Title><title>Opinion 12 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266443&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-03-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a special meeting held Friday, October 21, 2011? 

Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, regarding electronic recordings of certain closed meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 8, 2012; City of Kasson Library Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 23, 2012, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated January 22, 2012, from Mary Kramer. In her letter, Ms. Kramer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about the City of Kasson Library Board&apos;s conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lori Hopkins, Chair of the Board, in response to Ms. Kramer&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 31, 2012, were to inform her of Ms. Kramer&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On February 13, 2012, IPAD received a response, dated February 10, 2012, from Joseph M. Guzinski, attorney for the Board. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Kramer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I was terminated Friday, October 21 at 5pm during a library board special meeting which was never posted. The meeting was not scheduled and I was not informed about it until Wednesday, October 19During the Oct. 21 meeting, I questioned whether the board was in compliance and whether the meeting was in violation of Minnesota&apos;s Open Meeting Law. The Library Chair, Lori Hopkins described the meeting as a special meeting; The next day[Library Director Bonnie Adams] said the meeting did not have to be posted because it was an emergency meeting; I would like it clarified because the attendees still wonder whether the library was in compliance because of Ms. Hopkins&apos; remarks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Ms. Kramer also requested copies of the audio recordings of four closed Board meetings and was informed that the meetings had not been recorded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Kramer&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a special meeting held Friday, October 21, 2011?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, regarding electronic recordings of certain closed meetings?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute between the parties that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting law and must comply as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c)(3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a special meeting held Friday, October 21, 2011?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are three types of meetings under the Open Meeting Law: regular, special, and emergency. Public bodies are required to keep a schedule of regular meetings on file at their primary offices. Further notice is not required. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For a special meeting, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, requires a public body to post written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board or the door of the usual meeting room of the public body at least three days before the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 3(d), an emergency meeting is defined as, a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body. The Commissioner has previously opined that, emergency meetings should be used rarely and for circumstances where public safety is jeopardized. Examples of emergency situations would include holding a meeting to respond to a natural disaster or to a health epidemic caused by an event such as an accident or terrorist activity. (See, &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267124&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-027&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Kramer stated that there was ongoing confusion as to whether the meeting of October 21, 2011, was held in conformity with the Open Meeting Law. Neither Ms. Kramer, nor the Board asserts that the October 21, 2011, meeting was a regular meeting. In the notice provided to Ms. Kramer on October 19, 2011, the meeting was described as, a disciplinary hearing. Given the nature of the meeting, the Commissioner does not think that it rises to the level of an emergency meeting. Therefore, it was a special meeting and the Board should have posted a written notice, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), on or before October 18, 2011, i.e., at least three days prior to the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Guzinski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Kasson Library Board did not provide proper notice of the special meeting of the Kasson Library Board which was held on Friday, October 21, 2011. The Library Board was under the mistaken assumption that the special meeting held on Friday, October 21, 2011, was an emergency meetingThe City Administrator and I are both satisfied that the meeting of October 21, 2011, was not, in fact, an emergency meeting. The Library Board has been informed by the Kasson City Administrator of the definition of an emergency meeting so that this failure of notice pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.04, Subd. 2(a), will not occur again in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is encouraged by the Board&apos;s comments. The Board acknowledges that it did not provide adequate notice of the October 21, 2011, special meeting and has taken steps to ensure that it will not happen again.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;. Did the City of Kasson Library Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, regarding electronic recordings of certain closed meetings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All closed meetings, except those closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be recorded at the expense of the public body, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(d). Public bodies may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an employee who is subject to their authority. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kramer submitted a data request for the recordings of four meetings closed to evaluate her job performance. In response to Ms. Kramer&apos;s data request, the Kasson City Administrator, Randy Lenth, replied that the meetings had not been taped. If the Board had taped the meetings, Ms. Kramer would have been entitled to get access to the recordings that contained data about her under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Guzinski wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, the Kasson Library Board failed to electronically record the four closed meetings mentioned above. The Kasson City Administrator has informed the Kasson Library Board of the requirements of Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 1(d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, the Board has acknowledged that it was not in compliance with the Open Meeting Law when it failed to record the four closed meetings on July 14, 2011, August 31, 2010, May 12, 2009, and December 8, 2009. Having now been informed of the recording requirements by the City Administrator, the Board can avoid similar situations in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Kramer raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. The City of Kasson Library Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding notice of a special meeting held Friday, October 21, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The City of Kasson Library Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, regarding electronic recordings of certain closed meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 8, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266443</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-10T16:53:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-003</Title><title>Opinion 12 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267839&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-02-01T02:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a November 15, 2011, request for access to the following data: dates of applications and dates of testing for all applicants for a certain City position?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 31, 2012; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 15, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Cathleen Rico. In her letter, Ms. Rico asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for the City, in response to Ms. Rico&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 20, 2011, were to inform him of Ms. Rico&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 5, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In an email dated November 15, 2011, Ms Rico asked the City for access to applicant data for the Assessor II position, job posting #20817. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would like the application dates of all applicants. I would also like to know what dates the selected applicants took the test. I am not requesting names or any private personnel information associated with the applicants.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its November 17, 2011, response, the City wrote to Ms. Rico:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he data you requested is not public. However, the City will prepare summary data responsive to your request subject to the City&apos;s Data Charges Policy. The cost to you for the City to prepare this data is estimated to be $17.00. Please inform me whether you still want the city to prepare the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Rico&apos;s request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a November 15, 2011, request for access to the following data: dates of applications and dates of testing for all applicants for a certain City position?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals who are employees of or who apply for employment with a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Under section 13.43, subdivision 3, the following data about all applicants are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. An applicant&apos;s name is not public until s/he becomes a finalist. The treatment of personnel data runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law (see section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 3 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of applicant data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Personnel data is private unless specifically codified as public in Minn. Stat. sec. 13.43. Neither dates of applications nor dates of testing appears in this list. Minn. Stat. sec. 645.16 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. sec. 13.43 Subd. 3 is clear and free from ambiguity. Minn. Stat. sec. 645.19 states: [e]xceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.&apos; The legislative exceptions to private personnel data do not include dates of application or dates of testing. As required, the City followed the plain language of section 13.43, Subd. 3, and Minnesota statutes regarding statutory construction, in concluding that dates of applications and dates of testing are private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Nevertheless, the City prepared summary data responsive to Ms. Rico&apos;s request and offered it to her&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, data on applicants are classified as either public or private data on individuals. Ms. Rico asked for access to dates of application and dates when applicants took a test; she specifically stated that she was not seeking access to names or any private personnel information associated with the applicants.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data. Data not on individuals are data the subjects of which are not individuals. (See section 13.02, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267519&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-023&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 244.052, subdivision 3(c) does not classify data that are not about an individual sex offender.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, the Star Tribune asked the Department to redact the data about Mr. Rodriguez from the end-of-confinement review materials, and provide it with access to the remaining public data, e.g., dates of meetings, participants in meetings, length of meetings, etc. The Star Tribune asserts, and the Commissioner agrees, that any such data that are not about the individual offender are not classified under section 244.052, subdivision 3(c). The Commissioner is not aware of any provision that classifies any end-of-confinement review data that are not on individuals as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the situation is similar. Ms. Rico asked for dates of application and testing, not associated with an individual. As such, the dates alone are not data on individuals, and therefore cannot be private data. In order to comply with Ms. Rico&apos;s request, the City simply needed to redact all data from the applications and tests except the dates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Steiner that the City properly responded to Ms. Rico by preparing summary data. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19, defines summary data as statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508&quot; title=&quot;00-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-011&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The definition of summary data is key to understanding the difference between preparation of summary data and separation of public from not public data. Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, summary data cannot be derived from applicant data, which are public and private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Rico raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by denying a November 15, 2011, request for access to the following data: dates of applications and dates of testing for all applicants for a certain City position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 31, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267839</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Undercover law enforcement officer</Title><Id>266513</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T22:25:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-002</Title><title>Opinion 12 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267369&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-01-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643, what is the classification of data in “animal test charts” that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) maintains? 

May the Board release data in response to a request such as the following: “the type and identification numbers of animals located on John Doe’s premises, ID # 11111”?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 31, 2012; Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated December 5, 2011, from W.L. Hartmann, Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH). In his letter, Dr. Hartmann asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data BAH maintains. IPAD asked for additional information/clarification, which Beth Thompson of BAH provided on December 12, 2011, and January 23, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Thompson provided them follows. In his opinion request, Dr. Hartmann wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The Board of Animal Health is a repository for animal test charts. Test charts generally contain the owner&apos;s name, address, and the premises identification number, in addition to individual animal or herd identification and testing results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. If the Board receives a request for information on a specific named premises, can additional information be supplied? For example, if a request is made for the type of animals and identification numbers of the animals located on John Doe&apos;s premises, premises ID #11111&apos;, can the information be supplied?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. Hartmann submitted a sample form, entitled Cooperative State-Federal Tuberculosis Eradication Program, with his request. According to Dr. Thompson, for purposes of this opinion, there is no issue of federal law classifying the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Dr. Hartmann&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643, what is the classification of data in animal test charts that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) maintains?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. May the Board release data in response to a request such as the following: the type and identification numbers of animals located on John Doe&apos;s premises, ID # 11111?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643, subdivision 6, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) The following data collected and maintained by the Board of Animal Health related to registration and identification of premises and animals under chapter 35, are classified as private or nonpublic:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) the names and addresses;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(2) the location of the premises where animals are kept; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(3) the identification number of the premises or the animal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643, what is the classification of data in animal test charts that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) maintains?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Cooperative State-Federal Tuberculosis Eradication Program form collects herd owner&apos;s name (including signature) and complete address, and animal identification number. Those data are private/nonpublic under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643. Dr. Thompson wrote that the Board considers that the following data collected on the form constitute all the location of premises where animals are kept data, which are also private/nonpublic: county, township or district, sec[tion], farm no.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The form also contains data in addition to those specifically classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643. For example, reason for test, previous test date, kind of herd, method of test, as well as for practitioner&apos;s (veterinarian&apos;s) name, telephone number and signature, date/hour of injection and observation, number of and kind of eligible animals in herd, certification for payment, etcetera. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, those data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; May the Board release data in response to a request such as the following: the type and identification numbers of animals located on John Doe&apos;s premises, ID #?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267979&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-007&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the registration data the requestor seeks - registration number for a boat, snowmobile or OHV; the type, size and length of the recreational vehicle; a serial number; notice of liens; etcetera - are public when not linked to an individual, once they are connected to an individual, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, the registration data cannot be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In other words, the effect of Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, is that DNR cannot release registration data that are linked to identifying information about the individual registrant, unless the registrant has given his/her informed consent or there is statutory authority permitting the disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis here is similar. Once the public data on the form are linked to the private/nonpublic data (e.g., name, address, and location and premises identification number), then generally speaking they cannot be released, absent the owner&apos;s consent or statutory authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643. (However, under section 13.643, subdivision 6 (b), the Board may release data to any person, agency, or to the public if the board determines that the access will aid in the law enforcement process or the protection of public or animal health or safety.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Dr. Hartmann raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.643, the following data in animal test charts that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) maintains are private/nonpublic: the owner(s) name(s), signature(s) and address(es); the location of the premises where animals are kept (including county, township or district, section, farm number); and the identification number of the premises or the animal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The Board may not release data in response to a request such as the following: the type and identification numbers of animals located on John Doe&apos;s premises, ID # 11111.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 31, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267369</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public data linked with private identifying data</Title><Id>266617</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-11-10T22:15:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 12-001</Title><title>Opinion 12 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267707&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2012-01-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription> An individual asked if a school district
violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) when it
conducted an open meeting (a 15-minute presentation
by the superintendent with a quorum of school board
members present) then broke in to small discussion
groups where the board members were in separate
locations and could not hear and/or see one another.
The Commissioner concluded that a quorum of the full
body did not participate in any of those discussions
and therefore the board did not violate the OML.
The Commissioner also acknowledged the requester’s
concern that the Board violated a purpose of the OML
as articulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, i.e.,
“to afford the public an opportunity to present its
views to the [public body].” Prior Lake American v.
Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). However,
the OML does not provide the public with the right to
speak at a public meeting.
In addition, the requester asserted that the board
violated the OML because it did not create meeting
minutes. The Commissioner noted that the OML does
not require a public body to do so.</ShortDescription><Subtitle> January 12, 2012; School District 47 (Sauk Rapids-Rice)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 28, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated November 27, 2011, from A. Jeanene Kern. In her letter, Ms. Kern asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about Independent School District 47, Sauk-Rapids-Rice school board&apos;s conduct under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lisa Braun, Chair of the Board, in response to Ms. Kern&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 5, 2011, were to inform her of Ms. Kern&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On December 28, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated December 23, 2011, from Michael J. Waldspurger and Scott E. Schraut, attorneys for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Schraut:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On October 18, 2011, the District&apos;s Superintendent, Dr. Daniel Bittman, gave an oral presentation in the auditorium at Sauk Rapids-Rice Middle School. Dr. Bittman did not answer questions during his presentation, and neither he nor the Board provided an opportunity for public comment during the presentation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before Dr. Bittman spoke, the Board did not call a meeting to order. During Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation, the Board did not discuss, decide, or transact any business. After Dr. Bittman finished speaking, the Board did not make a motion to adjourn the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Schraut, at the conclusion of Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation, the five Board members sat at four tables in different locations in the school, and could not hear what was said at the other tables.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Kern wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[The District] violated the [OML] by managing public input, taken in separate locations; at four separate tables in two rooms, during the public meeting. The meeting had not been appropriately adjourned, but discussion(s) continued as directed. The interested public and the quorum of board members were unable to observe all conversations and input between the public, school staff, and board members. The manner in which the public input and comments were structured at the informational meeting was not adequate to insure that interested citizens and board members had the opportunity to observe, to become fully informed or to assure that potential improper influences could be detected-public input and exchanges happened simultaneously during private conversations and there are no minutes creating the necessary public record. The method exercised by the district in managing&apos; public input is a violation of the purpose and spirit of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kern further asserted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The manner in which the school board allowed public input during the informational meeting(s) did not provide members of the public, or the quorum of school board members present, to observe&apos; all discussions/input and responses. Members of the public and the school board were unable to &apos;become fully informed&apos; and/or &apos;detect improper influences&apos;. The special meeting was not appropriately conducted or closed. A record of the meeting minutes was not created.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kern also stated that &quot;[e]ssentially the meeting was opened as an open meeting but then shifted to separate closed meetings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Kern&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it broke up into discussion groups during a public meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that a school board is a public body subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D; the parties agree that the meeting was properly noticed per Minnesota Statutes, section 13D. 04, subdivision 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, subdivision 6, a majority of the voting members of a school board constitutes a quorum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states: &quot;a]ll meetings ust be open to the public.&quot; The Legislature did not define &quot;meeting&quot; in the OML; however, the Minnesota Supreme Court described the &quot;quorum rule:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&apos;Meetings&apos; subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/em&gt; Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Schraut wrote that because a quorum of the Board &quot;attended at least part of Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation in order to receive information on an issue relating to official business of the District, a &quot;meeting&quot; occurred during the brief period of time that the five Board members attended Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ms. Kern incorrectly asserts that the Board closed the public meeting when Dr. Bittman finished his presentation. More specifically, Ms. Kern incorrectly asserts that a closed meeting occurred when three of the Board members sat at two different tables in the auditorium and the other two Board members sat at different tables in the hallway outside the auditorium. Contrary to Ms. Kern&apos;s allegation, the meeting was never closed to the public. To the extent that a meeting&apos; occurred on October 18, 2011, the entire meeting was open to the public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The &quot;meeting&quot; on October 18, 2011 ended as soon as a quorum ceased to exist. Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation is the only time that a quorum of the Board was gathered or present in one location on October 18, 2011.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267612&quot; title=&quot;10-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-011&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed whether a violation of the OML occurred when two members of a seven-member board left the meeting room during a recess to have a discussion with the chief administrator of the entity about the possibility of closing the meeting. Despite the fact that four members of the board were only a few feet away in the regular meeting room the Commissioner opined that there was likely not a violation of the OML because the gathering between the two board members that took place in the adjoining room did not constitute a quorum of the full body.&quot; Applying the same reasoning to the instant case, a quorum did not exist when three members of the Board were in the auditorium and two members of the Board were in the adjoining hallway.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Citations omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issues raised here are analogous to 10-011. Although five Board members participated in discussions in the building, they were separate discussions at different locations out of hearing of one another; a quorum of the full body did not participate in any of those discussions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Schraut further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ms. Kern also alleges that the board solicited input, responded, and engaged in private discussions with the public and each other on October 18, 2011. This allegation is simply untrue. A school board does not act through its individual members. It acts as a governing body pursuant to a majority vote of a quorum of its voting members. Because a quorum ceased to exist after Dr. Bittman finished his presentation, Ms. Kern is incorrect in stating or implying that the Board took any action after Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation concluded on October 18, 2011.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Although unclear, Ms. Kern also appears to be alleging that the meeting on October 18, 2011 never ended because the Board did not make a motion to adjourn. Although it may be good practice and a wise procedure for a school board to formally move to adjourn a meeting that it called to order, the OML does not require a school board to take such action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Citations omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, the Commissioner concurs. While it might have been clearer to those in attendance that the remainder of the session was not a public meeting subject to the OML if the District had formally adjourned the meeting, the OML does not require it to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kern also stated that the Board violated the OML because a &quot;record of the meeting minutes was not created.&quot; However, the OML does not require a public body to create meeting minutes. (The Commissioner notes that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.09, subdivision 10, &quot;[t]he board must cause its official proceedings to be published once in the official newspaper of the district.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as to Ms. Kern&apos;s assertion that &quot;[a]ll members of the attending public have a &apos;right&apos; to hear all input&quot; that any member of the public provides to a school board member, and that &quot;all board members have an obligation to hear public input in its entirety,&quot; Mr. Waldspurger and Mr. Schraut wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;School boards have the discretion to decide whether and when an opportunity for public comment will be provided. The OML does not require a period of public comment at a public school board meeting; the OML does not give a citizen the right to speak at a public school board meeting; and the OML does not impose an obligation on school boards to hear public input in its entirety.&quot; See Minn. Stat. Ch. 13D. In short, neither Dr. Bittman nor the Board was required to provide an opportunity for public comment during Dr. Bittman&apos;s presentation on October 18, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Ms. Kern&apos;s concern that the Board violated a purpose of the OML as articulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, i.e., &quot;to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].&quot; &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). However, the OML does not provide the public with the right to speak at a public meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Kern raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it broke up into discussion groups during a public meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 12, 2012&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267707</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public comments</Title><Id>266291</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:24:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-019</Title><title>Opinion 11 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267905&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-12-22T16:14:00Z</Date><ShortDescription>A school district asked about the
classification of certain school board correspondence.
Correspondence (email)
sent from one individual
to more than one school
board member, or sent to one board member by more
than one individual, is private data under Minnesota
Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, if neither the
sender(s) nor board member(s) has previously made
the email public. If such an email is classified as private
data, the Commissioner opined that the school district
is not required (in response to a data request) to seek
a decision by the board member(s) or individual(s)
senders as to whether s/he/they choose to make the
email public. If such an email is classified as private
data, it must be released in response to a data request
if one board member or one individual sender chooses
to make it public.
If any sender or recipient has forwarded an email or
shared the contents of an email with a person or entity
(other than the district), the email is public data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2011; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 17, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated October 14, 2011, from Maggie R. Wallner, on behalf of Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie. In her letter, Ms. Wallner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD asked for clarification, which Ms. Wallner provided in a letter dated November 3, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. A District parent requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. ll available information concerning the School District&apos;s contact in any form with any representatives of YFNS (Yes For Neighborhood Schools) and/or their attorneys. This [sic] requests include all copies of all phone logs and correspondence in any form, including email, between the School District, or any of its representatives (including, but not limited to School Board members) and: [certain specific individuals]r any other individual or group who associates themselves in any respect whatsoever with YFNS or its views. This request includes contact from YFNS to the School District or its agents and communication from the School Board or its agents to YFNS. [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Copies of correspondence logs kept by the School District and Board members and/or [sic] of all emails, letters, phone calls or any correspondence from parents or any others that relates [sic] in any way, positive or negative, to the recent boundary decisions. [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266661&quot; title=&quot;11-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion No. 11-006&lt;/a&gt; opined that an email sent to a school board chair from a member of the general public is classified as private data on both the individual who sent the email and the elected official to whom the individual sent the email&apos;, regardless of the classification (public/private) of the data contained in the email.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266661&quot; title=&quot;11-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-006&lt;/a&gt; we assume that email communication between a single Eden Prairie board member and a single individual is classified as private data regardless of the content of the emails. However [the] data request presents additional questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Wallner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Is correspondence (email) sent from an individual to more than one board member private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that neither the individual (sender) nor board member(s) has previously made the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;a. If such an email is classified as private data, is the School District required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision by the board member(s) as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;b. If such an email is classified as private data, must it be released in response to a data request if one board member chooses to make it public, or must all board members (recipients) choose to make the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Is an email sent to a school board member by more than one individual private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that neither the board member nor the individuals (senders) has previously made the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;a. If such an email is classified as private data, is the School District required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision from the individual(s) senders as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;b. If such an email is classified as private data, must it be released in response to a data request if one individual chooses to make it public, or must all of the individuals who were senders of the email choose to make the email public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. If the emails in No. 1 and/or No. 2 are classified as private data, does the fact that a school board member(s) or individual(s) (as either sender or recipient) has shared the email with a person or entity (other than the School District) render the email public data thereafter? In other words, if a board member or individual has forwarded an email or shared the contents of an email with a person or entity (other than the School District), is the email public data and thus it must be released to a member of the public?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Is an employee of the School District an “individual” under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that the employee is acting outside his/her role as an employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of this discussion, based upon the information Ms. Wallner provided, the Commissioner assumes that the District does not maintain the data in question, except to the extent necessary for the responsible authority to fulfill his/her duties to the school board. (The responsible authority for a school board is an employee of the District who is appointed by the board. See Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (C).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; Is correspondence (email) sent from an individual to more than one board member private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that neither the individual (sender) nor board member(s) has previously made the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) If such an email is classified as private data, is the School District required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision by the board member(s) as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) If such an email is classified as private data, must it be released in response to a data request if one board member chooses to make it public, or must all board members (recipients) choose to make the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, classifies correspondence between individuals and elected officials as private data but also provides that the correspondence may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the statutory language refers to the sender or the recipient, which could be read to mean that it applies only to those situations involving a single sender and a single recipient. However, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, in ascertaining the intention of the legislature, the following presumptions may guide: the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable; (2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, applies to situations in which there may be one or more sender and/or one or more recipient of any particular email correspondence. Accordingly, assuming that neither the individual (sender) nor board member(s) has previously made the email correspondence public, then that correspondence is private under section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Issue 1 (a), it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the School District, in response to a request for correspondence, is not required to seek a decision by the board member(s) as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made. Here, at the time of the request, the email was private. Section 13.601 does not impose an affirmative obligation on the District to ask whether the sender or recipient(s) chooses to make it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Issue 1 (b), if such an email is classified as private data, it must be released in response to a data request if only one board member chooses to make it public. Section 13.601 does not require that all board members must agree to make the email public, it affords the right to make correspondence public to each sender/recipient individually.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Is an email sent to a school board member by more than one individual private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that neither the board member nor the individuals (senders) has previously made the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) If such an email is classified as private data, is the School District required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision from the individual(s) senders as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) If such an email is classified as private data, must it be released in response to a data request if one individual chooses to make it public, or must all of the individuals who were senders of the email choose to make the email public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis of this issue is the same as for Issue 1. If neither the board member nor the sender(s) has made the correspondence public, it is private. The District is not obligated to ask any sender if s/he chooses to make it public. Any individual sender may choose to make the email public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt; If the emails in No. 1 and/or No. 2 are classified as private data, does the fact that a school board member(s) or individual(s) (as either sender or recipient) has shared the email with a person or entity (other than the School District) render the email public data thereafter? In other words, if a board member or individual has forwarded an email or shared the contents of an email with a person or entity (other than the School District), is the email public data and thus it must be released to a member of the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, if either a sender or a recipient of correspondence shares it with a person or entity other than the District, the correspondence is public, and, upon request, it must be provided to the requester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 4.  Is an employee of the School District an “individual” under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that the employee is acting outside his/her role as an employee?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined that a government entity can protect correspondence between its elected officials and certain employees if the employees were writing as private citizens. However, if the employees were writing in their roles as employees, the entity cannot use Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601 to withhold the data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267479&quot; title=&quot;07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if a District employee acting in his/her capacity as a private citizen, not as a District employee, wrote to a board member, the employee would be considered an for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has a final comment. The description of the data request at issue here refers to correspondence between representatives, including their attorneys, of an organization (YFNS) and District board members, as well as correspondence between other individuals or group who associate themselves in any respect whatsoever with YFNS or its views. In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267479#/detail/appId/1/id/266863&quot; title=&quot;10-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-023&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The email in question is correspondence between Mayor Kuehn and Mr. Oldendorf. Although Mr. Oldendorf is an individual, the Commissioner does not believe the Legislature intended for the protection afforded under section 13.601, subdivision 2, to apply to an individual writing as a representative of an organization. First, and foremost, the classification of private applies to data on individuals (as opposed to data about organizations or businesses). See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud, 765 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009). It is unlikely that someone corresponding on behalf of an organization is writing about an issue as a private citizen and not about an issue related to the organization.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the analysis above, if the correspondence between Mayor Kuehn and Mr. Oldendorf relates to an issue involving Mr. Oldendorf, as an individual, the data in the email can be protected by section 13.601, subdivision 2. If the correspondence relates to an issue involving an organization Mr. Oldendorf represents, such as the Gateway Trail Association, the data in the email cannot be protected under section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, correspondence between a board member and an individual who is authorized to represent YFNS is not subject to protection under section 13.601, and is presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Wallner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Correspondence (email) sent from an individual to more than one board member is private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, if neither the individual (sender) nor board member(s) has previously made the email public.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If such an email is classified as private data, the School District is not required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision by the board member(s) as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) If such an email is classified as private data, it must be released in response to a data request if one board member chooses to make it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;An email sent to a school board member by more than one individual is private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that neither the board member nor the individuals (senders) have previously made the email public.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If such an email is classified as private data, the School District is not required (in response to a data request) to seek a decision from the individual(s) senders as to whether he/she chooses to make the email public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) If such an email is classified as private data, it must be released in response to a data request if one individual chooses to make it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the emails in No. 1 and/or No. 2 are classified as private data, the fact that a school board member(s) or individual(s) (as either sender or recipient) has shared the email with a person or entity (other than the School District) renders the email public data thereafter. In other words, if a board member or individual has forwarded an email or shared the contents of an email with a person or entity (other than the School District), the email is public data and thus it must be released to a member of the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;An employee of the School District is an “individual” under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, assuming that the employee is acting outside his/her role as an employee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 22, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267905</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-018</Title><title>Opinion 11 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267140&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-12-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A minor student is alleged to have
engaged in the maltreatment of another minor
student; district employees filed a report under
Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556. The district
asked what data, including surveillance video from the
hallways, written communication between district staff
and the social services agency, and amongst district
employees and administration, that it must provide to
the parent about her/his child, who is the subject of
the allegations of abuse.
The Commissioner discussed that it appears that the
data in question are classified either by Minnesota
Statutes, sections 13.32 or 626.556, subdivision 11. It
is also possible that some of the data are classified by
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The parent of a
minor student has the right to gain access to private
data about him/her. The identities of the mandated
reporters are confidential.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 9, 2011; School District 23 (Frazee-Vergas)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 21, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated October 19, 2011, from Kristi Hastings, an attorney representing School District 23, Frazee - Vergas Public Schools. In her letter, Ms. Hastings asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Hastings provided them is as follows. In the opinion request she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;School District employees received reports from a student that lead [sic] the employees to file a mandatory report of maltreatment of a minor pursuant to Minnesota Statute section 626.556 with the local social services agency. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hastings stated that the District then received a data request for certain data from the parent/guardian of the minor (who also is the individual alleged to have engaged in the maltreatment). She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;What information must the District provide to the requestor in light of the mandatory report? Clearly, the District can withhold the names of the individuals who filed the section 626.556 report, but the District seeks guidance as to the other elements requested by the parent as it relates to his/her child (but also as to him/her as the subject of the allegations of abuse). The [parent/guardian] appears to be seeking surveillance video from the hallways and written communication between district staff and the social services agency and amongst district employees and administration. The surveillance videos would certainly show the identity of the district employees who made the mandatory report to the local social services agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Hasting&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data School District 23, Frazee - Vergas, maintains related to its filing of a report of maltreatment of a minor, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data that public educational institutions maintain about parents and students. With some exceptions, most data about parents and students are classified as private. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, is the statutory provision that addresses reporting of maltreatment of minors. In relevant part, subdivision 11 of section 626.556 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;ll records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency including any written reports filed under subdivision 7, shall be private data on individuals The records shall be collected and maintained in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13. An individual subject of a record shall have access to the record in accordance with those sections, except that the name of the reporter shall be confidential while the report is under assessment or investigation except as otherwise permitted by this subdivision. After the assessment or investigation is completed, the name of the reporter shall be confidential. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the facts as Ms. Hastings presented them, it appears some of the data in question might be classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, and some of the data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556. It is also possible some of the data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 (personnel data). Because the Commissioner has not seen the data and does not understand the facts and circumstances as the District does, the District must make the determination as to what data are classified by which statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, are private - unless one of the exceptions in section 13.32 applies. Private data are accessible to the subject of the data. If the data subject is a minor, the parent/guardian has access to the data. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, also are private. However, the identity of the mandated reporter is confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, given the likelihood that some of the data in question, including the videos, are about multiple data subjects, the Commissioner notes his comments in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003&quot; title=&quot;11-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-013&lt;/a&gt; regarding data that may be inextricably intertwined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In such cases, when one of the data subjects makes a request for access to data about him/herself, it is incumbent upon the government entity to try to separate the data and provide the requestor with data about him/her without releasing private data about the other data subject(s). If separation is impossible, it may be necessary for the entity to withhold the entire document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;01-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publication&lt;/em&gt;s:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Hastings raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears the data in question are classified either by Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32 or 626.556, subdivision 11. It is also possible that some of the data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. If the data are private, the data subject has access to the data about him/her. If the data subject is a minor, his/her parent/guardian has access to the data. The identity of the mandated reporter is confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 9, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267140</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Child maltreatment data (626.556)</Title><Id>267133</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-017</Title><title>Opinion 11 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267261&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-11-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An employee asked if his rights were
violated when his county employer collected his
fingerprints and other private data, including Social
Security number (SSN), and did not provide a
Tennessen warning notice (see Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.04, subdivision 2) prior to collecting the
data.
The Commissioner discussed the contents of an email
sent to all county staff prior to the data collection
(which the county argued constituted the Tennessen
notice) and found that it met some of the notice
requirements. However, the notice did not adequately
explain the consequences of supplying or not
supplying the fingerprints. In addition, going forward,
the Commissioner discussed that it would be helpful to
clearly label a Tennessen notice as such. Finally, the
Commissioner noted that if an entity is collecting an
individual’s SSN, federal law imposes some additional
notice requirements. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 23, 2011; Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated September 12, 2011, from Michael Ring. In his letter, Mr. Ring asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights related to certain data collected by his employer, the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office. IPAD requested additional information/clarification, which Mr. Ring provided on October 5, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, in response to Mr. Ring&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 19, 2011, were to inform him of Mr. Ring&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On November 3, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Backstrom.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Ring presented them is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office required all professional and administrative staff to be fingerprinted recently. That process included collection of not only our fingerprints, it also included collecting names, gender, state [sic] of birth, height and weight. When I was fingerprinted on June 3, 2011, the deputy sheriff also requested my social security number for insertion on the fingerprint card. No Tennessen warning was given prior to collection of that data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Ring&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it collected fingerprints from an employee and did not provide a Tennessen warning notice prior to collecting the data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain data about employees are public (section 13.43, subdivision 2) and certain data are private (section 13.43, subdivision 4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity collects private or confidential data about an individual from that individual, the entity must provide a notice, commonly referred to as a Tennessen warning. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.) This notice must contain the following: (1) the purpose and intended use of the data; in other words, why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data; (2) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (3) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (4) the identity of other persons or entities outside of the collecting agency authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Backstrom wrote that to carry out its statutory duty to prosecute crime, the County Attorney&apos;s Office requires access to the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). He explained that CJIS is a set of state and federal electronic data bases that includes records of individuals that have been collected by state and federal law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and prosecution of crime.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Backstrom further wrote that CJIS is managed by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), and that the BCA and the FBI impose personnel security policies and procedures on all law enforcement agencies as a condition of the BCA&apos;s providing electronic access to CJIS. He stated that one such requirement is that the identity of all persons with direct access to a computer terminal that is linked to CJIS or the right to unescorted access to the area where the terminals are located must be verified by a national fingerprint-based record check. Mr. Backstrom wrote, All employees and volunteers in my Office have either direct access to computer terminals that are linked to CJIS or unescorted access to the areas where these terminals are located.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Backstrom wrote that an email the office manager sent to all staff on May 18, 2011, constituted the Tennessen notice required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2. Mr. Backstrom provided a copy of the email to the Commissioner and provided the following explanation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The] email explains the purpose and intended use of the private data, states that the employees and volunteers are required to provide the data, states that failure to comply will result in termination of the agreement with the BCA that allows for access to CJIS and identifies that the data will be released to the BCA. The email directive constitutes managerial direction from the employer. Accordingly, the normal inference from such direction is that failure to comply with it would amount to insubordination and would warrant negative employment action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ring&apos;s question is whether the Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it collected his fingerprints on June 3, 2011. The Commissioner has reviewed the May 18, 2011, email, and thinks it meets some requirements of a Tennessen notice. First, in stating that the fingerprints will be sent to BCA so it can conduct criminal background checks and that background checks are required because of new state and federal regulations, the email explains the purpose and intended use within the Office and that staff are legally required to provide fingerprints.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, in stating that fingerprints are going to the BCA, the Office informed Mr. Ring of outside persons or entities to which the Office has authority to release the fingerprints.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, where the email notice falls short is in informing Mr. Ring of the consequences of supplying or not supplying his fingerprints. While the email states that failure to comply with the fingerprinting requirement means that the County Attorney&apos;s Office will no longer have access to CJIS, it does not explain the consequences to Mr. Ring, e.g., that failure to comply will result in negative employment action (as Mr. Backstrom described above). As the Commissioner has discussed in many previous advisory opinions, the purpose of the notice is to provide individuals with sufficient information to decide whether to provide the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, going forward, it might be helpful to clearly label a Tennessen notice as such and explain that it is being supplied as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2. Nowhere in the May 18, 2011, email is it explained that the email constitutes a Tennessen notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that both Mr. Ring and Mr. Backstrom discussed that in August 2011, almost three months after the Office collected Mr. Ring&apos;s fingerprints, Mr. Ring signed a consent form giving permission for the Office to release his fingerprints to the BCA. While this seems to indicate the Office can share the data with the BCA, it does not negate the obligation the Office had to provide a Tennessen notice at the time of collection. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488#/detail/appId/1/id/267818&quot; title=&quot;98-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-007&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-009&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488#/detail/appId/1/id/267514&quot; title=&quot;04-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-010&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488#/detail/appId/1/id/267652&quot; title=&quot;07-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as the Commissioner previously has opined, if an entity is collecting an individual&apos;s Social Security number (SSN), federal law imposes some additional notice requirements. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488#/detail/appId/1/id/267764&quot; title=&quot;01-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266882&quot; title=&quot;04-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-020&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267792&quot; title=&quot;04-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-048&lt;/a&gt;.) (See also Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. section 552a note - Disclosure of Social Security Number.) The May 18, 2011, email does not meet all the federal notice requirements; therefore, the Office has not met its obligation under federal law. Mr. Backstrom did state that the Office ceased collection of SSNs but, apparently, not before it collected Mr. Ring&apos;s fingerprints. Mr. Backstrom wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Sheriff&apos;s Office initially requested] that the employees and volunteers, at the time of fingerprinting, supply their social security number. However, that department subsequently learned that such information was not necessary in order to perform the national background checks. Accordingly, fingerprint cards with social security numbers on them were shredded the fingerprint cards were reprinted, and the affected employees had to sign the new fingerprint cards, which did not contain social security numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Having learned the fingerprint cards with SSNs were collected in error, it is commendable that the Office disposed of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Ring raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When the Dakota County Attorney&apos;s Office collected fingerprints from an employee, it provided some components of a Tennessen Warning notice, but not all. Therefore, it complied, in part, and did not comply, in part, with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 23, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267261</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-01-06T16:08:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-016</Title><title>Opinion 11 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267238&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-11-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Sauk Rapids comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to data provided to the City and/or the City’s contractor by a private company that the City then used to determine whether to provide financial assistance to the company?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 7, 2011; City of Sauk Rapids</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 25, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 23, 2011, from John Bodette of the St. Cloud Times. In his letter, Mr. Bodette asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Sauk Rapids. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Bodette provided on September 7 and 19, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ross Olson, City Administrator, in response to Mr. Bodette&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 21, 2011, were to inform him of Mr. Bodette&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 5, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Adam Ripple, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Bodette provided them is as follows. He wrote in the opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Sauk Rapids, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, is in the process of arranging a $500,000 forgivable loan (grant) to The Coleman Companies Inc. for an expansion that will add about 100 jobs at Coleman&apos;s Sauk Rapids factory. The loan funds will come from public sources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Aug. 12, 2011, [a newspaper reporter] learned that the Sauk Rapids City Council had scheduled a special meeting for Aug. 15 to act on a proposed financial information agreement requested by The Coleman Companies Inc. The agreement states that city and state staff will review Coleman financial documents as part of the city&apos;s due diligence in deciding whether to make the loan, but that they will then return all of the financial documents to the company before advising the City Council on whether the documentation supports a decision to proceed with the loan. The city claims that the agreement is consistent with [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] and contends that it will not have to make any of the records received from Coleman public because the city will no longer have them in its physical possession when the loan is approved by the city council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bodette provided to the Commissioner a copy of the agreement and a copy of a Sauk Rapids City Council Request for Action document, dated August 22, 2011, that contains background information about the agreement. In part, the document states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Coleman is a privately held corporation and its financial information is not public information. [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] classifies the financial information as private nonpublic data during the review process. However, after the grant is awarded much of Coleman&apos;s financial information would then be reclassified as public data. To avoid the disclosure of the information, the City will return the information to Coleman after it has been reviewed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Agreement is consistent with [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], but most importantly for Coleman, the City agrees not to make or retain copies and to return all the information to Coleman before it becomes public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bodette wrote that on August 15, 2011, the City Council voted to approve the financial agreement with the company effectively approving the return of the company&apos;s financial information without public disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 15, 2011, the reporter made a data request to the City for copies of all financial information for The Coleman Company Inc. that becomes public after the grant is awarded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bodette wrote that on September 12, 2011, the City Council approved financial assistance for The Coleman Companies Inc., and that the reporter renewed her request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bodette stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;City officials stated that they did not possess Coleman financial documents; rather, they based their due diligence on a recommendation from a consultant who is said to have reviewed the documents at Coleman offices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The consultant was retained by the city for the purpose of reviewing the financial documents and therefore would appear to be acting as the city&apos;s agent in this context.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [newspaper] maintains that the city&apos;s use of a consultant does not alter the application of the Minnesota Official Records Act, Minn. Stat. 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Bodette&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Sauk Rapids comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to data provided to the City and/or the City&apos;s contractor by a private company that the City then used to determine whether to provide financial assistance to the company?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In responding to a data request, a government entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor is denied access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires government entities to create records that document their official activities. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, official records must be kept for time periods as prescribed in the entity&apos;s record retention schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, if a government entity contracts with a private person to perform any of its functions, data related to performance of the contract are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ripple wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The St. Cloud Times seeks documents that are in the sole possession of The Coleman Company, Inc. The documents were viewed by Ehlers, Inc., at Coleman&apos;s office. The documents were not submitted to or received by the City of Sauk Rapids. Neither the City nor Ehlers have these documents, and no employee of the City has even seen these documents, let alone possessed them at any time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has no legal obligation to receive or even review the documents in question, but the City of Sauk Rapids decided to verify representations made by The Coleman Company, Inc. and utilized the services of Ehlers, Inc. to assist the City in reviewing Coleman&apos;s financial records. However, Coleman was concerned about the release of confidential information and refused to physically provide to Ehlers or to the City its confidential documents. To move past this hurdle and ensure that the City did not miss a stellar business opportunity, the City decided to have Ehlers, Inc. perform the review of the financial records at Coleman&apos;s business offices. Under this approach, the representations made by Coleman could be reviewed by Ehlers with a report submitted to the City Council. The City performed its verification, without compromising the confidentiality of Coleman&apos;s records, under a process that was fully transparent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On August 26th, Ehlers went to the Coleman facility in Sauk Rapids and reviewed their books. Ehlers did not retain copies of any data or take detailed notes. Ehlers reviewed, but did not acquire possession of, financial documents and reported its findings back to the City. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The St. Cloud Times has all of the data that is possessed by the City. The Ehlers report has been disclosed to the Times, and the Times has thus had access to all data that the City has, or has ever had in connection with this matter. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s response to the newspaper is that neither the City, nor its contractor, collected and is maintaining any of the requested data. The problem with that response, however, is that for the City to meet its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, it must make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [its] official activities. Certainly, verifying a corporation&apos;s financial viability before providing it with $500,000 in financial assistance is an official activity. Therefore, because of the interplay between Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17, the City should maintain data it used to determine financial viability for the time period specified in the City&apos;s retention schedule, and should have provided data classified as public to the newspaper. The City did not; therefore, it is not in compliance with Chapter 13 or section 15.17. As the Commissioner wrote in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267846&quot; title=&quot;08-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-026&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/266763&quot; title=&quot;10-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-017&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states that access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Thus, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be accessible pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267464&quot; title=&quot;94-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-035&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267385&quot; title=&quot;98-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267529&quot; title=&quot;10-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-018&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/266851&quot; title=&quot;11-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;11-001&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, that classifies data a business submits when requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds. Subdivision 1 of section 13.591 classifies certain data as private or nonpublic:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;financial information about the business, including credit reports; financial statements; net worth calculations; business plans; income and expense projections; balance sheets; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 of section 13.591 provides that if the business receives financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds, the data described in subdivision 1 become public except for the following: business plans; income and expense projections not related to the financial assistance provided; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any other data submitted by the business would be public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Bodette raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Sauk Rapids did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, when it denied access to data about a private company the City used in determining whether to provide financial assistance to the company.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 7, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267238</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official records</Title><Id>266372</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-015</Title><title>Opinion 11 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267555&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-11-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Should a prosecutor’s office require a release of information signed by the victim prior to releasing data to that victim’s legal representative under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 1, 2011; Clay County Attorney&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 13, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Michelle Lawson, Interim Clay County Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Lawson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain government data and the data practices rights afforded the subjects of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Lawson provided them is as follows. She wrote in the opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Clay County Attorney&apos;s Office is developing a policy related to the release of otherwise confidential information to victims that are represented by an attorney. Active criminal investigative data is classified as confidential under M.S.A. 13.82, subdivision 7 until the data is presented in Court or the case becomes inactive. However, crime victims and their legal representatives have access to the otherwise confidential active criminal investigative data under M.S.A. 13.82, subdivision 13. In terms of our policy, can/should our office require a release of information signed by the victim prior to releasing information to an attorney for the victim, in lieu of the victim themselves under 13.82, subdivision 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The implication that this has for prosecutors is that we are specifically required by statute to provide a victim with this information that would not be accessible to the general public. In addition to having the statutory obligation to provide victims with this information, our prosecuting attorneys are also subject to the Lawyers Rules of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Rule 4.2 of the Lawyers Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibits an attorney from having direct contact with a represented party; instead all communication with that party must be through their legal counsel. In an attempt to reconcile these competing obligations when we encounter victims that are represented by an attorney I am developing an office policy which addresses that scenario. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lawson wrote that she was copying her opinion request to the Assistant Director of the Office of Lawyers Responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Lawson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Should a prosecutor&apos;s office require a release of information signed by the victim prior to releasing data to that victim&apos;s legal representative under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Active criminal investigative data maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified as confidential (data about individuals) and protected nonpublic (data not about individuals). (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7.) Generally, confidential/protected nonpublic data are accessible to law enforcement agency staff who need the data to do their work but not to the public and not to the subject(s) of the data. In addition, and of particular relevance here, these data can be released to entities/persons as authorized by law. (Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.04, subdivision 3; 13.05, subdivision 3; and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0600.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One such statutory provision authorizing specific persons access to confidential/protected nonpublic data is Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13, which allows law enforcement agencies, in certain situations, to release active investigative data to a victim or his/her legal representative:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On receipt of a written request, the prosecuting authority shall release investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency to the victim of a criminal act or alleged criminal act or to the victim&apos;s legal representative unless the release to the individual subject of the data would be prohibited under section 13.821 or the prosecuting authority reasonably believes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) that the release of that data will interfere with the investigation; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) that the request is prompted by a desire on the part of the requester to engage in unlawful activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Information collected, created, and maintained related to a criminal investigation likely will have more than one subject, often times including data about a perpetrator and a victim(s). If the confidential/protected nonpublic data are about individuals other than the victim, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13, provides the statutory authority for law enforcement to release the data to either the victim or his/her legal representative.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis is the same if the data are about the victim; Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13, provides the authority for law enforcement to release the data to the victim or his/her legal representative. Law enforcement is not required to obtain informed consent from the victim before releasing the data to his/her legal representative because a data subject cannot give consent to release confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the victim is a minor, the parent or guardian also has access to the data unless the minor requests that law enforcement not release the data and law enforcement determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500.) Again, for the reasons previously stated, neither the minor victim nor his/her parent or guardian would be required to give informed consent for law enforcement to release data about the minor to the minor&apos;s legal representative.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, if the case involves certain types of crimes, and the victim is incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the term &quot;victim&quot; includes the family members, guardian, or custodian. (Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.01- crime victims, definitions) In other words, if Chapter 611A applies, the language in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13, gives law enforcement authority to release not public criminal investigative data to certain individuals acting in place of the victim and to those individuals&apos; legal representatives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is important to point out that government entities are required to protect government data. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Therefore, before the County releases any not public investigative data to the victim or his/her legal representative, it should take reasonable measures to ensure they are who they purport to be, and also to have some type of policy for documenting that the attorney represents the victim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Lawson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;A prosecutor&apos;s office is not required to obtain a release of information signed by the victim prior to releasing data to that victim&apos;s legal representative under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 1, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267555</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Authority to release</Title><Id>266732</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Confidential data</Title><Id>266733</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Victim access to active investigative data (13.82, subd. 13 / subd. 6)</Title><Id>266500</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-014</Title><title>Opinion 11 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267384&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-10-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Faribault comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to city score sheets of local softball games?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 21, 2011; City of Faribault</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 31, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 26, 2011, from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of the Faribault Daily News. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Faribault. IPAD asked for additional information, which Mr. Anfinson provided on September 6, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Chuck Whiting, City Administrator, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 7, 2011, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 23, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Scott Riggs, the City&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Anfinson provided them is as follows. The newspaper staff requested access to softball score sheets. Mr. Whiting responded that the City considered the data to be private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548 (social recreational data).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Newspaper staff wrote to Mr. Whiting, asking him to reconsider the City&apos;s position:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to the statute, that citation refers very specifically to data collected and maintained by political subdivisions (cities) &quot;for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Player rosters included on softball game score sheets are not collected by the city for the purpose of enrolling those individuals in the softball program. The newspaper&apos;s intent in seeking the score sheets is not to learn more about the individual players, but rather to inform our readers, as we have for years in the past, of the results of the games.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Whiting again denied access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Faribault comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to city score sheets of local softball games?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548, classifies, as private, the name, address, telephone number, and any other identifying information about an individual that a political subdivision collects and maintains &lt;em&gt;for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Riggs wrote, &quot;The softball program in question is solely run by the City and its Park and Recreation Department.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Riggs further explained that prior to the 2011 softball season, the City created, and made available to the public, full score sheets that included all &quot;activities&quot; associated with softball games - runs, hits, walks, errors, etc. He continued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Beginning with the 2011 softball season, the score sheets only depict the score and the names of enrolled individuals in the softball program. ... The score sheets are collected by the umpires and forwarded to the City to maintain compliance as noted herein. The dual purpose of the present score sheets is to determine that individuals are properly enrolled and able to participate in the softball program, as well as to report the final scores of the games.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Riggs defended the City&apos;s position that the data are not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548 but also wrote, &quot;[t]he City is willing to work with the requestor and willing to provide the data upon the issuance of an advisory opinion that such score sheet data, including the names, must be produced.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Riggs provided a copy of a blank score sheet to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson asserted that the data in the score sheets are not protected by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The only information that the score sheets contain is player names along with basic statistical data about the game ... However, the score sheet information - including the players&apos; names - is clearly not collected and maintained by the city &quot;for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs,&quot; but only to document results of games. Thus by its own terms, section13.548 would not apply to the score sheets. Furthermore, we are not aware of any other statute that would plausibly classify the players&apos; names, or the remainder of the information appearing on the score sheets as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson further wrote, &quot;Even if section 13.548 could somehow be interpreted to encompass the score sheets, the names of the players would still be publicly accessible because by playing in the softball games, the players voluntarily and publicly identify themselves as participants in the recreational activity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He elaborated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The situation seems closely analogous to athletic contests conducted by public schools. Even though the names of public school students linked to information about their athletic participation may not be classified as public if not listed by the school as directory information, the students voluntarily disclose their identities, and waive any privacy claims that might otherwise exist by participating in the public athletic events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267834&quot; title=&quot;03-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-010&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Commissioner opined that although videotapes of a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public, might contain private data, the data subjects have, in effect, consented to release of those data by participating in the event.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson that the current situation is similar to that discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267834&quot; title=&quot;03-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-010&lt;/a&gt;. Although it seems the names the umpire collects at each game are private because s/he is comparing that information with enrollment data each of the participants originally provided to the City, by agreeing to participate in games that are held in a public place, the players have, in effect, given implied consent for their names to be released. The fact they are playing softball, the team they play for, and statistical information tied to each player is all public. The score of each game is public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Faribault did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to City score sheets of local softball games. Although the names of the players likely are private, the data subjects have implicitly given consent to release of their names and associated game data by participating in games that are open to the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 21, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267384</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Implied vs. written</Title><Id>266400</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Social recreational data (13.548 / 13.57)</Title><Id>267116</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-013</Title><title>Opinion 11 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268003&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-09-08T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must the City of Hibbing provide access to the following data to a former employee:  written informal complaints and observations about that former employee made by one or more City employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 8, 2011; City of Hibbing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 1, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated July 29, 2011, from Pamela L. VanderWiel, attorney for the City of Hibbing. In her letter, Ms. VanderWiel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data X, a former City employee, requested, representative copies of which Ms. VanderWiel provided. IPAD asked for clarification, which she provided in a letter dated August 15, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 17, 2011, IPAD wrote to X inviting him/her to submit comments; X did not do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. VanderWiel follows. X asked for all correspondence, including e-mails sent between and among City Council members and the Mayor, or other individuals, relating to X. Ms. VanderWiel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the course of reviewing documents potentially responsive to this request, the City has identified a number of emails from one or more City employees to one or more City Council members, informally commenting or complaining about [X&apos;s] activities while at work. No formal complaint about [X] was ever made, and the data was never used as a basis for discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the City&apos;s position that these email communications are private personnel data&apos; about both [X] and the author. The communications reveal the identity of one or more individuals who voiced their concerns about [X], and reveal as much about the work environment experienced by the complainant(s) as they do about [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. VanderWiel also stated that the data cannot be redacted. Citing &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), she wrote that even if the City redacted the name of the employee(s), X, due to his/her former position with the City, would [be able] to identify the author(s) of these communications easily . For that reason, the City believes it is proper to withhold the documents in their entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. VanderWiel&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must the City of Hibbing provide access to the following data to a former employee: written informal complaints and observations about that former employee made by one or more City employees?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Ms. VanderWiel stated that the complainant-employee(s) did not lodge a formal complaint(s) and the City did not take disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. VanderWiel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner advised the City of Mahtomedi that information identifying City-employee complainants on nonpending police department internal affairs complaint forms was classified as private personnel data about the complainants. The emails in this circumstance are no different. The communications reveal the identity of one or more individuals who voiced their concerns about [X], and reveal as much about the work environment experienced by the complainant(s) as they do about [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the sample data Ms. VanderWiel provided, it appears that the documents contain private personnel data about more than one individual. In such cases, when one of the data subjects makes a request for access to data about him/herself, it is incumbent upon the government entity to try to separate the data and provide the requestor with data about him/her without releasing private data about the other data subject(s). If separation is impossible, it may be necessary for the entity to withhold the entire document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed Northwest Publications:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267552#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267552#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. VanderWiel, the identities of the employees cannot be redacted from the documents at issue, because to do so would render the remaining parts of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner agrees it is reasonable for the City to take the position here that the data in question are inextricably intertwined and may be withheld in their entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. VanderWiel raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Hibbing may not provide access to the following data to a former employee: written informal complaints and observations about that former employee made by one or more City employees.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 8, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268003</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-08-29T14:01:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-012</Title><title>Opinion 11 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267109&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-09-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Dakota County Agricultural Society Board subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 8, 2011; Dakota County Agricultural Society Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 25, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD), received a letter dated July 11, 2011, from Cathy Busho. In her letter, Ms. Busho asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Dakota County Agricultural Society Board is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Don Storlie, President of the Board, in response to Ms. Busho&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 27, 2011, were to inform him of Ms. Busho&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On August 16, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Storlie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Busho provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, she listed several instances in Minnesota law that reference the Agricultural Society and link it to having a public purpose or connection, such as being the recipient of public monies:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Agricultural Society] was found [sic] in 1858 and incorporated in 1918 as a perpetual non-profit corporation pursuant to now [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 38]. The primary task is to operate the Dakota County Fair. The membership in the corporation is open to any adult who resides in Dakota County. The members of the [Agricultural Society] elect a Board of Directors at its annual meeting .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Dakota County Board of Commissioners has authority under [Minnesota Statutes, section 375.18, subds. 8 and 9] to appropriate money to help agricultural societies with land and lease of land. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Agricultural Society] has [statutory authority] to receive support services from Dakota County. [Minnesota Statutes, section 383D.49.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Agricultural Society] is listed as a Governmental Subdivision in [Minnesota Statutes, section 353.01, subdivisions 2a(5) and 6(b) - certain full-time employees of the Agricultural Society are members of the Public Employees Retirement Association.] &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Agricultural Society] receives a distribution of aid from State of Minnesota as payment for Fair Premiums paid for exhibits shown at the county fair. [Minnesota Statutes, section 38.02.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Busho also noted that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267940&quot; title=&quot;10-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-004&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the Agricultural Society is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data practices:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[p]ursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 11, a political subdivision includes an entity created pursuant to law. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 38, contains the enabling legislation that grants county agricultural societies their powers and responsibilities. Thus, county agricultural societies are political subdivisions as that term is defined in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Busho&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Dakota County Agricultural Society Board subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most public bodies are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court continually recognizes the law&apos;s importance. In Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002), the court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983) (citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. [footnote omitted]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive session, must be open to the public&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) of the governing body of a&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) school district however organized,
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) unorganized territory,
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) county,
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) statutory or home rule charter city,
&lt;br /&gt;
(5) town, or
&lt;br /&gt;
(6) other public body 
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Storlie wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to your letter, we are abiding by the open meeting laws. We were questioned about the open meeting laws back about 3 years ago and we did have an opinion written by our attorney at that time so we are quite sure we are doing it according to the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that the Agricultural Society is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, receives public monies, and has authority (eminent domain power - Minnesota Statutes, section 38.05 and tax levy power through the county - Minnesota Statutes, section 38.27) similar to that of the public bodies specifically referenced in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, the Commissioner concludes that the Board is an other public body and, as such, is subject to Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Busho raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Dakota County Agricultural Society Board is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 8, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267109</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-25T16:16:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-011</Title><title>Opinion 11 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267293&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-29T15:19:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May the City of Saint Paul classify architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of a particular building as not public “security information” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2011; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 22, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 18, 2011, from Rachel Tierney, Assistant Saint Paul City Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Tierney asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD asked for clarification, which Ms. Tierney provided in letters dated April 8 and May 23, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Ms. Tierney, who represents the City&apos;s Department of Safety and Inspections (SPDS), stated that the City maintains building permit applications, architectural plans, and other documentation related to the construction of a health care center, administrative headquarters and parking ramp from Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS and PPMNS project). The City received a request for copies of the architectural plans for the project, and subsequently received ;a request from PPMNS to treat the architectural plans and all related documentation as nonpublic under Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd. 1(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City asked PPMNS for additional information necessary to evaluate its request that the City classify the data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37. Ms. Tierney stated that based upon the information PPMNS provided, the City believes it is appropriate to classify the data under section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a). Ms. Tierney provided copies of the information submitted to the City by Susan A. Casey, attorney and Chief Compliance Officer for PPMNS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Tierney&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;May the City of Saint Paul classify architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of a particular building as not public &quot;security information&quot; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), in relevant part, defines security information as: &quot;government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the City, Ms. Casey wrote that PPMNS submitted approximately 1,200 pages of plans:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Every single drawing and the covers of each of the two specification books contain the identity and contact information for the entire design and construction team; select other documents contain the identity of various suppliers, manufacturers and vendors associated with the project.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition, the plans contain descriptions of infrastructure including the location of security cameras; types of security equipment and materials used; entrances and exits to secured areas; the location and type of communications and utility networks; and the location of surgical suites where our most vulnerable patients and the physicians who serve them could be attacked by anyone who - as a result of viewing the plans - breached the security systems [.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;All plans submitted as part of the building permit process have been copyrighted in accordance with the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, USC). Accordingly, these plans cannot be photocopied or otherwise reproduced. We believe, however, that mere inspection of these documents poses a threat to the immediate safety of individuals involved in the construction of the building as well as to our employees and the patients we serve. Moreover, information contained in the plans increases the likelihood of trespass, tampering, and destruction of property.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;PPMNS and other Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country are the targets of picketing, harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and physical violence from a variety of individuals and organizations opposed to the reproductive health services we provide. [Ms. Casey included a document, &quot;&lt;/em&gt;Exhibit A&lt;em&gt;,&quot; which] is a listing of security incidents that occurred at PPMNS clinics since 1976, when PPMNS opened its Highland Park [Saint Paul] clinic and headquarters. These incidents range from picketing and similar organized disruption of patient care to arson, bomb attacks, shootings, and physical assault of our CEO in his office.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Casey further stated that the identity of contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and manufacturers should also be protected under section 13.37, because:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Groups opposed to the construction of the PPMNS building have identified several of these companies and have already begun a campaign of boycott and threatened harm. These groups are monitoring the construction site and posting videos showing various vendors associated with the project.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition to simple boycott, several vendors identified by the... cameras have received threatening letters and email, and at least one of them received a suspicious package on January 13, 2011.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. Casey stated that many of the subcontractors have taken steps to protect their identities (e.g., using unidentified equipment) because &quot;several of the companies that were first on the site&quot; were subject to harassment. (The general contractor is required by local code to post its name and contact information.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Casey further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The plans at issue include information regarding every aspect of the building&apos;s infrastructure, including security systems, safety features, utilities and emergency power sources, and floor plans. These documents are so detailed as to include the type and location of security cameras; entrances and exits to secured areas; types of equipment used for panic calls and to trigger lock-down; identification of which windows are bullet-proof and which are merely shatterproof; and the location of consultation, procedure, and related patient-care rooms. Disclosure of any subset of the infrastructure specifications would negate the careful and calculated planning designed to protect patients and staff from harm; disclosure of the entire set of plans would expose the building to violation and put its occupants in harm&apos;s way.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[Ms. Casey also included a document, &quot;&lt;/em&gt;Exhibit B&lt;em&gt;,&quot; which] is a report compiled by the Security Department at Planned Parenthood Federation of America of significant security threats occurring at Planned Parenthood affiliates throughout the country over the past year. These incidents, as well as those identified in Exhibit A, demonstrate the enmity that many individuals and organizations harbor against Planned Parenthood and the extent to which they will go to disrupt our services, even when it involves violence. The most egregious example, of course, were the slayings of eight people - four physicians, two clinic employees, a security guard and a clinic escort - since 1993.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued numerous advisory opinions on issues related to classifying data as security information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a). In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267835&quot; title=&quot;02-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2, may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme, but instead applies to otherwise public data in those specific situations in which an entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-046&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner wants to emphasize that, in the exercise of this discretion, a government entity must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would likely lead to substantial jeopardy. The entity cannot simply protect data from disclosure under section 13.37 on an arbitrary basis, but must base the determination on reasoned analysis.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Tierney, that PPMNS has presented sufficient detailed information and reasoned analysis for the City to determine that, given the particular circumstances of the PPMNS building project, the data in question are properly classified as not public security information, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Tierney further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the information identified by PPMNS is security information&apos;, then the building plans in their entirety also meet that definition. I have personally reviewed the requested building plans with St. Paul&apos;s Building Official. Literally every page of these plans contains information that raises an identifiable security concern. The documents are not text, they are pictures. As such, redaction would be meaningless because the location of what had been redacted would be obvious. Under these circumstances, the documents meet the test outlined in&lt;/em&gt; Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. App. 1993) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt; because the public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in Northwest Publications, Inc., maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the information provided to the Commissioner, it is reasonable for the City to take the position here that the data in question are inextricably intertwined and may be withheld from the public in their entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that Ms. Tierney stated the City&apos;s request does not include the architectural renderings associated with the PPMNS project, except to the extent they identify contractors whose identities warrant protection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Tierney raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Saint Paul may classify, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building as not public security information, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267293</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-010</Title><title>Opinion 11 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267162&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-27T15:18:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Red Wing comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its redaction of certain data in the appraisal of Minnesota National Golf Links?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 27, 2011; City of Red Wing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 9, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Kent Laugen. In his letter, Mr. Laugen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Red Wing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kay Kuhlmann, Council Administrator, in response to Mr. Laugen&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 16, 2011, were to inform her of Mr. Laugen&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. In a May 17, 2011, email, Ms. Kuhlmann, advised IPAD that Kathy Johnson, City Clerk, is the Responsible Party.; On June 1, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Eric Quiring, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Laugen provided them is as follows. He wrote in the opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Red Wing is contemplating the sale of its municipal golf course, Mississippi National Golf Links (MNGL). MNGL is leased by the City to Wendell Pittenger as Lessee. The contemplated sale involves revenue bonds held by Associated Bank for which the Lessee, Wendell Pittenger, is obligated. To date, no formal decision by the City has been made to sell the property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 1998, a decision was made to expand MNCL which involved the use of revenue bonds. The bonds were sold to Associated Bank. The lease between the City and Pittenger was amended to require that Pittenger, as part of his rent, would be obligated to pay the monthly bond payments as they came due.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The bonds owed to Associated Bank have come due, and the Red Wing City Council has twice negotiated an extension of the due date. It is my understanding that under the terms of the lease, the Lessee is obligated to pay the bonds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Several months ago an appraisal of MNGL was ordered by Associated Bank, as the client, for financing purposes, and was completed by James Norby on October 11, 2010. The City and Lessee agreed to share in the cost of the MNGL [appraisal].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Laugen discussed that the City publicly released the appraisal after making redactions pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(a). Mr. Laugen disagrees with the City&apos;s redactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Laugen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Red Wing comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its redaction of certain data in the appraisal of Minnesota National Golf Links?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(a), classifies estimated or appraised values of individual parcels of real property that are made by personnel of a government entity or by independent appraisers acting for a government entity for the purpose of selling or acquiring land through purchase or condemnation as confidential (data on individuals) or protected nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3(c) of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, provides that the data protected above become public upon the occurrence of any of the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) the data are submitted to a court-appointed condemnation commissioner;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(3) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Laugen argues for two reasons that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, does not apply. First is because the appraisal was not prepared by the City or on behalf of the City, but rather for the benefit of Associated Bank. He notes that the September 14, 2010, engagement letter to the appraiser from Associated Bank states, The intended user/client is Associated Bank. Secondly, Mr. Laugen asserts that the appraisal was not conducted for the purpose of selling or acquiring land, but for the purpose of evaluating financing options.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Laugen added that, for purposes of argument, if the appraisal was prepared on behalf of the City, all of the redacted data would be public, except for the final amount.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Quiring wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Despite the fact that the City and Lessee jointly sought (and paid for) the appraisal, Mr. Laugen asserts that the appraisal was not prepared on the City&apos;s behalf. Mr. Laugen asserts that the appraisal was ordered by Associated Bank solely for financing purposes related to outstanding revenue bonds. While it may be true that Associated Bank utilized the appraisal report for its own financing purposes, that does not alter the fact that the City contracted for the appraisal of the property for the purpose of determining the property&apos;s value for sale. As part of its budget for the past couple of years, the City has been considering cost-cutting and revenue-producing measures, including the potential sale of [the golf course]. The appraisal of the property was undertaken in furtherance of that purpose. Associated Bank&apos;s use of the appraisal report for its own purposes does not prevent the City from commissioning the appraisal for purposes of selling the property. Because the appraisal was made for the City for the purpose of selling land, the appraised values are protected nonpublic data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Laugen also appears to assert that all of the data in the appraisal report should be public because it has been exchanged among the City, the Lessee, and Associated Bank. There is no such exception in [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3]. ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the City&apos;s release of the total appraisal value of the property in order to allow the public to more fully participate in the consideration of the City&apos;s potential sale of [the golf course], the remaining redacted data in the appraisal report is classified as nonpublic pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.44, subd. 3(a). The redacted data consists solely of appraised values and the calculations used to arrive at the appraised values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Laugen states that the appraisal was obtained for Associated Bank for the purpose of evaluating financing options. Mr. Quiring states that the City and Lessee jointly obtained the appraisal to assist in determining an appropriate value for purposes of selling the golf course. This is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the appraisal was obtained so that Associated Bank could evaluate financing options, the data in the appraisal are not classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 1, and therefore, are public pursuant to the general presumption in Chapter 13. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, however, the City obtained the appraisal for the purpose of selling the golf course, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3, does apply and the City must publicly release all data in the appraisal except for the estimated or appraised values of the property. (Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267259&quot; title=&quot;04-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-005&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266508&quot; title=&quot;10-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-010&lt;/a&gt;.) (The City can withhold the values because apparently none of the events in Section 13.44, subdivision 3(c), have occurred.) The Commissioner has not seen an unredacted copy of the appraisal and therefore, cannot determine whether the City redacted appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Laugen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of Red Wing complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its redaction of certain data in the appraisal of Minnesota National Golf Links.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 27, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267162</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appraisals (13.44)</Title><Id>266507</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-009</Title><title>Opinion 11 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267997&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-20T15:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>
Did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for “the position study report of Dr. Schiller,” and the “compensation study report of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, Inc. (PSPC)”?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 20, 2011; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 5, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Cassandra K. Ward Brown. In her letter, Ms. Ward Brown asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data Special School District 1, Minneapolis maintains. On May 6, 2011, Ms. Ward Brown supplemented her request with additional information regarding the District&apos;s response to her data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bernadeia Johnson, District Superintendent, in response to Ms. Ward Brown&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 16, 2011, were to inform her of Ms. Ward Brown&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. Dan Loewenson, Chief of Staff for the District, responded, in a letter dated June 9, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Ms. Ward Brown, beginning in at least October, 2010, she asked the District for access to a compensation study conducted by a consultant for the District. In her May 6, 2011, email, Ms. Ward Brown wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]oday Mr. Loewenson provided me with a Power Pointreferencing the PSPC Report, a memo about the District&apos;s Compensation Philosophy, two handouts regarding the District&apos;s proposed salary plan and Schematic of Occupational Job Classes. I have not been provided a copy of the PSPC Report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In December 2010, she also asked for a copy of the Schiller report, which analyzes employment positions in the District. Ms. Ward Brown stated to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;.... This [sic] District subsequently provided me with a redacted copy of the Schiller report. The report is visibly redacted. Page 76 has a sentence that ends in the middle, and the remainder of the page is blank. Other locations in the report has [sic] text that does not follow logically. Dan Leowenson [sic] claims that only the Appendix was removed for convenience. However, the District General Counsel stated, without prompting, in a staff meeting that the Schiller Report has indeed been redacted, because it [sic] the redacted information might cause embarrassment to or upset the departments or individuals discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Ward-Brown&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for the position study report of Dr. Schiller,euro;#157; and the compensation study report of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, Inc. (PSPC)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Upon request for access to public government data, a government entity must provide the requested data, or cite the specific statutory basis on which it denies access. (Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Loewenson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A copy of the final position study report that Dr. Schiller&apos;s [sic] wrote for the District was given to Ms. Brown on April 1, 2011. The District did not redact Dr. Schiller&apos;s final report. Dr. Schiller was editing the report prior to giving the District the final report. The District asserts that the author editing a draft report prior to submitting a final report to the District does not constitute redaction within the meaning of the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A copy of the final compensation study report prepared for the District by PSPC was given to Ms. Brown on May 6, 2011. The District did not redact PSPC&apos;s final report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District furnished Ms. Brown with parts of the report as they became finalized prior to giving her a copy of the complete final report on May 6, 2011. The District asserts that giving the requestor portions of a report that become available prior to the entire report being finalized does not constitute redaction within the meaning of the MGDPA. The District gave Ms. Brown portions of the report prior to the report being finalized in order to comply with the spirit of the MGDPA and in an attempt to respond to her data practices request promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Ward Brown stated that the District did not provide her with a copy of the PSPC report; the District states that it did. Ms. Ward Brown gave examples for the basis of her claim that the District gave her a redacted copy of the Schiller report, and stated that the District&apos;s general counsel stated that the report was redacted. Apparently, according to Mr. Loewenson, the District provided Ms. Ward Brown with portions of the reports in draft versions; he stated that does not mean the District redacted any data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is unable to resolve factual disputes. If the District has redacted any data from either report, it must cite the specific statutory basis for doing so. Otherwise, Ms. Ward Brown has repeatedly asked for copies of the final reports. If the District has provided her with copies of draft versions of any portion of the reports, it should promptly provide Ms. Ward Brown with final copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Ward-Brown raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Special School District 1, Minneapolis, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for the position study report of Dr. Schiller, and the compensation study report of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, Inc. (PSPC), because the parties disagree as to whether the District redacted any data from either report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 20, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267997</id><pubdate>2022-08-29T18:46:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-008</Title><title>Opinion 11 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267303&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-17T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Castle Rock Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released X’s identity after X registered a complaint concerning a violation of state laws or local ordinances relating to real property?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> June 17, 2011; Castle Rock Township</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 2, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD), received a letter dated April 8, 2011, from an individual, X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether Castle Rock Township violated certain rights afforded him/her under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jane Bistodeau, Township Clerk, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 3, 2011, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Township&apos;s position. On May 20, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated May 18, 2011, from Robert Bauer, an attorney representing the Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[I am requesting an opinion] with regards to whether the [Township] did make public my identity on numerous occasions with regards to a real property issue, noise nuisance complaint, I made against the Dakota County Fairgrounds on September 15, 2009 concerning numerous rock concerts/rodeos held at the property since August 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he [Township Board] decided to send my complaint to the Joint Farmington/Castle Rock Township Discussion Group for a decision on how to enforce these complaints . Without my knowledge, at the October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the [Township Board] they discussed my complaint making it and my identity public information at this public meeting. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the complaint s/he filled out. The form is entitled, Castle Rock Township, Minnesota Zoning Ordinance Violation Complaint Form. On the form, in the Nature of Violation section, X wrote, Noise, 7.12, 7.12E, #3. In another document, X made reference to these being some type of nuisance laws/ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X also provided to the Commissioner a copy of the October 13, 2009, Township Board meeting minutes. The minutes state,[ X&apos;s name] - the Board directed the Clerk to write a letter that [his/her] complaint letter was received and will be addressed at the next Castle Rock Township and City of Farmington meeting November 19, 2009 and invite [him/her] to attend.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Castle Rock Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released X&apos;s identity after X registered a complaint concerning a violation of state laws or local ordinances relating to real property?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11, certain metropolitan area townships are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Bauer, in his comments to the Commissioner, did not dispute that Castle Rock Township is subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 1, classifies the following data as confidential: the identities of individuals who register complaints with government entities concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Bauer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this matter, the complaint made by X does not relate to the enforcement of any Castle Rock zoning ordinance. Instead, X has made complaints concerning the activities at the Dakota County Fairgrounds The Township does not have jurisdiction over the activities conducted by Dakota County and its Fairgrounds. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When X provided [his/her] complaint on September 15, 2009, [X] acknowledged that the purported violations relate to permit violations, presumably issued in connection with the large assembly permit. The response by the Township Clerk invited X to participate in a group discussion between the Township, the City of Farmington and representatives of Dakota County concerning events that occur at the Fairgrounds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue of whether a government entity has jurisdiction over a particular state law or local ordinance concerning the use of real property is not one over which the Commissioner has authority. Furthermore, it is not addressed in Chapter 13. Chapter 13, though, does provide that when an individual makes the type of complaint described in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 1, his/her identity is confidential. Thus, when an entity receives the type of complaint X made to the Township, the entity must protect the individual&apos;s identity and cannot release it to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation before the Commissioner, the Township released X&apos;s identity in a public meeting. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 11, states, Not public data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 13D.05. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), provides that public bodies are protected from liability if they discuss not public data at a public meeting if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Mr. Bauer did not comment on whether releasing X&apos;s identity related to a matter within the scope of the Township Board and was reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the Board. If so, the Board could have released X&apos;s identity. If not, the Board should not have disclosed X&apos;s identity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Bauer noted that X had written to Township Board members regarding his complaints about noise. Mr. Bauer provided a copy of one such letter and asserted that X&apos;s identity was public because X complained about the noise issues in correspondence with Board members and elected officials can make correspondence public (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Bauer&apos;s argument. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, discusses interpreting statutory provisions that are irreconcilable. Section 645.26, subdivision 4, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 1, which classifies the identity of a complainant as confidential, was enacted in 1980. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, which provides that elected officials can make public correspondence from individuals, was enacted in 1979. Thus, as the later-enacted provision, section 13.44 prevails; the Township&apos;s elected officials cannot rely on section 13.601 to make X&apos;s identity public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 11, and 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), Castle Rock Township could not have released X&apos;s identity in an October 13, 2009, Board meeting unless the disclosure was related to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and was reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 17, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267303</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-007</Title><title>Opinion 11 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267979&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-08T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If a data requestor, who is not the subject of the data, provides DNR with data about the individual registration owner that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, in this case name, address, and date of birth, is DNR in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases public registration data about that individual without a court order or informed consent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 8, 2011; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 22, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Sheila Deyo, on behalf of Tom Landwehr, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In her letter, Ms. Deyo asked the Commissioner (of Administration) to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain electronic licensing data (ELS) data the DNR maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Deyo provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Deyo wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Electronic licensing system records include personal information about the individual applying for a license or registration of a recreational vehicle. The personal information includes name, address, date of birth, and driver&apos;s license number, which are classified as private data. [Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874.] Additional information is also created or provided as a part of the registration or license record for example a registration number for a boat, snowmobile or OHV [off high-way vehicle]; the type, size and length of the recreational vehicle; a serial number; notice of liens; etc. The record is a mix of private data about an individual(s) and public data about the license or registration. Note that a record can contain private data about more than one individual. For example: a husband-and-wife combination fishing license or a boat that is registered with multiple owners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When an individual registers a recreational vehicle with the DNR, some of the data provided is classified as private data and some of the data is classified as public data. DNR often receives requests for both the private and public registration data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Deyo attached an example of a request DNR received for registration data. She wrote,The private data about the registration owner has been provided by the requester, who is not the data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Deyo&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If a data requestor, who is not the subject of the data, provides DNR with data about the individual registration owner that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, in this case name, address, and date of birth, is DNR in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases public registration data about that individual without a court order or informed consent?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, classifies some of DNR&apos;s electronic licensing system data as not public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following data created, collected, stored, or maintained by the department for purposes of obtaining a noncommercial game and fish license, cross-country ski pass, horse trail pass, or snowmobile trail sticker; registering a recreational motor vehicle; or any other electronic licensing transaction are private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12: name, addresses, driver&apos;s license number, and date of birth. The data may be disclosed for law enforcement purposes. The data, other than the driver&apos;s license number, may be disclosed to a government entity and for natural resources management purposes, including recruitment, retention, and training certification and verification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private data are accessible to the data subject and not to the public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Private data can be disclosed outside the originating government entity if there is statutory authority to do so or if the data subject has given written informed consent. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the sample data request Ms. Deyo submitted to the Commissioner, the requestor provided DNR with identifying data about an individual (data that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874) and asked DNR to provide him with registration data related to that individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the registration data the requestor seeks - registration number for a boat, snowmobile or OHV; the type, size and length of the recreational vehicle; a serial number; notice of liens; etcetera - are public when not linked to an individual, once they are connected to an individual, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, the registration data cannot be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In other words, the effect of Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, is that DNR cannot release registration data that are linked to identifying information about the individual registrant, unless the registrant has given his/her informed consent or there is statutory authority permitting the disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DNR can release de-identified or summary data upon request. (Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.02, subdivision 19; 13.05, subdivision 7; and Minnesota Rules, Parts 1205.0200, subpart 16, and 1205.0700.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner&apos;s understanding is that sometimes a business, rather than an individual registers for a recreational vehicle. Data about businesses are &lt;em&gt;data not on individuals&lt;/em&gt; and are not classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874. Therefore, registration data connected to a business are public pursuant to the public presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Deyo raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If a data requestor, who is not the subject of the data s/he requests, provides DNR with data about an individual registration owner that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0874, in this case name, address, and date of birth, DNR would not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases registration data about that individual without a court order or informed consent.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 8, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267979</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-09T16:29:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-006</Title><title>Opinion 11 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266661&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-06-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the email sent to an elected official from a member of the public “government data” under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
If the email is not “government data,” can it be classified as “data on individuals?”
If the email is “government data,” is it classified as private data on the individual who sent the email?
If the email is government data and classified as private data on the sender of the email, does the individual who is the subject of the email (the finalist for the superintendent position), have a right to inspect or copy the email upon request and, if so, must the name or other personally identifiable information of the sender be redacted from the email?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 8, 2011; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 25, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated April 21, 2011, from Maggie Wallner, on behalf of Independent School District 834, Stillwater. In her letter, Ms. Wallner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Wallner provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Wallner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he School Board conducted a search for a new superintendent. In mid-March, the Board released the names of the finalists. Shortly thereafter, the School Board Chair received an email from a member of the general public which contained information regarding his/her perception of the performance and conduct of one of the finalists while employed by another school district. The Board Chair did not disclose the email to any other board member, nor did he share it with School District administrators or employees. The finalist was not offered the superintendent position. Shortly thereafter, he requested a copy of the email as public data. Neither the Board Chair or [sic] sender of the email wish to release the email.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Wallner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the email sent to an elected official from a member of the public &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the email is not &quot;government data,&quot; can it be classified as &quot;data on individuals&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the email is &quot;government data,&quot; is it classified as private data on the individual who sent the email?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the email is government data and classified as private data on the sender of the email, does the individual who is the subject of the email (the finalist for the superintendent position), have a right to inspect or copy the email upon request and, if so, must the name or other personally identifiable information of the sender be redacted from the email?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the email sent to an elected official from a member of the public &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as &quot;all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the individual receiving the email in question is the chair of the governing body of a school district. The email was sent to him in his capacity as board chair. Therefore, the email is government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the email is not &quot;government data&quot; can it be classified as &quot;data on individuals?&quot;;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1; the email is government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the email is &quot;government data&quot; is it classified as private data on the individual who sent the email?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, classifies correspondence between individuals and elected officials as private data but also provides that the correspondence may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, when the term &quot;data&quot; is discussed in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it refers to data elements that make up documents, emails, reports, videotapes, etcetera. Thus, generally, it certainly is possible that a document could be comprised of data about more than one individual, and could contain both public and private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, though, specifically classifies as private the correspondence not the data within the correspondence. Section 13.601, subdivision 2, also provides that either the sender or the recipient can make the correspondence public. The Commissioner concludes, therefore, that the Minnesota Legislature intended both the elected official and the sender to be the subject of the correspondence - the only subjects - unless the correspondence is disclosed to a government entity, at which point section 13.601, subdivision 2, no longer applies. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267749&quot; title=&quot;08-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-019&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner wrote, &quot;The Board Chair did not disclose the email to any other board member, nor did he share it with School District administrators or employees.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, section 13.601, subdivision 2, applies to the correspondence in question and classifies the correspondence as private data about both the individual who sent the email and the elected official to whom the individual sent the email.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the email is government data and classified as private data on the sender of the email, does the individual who is the subject of the email (the finalist for the superintendent position), have a right to inspect or copy the email upon request and, if so, must the name or other personally identifiable information of the sender be redacted from the email?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in connection with Issue 3, in the situation before the Commissioner, the email sender and the board chair are the subjects of the correspondence; the individual whom the email sender wrote about is not the subject of the correspondence. Therefore, the individual whom the email sender wrote about can get access to the correspondence only if the email sender or the board chair makes it public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. Wallner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The email sent to an elected official from a member of the public is &quot;government data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See Number 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, the email is private data on both the individual who sent the email and the elected official to whom the individual sent the email.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The individual whom the email sender wrote about is not the subject of the email. S/he can get access only if the email sender or the board chair makes the email public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 8, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266661</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-005</Title><title>Opinion 11 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267395&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-05-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $3,900 for copies of government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?
Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 26, 2011; Johnson Controls, Inc. (ISD 2142-St. Louis County)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 28, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Marshall Helmberger, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Timberjay Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;. In his email, Mr. Helmberger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to get access to certain data Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), a contractor with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County, maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Mr. Helmberger provided on April 7, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David L. Lillehaug, attorney for JCI, in response to Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 8, 2011, were to inform Mr. Lillehaug of Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for JCI&apos;s position. Mr. Lillehaug responded, in a letter dated April 25, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Charles Rick, District Superintendent, to submit comments. Michelle D. Kenney and Stephen M. Knutson, attorneys for the District, responded in a letter dated April 25, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Helmberger, on January 21, 2011, he asked for data, including the following, from ISD 2142: Annual operational cost projections for waste and storm water treatment facilities and water towers for the north and south schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger wrote that he first asked the District for the data at issue, and Mr. Rick informed me by phone that the district did not have the data. He said he had asked JCI to provide it to me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger also asked the District for a copy of the contract with Architectural Resources, Inc. (ARI) as it relates to the school facilities project currently under construction by ISD 2142 under contract with JCI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Rick notified me by email and in a personal conversation that the district did not have information on the operating costs of the above-noted systems and informed me that he had asked JCI to provide the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, Mr. Rick indicated to me in person that the district does not maintain a copy of the contract and referred the request to JCI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger then wrote to JCI and asked for the data. In response, Mr. Lillehaug denied his request,in part, citing JCI&apos;s previous claim that they are not subject to the MDPA. In addition, Mr. Lillehaug claims that I owe JCI $3,900 for my previous request for information [which] Mr. Lillehaug is demanding be paid before he will consider any further requests for information. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266851&quot; title=&quot;11-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-001&lt;/a&gt; addressed Mr. Helmberger&apos;s previous data request to JCI; the invoice at issue here relates to that request.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lillehaug challenged the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue this opinion (see Discussion below), and stated that JCI properly denied Mr. Helmberger&apos;s March 4, 2011, data request because he had not paid the $3,900 charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Lillehaug:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;JCI&apos;s unpaid invoice is itself sufficient reason to refuse to spend more time researching or copying documents for Mr. Helmberger. See &lt;em&gt;Salminen v. City of Hibbing&lt;/em&gt;, 1989 WL 14922 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 1989) (We find that City has no duty to research or copy documents for Salminen until the bill is paid for previous costs incurred by the City).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 18, 2011, JCI advised Mr. Helmberger that his latest request is not so specific that, on its face, it seeks less than 100 pages of documents. JCI notified Mr. Helmberger that it was not prepared to begin any search without a deposit or other tangible commitment that Mr. Helmberger would pay for the actual costs in the event that the search produced more than 100 pages of documents. Mr. Helmberger has failed to make such a commitment to pay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lillehaug further stated that the JCI-ARI subcontract contains trade secret information. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota courts have held that parties can establish certain contract pricing data (e.g., leasing information) as trade secret information under the Act. See &lt;em&gt;EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 2004 WL 1837990 (Minn. Tax Ct. 2004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The contract between JCI and ARI contains information on pricing, margin, and profit expectations, including hourly rates charged and the scope of services required by JCI. This is confidential business information. The information derives economic value from this confidentiality, as competitors with this information would find it possible to anticipate the costs and profits expected by JCI on any particular project and use this information to underbid JCI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Kenney and Mr. Knutson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data requested which is the subject of Mr. Helmberger&apos;s present advisory opinion request is not maintained by the School District. Mr. Helmberger was so advised by Dr. Charles Rick, Superintendent of Schools, in email correspondence on March 28, 2011. In addition, Dr. Rick informed Mr. Helmberger that his request had been forwarded to Johnson Controls, Inc. (JC). The School District has acted in conformance with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/266851&quot; title=&quot;11-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 11-001&lt;/a&gt; dated January 3, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Helmberger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $3,900 for copies of government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements &lt;em&gt;as if it were a government entity&lt;/em&gt;. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, private organizations, such as JCI, are not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, they are obligated to comply with Chapter 13 if they enter into a contract with a government entity to perform any of its functions and maintain government data in connection with that contractual relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, Mr. Lillehaug objected to the Commissioner&apos;s decision to issue this opinion for a number of reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lillehaug stated that the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue advisory opinions under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, is limited to determinations made by a government entity and does not extend to a private party with which an entity enters into a contract. According to Mr. Lillehaug, because JCI is not a government entity:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. section 13.05, subd. 11, (Subdivision 11&apos;), which creates a right to data from certain private contractors, does not bestow jurisdiction on the Commissioner to issue advisory opinions in disputes between a requester and a contractor. To the contrary, Subdivision 11 specifically distinguishes between a government entity and a private person. Further, Subdivision 11 expressly limits the remedies against a private person to those in [Minnesota Statutes] Section 13.08, and makes no mention whatsoever of Section 13.072 or advisory opinions. Accordingly, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the Act to issue an advisory opinion in a dispute between a requester and a private entity such as JCI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Lillehaug. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, confers authority for the Commissioner to issue an opinion to a person who disagrees with an entity&apos;s data practices determination. JCI is obligated under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, to comply with Chapter 13 as if it were a government entity. Section 13.05, subdivision 11, makes explicit that the Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08, remedies are applicable, but contains no language (e.g., notwithstanding section 13.072) that explicitly excludes section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lillehaug also objected to the Commissioner&apos;s decision to issue this opinion because JCI is not performing a government function, a necessary condition for Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, to apply. According to Mr. Lillehaug, JCI entered into three contracts with the District in 2008 and 2009, and two additional contracts on February 25, 2010: one to provide professional services on the construction of two new schools and one for professional services for renovations to three existing schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123B.02, subdivision 2:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the duty &lt;em&gt;and the function of the district&lt;/em&gt; to furnish school facilities to every child of school age residing in any part of the district. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Numerous other statutory provisions address school districts&apos; duties and authority regarding the construction and renovation of public schools. (See, for example, Minnesota Statutes, sections 123B.51, 123B.71, and 123B.72.) Accordingly, JCI is performing a governmental function for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the Commissioner respectfully rejects each of Mr. Lillehaug&apos;s objections to his authority to issue this opinion. JCI is a private party subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, by virtue of its contractual relationship with the District, notwithstanding their failure to include in their contracts the language required by that section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $3,900 for copies of government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of more than 100 pages of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge its actual reasonable costs to search for and retrieve the data and make the copies, but may not charge its costs to separate public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, entities must maintain government data so that they are easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger and Mr. Lillehaug disagree on the facts as to whether all of the data JCI provided to Mr. Helmberger are responsive to his request. The Commissioner cannot resolve that factual disagreement. Accordingly, this discussion is about whether, generally, JCI&apos;s $3,900 charge for copies of some 135 pages is allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed appropriate copy charges in numerous opinions. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267812&quot; title=&quot;99-039&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-039&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In situations where a private party is acting as the government entity&apos;s agent (in this case via a contract for services) by housing/maintaining government data, the rights of the individual seeking data have not changed. In other words, the requestor has the right to obtain copies of data; also, any fee either the government entity or its agent assesses must fall within the parameters prescribed in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Further, the fact that [a private party] maintains [requested] data does not mean that [the requester] should pay unreasonably high charges simply because the data are in the possession of [the private party.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, JCI claims that it took 41 hours, charged at hourly rates ranging from $45.00 to $120.00 per hour, to provide Mr. Helmberger with approximately 135 pages of data. Mr. Helmberger noted that the District pays an average hourly clerical wage, including benefits, of $19.00 per hour. Regardless whether each of the 135 pages of data JCI provided Mr. Helmberger is responsive to his request, the Commissioner does not find its copy charge of $3,900 reasonable, and therefore it is not allowable under Chapter 13. JCI must adjust its charges in light of the guidance the Commissioner has provided in previous opinions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lillehaug characterized the data in the JCI-ARI contract as confidential business information that are protected as trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), which provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Trade secret information&apos; means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lillehaug also asserted that a Minnesota Tax Court case, &lt;em&gt;EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 2004 WL 1837990 (Minn. Tax Ct. 2004) held that parties can establish certain contract pricing data (e.g., leasing information) as trade secret information under the Act. However, EOP-Nicollet Mall carries no precedential value. (See &lt;em&gt;Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns&lt;/em&gt;, 710 N.W.2d 761, 769 (Minn. 2006).) Thus, it does not control the outcome here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously noted that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, does not classify proprietary information, and the Legislature set a narrow standard for classification under this provision, which the information Mr. Lillehaug provided does not meet. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267811&quot; title=&quot;03-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-017&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267648&quot; title=&quot;08-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-018&lt;/a&gt;.) Accordingly, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the JCI-ARI contract is trade secret information for purposes of section 13.37. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the contract is public. (See also Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267672&quot; title=&quot;03-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-027&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, does not contain a provision that allows a government entity (or its contractor) to withhold government data on the basis of an unpaid, disputed copy charge. It is important to note that the Salminen case Mr. Lillehaug cited is unpublished and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 480A.08, subdivision 3, carries no precedential value. Thus, it does not control the outcome here. Accordingly, if it has not already done so, JCI must provide Mr. Helmberger access to the JCI-ARI contract. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267500&quot; title=&quot;03-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-046&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Helmberger:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $3,900 for copies of government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to government data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 26, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267395</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266613</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-004</Title><title>Opinion 11 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267788&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-04-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it started a meeting on January 18, 2011, at 3:30 pm when the notice for the meeting stated it would start at 4:15 pm?
Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it took votes during the January 18, 2011, meeting that started at 3:30 pm when the meeting notice stated it would start at 4:15 pm?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 8, 2011; Olmsted County Regional Authority Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 22, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Kathy King and Orin Johnson, on behalf of the Citizens Against Rochester Bypass (CARB). In their letter, Ms. King and Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority (OCRRA) Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law. Ms. King and Mr. Johnson submitted the $200 fee required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Wilson, Vice-Chair of the OCRRA Board, in response to Ms. King and Mr. Johnson&apos;s request. The purpose of this letter, dated March 1, 2011, was to inform him of the opinion request and to ask him to provide information or support for the OCRRA Board&apos;s position. On March 21, 2011, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Brent Walz, Civil Lead Attorney, Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. King and Mr. Johnson provided them is as follows. They wrote in their opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [OCRRA Board] meeting publicly noticed to be held on January 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm actually was called to order at approximately 3:30 pm on that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. King and Mr. Johnson also wrote, Votes were taken during the January 18, 2011 meeting. ... Are they official and binding?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. King and Mr. Johnson provided documentation supporting their allegation that the County informed the public that the January 18, 2011, meeting would start at 4:15 pm, but that it actually started at 3:30 pm:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- A copy of a letter sent to citizens from County Administration stating that the meeting was to start at 4:15 pm&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- A copy of the calendar on the County&apos;s website showing that the OCRRA Board meeting was to start at 4:15 pm&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- A transcription of a statement that David Hanson, Dodge County Commissioner, made at the meeting: Well, I did get on the e-mail what your agenda was. It wasn&apos;t supposed to start until after 4:00 but that&apos;s fine I got here at 3:30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. King and Mr. Johnson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it started a meeting on January 18, 2011, at 3:30 pm when the notice for the meeting stated it would start at 4:15 pm?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it took votes during the January 18, 2011, meeting that started at 3:30 pm when the meeting notice stated it would start at 4:15 pm?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it started a meeting on January 18, 2011, at 3:30 pm when the notice for the meeting stated it would start at 4:15 pm?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, public bodies, such as the OCRRA Board, are required to provide advance notice of meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears the January 18, 2011, OCRRA Board meeting was a regular meeting. The notice requirement set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, requires that a public body keep a schedule of its regular meetings on file at its primary office. The schedule must include the date, time, and location of all regular meetings. (See section 13D.04, subdivision 1, and Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267304&quot; title=&quot;10-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267526&quot; title=&quot;10-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-020&lt;/a&gt;.) (If the body decides to hold a regular meeting at a different time, date, or location, it must then follow the notice requirements for a special meeting, which are outlined in section 13D.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, if the public body proactively communicates to the public about an upcoming regular meeting, beyond what is required by the Open Meeting Law, e.g., via mail, email, or website, the information should be the same as what is on file at the body&apos;s primary office. Any such communications, though, do not negate the body&apos;s obligation to maintain the schedule notice required under section 13D.04, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Walz did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the schedule of regular meetings of the OCRRA Board, which would have included the January 18, 2011, meeting, or comment on whether the OCRRA Board created and maintains a schedule. Nor did he dispute that the meeting started at 3:30 pm, forty five minutes ahead of the time indicated on the County&apos;s website and in a letter sent from the County. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Walz wrote, Any noncompliance with the Open Meeting Law was inadvertent and unintentional. Because Mr. Walz did not address the issue of the schedule of regular meetings, the Commissioner assumes the OCRRA Board does not have one, and concludes that the Board did not meet the notice requirements outlined in section 13D.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, based on information Mr. Walz provided, it appears the individuals who make up the OCRRA Board are the same individuals who make up the Olmsted County Board. If that is the case, it is important to note that for purposes of Chapter 13D, the OCRRA Board is a public body unto itself and must notice its meetings separate and apart from meetings of the Olmsted County Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it took votes during the January 18, 2011, meeting that started at 3:30 pm when the meeting notice stated it would start at 4:15 pm?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Sullivan v. Credit River&lt;/em&gt;, 217 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1974), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that action a town board took at a public meeting was not invalid even though the board did not give proper notice of the meeting. The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he statute is directory rather than mandatory since it fails to provide a method for enforcement and does not specify that actions taken at a meeting which is not public shall be invalid.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sullivan&lt;/em&gt; at 507.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequent cases have confirmed this holding. (See &lt;em&gt;Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton&lt;/em&gt;, 323 N.W.2d 757, 765 (Minn. 1982) and &lt;em&gt;In the Matter of Petitions of D A Truck Line, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, 524 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. App. 1994).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Walz also cited the &lt;em&gt;Sullivan&lt;/em&gt; case and wrote, The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a violation of the Open Meeting Law does not invalidate the actions taken at such meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, based on the holding in Sullivan, even though the OCRRA did not give proper notice for its January 18, 2011, meeting, the votes taken at the meeting are valid.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, however, the fact that a public body can hold an illegal meeting and take votes, which are valid, does not seem in keeping with the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner is aware of instances in similar circumstances where other public bodies have willingly held properly noticed subsequent meetings to reconsider and re-vote on specific issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Ms. King and Mr. Johnson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority Board did not comply with the notice requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, in regards to its January 18, 2011.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Votes the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority Board took during its January 18, 2011, meeting are valid.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 8, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267788</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Regular meeting</Title><Id>266829</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Voting</Title><Id>266364</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-003</Title><title>Opinion 11 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267809&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-03-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would School District 309, Park Rapids, violate the data practices rights of a former employee if it disseminates certain data about the former employee to the Hubbard County Attorney?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2011; School District 309 (Park Rapids)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 20, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated December 16, 2010, from Michael Rengel, an attorney representing Independent School District 309, Park Rapids Area Schools. In his letter, Mr. Rengel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains and whether the District can appropriately disseminate those data to the Hubbard County Attorney. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Rengel provided on January 12 and 20, 2011.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated January 26, 2011, IPAD invited both the data subject, through his/her attorney, and the County Attorney to provide comments, but neither did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Rengel provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Rengel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... [I]t came to the attention of the police liaison officer that [a former employee might have violated school policy]. This matter was investigated and [the former employee] was interviewed by the school principal. We are not aware of the school principal utilizing a Tennessen Warning for the purposes of that preliminary interview. The school principal further interviewed [the former employee&apos;s child who is a District student]. no Tennessen Warning was provided to [the former employee&apos;s child] by the school principal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district hired an investigator to conduct an investigation related to the issues As part of the investigation eleven individuals were interviewed, including [the former employee], fellow teachers, [some] students, as well as past and present school administrators. As part of the investigation, [the former employee] was given a Tennessen Warning with respects [sic] to all three of his interviews with [the investigator]. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district&apos;s request for an advisory opinion is based upon a request by [the] Hubbard County Attorney &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rengel stated that the District maintains the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. [P]rincipal&apos;s notes regarding inquiry made of [the former employee]. No Tennessen Warning was provided [at this inquiry].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. [P]rincipal&apos;s notes regarding inquiry made of [the former employee&apos;s child]. Present at this inquiry were [the former employee and his/her child and the principal]. No Tennessen Warning was provided [at this inquiry].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. Investigative information obtained by [the District&apos;s investigator] from [the former employee], including interview summaries of [the former employee] after Tennessen Warnings [were] provided &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. Interview summaries by [the District&apos;s investigator] from individuals (other than [the former employee]) after Tennessen Warnings [were] provided, including [staff, students other than the former employee&apos;s child, and law enforcement].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District collected and created these data while the individual was an employee of the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Rengel&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would School District 309, Park Rapids, violate the data practices rights of a former employee if it disseminates certain data about the former employee to the Hubbard County Attorney?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private data are accessible to the data subject and not to the public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Private data can be disclosed outside the originating entity if there is statutory authority to do so or if the data subject has given written informed consent. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 also sets some additional requirements around the collection and later use of private or confidential data about an individual. When collecting private or confidential data about an individual from that individual, the entity must provide a notice, commonly referred to as a Tennessen warning. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.) This notice must contain the following: (1) the purpose and intended use of the data; in other words, why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data; (2) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (3) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (4) the identity of persons or entities outside the collecting entity authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. The Commissioner previously has opined that if an entity does not give an individual a Tennessen notice when circumstances warrant it or if an entity&apos;s notice is inadequate, the entity cannot store, use, or disclose any of the data it collected from the individual. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 and Advisory Opinion 07-009.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data in which former and current employees, and independent contractors are the subjects are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain data about employees are public (section 13.43, subdivision 2), and certain data are private (section 13.43, subdivision 4). Subdivision 15 of section 13.43 provides that private personnel data may be disclosed to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of reporting a crime or alleged crime committed by an employee, or for the purpose of assisting law enforcement in the investigation of a crime committed or allegedly committed by an employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data of which students are the subjects are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, data about students are private, and may not be released without informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rengel asked the Commissioner to assist in determining what of the data in question the District can disclose to the County Attorney. The answer depends upon the classification of the data. The Commissioner has not seen the data and in situations such as these, can offer only general guidance as government entity staff, with their knowledge of the relevant facts, circumstances, and involved data subjects, are in the best position to make decisions about classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes that any data the District determines are public can be disclosed to the County Attorney. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 14 and 15.) Also, any of the data in question of which an employee or student is the subject can be disclosed to the County Attorney if the employee or student (or student&apos;s parent(s)) gives informed consent to the release or there is a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Mr. Rengel asked about disclosing to the County Attorney data in the principal&apos;s notes from the inquiry made of [the former employee]. Mr. Rengel noted that present at the meeting were the employee, union representatives, an officer (the Commissioner assumes this is the school police liaison officer but is not certain), and the principal. Mr. Rengel stated that no Tennessen notice was provided. Because multiple parties were at the inquiry, it is possible the notes contain data about multiple data subjects though the Commissioner assumes most of data are about the former employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data of which employees are the subject are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 15 of section 13.43 provides that certain private data can be disseminated to a law enforcement agency in certain situations. Mr. Rengel stated the principal did not give the former employee a Tennessen notice. Therefore, any data the principal asked the former employee to provide about him/herself cannot disclosed to the County Attorney unless the former employee gives informed consent or there is a court order. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267652&quot; title=&quot;07-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any private data in the notes about the former employee that the employee did not provide that are of the type described in section 13.43, subdivision 15, can be disclosed to the County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any private data about the principal of the type described in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15, can be disclosed to the County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The classification of any data in the notes of which the union representatives and the officer are the subjects depends upon whether they are employees of the District. If so, the data are Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 (personnel) data and can be disclosed in a manner similar to that discussed above in regard to the principal and the former employee. If they are not employees, any data about them are public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Mr. Rengel also asked about disclosing to the County Attorney data in the principal&apos;s notes regarding the inquiry made of [the former employee&apos;s child]. The child is a student in the District. Given the situation, it is likely the notes contain data about multiple data subjects, i.e., the child, the former employee (the child&apos;s parent), and possibly the principal. The Commissioner above has discussed the classification of any data of which the former employee and the principal are the subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data of which students are the subjects are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32; most are private. Section 13.32 does provide authority for school districts to release certain private data about students in certain situations. However, the Commissioner, not knowing the content of the data, is not in a position to determine whether there is a provision in section 13.32 permitting release to the County Attorney. If there is, and the principal asked the child to provide private or confidential data about him/herself, the principal was required to give the child a Tennessen notice. If the child was too young to understand the implications of the notice, the principal should have given the notice to the child&apos;s parent(s). (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 8.) Mr. Rengel stated that no Tennessen notice was provided. Therefore, the District cannot disclose to the County Attorney any data the principal asked the child to provide about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If there are private data about the student in the notes that did not come from the student, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, or FERPA provides statutory authority for releasing those data to the County Attorney, the District can do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Mr. Rengel inquired also about releasing investigative information obtained by the District&apos;s investigator from the former employee, including investigative summaries of the [former employee] after Tennessen Warnings [were] provided. Although it is possible the investigator is the subject of some of the data, the Commissioner assumes most of the data are about the former employee. As discussed above in 1, data of which employees and independent contractors (likely the investigator is an independent contractor) are the subject are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain private personnel data can be disclosed to law enforcement agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rengel provided a copy of a document entitled, Notice of Rights Employee. The notice appears to include most of the components required in a Tennessen notice as well as some additional items. For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner is focusing on whether the notice contains the fourth element: the identity of persons or entities outside the collecting entity authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. The final provision on the District&apos;s notice states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information which you provide during this interview may be released to Park Rapids Area Schools, agents of Park Rapids Area Schools, insurer of Park Rapids Area Schools and their representatives, or any other individuals directly or indirectly involved in this matter, including complainants and other witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, it is not reasonable to conclude that the former employee could have understood that the phrase, or any other individuals directly or indirectly involved in this matter meant that the District could disclose the data to law enforcement. Therefore, the District&apos;s Tennessen notice is not adequate and any of the investigative information that the former employee provided about him/herself cannot be disseminated to the County Attorney unless the former employee gives informed consent or there is a court order. As discussed above in 1, data about the former employee that s/he did not provide can be disclosed to the County Attorney as allowed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Finally, Mr. Rengel asked about releasing data in interview summaries by the District&apos;s investigator gathered from individuals other than the former employee after Tennessen [notices were] provided, including fellow teachers, students (other than [the former employee&apos;s child]), past and present school administrators and law enforcement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;For discussion about personnel data, see 1 and 3 above&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;For discussion about student data, see 2 above&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;For data about non-employee data, see 1 above&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Mr. Rengel stated that Tennessen notices were provided, he did not indicate whether they were the same as the notice the former employee received. If so, as the Commissioner stated above in 3, his opinion is that the District&apos;s notice is not adequate. Therefore, the District can disclose, to the County Attorney pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15, only public and private data the interviewees provided about other individuals. The District also can disclose the data if the individuals have given informed consent or there is a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding data in interview summaries from law enforcement, assuming these individuals are not employees of the District, any data about them the District maintains are public pursuant to the general presumption. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Rengel raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15, School District 309, Park Rapids, has authority to disclose certain private data of which the former employee is the subject to the Hubbard County Attorney. However, because neither the District principal nor the District&apos;s investigator provided adequate Tennessen notices as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, any data collected from the former employee of which s/he is the subject cannot be disclosed to the County Attorney unless the former employee has given informed consent or there is a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spencer Cronk
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 10, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267809</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Dissemination to law enforcement agency (13.43, subd. 15)</Title><Id>266920</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-002</Title><title>Opinion 11 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267277&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-01-20T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) maintains in compliance with prevailing wage laws: the home addresses of contractor/subcontractor employees contained in certified payroll reports?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 20, 2011; Dakota County Community Development Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 19, now classifies certain data discussed in this opinion as private, however the data are accessible to the public for prevailing wage purposes.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 6, 2011, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Janet Shefchik, the data practices compliance official for the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA). In her email, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the CDA maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Shefchik provided them follows. A person asked the CDA for the following data: Certified payroll reports for the Thompson Heights Project located in South St. Paul for the following: LBI Companies, Rocohn [sic] Corporation Show [sic] removal company- weeks of 11/15/2010 to 11/21/2010, 11/22/2010 to 11/28/2010. Ms. Shefchik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In reviewing the payroll data in light of the request as stated above, and MN Statutes 13.05 and 13.43, [CDA redacted] several items from the payroll reports such as the individual employees&apos; tax withholding information, and the employees&apos; addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The data requestor responded that] he felt the employee addresses should be included as public information. He sent a copy of a Supreme Court opinion on a data request made by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No 292 v. City of St. Cloud, as evidence of his point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this latest email, however, [the data requestor] indicates that he feels the addresses should be released, as they are public. Upon review of the supreme court case it appears the data requested are public. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Shefchik&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) maintains in compliance with prevailing wage laws: the home addresses of contractor/subcontractor employees contained in certified payroll reports?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon request, government entities must provide access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals maintained by a government entity because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public personnel data are enumerated at section 13.43, subdivision 2(a); pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private. Home addresses of public employees are not listed in subdivision 2(a), and are therefore classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, in 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that payroll records of a subcontractor obtained by the City of Saint Cloud to confirm payment of the prevailing wage are not personnel data for purposes of section 13.43, and thus the payroll records, including home addresses of the subcontractor&apos;s employees, are public pursuant to section 13.03. (See &lt;em&gt;Intl. Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, Loc. No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud and Design Electric Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, 765 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court based its decision on the definition of personnel data as data on an individual. Individual is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 8, as a natural person, which does not include a corporation. The Court found that even though the subcontractor&apos;s employees are individuals, the individual employees are not acting as the City&apos;s independent contractors. The corporation is the City&apos;s contractor; therefore section 13.43 does not apply to the corporation&apos;s employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court concluded that unless the data are protected by another provision in Chapter 13 (e.g., Social Security numbers are private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355), the employee payroll data maintained by the City are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue here is the same as that in &lt;em&gt;Intl. Brotherhood&lt;/em&gt;, i.e., CDA maintains data about individuals employed by its contractor/subcontractor. Accordingly, the payroll data CDA maintains, including home addresses of those individuals, are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court noted, [a]lthough the result here - that an individual employed by a private company is entitled to less data protection than an individual employed by the State - seems anomalous, that is how the legislature wrote the statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) maintains in compliance with prevailing wage laws are public: the home addresses of contractor/subcontractor employees contained in certified payroll reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ryan Church
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 20, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267277</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Prevailing wage data</Title><Id>267257</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 11-001</Title><title>Opinion 11 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266851&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2011-01-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Johnson Controls, Inc. comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 3, 2011; Johnson Controls, Inc. (ISD 2142-St. Louis County)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 8, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Marshall Helmberger, on behalf of the Timberjay Newspapers. In his email, Mr. Helmberger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to get access to certain data Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), a contractor with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County, maintains. IPAD asked for additional information, which Mr. Helmberger provided on November 16, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Shamus P. O&apos;Meara, attorney for JCI, in response to Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 17, 2010, were to inform Mr. O&apos;Meara of Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for JCI&apos;s position. Mr. O&apos;Meara responded, in a letter dated December 13, 2010. IPAD then asked JCI to provide additional information, i.e., copies of contracts it has entered into with the District. Mr. O&apos;Meara provided copies of executed proposal contracts on December 18, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Charles Rick, District Superintendent, to submit comments. Stephen M. Knutson, attorney for the District, responded, in a letter dated December 13, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Helmberger, in a letter dated October 20, 2010, he asked JCI for access to the following data related to the restructuring of the District:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1) Detailed construction budgets for both of the new school projects.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;2) A detailed spreadsheet showing how JCI achieves its purported savings of $5.6 million from the restructuring.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;3) Detailed documentation supporting the JCI invoices submitted by the company to date.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;4) Any revisions, or proposed revisions in the JCI contract, since the ones signed in January of this year.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Helmberger had earlier requested the same data from the District, and was told by Superintendent Rick, in a letter dated October 13, 2020, that the District or JCI had already provided Mr. Helmberger with access or the District did not maintain data responsive to his request, or he needed to clarify the data he was seeking. Superintendent Rick also stated that the District was advising JCI of Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request and that if JCI does not have any objection or basis for withholding the data, to provide the responsive data directly to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding item 1 above, Mr. Rick informed Mr. Helmberger that the District does not maintain the data as JCI has taken back information it provided based upon the position that it constitutes JCI&apos;s proprietary information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to Mr. Helmberger, Mr. O&apos;Meara wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;You have requested information from JCI, a private business, and thus no response is required.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We are also advised that you have requested the same information from the St. Louis County School District, and that the District has interacted with you concerning the requested information. To the extent the requested information constitutes government data in the possession of the District JCI would have no obligation to provide the requested information even if the government practice act data [sic] is applicable to your request to JCI. See Minn. Stat. 13.05, subd. 11.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. O&apos;Meara wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In April of 2008, the District hired JCI to lead Phase I of a three phase process co-developed by JCI and the District to help determine the District&apos;s future school organization. In September of 2008, the District, with consultation from JCI, began working on Phase II of their process.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In approximately December, 2008, the District, working with JCI, established a financial baseline from which to frame the financial sustainability of the plan options and allow for reinvestment of additional educational enhancements.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;... The School District and JCI are parties to a number of contracts under which JCI has provided various services to the School District. ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;... [The District] advised Mr. Helmberger that School District representatives were shown certain data by JCI representatives and that data was retrieved by JCI. Consequently, that data was not maintained by the School District....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While the School District is a government entity subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, JCI, a private entity, is not generally subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. The Department has recognized that where a private entity has a contractual relationship with a governmental entity, there may be situations where the private entity, itself, or the data created/collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations maybe subject to Chapter 13. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267169&quot; title=&quot;99-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Op. 99-027&lt;/a&gt; (August 20, 1999.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;To determine whether the public is entitled to gain access to the data requested by Mr. Helmberger depends on the contractual relationship between the School District and JCI. The School District and JCI have entered into a separate contract at each phase of the three-phase approach devised for the overall project. The data requested by Mr. Helmberger appears to arise from services provided by JCI in Phases II and III.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on Mr. Helmberger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Johnson Controls, Inc. comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;em&gt;Discussion:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Generally, private organizations, such as JCI, are not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, they are obligated to comply with Chapter 13 if they enter into a contract with a government entity to perform any of its functions and maintain government data in connection with that contractual relationship.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Knutson wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A review of the contracts for Phases II and III reveal that there was no language included therein that makes JCI itself subject to Chapter 13. However, [Chapter 13] provides that a private party who has contracted with a government entity to perform a government function has a duty to provide the public with government data unless the government entity also maintains the data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Knutson discussed the applicability of a 2003 Minnesota Appellate Court case, which the Commissioner addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267459&quot; title=&quot;05-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-034&lt;/a&gt;. The Commissioner opined:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In&lt;/em&gt; WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003), the Court discussed a situation in which a contract between a private person and Steele County did not contain the language required in section 13.05, subdivision 11. The Court held that the District Court&apos;s decision to not infer the language was in error:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;To accept WDSI&apos;s argument and the district court&apos;s reasoning would be to simply ignore the mandate of the statute. Although the mandate was not expressly reflected in the contract, it applies nevertheless, and neither contracting parties nor courts can simply ignore it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(See&lt;/em&gt; WDSI&lt;em&gt;, p.622. Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267657&quot; title=&quot;03-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-033&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson has stated that the District believes it does not maintain data responsive to Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request. If that is the case, then per section 13.05, subdivision 11(b), JCI is obligated, as a private party under contract with a government entity to perform a government function, to provide the public with access to public government data it maintains, that the District does not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based upon the information the parties provided, the Commissioner is not aware of any provision of state or federal law that classifies the kind of data Mr. Helmberger requested as other than public. In his response to Mr. Helmberger, Mr. O&apos;Meara suggested several possible ways by which JCI might properly deny access to data it maintains in connection with its contracts with the District: as trade secret information or protected by the attorney client privilege or the work product doctrine; as proprietary information, or to protect data involved in a pending civil action. However, he did not provide any specific bases to enable the Commissioner to determine whether any of the data in question may be classified as trade secret, or protected by attorney-client privilege or as work product. Furthermore, Chapter 13 does not classify proprietary information, and in order to protect data involved in a pending civil action, the chief attorney acting for the government entity must determine whether a civil legal action is pending. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, if it has not already done so, JCI must provide to Mr. Helmberger the public government data he has requested, that JCI maintains but the District does not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a final note, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the District must create and maintain records that document its official activities. The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267529&quot; title=&quot;10-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-018&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[E]ven if the Foundation has not provided to the City the names of the contributors and amounts pledged and contributed, under section 15.17, these data are records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [the entity&apos;s] official activities and, as such, should be maintained by either the City or the Foundation (on behalf of the City). Therefore, even if the City is not maintaining the data, the City must be able to retrieve the data from the Foundation or the Foundation, upon request, must provide the data to a data requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Helmberger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Johnson Controls, Inc. did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to data related to a contract JCI has entered into with Independent School District 2142, St. Louis County.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ryan Church
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 3, 2011&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266851</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Official records</Title><Id>266372</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:26:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Driver&apos;s License Data</Title><Id>514379</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-025</Title><title>Opinion 10 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267174&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-11-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for the “names of individuals whose driving privileges have been affected by the re-pass conviction information  received” by DPS?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 23, 2010; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 12, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated February 3, 2009, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, KSTP-TV. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding KSTP&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). IPAD asked Mr. Anfinson to provide additional information, which he did on October 6, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Campion, DPS Commissioner, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 15, 2010, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position. Mr. Newton, DPS General Counsel, responded, in a letter dated October 22, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In his original request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Sometime in the past year or so, [DPS] apparently learned that, due to a court system computer error, there had been a significant delay in reporting to DPS certain criminal convictions that under state law require suspension or cancellation of the offender&apos;s driving privileges. After the oversight was discovered, DPS did obtain the names of the offenders, and began notifying them that their driver&apos;s licenses were being suspended or cancelled, even though this would not occur until months or even years after the convictions had been entered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Last fall, a client of mine requested access to the names of the affected drivers who were being notified by DPS as a result of the computer glitch. DPS denied the request. I then contacted DPS to pursue the request, contending that the information sought by my client was public, or at least accessible to journalists, under explicit provisions of state and federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response, I received a letter from [Mr. Newton.] He again rejected the request for access, citing Minn. Stat. section171.12 and portions of the federal Drivers&apos; Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), specifically 18 U.S.C. section2721. Mr. Newton maintained that the names of drivers are protected&apos; under federal law, and that only [i]f you have a name and required identifiers&apos; will the data that is public&apos; be produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The matter originated when a reporter from KSTP submitted a request . . . for the names of individuals whose driving privileges have been affected by the re-pass conviction information received by [DPS.]&apos; In essence, the request was for the identity and conviction information on certain drivers, which specifically includes names of drivers. [DPS] responded . . . denying access to the data pursuant to state and federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As an initial matter, be advised that [DPS] does not maintain such data. The courts, upon learning of a computer problem, sent approximately 4,000 traffic citations to DPS for processing. These citations should have come to DPS much sooner but had not because of the court computer error. The citations were then entered on the record of the cited individuals. Approximately 1,600 citations involved charges that resulted in the suspension or cancellation of driving privileges. These approximately 1,600 citations . . . were not segregated into any list or separate category; the citation was entered, the record was read, a letter was sent and that was noted on the record as well. There is no segregated list or pile of letters that can be disseminated. Requiring [DPS] to comply with the original request would require an individual to go through all 4000 records, determine which were repass&apos; violations, then determine if that was the violation which resulted in cancellation or suspension, and develop a separate list. [DPS] is under no obligation to create data it does not have.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If however, the Department of Administration insists on requiring [DPS] to create data it does not have, be advised that federal and state law protect names of drivers under the [DPPA and Minnesota Statutes, section 171.12.] State law requires that data provided by individuals to obtain a driver&apos;s license should be treated as provided by federal law. . . . Federal law classifies the data as private with regards to discretionary public uses. Based on this law it is [DPS&apos;s] practice not to release names of drivers. The fact that the request is for a specific grouping of individuals does not allow for an abdication of [DPS&apos;s] responsibility under the federal law to protect these drivers&apos; names.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for the names of individuals whose driving privileges have been affected by the re-pass conviction information received by DPS?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Section 13.03, subdivision 1 also requires government entities to maintain government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to DPPA, DPS is generally prohibited from disclosing to the public certain personal information, defined as information that identifies an individual, including a photograph, social security number, name, address, etc., but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver&apos;s status. (See 18 U.S.C. section 2725(3).) In addition, under Minnesota Statutes, section 171.12, if DPS determines that a use of data governed by DPPA is related to motor vehicle or driver safety or theft the commissioner (of DPS) shall disclose the data.  According to Mr. Newton, DPS has not made that determination, and therefore takes the position that the data, i.e., driver&apos;s names, are private. Mr. Newton did state to Mr. Anfinson that if he ha[d] a name and required identifiers, the data that is public . . . will be produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Newton discussed at length their disagreement on the proper application of federal and state law. According to Mr. Anfinson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition my client is a news organization, and therefore benefits from the exception to the privacy rules found in 18 U.S.C. section2721(b)(14). That provision allows disclosure of even protected personal information where the intended use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety.&apos; The exception is codified in Minn. Stat. section171.12, subd. 7(a), which contains the exact language used in the DPPA. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you may know this exception has long been interpreted and applied by Driver and Vehicle Services Division of DPS as authorizing news media access to otherwise private data about persons who have Minnesota driver&apos;s licenses. The legislative history of the statute clearly supports this practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neither Mr. Newton nor Mr. Anfinson provided relevant legislative history to the Commissioner. In his response to Mr. Anfinson on the issue of a media exception to the general rule, Mr. Newton wrote, [b]ecause the name cannot be released under federal law we do not need to address the exception&apos; you cite . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided information that enables her to make a determination on this point; however, she respectfully disagrees that the issue before her requires a resolution of that disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 171.12, subdivision 7(a), provides: [d]ata on individuals &lt;em&gt;provided to obtain a driver&apos;s license&lt;/em&gt; or Minnesota identification card shall be treated as provided by United States Code, title 18, section 2721 [DPPA], as in effect on May 23, 2005, and shall be disclosed as required or permitted by that section. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The requested data, i.e., conviction data that the courts transmitted to DPS resulting in DPS suspending or cancelling drivers&apos; licenses, are not data governed by section 171.12 (data individuals provided to DPS to obtain a license.) Therefore, the data sent to DPS from the courts are not classified under section 171.12, and are presumptively public. (See also Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(e).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is, however, a question whether DPS maintains the data it received from the courts that KSTP requested. Mr. Newton stated that DPS does not maintain such data, and also that all decisions and transactions taken can be fully tracked. He also said that DPS would have to create data in order to provide KSTP with access. That seems to suggest that DPS can retrieve the relevant data, albeit at some cost to DPS. Mr. Newton stated correctly that Chapter 13 does not obligate government entities to create data. However, as the Commissioner has opined numerous times, government entities are obligated to provide the public with access to public data, even if the entity has not maintained the data such that they are easily accessible for convenient use. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508&quot; title=&quot;00-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266834&quot; title=&quot;10-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-016&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267529&quot; title=&quot;10-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-018&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, provides that government entities must keep records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [the entity&apos;s] official activities. Whether the courts maintain those data is outside the purview of Chapter 13 (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.90.) DPS is required to maintain data that document its official actions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DPS should maintain a copy of data provided by the court for a full and accurate knowledge of its official actions to suspend or revoke a driver&apos;s license. The problem appears to be in the manner in which DPS maintains the data about driving violations and driver&apos;s status. DPS apparently comingles driver license application data with data that it does not obtain in connection with a license application, such as driver violation and status data, and treats all the data as protected under DPPA because that&apos;s the original record in its database. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DPS has the authority and the obligation to release the re-pass conviction data, regardless how it is currently maintaining the data.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for the names of individuals whose driving privileges have been affected by the re-pass conviction information received by DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 23, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267174</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)</Title><Id>266368</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:36:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-024</Title><title>Opinion 10 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267415&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Wayzata comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $265 to copy approximately 61 pages from the approximately 473 pages that the requestor inspected? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 2010; City of Wayzata</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 14, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis (IPAD) received a letter from Patrick McCarthy. In his letter, Mr. McCarthy asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding copy charges assessed to him by the City of Wayzata.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Allan Orsen, City Manager, in response to Mr. McCarthy&apos;s request. The purpose of this letter, dated September 27, 2010, was to inform him of Mr. McCarthy&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 15, 2010, IPAD received a response from Robert Meller, attorney for the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. McCarthy provided them is as follows. In a letter dated May 18, 2010, Mr. McCarthy requested certain data related to a school safety study:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1) any and all draft Study reports (including all text, exhibits, and figures) that were created sent or received);&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2) any and all memoranda that were created, sent, or received&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3) any and all communications, including electronic messages, that were created, sent or received; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4) copies of all documents that were created, sent, or received that contain measurements&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McCarthy asked for copies but added, If you believe there are charges associated [with] this request, please identify the manner in which each has been calculated and the specific data to which you believe each applies. I will promptly forward payment for all lawful charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 24, 2010, Mr. Meller replied, Please give me a call so that we may discuss your prepayment of the City&apos;s actual costs of retrieval of the government data you requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 25, 2010, Mr. McCarthy asked Mr. Meller to provide him with an estimate of the total number of pages and an estimate of the charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Meller, on June 2, 2010, then wrote to inform Mr. McCarthy that the City had completed compilation of all documents related [his request].euro;#157; Mr. Meller stated, It took [the City Engineer] 1.25 hours to compile copies of the documents requested which computes to 1.25 x $48.70 per hour for a total owing of $60.98.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Meller also stated that the total number of pages was 240 and the fee was $.40 per page so the total charge was $156.99 ($96 + $60.98). (As discussed below, the City later increased the copy charge to approximately $265.) He wrote, Once I receive your check for $156.99, I can have [the City Engineer] mail the documents directly, or we could make them available for you to pick up at an agreed upon time at City Hall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From this point forward, the parties exchanged correspondence about the copy charges, Mr. McCarthy seeking to clarify whether the City was requiring him to pay if he wanted to inspect the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a June 8, 2010, letter, Mr. Meller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The documents that we have compiled for you are complete. I had apparently misunderstood that you wanted actual copies of the responsive documents If, however, you wish to inspect the documents, but receive no copies, there will be no charge. Please either send me the check and I will mail the copies or, if you prefer, we can arrange for a time for you to inspect, but not copy, the documents at a mutually agreed upon and convenient place and time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. McCarthy&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Wayzata comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $265 to copy approximately 61 pages from the approximately 473 pages that the requestor inspected?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides for situations in which a person who is not the data subject requests access to government data. If the person wants to inspect the data, the entity may not charge any fee (section 13.03, subdivision 3(a)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the person wants copies of the data, the entity can choose to charge a fee. (Section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).) If the requestor is asking for copies of anything other than paper documents, the entity&apos;s fee is to be based on the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and making the copies. If the requestor is asking for copies of paper documents, and the requested number of pages is 100 or fewer, the entity can charge no more than $.25 per page. If the number of pages is more than 100, the entity can charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and making the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Meller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To summarize the City&apos;s position, the amount the City charged Mr. McCarthy was for the compilation and copying of the data he requested, though the city eventually waived the copying charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Interpreting Mr. McCarthy&apos;s expansive requests for any and reports was difficult and time consuming for the City. It required staff time to make the necessary topical and key word searches. Mr. McCarthy&apos;s requests included several items outside the scope of the Data Practices Act and/or items that necessarily required staff time to prepare, such as new inventories of the requested documents In addition certain professional and administrative staff of the City&apos;s consultant, SRF, who conducted the traffic study, were also used for the requests Mr. McCarthy made directly to them. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to the charges for the copies requested by Mr. McCarthy, as a courtesy Mr. McCarthy and to save the time or arguing about the matter, the City lowered its standard copying charge on two occasions from .40 per page to .25 per page to .10 per page, and eventually waived that charge altogether. However, hundreds of copies were requested and made available to Mr. McCarthy at his request, even though ultimately he decided he only wanted 61 of these copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, it is important to discuss a couple of Mr. Meller&apos;s comments. First, he states that several of the items Mr. McCarthy requested are outside the scope of Chapter 13 or required staff time to prepare, such as new inventories of the requested documents. The Commissioner does not agree that anything in the May 18 data request related to the school safety study (the subject of this opinion) is a request for the City to create additional data. (Previous advisory opinions have discussed that government entities are not required to create data to respond to requests.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there seems to be some confusion about data created, collected, and maintained by the City&apos;s contractor, SRF. Assuming the data Mr. McCarthy requested are related to the contract, they are government data, regardless of whether it is SRF or the City that maintains the data. As such, any fee the City/SRF assesses is dictated by section 13.03. It appears the City&apos;s final charge of $265 incorporates a $204.30 charge from SRF, comprised of one hour of staff time billed at $134.05 + one hour of staff time billed at $70.25. Mr. Meller did not explain to the Commissioner how this charge fits within the copy charge parameters set forth in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue before the Commissioner is whether the City&apos;s charge of $265 is appropriate. The answer depends on how the City maintains the data Mr. McCarthy wanted copied. If some of the data are electronically maintained, which appears to be the case, the City can charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, plus the actual cost of making the copies. If some of the data are maintained as paper documents, the City can charge 1) $.25 if the number of pages is 100 or fewer or 2) the actual costs of searching for and retrieving, and the actual cost of making the copies, if the number of pages is over 100.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, regarding data the City maintains in electronic format, staff made copies of (printed) those data apparently before it was clear whether Mr. McCarthy wanted to inspect or get copies. At that point, the City was maintaining the data in paper form and the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the City can charge only $.25 per page for those copies, not actual cost. To avoid this result, a government entity could adopt a policy to provide a requestor with an estimated cost for producing copies of electronic data and require pre-payment prior to preparing the copies. Also, if the City had copied the data electronically onto a flash drive or CD and allowed Mr. McCarthy first to inspect the data, according to section 13.03.subdivision 3(c), the City could have charged the actual cost fee, as pro-rated, for any of these data Mr. McCarthy wanted copied [printed]. (Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-038&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267451&quot; title=&quot;10-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-007&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Inspection of data is free. Because the 61 copies Mr. McCarthy requested were created from paper documents, the City can charge no more than $.25 per each of the 61 pages - a total of $15.25. Thus, the City&apos;s charge is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. McCarthy raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $265 to copy approximately 61 pages from the approximately 473 pages that the requestor inspected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 16, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267415</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266613</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronically maintained data (See also: Electronic data)</Title><Id>266509</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266613</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-023</Title><title>Opinion 10 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266863&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-10-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of North Saint Paul complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to data in an email?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 27, 2010; City of North Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 13, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated July 12, 2010, from John Fax. In his letter, Mr. Fax asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to access certain data from the City of North Saint Paul. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Fax provided on September 7, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Walter Wysopal, City Manager, in response to Mr. Fax&apos;s request. The purpose of this letter, dated September 13, 2010, was to inform him of Mr. Fax&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 29, 2010, IPAD received a response from Mr. Wysopal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Fax provided them is as follows. In a letter dated April 23, 2010, Mr. Fax requested certain data from the City. Of relevance here is his request for the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;any and all information [since March 1, 2010] related to written or oral communication between Mayor Mike Kuehn and Mr. John Oldendorf, President of the Gateway Trail Association, Lake Elmo, MN&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Communications between the City and Mr. Fax continued. At issue in this opinion, is an email the Mayor sent to Mr. Oldendorf. The City references this email in a May 27, 2010, letter to Mr. Fax:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;you were advised that certain correspondence between the Mayor and the other individuals is shielded from becoming public data under Minnesota Statute 13.601, Subd. 2. This statute classifies such correspondence between the Mayor and individuals as private data on individuals. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The correspondence that you are seeking was an email between a private individual and the Mayor of North St. Paul, an elected official, on the Mayor&apos;s private email address. The specific correspondence was never shared with another elected official or city staff member. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Fax wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I feel the City is misinterpreting M.S. 13.601, Subd. 2, which they allege controls why this one e-mail I am seeking is not public information I highly disagree Furthermore, I am interested in finding out from the content of this e-mail, why the Gateway Trail Association changed its original position regarding a Conditional Use Permit ISD 622 it initially advocated against and then, almost immediately after receipt of the e-mail, advocated for it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Fax&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Has the City of North Saint Paul complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to data in an email?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, classifies correspondence data between individuals and elected officials: Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private data are data on individuals that are accessible to the data subject but not to the public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wysopal wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the nature of the communication as well as the substance and context need to be considered in determining its appropriate classification. In this particular situation, the correspondence was not composed on city letterhead did not purport to be a formal communication between the City and the association and was addressed to and from Mr. Oldendorf rather than to his non-governmental association or office. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under these circumstances the City determined that the requested correspondence was between the Mayor, an elected official, and Mr. Oldendorf, an individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, it is important to point out that although Mayor Kuehn composed the email on something other than City letterhead and sent it using his private email account, as long as he wrote the email in his capacity as Mayor, the data in the email are government data. The City did not make any statements suggesting the content of the email is not related to Mayor Kuehn&apos;s duties as Mayor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature enacted the language in section 13.601, subdivision 2, in 1979. In classifying the data as private, the Legislature provided a mechanism by which an individual can correspond with his/her elected official on a matter that is personal to that individual. Some examples include correspondence between a parent and his school board member about an issue involving the parent&apos;s child, correspondence between a resident and her city council member about a neighborhood zoning matter, correspondence between a grandparent and his county board representative about the grandparent&apos;s desire to adopt his grandchild.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The email in question is correspondence between Mayor Kuehn and Mr. Oldendorf. Although Mr. Oldendorf is an individual, the Commissioner does not believe the Legislature intended for the protection afforded under section 13.601, subdivision 2, to apply to an individual writing as a representative of an organization. First, and foremost, the classification of private applies to data on individuals (as opposed to data about organizations or businesses). See &lt;em&gt;International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud&lt;/em&gt;, 765 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009). It is unlikely that someone corresponding on behalf of an organization is writing about an issue as a private citizen and not about an issue related to the organization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner previously has opined that a government entity can protect correspondence between its elected officials and certain employees if the employees were writing as private citizens. However, if the employees were writing in their roles as employees, the entity cannot use section 13.601 to withhold the data. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267479&quot; title=&quot;07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-004&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, if the Legislature intended the protection afforded under section 13.601, subdivision 2, to apply to data about organizations, it would have classified the data as nonpublic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the email in question. Based on the analysis above, if the correspondence between Mayor Kuehn and Mr. Oldendorf relates to an issue involving Mr. Oldendorf, as an individual, the data in the email can be protected by section 13.601, subdivision 2. If the correspondence relates to an issue involving an organization Mr. Oldendorf represents, such as the Gateway Trail Association, the data in the email cannot be protected under section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Fax raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data in the email relate to an issue involving Mr. Oldendorf, as an individual, the City of North Saint Paul complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data in the email relate to an issue involving an organization Mr. Oldendorf represents, the City of North Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 27, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266863</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-02-02T14:23:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-022</Title><title>Opinion 10 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266922&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-10-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to an investigation conducted by Minnesota Management and Budget: the investigative report and “supporting or underlying data for the report” about a complaint made against a former deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education?
Does MMB’s obligation to provide the Office of the Legislative Auditor with a copy of the report affect the classification of the data described in Issue 1?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 15, 2010; Minnesota Management and Budget</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 24, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Tom J. Hanson, Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB.) In his letter, Commissioner Hanson asked the Commissioner (of Administration) to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data MMB maintains. IPAD asked MMB to provide additional information, i.e., comments from the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA). Cecile Ferkul, Deputy Legislative Auditor, responded on August 25 and 26, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Tammy Pust, attorney for Chas Anderson, former Deputy Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Education, to submit comments, which she did in a letter dated September 22, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Commissioner Hanson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[MMB] has hired an outside investigator to develop facts and issue a report regarding a complaint made against Ms. Chas Anderson . . . . The complaint was made after Ms. Anderson had left state employment voluntarily but involved her activities while she was a deputy commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Office of the Legislative Auditor has requested a copy of the final report and MMB will provide it upon its completion pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 3.978, Subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once the investigation is completed, this data appears to be classified as public pursuant to the public official clause of Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 2. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MMB has advised Ms. Anderson&apos;s attorney of its opinion that the completed investigative report and supporting materials are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Pust wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Chas Anderson served as the Deputy Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) from 2003 through June 4, 2010, on which date she voluntarily resigned her employment. As of that date, no complaint had been filed with MDE, MMB or any other state agency relative to Ms. Anderson&apos;s performance of her duties as a state employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Commissioner Hanson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to an investigation conducted by Minnesota Management and Budget: the investigative report and supporting or underlying data for the report about a complaint made against a former deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does MMB&apos;s obligation to provide the Office of the Legislative Auditor with a copy of the report affect the classification of the data described in Issue 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Personnel data are government data about an individual that an entity maintains because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.  Personnel data are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies certain personnel data as public; pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to an investigation conducted by Minnesota Management and Budget: the investigative report and supporting or underlying data for the report about a complaint made against a former deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MMB believes that the data related to the complaint about Ms. Anderson, as a former deputy commissioner, are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), which provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5), upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public official includes the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust wrote that section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) is not applicable:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By its express terms, this exception [to the presumption that personnel data are private unless specifically classified as public under section 13.43] only applies when one of two tests are met: either (1) there has been an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official;&apos; or (2) a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending.&apos; Neither of these criteria are met in the present case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While MMB did conduct an investigation, it did not conduct an investigation against a public official.&apos; Ms. Anderson was the deputy commissioner at MDE, and during her employment would have constituted a public official&apos; for purposes of this exception. It is important to note, however, that the statute defines the head of a state agency and deputy agency heads&apos; as public officials;&apos; it does not include former agency or deputy agency heads within the statutory definition. Ms. Anderson was not a public official when the investigation was commenced, and is not now a public official. The fact that she was formerly a public official is irrelevant to the statutory language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The legislature certainly knew how to include former public officials within the Act&apos;s reach when they intended to do so. See Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 1 (reference to was an employee&apos;) and Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 2 (reference to current and former employees&apos;). The legislature chose not to include former public officials in Subdivision 2(e). Because Ms. Anderson is not a current state employee, she is not a public official for purposes of this section of the MGDPA [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, section 13.43 defines personnel data as data a government entity maintains because an individual  is or was an employee, applicant for employment, volunteer or independent contractor. Ms. Pust wrote that had the Legislature intended specifically to include former public officials in subdivision 2(e), it would have done so. The Commissioner acknowledges that section 13.43 could be clarified. However, she respectfully disagrees with Ms. Pust&apos;s position that the data in question are not classified under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All provisions of a statute must be given effect. (See Minnesota Statutes, sections 645.16 and 645.17.) Section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), provides an exception to the general rule, under subdivision 2(a)(5), which classifies personnel data related to complaints and charges about employees who are not public officials. By definition, the general rule applies to current and former employees, volunteers and independent contractors. The Commissioner believes therefore that section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), should be construed to include data about allegations made about public officials&apos; actions while employed in public service, even if the complaint or charge was made after a public official left public employment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The subdivision 2(e) exception classifies as public more data about individuals in their roles as public officials than would be public under the general rule. If section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) did not apply to situations like this one, then the only data that would be public would be the existence of the complaint or charge, and the status (i.e., under investigation, sustained, dismissed, etc.) Details about the nature of the complaint against the former public official would never be public. (See section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a) 4 5 and 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Pust wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Ms. Anderson] voluntarily terminated her employment on June 4, 2010, well before any complaint was made and well before any investigation was commenced. While the Legislature clearly intended to prevent high-ranking state employees from avoiding release of complaint findings merely by quitting their employment, that policy interest is not at all at issue in the present circumstances. Ms. Anderson clearly did not quit her employment to avoid disclosure of a complaint that she did not know about - and which did not even exist - at the time she terminated her employment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether Ms. Anderson could have anticipated this complaint, it is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that, in general, the Legislature also did not intend that high-ranking state employees could avoid the public release of details of investigations into allegations simply by resigning before an anticipated complaint or charge is filed. To conclude otherwise would eviscerate the principle that actions public officials take during the course of their public employment are subject to public scrutiny, including when a complaint or charge is made about those actions after an official voluntarily resigns. (IPAD staff reviewed the recording of the May 8, 1995, Minnesota House floor debate of HF1473/SF1279, during which the 1995 amendment was introduced, discussed, and approved.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the data in the investigative report, along with supporting or underlying data, are presumptively public, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(e). However, it is likely that some of the data are not public, e.g., private data about confidential sources, other public employees, etcetera, which MMB would need to redact. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does MMB&apos;s obligation to provide the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) with a copy of the report affect the classification of the data described in Issue 1?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The MGDPA is clear that when one government agency disseminates data to another government agency, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands of the entity receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13.03, Subd. 4 (c). Therefore, because the subject data is private in the hands of MMB, it remains private if disseminated to the OLA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The OLA has no legal authority to release private personnel data. Minnesota law provides that the OLA is subject to the MGDPA and shall protect from unlawful disclosure data classified as not public.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 3.979, Subd. 1. Data collected by the OLA for purposes of conducting an audit are not public during the course of the audit, and upon release of a final report by the legislative auditor, data relating to an audit are public except data otherwise classified as not public.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 3.979, Subd. 3 (a) (emphasis added.) Because the subject data is classified as private data for the reasons set forth above, and because the data&apos;s classification does not change by virtue of the fact that it is disseminated to the OLA, the data remains private and not releasable in the hands of the OLA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Ferkul stated: ;the OLA does not anticipate that the public release of the investigative report related to Chas Anderson would jeopardize any investigation that the OLA may undertake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, MMB&apos;s obligation to provide OLA a copy of the report does not affect the classification of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Commissioner Hanson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data related to an investigation conducted by Minnesota Management and Budget: the investigative report and supporting or underlying data for the report about a complaint made against a former deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education are presumptively public. MMB may need to redact not public data from the final investigative report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MMB&apos;s obligation to provide the Office of the Legislative Auditor with a copy of the report does not affect the classification of the data described in Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 15, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266922</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-021</Title><title>Opinion 10 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266984&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-09-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by Independent School District 742, and the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS): “the financial spreadsheet that shows the total cost of the mediator’s proposal and any documents in the District’s possession that show what other language agreements have been made?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2010; School District 742 (St. Cloud)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 20, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Kevin J. Rupp and Amy E. Mace, attorneys for Independent School District 742, St. Cloud. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested additional information, i.e., comments from Steven G. Hoffmeyer, Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS), which he provided on August 25, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Dave Aeikens, reporter for the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;, to submit comments. Mark Anfinson, attorney for the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, did so, in a letter dated September 22, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace, the District and its teacher&apos;s union have been negotiating the terms of the 2009-2011 contract since August of 2009. The union requested mediation from BMS; the first mediation session was held April 9, 2010. At the time of this opinion request, the most recent mediation session was August 17, 2010. According to the District, on August 18, 2010, Mr. Aeikens requested access to &quot;the financial spreadsheet that shows the total cost of the mediator&apos;s proposal and any documents in the District&apos;s possession that show what other language agreements have been made.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The newspaper noted that it agreed that the documents requested are nonpublic in the possession of BMS under law, but asserted that they were public in the District&apos;s possession.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All of the data requested has been received by Mediator Stockstead during the course of providing mediation services to the parties to a labor dispute. In addition, the BMS is currently maintaining the requested data as mediation remains open until the parties have ratified a contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District has determined that the data requested are classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.7908, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Commissioner Hoffmeyer confirmed that BMS &quot;has received and is maintaining&quot; the data at issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by Independent School District 742, and the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS): &quot;the financial spreadsheet that shows the total cost of the mediator&apos;s proposal and any documents in the District&apos;s possession that show what other language agreements have been made?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.7908, subdivision 2:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data received or maintained by the staff or commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services during the course of providing mediation services to the parties to a labor dispute under chapter 179 are classified as protected nonpublic data or confidential data on individuals, except to the extent the commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services determines access to data is necessary to fulfill the requirements of section 179A.16 or to identify the general nature of or parties to a labor dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266898&quot; title=&quot;10-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-015&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed this issue as it relates to the discussion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267559&quot; title=&quot;06-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-015&lt;/a&gt; (Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.79, subdivision 2(b) was recodified to section 13.7908 in 2007):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the Commissioner believes an argument can be made that the Council appropriately withheld the data in the rejected contract pursuant to section 13.79. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Grossman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... At the time the Star Tribune requested the rejected contract proposal on January 17 or 18, 2006, the requested data fell squarely within the definition of mediation data as set forth in Minn. Stat. section 13.79, subd. 2(b). The Metropolitan Council and the Transit Union submitted this labor dispute to the Bureau of Mediation Services and were working with their appointed mediator ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.79, subdivision 2(b), appears to classify only those data maintained by the Bureau of Mediation Services. Such a reading, however, creates an absurd result, which, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, is not to be presumed. If data relating to a mediation conducted by BMS are protected at BMS but not protected in the agency that created the data, the purpose in classifying the data at BMS is frustrated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As the Commissioner implicitly held in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266898&quot; title=&quot;10-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;advisory opinion #10-015&lt;/a&gt; . . . the boundaries of section 13.79, subd. 2 (b) are relatively narrow. They encompass only data &apos;received or maintained&apos; by the [BMS] itself. It would be extremely unfortunate if a future opinion should hold that this statute, despite its express and limiting language, in fact extended to records created by and/or in the possession of local school districts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Anfinson&apos;s position, but nonetheless, the data in question are &quot;[d]ata received or maintained by the staff or commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services during the course of providing mediation services to the parties to a labor dispute,&quot; and as such, regardless where or by whom the data were created, are classified under section 13.7908. As the Commissioner concluded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266898&quot; title=&quot;10-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-015&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, in cases in which data are classified under section 13.7908, to the extent that BMS disseminates those data to an entity, it appears that the data are classified at that entity the same way they are classified at BMS. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following data maintained by Independent School District 742, and the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS): &quot;the financial spreadsheet that shows the total cost of the mediator&apos;s proposal and any documents in the District&apos;s possession that show what other language agreements have been made&quot; are classified as protected nonpublic data, pursuant to section 13.7908.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 27, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266984</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Bureau of Mediation Services data (13.708)</Title><Id>266464</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-020</Title><title>Opinion 10 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267526&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-09-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the following three meetings: (1) Council Workshop held on February 1, 2010; (2) Council Workshop held on March 3, 2010; and (3) Council Worksession held on April 12, 2010?
Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the special meeting (City Council Workshop) held on June 28, 2010?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 23, 2010; Montrose City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 26, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received correspondence from Evan Siljander. In his email, Mr. Siljander asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion related to whether the Montrose City Council provided appropriate notice for several different meetings. Mr. Siljander submitted the $200 fee required by Minnesota Statues, section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Andrew Kauffman, President of the City Council, in response to Mr. Siljander&apos;s request. The purpose of this letter, dated August 6, 2010, was to inform him of Mr. Siljander&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City Council&apos;s position. On August 18, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated August 16, 2010, from Barbara Thwing-Swanson, Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer for the City of Montrose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Siljander provided them is as follows. His primary concern is that, with regard to the notices the City Council provided for several meetings, the City Council did not describe the purpose of the meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Siljander attached several documents to his opinion request. One was a document listing meetings for the month of February 2010, one was a document listing meetings for the month of March 2010, and one was a document listing meetings for the month of April 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Siljander asserted that the &quot;Council Workshop&quot; meeting held on February 1, the &quot;Council Workshop&quot; held on March 3, and the &quot;Council Worksession&quot; held on April 12, 2010, were not noticed properly if, as the City stated, they were &quot;continued&quot; meetings. (In a June 1, 2010, email, the City wrote to Mr. Siljander, &quot;We do not believe any violation occurred because the workshops qualify under Minn. Stat. 13D.04, Subd. 4 as meetings that were continued from the regular City Council meeting.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Siljander also asserted that the City did not provide proper notice for a special meeting held June 28, 2010. Mr. Siljander attached a copy of a document entitled, &quot;Special Meeting Notice.&quot; It states, &quot;The Montrose City Council will hold a workshop on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 6:00 pm at City Hall. Purpose: Financial Review [on next line] Training [on next line] Any Other Business that May Arise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Siljander&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the following three meetings: (1) Council Workshop held on February 1, 2010; (2) Council Workshop held on March 3, 2010; and (3) Council Worksession held on April 12, 2010?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the special meeting (City Council Workshop) held on June 28, 2010?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the following three meetings: (1) Council Workshop held on February 1, 2010; (2) Council Workshop held on March 3, 2010; and (3) Council Worksession held on April 12, 2010?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that meetings of the Montrose City Council, and workshops and work sessions of the City Council are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Thwing-Swanson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Meetings are posted at city hall and three other locations within the city as well as on the city&apos;s web site. A workshop is posted with the date, time and location; there is no action taken. In 2008 the city switched to posting all city meetings (including regular city council meetings) at the beginning of each month.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 2010 Mr. Siljander decided the manner in which we post meetings was unacceptable because the City was not posting the &quot;purpose&quot; of the council workshops. We did not believe that necessary because the workshops do not have one inclusive purpose, the purpose of the workshops is to address issues that come up at city council meetings and require additional discussion, research or review. Workshops cover a variety of information and are always open to the public. The agenda for the workshop is available in advance of the workshop itself to anyone who requests it as well as anyone in attendance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, due to [Mr. Siljander&apos;s] repeated complaints we again changed the way we post meetings. In July 2010 we reverted to posting each meeting separately. We attempt to list all of the topics that might come up at the workshops, but that isn&apos;t always possible because we post workshops or special meetings at least a week prior to the meeting giving residents an opportunity to attend.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13D provides specific requirements for giving notice of meetings. The notice required depends upon the type of meeting. The purpose of giving notice of meetings is to give members of the public an opportunity, ahead of time, to decide whether they wish to attend a meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regular meetings are, as the name suggests, regular meetings of a public body or meetings of committees the public body determines will meet regularly. A public body must keep a schedule of its regular meetings on file &quot;at its primary offices.&quot; Meetings that are not regular or emergency meetings are special meetings and require that a public body provide a more detailed notice that includes posting the purpose of the meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivisions 1, and 2, Advisory Opinions &lt;a title=&quot;04-057&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267582&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a title=&quot;10-013&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267304&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;10-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Typically, a public body sets its schedule of regular meetings on an annual basis. If the public body creates a new committee that will meet regularly, the committee&apos;s first meeting would be a special meeting at which the group would determine its regular meeting schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Ms. Thwing-Swanson describes the City&apos;s process for posting meetings, pursuant to Chapter 13D, posting is not a substitute for the City maintaining a schedule of its regular meetings. The monthly meeting postings for the three meetings in question (both Mr. Siljander and Ms. Thwing-Swanson submitted copies) do not list a purpose for the meetings. To demonstrate that the meetings were regular meetings and did not require postings that included purpose, Ms. Thwing-Swanson could have provided a schedule of the City Council&apos;s regular meetings; however, she did not do so. Thus, the Commissioner is left to conclude that the meetings were special meetings and that the City Council did not provide the notice required by section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the City, in a June 2010 email to Mr. Siljander, raised the issue of whether the meetings were continued meetings, the Commissioner will comment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 4, if a meeting and remaining agenda items (or discussion about a specific item) are to be continued at another meeting, the public body must establish the time and place, and record that information in the minutes. IPAD reviewed the minutes from the City Council meeting that preceded each of the meetings in question; there was no discussion about continuing the meetings or agenda items. If a public body does not record that information, as the City Council did not in this case, the new meeting is a special meeting and the public body must provide the appropriate notice as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Montrose City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the special meeting (City Council Workshop) held on June 28, 2010?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, describes the notice a public body must provide when it holds a special meeting. One of the requirements is that the notice must include the purpose of the meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a).) As discussed above in the &quot;Facts&quot; section, the stated purpose for the June 28, 2010, meeting was, &quot;Purpose: Financial Review [on next line] Training [on next line] Any Other Business that May Arise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a title=&quot;07-014&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267355&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-014&lt;/a&gt; in which a public body held a special meeting and the notice contained the statement, &quot;Other Legal issues may be discussed.&quot; The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that for the notice to be effective and meet the direction of the Supreme Court in [Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002)], the notice must provide detail about the purpose of the meeting. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a title=&quot;04-004&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a title=&quot;04-057&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267582&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Specifically, the Board is limited to the topics listed in the notice of special meeting. The phrase other legal issues does not give notice that the Board would, and did, discuss a traffic issue, enforcement of a zoning provision, the duties of the planning commission, review of permits issued under the zoning code and cutting weeds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Construing the requirements in section 13D.04, subdivision 2 in favor of public access, the notice for the September 13th special meeting was not sufficient and the Board was not in compliance with section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, for the reasons the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a title=&quot;07-014&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267355&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-014&lt;/a&gt;, the notice the Montrose City Council provided for the June 28, 2010, special meeting was not sufficient. If the City Council was planning to discuss other business at the meeting, it needed to specifically identify the topic(s).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Siljander raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Montrose City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the following three meetings: (1) Council Workshop held on February 1, 2010; (2) Council Workshop held on March 3, 2010; and (3) Council Worksession held on April 12, 2010. These meetings apparently were special meetings and, as such, the notice for each should have included the meeting purpose.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Montrose City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, in providing notice for the special meeting (City Council Workshop) held on June 28, 2010.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 23, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267526</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Regular meeting</Title><Id>266829</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recessed/continued meetings</Title><Id>267024</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-019</Title><title>Opinion 10 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267443&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-09-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 547, Parkers Prairie, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to gain access to the tape recording of a closed meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 20, 2010; School District 547 (Parkers Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 23, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Jacquelyn Wehking and Jennifer Marquardt, co-publishers of &lt;em&gt;The Parkers Prairie Independent&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In the letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data from School District 547, Parkers Prairie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kent Baldry, who was believed to be the responsible authority, in response to the request from Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt. The purposes of this letter, dated August 9, 2010, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 1, 2010, the Superintendent, Thomas Ames, provided a response. (Kent Baldry was the previous Superintendent.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt provided them is as follows. In their opinion request, Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[At the February 16, 2010, meeting] the board requested to close the meeting under section 13.05, subd. 3(a), stating it wished to evaluate Superintendent Kent Baldry. [He] was asked to not be present and left the meeting room with the rest of the public. The board re-opened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The board summarized its evaluation conducted during the closed meeting, offering only positive remarks regarding Superintendent Baldry. But immediately following the summary, [a Board Member] made a motion to terminate Superintendent Baldry&apos;s contract, which didn&apos;t expire until the end of the 2011 school year. No discussion whatsoever was held and a roll call vote immediately was taken. All members voted to approve the motion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 1, 2010, Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt requested data from the District:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[On February 16, 2010, the Board] requested to close the regular school board meeting to evaluate Superintendent Kent Baldry. By Minnesota Statute, a recording of the closed meeting was required. [Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], the subject (Superintendent Kent Baldry) of the data (recorded tape) is the only party that has access and to whom the data is now available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you can see by the letter enclosed, Superintendent Kent Baldry has given the &lt;em&gt;Parkers Prairie Independent, LLC&lt;/em&gt; consent to listen to the tape of the closed meeting evaluation. We request reviewal of the tape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Board Chairperson Steven Inwards] came to &lt;em&gt;The Independent&lt;/em&gt; in person [on March 5] and stated that our request would be denied on Minnesota School Board Association (MSBA) policy.Beyond this, he never provided any specific legal basis for refusing our requests to listen to the tape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 547, Parkers Prairie, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to gain access to the tape recording of a closed meeting?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a government entity must respond to requests for government data. In responding to a request, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor is denied access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt wrote that the Board closed the February 16, 2010, meeting to evaluate then-Superintendent Baldry. (Closing a meeting for this reason is allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 18, 2010, Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt obtained written consent from then-Superintendent Baldry which gave the District permission to release to the newspaper private data in the audio recording of which he is the subject. (As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a title=&quot;10-001&quot; href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267745&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 10-001&lt;/a&gt;, the classification of data in audio recordings of closed meetings depends upon how the data are classified pursuant to Chapter 13. In the current situation, given that the Board closed the meeting to evaluate then-Superintendent Baldry&apos;s performance, portions of the tape very likely contain private data about him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, a government entity must respond within ten business days when a data subject has given consent to release his/her private data to another individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 1, 2010, Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt made a written request to the District for the tape and attached a copy of then-Superintendent Baldry&apos;s consent form. Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt wrote in their opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Board Chair Steven Inwards] came to the [newspaper] in person the morning of Friday, March 5th and stated that our request would be denied he never provided any specific legal basis for refusing our requests to listen to the tape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 16, 2010 the Board received a second request in writing from our attorney. On Saturday, April 17, 2010 we were again told by [Board Chair Inwards] that we would not be allowed to listen to the tape. [Board Chair Inwards] told us that the whole board agreed no access would be granted without a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt did not provide the Commissioner with any written documentation of the District&apos;s denial and the District, in its comments to the Commissioner, did not refute the facts as Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt presented them.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Superintendent Ames wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 2, 2010, I began serving as the superintendent of [the District].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On [August 26, 2010, the Board] voted to allow Jacquelyn Wehking and Jennifer Marquardt consent to listen to the tape of the closed meeting in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt asked the Commissioner to comment on whether the District responded appropriately to their March 1, 2010, data request. Given that the District did not provide the statutory basis upon which it denied access to the data and did not release the data even though the newspaper obtained consent from then-Superintendent Baldry, the District&apos;s response was not in compliance with Chapter 13. Based on the information Superintendent Ames submitted, it appears the District has changed is previous position and is willing to provide Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt with the data they requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Wehking and Ms. Marquardt raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School District 547, Parkers Prairie, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 1, 2010, request to gain access to the tape recording of a closed meeting for the following reasons: (1) the District did not provide the statutory basis for denying access to the data; and (2) the District did not release the data even though the newspaper obtained written consent for the release from then-Superintendent Baldry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 20, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267443</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-018</Title><title>Opinion 10 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267529&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-09-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Fergus Falls comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, in responding to a data request for data on individuals and corporations that have made contributions or pledges toward the Fergus Falls Community Arena and the amounts they have contributed or pledged?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 14, 2010; City of Fergus Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 27, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Matt Von Pinnon, then-editor of &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Von Pinnon asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data related to a new City of Fergus Falls ice arena. IPAD requested additional information which Mila Koumpilova, current editor of &lt;em&gt;The Forum,&lt;/em&gt; provided on July 28, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Sievert, Administrator of the City, in response to Ms. Koumpilova&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 6, 2010, were to inform him of Ms. Koumpilova&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. The City did not provide a response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Koumpilova provided them is as follows. In his May 27, 2010, letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Von Pinnon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Last year, the Fergus Falls City Council approved building a new ice arena in town - a project that would combine roughly $4 million of public funding and about $3 million in private donations, in addition to $1.6 million in land and equipment donated by the Fergus Falls Public Schools. The City will own, operate and maintain the new facility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has since signed an agreement with the [Fergus Falls 544 Education Foundation], a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, to collect pledges and donations toward the arena project on behalf of the City. The Foundation is briefing the City on the overall amount of pledges and donations collected, but it is not disclosing information about the identities of contributors or the size of their pledges or donations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Mr. Von Pinnon provided to the Commissioner a copy of the agreement, which the parties signed in January 2010.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 8, 2010, &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; made a data request to the Foundation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting a list of individuals and corporations that have made contributions or pledges toward the Fergus Falls Community Arena and the amounts they have contributed or pledged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We believe the documents requested are public records because the Education Foundation has a written agreement with the City of Fergus Falls, a public entity, to collect pledges on its behalf. The relevant Minnesota statute is 13.05, subdivision 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Foundation responded on April 15, 2010:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At this time, the information requested is private information and the Foundation needs to respect the private nature of the information held by it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and is not subject to [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13]. The [Foundation] is not performing any governmental function, but instead is simply serving as a facilitator for collections of private donations, which are solicited by the Fergus Falls Ice Arena Fundraising Committee and transferred to the City of Fergus Falls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At IPAD&apos;s request, &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; then requested the same data from the City. Ms. Koumpilova requested the data in a letter dated June 24, 2010. She wrote, &quot;The agreement between the [Foundation], the Fergus Falls Ice Arena Fundraising Committee and the City of Fergus Falls states it is an obligation of the [Foundation] to &apos;provide monthly information to the Committee and the City as to what funds have been received and by whom.&apos;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, on June 28, 2010, the City provided a print-out for the period 1/1/2007 - 6/25/2010 that lists &quot;the contributions and donations from private sources.&quot; The City also provided copies of the &quot;actual checks the City received in conjunction with these donations.&quot; Of the copies of eight checks the City provided, three are from a specific charitable foundation, and the rest are from the Foundation. The City&apos;s attorney wrote, &quot;This is the extent of the data that is in the City&apos;s possession.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her July 28, 2010, letter to the Commissioner, Ms. Koumpilova wrote, &quot;As you will see from the documents enclosed, the City provided copies of checks that merely listed the [Foundation.] Again, we feel the names of individual donors and the amounts they have pledged or contributed should be made available to the public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Koumpilova&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Fergus Falls comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, in responding to a data request for data on individuals and corporations that have made contributions or pledges toward the Fergus Falls Community Arena and the amounts they have contributed or pledged?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the agreement, the Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation registered as a 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service. Generally, such organizations and their data are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 except in situations where they have a contractual relationship with a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City and the Foundation entered into an agreement in January 2010. The obligations of the Foundation include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Provide for an escrow account on behalf of the City to hold directed fundraising monies in the type and place as directed by the Committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Deposit monies raised directly by the Committee or monies specifically designated for the purpose of building a new ice arena located in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, into this account as the funds are received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Provide monthly information to the Committee and City as to what funds have been received and by whom.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Committee is the group appointed by the Foundation as its non-exclusive licensee to use the name and logo of the [Foundation] in connection with the administration of the fundraising efforts for the term of this agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The obligations of the City include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Receive monies from the [Foundation] on a monthly or more frequent basis for the purpose of providing funding for development, construction and maintenance of a new ice arena facility in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Oversee the use of those funds and financing, upon the conditions satisfactory to the City and in accordance with the applicable law, for the purpose of a new ice arena facility in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In soliciting and collecting contributions for the new arena that the City will own, operate, and maintain, the Foundation (and its committee) is performing a function that the City otherwise would have to undertake itself. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11, the related data are government data and, as such, are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - regardless of whether the City or the Foundation maintains the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.792, classifies, as not public, certain gift data maintained by several specific organizations, i.e., the Minnesota Zoological Garden, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, the Twin Cities Regional Parks Foundation, and State Services for the Blind. However, the City of Fergus Falls is not one of the entities that has data classified by section 13.792.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires that government entities create and maintain records that document their official activities. In its June 28, 2010, response to &lt;em&gt;The Forum&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; data request, the City appeared to be stating it did not have &lt;em&gt;in its possession&lt;/em&gt; a list of the individuals and corporations that have made contributions or pledges toward the Arena and the amounts they have contributed or pledged. This raises two issues. First is that, in the agreement, one of the obligations of the Foundation is to &quot;provide monthly information to the City as to what funds have been received &lt;em&gt;and by whom&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; [Emphasis added.] Thus, based on the agreement, it appears the City should maintain the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, even if the Foundation has not provided to the City the names of the contributors and amounts pledged and contributed, under section 15.17, these data are records &quot;necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [the entity&apos;s] official activities&quot; and, as such, should be maintained by either the City or the Foundation (on behalf of the City). Therefore, even if the City is not maintaining the data, the City must be able to retrieve the data from the Foundation or the Foundation, upon request, must provide the data to a data requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Koumpilova raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Fergus Falls did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, in responding to a data request for data on individuals and corporations that have made contributions or pledges toward the Fergus Falls Community Arena and the amounts they have contributed or pledged.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M.Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 14, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267529</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official records</Title><Id>266372</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Obligation to maintain and preserve records</Title><Id>266373</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-017</Title><title>Opinion 10 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266763&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-07-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a January 10, 2010, request for a listing of outside consulting activities in which the superintendent has engaged over the past ten years?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 1, 2010; School District 47 (Sauk Rapids-Rice)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 6, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated May 3, 2010, from Jeanene Kern. In her letter, Ms. Kern asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Greg Vandal, District Superintendent, in response to Ms. Kern&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 24, 2010, were to inform him of Ms. Kern&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 9, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Michael Waldspurger, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Kern provided them is as follows. In a January 10, 2010, email, Ms. Kern wrote to the District Board Chair, Robyn Holthaus:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that outside consulting activities conducted by the superintendent must be approved by the board. I am also aware that the superintendent has engaged in outside consulting activities that have been approved by you, the chairman of the board, rather than through full board approval. Because of the lack of transparency of this alternative approval process, I am unable to identify outside consulting activities through the official records of the board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, I am requesting a complete listing of outside consulting activities in which the superintendent has engaged over the past 10 years including but not limited to those activities that you or a past chairperson has approved personally, or through full board approval or that have not been approved by you or the board, or any other outside activities involving fees, honoraria or other benefits of value such as travel reimbursements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Holthaus responded on January 16, 2010:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While Board chairs, have per our agreement with Superintendent Vandal, provided verbal permission to him when he has occasionally done such work, no written record exists of those authorizations. As such, I am unable to provide what you request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To her opinion request, Ms. Kern attached a copy the Superintendent&apos;s contract. Of relevance here, is section IX (1.), &lt;em&gt;Outside Activities&lt;/em&gt;, which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While the Superintendent shall devote full time and due diligence to the affairs and activities of the School District, the Superintendent may serve as a consultant to other School Districts or educational agencies, lecture, engage in writing and speaking activities, and engage in other activities if such activities do not impede the Superintendent&apos;s ability to perform the duties of the superintendency. &lt;em&gt;The Superintendent shall not engage in other employment, consultant service, or other activity for which a salary, fee, or honorarium is paid, without prior approval of the School Board.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Kern&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a January 10, 2010, request for a listing of outside consulting activities in which the superintendent has engaged over the past ten years?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a government entity must respond to requests for government data. In responding to a request, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor is denied access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires government entities to create and maintain records that document their official activities. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, a government entity must keep official records for the time period prescribed in the entity&apos;s records retention schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waldspurger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response the District truthfully informed Ms. Kern that it did not maintain any government data that fell within the scope of her request. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Kern asserts that the District was obligated to create and preserve a record of Superintendent Vandal&apos;s &quot;official business&quot; of the District because his employment contract with the District stated that he could not engage in [&quot;employment, consultant service without prior approval of the School Board.&quot;].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger, discussing section 15.17, wrote, &quot;The statute does not require school officials to create or preserve records relating to their private, personal, or other outside activities.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Through their conduct, the parties to the contract - Superintendent Vandal and the District&apos;s School Board - interpreted Section IX of the contract to mean that Superintendent Vandal was required to obtain approval from the Board Chair rather than the Board as a whole. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board never took any action to approve or deny a request from Superintendent Vandal to engage in [&quot;employment, consultant service.&quot;]. Because the Board never took any official action relative to a request by Superintendent Vandal to engage in outside consulting activities, the Board had no obligation to create any records under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue before the Commissioner is whether the District responded appropriately to Ms. Kern&apos;s request for data. The District apparently has neither data listing any outside consulting activities in which the Superintendent has engaged nor data documenting decisions the board or board chair made to approve or deny such a request from the Superintendent. Thus, while it is technically correct that the District has no data responsive to the request, because of the interplay between section 15.17 and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, there is a question as to whether the District should maintain such data. As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267846&quot; title=&quot;08-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-026&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states that access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Thus, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be accessible pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The contract between the Superintendent and the District states that the School Board must act (by denying or approving the request) prior to the Superintendent accepting outside work (consulting, etc.), for which he will be paid. Such a determination is an official action and should be documented in some manner. In addition, if, as Ms. Holthaus and Mr. Waldspurger state, the Board gave approval to the Board Chair to make such determinations, there should be documentation of this action as well as documentation of the Board Chair&apos;s decisions regarding any requests the Superintendent has made to take on outside paid work. The data documenting these official actions are official records and, as such, the District must maintain them for the time period prescribed in the District&apos;s retention schedule. Because the District did not create records that should exist, it is unable to appropriately respond to Ms. Kern&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Kern raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17 require that School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, create and maintain data documenting its official actions. The District did not do so; therefore, it is not in compliance with sections 15.17 and 138.17. In addition, because Ms. Kern&apos;s right to access government data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, cannot be realized if the District did not create and maintain data as required, the District did not comply with Chapter 13 in responding to her data request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 1, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266763</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Relationship to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266647</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-016</Title><title>Opinion 10 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266834&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-06-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for data from the City’s Computer-Aided Dispatch system?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 2010; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 13, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated March 29, 2010, from Paul Hannah, on behalf of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. In his letter, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Pioneer Press&apos; access to certain data from the City of Saint Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Shari Moore, City Clerk, in response to Mr. Hannah&apos;s request. The purpose of this letter, dated April 23, 2010, was to inform her of Mr. Hannah&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On May 12, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Reyne Rofuth, Senior Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Hannah provided them is as follows. On July 7, 2006, the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; requested certain data from the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A copy of the computerized incident-level data from your Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for all incidents from September 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006. We would like it to include all of the fields in the database, including but not limited to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- CN [call number] number&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Cross reference CN number&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Console Number&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Incident Type&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Priority of Call&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Disposition of call&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Date/time call received&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Date/time call dispatched&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Date/time squad arrived&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Date/time squad cleared&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Occur date from&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Occur date to&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Complete incident address, including house number, street name, suffix, direction and cross street&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Sector and grid&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The St. Paul Police Department generates approximately 60,000 reports per year. The incident data from the CAD involves even more incidents. The data, whether in written report form or CAD system form, contains mixed data (public and not public data). Therefore, the Department would have to review each incident and redact not public data on over 170,000 incidents. It is unknown how long this would take, even given the reasonable time standard of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13]. Therefore, our offer is to provide you with all the field data, except those fields that contain mixed data with the last two digits of addresses, removed. Below is a list of the always public data fields and the mixed data fields:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Always public data fields:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Complaint number,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Cross reference number,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Console number,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Incident type,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Priority,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Disposition of call,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Date and time call received,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Data and time squad dispatched,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Date and time squad cleared call,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Occur date (from), and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Occur date (to).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mixed data fields:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Source of call,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Site of call,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Caller name,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Caller location,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Caller phone number,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Call anonymity, and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Incident address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;By removing the last two digits of all addresses, to protect not public data, you will be able to determine the incident location within a one to three block distance on any given street.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Hannah&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for data from the City&apos;s Computer-Aided Dispatch system?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, requires government entities to provide copies of public data upon request. Also, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data always are public, regardless of whether there is an active investigation. Such data are listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivisions 2 (arrest data), 3 (request for service data), and 6 (response or incident data). Most, if not all, of the time, when there is an incident involving a law enforcement agency, the agency collects and maintains the complete street address connected with the incident.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although most law enforcement data are public, there are several exceptions. One that is applicable here is section 13.82, subdivision 17, which requires law enforcement agencies to withhold data that would identify certain individuals, including: victims or alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct; victims of or witnesses to a crime if the individual has requested not to be publicly identified, unless the agency determines that the safety or property of the individual would not be threatened by the release of data; paid or unpaid informants in certain situations; undercover law enforcement officers; and juvenile witnesses in certain situations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hannah wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department has refused to provide the last two digits of thousands and thousands of addresses to the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;, even though complete addresses are public under Section 13.82. Its only argument is that some addresses might be protected from nondisclosure under Section 13.82. According to [the City], &quot;[i]t is unknown which specific subdivision [renders this data as nonpublic], without having to look at each report or incident.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rofuth wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is true the SPPD [St. Paul Police Department] refused to provide full numerical addresses to the [&lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press]&lt;/em&gt; in their requests for multiple year data dumps. It is the SPPD position [sic] they have the obligation to make the threat determination and other classification determinations under Minn. Stat. 13.82 at the time of the request because there are numerous situations in which the release of the address data fields would likely identify a protected individual, who&apos;s [sic] identity is private data. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;everyone who professionally works with [Chapter 13] knows[s] and struggle[s] with the fact [that Chapter 13] is outdated in its application to electronic data. The legislature has failed to address this extremely important issue and correct the problem which leaves government entities to deal with unfair threats of noncompliance on a daily basis or, at the very least, with confusion in its application. The SPPD struggles with this dilemma and always acts in good faith in responding to media request [sic] with all the data it can provide without violating the statutory protections of individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508&quot; title=&quot;00-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-011&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In their correspondence with Mr. Anfinson, SLMPSD [South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department] representatives told him that it would be very expensive and time-consuming to review and remove the not public data from the thousands of log sheets generated each year &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If government entities neglect their obligations to maintain data in easily accessible formats, this is the kind of situation that can arise. SLMPSD might want to consider a redesign of the log sheet in order to zone the not public data, so that they are easier to remove for purposes of inspection of the public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;SLMPSD is obligated to provide free inspection of the public data in the log sheets, and it must bear the cost of separating the not public from the public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508&quot; title=&quot;00-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-011&lt;/a&gt; involved data in paper format, the analysis in that opinion applies to the matter Mr. Hannah raised. The City argued it would have to review each of the 170,000 incidents in the database prior to making a determination about how the data are classified. This response illustrates the very reason that when a government entity creates and develops an electronic database, staff must consider how the entity will respond to data requests involving data in the database. Perhaps if the City&apos;s database had been developed differently, staff could include certain public/not public classifications at the time of initial data entry and flag certain fields for classification at a later point in time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that some of the incident-related data the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; requested are public and some are not public. Regarding address data, the Commissioner points out it is not necessarily the case that providing a complete street address connected to an incident identifies an individual whose identity requires protection under section 13.82. For example, if there is a shooting at a particular address and the witnesses to the incident (who requested that their identities be protected and the agency has followed the process outlined in section 13.82, subdivision 17) do not live at that address, the address is public. Or, for example, releasing the complete street address of an apartment building does not necessarily identify a witness (who has requested protection per section 13.82, subdivision 17) who lives in one of the units of the building.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rofuth also asserted that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 16, allows the City to withhold the complete address data from the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. Section 13.82, subdivision 16, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the not public. However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. When investigative data becomes inactive, as described in subdivision 7, the actual physical data associated with that investigation, including the public data, shall be available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267634&quot; title=&quot;94-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-054&lt;/a&gt;, section 13.82, subdivision 16, states that, when it is not administratively feasible for a law enforcement agency to separate public data from not public data, it is permissible for the law enforcement agency to not provide physical access to the data but to make the public data available to the public in some other reasonable manner. This provision is not a basis on which to deny access to public data. The Commissioner does not agree that it applies to the situation at hand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to determine whether the City responded appropriately to the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&apos;&lt;/em&gt; data request. Pursuant to sections 13.03 and 13.82, the City must provide the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; with the public data in the database and also withhold the not public data. However, in fulfilling its obligation under Chapter 13 to provide public data upon request, it is not appropriate for the City to withhold complete address information related to an incident because there is a possibility that release of the data will identify an individual whose identity must be protected pursuant to section 13.82. The City must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether certain data related to an incident must be protected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Ms. Rofuth states that Chapter 13 has not been updated to reflect issues related to electronic data storage. Government entities are storing data in increasingly larger databases. If those databases are not designed to accommodate an entity&apos;s obligation to provide appropriate access to public data, it can be challenging. The Commissioner encourages government entities that house data in large databases, such as the City of Saint Paul, to raise their concerns with the Legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Hannah raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In agreeing to provide the Pioneer Press with certain incident-related public data (data in the &quot;always public data fields&quot;), the City of Saint Paul did comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, the City did not comply with Chapter 13 in refusing to provide complete address data when the City had not determined that the release of the complete address data would identify an individual whose identity must be protected under section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 1, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266834</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-015</Title><title>Opinion 10 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266898&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-05-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 152, Moorhead, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the terms of a tentative settlement agreement with District teachers?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 17, 2010; School District 152 (Moorhead)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 26, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Matthew Von Pinnon, of the &lt;em&gt;Fargo Forum&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Von Pinnon asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the &lt;em&gt;Forum&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; right to have access to the terms of a tentative settlement agreement between Independent School District 152, Moorhead, and its teachers&apos; union. (IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Von Pinnon provided on April 2, 2010.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lynne Kovash, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Von Pinnon&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 5, 2010, were to inform her of Mr. Von Pinnon&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. James E. Knutson, an attorney for the District, responded, in a letter dated April 22, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Steven G. Hoffmeyer, Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS), to submit comments. Mr. Hoffmeyer did so, in a letter dated April 22, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Von Pinnon, in a mediation session closed by BMS mediators, the Moorhead School District reached a tentative agreement with its teachers&apos; unions on January 1, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; asked for access to the tentative agreement. The District replied, in an email dated January 4, 2010, that &quot;[n]either the mediation sessions nor the content of the mediation sessions are [sic] considered public. We have no obligation to release the information from the mediation sessions, including the details of the tentative agreement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Pinnon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our attorney . . . contacted the lawyer for the Moorhead school district and asked him for the legal basis that the district was relying on to withhold the settlement terms. The lawyer cited Minn. Stat., sec. 179A.14, subd. 3, which is the statute that allows mediators to close meetings; according to our attorney, it does not classify data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the parties were unsuccessful in reaching an agreement through negotiations, mediation was requested from BMS. . . . . Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section179A.14, Subd. 3, the Mediator closed all mediation sessions as private. Therefore, as determined by the Mediator, all discussion that took place during these mediation sessions by and/or between the [District] and the Union, including documents and proposals exchanged between the parties or developed by each of the parties for mediation, were private. In addition, any discussions between the Mediator and either of the parties and between the parties and documents exchanged were private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, in a mediation session conducted on January 1, 2010 between the Union, the [District] and the Mediator, a tentative agreement (&quot;TA&quot;) was reached. The Mediator told the [District] and the Union that the TA was private information and would be private until ratified by Union members and the entire School Board voted on the TA. Based on the directive of the Mediator, the [District] was not obliged to disclose any documents, proposals or agreements that took place during mediation sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School Board met in a private/closed session at 6:00 pm on January 11, 2010, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13D.03, Subd. 1(b). At that time, the full School Board was advised of the contents of the TA. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A regular meeting of the School Board was held at 7:00 pm on January 11, 2010, immediately after the closed School Board meeting. At the regular meeting, the TA was made public and the School Board voted to approve it. A representative of the Fargo Forum was present at that meeting and received a copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson submitted a copy of that document, which is dated January 1, 2010, and entitled &quot;Tentative Agreement.&quot; The document also contains this subheading: &quot;Presented to Moorhead Area Public Schools School Board on January 11, 2010.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Commissioner Hoffmeyer discussed the mediation process, in general, and stated: &quot;[t]his tentative agreement, like many such agreements, was a verbal agreement, documents were not exchanged. We do not believe the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requires the creation of a document when one does not exist.&quot; (Formatting omitted.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Von Pinnon&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 152, Moorhead, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the terms of a tentative settlement agreement with District teachers?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, the term &quot;government data&quot; means &quot;all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this situation, it is not clear if the data the &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; requested existed in physical form. Mr. Knutson referred to &quot;documents and proposals exchanged between the parties or developed by each of the parties for mediation,&quot; but Commissioner Hoffmeyer stated the tentative agreement &quot;was a verbal agreement, documents were not exchanged.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear if Commissioner Hoffmeyer meant that there were no data that were responsive to the &lt;em&gt;Forum&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; request, i.e., data from which the &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; could learn the terms of the settlement agreement, or if he is stating that nothing like a &quot;tentative agreement document&quot; existed. Commissioner Hoffmeyer is correct that Chapter 13 does not require an entity to create data in response to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in its response to the &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; and in its comments to the Commissioner, the District did not state that there were no data. Furthermore, as noted above, the District did possess a document entitled &quot;Tentative Agreement&quot; that was dated January 1, 2010, and presented to the School Board on January 11, 2010. The Commissioner cannot resolve the disparity between Mr. Hoffmeyer&apos;s and Mr. Knutson&apos;s comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, this discussion will consider the &lt;em&gt;Forum&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; right to gain access to the terms of the tentative agreement if those terms were data recorded in some physical form at the time the &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; made its request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District stated that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.14, subdivision 3, the mediation sessions and all related &quot;documents and proposals exchanged between the parties or developed by each of the parties for mediation&quot; were closed and &quot;private&quot; per the mediator&apos;s instruction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 179A.14, subdivision 3, &quot;[a]ll negotiations, mediation sessions, and hearings between public employers and public employees or their respective representatives are public meetings except when otherwise provided by the commissioner.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Pinnon asserted that this provision does not classify data; the Commissioner agrees. In Advisory Opinion 06-015, the Commissioner addressed this issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As prescribed in section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. Accordingly, Minnesota Rules do not classify data, nor does a mediator&apos;s Order. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the Council to deny access to the data in the rejected contract offer based on either Minnesota Rules, section 5510.2905, or the mediator&apos;s Order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the School Board&apos;s closed meeting at which the Board was advised of the TA&apos;s contents, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [closed meeting] was held to discuss and review labor negotiations proposals. . . . . What the Fargo Forum is asking is that the [District] disclose this proposed TA . . . notwithstanding the fact that it was going to be disclosed to the School Board for the first time at a closed meeting. What is the purpose of holding a closed meeting to discuss a document that has already been disclosed? If this were the case, the sanctity of Minn. Stat. section13D.03, Subd. 1(6) [sic] would be destroyed and would be rendered meaningless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.03, subdivision 1(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Knutson&apos;s position. Section 13D.03 allows a governing body to decide to close an otherwise open meeting for the purposes stated above; it does not classify data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, although none of the parties here raised this issue, the Commissioner notes that Advisory Opinion 06-015 discussed the possibility that this kind of data may be classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.7908 (recodified from section 13.79, subdivision 2(b) in 2007), which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data received or maintained by the staff or commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services during the course of providing mediation services to the parties to a labor dispute under chapter 179 are classified as protected nonpublic data or confidential data on individuals, except to the extent the commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services determines access to data is necessary to fulfill the requirements of section 179A.16 or to identify the general nature of or parties to a labor dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the discrepancy between Mr. Knutson&apos;s and Commissioner Hoffmeyer&apos;s comments, it isn&apos;t clear if there were data the &lt;em&gt;Forum&lt;/em&gt; sought that could have been classified under this provision at the time it made its request; the Commissioner raises the issue as it relates to the discussion in 06-015:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the Commissioner believes an argument can be made that the Council appropriately withheld the data in the rejected contract pursuant to section 13.79. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Grossman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... At the time the Star Tribune requested the rejected contract proposal on January 17 or 18, 2006, the requested data fell squarely within the definition of mediation data as set forth in Minn. Stat. section 13.79, subd. 2(b). The Metropolitan Council and the Transit Union submitted this labor dispute to the Bureau of Mediation Services and were working with their appointed mediatorhellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.79, subdivision 2(b), appears to classify only those data maintained by the Bureau of Mediation Services. Such a reading, however, creates an absurd result, which, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, is not to be presumed. If data relating to a mediation conducted by BMS are protected at BMS but not protected in the agency that created the data, the purpose in classifying the data at BMS is frustrated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner, however, strongly encourages interested parties to take this issue to the Legislature to ensure that the valid policy reasons for protecting data during mediation are considered and appropriate data classifications adopted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in cases in which data are classified under section 13.7908, to the extent that BMS disseminates those data to an entity, it appears that the data are classified at that entity the same way they are classified at BMS. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Von Pinnon raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If data documenting the terms of a tentative settlement agreement with District teachers existed at the time of the request, Independent School District 152, Moorhead, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.14, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 17, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266898</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Bureau of Mediation Services data (13.708)</Title><Id>266464</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-014</Title><title>Opinion 10 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267588&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-05-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in disclosing certain data to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) given there has been no final disposition of disciplinary charges against the involved employee and DPS was not identified in the Tennessen warning notice given to the employee at the time of the Internal Affairs investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 4, 2010; Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 28, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated January 26, 2010, from Isaac Kaufman, on behalf of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. In his letter, Mr. Kaufman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office inappropriately disseminated data to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Kaufman provided on March 8 and March 15, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher, in response to Mr. Kaufman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 19, 2010, were to inform him of Mr. Kaufman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s position. On April 9, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated April 7, 2010, from David Metusalem, Chief Deputy, Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 19, 2010, IPAD invited DPS to provide comments. On April 16, 2010, IPAD received comments from E. Joseph Newton, General Counsel for DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Kaufman provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Kaufman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a Ramsey County [employee] was interviewed as part of an Internal Affairs investigation. It was alleged that this [employee] had accessed the [Minnesota Department of Public Safety&apos;s Division of Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS)] database for non-law enforcement purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the outset of the interview, the [employee] was shown a document entitled, &quot;Advisement Prior to a Formal Statement,&quot; which [the employee] reviewed and signed. The Advisement included [a] Tennessen warning&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Advisement contained no warning that the information collected during the interview might be disclosed to DVS ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Approximately six weeks later] the County sustained disciplinary charges against [the employee]. [Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.] immediately filed a grievance. The grievance is currently pending, and there has been no final disposition of the disciplinary action under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kaufman wrote that approximately one month later, the County investigator sent a letter to DVS. The letter outlined the complaint made against the employee, discussed database reports, explained the disciplinary action the Sheriff&apos;s Office took, and included information apparently from the employee during the interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kaufman provided the Commissioner with a copy of the document the employee signed, as well as a copy of the letter the Sheriff&apos;s Office sent to DVS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Kaufman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in disclosing certain data to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) given there has been no final disposition of disciplinary charges against the involved employee and DPS was not identified in the Tennessen warning notice given to the employee at the time of the Internal Affairs investigation?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) &lt;!--/font--&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain data about employees are public (section 13.43, subdivision 2), and certain data are private (section 13.43, subdivision 4). Private data are accessible to the data subject but not to the public (section 13.02, subdivision 12).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity collects private or confidential data about an individual from that individual, the entity must provide a notice, commonly referred to as a Tennessen warning. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2.) This notice must contain the following: (1) the purpose and intended use of the data; in other words, why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data; (2) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (3) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity can disseminate private data to another government entity only in certain situations, one of which is when statutory authority exists for the sharing. In situations when the entity obtained the private data from the data subject and was required to give a Tennessen notice, the entity must have statutory authority to share the data &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; must have listed the outside entity in the notice as an entity that has authority to receive the data. (Sections 13.04, subdivision 2, and 13.05, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kaufman&apos;s question is whether the Sheriff&apos;s Office inappropriately disseminated private data about the employee to DPS. The data in question include the nature of the discipline, details about the complaint, database reports, and information the employee apparently provided to the Sheriff&apos;s Office regarding his/her actions. Of these data, it is only the information the investigator asked the employee to provide about her/himself that would have required the Sheriff&apos;s Office to provide a Tennessen warning notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Metusalem provided limited comments to the Commissioner. He stated, &quot;The individual and [his/her] actions which are the topic of the correspondence that Mr. Kaufman would like evaluated are the subject of an open criminal investigation and on-going administrative inquiry.&quot; Mr. Metusalem did not explain the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s decision to disclose the data to DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information Mr. Kaufman provided, the Sheriff&apos;s Office began an administrative investigation into the employee&apos;s alleged misuse of the DVS database. As part of the investigation, which Mr. Kaufman characterized as &quot;an Internal Affairs investigation,&quot; the employee was interviewed. At the outset of the interview, the employee reviewed and signed an &quot;Advisement&quot; that states, among other things, &quot;You are being questioned as part of an official Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Department administrative investigation&quot; and &quot;The disclosure of any internal affairs file information to anyone investigating or considering criminal charges is prohibited.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kaufman asserts that the Advisement the employee signed included a Tennessen notice. Mr. Metusalem did not comment on the Advisement document itself or the issue of the Tennessen notice. Thus, the Commissioner assumes that the statements in the Advisement do constitute the Tennessen notice the Sheriff&apos;s Office gave the employee. Upon review, the Advisement neither explains to the employee that the data collected from him/her will be disseminated to DPS nor explains that the Sheriff&apos;s Office might use the data as part of its own criminal investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One statutory provision that allows the Sheriff&apos;s Office to disseminate private personnel data to DPS is Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15, which states that private personnel data can be disseminated to a law enforcement agency &quot;for the purpose of reporting a crime or alleged crime committed by an employee, or for the purpose of assisting law enforcement in the investigation of a crime committed or allegedly committed by an employee.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DPS is responsible for the DVS database. Mr. Newton noted in his comments to the Commissioner that the misuse of the database is a crime. Thus, for DPS to determine whether a crime has occurred or for DPS to conduct its own criminal investigation, DPS would need to have access to some of the data the Sheriff&apos;s Office collected as part of the employee investigation. Ordinarily, the Sheriff&apos;s Office can disseminate any relevant private personnel data to DPS per section 13.43, subdivision 15. However, in this situation, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4, the Sheriff&apos;s Office could not have disseminated to DPS any of the data collected from the employee about the employee because DPS is not listed in the Advisement as one of the outside entities authorized to access those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton raised the issue that if the data in question are classified as not public active criminal investigative data (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7), then the Sheriff&apos;s Office also had the authority to share the data with DPS pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 15. As noted above, Mr. Metusalem stated that there is an active criminal investigation; he did not provide any information as to the point in time when an active criminal investigation commenced. Based on the information Mr. Kaufman provided, the Sheriff&apos;s Office conducted the initial interview with the employee before it opened an active criminal investigation. Thus, the data collected from the employee are private personnel data, and are classified under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity is limited in how it can use private data within its own entity and who can gain access to the data. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data are available to individuals &quot;within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access.&quot; Further, in a situation in which the collection of private data required the entity to give the data subject a Tennessen notice, the entity can use the data only in the ways it described in the notice. (Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.04, subdivision 2, and 13.05, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the Sheriff&apos;s Office collected private personnel data about the employee from the employee, it was required to provide a Tennessen notice. The notice should have explained that the Sheriff&apos;s Office might be using the data in a criminal investigation. It did not; therefore, the Sheriff&apos;s Office was not able to use those data in its criminal investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the Sheriff&apos;s Office could have used the data not subject to the limitations stated to the employee in the Tennessen notice in its criminal investigation, i.e., information from database reports, the type of disciplinary action the Sheriff&apos;s Office took, and details of the complaint. The Sheriff&apos;s Office then could share with DPS those data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 15. However, the Sheriff&apos;s Office could not use or share with DPS, in connection with a criminal investigation, the private personnel data it collected from the employee, about the employee, because it didn&apos;t tell her/him it could do so in the Tennessen notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is important to point out that complicated issues can arise when a government entity that is conducting an investigation into employee misconduct is both the employer and a law enforcement agency, as is the case here. Classification of the data depends upon whether the investigation begins as a personnel investigation (section 13.43 classifies data and Tennessen notice required) or as a criminal investigation (section 13.82 classifies data and Tennessen notice not required - section 13.04, subdivision 2). Here, based on the information provided by Mr. Kaufman, the data in question stem from a personnel investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue that Mr. Kaufman raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office had authority to disseminate certain private personnel data about the employee to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sheriff&apos;s Office had authority to disseminate certain active criminal investigative data to DPS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.82, subdivision 15.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sheriff&apos;s Office did not have authority to disseminate to DPS the data it collected from the employee about the employee as part of the personnel investigation because the Tennessen notice did not meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 4, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267588</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Dissemination to law enforcement agency (13.43, subd. 15)</Title><Id>266920</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-013</Title><title>Opinion 10 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267304&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, regarding the notice of a special meeting held November 30, 2009?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 29, 2010; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 12, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Loren Zutz. In his letter, Mr. Zutz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) and the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Mr. Zutz submitted the $200.00 fee required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Douglas Sorenson, Chairman of the Board, in a letter, dated March 16, 2010, to notify Mr. Sorenson of her intent to issue the opinion and to give the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On April 5, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jeffrey W. Hane, an attorney representing the Board. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Zutz, a former Board member, wrote that on November 30, 2009, the Board held a meeting that was noticed as a special meeting. According to Mr. Zutz, the notice was posted and published. The copy of the notice Mr. Zutz provided reads, &quot;[a] Special Meeting of the [Board] will be held on Monday, November 30, 2009 at the District Office at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to (but not limited to) the [sic] review of Permit Applications.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Zutz wrote: &quot;[t]he Approved Minutes of the November 30 2009 special meeting . . . indicate that three permit applications were reviewed and approved. Additionally two other significant non-permit items were discussed and decided upon with no notice to the public . . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The facts as set forth in Mr. Zutz&apos;s request are not quite correct. The Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District typically adopts a schedule of routine meetings which fall on the first Monday and third Monday of every month, with the exception of holidays . . . . Attached is a true and correct copy of the 2009 Meeting Notice which indicates same. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Zutz wishes to characterize [the November 30, 2009] meeting as a &apos;special meeting&apos; as that term is used in Minn. Stat. section 13D.04, Subd. 2. That characterization is not correct. Mr. Zutz appears to have seized upon the words that appeared in the notice and determined that the meeting must have been a special meeting. However, just because the notice uses the language right out of 13D.04, Subd. 1 does not make the meeting a special meeting. Instead, it was merely one of the routine Monday meetings, but held at a different time and place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The copy of the 2009 schedule of regular meetings of the Board, which Mr. Hane provided, shows that the Board scheduled regular meetings twice monthly for April-October, and once per month from November-March. The schedule indicates that the Board had regular meetings scheduled for November 16, 2009, and December 21, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Zutz&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, regarding the notice of a special meeting held November 30, 2009?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute between the parties that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law and must comply as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c)(3). (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267617&quot; title=&quot;07-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-018&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the OML, public bodies hold three types of meetings: regular meetings, special meetings, and emergency meetings. Every public body is required to provide members of the public with notice of its meetings, regardless of the type of meeting. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For regular meetings, the only notice requirement is that the public body keeps a schedule of its regular meetings on file at its primary offices. If the public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a different time or place than is indicated on the schedule, it must give the same notice as is required for a special meeting. (Section13D.04, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A special meeting is any meeting, other than an emergency meeting, that is not a regularly scheduled meeting. For a special meeting, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. (Section 13D.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hane stated that the November 30, 2009, meeting was not a special meeting, but instead &quot;merely one of the routine Monday meetings, but held at a different date and time.&quot; He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The third Monday meeting in November took place on November 16, 2009. The normal next ordinary meeting date for the District, had there been sufficient general business to come before the Board, would have been the first Monday in December which was December 7. However, the Board had scheduled the annual meeting of the Advisory Committee for the District to take place on Monday, November 30. . . . . [so] the Board elected to move the meeting that would normally fall on the first Monday of December and instead hold it in conjunction with the annual Advisory Committee meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the November 30, 2009 meeting was a regular meeting. As noted above, according to the schedule of regular meetings Mr. Hane provided, the Board did not have a regular meeting scheduled for December 7, so it could not have decided to hold that meeting at a different date/time. Furthermore, the notice of the November 30 meeting specifically stated that it was a special meeting, and members of the public had no way of knowing otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-004&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he Commissioner is of the opinion that the Board&apos;s actions are limited to those topics included in the notice of special meeting. This conclusion is further supported by the purpose and spirit of the OML, which is to allow the public the opportunity to participate in the government that represents it. The public cannot receive effective notice unless the Board is limited to acting on only those items for which notice was provided when the special meeting was scheduled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, special meetings are meetings that are neither regular nor emergency meetings. Accordingly, pursuant to section 13D.04, subdivision 2, the topics the Board could discuss or decide at that meeting were limited to the statement of purpose included in the notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That notice stated that the purpose of the meeting was to &quot;review permit applications,&quot; but also contained a qualifier, that it was &quot;not limited to&quot; that purpose. According to the minutes of the November 30 meeting, the Board acted on permit applications, and also &quot;authorized the removal of the Texas crossing [on Judicial Ditch #25-1] and to replace the crossing with a 48 [inch] culvert&quot; and approved the purchase of certain property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed this issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267355&quot; title=&quot;07-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The township&apos;s attorney argues that the statutory requirements were met. However, in order for the Board to be able to give notice to those who have requested notice about special meetings for specific purposes, more detail is needed than was provided before the September 13th meeting. See section 13D.04, subdivision 2(b). Mr. Gilchrist outlined five different legal issues that the Board discussed at the September 13th meeting. Without a more specific notice, there is no way for the members of the public to know what will be discussed and whether they should attend a special meeting. The public also had no way of knowing that these were the five legal issues that would be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Gilchrist also argues that the concepts of new business and old business that apply in a regular meeting should apply to a special meeting. However, the public knows that any business can be discussed at a regular meeting of the Board. The September 13th meeting was a special meeting and different rules apply. Specifically, the Board is limited to the topics listed in the notice of special meeting. The phrase other legal issues does not give notice that the Board would, and did, discuss a traffic issue, enforcement of a zoning provision, the duties of the planning commission, review of permits issued under the zoning code and cutting weeds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hane stated that Judicial Ditch 25-1 is a ditch under the control of the District, and the District &quot;is not required to grant itself permits for its own activities, and has never in the past, issued permits to itself for its own activities on its own ditches.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Board&apos;s action to authorize the purchase of property, Mr. Hane wrote that the topic had been before the Board at other meetings, and the final approval of the transaction &quot;was not a surprise to the public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, at the November 30, 2009, meeting, the Board was limited to acting to &quot;review permit applications&quot; as stated on the notice of the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Zutz raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, regarding the notice of a special meeting held November 30, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 29, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267304</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-20T20:27:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-012</Title><title>Opinion 10 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267974&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-23T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the litigation committee or subcommittee of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 2010; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 10, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Elden Elseth. In his email, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) and the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Mr. Elseth submitted the $200.00 fee required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Douglas Sorenson, Chairman of the Board, in a letter dated March 16, 2010, to notify Mr. Sorenson of her intent to issue the opinion and to give the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. On April 5, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gerald Von Korff, an attorney representing the Board. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Elseth, a former member of the Board, wrote, [o]n October 15th, 2007, the MSTRWD Board of Managers established a litigation subcommittee&apos; to discuss litigation matters coming before the watershed district. Three of the seven members of the board were appointed to this committee or subcommittee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Elseth stated: [a]ccording to the October 15, 2007 minutes . . . of the MSTRWD Board, the purpose of this subcommittee was to address litigation or potential litigations in scheduled, closed sessions, with the District&apos;s legal council [sic].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Von Korff, [t]he litigation committee was formed by the Managers upon our advice as a means of addressing attorney-client complications arising from the existence of three related litigations . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Korff stated that litigation committee meetings were conducted in compliance with the open meeting law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Elseth&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the litigation committee or subcommittee of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute between the parties that the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law. The issue before the Commissioner is whether the litigation committee is also subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, the OML applies to:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . .&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) of any&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) committee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) subcommittee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;of a public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did not define meeting in Chapter 13D; however, in &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983), the Supreme Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Meetings subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13D] are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, based on the above, meetings of the litigation committee of the Board are subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Elseth raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The litigation committee or subcommittee of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (MSTRWDB) is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 23, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267974</id><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-011</Title><title>Opinion 10 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267612&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the State Board of Public Defense comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when, at a February 11, 2010, open meeting, (1) board members left the meeting to deliberate in a separate room and (2) after returning to the meeting, conducted a straw poll?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 2010; State of Minnesota Board of Public Defense</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 9, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated March 4, 2010, from Sharon Jacks. In her letter, Ms. Jacks asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the State of Minnesota Board of Public Defense complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Laura Budd, Board Chair, in response to Ms. Jacks&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 19, 2010, were to inform her of Ms. Jacks&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On April 6, 2010, IPAD received a response from Ms. Budd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Jacks provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Jacks wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On February 11, 2010, I attended a Board of Public Defense meeting. I wanted to observe the Board&apos;s interviews of the applicants for the position of the Chief Appellate Defender. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;After the last interview, it was announced that a short break would be taken before deliberations would begin. During that break, I noticed that the chief administrator for the public defense system and the board chair were escorting individual board members into an adjoining room. After a few minutes, a board member would reemerge and another would go into the room with the board chair and chief administrator. I do not know if the board chair was in the room the entire time. I did see at least four board members go into that room, and at times more than one board member was in the room.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;To be respectful, I did not walk into the room but rather waited until a board member reemerged to ask what was happening. I told her that we were present for the open deliberations and asked if I should be going in the adjoining room to hear them. She replied that the meeting was open. At this point the chief administrator and a board member reentered the meeting room and the public deliberations began.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Those deliberations ended in less than 10 minutes. A straw poll was conducted. There were four votes for one applicant and one each for two other applicants. Then the board unanimously voted for [one of the applicants].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jacks attached to her opinion request signed statements from three individuals who also attended the February 11, 2010, meeting. One individual stated, &quot;During the recess, I observed [the Board Chair] summon individual board members into a side room, one at a time. At least two members went into the room with [the Board Chair].&quot; The second individual wrote, &quot;I did witness [the Board&apos;s Chief Administrator] take individual board members into the hallway for private conversations. Eventually the conversations were moved to an adjourning [sic] room.&quot; The third individual stated, &quot;I then watched as an individual from the State Public Defender Administrative Services Office took individual members of the Board into a side room, where some type of discussion was held.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Jacks&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the State Board of Public Defense comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when, at a February 11, 2010, open meeting, (1) board members left the meeting to deliberate in a separate room and (2) after returning to the meeting, conducted a straw poll?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first part of the issue Ms. Jacks asked the Commissioner to address is whether the Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, during the recess of the February 11, 2010, Board meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states, in part, &quot;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public.&quot; The Legislature did not define &quot;meeting&quot; in Chapter 13D; however, in &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983), the Supreme Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We therefore hold that &quot;meetings&quot; subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13D] are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Budd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;There are no factual allegations in the letters which you received to support any claim that deliberations on the candidates took place anywhere but in the meeting room during the public meeting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Second, there is nothing in any of the correspondence that you received that indicates that there was ever a quorum of board members together outside of the meeting room. In fact, the letters only indicate that at least two board members were outside the room.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On February 11, 2010 the board did in fact interview four candidates. After the final interview, the board recessed. During that time I did have a conversation with the Chief Administrator for the Board of Public Defense. That conversation centered on whether the Board could go into closed session to deliberate on the candidates. My concern was that since we had two candidates who already were Board of Defense employees, the discussion might well center on performance of these employees which could be construed as private. The Chief Administrator indicated to me that he did not believe the Board could close the meeting. At that time, the Vice Chair of the Board joined us. [He] also indicated that he did not believe the meeting could be closed. At this point we erred on the side of keeping the meeting open.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s understanding is that the Minnesota Board of Public Defense is made up of seven individuals; however, based on the minutes Ms. Budd provided for the February 11, 2010, meeting, it appears only six board members were present at that meeting. Thus, the involvement of at least four board members is required for there to be a quorum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neither Ms. Jacks nor the three other individuals who submitted comments on her behalf allege that four or more board members were gathered together outside the meeting room &lt;em&gt;at the same time&lt;/em&gt;. Ms. Jacks, though, did state she saw at least four board members go into an adjoining room, and at times more than one board member was in the room. This raises the question of whether the Board was engaged in a serial-type meeting - exchanges between individual members of a public body on a particular topic, close in time, that collectively involve a quorum or more of the public body. The Minnesota Supreme Court wrote in &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum for the purpose of avoiding public hearings or fashioning agreement on an issue may also be found to be a violation of [Chapter 13D] depending upon the facts of the individual case.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Board was conducting a serial-type meeting, any discussion or deliberation needed to occur during the official meeting, not during the time the Board was in recess.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Budd presented a different set of facts; namely, that, during the recess, two members of the Board (she and the Vice Chair) and the Chief Administrator gathered to discuss whether the Board needed to close the meeting. Based on the discussion as described by Ms. Budd, because there was no quorum, there was no meeting pursuant to Chapter 13D. Ms. Budd wrote, &quot;there is nothing in any of the correspondence that indicates that there was ever a quorum of board members together outside of the meeting room.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot resolve factual disputes. Thus, she is unable to determine whether the Board complied with Chapter 13D during the time the board meeting was in recess. However, if the facts are as Ms. Jacks describes - at least four board members met individually with one or more board members in an adjoining room - than, per &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, the Board may have violated Chapter 13D by conducting serial meetings. If, on the other hand, the facts are as Ms. Budd describes - the Chair and Vice Chair met with the Chief Administrator to discuss closing the meeting and no other gatherings took place - then, there was likely not a violation of Chapter 13D because the gathering did not constitute a quorum of the full body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second part of Ms. Jacks&apos; question is whether the straw (unofficial) poll taken, apparently anonymously, at the February 11, 2010, meeting was appropriate. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Budd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the Board returned from its recess it did deliberate for some time and a straw poll was conducted. [the straw poll] did not narrow the list of finalists, the vote was made public immediately, and the process was not designed to avoid any public discussion. Members of the audience found out the results of the straw poll at the same time as the members of the Board. Those in attendance were not denied any information. In fact, after the straw poll was conducted the two board members who did not prefer [the candidate with four votes] as their first choice indicated publicly who their preferred candidates were.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Court of Appeals discussed straw votes in &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press v. City of Mankato&lt;/em&gt;, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn.App. 1997), a case in which a city council took a written straw vote to narrow the list of finalists during a meeting. The results were not made public during the meeting, but were recorded in the meeting minutes, and were made available only at a later date. The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A city council meeting is not really &quot;open&quot; to the public if the council is conducting its voting in secret. Secret voting denies the public an opportunity to observe the decision-making process, to know the council members&apos; stance on issues, and to be fully informed about the council&apos;s actions. We conclude that the straw vote here was a secret vote, and, as such, violated the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mankato&lt;/em&gt; at 295, 296.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the issue Ms. Jacks raised, although the Board took an anonymous straw vote at the February 11, 2010, meeting, because discussion at the meeting revealed the vote tally and the candidate voted for by each board member, the Commissioner concludes that the straw poll vote did not violate Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Jacks raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because there is a factual dispute regarding whether the Minnesota Board of Public Defense met inappropriately during the time its February 11, 2010, meeting was recessed, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the straw poll the Board took during its February 11, 2010, meeting, because the Board revealed the results of the straw poll during that same meeting, the Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 23, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267612</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Serial meetings</Title><Id>266363</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Voting</Title><Id>266364</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-010</Title><title>Opinion 10 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266508&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed “the ‘estimated’ value reports of the Stengrim property” to the public at the March 16, 2009, Board Meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> April 21, 2010; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 4, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated March 1, 2010, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) inappropriately disseminated data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nick Drees, Administrator of the MSTRWD, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 15, 2010, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MSTRWD&apos;s position. On April 5, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gerald Von Korff, an attorney representing the MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. [Gary] Toren of Toren Appraisal Services, was engaged by the MSTRWD to determine an &quot;estimated&quot; value range and/or &quot;estimated&quot; market value for a potential purchase of my real property. The MSTRWD distributed the February 10, 2009 letters (Exhibits A and B) to the public at the March 16, 2009 meeting. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim provided to the Commissioner a copy of two letters, both dated February 10, 2009, addressed to Mr. Drees from Mr. Toren. The letters are identical except that the February 10, Exhibit A, letter contains certain text not contained in the February 10, Exhibit B, letter. The text in the February 10, Exhibit A, letter that is not in the February 10, Exhibit B, letter is Mr. Toren&apos;s estimate of the value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s property. Mr. Toren gives a dollar value for the entire property, which he breaks into three component parts (cropland, CRP [Conservation Reserve Program] cropland, and woodland), and a dollar value for each of the three component parts. Both the February 10, Exhibit A, letter and the February 10, Exhibit B, letter also contain a range of the estimated market value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a June 9, 2009, letter to MSTRWD Board Chair, Douglas Sorenson, Mr. Stengrim wrote: &quot;The letter dated February 10, 2009 appears to be the report of the determined valued range and has been disseminated to the public. This willful action appears to be a clear violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.44, subdivision 3.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed &quot;the &apos;estimated&apos; value reports of the Stengrim property&quot; to the public at the March 16, 2009, Board Meeting?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(a), classifies &quot;estimated or appraised values of individual parcels of real property that are made by personnel of a government entity or by independent appraisers acting for a government entity for the purpose of selling or acquiring land through purchase or condemnation&quot; as confidential (data on individuals) or protected nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Von Korff wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim inquired of [the MSTRWD] whether it would be willing to make a payment to induce him to settle [a court case] [Mr.] Stengrim&apos;s attorney indicated that another line of potential settlement would be that as part of the consideration for the settlement, [the MSTRWD] would take some land that [Mr.] Stengrim owned &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The MSTRWD] had no need for this land. It did not want to purchase it. The only public purpose for receiving it would be to terminate its litigation with [Mr.] Stengrim &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It was for this reason that the managers commissioned a range of value opinion. They wanted to settle the dispute on the board of managers regarding whether the cost of the release was exorbitant or prudent&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The land valuation was not obtained for the purpose of purchasing land: it was acquired to assure that any settlement would be transparently costed&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Korff attached to his comments a February 26, 2009, letter from Mr. Stengrim to Mr. Toren. In this letter, Mr. Stengrim wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You confirmed that the MSTRWD requested that you determine &quot;a value range&quot; of the market value of my property for the potential purchase by MSTRWD. When asked if the MSTRWD informed you that this property was part of a settlement offer, not as a direct potential purchase, concerning a lawsuit you acknowledged they had not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim states that the MSTRWD obtained an appraisal of his property for the purpose of purchasing his property. Mr. Von Korff states that the MSTRWD obtained the appraisal to determine the value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s settlement proposal. This is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the MSTRWD obtained the appraisal for determining the value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s settlement proposal, the data in question are not classified pursuant to section 13.44 and therefore, are public pursuant to the general presumption in Chapter 13. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, however, the MSTRWD obtained the appraisal because it was interested in purchasing Mr. Stengrim&apos;s property, the MSTRWD should not have released the &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt; of the property until the occurrence of events listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(c). The Commissioner notes that section 13.44, subdivision 3(a), protects only the estimated or appraised &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt; of the real property, not the value range nor the other data contained in the appraisal documents, dated February 10, 2009. Thus, the only data that would be protected under section 13.44, subdivision 3(a), are Mr. Toren&apos;s estimate of the dollar value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s property contained in the February 10, Exhibit A, letter. In other words, the total dollar value and the dollar values of the component parts (cropland, CRP cropland, and woodland) would not be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) obtained the appraisal to determine the value of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s settlement proposal, the data in question are public and the MSTRWD appropriately released the data. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the MSTRWD obtained the appraisal for the purpose of purchasing Mr. Stengrim&apos;s property, the dollar value (total plus dollar value of each component) is not public and should not have been released. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 21, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266508</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appraisals (13.44)</Title><Id>266507</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-009</Title><title>Opinion 10 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266564&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 861, Winona, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for “all e-mails or other written forms of correspondence regarding how the superintendent evaluation is being conducted?”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 12, 2010; School District 861 (Winona)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 23, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated February 22, 2010, from Cynthya Porter, News Editor of the Winona Post. In her letter, Ms. Porter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from School District 861, Winona. IPAD asked for additional information, which Ms. Porter provided on March 9, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Durand, District Superintendent, in response to Ms. Porter&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 11, 2010, were to inform him of Ms. Porter&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 30, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Eric Quiring, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Porter provided them is as follows. In a January 8, 2010, email to the District, Ms. Porter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are requesting access to all e-mails or other written forms of correspondence regarding how the superintendent evaluation is being conducted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I understand that the evaluation itself contains protected personnel data regarding [performance], and that such information is not available. However, what we are requesting is communication regarding the preparation of the evaluation, including who is completing evaluation forms for the review, what the process will be for tabulating them and what the communication has consisted of regarding execution of that process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a January 27, 2010, email to the District, Ms. Porter reiterated her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email later in the day of January 27, 2010, the District responded: &quot;Upon review of all e-mails by our attorney, I have been advised that all existing e-mails related to the superintendent evaluation process are private personnel data and can not [sic] be released.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a February 9, 2010, email to the District, Ms. Porter disputed the District&apos;s position:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the Winona Post respectfully disagrees with the characterization that documents detailing how the evaluation is being conducted are protected personnel data. The contents of a personnel evaluation are private, the procedures to conduct one are not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;That an evaluation is being conducted is not protected data. Procedural information regarding how the process is carried out, the names of the individuals submitting evaluations, the process for tabulating and disseminating data, and the employee&apos;s rights before, during and after the evaluation process are a matter of protocol and not evaluative in nature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Communications regarding that protocol do not constitute protected personnel data, they represent district communications regarding policies and procedures. We understand that in some situations statements can be made in the body of these documents that might be evaluative in nature and we acknowledge the district&apos;s responsibility to redact those specific statements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About the time Ms. Porter submitted her opinion request, Pat Blaisdell, the District&apos;s Director of Human Resources, sent an email to Ms. Porter. (Mr. Quiring provided a copy to the Commissioner.) The email contains a list of the names of the individuals who &quot;were provided a copy of the superintendent evaluation form to complete.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Blaisdell further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The individuals listed were provided an addressed, stamped envelop [sic] and asked to complete the evaluation and return it by November 30, 2009. The individuals were advised the evaluation forms were anonymous and did not need to be signed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once collected, the evaluation forms were tabulated, as per the superintendent&apos;s contract, by Brian Neil and Stacey Mounce Arnold.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to the employee&apos;s rights before, during, and after the evaluation process, I refer you to Article IX Section 5 (Superintendent Performance Appraisal) as amended July 27, 2006, which outlines the process for evaluation, and to Minnesota Statute 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District previously had provided a copy of the contract to Ms. Porter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Porter&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 861, Winona, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for &quot;all e-mails or other written forms of correspondence regarding how the superintendent evaluation is being conducted?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Quiring wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Porter&apos;s request for communications regarding the superintendent&apos;s evaluation involves personnel data on an individual, Superintendent Durand. Even if Mr. Durand is not named, any data regarding his evaluation would be classified as data on an individual because Mr. Durand could be easily identified as the subject of that data.The data sought by Ms. Porter relates to Mr. Durand&apos;s employment and is not specifically classified as public under [Chapter 13]. Accordingly, the [District] properly determined that the communications relating to the superintendent evaluation are private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [District] has identified the individuals who were provided evaluation forms, disclosed that the evaluations were anonymous, disclosed [who tabulated the evaluation forms]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [District] is not authorized to release private personnel data on Mr. Durand, whether it is part of the evaluation process or not. The communications sought by Ms. Porter do not contain data that would be public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. While it is true that any data that do not, or could not, identify an individual employee would be public, no such data exists in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In responding to data requests, government entities must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor cannot have access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. Here, the District&apos;s initial response was that the data Ms. Porter requested were not public. After Ms. Porter disputed the District&apos;s determination, and nearly a month later, the District provided information regarding the process for evaluating the Superintendent. However, the District did not provide Ms. Porter with actual data, i.e., communications regarding the evaluation procedures and protocols. Rather, in her email, Ms. Blaisdell listed the evaluators and summarized parts of the process. As the Commissioner previously has opined, Chapter 13 gives people the right to gain access to government data as those data exist in the entity. (Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267866&quot; title=&quot;04-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-031&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267822&quot; title=&quot;07-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-015&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Quiring states that the communications Ms. Porter seeks do not contain public data. However, it seems likely that the information Ms. Blaisdell provided in her email to Ms. Porter came from government data maintained by the District. Such data are public and should have been provided to Ms. Porter - if they are part of a document that also contains not public data, the District&apos;s obligation is to redact the not public data and provide a copy of the remaining public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Porter correctly asserts that data detailing how the evaluation is being conducted are public. These data are not data about the superintendent and, therefore, are not classified pursuant to section 13.43. Thus, they cannot be private personnel data. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267490&quot; title=&quot;08-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-023&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote, &quot;the data in the contract are data that describe the general process the District uses to evaluate its superintendent, not specific performance evaluation data about Mr. Meeks. The data are not data on individuals as defined under section 13.02, subdivision 5, and therefore are public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Porter raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming the information School District 861, Winona, provided in an email response are a compilation/summary of the actual data, the District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for &quot;all e-mails or other written forms of correspondence regarding how the superintendent evaluation is being conducted.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 12, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266564</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Evaluation process data (is not personnel data)</Title><Id>266563</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-008</Title><title>Opinion 10 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266657&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-04-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Commerce maintains: the names of propane companies and their weekly residential propane prices for the heating seasons of 2003-2004 through the present obtained by the Department as part of a federal government survey?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 8, 2010; Minnesota Department of Commerce</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 18, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Alberto Quintela, Jr., staff attorney for the Minnesota Department of Commerce. In his letter, Mr. Quintela asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Department maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Quintela provided them is as follows. He explained in his opinion request that the Department received a data request from someone wishing to inspect surveys of statewide retail prices for residential propane. Mr. Quintela wrote that the Department has data responsive to the request for &quot;years 2003 to the present.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quintela wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Department] conducts a telephone survey of weekly residential propane prices during the winter heating season months on a voluntary basis on behalf of the Energy and Information Administration (EIA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The EIA uses the weekly fuels pricing information to monitor supply conditions for heating oil and propane, and it provides its analysts with the necessary information to monitor heating fuel prices in the event of sudden market changes or supply disruption.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The survey form includes a space for [the Department] to record the name of a particular company together with the company&apos;s weekly residential price for No. 2 heating oil and propane. The EIA selects the particular group of companies to be included in each year&apos;s EIA survey.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Department] conducts the [survey] by calling each EIA-selected company each week during the heating season. [The Department] promptly reports the survey information to the EIA. [The Department] creates Minnesota-specific summaries of residential heating oil and propane prices from the data it obtains from the [surveys].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Quintela&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Commerce maintains: the names of propane companies and their weekly residential propane prices for the heating seasons of 2003-2004 through the present obtained by the Department as part of a federal government survey?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Quintela stated his position that the Department is not prohibited from publicly releasing the names of the propane companies and their weekly residential propane prices. First, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;as stated by the EIA, the [Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)] does not prohibit [the Department] from disclosing to the public the EIA [survey] data&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[EIA] confirmed in [a February 4, 2010, email to the Department its] understanding that EIA does not consider federal law to prohibit the [the Department] from disclosing to the public the EIA [survey] data. Rather, the EIA considers it to be permitted by Exemption 4 of FOIA to withhold EIA [survey] data when requests for the information are made to EIA, and the EIA does not disclose such data when asked. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Exemption 4 allows the federal government to withhold certain commercial or financial information and trade secrets. 5 U.S.C. section 552(b)(4).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quintela included as part of his opinion request a copy of the February 4, 2010, email referenced above. In part, it states: &quot;It is your office&apos;s judgment in responding [to the data request] whether to apply any exceptions provided under federal FOIA law or rely solely on your state law in responding to [the request].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quintela also stated that the Department is not bound by a contract with the EIA that dictates classification of the data. This is significant because pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.35, as a condition of a contract, federal agencies can require that government entities treat, as private (data on individuals) or nonpublic (data not on individuals), data that an entity collects and maintains pursuant to the federal contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Mr. Quintela asserted that the weekly residential propane prices of the propane companies are not trade secret data, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Department] is of the view that the Propane Companies&apos; weekly residential propane prices are publicly available upon request of consumers. To test this understanding, [the Department] made several test calls. Without identifying itself, [the Department] asked for a price quote for residential propane from three propane companies and received from each company its residential propane price. The pricing data appears to be consistent with the information [the Department] obtains in response to the weekly EIA [survey]. [The Department] concludes that the weekly residential propane prices of the Propane Companies are made public upon request and are not kept secret nor do they derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable. Thus, the Propane Companies&apos; identities and their prices are not &quot;trade secret&quot; under the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Quintela stated, &quot;[Chapter 13] provides that all government data is public unless classified differently.&quot; He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information collected by [the Department] on behalf of EIA is government data. [The Department] has not identified a provision of [Chapter 13] that would permit [the Department] to classify the [survey] data as nonpublic so as to withhold [it] from public disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Quintela; for the reasons he specified, the survey data in question are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. Quintela raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data the Minnesota Department of Commerce maintains are public: the names of propane companies and their weekly residential propane prices for the heating seasons of 2003-2004 through the present obtained by the Department as part of a federal government survey.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 8, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266657</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Federal contracts data (13.35)</Title><Id>266656</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-007</Title><title>Opinion 10 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267451&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-03-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Ramsey County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $600 for copies of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 16, 2010; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 29, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated January 28, 2010, from Dan McGrath. In his letter, Mr. McGrath asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the fee Ramsey County charged him for copies of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julie Kleinschmidt, Ramsey County Manager, in response to Mr. McGrath&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 8, 2010, were to inform her of Mr. McGrath&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On March 3, 2010, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Darwin Lookingbill, Civil Division Director, Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In an email dated January 19, 2010, Mr. McGrath wrote to Mr. Lookingbill regarding access to certain election data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please see attached spreadsheet for specific polling place roster pages and/or absentee ballot envelopes and/or EDR [Election Day Registration] signature pages. I can either look through the entire precinct with an election department staffer, or will accept the specific page(s) that contain the data sought, or sufficient pages to demonstrate that the data sought does not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It may be simpler to produce the entire stack of documents for a given precinct and just let me flag the ones I may want copied but, of course, that will be more work for me, so I&apos;ll be fine with having the documents already set aside for me if you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, I will want to examine ALL documents (rosters, EDR signature pages, absentee ballot envelopes) for the following precincts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The subject line of Mr. McGrath&apos;s email is, &quot;List of documents for review and possible copying.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. McGrath&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Ramsey County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $600 for copies of government data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, applies when an individual who is not the data subject requests access to government data. If the individual wants to inspect the data, the entity may not charge any fee (section 13.03, subdivision 3(a)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the individual wants copies of the data, the entity may choose to charge a fee. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that if the number of requested paper copies is 100 or fewer, the entity can charge no more than $.25 per page. If the number of pages is more than 100, the entity&apos;s fee must be based on the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and for making the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lookingbill wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Mr. McGrath] asked for all documents for each [of the individuals on Mr. McGrath&apos;s list] He asked for copies of all the documents we pulled for the individuals on the list which equaled exactly 118 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A total of 25 hours of staff time was devoted to assembling and copying these documents. Ramsey County charged Mr. McGrath $25 per hour for the staff time. This is a rate that is less than the actual salary and overhead of staff involved. The total initially requested was $625.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After Mr. McGrath objected to the amount, I reviewed the billing and determined that some of the time could arguably relate to separating public from private data. The bill was then reduced to $42.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This case is not like Advisory Opinion 04-038 where the party requested to inspect a large number of documents and then only copied a portion of those documents. The vast majority of the time incurred by Ramsey County related to retrieving and copying the information relating to the [requested data]. Mr. McGrath took copies of all that information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Furthermore, Mr. McGrath never requested a &quot;free&quot; inspection and then a separate request for copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, based on information Mr. Lookingbill provided, it appears the County, in its accounting of the 25 hours of staff time, billed Mr. McGrath for &quot;obtaining documents from storage&quot; and for &quot;public inspection monitor.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. McGrath wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Wednesday, January 27th 2010, I visited Ramsey County Elections to inspect documents that Ramsey County workers retrieved at our request. I inspected the documents for two hours and requested copies of some that were pertinent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A Ramsey County worker informed me that the copies totaled 120 pages and that exceeded 100 so we would be billed for staff time instead of the typical 25 cents per copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Going in, I did not know if I would want copies of any of the documents I asked to view or not. After reviewing them, I decided that I wanted copies of some of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thousands of pages were requested for inspection. Only 120 were afterwards requested for copying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lookingbill states that Mr. McGrath, &quot;asked for copies of all the documents we pulled which equaled exactly 118 pages. A total of 25 hours of staff time was devoted to assembling and copying these documents.&quot; Mr. McGrath states, &quot;Thousands of pages were requested for inspection. Only 120 were afterwards requested for copying.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The dispute here appears to be whether the County charged Mr. McGrath for searching for and retrieving data Mr. McGrath inspected but did not get copies of.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Mr. McGrath requested copies of all the data he inspected, the County can charge him the actual cost (searching for and retrieving the data, and making the copies) of copying all the data. If Mr. McGrath inspected the data and requested copies of only some, the County should pro-rate the fee based on the number of pages copied and the actual cost to search for and retrieve those pages. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue in this opinion is whether the County&apos;s copy charge is allowable under Chapter 13. Regarding the portion of the charge for &quot;obtaining documents from storage&quot; and for &quot;public inspection monitor,&quot; the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that Chapter 13 does not allow government entities to include either of these as part of a copy fee. (The Commissioner discussed data storage issues in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267781&quot; title=&quot;95-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-044&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the remaining part of the charge, because there is a factual dispute, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether it is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. McGrath raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ramsey County did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in requiring the requestor to pay, as part of the copy fee, for time staff spent obtaining documents from storage or monitoring during inspection. Regarding the remainder of the County&apos;s copy fee, because there is a factual dispute, the Commissioner cannot determine whether it is allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 16, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267451</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-006</Title><title>Opinion 10 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267537&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-03-11T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Northfield comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the names of the two finalists for the position of president of the Northfield Hospital?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 2010; City of Northfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 25, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from David DeLong. In his letter, Mr. DeLong asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to access certain data about the City of Northfield Hospital.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Deborah Little, City Clerk, in response to Mr. DeLong&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 9, 2010, were to inform her of Mr. DeLong&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. IPAD received a response from Ms. Little on February 24, 2010, and a response from Marin Swanson, attorney for the Northfield Hospital, on February 26, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. DeLong provided them is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Northfield Hospital announced that they would be commencing a search to replace the current President/CEO.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On 12/04/2009 [Friday] I made a public data request for the names of two finalists.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I made a data request at the Administration Office of the Northfield Hospital. [the current Hospital Administrator, Ken Bank said] we&apos;re not releasing the names yet, they need time to tell their employers and clear their schedule.I restated that I was making this request under the data practices act, and he said something to the effect that we don&apos;t deal with that here and that I should go check with City Hall.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I went over to Northfield City Hall, and explained that I had just been at the Hospital trying to find out the names of the two administrator finalists and they had sent me over here. [city staff] said that Deb (city clerk, and the city&apos;s responsible authority) was out, but she gave me a data request form to fill out. I filled out the form [city staff] said she didn&apos;t expect Deb back today, but she would see that she got it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At 1:11 pm [Monday, December 7, 2009], Deb Little leaves me a message with the two names.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 11, 2009, Ms. Swanson wrote to Mr. DeLong:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;At the time of your request on December 4, the process of selection of finalists to be interviewed for the position of President of the Northfield Hospital had not been completed. In other words, the process included both an offer of an interview by the Hospital and acceptance of the offer by the applicants.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Accordingly, at the time of your request the names of the applicants under consideration to be interviewed as finalists were still private data. The names became public when the Hospital&apos;s search consultant confirmed that those persons had not withdrawn their names and had accepted the opportunity to be interviewed as finalists.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;With regard to your request being made to Ken Bank and his referring you to the City Clerk, please be aware that the Hospital is an instrumentality of the City and is subject to the data practices procedures and policies of the City. The City Clerk is the responsible authority and data practices compliance official of the City.[The City Clerk] has not designated the Hospital President [to assist in complying with the Data Practices Act]; therefore the City Clerk is the proper person to respond to a request such as yours.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. DeLong&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Northfield comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the names of the two finalists for the position of president of the Northfield Hospital?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing the responses from the City and the Hospital, the Commissioner has determined there are two questions to resolve; one is whether the City responded in a timely manner and the second is whether the response was responsive to Mr. DeLong&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the timely response, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor cannot have access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Little wrote that on Friday, December 4, 2009, she left the office shortly before Mr. DeLong made his data request. She further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On Monday, December 7, 2009, upon returning to work, I received the data request. Staff informed me that Mr. DeLong had been sent [to the City] from the Northfield Hospital.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;[On December 7] I sent an e-mail to Mr. Ken Bank, Hospital Administrator, for the requested information. I noted that I left a voice mail message for the requestor at 1:11 p.m. on December 7. The request was, therefore responded to within less than one business day from receipt.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;After review of this situation, the City of Northfield has requested that Northfield Hospital adopt their own data practices policy and designate their own responsible authority. The Hospital has special data privacy issues and has staff with the related expertise in those areas. The City will, of course, continue to respond to all requests for data in the City&apos;s possession such as related to the purchase and sale of real estate and facilities and the construction of facilities when these items relate to City Council actions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Swanson wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Under Chapter 14 of the Northfield Charter the Hospital is owned and operated by the City. &quot;Control and management&quot; of the City&apos;s Hospital and related facilities is committed to a Board whose members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority of the City Council.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Historically and presently, the City of Northfield and its responsible authority have been responsible for data practices matters for all of these board, commissions and authorities.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the City Clerk needs to obtain data from the Hospital in order to respond to a data request, that is no different from obtaining data from the community development department or the finance department or the police department.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am not aware of any law which states that a municipal hospital is a separate political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lacking any legal authority which establishes that Northfield Hospital is a separate political subdivision, and given the local Charter and ordinance provisions which establish and affect the Hospital, I have concluded and I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the Hospital is an instrumentality of the City of Northfield. Accordingly, it is governed by the data practices policies and procedures of the City unless and until a different policy or set of procedures is adopted for it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. DeLong requested data on Friday, December 4, 2009, from the Hospital. Staff there denied him access to the data and advised him to check with the City. Mr. DeLong then went to the City, also on December 4, and made a data request. The City responded on the following Monday by providing him with the names of two individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concludes the City did respond in a timely manner but disagrees with the City&apos;s determination of how some of the data related to Mr. DeLong&apos;s request are classified (see discussion below).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the City and the Hospital need to clarify their policy on whether people should request Hospital-related data from the Hospital or from the City. According to Ms. Swanson, the Hospital falls under the umbrella of the City and therefore cannot be a separate political subdivision. Thus, if the parties determine the Hospital should respond to Hospital-related data, the City would need to designate someone at the Hospital to be the designee for those types of data. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100.) The Commissioner urges the City and the Hospital to make a decision promptly and make any necessary changes to the City&apos;s data access procedures so that people know where to direct their data practices requests. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other question before the Commissioner is whether the City/Hospital provided Mr. DeLong with data responsive to his request. On this issue, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Swanson&apos;s determination as to how data about the applicants are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, prior to an individual becoming a finalist, the following data are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. Section 13.43, subdivision 3, further states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Names of applicants shall be private except when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, &apos;finalist&apos; means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to the selection.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, an applicant&apos;s name becomes public when s/he is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority; the applicant has become a finalist&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Swanson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As indicated in my letter to Mr. DeLong on December 11, 2009, Northfield Hospital did not consider candidates for the particular position to be finalists until they had accepted the opportunity to be considered and interviewed as such by the Full Hospital Board.preferred candidates were identified by a search committee and conveyed to the search consultant. The consultant then communicated their selection to the candidates and gave them a deadline of December 7, 2009, to decide if they would accept the opportunity to be interviewed as a finalist and to inform their present employer. Until December 7, 2009, the candidates were potential finalists and not actual finalists for the position.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato,&lt;/em&gt; 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn.App. 1997), the Minnesota Court of Appeals opined on a similar issue. The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The inclusion of the definition of finalist [in section 13.43, subd. 3] is a key consideration; it indicates that the triggering event that makes a name public is the selection of a candidate to be interviewed, not the candidate&apos;s acquiescence to the interview. To hold otherwise would give the candidate control over when his or her name is made public. The statute does contemplate such a result.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The legislature&apos;s addition of the definition of &quot;finalist&quot; as well as the &quot;selected to be&quot; clause indicates an intent that the identities of finalists are to be made public when the appointing authority chooses them for interviews, not when the candidates agree to go forward with the interviews.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;We recognize that the privacy concerns for public employment are at stake, but the statute and its legislative history suggest that the public&apos;s right to be informed outweighs an individual&apos;s privacy right in this context. We believe that the concerns raised by respondents can be addressed if the appointing authority advises candidates before they apply (or early in the selection process) that if they are selected to be interviewed they will be considered to be finalists under the statute and their names may be made public during the selection process.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press&lt;/em&gt; at 294.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the issue currently before the Commissioner, it appears the Hospital&apos;s process of selecting &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; finalists and giving them an opportunity to withdraw from consideration runs counter to the holding in &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, based on the language in section 13.43, subdivision 3, and the Court&apos;s decision in &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press&lt;/em&gt;, as soon as the candidates were selected to be interviewed by the Hospital Board, they were finalists for the purposes of Chapter 13 and their names became public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Swanson indicated there are candidates who withdrew their names. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In fact, there were potential &quot;finalists&quot; who did withdraw their names from consideration in order not to put their present employment at risk, who therefore did not become actual finalists who would be interviewed by the full Board. Their names never became public data under the data practices act.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s analysis, these candidates were finalists under section 13.43, subdivision 3; therefore, their names are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Mr. DeLong raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a data request for the names of finalists for the position of president of the Northfield Hospital, the City of Northfield responded in a timely manner by providing some data responsive to the request but incorrectly classified some data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 11, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267537</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Duties, generally</Title><Id>266766</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-005</Title><title>Opinion 10 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267621&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-03-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it contacted gun “Permit to Carry” holders for a certain event?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 2010; Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 21, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from &quot;X&quot; (a pseudonym, used pursuant to section 13.072, subdivision 4.) In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion on whether the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office violated X&apos;s rights as a subject of government data when it used X&apos;s name and address to send X an invitation to an event the Sheriff was hosting. IPAD requested additional information/clarification, which X provided on January 26, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 27, 2010, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. Sheriff Fletcher responded, in a letter dated February 23, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to X, s/he is a holder of a permit to carry a pistol, and the permit was issued by the Sheriff&apos;s Office, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 624.714. The letter of invitation was mailed to X&apos;s home address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Sheriff Fletcher wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a potential issue may be one of whether sending correspondence to permit holders was a potential use consistent with the Tennessen Warning provided to the permit holder. It is our position that it clearly was as this correspondence was undertaken as part of the process to administer and enforce the Citizen&apos;s Personal Protection Act of 2003 in the manner noted below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheriff Fletcher referred to the letter in question as &quot;the December 2nd [2009] mailing.&quot; The letter, on Ramsey County letterhead, was addressed, &quot;Dear Ramsey County &apos;Permit to Carry&apos; Holder.&quot; The letter refers to the rise in home foreclosures and &quot;Sheriff Sales&quot; in Ramsey County, and describes the needs of organizations serving the homeless:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To help address this community need, the Sheriff&apos;s Office is hosting a fundraiser on December 12th-13th to assist the organizations serving homeless families. As the holder of a Ramsey County &apos;Permit to Carry a Handgun&apos; you are being invited to shoot at the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office indoor firearms range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter describes the event as an opportunity to &quot;reacquaint yourself with your handgun - improving your safety and reducing potential accidents,&quot; describes features of &quot;this fundraiser&quot; and states, &quot;[t]he suggested tax deductible donation for this experience is a $150 check payable to one of five Ramsey County organizations serving homeless families: Catholic Charities, Union Gospel Mission, YWCA of St. Paul, The Family Place and Safe Zone.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it contacted gun &quot;Permit to Carry&quot; holders for a certain event?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, subdivision 2, &quot;[a]ll data pertaining to the purchase or transfer of firearms and applications for permits to carry firearms which are collected by government entities pursuant to sections 624.712 to 624.719 are classified as private.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4, states that private or confidential data shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by a government entity for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.04, subdivision 2, when a government entity collects private or confidential data from an individual about that individual, the entity is required to provide a notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen warning, which must contain four elements. Of relevance here is one of the required elements: the purpose and intended use of the data; in other words, why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Sheriff Fletcher wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The names and addresses of Ramsey County &apos;permit to carry a pistol&apos; licensees/permitees were used to contact permit holders by the permitting/licensing agency, the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office. There were two primary purposes of the contact and enclosed communication. Both purposes pertained to the permitting process and improved public safety. One assisted permit holders with their gun safety skills required by statute. The other assisted the Sheriff&apos;s Office in performing mandatory duties under the gun permit statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Tennessen Warning given to applicants advised them their information would be used to conduct background investigation of criminal histories, arrest records and warrant information to determine their eligibility to carry a pistol. This investigation includes annual required checks which are dependent upon correct addresses. Efforts to verify accurate addresses are part of the investigative process and authorized by law. The letter was an investigative tool to verify addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 624.714, does not contain a provision that obligates a sheriff to provide training to permit holders. Per subdivision 2a, it states only that applicants for permits must present evidence that the applicant received training in the safe use of a pistol within one year of the date of an original or renewal application; the December 2009 letter makes no reference to this requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the letter makes no mention of a permit holder&apos;s obligation to notify the Sherriff of an address change. The letter, as noted above, invites permit holders to attend a fundraising event the Sheriff sponsored to benefit certain organizations that serve the homeless population of Ramsey County. Sheriff Fletcher did not provide a copy of the Tennessen warning given to permit applicants, but based upon his characterization of the notice, it apparently did not state that the Sheriff&apos;s Office would use the private data applicants provided, namely name and address, to solicit them for a fundraiser.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 3:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Collection and storage of all data on individuals and the use and dissemination of private and confidential data on individuals shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 624.714 governs the process whereby individuals may apply for a permit to carry a firearm. Subdivisions 14 and 15 restrict the maintenance and use of the data collected to activities related to &quot;support a permit&quot; or &quot;verify the validity of a permit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 624.714, subdivision 14, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) A sheriff must not maintain records or data collected, made, or held under this section concerning any applicant or permit holder that are not necessary under this section to support a permit that is outstanding or eligible for renewal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 624.714, subdivision 15, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) The commissioner [of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety] must maintain an automated database of persons authorized to carry pistols under this section that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors carrying out their duties under subdivision 8a, to verify the validity of a permit. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the Office&apos;s stated purposes for the letter, i.e., to &quot;assist permit holders with their gun safety skills&quot; and to &quot;aid in the enforcement of [section 624.714, subdivision 7a] requiring permit holders to notify the Sheriff&apos;s Office if they change address,&quot; are uses that are authorized under section 624.714.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the event offered an opportunity for permit holders to fire their guns under supervision of the Sheriff&apos;s Office, the contents of the letter clearly state the purpose was to raise funds for the named organizations. As noted above, the letter makes no mention of a permit holder&apos;s obligation to provide the Sheriff with change-of-address information. Even if section 624.714 did authorize the Sheriff to use the data in this manner, permit holders were reportedly not so notified in the Tennessen warning.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For these reasons, the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s use of private permit data to invite permit holders to the event was not an authorized use under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it contacted gun &quot;Permit to Carry&quot; holders for a certain event.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 11, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267621</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Firearms (13.87, subd. 2 / 13.36)</Title><Id>266698</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-004</Title><title>Opinion 10 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267940&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-03-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Dakota County Agricultural Society subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> March 3, 2010; Dakota County Agricultural Society</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 2, 2010, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 1, 2010, from Annette Margarit, attorney for the Dakota County Agricultural Society. In her letter, Ms. Margarit asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Agricultural Society is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Margarit provided them is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Agricultural Society] was incorporated in 1918 as a perpetual non-profit corporation pursuant to now Minnesota Statute Chapter 38. Its primary task is to run the Dakota County Fair. Any adult who resides in Dakota County can be a member of the Agricultural Society. The Agricultural Society members elect a Board of Directors at its annual meeting in November. The Agricultural Society owns real property within Dakota County upon which it annually conducts the Dakota County Fair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Margarit&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Dakota County Agricultural Society subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All government entities are governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;government entity&quot; is defined as &quot;a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.&quot; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7a.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;political subdivision&quot; is defined, in relevant part, as &quot;any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision.&quot; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 38.01, discusses the formation and powers of county agricultural societies. Clause (a), in part, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An agricultural society or association may be incorporated by citizens of any county, or two or more counties jointly, but only one agricultural society shall be organized in any county. An agricultural society may sue and be sued in its corporate name; may adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations, alter and amend the same; may purchase and hold, lease and control any real or personal property deemed to promote the objects of the society, and may rent, lease, sell, and convey the same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 11, a political subdivision includes an entity created pursuant to law. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 38, contains the enabling legislation that grants county agricultural societies their powers and responsibilities. Thus, county agricultural societies are political subdivisions as that term is defined in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, language enacted during the 2004 Legislative Session provides, &quot;Reports of [county agricultural societies] are public data under chapter 13 and must be made available for inspection by any person.&quot; (Minnesota Statutes, section 38.04.) Generally, the construction and operation of Chapter 13 either subject an entity to Chapter 13 requirements or not (or subject an entity in limited ways, as in the case of a contractual relationship). Section 38.04 refers only to reports of a county agricultural society being public under Chapter 13; because an agricultural society is a political subdivision as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 11, all of its data are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. The Commissioner assumes the language in section 38.04 to be a partial restatement of the general presumption that all (county agricultural society) data are public unless otherwise classified (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the reasons specified above, it is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that a county agricultural society, such as the Dakota County Agricultural Society, is a political subdivision and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Margarit raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Dakota County Agricultural Society is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 3, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267940</id><pubdate>2022-07-27T23:23:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-003</Title><title>Opinion 10 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267564&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-03-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in a City of Winnebago report related to an investigation into complaints made by a city employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> March 3, 2010; City of Winnebago</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;884 N.W. 2d 338 (Minn. 2016), No. A14-1651&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;,&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 20, 2010, IPAD received a letter dated January 19, 2010, from Julie Fleming-Wolfe, attorney for the City of Winnebago. In her letter, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe, asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Fleming-Wolfe provided them is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City hired an independent investigator to investigate [certain allegations made by a City employee]. The investigator issued a report, essentially finding that there was no substantiation for the allegations of wrongdoing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I reviewed the investigator&apos;s report I determined that the report could not be released to the public because it contained allegations that had not been substantiated so there was no discipline, and because it includes a substantial amount of private data under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, and the private data was too intertwined with any public data so as to be incapable of reasonable redaction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The local media and some City employees referenced in the report have objected to non-disclosure of the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Fleming-Wolfe provided the Commissioner with a copy of the report, in which a few of the pages have been redacted. The report contains data about employees, elected officials, and witnesses, and the investigator&apos;s analyses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Fleming-Wolfe&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in a City of Winnebago report related to an investigation into complaints made by a city employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe asked about the classification of the data in the report. In situations such as these, the Commissioner can offer only general guidance because government entity staff, with their knowledge of the relevant facts, circumstances, and involved data subjects, are in the best position to make decisions about classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report contains data about several categories of individuals. One category is individuals who are City employees. Data about current or former employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain data about employees are public (section 13.43, subdivision 2), and certain data are private (section 13.43, subdivision 4). Private data are accessible to the data subject but not to the public (section 13.02, subdivision 12).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the fact that a complaint exists and the status of the complaint are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).) Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), describes the point in time when a final disposition occurs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Fleming-Wolfe stated that the allegations made by a City employee were not substantiated; the City did not take disciplinary action and there was no final disposition. Thus, regarding data about employees who were the subjects of the complaint(s), the fact that a complaint exists and its status are public. Other data related to the complaint are not public. Any other data about those employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43; some may be public and some may be private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding data in the report about employees who were not the subjects of the complaint(s), the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43; some may be public and some may be private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report also contains data about individuals who are elected officials. Chapter 13 does not contain a specific classification for data about elected officials. However, in previously-issued advisory opinions, the Commissioner consistently has opined that the classification of data about elected officials depends upon whether the entity considers the elected official to be an employee. If so, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If not, the data are presumed public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267335&quot; title=&quot;03-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-011&lt;/a&gt;, for example.) Here, the Commissioner does not know whether the City considers its elected officials to be employees for the purposes of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report also contains data about individuals who are witnesses. It appears that some of the witnesses are employees of other Minnesota government entities; if the investigator collected data about these individuals because they are employees or volunteers or independent contractors, the data classified pursuant to section 13.43. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267685&quot; title=&quot;97-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-030&lt;/a&gt;.) However, if the data were not collected for this reason, the data are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. Regarding non-employee witnesses, the data are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe stated that the private data were &quot;too intertwined with any public data so as to be incapable of reasonable redaction.&quot; On this point, the City needs to consider the Commissioner&apos;s discussion in a previous opinion, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt;, about data that are inextricably intertwined. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner further wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the [School District] to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in Northwest Publications, Inc., maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately. Given the clear presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the District should make every effort to avoid a situation where it must withhold an entire document from the public. The Commissioner adds that the [School District] must disclose any public data in the document, including, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), that a complaint was made the status of the complaint, and the name of the employee about whom the complaint was made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the matter currently before the Commissioner, the City, not the Commissioner, is in the best position to determine whether the data are inextricably intertwined. The City should review the Commissioner&apos;s guidance in making its decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Fleming-Wolfe raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City, not the Commissioner, is in the best position to determine the classification of the data in the investigative report; the Commissioner can offer only general guidance. In making its determination, the City should consider the following: data about individuals collected because they are employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43; data about elected officials are classified pursuant to section 13.43 or are public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1; and data about non-employee witnesses are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 3, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267564</id><Tag><Description/><Title>County agricultural societies</Title><Id>266434</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-05-16T16:20:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-002</Title><title>Opinion 10 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266558&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-02-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, related to the following circumstance: 1) the District disciplined an employee; 2) the employee grieved the discipline under collective bargaining rights; 3) the grievance was denied and the matter was referred to arbitration; and 4) prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties reached a mutual resolution of the grievance, which, according to the District, included disciplinary action.

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 10, 2010; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 10, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated December 8, 2009, from Paul Cady, General Counsel for Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In his letter, Mr. Cady asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. (IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Mr. Cady provided on December 18 and 23, 2009.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the outcome of this opinion may affect the rights of the data subject, the Commissioner offered him/her an opportunity to submit comments. The Commissioner also invited Anne Krisnik of Education Minnesota (the labor union representing the employee), and John Borger and Leita Walker, attorneys representing the Star Tribune, to submit comments if they choose. Ms. Krisnik submitted comments in a letter dated January 13, 2010; Ms. Walker submitted comments in a letter dated January 8, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Cady, following an investigation of a complaint, the District took disciplinary action including a Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.40, subdivision 9, Letter of Deficiency. Subsequently, the employee grieved the discipline, the grievance was denied and the matter was referred to arbitration. Prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties reached a &quot;mutual resolution&quot; of the grievance. According to Mr. Cady, the resolution included disciplinary action. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A final disposition of any disciplinary action is classified as public data. Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(a)(5). . . . . A final disposition is defined by Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(b) which provides, in part, that in the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time period provided by the collective bargaining agreement. A final disposition may also include any discipline agreed to by the parties as a resolution and disposition of the grievance process. In the instant matter, the parties&apos; . . . grievance resolution constitutes a final disposition. When the parties resolve a matter in the grievance process, they are also electing not to proceed forward to arbitration. As such, the resolution is a final disposition. Consequently, if the resolution includes discipline, then the discipline together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . [i]t is the District&apos;s position that the public data, as set forth in Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(a)(5), regarding the final disposition of the disciplinary action includes the . . . letter summarizing the grievance resolution and final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action (including the . . . Letter of Deficiency . . . as well as Summary of Investigative Findings) . . . . [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady also discussed the District&apos;s general policies and practices related to how it handles discipline of its employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Krisnik disagreed with the District&apos;s position that the resolution of the grievance included disciplinary action, a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve. Regarding the issue of whether there has been a final disposition here, Ms. Krisnik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The key question in this case is how settlement of a grievance, short of arbitration, impacts the classification of the original action. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . in cases covered by a grievance procedure, final disposition occurs (1) once an arbitrator rules on a grievance, or (2) when the employee/union gives up the right to challenge the action. In this case, the school district imposed discipline, the employee filed a grievance, and the discipline was subsequently rescinded by agreement of the parties. The original action cannot now be released as disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Cady&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, related to the following circumstance: 1) the District disciplined an employee; 2) the employee grieved the discipline under collective bargaining rights; 3) the grievance was denied and the matter was referred to arbitration; and 4) prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties reached a mutual resolution of the grievance, which, according to the District, included disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, according to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), the following data, in part, are public: the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the District and the employee and his/her Union do not agree if the resolution of the grievance included disciplinary action. The District has made its determination, and the employee/Union have remedies available to them to pursue their disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of the discussion here, the question is whether, in general, there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action when a resolution of a grievance that includes disciplinary action happens in the midst of arbitration proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. &lt;em&gt;In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/em&gt; Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the government entity, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walker noted that the provision quoted directly above states that a final disposition occurs at the &lt;em&gt;conclusion&lt;/em&gt; of the arbitration proceedings. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It does not state, for example, that &apos;a final disposition occurs when the arbitrator makes a decision after a hearing.&apos; The Legislature could have used such language. Indeed, it could have easily modeled the second sentence of section13.43 subd. 2(b) after the first, by stating that &apos;a final disposition occurs when [the arbitrator] &lt;em&gt;makes its final decision&lt;/em&gt; about the disciplinary action.&apos; However, it did not do sohellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although a decision on the merits is one way to conclude arbitration, it is not the only way . . . . Arbitration proceedings may also conclude when, as here, the parties resolve a grievance outside of arbitration so that no hearing or decision is necessary. It defies logic to suggest that if a matter is referred to arbitration but settles before the arbitration hearing, then the matter remains open and &apos;unconcluded&apos; for eternity. For practical and all other purposes, settlement concludes an arbitration proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did not define the meaning of the phrase &quot;conclusion of arbitration proceedings&quot; in section 13.43, subdivision 2(b). Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, provides that words and phrases not defined in statute are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. The &lt;em&gt;Random House Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Random House Inc. (2010) defines &quot;conclusion&quot; as &quot;a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement&quot; and &quot;proceedings&quot; as &quot;a series of activities or events; happenings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that when parties resolve a grievance that has been referred to arbitration before it is settled through arbitration, the mutual resolution concludes the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, in the scenario under discussion, if disciplinary action is part of the resolution, there is a final disposition of that disciplinary action within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Cady stated that another way to conclude that there is a final disposition under this scenario is that &quot;[w]hen the parties resolve a matter in the grievance process, they are also electing not to proceed forward to arbitration.&quot; The Commissioner agrees that it is a reasonable for the District to take that position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, in this matter, if the District did take disciplinary action, there is a final disposition of that action, and the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action, along with the terms of any agreement settling the dispute. If it did not, then the following data are public: existence and status of the complaint or charge, and terms settling the disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is aware that the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on a case that appears to be relevant here. However, the Court of Appeals declined to review whether the entity had taken disciplinary action, and therefore, the Commissioner concludes that case has limited applicability without legislative clarification. (See &lt;em&gt;Duluth v. Duluth Police Local&lt;/em&gt;, 690 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn. App. 2004).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, upon review of the documents in question, it appears they may contain private data about students, and about other District employees. (Subject to limited exceptions, data about students and their parents are private, and may not be released without consent. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267050&quot; title=&quot;09-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-008&lt;/a&gt;, which discussed changes to the federal regulations implementing FERPA, which were effective January 8, 2009.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue that Mr. Cady raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the mutual resolution entered into between the District and the employee includes disciplinary action, a final disposition has occurred within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b). Thus, the following data are public: the final disposition of the disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action. Also, the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 10, 2010&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266558</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 10-001</Title><title>Opinion 10 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267745&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2010-01-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Hewitt: audio recordings of closed public meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 26, 2010; City of Hewitt</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 14, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated December 10, 2009, from Miriam Collom-Winters, City Clerk/Treasurer for the City of Hewitt. In her letter, Ms. Collom-Winters asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Collom-Winters provided them is as follows. Ms. Collom-Winters stated, verbatim:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. City Council held several closed sessions, discussing preliminary allegations of a person subject to council authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Resulting from those sessions, a City employee was ultimately terminated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. No person, other than the City Council Members and, at times, the City Attorney, was present for the closed sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. The sessions were audio recorded, as required by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. There may or may not be litigation arising from the ultimate termination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on these facts, at what point, if ever, [do] the audio recordings of closed sessions become a matter of public record?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Collom-Winters&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Hewitt: audio recordings of closed public meetings?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, requires that public bodies close meetings when discussing certain types of not public data but also prohibits public bodies from closing meetings when discussing all other types of not public data: &quot;Except as provided in this chapter, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data.&quot; (Section 13D.05, subdivision 1(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, also requires that public bodies electronically record most closed meetings and maintain the recordings:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All closed meetings, except those closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(d).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Collom-Winters asked about the classification of data in audio recordings of closed meetings of public bodies and if they become public at some point in time. The provisions of Chapter 13 set forth how the data are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In many situations when a public body is required to close a meeting to discuss not public data, the data become public only after 30 plus years. (Section 13.10, data on decedents.) An example is a school board closing a meeting to discuss student educational data that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. The data in the recording are accessible only to the data subject but will become public at a particular time after the individual&apos;s death.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are other situations when the classification of not public data in a recording of a closed meeting likely will change in a relatively short period of time. For example, if a city closes a meeting to discuss active criminal investigative data (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7), the data in the recording are confidential/protected nonpublic. However if, during the time the City retains a copy of the recording, the investigation&apos;s status changes to inactive, some or all of the data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another example is when a city closes a meeting to discuss allegations or charges against an employee pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b). Generally, the data in the recording are private personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 4, and accessible to the data subject, but not to the public. (See also section 13D.01, subdivision 6, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;.) However, at some point in time, some or all of the data may become public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2. For instance, if the employee is disciplined and there is a final disposition (section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)), certain data become public (section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)). If the data in the recording are the type classified as public pursuant to section 13.43, the public can gain access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Collom-Winter described a situation in which an employee was terminated. Prior to there being a final disposition pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), only the fact that a complaint/charge exists and its status are public. Once a final disposition occurs, additional data become public (section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)). Generally, final disposition occurs in a shorter amount of time if the employee is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement (section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)). Here, Ms. Collom-Winters did not state whether the employee is or is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and whether a final disposition has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, government entities need to keep in mind it is possible that some recordings may contain both public and not public data, and must be redacted appropriately upon a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Collom-Winters raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data in audio recordings of public meetings closed to discuss preliminary allegations against an employee are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The fact that a complaint/charge exists and its status are public. Regarding the remainder of the recording, the Commissioner cannot determine with certainty the classification because she does not know if a final disposition has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 26, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267745</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Audio recordings</Title><Id>266648</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-18T19:35:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-027</Title><title>Opinion 09 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267090&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-12-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data made on September 15 and October 15, 2009?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> December 21, 2009; City of Palisade</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 18, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Carol Morris. In her letter, Ms. Morris asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to access certain data from the City of Palisade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gaylene Spolarich, City Clerk, in response to Ms. Morris&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 23, 2009, were to inform her of Ms. Morris&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. IPAD did not receive a response from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Morris provided them is as follows. In a letter dated September 15, 2009, Ms. Morris wrote to the City and requested certain data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The data that documents the cashing of the $25,000 CD, such as but not limited to the deposit slip.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The data that documents the purchase of the fire rescue truck from the Watertown Fire Department, such as but not limited to the cancelled check.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The data that documents the income from the Palisade fire protection, such as but not limited to the deposit slip(s).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. The data that documents reinvestment of the $25,000 CD that was cashed in, such as but not limited to the cancelled check.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Morris again requested the data in a letter dated October 15, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Morris wrote, &quot;I have not received any data from the City of Palisade.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Morris&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data made on September 15 and October 15, 2009?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (Section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor cannot have access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City provided no response to Ms. Morris and therefore is not in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, given the nature of the data Ms. Morris requested, it is likely some of them are official records. Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires government entities to create official records and maintain them for time periods prescribed in an entity&apos;s record retention schedule (Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17). Section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be accessible pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2008, the Commissioner issued an advisory opinion involving the same parties involving a similar issue. In that opinion, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267846&quot; title=&quot;08-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-026&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner also concluded that the City had not complied with Chapter 13, and likely was not in compliance with section 15.17. The Commissioner encourages the City to work to improve its handling of data practices matters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Morris raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Palisade did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data made on September 15 and October 15, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 21, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267090</id><Tag><Description/><Title>No response</Title><Id>266300</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-026</Title><title>Opinion 09 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267942&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-12-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data relating to checks issued by Northern Minnesota Power Agency to City officials?
Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a document the Mayor used at a March 18, 2009, meeting?
Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a 49 page investigative report?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 15, 2009; City of Warren</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 5, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated October 30, 2009, from C.T. Marhula. In his letter, Mr. Marhula asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to certain data from the City of Warren.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nancy Holum, Deputy Clerk of the City, in response to Mr. Marhula&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 17, 2009, were to inform her of Mr. Marhula&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. IPAD did not receive a response from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Marhula provided them is as follows. In a letter to the City dated September 17, 2009, Mr. Marhula requested certain data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Copies of checks and supporting documents issued by the Northern Minnesota Power Agency (NMPA) issued to Mr. Todd Hanson, former City of Warren Operations Supt., and Mayor Robert Kliner for the period from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Copies of the document used by Mayor Kliner at the March 18, 2009, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. An electronic copy of the 49 page document and all attachments referred to on page 2 of Mayor Kliner&apos;s January 7, 2009, letter to me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 25, 2009, an attorney responded on the City&apos;s behalf:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- [Regarding number 1] The City does not have data responsive to this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- [Regarding number 2] Data responsive to this request will be transmitted to you by email. The City denies your request for datahat is nonpublic and not accessible to you based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 [attorney data]. The portion of the document that is prohibited from being disclosed to you will be transmitted with the appropriate redactions. More specifically, in the applicable document, the data prohibited from being disclosed to you is such data in which the City did not waive the attorney-client privilege, i.e., data that the City did not communicate to a third party&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- [Regarding number 3] The City denies your request for dataased on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39 [civil investigative data].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Marhula provided to the Commissioner a copy of the redacted document he received from the City in regard to his Number 2 request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Marhula&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data relating to checks issued by Northern Minnesota Power Agency to City officials?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a document the Mayor used at a March 18, 2009, meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a 49 page investigative report?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data relating to checks issued by Northern Minnesota Power Agency to City officials?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that government entities create, collect, and maintain are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Marhula wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are reasons this information is covered under [Chapter 13]. First, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Kliner were acting as appointed agents for the City of Warren on the NMPA Board [Northern Minnesota Power Agency].The payments to them were in their official capacity of acting for and on behalf of the City This was an official and formal appointment by the action of the City Council of Warren.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To his opinion request, Mr. Marhula attached a provision from a City document entitled, &quot;Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 2008 Together with Independent Auditor&apos;s Report.&quot; The provision reads:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Warren is a member of the Northern Municipal Power Agency. The Power Agency was incorporated on December 14, 1976, and is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota composed of 10 Minnesota cities. The Power Agency was organized for the purpose of providing its members with electrical power pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 453.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s response to Mr. Marhula is that it does not have data responsive to this request. Without knowing whether the City has some type of contractual relationship with NMPA that would require the City to maintain certain data, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the City&apos;s response is compliant with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a document the Mayor used at a March 18, 2009, meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in the Facts section above, Mr. Marhula provided the Commissioner with a copy of the redacted document he received from the City. The City redacted the data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, attorney data. In his opinion request, Mr. Marhula wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While I cannot [prove] it is not &quot;attorney client&quot; information without reviewing it, I can say it appeared to be a script the Mayor was reading from while other Council members were making the scripted statements. This was at an open, public meeting. This should be public information.I believe these notes were also used to prepare the minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data created, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-009&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether the City appropriately withheld data from Mr. Marhula. Generally, though, it is likely not appropriate for an entity to discuss data in an open meeting and then refuse to release those data on the basis that they are attorney data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a 49 page investigative report?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s response is that the data in the report are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39. As the Commissioner previously has opined, for data to be classified properly under section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the entity must determine that a civil legal action is pending. The Commissioner does not know if this has occurred. If so, the City can appropriately deny access to the data. If not, the data are public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues Mr. Marhula raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of Warren complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data relating to checks issued by Northern Minnesota Power Agency to City officials.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of Warren complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a document the Mayor used at a March 18, 2009, meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of Warren complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a 49 page investigative report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 15, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267942</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-025</Title><title>Opinion 09 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267266&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-12-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the public have a right to access government data regarding the specific standards and accomplishments that provide the basis for performance bonuses paid to individual public university presidents and other managers in the MnSCU system?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 15, 2009; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 29, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Connie Howard, an attorney representing the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO). In her letter, Ms. Howard asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the IFO&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James McCormick, Chancellor of MnSCU, in response to Ms. Howard&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 5, 2009, were to inform him of Ms. Howard&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MnSCU&apos;s position. On November 25, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kristine Kaplan, Deputy General Counsel for MnSCU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Howard presented them is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The IFO has a dispute with [MnSCU] regarding [certain personnel data] that arises out of the union&apos;s request for not only the amount of performance bonuses paid to the presidents of the seven four-year universities within the MnSCU system, but also the basis for the payment of the bonuses. It is the union&apos;s position that [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1)] requires MnSCU to disclose the specific criteria upon which it based its decision to pay substantial performance bonuses to university presidents and other top level management in the MnSCU system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Howard noted that MnSCU provided &quot;a list of examples of goals that could be considered in the awarding of performance bonuses, but [failed] to identify the specific basis for the performance bonuses awarded to each of the university presidents.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Howard also noted that MnSCU provided an excerpt from a former Vice Chancellor&apos;s employment agreement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Chancellor, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor, annually shall establish specific performance goals for the Vice Chancellor. Upon a determination by the Chancellor that the Vice Chancellor&apos;s annual performance review is satisfactory and that the Vice Chancellor has attained some or all of the specific performance goals established pursuant to this section, the Chancellor shall award to the Vice Chancellor a merit bonus of not less than $3,000 and not more than $15,000 for the prior year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an October 27, 2009, letter, to Ms. Howard, Ms. Kaplan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To the extent that your request may have included specific descriptions of individual employees&apos; performance that resulted in a performance incentive or merit pay, we are unable to provide it because personnel evaluation information is private personnel data under [section 13.43, subdivision 4].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Howard&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the public have a right to access government data regarding the specific standards and accomplishments that provide the basis for performance bonuses paid to individual public university presidents and other managers in the MnSCU system?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, the following data about an employee&apos;s compensation are public: actual gross salary and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration in addition to salary. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question before the Commissioner is whether MnSCU must release more detailed information related to the performance bonuses it paid certain MnSCU employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/267791&quot; title=&quot;03-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-008&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Legislature intended to make public all of the various types of compensation afforded to public employees and to make public the basis for that compensation. A practical application suggests that each component of an employee&apos;s compensation fits into one of the categories the Legislature included in subdivision 2(a)(1). For purposes of this opinion, the commissioner will limit his remarks to a discussion of two categories: actual gross salary and added remuneration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears to the Commissioner that actual gross salary describes that portion of an employee&apos;s compensation which is fixed and paid on a regular basis. It follows that the basis for a change in an employee&apos;s actual gross salary also is public because the underlying reasons for any such change are public, e.g., a change in the contract of the employee&apos;s bargaining unit, a change in the employee&apos;s length of service, a change in the employee&apos;s job title.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data about any remuneration an employee receives in addition to his/her actual gross salary also are public. Added remunerations, as opposed to actual gross salary, are not necessarily fixed or regular, e.g., merit increases, overtime pay. In addition to the dollar amount of any added remuneration, a description of the type of remuneration also is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kaplan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MnSCU provided the IFO with the requested salary and salary range information, and the amounts paid to each individual for performance or bonus pay. However, it was MnSCU&apos;s determination that the specific factors used to measure a particular administrator&apos;s performance evaluation constitute private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 4 and thus could not be provided. Instead, the IFO was provided a list of the types of factors used in determining eligibility for the incentive pay and the explanation that &quot;[a] determination of whether and how much of that incentive is paid is based on the Chancellor&apos;s assessment of each individual&apos;s overall satisfactory performance and the specific goals identified for each performance review process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration in addition to salary are public. Section 13.43 does not define &quot;basis for.&quot; Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines &quot;basis&quot; as &quot;something on which something else is established or based.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/#/detail/appId/1/id/267791&quot; title=&quot;03-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-008&lt;/a&gt;, the Legislature intended to make public all of the various types of compensation afforded to public employees and to make public the basis for that compensation. In responding to the IFO&apos;s data request, MnSCU provided to IFO a list of examples of goals that MnSCU could consider in awarding performance bonuses, including:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;improvement in the second fall persistence and completion rate for underrepresented students; increasing the number of adult continuing education students; expansion of cost management or efficiency activities; expansion of private and/or alumni giving; increasing enrollments in specific programs or courses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kaplan argues that a more detailed description of this category of added remuneration would require releasing &quot;performance evaluation data.&quot; She also correctly highlights that &quot;appellate courts have carefully guarded the privacy of employee evaluation information regardless of its form.&quot; The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Kaplan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Howard raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the public does not have a right to access any additional data beyond what has already been provided regarding the specific standards and accomplishments that provide the basis for performance bonuses paid to individual public university presidents and other managers in the MnSCU system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 15, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267266</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Remuneration</Title><Id>266589</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-024</Title><title>Opinion 09 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267283&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-11-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), requires a government entity to include in a settlement agreement “specific reasons for the settlement agreement.” School District 625, Saint Paul, entered into a settlement agreement and received a request for the settlement agreement. Has the District provided to the requestor the “specific reasons for the settlement agreement”?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 30, 2009; School District 626 (Saint Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 7, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Emily Johns, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Johns asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from School District 625, Saint Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Suzanne Kelly, Interim Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Johns&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 16, 2009, were to inform her of Ms. Johns&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 30, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated October 29, 2009, from Nancy Cameron, District Deputy General Counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in a letter dated October 16, 2009, IPAD invited John Krenik, the data subject, to provide comments. On November 4, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated November 3, 2009, from Anne Krisnik, an attorney representing Mr. Krenik.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Johns provided them is as follows. In her opinion request she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response, I received [a settlement agreement for teacher John Krenik]. According to the agreement, the district paid Krenik $12,000 to quit his job [with the District].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;State statute 13.43, however, requires that agencies making such an agreement must include the specific reasons for it if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money. The settlement with the St. Paul schools did not include specific reasons for Krenik&apos;s buyout, and subsequent requests I have made for that information have been denied by the school district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Johns&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), requires a government entity to include in a settlement agreement &quot;specific reasons for the settlement agreement.&quot; School District 625, Saint Paul, entered into a settlement agreement and received a request for the settlement agreement. Has the District provided to the requestor the &quot;specific reasons for the settlement agreement&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the fact that a complaint exists and the status of the complaint are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), describes the point in time when a final disposition occurs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;What the legislature meant by &quot;specific reasons&quot; is unclear. Neither the courts nor Commissioner have addressed this language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District maintains that the phrase-&quot;specific reasons for the agreement&quot;-means explanation sufficient to show that payment was not a gift under the guise of a compromise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District also interprets the &quot;specific reasons for the agreement&quot; to mean written (or otherwise recorded) terms of the agreement. The terms show what the parties bargained for, compromised and settled, and what they gained in return. The terms set forth the consideration of the $12,000. The terms show that payment of public money was not a &quot;gift&quot; but was a proper expenditure of public funds to compromise a claim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The specific reasons for the settlement (and the payment of the $12,000) are provided throughout the 17-page Settlement Agreement (which includes the releases).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Cameron then listed some of the &quot;specific reasons&quot; that are contained in the settlement agreement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- The Recitals indicate District, Employee, and Union wish to settle all matters arising out of Employee&apos;s employment with the District The parties also agreed that the Agreement is a compromise of claims the parties wish to settle all maters [sic] and to compromise claims, there must be disputes and claims to settle. Furthermore, the Agreement&apos;s terms indicate some of the areas of dispute. E.g., charges grievances and arbitration continued and future employment handling of employment records complaint/request for opinion to the Commissioner of Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- The Consideration from Employee and Union further details the specific reasons for the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o The District obtained Employee&apos;s resignation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o The District obtained a general release and waiver of all claims by Employee arising out of the employment relationship&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o The District obtained a full release and waiver of claims by Employee under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o Employee and Union withdr[e]w all grievances and potential grievances to date [of the Settlement Agreement].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o Similarly, the District obtained dismissal of [the Union&apos;s and Employee&apos;s] arbitration request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;o Employee withdr[e]w his request for opinion to the Commissioner of Administration regarding the District&apos;s or its employee&apos;s handling of data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The settlement agreement also contains language detailing the consideration given from the District to Mr. Krenik, including that the payment of $12,000 and that a District employee will withdraw charges filed against Mr. Krenik.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner on behalf of Mr. Krenik, Ms. Krisnik wrote that the specific reasons for the settlement agreement are contained within the document:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Agreement list the specific reasons the School District entered it. The specific reasons are referred to by the parties by the legal term: &quot;consideration.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The &quot;consideration&quot; received by the School District from Mr. Krenik and the Union is specified in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement and its sub-paragraphs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This same consideration received by the School District is further reflected in the introductory sentence to Paragraph 3 of the Agreement which provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;In consideration for Employee&apos;s resignation, execution of this Agreement, General Release and Waiver of Claims, and the ADEA release, and compliance with the promises made therein, district agrees&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Cameron and Ms. Krisnik - that what they consider to be the specific reasons for the agreement are what section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), contemplates as such. Section 13.43 does not define &quot;specific reason.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines &quot;specific&quot; as &quot;free from ambiguity: accurate&quot; and defines &quot;reason&quot; as &quot;a statement offered in explanation or justification.&quot; Here, the settlement agreement contains the reasons for the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote that she had asked Ms. Johns what more [Ms. Johns] thought should have been included in the agreement so that it included, from [Ms. Johns&apos;s] perspective, the specific reasons for the agreement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Johns believes that the agreement should contain the substantive basis for the complaint or charge to show, for example, why the employer wanted the employee to resign. The District disagrees with Ms. Johns&apos; conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 2, the existence and status of complaints and charges against the employee are public data, but the substance of those charges is not. When employers and employees settle employment disputes before an arbitration decision is reached or before the final disposition of any disciplinary action, only the existence of any complaint or charges and the status of the complaints or charges (i.e., resolved without disciplinary action) are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If employers were required to put in settlement agreements details about the substance of the complaint or charge, private personnel data that would normally be available to the public only &lt;u&gt;after&lt;/u&gt; the final disposition would be available before such action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information provided to the Commissioner, here, a final disposition did not occur. Therefore, pursuant to the language in section 13.43, only the following data are public: the fact that a complaint or charge exists and the status of the complaint or charge, and the terms of the settlement agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that the District and Mr. Krenik could have agreed to include in the settlement agreement additional information related to the dispute that otherwise are not public. As terms of the agreement, those data would then be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue that Ms. Johns raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School District 625, Saint Paul has provided to the public the &quot;specific reasons for the settlement agreement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 30, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267283</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-023</Title><title>Opinion 09 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267646&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-11-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data submitted by employers to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry as part of applying for a Safety Grant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> November 23, 2009; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 2, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated September 30, 2009, from Mary Miller, General Counsel for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI). In her letter, Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data DLI maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts Ms. Miller provided is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request that DLI had received a request regarding the status of certain &quot;financial data submitted to DLI as part of the Department&apos;s Safety Grant application process.&quot; She stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The financial documents that are submitted include a wide variety of financial documents. They may include tax returns, balance sheets, income and expense projections, business plans, profit-loss statements, and annual report financial documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Miller wrote that Minnesota Statutes, section 79.253, authorizes the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to make grants or loans to employers for the cost of implementing safety recommendations. (Section 79.253, subdivision 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Miller also wrote that Minnesota Rules Chapter 5203 were promulgated to implement the Safety Grant Program. Subpart 2 of Part 5203.0060 lists the information that must be contained in an applicant&apos;s proposal. Subpart 3 of Part 5203.0060 discusses the criteria the Commissioner of Labor and Industry should use to evaluate each proposal. Part 5203.00500 discusses certain information that must be included in a grant agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding how the data in question are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Miller&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data submitted by employers to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry as part of applying for a Safety Grant?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Miller noted in her opinion request, there are two provisions in Chapter 13 that entities can use to classify grant data. A comparison of these two provisions reveals that the amount and type of grant-related data a state agency must make public differs depending upon whether the agency classifies its data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591 or Minnesota Statutes, section 13.599. Section 13.591 (subdivisions 1 and 2), classifies data submitted to a government entity by a business that requests financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds. When grant data are classified under section 13.591, certain financial data about applicants are not public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;financial information about the business, including credit reports; financial statements; net worth calculations; business plans; income and expense projections; balance sheets; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Section 13.591, subdivision 1)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a business receives financial assistance or a benefit, the following financial data remain not public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;business plans; income and expense projections not related to the financial assistance provided; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Section 13.591, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The not public financial data about applicants that do not receive financial assistance or a benefit remain not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other provision entities can use to classify grant data is section 13.599, which classifies grant data in situations where the granting agency has put out a request for proposal (RFP). Section 13.599 applies only to state agencies. Subdivision 3 of section 13.599 classifies data in responses to a request for proposal. Clause (a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Responses submitted by a grantee are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name and address of the grantee and the amount requested is public. All other data in a response is private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. After a granting agency has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data in the responses is public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37hellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (b) of section 13.599, subdivision 3, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If all responses are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than that made public at the opening, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of proposals results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the grant. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the grant opening date, the remaining data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examining section 13.591 (subdivisions 1 and 2) and 13.599, it is clear that section 13.599 contemplates a very structured request for proposal, evaluation, and selection process whereas section 13.591 does not necessarily do so. Because the DLI grant proposal and evaluation process, as outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 5203, is very specific, including requiring DLI to publish a detailed notice in the state register that contains a deadline by which proposals must be submitted, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Safety Grant data are appropriately classified pursuant to section 13.599.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing Ms. Miller&apos;s question, it is apparent that issues related to the classification of government grant data would benefit from further legislative clarification. Sections 13.591 and 13.599 classify data differently and there is no apparent reason for the difference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue Ms. Miller raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data submitted by employers to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry as part of applying for a Safety Grant are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.599.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 23, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267646</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Grants (13.599)</Title><Id>266744</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-022</Title><title>Opinion 09 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267824&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-09-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Chapter 13 in response to a March 27, 2009 (and subsequent), request for access to “all policies and procedures governing the duties of the St. Paul Intervention Project, Inc., to include all employee manuals and/or handbooks, volunteer manuals, training manuals, daily procedures, mission statements, and employee and volunteer rosters and records?”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 22, 2009; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 4, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated August 3, 2009, from Evan Tsai, on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, Second Judicial District. In his letter, Mr. Tsai asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data from the City of Saint Paul. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Tsai provided on August 7, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Shari Moore, City Clerk, in response to Mr. Tsai&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 11, 2009, were to inform her of Mr. Tsai&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. Gail L. Langfield, Assistant City Attorney, responded, in a letter dated August 26, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. The Saint Paul Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (&quot;Project&quot;) is a recipient of a grant from the City (among other funding sources.) According to documents provided by Mr. Tsai and Ms. Langfield, the City and the Project entered into a contract, Agreement #02-14801-G (&quot;Agreement&quot;), which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The contract period shall be:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1) January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 for General Fund financing; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2) July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 for financing from the Community Development Block Grant funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated March 27, 2009, and July 22, 2009, Mr. Tsai wrote to Ms. Moore and requested access to the following data: &quot;all policies and procedures governing the duties of the [Project], to include all employee manuals and/or handbooks, volunteer manuals, training manuals, daily procedures, mission statements, and employee and volunteer rosters and records.&quot; (Mr. Tsai also requested additional data, which the City provided to him.) He stated, &quot;I am not requesting data regarding individual clients served by&quot; the Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Langfield, &quot;[a]t some point . . . Ms. Moore told Mr. Tsai that the City has not collected or received any data which is responsive.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Tsai&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Chapter 13 in response to a March 27, 2009 (and subsequent), request for access to &quot;all policies and procedures governing the duties of the St. Paul Intervention Project, Inc., to include all employee manuals and/or handbooks, volunteer manuals, training manuals, daily procedures, mission statements, and employee and volunteer rosters and records?&quot;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have discussed that when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Tsai asserted that (for various reasons) the City must provide him with access to the requested data; Ms. Langfield wrote, &quot;[t]he only obligation the City has is to provide access to the data in its own possession.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In support of the City&apos;s position, Ms. Langfield cited a Minnesota appellate court case, &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. App. 2003). The Court&apos;s analysis relied upon the fact that the contract between Steele County and the private contractor did not contain the language required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, which is not the case here. Accordingly, WDSI is not applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Specifically, Section 6 of the Agreement between the City of St. Paul and the Project contains the following provisions of relevance here:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A. &quot;Work product&quot; shall mean any report, recommendation, paper, presentation, drawing, demonstration, or other materials, whether in written, electronic or other format, that results from [the Project&apos;s] services under this Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&quot;Supporting documentation&quot; shall mean any surveys, questionnaires, notes, research papers, and analyses, whether in written, electronic or in other format, and other evidences used to generate any and all work performed and work products generated under this Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;B. All deliverable work products and supporting documentation that result from [the Project&apos;s] services under this Agreement shall be delivered to the City and shall become the property of the City after final reimbursement is made to the [Project] with no right, title, or interest in said work products or supporting documentation vesting in [the Project.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;C. The [Project] agrees not to release, transmit, or disseminate information associated with, or generated as a result of, the work performed under this Agreement without the City&apos;s prior knowledge and written consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;F. [The Project] agrees to abide strictly by Chapter 13, Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and in particular, Minnesota Statute section13.05, subd. 6 and 11; and 13.37, subd. 1(b) and Minnesota Statute section138.17 and 15.17. All of the data created, collected, received, stored, used maintained, or disseminated by the [Project] in performing functions under this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and [the Project] must comply with those requirements as if it were a governmental entity. The remedies in Minnesota Statutes apply to the [Project.] If any provision of this Agreement is in conflict with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or other Minnesota state laws, state law will control.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to the timeframe in the contract, the final term expired on June 30, 2009. According to Section 6 (B) of the agreement, all &quot;deliverable work products and supporting documentation . . . shall be delivered to the City and shall become the property of the City after final reimbursement . . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it appears that under the terms of the Agreement, the Project was obligated to provide the City with all deliverable work products and supporting documentation that resulted from the Project&apos;s services. It is reasonable to assume that under the terms of the Agreement, the Project would create, maintain, etc., at least some of the kinds of data Mr. Tsai requested, in order to meet its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17, as set forth in Section 6 (F.) of the Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per clause C of the Agreement, the Project may not release any data &quot;without the City&apos;s prior knowledge and written consent.&quot; Accordingly, under the process the City created through the Agreement, the City is ultimately responsible for providing or authorizing appropriate access to any data resulting from its contract with the Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears the City ought to be in possession of the data described under Section 6 as &quot;work product or supporting documentation.&quot; Therefore, if any of those data are responsive to Mr. Tsai&apos;s request, then the City must gain possession of the data, determine how the data are classified, and make them available to Mr. Tsai. In the alternative, the City could give its written consent to the Project to provide Mr. Tsai with access. If the Project did not create any government data responsive to Mr. Tsai&apos;s request under the terms of the Agreement, the City should so inform him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue that Mr. Tsai raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Saint Paul did not comply with Chapter 13 in response to a March 27, 2009 (and subsequent), request for access to &quot;all policies and procedures governing the duties of the St. Paul Intervention Project, Inc., to include all employee manuals and/or handbooks, volunteer manuals, training manuals, daily procedures, mission statements, and employee and volunteer rosters and records.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 22, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267824</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party response to data requests</Title><Id>266281</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-021</Title><title>Opinion 09 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267142&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-09-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the University of Minnesota comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to data contained in the applications of students who apply for the University’s Student Services Fee Committee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 14, 2009; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 24, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated July 23, 2009, from Jesse Berglund, an attorney representing Sean Niemic. In his letter, Mr. Berglund asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Mr. Niemic&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the University of Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel of the University, in response to Mr. Berglund&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 5, 2009, were to inform her of Mr. Berglund&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On August 26, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Smith.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Berglund provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Berglund noted that Mr. Niemic is a student at the University and a member of the Minnesota Student Association (MSA) - the undergraduate student governance body at the Twin Cities campus of the University. Mr. Berglund also stated that Mr. Niemic is a reporter/employee of the Minnesota Republic Newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both his role as MSA member and newspaper reporter/employee, Mr. Niemic requested the applications for all 58 student applicants for the University&apos;s Student Services Fee Committee. The University denied both of Mr. Niemic&apos;s requests stating that the data in the applications are private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Berglund provided a copy of a Student Services Fees Committee application. Applicants are asked to provide their name, year in school, address, phone number, and email address. In addition, applicants are asked to answer the following questions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Are you currently, or have you been in the past, a member of any student organization or administrative units that receive student services fees? If so, please list them, as well as any leadership positions held in these organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Please list other activities in which you are currently involved. State the amount of time per week devoted to each activity and positions held.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- What do you hope to gain from being a member of the fees committee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- What experiences working with financial matters and activities do you have that would benefit the committee&apos;s performance?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- What experiences do you have that would assist the committee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Berglund discussed the Fee Committee:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Fee Committee is established by the Board of Regents for the University of Minnesota on each campus of the University, with the purpose of annually reviewing and recommending the student service fee. Generally, the Fee Committee has reviewed and recommended funding for a variety of functions, including operations of the student unions, campus health services, the University Recreation Center, and many student groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Fee Committee for the Twin Cities Campus is composed of 15 at-large student members who are selected by a [Student Members Selection Committee]. The Student Members Selection Committee is composed of two students appointed by the [MSA] and two students from the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly [GAPSA], which is the graduate and professional student governing body for the Twin Cities campus. The Student Members Selection Committee reviews applications and also conducts interviews The Student Members Selection Committee then, in practice, recommends a slate of students for the Fee Committee to MSA and GAPSA who both confirm the slate of students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Among student governing bodies, the Fee Committee is among the most influential at the University, due to its power to review and recommend funding for student groups at the University. Currently, 45 groups, including three administrative units receive money through student service fees on the Twin Cities campus, with total funding for the 2008-2009 academic year in excess of $24 million. This is computed as a fee of about $350 per semester per fee-paying student, which is mandatory for any student enrolled for more than six credits each semester, or three credits in the summer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The University also recognizes the importance of the Fee Committee by paying each committee member a stipend for serving on the Fee Committee in the amount of $500 for general members, $600 for subcommittee chairs, and $750 for the committee chair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Berglund argued that certain data about the Fee Committee applicants should be public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3 (applicants for appointment) or because they are public directory information (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Berglund&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the University of Minnesota comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to data contained in the applications of students who apply for the University&apos;s Student Services Fee Committee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, data about students are private and may not be released without consent. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the exceptions noted above is that any data a public educational institution chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. (Section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Under the federal regulations, &quot;directory information&quot; means &quot;information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.&quot; (34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith wrote that pursuant to state and federal law, the applicant data are private educational data. She then listed the types of data the University has designated as directory information and argued that the data Mr. Niemic seeks are not public directory information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Directory information shall mean the student&apos;s name, address, electronic (e-mail) address, telephone number, dates of enrollment, enrollment status (full-time, part-time, not enrolled, withdrew, and date withdrawn), major, adviser, college, class, academic awards and honors received, and, upon graduation, the degree awarded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This definition [of directory information] does not include application for membership on the student fees committee. The information [Mr. Niemic seeks] therefore is not directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Niemic argues that he is only looking for the &quot;directory information&quot; concerning the applicants. Mr. Niemic, however, is asking for the identities of applicants who unsuccessfully applied for appointment to the committee - and it is the fact of their application that is private. name, address, phone number, and email - which are [sic] appear on the application - may be directory information, but when they are asked for in a context that would reveal private information (e.g., Who received financial aid? Who unsuccessfully applied for admission to the University? Who applied for membership on the student fees committee?), the information is private educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Smith. Pursuant to the University&apos;s current designation of data to be directory information (public), the data at issue in this opinion are not directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Berglund argued that some of the application data are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3, applicants for appointment. This subdivision classifies certain applicant data as public and makes additional data public once the individual is appointed to a public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, educational data ultimately are controlled by FERPA; the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations. Because FERPA does not contain an exception allowing for release of data when students apply to and are appointed to a public body of their educational institution, and because the University has chosen not to designate these types of data as directory information, the data in question are private and cannot be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes the following: The data about Fee Committee applicants who unsuccessfully applied are considered not public; likewise, data for those successful applicants are also considered not public and should only be released with written consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue that Mr. Berglund raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The University of Minnesota complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to data contained in the applications of students who apply for the University&apos;s Student Services Fee Committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 14, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267142</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-020</Title><title>Opinion 09 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267446&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-09-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Advisory Board for the Metro Gang Strike Force a public body that must comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?
Did the members of the Advisory Board for the Strike Force comply with the OML when they exchanged certain email messages relating to the activities of the Strike Force?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 8, 2009; Metro Gang Strike Force Advisory Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 26, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated May 22, 2009, from John Borger, an attorney. In his letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner, on behalf of his client, the Star Tribune, to issue an advisory opinion on whether the Metro Gang Strike Force (MGSF) Advisory Board had violated the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Mr. Borger submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner accepted Mr. Borger&apos;s request and in a letter to Manila Shaver, MGSF Advisory Board Chair, notified Mr. Shaver of her intent to issue the opinion and gave the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. Mr. Shaver replied, in a letter dated June 11, 2009. Subsequently, the Commissioner notified Mr. Borger and Mr. Shaver that she would not issue an opinion because the MGSF had been dissolved. (The Commissioner refunded Mr. Borger&apos;s fee.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to reconsider her decision, because the Board was still in operation, even though the MGSF was not. The Commissioner agreed, and Mr. Borger resubmitted his request on July 17, 2009, along with the $200.00 fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, IPAD notified Mr. Shaver that the Commissioner intended to issue this opinion, in a letter dated July 27, 2009, and again gave the members of the Board an opportunity to explain their position. Mr. Shaver responded again, in a letter dated August 12, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also invited Rodney Bartsh, Chair of the Gang and Drug Oversight Council, which oversees the Board, to submit comments. Mr. Bartsh did not provide any comments. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The MGSF and its Advisory Board were established by the Gang and Drug Oversight Council, as part of its duty to &quot;establish multijurisdictional task forces and strike forces to combat gang and drug crime.&quot; (See section 299A.641, subdivision 3.) The MGSF was organized as a joint powers entity, whose 13 Advisory Board members are the chief law enforcement officers, or their designees, of all parties to the Joint Powers Agreement. (See MGSF Advisory Board Bylaws, Section IV.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 7, 2009, a Star Tribune editorial writer sent an email to (then) MGSF Assistant Commander James Heimerl, seeking his perspective on an issue that was the subject of an April 5, 2009, newspaper article, about which she intended to write an editorial. She asked for a response by the following afternoon &quot;for deadline purposes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to documentation Mr. Borger provided, at 1:40 p.m. on April 8, Deputy Chief Rob Allen of the Minneapolis Police Department sent an email, with an attached letter, to Mr. Shaver and 33 others, including all Advisory Board members/member-designees. In the email, which Mr. Allen addressed to his &apos;colleagues,&apos; he asked them to review the attached letter, stating &apos;[t]here is some time critical information that I think can help prevent further issue with MGSF operations if we act quickly enough.&apos; In the letter, Mr. Allen raised several issues and wrote, &quot;I would like the board to consider issuing a statement similar to&quot; a paragraph he drafted and included.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to copies of the emails Mr. Borger submitted, between 2:50 and 4:29 p.m., seven Advisory Board members (or their designees) replied to Mr. Allen (and copied other Board members, including Mr. Shaver) with the following comments, listed in chronological order:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The Sheriff and I looked your memo and the proposed statement over. We like the idea of having this statement on record . . . . If you get consensus on it, we recommend [Mr. Shaver], on behalf of the MGSF Board, take action today and release it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Chief . . . and I reviewed your memo and endorse your recommendation and the immediate action by the board suggested by [commenter #1.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. In my view the statement is a good idea and reflects a solidarity on the part of the board. I also feel that as chair of the MGSF Board, Chief Shaver is the person the statement should come from.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. You did a nice job [in the statement.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. I agree with the others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;6. I support the statement and agree [Mr. Shaver] as the chair of the MGSF would be the appropriate person to deliver the message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;7. I support the statement and agree that Chief Shaver as the chair of the MGSF would be the appropriate person to deliver the message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At 5:00 p.m., Mr. Shaver issued a press release, which consisted of the verbatim statement Mr. Allen proposed in his email to Board members and two additional introductory sentences. Mr. Shaver then emailed the Advisory Board that he had taken that action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Borger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Advisory Board for the Metro Gang Strike Force a public body that must comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Advisory Board for the Strike Force comply with the OML when they exchanged certain email messages relating to the activities of the Strike Force?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Is the Advisory Board for the Metro Gang Strike Force a public body that must comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Shaver wrote: &quot;(t)he OML applies to any &apos;board&apos; of a &apos;public body.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13D.01, subd. 1(c)(3). As MGSF Bylaws acknowledge, the Advisory Board is subject to the OML.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did the members of the Advisory Board for the Strike Force comply with the OML when they exchanged certain email messages relating to the activities of the Strike Force?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1, states: &quot;[a]ll meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public.&quot; The Legislature did not define &quot;meeting&quot; in the OML; however, the Minnesota Supreme Court described the &quot;quorum rule:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&apos;Meetings&apos; subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because more than a quorum of the Advisory Board participated in the communications and a majority of the board expressly approved issuing the statement, it amounted to a &apos;virtual meeting&apos; that violated the OML. The OML allows a non-physical &apos;meeting&apos; of a public body only in very limited circumstances [See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021]. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is immaterial that Mr. Shaver might have issued a press release on his own authority, without any action by the Advisory Board. That is simply not what happened. . . . . Mr. Allen expressly requested action by the Advisory Board. All board members received that request. Discussion among board members addressed whether there was a &apos;consensus&apos; on the requested action. Points of discussion included whether there should be a press release at all, what the release should say, and who should issue the press release. A majority of the board members expressly approved the request . . . . That surely constitutes &apos;transacting public business&apos; under the standard of &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983). . . . . What happened was that a quorum of the Advisory Board, &apos;as a group, discuss[ed] . . . [and] receive[d] information on official business.&apos; [See &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d at 518.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Shaver responded first on June 11, 2009; he modified his comments to the Commissioner in his August 12, 2009 response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his June 11, 2009, comments, Mr. Shaver wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- I cannot speak on behalf of the Board on this matter as our Board has not met to discuss this issue. Our next meeting is on June 30th, almost two weeks beyond the June 17th deadline you provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- As Chair, I cannot control the independent actions of the Board or individual Board member [sic] outside an official meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- In this incident I did not initiate the original e-mail or distribute it. I did distribute to the Board a copy of a news release, which is part of my day-to-day duties as chair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his August 12, 2009, comments, Mr. Shaver wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The situation is analogous to a city council member alerting officials with administrative responsibilities to issues requiring immediate attention or offering other unsolicited input regarding day-to-day municipal business. Deputy Chief Allen&apos;s letter, and its distribution by e-mail, did not violate the OML. See &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d at 518 . . . . He was simply disseminating information to all Board members alerting them about a matter of high importance....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The e-mail from Deputy Chief Allen was a single Board member&apos;s opinion that a response was required. The communication in the other e-mails represented individuals offering their opinion that I should act on the matter immediately. References to the &apos;Board&apos; or &apos;MGSF&apos; in these e-mail communications stem from the fact that any routine actions performed by the Chair were done &apos;on the Board&apos;s behalf,&apos; as specified by the MGSF Bylaws. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to Mr. Shaver&apos;s assertion that he issued the news release as part of his day-to-day duties, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Mr. Shaver characterized the subject of the email Mr. Allen sent as &quot;a matter of high importance&quot; to the Advisory Board. Seven of the Advisory Board members, more than a quorum, expressed their opinions to all other Board Members about whether the Board should act, what action it should take and who should act on the Board&apos;s behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Shaver stated that Mr. Allen&apos;s email was permissible under &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, because it is permissible for members of a public body to receive information &quot;through the mail.&quot; In &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;, the Court stated that in a situation in which a quorum or more of a public body received written information as a group, but did not read and discuss it, there was no violation of the OML. In that situation, the Court wrote, &quot;. . . such distribution was functionally equivalent to receiving information through the mail, which is permissible, and there was no danger of forming group consensus because no information was actually received until material was read and no discussion occurred.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 511. The Court made its ruling in 1983, long before email was a common means of communication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, a quorum of the Advisory Board, in addition to receiving information, commented on and provided direction to Mr. Shaver on a matter relating to the official business of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is aware that Minnesota courts have not ruled definitively on this issue. However, given the facts here, the Commissioner believes that per &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, the conduct of the Advisory Board constituted a meeting, which was required to be public, and as such is impermissible under the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Mr. Allen had sent his suggestion only to Mr. Shaver, and if Mr. Shaver had taken action without consulting a quorum of the Board, then, in the Commissioner&apos;s view, that conduct would be permissible. It seems reasonable that one-way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner urges the Legislature to provide guidance in the OML on issues arising from the widespread use of email and other forms of communication. It would be helpful to clarify specifically what kinds of email communications are permissible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Advisory Board for the Metro Gang Strike Force is a public body that must comply with the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Members of the Advisory Board for the Strike Force did not comply with the OML when they exchanged certain email messages relating to the activities of the Strike Force.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 8, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267446</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Metro Gang Strike Force</Title><Id>266640</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interpretation of meeting</Title><Id>267020</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:14:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-019</Title><title>Opinion 09 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266872&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-08-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data to a third party?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 28, 2009; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 26, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether or not Hennepin County inappropriately disseminated data about X. IPAD requested additional information which X provided on July 10, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kathy Washenberger, responsible authority for Hennepin County. The purposes of this letter, dated July 13, 2009, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On July 31, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated July 30, 2009, from Ms. Washenberger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote that in early 2009, s/he was entering the Hennepin County Justice Center, where people are subject to weapons screening. X was denied admittance and the security staff then created an incident report. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The existence of this . . .[incident report] did not become known to me, the data subject, until . . . when, during the course of a meeting, [my employer] produced a copy for my review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is unknown to me how many other individuals at [my employer&apos;s] office are served by the same fax machine where the confidential report was directed, and who, among them, saw the [confidential] report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X wrote that according to the current version of the document the County creates pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 1 (the County refers to this document as an annual report), &quot;all &lt;strong&gt;accident and incident reports&lt;/strong&gt; produced by the &lt;strong&gt;Security Division&lt;/strong&gt; of Hennepin County&apos;s &lt;strong&gt;Property Services Department&lt;/strong&gt; are [confidential data].&quot; [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data to a third party?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.861, subdivision 1(a), defines &quot;security service&quot; as an &quot;organization that provides security services to a government entity as part of that entity or under contract to it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.861, subdivision 1(b), states that security service data are &quot;all data collected, created, or maintained by a security service for the purpose of providing security services.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, subdivision 2 of section 13.861 states, &quot;Security service data that are similar to the data described as request for service data and response or incident [law enforcement] data in [Minnesota Statutes] section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and [6], are public.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Washenberger wrote, &quot;The [incident report] was prepared by a Hennepin County security officer following an incident involving X. . . . At the time the [incident report] was prepared, it was classified as security service data under Minn. Stat. section 13.861, subd. 1(b).&quot; Ms. Washenberger stated that because data in the [incident report] are similar to the data described as response or incident data in section 13.82, subdivision 6, the [incident report] initially was public (and was public when it was disclosed to X&apos;s employer).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Washenberger that when the incident report was disseminated to X&apos;s employer, the County appropriately determined that the data in the incident report were classified as public pursuant to section 13.861. Therefore, the County was in compliance with Chapter 13 when it disseminated the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Although Ms. Washenberger did not state that the County&apos;s security officers are part of a &quot;security service&quot; as that term is defined in section 13.861, the Commissioner assumes this to be the case and bases her analysis on that assumption.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following additional comments. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 1, requires each government entity to create, and annually update, a document that describes the types of private or confidential data the entity maintains. While this document is a meant to be a resource tool for the public (and the entity), it is not legally binding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Washenberger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X&apos;s assertion that the [incident report] in question must be classified as confidential based on entries in the [data practices annual report] is erroneous . . . .Hennepin County has attempted to identify in the [annual report] data, including security files, which may be classified as private or confidential on individuals. Hennepin County&apos;s inclusion of security files in the [annual report] did not have the effect of making all incident reports confidential. The classification of any particular incident report as public or as private or confidential must be determined on a case by case basis. In this matter, none of the statutes cited in the [annual report] as the basis for classifying incident reports as confidential were applicable at the time the [incident report] was prepared or at the time it was shared with [X&apos;s employer]. There are some incident reports that are confidential prior to a claim being filed; however, the [incident report] at issue in this matter is not one of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, a government entity&apos;s annual report document is not legally binding but should be updated on a regular basis so that it is current and complete. For example, because some of the security data the County maintains are public and some are not (see section 13.861, subdivision 2), it would be helpful and appropriate for the County to include that additional information in its annual report. Although a government entity is not required to list public data in its annual report, doing so can help members of the public and entity staff better understand how certain data are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in her letter to the Commissioner, Ms. Washenberger noted that X filed a Notice of Claim with the County in July 2009. Ms. Washenberger further noted that because the Hennepin County Attorney has determined that a civil legal action involving X is pending, the County now considers the incident report to be confidential pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39. The Commissioner does not agree. Because the data in the incident report are similar to law enforcement response or incident data (see section 13.82, subdivision 6), the data always are public and cannot be withheld pursuant to section 13.39 or any other statutory provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hennepin County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data to a third party.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 28, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266872</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security service data/Capitol Security (13.861)</Title><Id>266871</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-03-21T16:29:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-018</Title><title>Opinion 09 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267795&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-08-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of White Bear Lake comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged a person $26.69 for copying 100 pages of data when the person wanted only 25 pages of data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 10, 2009; City of White Bear Lake</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 23, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated June, 22, 2009, from Elizabeth Nixon. In her letter, Ms. Nixon asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding copy charges assessed her by the City of White Bear Lake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Sather, White Bear Lake City Manager, in response to Ms. Nixon&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 2, 2009, were to inform him of Ms. Nixon&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 20, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated July 17, 2009, from Cory Vadnais, White Bear Lake City Clerk/Responsible Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Nixon provided them is as follows. In an email dated September 25, 2008, Ms. Nixon discussed a previous data request her colleague had made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated September 29, 2008, Ms. Vadnais acknowledged receiving the request and discussed what the City charges for copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a September 30, 2008, email, Ms. Nixon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In my reading of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], I have been working under the assumption that you would inform me when the information is available for me to review and then I would request photocopying of the relevant data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please let me know that the data are available for me to review for relevance. What time might I or a colleague be able to stop by for this purpose?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an October 2, 2008, email, Ms. Vadnais wrote, &quot;The documents have been ready for your review for a couple of days now. I will instruct the receptionist to allow you to review them and then charge you for the copies you wish to have.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated October 24, 2008, Ms. Nixon wrote, &quot;I finally had time to get in to city hall and review the [data] that I requested from you. Sorry that you mistakenly copied so many pages first, because the only relevant information was the written records, not all of those photographs.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a subsequent email on October 24, 2008, Ms. Vadnais wrote, &quot;I assume, then, that since only some of the information was pertinent and what you were looking for, that you were only charged for only the information you needed, paid the $.25 per page standard fee we charge for those copies, and left the other information at the Information Desk.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Nixon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I made a request to review documents. In summary, Ms. Vadnais replied to inform me that the documents were ready to review The information available was 100 photocopied pages from various documents. The full documents were not made available. Of the 100 pages, I found approximately 25 pages to be of relevance, and I took these with me. The first floor desk attendant retained the remaining pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The next month I received an invoice from the City to pay page fees, sales tax, and transit tax for &quot;100 copies as requested&quot;. As I continued to dispute the invoice with Ms. Vadnais, I received additional invoices for several more months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To her opinion request, Ms. Vadnais attached a copy of an invoice dated October 27, 2008. The total is $26.69. Breakdown of that fee is: $25 (100 pages at $.25 per page) + $1.63 (sales tax) + $.06 (transit tax).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Nixon&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of White Bear Lake comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged a person $26.69 for copying 100 pages of data when the person wanted only 25 pages of data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides for situations in which a person who is not the data subject seeks access to public information. If the person wants to inspect the data, the entity cannot charge any fee (section 13.03, subdivision 3(a)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the person wants copies of the data, the government entity can charge a fee although charging is not required. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that an entity may charge no more than $.25 per page if the person requests 100 or fewer black and white paper copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Vadnais wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Nixon requested a great deal of information The Engineering staff subsequently spent a great deal of staff time electronically retrieving the information requested Much of this information was also only stored electronically, which required printing of the information which is equal to making a copy. In her request to the Engineering Department, Ms. Nixon did not state that she wanted to review the information first and then determine which information was pertinent to her. She plainly asked for copies of the information to be sent to her.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once copies of the requested information were gathered, I contacted Ms. Nixon to inform her that she could stop by to pick up the material at the Information Desk. she took the information to a side counter, selected the information she wanted, and left without paying fore [sic] anything. The information totaled 100 pages @ $.25 per page, plus sales tax.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To her comments, Ms. Vadnais attached copies of several email messages. One of these emails, dated September 10, 2008, is from Ms. Nixon to someone who appears to be engineering department staff. In this email, Ms. Nixon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We have been very patient with you since [a person] first requested last spring the public records on stormwater [sic] system annual inspections It has been months since the first data request and we have seen nothing from you. Perhaps you have it all sitting and just forgot to send.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When you send those data, please also send a chronology of each street reconstruction project since 1980.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Ms. Vadnais argues that Ms. Nixon &quot;plainly&quot; asked for copies, the Commissioner does not have a copy of the original request and writes this opinion based on the record that was submitted. Ms. Nixon&apos;s September 30, 2008, email to Ms. Vadnais states clearly that her intention is to inspect the data before requesting any copies. Ms. Vadnais&apos;s October 2, 2008, response - &quot;I will instruct the receptionist to allow you to review [the documents] and then charge you for the copies you wish to have&quot; - suggests that Ms. Vadnais understood that Ms. Nixon first wanted to inspect the data and then decide about copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, based on the information provided, and that inspection of government data is free, the City should charge Ms. Nixon only for the 25 pages she took with her. Because the number of pages is 100 or fewer, the City may charge no more than $.25 per page. The City may not charge a sales or transit tax. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266635&quot; title=&quot;95-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-053&lt;/a&gt; for more discussion about sales tax.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Vadnais wrote that much of the information was stored only electronically &quot;which required printing of the information which is equal to making a copy.&quot; If a person asks to inspect data that happen to be maintained electronically and the government entity, for security reasons, cannot allow the requestor to inspect the data on a computer, the entity must print the data. Because inspection of data is free, the entity cannot charge the cost of printing the data. (Section 13.03, subdivision subdivision 3(b).) Of course, if the requestor then asks for copies of the inspected data, the entity can then charge as allowed by Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Nixon raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of White Bear Lake did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged a person $26.69 for copying 100 pages of data when the person wanted only 25 pages of data. The City can charge no more than $.25 per page, which for 25 pages would be $6.25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 10, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267795</id><Tag><Description/><Title>25 cents per page</Title><Id>266936</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sales tax excluded</Title><Id>266254</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data, email</Title><Id>266726</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Print to redact</Title><Id>266937</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-017</Title><title>Opinion 09 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268011&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-08-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 861, Winona, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a June 19, 2009, for access to emails between District School Board members and the District Superintendent from June 5 - June 18, 2009?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 5, 2009; School District 861 (Winona)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 29, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated June 26, 2009, from Darrell Ehrlick, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Winona Daily News&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Ehrlick asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to have access to certain data Independent School District 861, Winona, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Durand, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Ehrlick&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 2, 2009, were to inform him of Mr. Ehrlick&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. Mr. Durand, responded, in an email dated July 27, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Ehrlick, a &lt;em&gt;News&lt;/em&gt; reporter asked to inspect email correspondence between Mr. Durand and District School Board members from June 5- June 18, 2009. The District&apos;s response, dated June 22, 2009, which Mr. Ehrlick provided, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We reviewed your FOIA [sic] request of June 18, 2009. . . . . As Superintendent Durand shared with you, all communications will have to be reviewed for protected data and we may need to redact material before releasing it. Therefore, the Superintendent anticipates that this information will not be available prior to August 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Durand wrote that the News reporter had submitted a written request for access to the data in question after a School Board meeting on June 18, 2009. Mr. Durand asked him if there was &quot;anything specific&quot; he sought, and &quot;offered to return to his office to get specific documents&quot; for the reporter. The reporter declined, stating that his request was not for anything specific.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Durand stated that the District offices were closed on Fridays through the summer, and that he was out of the office from June 19, 2009 until July 3. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information requested needed to be checked for private data and would then be redacted if necessary. [The District Administrative Assistant] was also on vacation from June 24 until July 1, and the District offices closed on the afternoon of July 1, and did not reopen until July 7 . . . . Further, it is normally the duty of the District&apos;s Human Resources Director . . . to review and redact private information prior to data practices requests being finalized and sent. However, [the H.R. Director] was also away from the District on vacation during this time. While the vacations of three of the main individuals who handle data practices requests in the District might not grant the District more time to respond to a data request, as outlined in Advisory Opinion 04-076, it does explain the background associated with the District&apos;s response to the data practices request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . The procedure followed by District staff was similar to the procedure followed for another request that had been made by [another newspaper] earlier this spring seeking access to all e-mails between the Superintendent and school board members. In that situation, there were over 500 pages of documents that needed to be reviewed, protected data redacted, and a few questions referred to legal counsel to make sure there would be no illegal release of private data. This process took upwards of a month to complete. Based on this experience and the fact the staff did not have any idea how many e-mails were involved, the date of August 3 was selected and put in the response to [the &lt;em&gt;News&lt;/em&gt;] while the Superintendent was absent from the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After reviewing and analyzing the requested information, the data . . . were made available . . . on July 14, 2009. This date was three and a half weeks after the request was formally made, a delay of only 11 actual District business days based upon the fact that the District offices were closed on Fridays and over the July 4th holiday.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The facts show that the District fully complied with the Data Practices Act in this case. The reporter was offered the chance to review specific documents immediately, the Superintendent informed the reporter of the possibility for delay based on the need for a thorough review of an unknown amount of email requested, [staff] later informed the reporter of the reasons for the delay, and the District actually produced the documents within 11 business days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Ehrlick&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 861, Winona, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a June 19, 2009, for access to emails between District School Board members and the District Superintendent from June 5 - June 18, 2009?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. When a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Ehrlick wrote that the District telling him it anticipated that it would take six weeks to provide access to the data is neither a prompt nor reasonable response. In general, the Commissioner agrees. However, the District actually took 11 business days. Although the Legislature did not define &quot;reasonable time,&quot; the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the volume and substance of the data requested. Mr. Durand did not state how many emails were involved, but given that Mr. Ehrlick asked for emails sent during a two-week period, 11 business days seems to be a reasonable response time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Durand was correct in noting that Chapter 13 does not contain a provision that grants a government entity more time to respond to a data request because the entity is short staffed. In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-268014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Ehrlick raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Independent School District 861, Winona, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a June 19, 2009, for access to emails between District School Board members and the District Superintendent from June 5 - June 18, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 5, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268011</id><pubdate>2025-10-29T17:45:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-016</Title><title>Opinion 09 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267995&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-07-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Big Lake comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a copy of the report prepared by Midwest Government Advisors?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 16, 2009; City of Big Lake</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 4, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated June 3, 2009, from Isaac Kaufman, General Counsel for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS). In his letter, Mr. Kaufman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the union&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Big Lake. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Kaufman provided in a letter dated June 16, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Scott Johnson, City Administrator, in response to Mr. Kaufman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 22, 2009, were to inform him of Mr. Kaufman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 10, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Soren Mattick, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Kaufman provided them is as follows. In a letter dated May 28, 2009, Mr. Kaufman requested certain data from the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing to request a copy of the report completed by Midwest Government Advisors, following that company&apos;s investigation in or about 2006 into the Big Lake Police Department&apos;s compliance with [certain laws].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 1, 2009, Mr. Johnson responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;hellip;The City Council reviewed [the report prepared by Mr. Shellum and Midwest Government Advisors] in a closed session at the regularly scheduled meeting on April 11, 2007. Upon reviewing the report, the City Council re-opened the meeting and voted unanimously to close the investigation regarding Chief Rifenberick and concluded that no disciplinary action was necessary. Based on the Council&apos;s vote that no disciplinary action was necessary and the legal opinion of the [City&apos;s attorney], the report is private data pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Kaufman described some of the allegations and wrote, &quot;On information and belief, the Midwest Government Advisors report includes the collection and analysis of data pertaining to these allegations, which are not private personnel data as to Chief Rifenberick.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Kaufman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Big Lake comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a copy of the report prepared by Midwest Government Advisors?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes she writes this opinion based on the assumption that when Mr. Kaufman requested the report, he was acting as a member of the public as opposed to a representative of the union. This distinction is important because pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 6, labor unions are entitled to certain not public personnel data. By requesting data as a member of the public, Mr. Kaufman is entitled to all public data but not any private data about union employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the fact that a complaint exists and the status of the complaint are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) If the government entity does not take disciplinary action against the employee, no additional data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Mattick wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;LELS argues that non-personnel data regarding the Police Department as a whole can be parsed out from the report. However, the City of Big Lake commissioned the report in response to specific allegations about Chief Rifenberick.The report responds directly to these allegations about the Police Chief. As such, the report consists entirely of information from the investigation into the Police Chief&apos;s conduct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the Big Lake City Council voted that no disciplinary action was necessary, the report constitutes private data pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City and Mr. Kaufman disagree about the subject matter of the report. Mr. Kaufman&apos;s position is that the report contains data that are not about the Police Chief and are public. The City&apos;s position is that all the data in the report are private data about the Police Chief. Because the Commissioner has not seen a copy of the report, she is unable to comment specifically upon its contents. If the Police Chief is the subject of all the data in the report and all the data relate to the complaints made against him or are otherwise private data about him, then the City cannot release the data to the public (Mr. Kaufman). However, if the report contains public data about the Police Chief or other public data, the City should release those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kaufman raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the City of Big Lake complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of the report prepared by Midwest Government Advisors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 16, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267995</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-015</Title><title>Opinion 09 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267418&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-07-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are “settlement agreements” between a municipality’s workers’ compensation insurer and employee public documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)?
If such agreements are public, what, if any, information is the employer required to redact from the documents before making them available to the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 7, 2009; City of Oakdale</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 26, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division received a letter dated May 22, 2009, from Pamela VanderWiel, an attorney representing the City of Oakdale. In her letter, Ms. VanderWiel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. VanderWiel provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote that someone had asked for personnel data on five former city employees. Of relevance here is the part of the data request for the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of any employment relationship, including a buyout agreement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. VanderWiel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One or more of the former employees listed has received payment from the city&apos;s worker&apos;s [sic] compensation insurer pursuant to a negotiated agreement. A copy of such an agreement is enclosed for your review. This agreement contains what would generally be considered [not public] data about the former employee, including the fact of a work-related injury, the nature of the injury, certain medical information, and the amount of the benefits received by the former employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. VanderWiel&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are &quot;settlement agreements&quot; between a municipality&apos;s workers&apos; compensation insurer and employee public documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If such agreements are public, what, if any, information is the employer required to redact from the documents before making them available to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are &quot;settlement agreements&quot; between a municipality&apos;s workers&apos; compensation insurer and employee public documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance to this opinion, certain data about settlement agreements specifically are classified as public by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. VanderWiel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The city questions, however whether a claim for worker&apos;s [sic] compensation benefits by an employee is a &quot;dispute arising out of an employment relationship,&quot; as intended by the legislature when it enacted [section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)]. The dispute involving worker&apos;s [sic]compensation, if any, arises out of the former employee&apos;s injury and his or her entitlement to benefits to compensate for that injury, not from his or her relationship with the employer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Further, the city notes that a settlement of a worker&apos;s [sic] compensation claim generally contains medical data, which is information more personal to an employee that [sic] that generally contained in, for example, a severance agreement. The legislature has recognized the privacy interest the employee has in the data by providing that medical data about an employee obtained by an employer or its workers&apos; compensation insurer is to be treated as private data, under Minn. Stat. section 176.138.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. VanderWiel noted that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267364&quot; title=&quot;97-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-017&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner concluded that medical data contained in a settlement agreement are public. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The facts of that opinion appear to be distinguishable, however. That case appeared to involve a standard separation agreement. In that situation, presumably the employee has a choice to exclude such data, and by including the data in the settlement, waives his or her right to complain about it being public. The settlement of a worker&apos;s [sic] compensation claim, however, necessarily involves the medical condition of the employee, and the employee has little choice but to include the information in the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that the types of settlement agreements made public by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), are related to issues over which an employee would resign, be terminated, or face discipline. These are issues clearly related to the employment relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When someone has complained or made a charge about an employee, and the employee resigns prior to there being a final disposition, very little data about the circumstances are public. By making settlement agreements public, the Minnesota Legislature made a policy decision that if the dispute is settled with an agreement, the terms of the agreement must be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the settling of a workers&apos; compensation claim resolves a dispute, it is a dispute over who will pay the employee&apos;s medical expenses and how much each party will pay. This does not seem to be the type of settlement agreement the Legislature intended to be public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If such agreements are public, what, if any, information is the employer required to redact from the documents before making them available to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. VanderWiel raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&quot;Settlement agreements&quot; between a municipality&apos;s workers&apos; compensation insurer and employee are not public documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 7, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267418</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Negotiated agreement</Title><Id>267089</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-014</Title><title>Opinion 09 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267506&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-06-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did MMUA comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 16, 2009, request for access to certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 30, 2009; Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 21, 2009, Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Anna Kurth, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Kurth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; right to get access to certain data from the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association (MMUA.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jack Kegel, Executive Director of MMUA, in response to Ms. Kurth&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 26, 2009, were to inform him of Ms. Kurth&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MMUA&apos;s position. Kaela Brennan, attorney for MMUA, responded, in a letter dated June 11, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In a March 16, 2009, email, &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&lt;/em&gt; wrote to Mr. Kegel, asking for access to all data that relate to &quot;meetings conducted or sponsored by MMUA at which representatives of Excelsior Energy [a private business] have been allowed or invited to make presentations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a March 19, 2009, email, Mr. Kegel replied, stating that MMUA &quot;is a private, nonprofit trade association and is not subject to [Chapter 13.]&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Brennan provided some background:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MMUA was created in 1931 as a private, non-profit corporation under Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes and qualified as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. MMUA performs trade-association services to Minnesota Cities engaged in utility enterprises, including gas, electricity, and water. MMUA&apos;s Restated Articles of Incorporation define its purpose &apos;to protect and assist municipally-owned utilities in the state of Minnesota,&apos; including disseminating information of interest to municipal utilities, meeting, conferring, and interchanging ideas for greater efficiency and economy of municipal utilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Kurth&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did MMUA comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 16, 2009, request for access to certain data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kurth wrote, in support of &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; position that MMUA is obligated to provide access to the data in question:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears to us that, rather than being a separate, private entity, [MMUA] is purely a creature of the state&apos;s municipal electric, natural gas and water utilities. Municipal utilities are of course governmental agencies, governed by a city council or an appointed utility commission. Furthermore, the support services the association provides are so thoroughly intermingled with its member utilities&apos; operations that it is often hard to distinguish the two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Taken together, the MMUA&apos;s existence as an entity created by governmental agencies, and its involvement in its member utilities&apos; training, planning, policy discussions, project financing and day-to-day operations, adds up to what to us seems a convincing case that, in key respects, the association functions as a government entity, and should therefore be subject to the Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Lastly, it is our view that the MMUA may come within the provisions of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subd. 11, because it would seem virtually certain that - even if it is a private entity - it maintains a contractual relationship with its government agency members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Brennan stated that MMUA is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, and as such, is not a government entity for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7a, and therefore is not subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; position that, given that MMUA is an association whose member municipal utilities are all subject to Chapter 13, its data ought to be accessible to the public. Nonetheless, MMUA is a private entity, whose data, generally, are exempt from public exposure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, government entities, which are subject to Chapter 13, frequently contract with private organizations, such as MMUA, to perform functions on their behalf. MMUA provides services under some sort of arrangement to its members, which are, according to Ms. Brennan, municipal utilities operated by Minnesota cities. Those member municipal utilities are subject to Chapter 13, and they may not enter into associations with private organizations that enable them to shield their activities from the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed an issue that is similar to &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; characterization of the operation of MMUA, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267521&quot; title=&quot;01-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-044&lt;/a&gt;, in describing an arrangement between a government entity and a private nonprofit:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The gist of [the] argument is that when the Authority entered into contract with the Nonprofit, it . . . delegated its operating authority to the Nonprofit. . . . In essence, this shields the operation of the Aquarium from public scrutiny. This is the very type of situation the Legislature rectified by amending Chapter 13 to include the contract language now codified at section 13.05, subdivision 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, which was effective August 1, 1999, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan stated that MMUA does not perform any government function and therefore Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11 is not applicable. However, the cases she cited in support of MMUA&apos;s position do not construe the phrase &quot;government function&quot; in section 13.05, subdivision 11, and, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, do not apply here. The Commissioner believes that section 13.05, subdivision 11, does apply to any agreements/arrangements/contracts MMUA and its member municipal utilities entered into after August 1, 1999, which she assumes are renewed/revised on a regular basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did MMUA comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 16, 2009, request for access to certain data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267459&quot; title=&quot;05-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-034&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003), the Court discussed a situation in which a contract between a private person and Steele County did not contain the language required in section 13.05, subdivision 11. The Court held that the District Court&apos;s decision to not infer the language was in error:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;To accept WDSI&apos;s argument and the district court&apos;s reasoning would be to simply ignore the mandate of the statute. Although the mandate was not expressly reflected in the contract, it applies nevertheless, and neither contracting parties nor courts can simply ignore it. [See WDSI, p.622. Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MMUA did not provide copies of its agreements/arrangements/contracts with its member municipal utilities, but it appears that MMUA is providing them services of the kind the Legislature contemplated when it enacted section 13.05, subdivision 11. If so, then the data that relate to performing agreed-upon services that MMUA creates, collects, etcetera after August 1, 1999, are government data subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Per &lt;em&gt;WDSI&lt;/em&gt;, even if the required language was not in the contracts, it must be inferred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan wrote &quot;MMUA has not entered [sic] a contract with government entities concerning the subject of Hibbing Tribune&apos;s request.&quot; However, contracts and other agreements typically contain broader statements that refer to services in general, and she stated that MMUA&apos;s services include &quot;meeting, conferring, and interchanging ideas.&quot; Thus, the data &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&lt;/em&gt; requested, i.e., data that relate to &quot;meetings conducted or sponsored by MMUA&quot; are subject to disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly under section 13.05, subdivision 11(b), the member municipal utilities must provide &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Tribune&lt;/em&gt; with the data in question if they maintain it. However, it is reasonable to assume that because MMUA arranged for Excelsior Energy to attend/present at MMUA-sponsored events, MMUA may maintain related data that none of its members maintains. Thus, if the data in question are not available from the member utilities, MMUA must provide the data. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267398&quot; title=&quot;09-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 09-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Kurth raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the extent that its arrangements with its member cities obligate it to comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MMUA did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 16, 2009, request for access to certain data, if those data are maintained only by MMUA, and are not accessible from its government entity members.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 30, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267506</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party response to data requests</Title><Id>266281</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-013</Title><title>Opinion 09 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267284&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-06-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 659, Northfield, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it took the actions described in a May 15, 2009, advisory opinion request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 23, 2009; School District 659 (Northfield)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 19, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated May 15, 2009, from &quot;X.&quot; In his/her email, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 659, Northfield, violated X&apos;s rights as a data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to L. Chris Richardson, District Superintendent, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 26, 2009, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. Dr. Richardson responded, in an email dated June 5, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X presented them follows. In his/her opinion request, X referenced (and enclosed) a letter X sent to the federal Family Policy Compliance Office, and emails between X and the District, in which s/he alleged that the District had violated state and federal laws governing data about X&apos;s child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X wrote: &quot;[A District teacher] engaged in the practice of writing on [his/her] classroom blackboard the names and actual test scores of each student . . . who had received an A or a B on classroom tests . . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Dr. Richardson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the MGDPA and FERPA, this teacher&apos;s action may be a violation of the students&apos; rights to privacy. While it could be argued that the posting of the top test scores was a classroom award, or that the individual test scores are not educational data, the District has discontinued the practice. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The student&apos;s [X&apos;s child&apos;s] score had only been posted when it was among the high scores for that unit or chapter. The teacher stated that this was a common AP [Advanced Placement Program] motivational strategy which was suggested to [her/him] by an AP conference presenter. However, the District took swift action to explain the situation and to inform the teacher that [s/he] had to discontinue posting the top students [sic] names and scores.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There may be an argument that individual test scores such as those posted do not constitute &apos;educational records&apos; under FERPA. The Supreme Court has ruled that individual assignment grades that are shared with the entire class after they have been peer graded are not education records because they are not yet &apos;maintained&apos; as required under FERPA. Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Falvo, 122 S.Ct. 934, 939 (2002). That Court also stated that the individual results were not educational records because the Legislature [sic] could not have meant to give parents the ability to challenge the accuracy of the grade on an assignment or test, as is required by FERPA for all educational records. Id.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the District understands that the practice of posting the names and grades of high scoring students is most likely a FERPA and MGDPA violation. Thus, the District has taken corrective action with the teacher who posted the grades in order to stop the postings. The District has also taken preemptive action against future violations through staff training in order to ensure that all staff members understand the responsibilities imposed by FERPA and the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 659, Northfield, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it took the actions described in a May 15, 2009, advisory opinion request?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 8, defines an individual to include a parent or guardian, or someone who is acting as a parent or guardian.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Those data (termed &quot;education records&quot; under FERPA and &quot;educational data&quot; under section 13.32), subject to limited exceptions, are classified as private (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. Richardson stated that per the United States Supreme Court holding in &lt;em&gt;Owasso&lt;/em&gt;, the test score data may not be considered an education record for purposes of FERPA. The Commissioner does not have sufficient information to make that determination, and, according to Dr. Richardson, the District nevertheless believes that it violated state and federal law when it posted the test score without consent. Regardless, a student&apos;s test score is private educational data according to section 13.32, and may not be disseminated without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District has acknowledged that the practice of posting individual student&apos;s test scores by name violates FERPA and section 13.32, and has taken measures to ensure it does not do so again.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School District 659, Northfield, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it posted a test score that identified X&apos;s child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheila M. Reger
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 23, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267284</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Posting test scores by name</Title><Id>267108</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:18:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-012</Title><title>Opinion 09 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267442&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-05-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share private or nonpublic grant response data with the Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share data it creates or maintains as part of its grant evaluation process (prior to the evaluation being completed) with Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 8, 2009; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 27, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division received an email from Marsha West, Legal Editor for the Appeals and Regulations Division at the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). In her email, Ms. West asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data DHS maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts Ms. West provided is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) of DHS] issued a grant request for proposalhellip;in which they were seeking responders who would provide services to individuals who were in need of chemical dependency treatment. The ADAD would then enter into grant contracts with the responders they have selected. Before awarding these grant contract [sic] and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 254A.07, ADAD must submit a listing of all responders to their grant RFP to whom ADAD is considering awarding a grant contract for county board approvalhellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the evaluation data is protected nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process, I told ADAD to draft a consent form and obtain written consent from responders to whom they would like to award a grant contract so that DHS could share this information with the county board. Consent was authorized by these responders and the ADAD provided copies of preliminary award letters to Hennepin County staff and the board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. West&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share private or nonpublic grant response data with the Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share data it creates or maintains as part of its grant evaluation process (prior to the evaluation being completed) with Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share private or nonpublic grant response data with the Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.599, classifies data related to grants that state agencies award. Subdivision 3 of section 13.599 classifies data that grantees submit in responses to requests for proposals. Of relevance here is clause (a):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) Responses submitted by a grantee are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name and address of the grantee and the amount requested is public. All other data in a response is private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. After a granting agency has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data in the responses is public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a grantee that the response is copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. West has asked the Commissioner to comment on situations in which the grantees&apos; bids have been opened but in which the evaluation process is not yet complete. Thus, pursuant to section 13.599, subdivision 3(a), the names and addresses of the grantees are public and so is the amount each grantee has requested. All other data in the responses are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4, clause (b) of section 13.599 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) If a granting agency asks individuals outside the granting agency to assist with the evaluation of the responses, the granting agency may share not public data in the responses with those individuals. The individuals participating in the evaluation may not further disseminate the not public data they review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. West states that under Minnesota Statutes, section 254A.07, DHS must &quot;submit a listing of all responders to their grant RFP to whom [DHS] is considering awarding a grant contract for county board approval.&quot; Thus, DHS is asking (because they are required to do so) the Hennepin County Board and staff to assist with the evaluation of the responses. Under section 13.599, subdivision 4(b), DHS can share the private and nonpublic data in the responses but the Board and staff cannot further disseminate the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of the first issue, Ms. West asked whether the County Board can discuss, in a public meeting, the private/nonpublic data in the responses. One way to accomplish this is for DHS to obtain informed consent from the subjects of the data, i.e., the grantees. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4(d) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267714&quot; title=&quot;03-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-014.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D) provides the following: &quot;[Not public data] may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&quot; (Section 13D.05, subdivision 1.) It seems, in this case, given there is a statute requiring that the Board approve DHS&apos; grants, the matter is certainly within the scope of the Board&apos;s authority and some discussion of private/nonpublic data may be necessary for the board to make its decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Minnesota Department of Human Services share data it creates or maintains as part of its grant evaluation process (prior to the evaluation being completed) with Hennepin County Board and staff, and can the Board discuss these data in an open meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4(a) of section 13.599 classifies evaluation data created or maintained by a granting agency as part of the evaluation process:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) Data created or maintained by a granting agency as part of the evaluation process referred to in this section are protected nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The classification of protected nonpublic is the most restrictive of the classifications in Chapter 13. It means that only those staff within the government entity who need the data to do their jobs can get access to the data. The data are not available to the public or even to the data subjects. Because data subjects cannot gain access to the data, they do not have the right to give consent for the data to be released to persons outside the entity. Thus, DHS cannot share its evaluation process data with the County Board. Because DHS cannot share these data with the County Board, the issue of whether the Board can discuss the data in an open meeting is moot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.599, subdivision 4(b), the Minnesota Department of Human Services can share private or nonpublic grant response data with the Hennepin County Board and staff. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, the Board may discuss the private or nonpublic data in an open meeting &quot;if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&quot; The Board is in the best position to make this determination.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because Minnesota Statutes, section 13.599, subdivision 4(a), classifies grant evaluation data as protected nonpublic, the Minnesota Department of Human Services cannot share its evaluation process data with Hennepin County Board and staff. Because DHS cannot share these data with the County Board, the issue of whether the Board can discuss the data in an open meeting is moot.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 8, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267442</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grants (13.599)</Title><Id>266744</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Discussion of not public data in an open meeting</Title><Id>266717</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-011</Title><title>Opinion 09 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266816&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-05-06T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), in response to a request, produce data that it does not maintain and is not required to collect?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 6, 2009; Dakota County Community Development Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 24, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Janet Shefchik, the data practices compliance official for the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA). In her email, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the CDA&apos;s obligation to respond to a request for data. IPAD asked for additional information, which Ms. Shefchik provided on April 30, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Shefchik provided them follows. A person asked the CDA for certain bi-weekly certified payroll information. Ms. Shefchik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This request relates to a Senior Building that is under construction for the CDA. Superior Plumbing Heating is a subcontractor on the project. The CDA has voluntarily set its required pay rates for its senior building projects equal to area prevailing wage rates. The CDA&apos;s Sr. Buildings, however, are funded by the CDA (not state or federal funds) and are NOT subject to prevailing wage payment and reporting requirements. This means that we are not required to collect payroll data from the contractors on their employees. In fact, neither our policies nor contracts require us to collect this data. Our practice has been that when there are specific allegations of underpayment by a worker on a Sr. Building project, CDA staff will investigate. As there have been no allegations, we do not have the certified payroll data that is being requested, nor do we intend to request it on a bi-weekly basis as stated in the request. In summary, it is our understanding that if the data does not exist and we are not required to collect or maintain it as public data; then we are not required to produce it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Shefchik&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), in response to a request, produce data that it does not maintain and is not required to collect?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Upon request, government entities must provide access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity regardless of physical form, storage media, or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data, but rather to provide access to existing data. In some circumstances, a government entity might be required to obtain data it does not otherwise maintain, if it is required to maintain those data to comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, commonly known as the Official Records Act. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267199&quot; title=&quot;08-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-011&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267467&quot; title=&quot;08-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Shefchik, the CDA is not required to collect or maintain the requested data. Therefore, the CDA is not required to produce the payroll data in response to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner notes that if CDA did maintain the requested data, it would need to determine how the data are classified; some of the data may not be public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is not obligated to produce data that it does not maintain and is not required to collect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 6, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266816</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Creation of data not required</Title><Id>266418</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-06T18:03:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-010</Title><title>Opinion 09 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266880&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-05-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: financial information (including tax returns) submitted to Cook County by responders to a request for qualifications?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 6, 2009; Cook County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 16, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division received an email from Tim Scannell, the data practices compliance official for Cook County. In his email, Mr. Scannell asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts Mr. Scannell provided is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Cook County is issuing a Request for Qualifications (not a bid or [request for proposal]) for installation of External Wildfire Sprinkler Systems to protect homes and businesses from wildfire under a pre-disaster mitigation grant from [the Federal Emergency Management Agency]. The county will evaluate the responses and provide a list of qualified installers for homeowners to choose from and to contract with.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We want to ask for financial statements or tax returns from the potential installers as part of the [request for qualifications] to demonstrate their ability to complete the projects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Scannell&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: financial information (including tax returns) submitted to Cook County by responders to a request for qualifications?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Information contained in the &lt;em&gt;Vendor&apos;s Agreement&lt;/em&gt; document provides some additional details regarding the issue Mr. Scannell raised. The County has received grant monies from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist property owners in defraying the cost of the sprinkler systems. A provision on page 1 of the &lt;em&gt;Vendor&apos;s Agreement&lt;/em&gt; states, in order to achieve the goals of the project, the County will qualify Vendors to install sprinkler systems to certain standards on behalf of Property Owners in these forested areas and will supplement the cost of these systems using the Grant monies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions on pages 2 and 3 of the &lt;em&gt;Vendor&apos;s Agreement&lt;/em&gt; discuss the relationship between the vendor and the property owner, and provide more information about reimbursements to vendors:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;i. Property Owners will work directly with a Vendor for the design and installation of a Sprinkler System on their property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;iii. Property Owner will enter into a contract directly with Vendor for installation of the Sprinkler System. Upon completion of the installation, Property Owner will be responsible for payment to Vendor for all costs less the amount to be reimbursed by the County pursuant to the Grant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;iv. The Vendor will be reimbursed up [sic] 75% of the cost [sic] each installed Sprinkler System, not to exceed $5,250 for each new system or $3,250 for each system upgrade. Property Owner is responsible for the balance of the contractors invoice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on additional information contained in the &lt;em&gt;Vendor&apos;s Agreement&lt;/em&gt;, it appears that property owners wishing to receive grant monies have made application through the county and that their contact information is available to the vendors. Text at the beginning of the &lt;em&gt;Agreement&lt;/em&gt; states, &quot;Once vendors have been notified that they are qualified, the vendor may begin to contract with homeowners who are on the application list.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, government data are public unless otherwise classified. In his opinion request, Mr. Scannell mentioned Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, as a possible provision under which the County could withhold financial information submitted by the vendors. The Commissioner does not agree. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 13.591 protect certain data submitted to government entities by businesses requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds. In the current situation, it is the property owners who are receiving financial assistance/a benefit financed by public funds, not the vendors. The County, via the FEMA grant, is paying up to 75 percent of the cost of the new or upgraded sprinkler system. Although the vendors receive money from the County, the payment is reimbursement for the portion provided to the property owners via the FEMA grant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the data in question. Aside from the possibility that some of the data may be security information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, the Commissioner is not aware of a provision in state law that would protect the data. In addition, the regional FEMA office has indicated there is no federal law affecting the classification of the data. Therefore, they are public under section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.35, states, &quot;To the extent that a federal agency requires it as a condition for contracting with a government entity, all government data collected and maintained by the government entity because that agency contracts with the federal agency are classified as [not public].&quot; The Commissioner has not seen the FEMA contract regarding the grant but given that neither the regional office nor the County indicated there is any provision in the contract protecting the data, the Commissioner assumes no such provision exists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Scannell raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, financial information (including tax returns) submitted to Cook County by vendors responding to a request for qualifications are public pursuant to the general presumption in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1. It is possible that some of the data may be security information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 6, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266880</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T20:48:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-009</Title><title>Opinion 09 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267003&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-04-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: the names of owners of a company that are contained in a business plan the company submitted to the City of Preston as part of a request for financial assistance?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 17, 2009; City of Preston</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 5, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Dwight Luhmann, attorney for the City of Preston. In his letter, Mr. Luhmann asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD asked for additional information which Mr. Luhmann provided on March 9, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Luhmann is as follows. In a letter dated October 23, 2008, the City received a request for the following: &quot;All documents containing the names, current addresses and/or partners of Root River LLC, Preston, Minnesota.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 16, 2008, the city administrator responded: &quot;During a search of City records, I discovered one document, a business plan for Root River LLC, that lists the owners of the Root River LLC. I cannot, however, release this document as it is classified as private or non-public by MN Statute 13.591.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 29, 2008, the data requestor wrote again: &quot;My request for a list of owners is different from a business plan and is not one of the enumerated exceptions to the public data disclosure act.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request Mr. Luhmann wrote regarding the October 23, 2008, request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The only document found as a result of that search was a business plan Root River, LLC had applied to the Preston Economic Development Authority for tax increment financing and did in fact receive that assistance. The response indicated that the business plan had been discovered, but was not being provided because a determination had been made that it was private or nonpublic data pursuant to M.S. 13.591 Subdivisions 1 and 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Luhmann&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: the names of owners of a company that are contained in a business plan the company submitted to the City of Preston as part of a request for financial assistance?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, subdivision 1, classifies certain data submitted to a government entity by a business that requests financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds. This provision states that the following data are private or nonpublic: financial information about the business, including credit reports; financial statements; net worth calculations; &lt;em&gt;business plans&lt;/em&gt;; income and expense projections; balance sheets; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 of section 13.591, states that when a government entity provides public financial assistance or a benefit to a business, the data types listed in subdivision 1 become public except the following data remain not public: &lt;em&gt;business plans&lt;/em&gt;; income and expense projections not related to the financial assistance provided; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Root River LLC requested and received a benefit/financial assistance from the City. Although Mr. Luhmann did not specifically so state, the Commissioner assumes Root River submitted its business plan as part of requesting the benefit/financial assistance. Pursuant to section 13.591, subdivision 2, the business plan (and the data contained therein) Root River submitted to the City is not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Luhmann raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The business plan, and the data contained therein, that a particular business submitted to the City of Preston as part of a request for a benefit/financial assistance are not public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 17, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267003</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-008</Title><title>Opinion 09 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267050&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-04-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Given the publicity relating to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaints, can School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, release a copy of the two OCR decisions after redacting all personally identifying information that appears in those documents?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 2, 2009; School District 47 (Sauk Rapids-Rice)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 9, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated February 6, 2009, from Michael Waldspurger and Kimberley Sobieck, attorneys representing School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice. In their letter, Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested additional clarification which Mr. Waldspurger provided on February 23, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck provided them is as follows. They wrote in their opinion request that the parents of District students filed complaints with the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;While OCR&apos;s investigation was pending, the [parents] voluntarily detailed information to [a local newspaper] about the complaints. The newspaper subsequently published [an article] about the complaints. In addition, the [parents] discussed their complaints in [correspondence with the District&apos;s School Board and the newspaper]. The [parents&apos;] letter identifies students and employees by name.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck discussed that the OCR issued two decisions. Regarding one, they wrote, &quot;Although OCR&apos;s decision does not identify individuals by name, the decision contains a wealth of personal identifiers, such as job titles and codes that are easy to decipher....if an unredacted copy of the decision were released, many community members could readily identify students, [others], and District employees who are referenced in the decision.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second decision, Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck stated, &quot;[This decision] contains very little personally identifying identification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck noted that the District has received a request for a copy of each decision. They wrote, &quot;As of this date, however, the District has not released redacted copies of the decisions, because the District is concerned that even with heavy redaction the decisions would reveal private educational data on the [parents and their student children].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on the opinion request from Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the publicity relating to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaints, can School District 47, Sauk Rapids-Rice, release a copy of the two OCR decisions after redacting all personally identifying information that appears in those documents?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students and their parents are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students and parents, and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, data about students and their parents are private, and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District questions whether either [of the decisions] can be redacted to a degree that would prevent the release of private educational data on the [parents and their student children]. Under Minnesota Statutes section 13.32, the following data appear to be classified as private educational data when they are in the possession of a public school district: data identifying a parent or student who files a complaint; data revealing the nature of a parent or student&apos;s complaint; and data revealing the resolution of a parent or student&apos;s complaint. If the OCR decisions are released in any form, members of the community will know the identity of the complainants because of the earlier publicity. Moreover, unless the decisions are redacted to a degree that essentially renders them meaningless, members of the community will be able to ascertain the nature of the complaints and the manner in which OCR resolved them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees that the fact the parents made complaints and the outcomes of the complaints are private data about the parents. In addition, there are data in the decision documents that are about the parents, the students (the children of the parents), other students, and District employees. Some of those data are private and cannot be released to the public. (For information about the data classification of employees of government entities, see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The United States Department of Education recently adopted changes to the federal regulations implementing FERPA. The changes were effective January 8, 2009. The Family Compliance Policy Office of the Department has provided a link to a discussion of the changes, which appears in the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-12-09/pdf/FR-2008-12-09.pdf&quot;&gt;December 9, 2008, Federal Register&lt;/a&gt;. The following is an excerpt from that analysis:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Section 99.31(b) De-identification of information.&lt;/strong&gt; Education records may be released without consent under FERPA if all personally identifiable information [PII] has been removed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The regulations add that PII includes &quot;other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.&quot;Under the final regulations, PII also includes &quot;information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The definition of PII provides objective standards for districts. The disclosing party must look to local news, events, and media coverage in the &quot;school community&quot; in determining whether &quot;other information&quot; (i.e., information other than direct and indirect identifiers listed in the definition of PII), would make a particular record personally identifiable even after all direct identifiers have been removed. In regard to so-called targeted requests, the final regulations clarify that a party may not release information from education records if the requester asks for the record of a particular student, or if the party has reason to believe that the requester knows the identity of the student to whom the requested records relate.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The regulations recognize that the risk of avoiding the disclosure of PII cannot be completely eliminated and is always a matter of analyzing and balancing risk so that the risk of disclosure is very low. The reasonable certainty standard in the new definition of PII requires such a balancing test.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question before the Commissioner is whether the data in the two OCR decisions are classified such that the District is prohibited from releasing the decisions. In situations such as this, the government entity clearly is in the best position to make the determination because it has all of the relevant information and is knowledgeable about the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner, though, offers the following guidance. First, the District cannot release any of the data in the decisions that are classified as private by sections 13.32 and 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the District needs to consider the discussion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-014&lt;/a&gt; about data that are inextricably intertwined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately. Given the clear presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the District should make every effort to avoid a situation where it must withhold an entire document from the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, the District needs to give careful consideration to the amended FERPA definition of personally identifiable information. The question the District must answer is whether, given the situation, the redacted decisions alone or in combination with other information is linked or can be linked to a specific student such that a &quot;reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, [would be able] to identify the student with reasonable certainty.&quot; (34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the opinion documents as maintained by the OCR are government records subject to the Federal Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, a person seeking the documents could make an information request to the OCR under the federal Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Sobieck raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any data in the two Office of Civil Rights decisions (OCR) that are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32 and 13.43 cannot be released. The District must determine whether 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(b)(1) prohibits the release of additional data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 2, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267050</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-007</Title><title>Opinion 09 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266867&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-03-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Metro Gang Strike Force comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request from X for access to data about X?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 24, 2009; Metro Gang Strike Force</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 31, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from &quot;X,&quot; in which X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to have access to certain data the Metro Gang Strike Force maintains. In response, IPAD informed X that because the Commissioner had already specifically addressed the issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;07-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-011&lt;/a&gt;, she would not issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, IPAD was aware of the history of X&apos;s attempts to get access to data from the Strike Force, and therefore made efforts to assist X in getting access to the data. John D. Gross, Assistant Attorney General, first suggested that IPAD contact James Heimerl, then Acting Commander of the Strike Force, as responsible authority for the data, which IPAD did, in an email dated January 12, 2009. Commander Heimerl did not respond; Mr. Gross then suggested contacting Commander Chris Omodt, which IPAD did, in an email dated February 10, 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD&apos;s efforts to assist X in getting access to the data in question were unsuccessful. Given the unique circumstances, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Commander Omodt, in a letter dated February 19, 2009, to notify him that the Commissioner was moving forward with X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Strike Force&apos;s position. Commander Omodt did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Metro Gang Strike Force comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request from X for access to data about X?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;07-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-011&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following analysis is based on the understanding that the Metro Gang Strike Force is a joint powers entity created by multiple counties and cities. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 - joint exercise of powers.) The Commissioner also understands that Ramsey County is the fiscal agent for the Strike Force and that Sheriff Fletcher is the responsible authority. As previous advisory opinions have discussed, for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a joint powers entity is a statewide system. Therefore, the Strike Force is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears the data X requested are law enforcement data classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Regarding any data of which X is the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public and private. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data within ten business days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) X first made a request for the data in a letter dated February 15, 2007. As of the date of X&apos;s opinion request, over six weeks later, apparently X had not received any response. The Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) Again, by not providing any response to X before April 11, 2007, the Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, X filed an action to compel compliance. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08, subdivision 4.) The outcome, as it relates here, is that Sheriff Fletcher was not the responsible authority for the Strike Force, and X was instructed to direct his/her data request to the Strike Force office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 3, 2008, X wrote to Ron Ryan, then Strike Force Commander, stating X&apos;s understanding that Commander Ryan was the responsible authority, and asking for access to data about him/herself, which, as noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;07-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-011&lt;/a&gt;, appear to be law enforcement data classified at section 13.82. X wrote again on December 8, 2008, because Commander Ryan did not respond. (In a press release dated December 18, 2008, the Strike Force announced that Commander Omodt was succeeding Commander Ryan, who announced his retirement earlier in 2008.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, as the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704&quot; title=&quot;07-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-011&lt;/a&gt;, the Strike Force had ten business days, from the date it received X&apos;s November 3, 2008, request for data, to supply X with public and private data about X. Also, the Strike Force should have provided X with access to any public data of which X is not the subject in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. The Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, as a statewide system, the Strike Force is obligated to clearly identify the individual who is its responsible authority (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 16 and 17, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 15), so that individuals may exercise the rights granted them under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Metro Gang Strike Force did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request from X for access to data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 24, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266867</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Metro Gang Strike Force</Title><Id>266640</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-006</Title><title>Opinion 09 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267138&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-03-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Montrose comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request, dated January 10, 2009, for access to certain data?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 2009; City of Montrose</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 13, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email, dated February 12, 2009, from Evan Siljander. In his email, Mr. Siljander asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data the City of Montrose maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Barbara Swanson, City Administrator, Clerk, Treasurer, in response to Mr. Siljander&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 19, 2009, were to inform her of Mr. Siljander&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. Ms. Swanson responded, in an email dated March 4, 2009. She included a copy of a January 5, 2009, email intended for IPAD, that, unfortunately, she addressed to an invalid email address. (ipad@state.mn.us rather than info.ipad@state.mn.us.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In an email dated January 10, 2009 (a Saturday), Mr. Siljander asked to review the &quot;January 12 2009 Council Agenda Digital Word Document.&quot; In an email dated February 24, 2009 (a Saturday), Mr. Siljander wrote to Ms. Swanson, asking for an update on his request. In his opinion request, Mr. Siljander stated that he had not received a response. He asked the Commissioner to address his right to get access to the agenda in Microsoft Word format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Swanson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 5, 2009, I submitted a request to IPAD for clarification related to emailing documents in the Microsoft program WORD [attached]. On January 8, 2009 I responded to Mr. Siljander&apos;s request for WORD documents with an explanation that I was waiting for a reply from IPAD of which [sic] I provided a copy of the request to Mr. Siljander. On January 12th I responded to Mr. Siljander twice that I was waiting for a reply from IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would like to add that Mr. Siljander had received all of the information he requested as WORD documents in a PDF format. Mr. Siljander was never without the data he was requesting; the issue was a different format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Swanson wrote that the City, after consultation with IPAD staff, had provided Mr. Siljander with access to the agenda in Word format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Siljander&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Montrose comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request, dated January 10, 2009, for access to certain data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no question that the City Council agenda is public. The issue is whether the City was obliged to provide Mr. Siljander with the data he requested in the format he requested. The Commissioner has opined previously that Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data or provide data in a format other than that which the entity maintains. (See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267507&quot; title=&quot;01-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-012&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Swanson, the City &quot;typically converts Word documents to PDF so they cannot be altered.&quot; The City also maintains the data in Word format. As noted above, government entities are not obliged to convert data to a particular format in response to a data request. However, they are obligated, upon request, to provide access to data in whatever format they do maintain them. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(e).) Accordingly, in response to Mr. Siljander&apos;s request, the City should have provided him access to the data in Word format. According to Ms. Swanson, the City has now done so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s response here was complicated by its unsuccessful attempt to contact IPAD for assistance. Mr. Siljander stated that the City did not respond at all to his January 10 request. However, Ms. Swanson emailed Mr. Siljander twice on Monday January 12, (i.e., the day the City received his request) and informed him that she was waiting for an answer from IPAD before responding to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also notes that she is aware that the City and Mr. Siljander have numerous, on-going data practices issues. She encourages both parties to make attempts to resolve those disputes, perhaps by seeking assistance from a community mediation center.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Siljander raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Montrose did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request, dated January 10, 2009, for access to certain data. It has now done so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267138</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Format</Title><Id>266654</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-005</Title><title>Opinion 09 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267161&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-02-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain dog licensing data?
Is the City of Duluth’s charge of $210 for a copy of certain dog licensing data in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 26, 2009; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 7, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Brandon Stahl, of the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Stahl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Duluth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the Commissioner, IPAD wrote to Lisa Potswald, Chief Administrative Officer for the City, in response to Mr. Stahl&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 16, 2009, were to inform her of Mr. Stahl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 5, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stahl is as follows. In an October 23, 2008, email, Mr. Stahl asked for all public data the City maintains related to dog license registrations. In a previous email, Ms. Lutterman stated that some of the data are public and some are not public. Ms. Lutterman stated that owner name, address, and phone number are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security data. She stated that dog or cat name, breed, color, sex, rabies expiration date/clinic, and alteration date/clinic are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stahl disagreed with the City&apos;s basis for withholding the owner name and address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in a November 20, 2008, email, Ms. Lutterman advised Mr. Stahl that the charge for a copy of the public data in the database would be $210.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a December 11, 2008, email, Ms. Lutterman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Your request is not a query that has been received in the past. Therefore, it requires programming hours, as well as operations hours to process and create the output. The cost covers the cost of programming and operations time to create the custom request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stahl&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain dog licensing data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the City of Duluth&apos;s charge of $210 for a copy of certain dog licensing data in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain dog licensing data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Lutterman argues that the data in question are protected under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security information. Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), defines security information as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is reasonable and not arbitrary to assume that some people who seek data do so for improper reasons and disclosure of those persons would be likely to put a person or property in substantial jeopardy. For example, classifying the data at issue in this dispute public could expose a person and their property to harm when they are involved in a contentious personal dispute Protecting the location and phone number of a victim of an abusive relationship is an important public interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;some breeds are highly prized and are more likely to be stolen while others are targeted for hate crimes. Disclosing the location of such animals would expose their owners to theft or the destruction of their property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Lutterman&apos;s comments, it appears the City is applying a blanket approach in using the security information provision to protect otherwise public data. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has opined that this is not how the Legislature intended entities to employ section 13.37. For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-046,&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, a government entity&apos;s discretion to withhold data as not public is limited to those situations in which there is a likelihood of &lt;u&gt;substantial jeopardy&lt;/u&gt;to security. In his comments, Mr. Clark stated that in certain situations, the MMCD has reason to believe that dissemination of some of the data in question might place some individuals or their property at risk of harm. In those limited situations, the MMCD may properly treat the data as security information under Section 13.37. However, the protection provided by that Section does not apply to all data collected by the MMCD that relate to its services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-029&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For example, in conversation with IPA staff, County staff mentioned a situation involving domestic abuse, in which a woman asked that the data not be made available to her former partner, whom she had reason to fear. In such a case, a classification as not public under section 13.37 might be appropriate. However, the County may not withhold from the public all addresses and telephone numbers because it is concerned about the possibility, in general, of a security risk. In order for section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), to be applicable, the County must make a determination on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the City&apos;s argument that it is necessary to withhold all licensee names and addresses because some of the licensees may be victims of domestic violence is made moot by the Safe at Home Program, which is sponsored by the Minnesota Secretary of State. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 5B, a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who applies and is accepted into the program, is assigned a new address. All private and public entities must accept the newly assigned address as the participant&apos;s actual address of residence and employment. The stated purpose of Chapter 5B is to &quot;enable state and local agencies to respond to requests for data without disclosing the location of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.&quot; (Minnesota Statutes, section 5B.01.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner does not agree that the City can withhold the names and addresses of all dog licensees because the data are security information. While there may be specific, individual cases in which there are legitimate security reasons for withholding the information, they are not at issue here. If the City believes names and addresses of dog licensees should be private data, it needs to seek a specific classification from the Minnesota Legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the City of Duluth&apos;s charge of $210 for a copy of certain dog licensing data in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, people have the right to get copies of government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), when a person asks for electronic copies, the government entity may require the person to pay the actual cost of searching for and retrieving the data, including the cost of employee time, and for making and electronically transmitting the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City charged Mr. Stahl $210 for a copy of the dog license data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Lutterman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s fee for a custom query is a minimum fee of $210 as published in the City&apos;s 2008 fee schedule This fee is based on the average time it takes for programming and operational costs on the average customer query request. The system that this information resides in is within an application which resides on the City&apos;s legacy mainframe system. Therefore, it is not a simple query to extract this data at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the request was not a query that had been previously requested. Therefore, retrieving the data required programming hours as well as operations hours to process and create the output.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MIS was recently asked to provide a detail of actual costs to produce this specific request. The actual cost is calculated to be $224.50 which exceeds the 2008 published fee schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman included a breakdown of the charge: $98 (&quot;programming costs for creating the report&quot;: 2 hours @ $49/hour) plus $18 (&quot;operations staff costs for running the job&quot;: .5 hours @ $36/hour) plus $108.50 (&quot;transfer programming costs for creating the mechanism for extracting the report from the legacy file structure into an acceptable format for transmission to the requestor&quot;: programming for 1 hour @ $49/hour and .5 hours @ $23.5/hour, and operations staff costs for 1 hour @ $36/hour).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stahl asked for a copy of the dog license data the City maintains. As discussed in Issue 1, the City&apos;s position is that some of the data are public and some are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of the actual cost for making Mr. Stahl a copy of the data, the City can include what it costs for staff to search for and retrieve the data, and what it costs to print the copy and mail it or attach the copy to an email. The City cannot charge what it costs to separate the public from the not public data. The Commissioner is aware that many government entities continue to operate legacy mainframe systems that were not designed to allow easy access to public data. In fact, many of these systems pre-date Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and the requirement that entities keep their records &quot;in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&quot; (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) The City has indicated it will be replacing its current system in the near future. The Commissioner encourages the City to design their new system in a manner to allow more efficient access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because Ms. Lutterman did not clearly explain how the specific costs she describes represent the actual cost of making a copy of the data, the Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether the City&apos;s charge is appropriate. While the total fee seems high, the Commissioner acknowledges that it often takes more time to retrieve data from antiquated computer systems than newer systems and that government entities can charge to search for and retrieve data. It is reasonable that the City may need to spend time tagging the categories of data elements (searching for and retrieving) that are responsive to Mr. Stahl&apos;s request. However, the Commissioner does not know whether two hours is a reasonable time for the City to spend searching for and retrieving the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, while the Commissioner does not understand the meaning of &quot;transfer programming costs for creating the mechanism for extracting the report from the legacy file structure into an acceptable format for transmission to the requestor,&quot; it is not appropriate for Mr. Stahl to bear the cost if the City does not maintain its data in such a format that is understandable to the public. Or, if the issue is the City believes it must format the data for particular software, e.g., Excel or Word, this is not the case. If Mr. Stahl had asked for the data in a format that is different from the way the City maintains the data, the City could ask Mr. Stahl to pay extra for any conversion. However, it does not appear Mr. Stahl asked for the data in a particular format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stahl raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Duluth did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain dog licensing data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether the City of Duluth&apos;s charge of $210 for a copy of certain dog licensing data is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 26, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267161</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Pet license data</Title><Id>266797</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-004</Title><title>Opinion 09 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267188&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-01-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Management &amp; Budget comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the race, gender, and disability status of state employees by agency?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 28, 2009; Minnesota Management and Budget</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 10, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated December 8, 2008, from John Gilbertson. In his letter, Mr. Gilbertson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Hanson, Commissioner of MMB, in response to Mr. Gilbertson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 12, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Gilbertson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MMB&apos;s position. On January 5, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated December 19, 2008, from Commissioner Hanson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Gilbertson provided them is as follows. On February 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbertson requested the following data, &quot;I wish to make a data request for updated information as to the race, gender, disability status of state employee by agency and by the state as a whole.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MMB responded on March 14, 2008:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;we have created a disk with all the information you requested and it is available Please note that this disk contains a separate pdf file for each agency and all data that could be considered private (10 or less employees in any one field) has been redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gilbertson objected to MMB&apos;s response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 12, 2008, MMB responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please understand that the reason for our practice of redacting private data statistics of 10 or fewer employees in any one field of a report is not to hinder you in your desired analysis but to protect the identity and private data of these individuals per M.S. 13.43. If these smaller statistics were released, regardless of your intent, a second public data request for names of people in the same group could be asked for by you, or anyone else who could come in contact with this report, and the comparison of two such requests could potentially identify these people.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I cannot speak to how this information was released in the past but it appears that it was an anomaly. While the same practice of redacting statistics of 10 employees or fewer was used it was not consistent with our practice of redacting private data fields.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Gilbertson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Management Budget comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the race, gender, and disability status of state employees by agency?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Of relevance here, an employee&apos;s name is public data but his/her gender, race, and disability status are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner (of Administration), Commissioner Hanson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The department will provide data on gender, race, and disability status to the best of its ability for inquiries regarding state employee demographics. That is either at the aggregate statewide level or by department/agency. However, the department has routinely declined to issue data where the count is ten employees or fewer in any one data field. In the larger pool of aggregated data there is little danger of the information identifying a specific individual. In the smaller pool of fewer than ten employees, the probability of data identifying a specific individual increases greatly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As an illustration, if these smaller statistics were released, regardless of intent, a second public data request for names of people in the same group could be asked for by the original requestor, or anyone else who could come in contact with this report, and the comparison of two such requests could potentially identify people.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19, defines summary data as, &quot;statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable.&quot; Thus, in responding to requests for summary or statistical data, government entities have an obligation to release statistical information in such a way that specific individuals are not identified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Gilbertson asked for a breakdown of state employees, according to department, by race, gender and disability status (disabled or not disabled). (For reasons unknown to the Commissioner, MMB broke down the data in each department according to certain job categories.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gilbertson attached to his opinion request some of the data he received in response to his request. One example is from the Minnesota Department of Education. The document from MMB indicates there are 29 employees who fall within the &lt;em&gt;Officials and Administrators&lt;/em&gt; category. In this grouping, MMB provided no statistical information regarding gender, ethnic group, or disability status presumably because there are fewer than ten employees who are either male or female; fewer than ten employees who are either disabled or not disabled; and fewer than ten employees who are white, black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or not specified. As MMB did not provide the Commissioner with the actual data, she cannot determine whether there was a substantial risk that Mr. Gilbertson would have been able to determine gender, disability status, or ethnic group of certain employees if he had obtained their names through a subsequent request for public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another example is from the Minnesota Department of Education - the &lt;em&gt;Paraprofessionals&lt;/em&gt; category. In this group there is only one employee. Here, if MMB had provided statistical information indicating this person was female and Mr. Gilbertson had obtained the employee&apos;s name, he would have obtained private data about the employee. If MMB had provided statistical information indicating this person was white and Mr. Gilbertson had obtained the employee&apos;s name, he would have obtained private data about the employee. If MMB had provided statistical information indicating this person was not disabled and Mr. Gilbertson had obtained the employee&apos;s name, he would have obtained private data about the employee. Here, therefore, MMB&apos;s response to Mr. Gilbertson was appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is commendable that MMB is trying to protect its private data; however, it also has an obligation to release public data. The Commissioner is not sure that a &quot;one size fits all&quot; policy is the best approach to striking this balance and she is not convinced that a group size of ten or fewer is an appropriate cut off for refusing to provide any statistical information. Frequently, it is the composition of the group and not its size that raises the risk that individuals can be identified. For example, in an agency of 100 employees, if all of the employees are disabled, releasing any statistical information about disability status would identify each of the employees as being disabled. Conversely, if an agency of ten has five disabled and five non-disabled employees, the risk of identifying each employee&apos;s disability status is greatly reduced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The difficulty in providing uniform guidance on this issue is that different government entities collect, create, and maintain different types of data that may or may not be classified similarly by Chapter 13. For example, the names of government employees are public but the names of individuals receiving public assistance are not. The names of public school students may or may not be public depending upon how each school district decides to treat the data. To respond appropriately to summary data requests, each government entity then must have a good working knowledge of how its data are classified. Thus, if uniform guidance is impractical, handling these types of requests on a case-by-case basis may make the most sense. The Commissioner encourages entities to work with data requestors on different ways to provide summary data to reduce the risk that individual data subjects would be identified, such as grouping data categories and datasets together.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, the Commissioner welcomes some type of clarification from the Legislature on this issue. Without additional legislative guidance, each government entity must continue to weigh the risk that summary data can be attributed to an individual and balance the entity&apos;s obligations to both protect private data and make public data available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Gilbertson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the Commissioner has not seen the data in question, she cannot determine whether Minnesota Management Budget complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the race, gender, and disability status of state employees by agency. However, setting an arbitrary number for employee groupings may or may not protect employees&apos; private information, depending on the composition of the group, so the Commissioner recommends that a case-by-case analysis be used instead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 28, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267188</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)</Title><Id>266514</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-003</Title><title>Opinion 09 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267398&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-01-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans to provide to KSTP-TV any list Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans created setting forth the public schools or school districts it has represented from 2003 to 2008?
Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans to provide to KSTP-TV copies of contracts between Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans and any public school or school district between 2003 and 2008?
Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans to provide any bills Knutson, Flynn &amp; Deans provided to any and all public school clients for services rendered to these clients between 2003 and 2008?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 2009; Knutson, Flynn and Deans</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Thomas Deans and Jennifer Earley, on behalf of the Knutson, Flynn Deans law firm. In their letter, Mr. Deans and Ms. Earley asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their obligation to provide certain data to Kristi Piehl of KSTP-TV.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 17, 2008, IPAD invited James Barnum, Deputy General Counsel for Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., to submit comments. On January 6, 2009, IPAD received comments from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of Mr. Barnum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Deans and Ms. Earley provided them is as follows. In a letter dated September 5, 2008, Ms. Piehl asked for the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Documentation showing the identity of all public schools and public school districts for which Knutson, Flynn and Deans, P.A. has performed professional services between 2003 and 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Contracts between Knutson, Flynn Deans, P.A. and any public school or school district, regardless of the location, between 2003 and 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. Any and all faxed, mailed or emailed bills delivered or sent to any public school or public school district, regardless of the location, between 2003 and 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 17, 2008, Mr. Deans denied Ms. Piehl access to the data: &quot;In summary, the data you have requested is not government data, does not exist, is not maintained by our firm on behalf of any government entity and/or is not maintained solely by our firm.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on the opinoin request from Mr. Deans and Ms. Earley, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn Deans to provide to KSTP-TV any list Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans created setting forth the public schools or school districts it has represented from 2003 to 2008?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn Deans to provide to KSTP-TV copies of contracts between Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans and any public school or school district between 2003 and 2008?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn Deans to provide any bills Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans provided to any and all public school clients for services rendered to these clients between 2003 and 2008?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn Deans to provide to KSTP-TV any list Knutson, Flynn Deans created setting forth the public schools or school districts it has represented from 2003 to 2008?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government entities (subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) often contract with non-government organizations (not subject to Chapter 13) to perform functions on their behalf. Chapter 13 discusses these contractual relationships in several provisions, the most recently-enacted of which is section 13.05, subdivision 11. Clause (a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (b) states: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Deans wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;any client list our law firm may have created or maintains is not government data Clearly, Knutson, Flynn Deans is not a government entity. While we represent government entities, we are a private, for profit law firm. As such, data we create and maintain in the course of operating our law firm is not subject to [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is our position that because no government entity has the unique data set that has been requested from Knutson, Flynn, the exception found in paragraph (b) does not apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Though Knutson, Flynn unquestionably maintains this information, it is difficult to believe that any individual government entity also does.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In theory, it might be possible for a requester seeking this information to contact every school district in the state and ask if it has ever received legal services from Knutson, Flynn. But we cannot imagine that section13.05, subd. 11 actually requires this. Most important, it would impose an enormously burdensome and time-consuming task, since there are 341 public school districts in the state of Minnesota&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The importance of this conclusion is further reinforced if one considers other possible situations also covered by section13.05, subd. 11. For example, where a large private vendor dealt over time with hundreds or thousands of government entities, it would be nearly impossible for citizen requesters to contact every one of them in order to determine if they had ever been engaged in a contact or business relationship with the vendor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When Knutson, Flynn enters into an agreement/arrangement/contract to perform work on behalf of a public school/school district, data it creates, collects, maintains, &lt;em&gt;related to performing the agreed-upon work&lt;/em&gt;, are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Thus, if a person makes such a data request, and those data are not available from the school district, Knutson, Flynn must provide the data. (The length of time the data must be maintained is governed by records management statutes, primarily Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, however, Ms. Piehl did not make a request for data relating to Knutson, Flynn performing work on behalf of a specific school district. Rather, she asked for data that list or document the names of all the school districts Knutson, Flynn represented from 2003 - 2008. Although Knutson, Flynn most likely maintains these data, it is the Commissioner&apos;s belief that section 13.05, subdivision 11, does not require private person contractors, such as Knutson, Flynn, to provide data in response to this type of request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An interpretation such as Mr. Anfinson suggests seems beyond what the Minnesota Legislature contemplated when it enacted section 13.05, subdivision 11, especially given the requirement that data requestors can seek data from a private person contractor only if the data are not available from the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, the issue Mr. Anfinson raises deserves further consideration. As Mr. Anfinson described, the structure established to implement the provisions of Chapter 13 frustrates the ability of the public to gain access to data that document the extent of contracting being performed by a single outside firm, such as Knutson, Flynn. Since current statutory language does not allow this, the Commissioner encourages the Legislature to consider the issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans to provide to KSTP-TV copies of contracts between Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans and any public school or school district between 2003 and 2008?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, require Knutson, Flynn Deans to provide any bills Knutson, Flynn Deans provided to any and all public school clients for services rendered to these clients between 2003 and 2008?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Deans and Ms. Earley raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does not require Knutson, Flynn amp; Deans to provide to KSTP-TV data documenting the public schools or school districts it has represented from 2003 to 2008. However, if KSTP-TV has requested data from a school district related to Knutson, Flynn&apos;s representation of the district, and Knutson, Flynn, not the district, maintains the data, Knutson, Flynn must provide the data to KSTP-TV.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 27, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267398</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party response to data requests</Title><Id>266281</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-002</Title><title>Opinion 09 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266903&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-01-21T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In Advisory Opinion 08-022, the Commissioner of Administration opined that certain data supplied by private electric companies (the property addresses for properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off) are public. In light of a new law enacted during the 2008 Legislative Session, Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.0976, can the City still rely on 08-022?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 21, 2009; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 15, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Chad Staul, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saint Paul. In his email, Mr. Staul asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, in a letter dated December 15, 2008, invited Teri Anderson, Attorney for Xcel Energy, to submit comments. On December 29, 2008, IPAD received a response from Ms. Anderson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request Mr. Staul wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting a formal opinion to re-evaluate IPAD&apos;s opinion 08-022 which I requested regarding utility shut off data. I am asking that the same question be answered in a formal opinion in light of Minn. Stat. 216B.0976. That statute appears to cover utility shut off data by classifying it as private. The facts for this opinion are found in Opinion 08-022.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Staul&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Advisory Opinion 08-022, the Commissioner of Administration opined that certain data supplied by private electric companies (the property addresses for properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off) are public. In light of a new law enacted during the 2008 Legislative Session, Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.0976, can the City still rely on 08-022?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266639&quot; title=&quot;08-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-022&lt;/a&gt;, the facts were that Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 46 required private (non-government) electric companies to provide to the City a notice whenever service was discontinued for any reason. According to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, once the property address and reason for discontinuation were in the City&apos;s possession, they were government data. The Commissioner then opined that because no provision classified these data as not public, they were public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question Mr. Staul now asks is how Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.0976 (enacted during the 2008 Legislative Session), impacts the conclusion reached in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266639&quot; title=&quot;08-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-022&lt;/a&gt;. Subdivision 1 of 216B.0976 requires utilities, including Xcel Energy to, upon written request from a city, submit each October 15 and November 1, a report of the addresses of properties currently disconnected (from gas or electric service) and the date of the disconnection. In addition, upon written request of a city, between October 15 and April 15, daily reports must be made available of the address and date of any newly disconnected properties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 216B.0976, subdivision 2, provides that the data utilities submit to a city pursuant to section 216B.0976 are classified as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, while the new law classifies, as not public, data that non-government electric and gas utilities submit to a city under subdivision 1 of section 216B.0976, it is silent as to the classification of data a non-government utility submits to a city under different circumstances, such as the Saint Paul ordinance the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266639&quot; title=&quot;08-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;08-022&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266639&quot; title=&quot;08-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-022&lt;/a&gt;] concluded that certain data provided to Minnesota cities by [non-public] electric companies are public. Based on various amendments in 2008, I disagree with this opinion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Minnesota law requires public utilities to make available to any requesting city, the address of properties currently disconnected and the date of the disconnection during the state&apos;s &quot;Cold Weather&quot; period. This statute also specifies that all data on customers so provided to the cities is [not public data].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because the 2008 amendments specifically classify heat-affected disconnection by a public utility as [not public data], Advisory Opinion 08-022 should be re-evaluated.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, discusses interpretation of statutes. Section 645.17, states that when ascertaining legislative intent, it is presumed the Minnesota Legislature does not intend a result that is unreasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, one provision - 13.03, subdivision 1 - provides that property addresses and reasons for shutoff submitted pursuant to Saint Paul&apos;s ordinance are public because nothing specifically classifies the data as not public. The other provision - section 216B.0976, subdivision 2 - provides that when Saint Paul makes specific written requests for the data between October 15 and April 15, and the utilities provide the data, the data are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if Saint Paul continues to enforce its ordinance and never makes written requests to the utilities, the data submitted by the utilities would be public. But if City X, that has no ordinance, makes requests to the utilities between October 15 and April 15, similar data maintained by City X data would be protected. This result seems unreasonable in that it creates a lack of uniformity in how the data are classified from city to city. Given the language in section 645.17, the Legislature did not intend such a result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because section 216B.0976 is more specific and was enacted more recently than section 13.03, subdivision 1, the Commissioner concludes that if Saint Paul continues to require compliance with its ordinance, data submitted by non-government utilities between October 15 and April 15 are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges this may mean that even though the address and reason for disconnection about a particular property reported in December are not public, data about the same property reported in August are public. The Commissioner strongly encourages the Legislature to re-visit the issues discussed here to ensure this is the result it intended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Staul is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of the new language in Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.0976, the City of Saint Paul should not rely on the result reached in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266639&quot; title=&quot;08-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-022&lt;/a&gt; and should treat the property address and reason for shut off data as not public when those data are reported between October 15 and April 15.                             &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 21, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266903</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 09-001</Title><title>Opinion 09 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266968&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2009-01-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 535, Rochester, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request for public data relating to the termination of a District employee?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 21, 2009; School District 535 (Rochester)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 9, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated same, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Rochester Post-Bulletin&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from School District 535, Rochester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Romain Dallemand, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 12, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 5, 2009, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Daniel Sacco, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Anfinson provided them is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Earlier this year, [the District] terminated the employment of Cheryl Coryea, who at the time served as Director of Business Services. Shortly thereafter, a reporter for the newspaper requested certain information about the termination When no satisfactory response was obtained from [the District], I was asked to contact Nancy Vollertsen, the District&apos;s attorney, and renew the request, which I did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 7, 2008 Ms. Vollertsen responded as follows to the principal question I had posed to her:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; It appears that Ms. Coryea&apos;s employment was terminated by the district. Section 13.43, subd. 2 of the Data Practices Act specifies various information that would consequently be public at this point, including the specific reasons for the action taken, and all data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; Ms. Coryea was employed at will by the district. Thus her employment could be terminated at any time for any or no reason. The information concerning her work performance is private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The newspaper did not pursue the matter further at that time. Recently, however [another Post-Bulletin reporter] again asked the District for information about Ms. Coryea&apos;s termination from employment. Ms. Vollertsen referred him to the previous exchanges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 535, Rochester, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request for public data relating to the termination of a District employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the fact that a complaint exists and the status of the complaint are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action are public. (Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), describes the point in time when a final disposition occurs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sacco wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 2(a) identifies the specific categories of personnel data that are public. None of these categories of personnel data include the basis for and documentation related to the termination of an at-will employee that does not involve a disciplinary action. The only information about the end of an employee&apos;s employment that is specifically identified as public is the last date of employment and, where applicable, the terms of an agreement settling an employment dispute&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, there was no &quot;disciplinary action.&quot; Rather, the District terminated Ms. Coryea&apos;s employment without a disciplinary action, which is its right because she was an at-will employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 makes no distinction between at will and other employees. Data that a government entity maintains about all of its employees are government data and are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Saaco states that the District ended (terminated) Ms. Coryea&apos;s employment &quot;without a disciplinary action.&quot; The Commissioner assumes Mr. Sacco means that the ending of Ms. Coryea&apos;s employment was not related to the District taking any disciplinary action against her and that the &quot;termination,&quot; itself, was not disciplinary action. The District, therefore, would not have created or be maintaining data related to taking disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming this is correct, it seems the District has no data responsive to the newspaper&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While Ms. Coryea may indeed have been an at-will employee of the District, information we have obtained through informal means strongly suggests that she did not leave voluntarily, and that the decision to end her employment was prompted by dissatisfaction with her performance - in other words, it was not simply &quot;for any or no reason.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute. If, though, the termination of Ms. Coryea&apos;s employment with the District was related to a disciplinary action or was, in itself, disciplinary action, and there was a final disposition, the final disposition would be public as well as specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming the termination of the individual&apos;s employment with School District 535, Rochester, was not related to a disciplinary action or was not, in itself, disciplinary action, and there was no final disposition, there are no data responsive to the newspaper&apos;s request. In not providing any data, the District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 21, 2009&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266968</id><Tag><Description/><Title>At-will employees</Title><Id>266967</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:17:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-035</Title><title>Opinion 08 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267943&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-12-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an October 3, 2008, request for data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 16, 2008; Ramsey County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 23, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD), received a letter, dated October 20, 2008, from Ted Dooley, an attorney, on behalf of his client, &quot;X.&quot; In his letter, Mr. Dooley asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s right to have access to certain data the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains. IPAD requested additional information, which Mr. Dooley provided on November 7, 2008.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheriff Bob Fletcher, in response to Mr. Dooley&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 10, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Dooley&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s position. The Sheriff&apos;s Office did not submit a response.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts according to Mr. Dooley follows. In a letter dated October 3, 2008, Mr. Dooley, on behalf of X and with X&apos;s written consent, wrote to Sheriff Fletcher and requested access to all data of which X is the subject. Mr. Dooley also asked the Sheriff&apos;s Office, if it were to withhold any data about X, to confirm the existence and classification, and provide the &quot;lawful basis for the classification,&quot; of any such data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Dooley, &quot;[o]n or about 14 October 2008, [Sheriff&apos;s Office staff] left a voice mail informing us that Ramsey County would not respond to [X&apos;s data] request. We have received no other communication from Ramsey County with respect to [X&apos;s] Data Practices Act request. Ten (10) business days have passed.&quot;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              Based on Mr. Dooley&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Did the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an October 3, 2008, request for data?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Individual data subjects may gain access to all public and private data an entity maintains about them, but may not have access to confidential data about them. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivisions 3, 8 and 12, and section 13.04.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when asked, a responsible authority or designee shall inform an individual data subject whether s/he is the subject of stored data on individuals, how the data are classified (public, private or confidential), and shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When an individual requests access to government data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity must respond within ten working days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On October 3, 2008, Mr. Dooley asked for access to any and all data the Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains about X. Pursuant to section 13.04, the Sheriff&apos;s Office was obligated to respond, within ten working days, and 1) inform X that it does not maintain any data about her/him; or 2) provide access to all public and private data about X, and/or 3) inform X that it maintains confidential data about her/him, and state the specific statutory section that so classifies those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Dooley raised is as follows:
                    
									&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an October 3, 2008, request for data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Dana B. Badgerow
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 16, 2008
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267943</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-034</Title><title>Opinion 08 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266653&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-12-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the Open Meeting Law apply to the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force created by Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota for 2008?
If the Open Meeting Law applies is the Task Force required to meet in a public building or does the Task Force have the option of conducting its meetings in a private location that is made accessible to the public?
Since the Task Force doesn’t have a primary office like many other public bodies (city councils, school boards, state agencies), how can the Task Force meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding Notice of Meetings and section 13D.01 regarding votes to be kept in a journal? Can a website be used to meet the meeting notice and journal requirements?
The 23 member Task Force has nine members from Greater Minnesota for whom travel to meetings may, at times, be more onerous (winter weather conditions, scheduling conflicts dues to extended travel times). If a quorum of members is present at the meeting place, may videoconferencing be used to allow members who are not present to (1) listen the meeting; (2) provide comments; and/or (3) vote on motions/recommendations being considered at the meeting?
May the Task Force create working groups of less than a quorum of the Task Force to meet outside of the public meetings to discuss distinct issue areas and to bring recommendations and draft language to the full Task Force at a public meeting for consideration and discussion?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 3, 2008; Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subd. 6, was amended in 2014 to allow a State public body to post its schedule of regular meetings on its website, as an alternative to keeping it on file at the primary office. See Issue 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 14, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated October 13, 2008 from Alberto Quintela, Jr., Staff Attorney, Minnesota Department of Commerce. In his letter, Mr. Quintela, on behalf of the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force, asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion on several Open Meeting Law issues. Mr. Quintela submitted the $200 fee on October 21, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Quintela provided them is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Legislature created the Ultra High Speed Broadband Task Force in Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota for 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Task Force] requests an opinion ... as to whether the Open Meeting Law applies...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the event that the Open Meeting Law is deemed to apply, the Task Force also has questions related to how [it] can meet some of the apparent requirements....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature established a task force to gather data to put forth a comprehensive statewide ultra high-speed broadband goal. The Task Force consist of a total of 23 members, with seventeen members representing higher education, K-12, libraries, health care, counties, cities, citizens, labor, the commissioner of the Department of Commerce, the commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development and a representative of the Office of Enterprise Technology and six members representing telephone companies, cable providers and wireless providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Task Force must deliver a report by November 1, 2009, to the Governor and the Legislature containing recommendations for the development of a comprehensive statewide plan designed to achieve a state ultra high-speed broadband goal that the Task Force considers appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The report is to include recommendations for: broadband needs by 2015; policies and necessary actions; public/private cooperation; strategies; financing methods; financial incentives; security; vulnerability; redundancy; costs; economic development opportunities; and, benefits to educational, healthcare and government institutions and also community-based organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Quintela&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the Open Meeting Law apply to the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force created by Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota for 2008?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the Open Meeting Law applies is the Task Force required to meet in a public building or does the Task Force have the option of conducting its meetings in a private location that is made accessible to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Since the Task Force doesn&apos;t have a primary office like many other public bodies (city councils, school boards, state agencies), how can the Task Force meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding Notice of Meetings and section 13D.01 regarding votes to be kept in a journal? Can a website be used to meet the meeting notice and journal requirements?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The 23 member Task Force has nine members from Greater Minnesota for whom travel to meetings may, at times, be more onerous (winter weather conditions, scheduling conflicts dues to extended travel times). If a quorum of members is present at the meeting place, may videoconferencing be used to allow members who are not present to (1) listen the meeting; (2) provide comments; and/or (3) vote on motions/recommendations being considered at the meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;May the Task Force create working groups of less than a quorum of the Task Force to meet outside of the public meetings to discuss distinct issue areas and to bring recommendations and draft language to the full Task Force at a public meeting for consideration and discussion?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Does the Open Meeting Law apply to the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force created by Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota for 2008?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 212, subdivision 1(a), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The governor shall convene an Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force to make recommendations to the governor and the legislature regarding the creation of a state ultra high-speed broadband goal and a plan to implement that goal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (b) of subdivision 1 lists the types of members who must comprise the Task Force.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (c) of subdivision 1 provides that the Governor shall appoint the Task Force members and designate one of the members to serve as chair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (d) of subdivision 1 provides that the Department of Commerce shall provide logistical and administrative support to the Task Force.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (e) of subdivision 1 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By November 1, 2009, the task force shall submit a report to the governor and the chairs and ranking minority members of the senate and house committees with primary jurisdiction over telecommunications policy containing recommendations, including possible legislation, for the development of a comprehensive statewide plan designed to achieve a state ultra high-speed broadband goal that the task force considers appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (e) goes on to list eight items that must be included in the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(a), discusses the types of state-related entities that are subject to the Open Meeting Law: &quot;all meetings of a state agency, board, commission, or department must be open to the public&quot; when public business will be transacted in the meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Legislature established the Task Force and gave the Governor the authority to appoint its membership. Although section 13D.01, subdivision 1, does not provide explicitly that meetings of state &lt;em&gt;task forces&lt;/em&gt; must be open to the public, the Commissioner considers a task force to be akin to a board or commission. Given the scope of topics the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force will be addressing, and the fact that it is to create a report containing recommendations &quot;for the development of a comprehensive statewide plan designed to achieve a state ultra high-speed broadband goal,&quot; the Task Force will be transacting public business. For these reasons, the Commissioner concludes the Task Force is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; If the Open Meeting Law applies is the Task Force required to meet in a public building or does the Task Force have the option of conducting its meetings in a private location that is made accessible to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13D is silent on the issue of the location of public meetings. Clearly, though, meetings must be held in a location to which members of the public can easily gain access; if a body were to do otherwise, it would violate the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner is well aware that in many buildings, whether publicly or privately owned, persons entering are required to go though some type of security and, likely, must sign in. The Commissioner does not view this as a violation of Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Task Force does, however, need to meet in the state of Minnesota. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267613&quot; title=&quot;06-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-012&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that bodies subject to Chapter 13D must hold their meetings within the territorial boundaries of the body. The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is based on a 1967 Minnesota Supreme Court case. (&lt;em&gt;Quast v. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (Minn. 1967).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/strong&gt; Since the Task Force doesn&apos;t have a primary office like many other public bodies (city councils, school boards, state agencies), how can the Task Force meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, regarding Notice of Meetings and section 13D.01 regarding votes to be kept in a journal? Can a website be used to meet the meeting notice and journal requirements?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.04, subdivision 1, states, &quot;A schedule of the regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quintela notes that the Task Force does not have a primary office. However, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which is tasked with providing &quot;logistical and administrative support&quot; for the Task Force, does have a primary office. The Commissioner suggests keeping the Task Force&apos;s regular meeting schedule at the Department of Commerce. If the Task Force wishes to post its regular meeting schedule on its website, it may do so but not in lieu of maintaining a copy of the schedule at the primary office of the Department of Commerce for anyone who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 4, states, &quot;The votes of the members ... must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose.&quot; Again, if the Task Force wishes to post the members&apos; votes on its website, it may do so, but this is not sufficient. The Task Force/Department of Commerce also must maintain a journal of the votes for anyone who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/strong&gt; The 23 member Task Force has nine members from Greater Minnesota for whom travel to meetings may, at times, be more onerous (winter weather conditions, scheduling conflicts dues to extended travel times). If a quorum of members is present at the meeting place, may videoconferencing be used to allow members who are not present to (1) listen the meeting; (2) provide comments; and/or (3) vote on motions/recommendations being considered at the meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.02 discusses meetings conducted by interactive television. Subdivision 1 of section 13D.02, states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A meeting may be conducted by interactive television so long as:
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members of the body;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the Task Force meets the requirements listed in section 13D.02, it may conduct meetings using interactive television (video conferencing).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 5:&lt;/strong&gt; May the Task Force create working groups of less than a quorum of the Task Force to meet outside of the public meetings to discuss distinct issue areas and to bring recommendations and draft language to the full Task Force at a public meeting for consideration and discussion?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner discussed in Issue 1, the Task Force is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D. There is nothing in Chapter 13D that prohibits the Task Force from creating or requires the Task Force to create work groups. Mr. Quintela&apos;s question seems to be whether a work group of the Task Force is subject to Chapter 13D if the membership of work group does not include a quorum of Task Force members. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267269&quot; title=&quot;07-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-025&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A 1993 Minnesota Court of Appeals case addressed an issue similar to the one before the Commissioner. In &lt;em&gt;Sovereign v. Dunn&lt;/em&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn.App. 1993), the Court found that a series of mediation sessions, in which less than a quorum of the Lake Elmo City Council members participated, were not a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of the City of Lake Elmo for purposes of the Open Meeting Law....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present situation, the Free Speech Working Group is not capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body.... In addition, because only two Council Members are part of the Work Group&apos;s membership, no quorum of the City Council exists. Based on the language in section 13D.01 and the Court of Appeals decision in Sovereign, the Commissioner does not believe that the Free Speech Working Group is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Quintela states that work groups would discuss distinct issue areas and bring recommendations and draft language to the full Task Force at public meetings for consideration and discussion. Similar to the facts in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267269&quot; title=&quot;07-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-025&lt;/a&gt;, any work group would not be capable of exercising decision-making powers of the Task Force. In addition, a work group&apos;s membership would not include a quorum of Task Force members. For these reasons, the Commissioner concludes a work group, such as Mr. Quintela describes, would not be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Quintela raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force created by Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota for 2008 is subject to the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D is silent on where bodies can or cannot hold meetings.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4, the Task Force must maintain a journal of the record of votes taken by its members. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, the Task Force must maintain a copy of the schedule of its regular meetings.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, sets forth the conditions under which the Task Force can conduct meetings by interactive television or video conferencing.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A work group, such as Mr. Quintela describes, of the Task Force is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 3, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266653</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-033</Title><title>Opinion 08 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267251&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-12-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: names, job titles and description, first and last date of employment, salary, pension and fringe benefit information for “employees whose last date of employment with the City was in August and September?”
Did the City comply with Chapter 13 when it was asked to provide a written denial regarding the data described above?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 3, 2008; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 12, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter from Brandon Stahl, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune.&lt;/em&gt; In his letter, Mr. Stahl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Duluth. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Stahl provided on October 30, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lisa Potswald, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Duluth, in response to Mr. Stahl&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 30, 2008, were to inform her of Mr. Stahl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. M. Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney, responded, in a letter dated November 21, 2008. Mr. Stahl and Ms. Lutterman enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the written record follows. According to Ms. Lutterman, the City of Duluth publically announced its intention &quot;to lay off seasonal, temporary and permanent employees. Those layoffs occurred in August and September of 2008.&quot; Ms. Lutterman described a subsequent telephone call, in which she and Mr. Stahl discussed &quot;whether the City, if requested, would release the names of employees who had been laid off.&quot; According to Ms. Lutterman, she &quot;advised [Mr.] Stahl that if the City received such a request that it would most likely not disclose the names because the reasons for the termination of employment is not public data unless the termination was the result of final disciplinary action.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated September 19, 2008, Mr. Stahl asked Ms. Lutterman for &quot;a written message declining my data request seeking information on employees whose last date of employment was in August and September.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That day Ms. Lutterman responded by email: &quot;[w]hen do [sic] you make such a request? We talked about you making such a request and I advised you how I would respond if you made such a request; however, I don&apos;t recall that you ever officially made such a request.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stahl responded in a September 24 email, in which he asked for the following: names, job titles and description, first and last date of employment, salary, pension and fringe benefit information for &quot;all employees whose last date with the City was in August and September.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman and Mr. Stahl continued to exchange emails. Of relevance here are the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- September 24, 2008: Ms. Lutterman wrote, &quot;[w]e will also be evaluating whether any of the data requested is classified as other than public and will respond further with a response related to that issue.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- October 6, 2008, Ms. Lutterman wrote, &quot;[t]his updates you on the status of your data request ...[b]ecause the context of your question would reveal the identity of employees who have been laid off, the names of employees is not public. This is so because the reason why employment ends is not public data pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.43....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-October 8, 2008: Mr. Stahl wrote, &quot;[a]lso, in regards to my previous data request and wanting to get a written denial about not providing names of employees, will you be able to do that soon?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-October 29, 2008: Ms. Lutterman wrote, &quot;[p]lease be further advised that because the context of your question would disclose the reason for departure by those employees who were laid off, and because the reason for the termination is not public, unless the termination was the result of final discipline, the names of laid off employees are not public data and will not be released. Minn. Stat section13.42 [sic], see also, Commissioner&apos;s Opinion 08-004.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stahl&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: names, job titles and description, first and last date of employment, salary, pension and fringe benefit information for &quot;employees whose last date of employment with the City was in August and September?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City comply with Chapter 13 when it was asked to provide a written denial regarding the data described above?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1: &lt;/em&gt;Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: names, job titles and description, first and last date of employment, salary, pension and fringe benefit information for &quot;employees whose last date of employment with the City was in August and September?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the data on current and former employees that are classified as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), are name, job title and description, date of first and last employment, actual gross salary, actual gross pension and value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits. Under section 13.43, the reason a former employee left government employment (absent final disciplinary action) is not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Lutterman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City does not dispute that normally the names of former employees are public data [citation omitted.] However, the names of the employees in the context of the request is [sic] not public. This is so because by identifying the names of these employees, the City is providing more data than just a name. The City is also providing the reason for the employee&apos;s termination ... [which] is not public unless the termination is a result of final disciplinary action, in which case the data would be public. [Citation omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman states that in a telephone conversation, she and Mr. Stahl discussed &quot;whether the City, if requested, would release the names of employees who had been laid off.&quot; From the record, it appears that Mr. Stahl thought he had asked for access to data in that conversation; Ms. Lutterman did not think so. However, Mr. Stahl did make a written request, in a September 24 email, for the names and certain other public data about former employees whose last date of employment with the City was in August or September, 2008. He did not ask for data specifically about former employees who had been laid off during that time. The City&apos;s response to that request is what is at issue here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Lutterman noted, the Commissioner has addressed the importance context can play with respect to the proper classification of data. If Mr. Stahl had asked for data on employees whom the City had laid-off, the City would properly have denied him access. However, that is not what he asked for.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266860&quot; title=&quot;08-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 08-004&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved a data request Mr. Stahl made to the City, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The reason a former employee left City employment (absent final disciplinary action) is not public. Mr. Stahl did not ask for otherwise public data on former employees; he asked for identifying data about retirees and their dependents. The City would have improperly released private data had it complied with his request as stated. However, if Mr. Stahl, or anyone, were to ask for the names, value and nature of fringe benefits, and any other public data on former employees, the City could provide access to those data.&lt;/em&gt; [Emphasis omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City should provide Mr. Stahl with access to the data he requested in his September 24, 2008, email.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2: &lt;/em&gt;Did the City comply with Chapter 13 when it was asked to provide a written denial regarding the data described above?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), when the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data are not accessible to the requestor, s/he shall inform the requestor of that determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific legal basis for the denial. Further, if asked, the responsible authority/designee shall certify the denial in writing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman wrote to Mr. Stahl on October 6 and 29, 2008, both times citing section 13.43 as the basis for the City&apos;s denying him access to the employees&apos; names. Thus, the City satisfied its obligation to set forth the basis for its denial in writing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stahl raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Duluth did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: names, job titles and description, first and last date of employment, salary, pension and fringe benefit information for &quot;employees whose last date of employment with the City was in August and September.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City did comply with Chapter 13 when it was asked to provide a written denial regarding the data described above.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 3, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267251</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-032</Title><title>Opinion 08 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267234&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-11-25T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Hibbing comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of “the complete report on an investigation of possible perjury on the part of Hibbing police officers who testified at a misdemeanor trial in Hibbing in June 2008?”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 25, 2008; City of Hibbing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Mike Jennings, of the &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Daily Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Jennings asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data the City of Hibbing maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Jennings provided on October 13, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brian J. Redshaw, City Administrator, in response to Mr. Jennings&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 16, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Jennings&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. Richard K. Sellman, City Attorney, responded, in a letter dated November 13, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In a letter dated September 11, 2008, Mr. Jennings wrote to Mr. Redshaw and requested a copy of &quot;the file for case number 08-168012, in which Anoka County Sheriff&apos;s Detective Mike Lapham investigated police testimony at the misdemeanor trial of Anthony Sarago in St. Louis County District Court in Hibbing in June 2008. If information is excluded from the document, please inform me of the provisions of the Data Practices Act that authorize the exclusion.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 18, 2008, Mr. Sellman wrote to Mr. Jennings: &quot;[t]he information you request is being used for an internal investigation for possible disciplinary action(s). The data you request is therefore private data under Minnesota Statute 13.43.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 22, 2008, Mr. Jennings replied:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It has repeatedly been made clear to us that the investigation of Hibbing police officers&apos; testimony in a June 17, 2008, trial dealt narrowly with the question of possible criminal conduct. After arranging in July for an independent investigation of that testimony, Hibbing Police Chief Barbara Mitchell told us it was customary to ask another police agency to investigate when complaints against officers &apos;might be criminal in nature.&apos; Based on our further inquiries into the conduct of the investigation, we believe that [the investigating agency] limited [its] inquiry to the question of possible perjury in the June 17 trial. [The] report, then we assume, maintains that same close focus, and should thus be regarded exclusively as criminal investigative data, regardless of whether the report is later used in other contexts, such as an internal affairs investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 7, provides that criminal investigative data shall remain confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. It also provides that an investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of three events. One of those events - a decision by the prosecutorial authority not to pursue the case - occurred on August 29, 2008, when . . . [that authority found] that the investigative report provided &apos;insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with this matter.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sellman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is clear under Minnesota Statute, 13.82 that, with a couple of exceptions that do not apply here, once a criminal investigation is completed and the charging decision made, the investigative report is public data under the statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is also clear under Minnesota Statute 13.43 . . . that information used to investigate/evaluate an internal matter is personnel data and is private data until and unless the person is disciplined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Jenning&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the City of Hibbing comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of &quot;the complete report on an investigation of possible perjury on the part of Hibbing police officers who testified at a misdemeanor trial in Hibbing in June 2008?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that the data in question were created as part of a criminal investigation. Under section 13.82, subdivision 7, data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of three occurrences changes the status of a criminal investigation from active to inactive; one of those is the decision by the agency or appropriate prosecutorial authority not to pursue the case. Once the investigation is inactive, the data are public, unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17. (According to Mr. Sellman, neither of those exceptions applies to the data in the report.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sellman stated that the data in question are properly classified as personnel data under section 13.43, because they are now being used in a disciplinary investigation. That section classifies certain personnel data as public, and all other personnel data as private. If the entity takes final disciplinary action, the specific reasons for and data that document the basis of the final disciplinary action are public. If the entity does not take final disciplinary action, related data remain private. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sellman stated that the two provisions under which the data in question might be classified, namely section 13.82 and section 13.43, appear to be in conflict, and that section 13.43 is more specific and should therefore control.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.17 discusses presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent. Section 645.26 discusses irreconcilable provisions. Subdivision 1 of section 645.26 states, in part, &quot;[w]hen a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both.&quot; Section 645.26, subdivision 1, further provides that if two provisions are irreconcilable, &quot;the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.&quot; The Legislature adopted section 13.82, subdivision 7, after adopting section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner sees the logic in Mr. Sellman&apos;s position; however, that position is also problematic. Section 13.82 temporarily classifies active investigative data as not public; once any of three events occurs, data that had been protected become public when the investigation is no longer active. However, private personnel data don&apos;t become public unless the entity takes final disciplinary action against an employee. If an entity could protect otherwise public inactive criminal investigative data as private personnel data, the Legislature&apos;s intent, i.e., that protected criminal investigative data become public, could be thwarted (in a situation in which the entity does not take final disciplinary action.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jennings asked for data that were created because the City police department undertook (through an agreement with Anoka County) an investigation of possible crimes. That investigation was a criminal matter, not a personnel investigation. Mr. Jennings did not ask for access to personnel data. He asked for inactive criminal investigative data, which are public under section 13.82, assuming neither of the exceptions noted above applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Jennings raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Hibbing did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of &quot;the complete report on an investigation of possible perjury on the part of Hibbing police officers who testified at a misdemeanor trial in Hibbing in June 2008.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 25, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267234</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflict with personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266831</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-031</Title><title>Opinion 08 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267830&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 175A, what is the classification of the following data: the written decisions of the State of Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 2008; Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 3, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 26, 2008, from Thomas Johnson, Chief Judge of the State of Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). In his letter, Chief Judge Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the WCCA maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Chief Judge Johnson provided is as follows. In his opinion request, Chief Judge Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [WCCA] is seeking an advisory opinion. . .regarding classification of the written decisions of the WCCA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The WCCA was contacted by an individual who is the subject of a WCCA decision. . .The decision is posted on the WCCA web site. . .[The data subject] requested that all files and documentation relating to her workers&apos; compensation claim be removed from the internet because the contents include private identifiers and medical information. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The WCCA is not a judicial court. It is an executive branch court created by the legislature. . ..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Chief Judge Johnson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 175A, what is the classification of the following data: the written decisions of the State of Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The WCCA is a state agency for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Therefore, the data WCCA collects and maintains are subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 175A.06, states, &quot;The hearings of the [WCCA] shall be open to the public and may be adjourned from time to time. All the proceedings of the court shall be shown on its records, which shall be public records.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Chief Judge Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Adjudication of workers&apos; compensation claims follows the judicial model of decision-making. Contested claims are tried in administrative proceedings in a manner similar to civil actions in a judicial court. Each disputed claim is a case. . . .Typical issues include whether the employee&apos;s claimed injury arose out of and in the course of employment, whether there is, in fact, a work-related injury or disease, the nature and/or extent of the work injury or occupational disease, the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment. . .Thus the vast majority of the evidence submitted at trial are records, reports, and other information pertaining to the employee&apos;s employment and earnings, vocational rehabilitation, and medical history and treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Any party has the right to appeal a compensation judge&apos;s decision (Findings and Order) to the WCCA. On appeal, the WCCA&apos;s review is limited to the trial record. . .The record consists of a transcript of the testimony taken at the hearing before a compensation judge and the documentary and other records submitted into evidence. The parties submit written briefs to the WCCA presenting argument about how the appeal should be decided, citing case law precedent, and in a limited number of cases the WCCA hears oral argument. The WCCA issues a written decision describing the facts relevant to the case, analyzing the law applicable to the claim, and stating the court&apos;s holding in the case. Based on the evidentiary record, the decision includes information about the claimant&apos;s medical condition, history and treatment, employment, and vocational rehabilitation, and medical history and treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota legislature delegated to the WCCA exclusive authority to act as the appellate court in workers&apos; compensation cases. As an appellate court, the WCCA&apos;s decisions are legal precedent for subsequent cases. That is, compensation judges and others involved in resolving and determining workers&apos; compensation claims are bound by the legal analysis and reasoning of the court in previously issued decisions, as is the WCCA in making subsequent decisions on appeal. . . .
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In recent years, following the lead of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. . .the WCCA has made its decisions remotely accessible via the WCCA web site. . .The only data the WCCA makes available to the public on the web is the court&apos;s written decisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] states that government data are public unless otherwise classified. Minnesota Statutes section 175A.06 states that the hearings and proceedings of the WCAA are &quot;public records.&quot; The fundamental, physical embodiment of the court&apos;s &quot;proceedings&quot; are the written decisions issued by the WCCA. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to personal information, the employee&apos;s full name is listed in the caption of the case and all or part of the name may be repeated in the decision. However, the WCCA does not disclose Social Security numbers and is careful not to include security information such as employer identification numbers, a party&apos;s street address, telephone numbers, financial account or credit card numbers, and the like. . . .
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the language in section 175A.06, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the written decisions of the WCCA are public data. In addition, as Chief Judge Johnson points out, the WCCA acts as the appellate court in workers&apos; compensation cases and its decisions are legal precedent for subsequent cases. Significant disruption in the legal process could occur if the WCCA decisions were not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that public data located on a website are more easily accessible to more people than public data located in a file cabinet in the office of a government entity. When most government data were maintained in paper form, the number of people getting access to public data was much smaller than it is today. WCCA&apos;s decision to post its decisions on a website means that detailed medical information about individuals is easily accessible to more people.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For most government entities, there is a legitimate business need to post data on websites. That said, WCCA has the option of removing the names of the data subjects in the decisions it posts on the internet. The names remain public data pursuant to Chapter 13 so if anyone were to make a data request, the WCCA would need to provide the names to the requestor. Clearly, given the continued push for greater privacy protection of medical records, the issues raised in this opinion are ones the Minnesota Legislature may want to address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes she did consider that some of the data subjects in the WCCA&apos;s decisions are government employees whose data are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Generally, medical data about government employees are private data. However, in this case, given that section 175A.06 is more specific than section 13.43, and that section 175A.06 was enacted after the relevant provisions in section 13.43, the Commissioner concludes that data about government employees in the WCCA decisions are public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1, irreconcilable provisions - particular controls general.) In addition, it does not seem reasonable the Legislature intended data in certain written decisions to be protected (data relating to an employee of a government entity) and data in other written decisions to be public (data relating to an employee of a non-government entity). (Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, legislative intent controls.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as Chief Judge Johnson noted, Social Security numbers are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355, and should be redacted from public documents. In addition, data such as financial account or credit card numbers are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37 (security information).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Chief Judge Johnson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 175A, the written decisions of the State of Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 23, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267830</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Website - government data</Title><Id>267081</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals</Title><Id>267045</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-05-16T16:29:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-030</Title><title>Opinion 08 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267739&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-10-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Carver County Sheriff’s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of a booking photograph of a 16 year-old?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 8, 2008; Carver County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: the Commissioner wishes to clarify an issue brought to her attention. The &quot;record&quot; the Commissioner refers to in 08-030 is the record discussed in section 260B.171, subdivision 5. This section discusses peace officers records, not court records. The Commissioner&apos;s opinion in 08-030 is that if the proceedings involving the juvenile are public under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.163, subdivision 1, the peace officer records, including the booking photo, are not classified pursuant to section 260B.171, subdivision 5, but are classified pursuant to the general presumption in Chapter 13 - public unless otherwise classified. Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 26, booking photographs are public. Thus, when a juvenile has committed an offense for which the proceedings are public pursuant to section 260B.163, subdivision 1, law enforcement and detention records about that juvenile no longer are specially protected and are classified as if the juvenile were an adult.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 22, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 19, 2008, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Chaska Herald&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Byron Olson, Carver County Sheriff, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 29, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for his position. On September 18, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Thomas Haines, Assistant Carver County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Anfinson provided them is as follows. Mr. Anfinson wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Recently, a 16-year-old Carver County resident was detained by the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s office after allegedly committing a serious assault, for which he was charged. The assault charge alone would constitute a felony-level offense, but the victim subsequently died, and as we understand it, more serious charges are therefore pending. The newspaper has asked for a copy of the booking photograph (mug shot) of the juvenile that was obtained when the juvenile was taken into custody, citing Minn. Stat. section13.82, subd. 26.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the county attorney takes the position that the photograph is not publicly accessiblehellip;.The Carver County attorney&apos;s office has cited language found in section260.171, subd. 5(c) [sic], which authorizes law enforcement agencies to obtain booking photographs of juveniles, and then restricts the ways in which the photographs may be &quot;used.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We disagree with this interpretationhellip;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a request for a copy of a booking photograph of a 16 year-old?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 26, booking photographs are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While section 13.82 applies to most law enforcement data, peace officer records about children who are or may be delinquent, or who may be engaged in criminal acts are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5. Generally, section 260B.171, subdivision 5(a), classifies those data as private. However, records relating to an offense where proceedings are open to the public under section 260B.163, subdivision 1, are, based on the general presumption, classified pursuant to section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has few details about the facts of this particular situation. She knows only what Mr. Anfinson wrote in his opinion request - that the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s office detained a 16-year-old who allegedly committed a serious assault. Mr. Anfinson stated, &quot;The assault charge alone would constitute a felony-level offense, but the victim subsequently died, and, as we understand it, more serious charges are therefore pending.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the relevant statutory sections cited above, the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion is as follows. The data subject is a minor child. Because s/he may be delinquent or may be engaged in criminal acts, the data about him/her are classified pursuant to section 260B.171. However, the next part of the analysis is dependent upon facts the Commissioner does not have. Pursuant to section 260B.171, subdivision 5(a), if the proceedings in this situation are open to the public and the photograph is part of that record, those data are not classified pursuant to section 260B.171, subdivision 5, but, pursuant to the general presumption, are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Section 13.82, subdivision 26, provides that booking photographs are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the proceedings in this situation are not open to the public, the photograph is classified pursuant to section 260B.171, subdivision 5, and is private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haines cited language in section 260B.171, subdivision 5(c), which relates to photographs taken of a child who has been taken into immediate custody in accordance with the laws relating to arrests:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A photograph may be taken of a child taken into custodyhellip;provided that the photograph must be destroyed when the child reaches the age of 19 yearshellip;.Photographs of juveniles authorized by this paragraph may be used only for institution management purposes, case supervision by parole agents, and to assist law enforcement agencies to apprehend juvenile offenders. The commissioner shall maintain photographs of juveniles in the same manner as juvenile court records and names under this section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This clause does not change the private classification of a photograph but does clarify that photographs of minor children who are taken into immediate custody may be used only for the purposes specified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the proceedings in this situation are not open to the public, the booking photograph is private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, subdivision 5, and the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s office appropriately withheld the photograph.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the proceedings in this situation are open to the public and the booking photograph is part of the record, the photograph is public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 26.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 8, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267739</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Booking photos</Title><Id>267192</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-028</Title><title>Opinion 08 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266866&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-09-29T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 846, Breckenridge, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the “audio recording that was recorded at the public [District] board meeting held on September 10, 2007?”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 29, 2008; School District 846 (Breckenridge)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 14, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email from Bruce Fronning. In his email, Mr. Fronning asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data from School District 846, Breckenridge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Warren Schmidt, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Fronning&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 20, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Fronning&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 8, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated September 4, 2008, from Kristi Hastings, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Fronning provided them is as follows. In April 2008, Mr. Fronning wrote to the District, &quot;As a citizen of the district and member of the public, I request a copy of the ;audio recording that was recorded at the public Independent School District #846 board meeting held on September 10, 2007.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hastings responded in a letter dated June 2008:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My understanding of this audio recording is that it was made by Superintendent East with his personal recorder. A request has been made of Mr. East to deliver a copy of this recording to the district. To date, Mr. East has declined to do so. Therefore, the district is not in possession of the data which you seek and cannot provide it to you. You will need to take this matter up directly with Mr. East and his legal counsel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Fronning wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In August 2007, the Interim Superintendent and the Chair has [sic] a discussion about the upcoming teachers [sic] union contract negotiations and the state requirement of data recording of any strategy meetings and the preservation of those recordings. In that discussion the Interim indicated the District did not have a data recorder and that he would look into getting one for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the September 2007 District Meeting he brought out a data recorder and indicated that he was going to record the next few minutes of the meeting in case there is ever a question in regard to what took place in the meeting and as to what was said. He also reference [sic] it would be available should a copy be requested. He then proceeded to record a portion of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some time after the meeting a copy of the recording was requested. He than [sic] informed the party that the recording was done on his private data recorder and he would not release it to the requested party.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Fronning&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did School District 846, Breckenridge, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the &quot;audio recording that was recorded at the public [District] board meeting held on September 10, 2007?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, any data an entity or its governing board creates, maintains, etc., are government data. One exception to this general rule is if an employee or governing board member creates, maintains, etc., data that are &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt;. That is, data an employee or official did not create in his/her government capacity and data the purpose of which are not related to the operations of government. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267417&quot; title=&quot;05-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-017&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether government data are public or not public depends upon how the data are classified in Chapter 13, other Minnesota laws, or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Hastings wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I represent the Breckenridge School District, No. 846. Board member Bruce Fronning, in his capacity as a member of the public, has requested an advisory opinion&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In September of 2007, the District&apos;s Superintendent was Greg East.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On September 10, 2007, then Superintendent East, was questioned by board member Kathy Radig about a particularly contentious issue. Mr. East stood up, took a recording device out of his pocket and proceeded to leave the stage where school officials sit during meetings and, instead, took a seat in the audience. He then announced his belief that the board was acting unethically. After Mr. East&apos;s diatribe, he turned off his recorder, returned to the stage with the Board, and the meeting continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[In response to a previous request for the recording, Mr. East] refused stating that the recorder he used at the meeting was his own personal digital recorder and that the recording was done for personal reasons (presumably related to his allegations of future litigation). There can be no dispute that the District does not regularly tape record their board meetings. A request for the recording was made by the District of Mr. East and his attorney, but they refused to provide the District with a copy of the recording. &lt;em&gt;At no time, up to and including the present time&lt;/em&gt;, has the recording ever come into the possession of the District. The members of the School Board had no advance warning that Mr. East would record a portion of the September meeting. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. East is no longer employed by the Distric There is no evidence to suggest that the digital tape recording used by Mr. East at the September meeting belonged to the District. It certainly was not left at the District when Mr. East left his position. Mr. Fronning&apos;s letter suggests that Mr. East was going to purchase a recorder for the District, but there is nothing in the minutes nor any other written documents or expenditures at the District that would prove the recorder used at the meetings was anything but what Mr. East claimed, his own.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District did not &quot;collect,&quot; &quot;receive,&quot; &quot;maintain,&quot; nor &quot;disseminate&quot; the tape at issue. It was in the sole possession of a District employee who refused to turn the data over to the public entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The fact that Mr. East used his own digital recorder does not, on its face, mean the recording is not government data. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267740&quot; title=&quot;07-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 07-006&lt;/a&gt;.) There often are situations in which government employees use their own equipment (cars, computers, cell phones, pagers, etc.) for work related purposes. It is not reasonable to conclude that in those situations, related data could not be considered government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most important factor in determining whether the data are government data is if Mr. East was acting in his capacity as the District&apos;s superintendent when he made the recording. Although according to Ms. Hastings, Mr. East stated the recording was done for personal reasons, the Commissioner was not presented with any facts suggesting Mr. East made any kind of formal announcement that he was taking off his work hat and putting on his citizen hat. Presumably, if he had done that, his time book should show that he had taken vacation time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. Hastings provided a copy of a newspaper article about the September 2007 board meeting. The quotes the reporter attributes to Mr. East make it apparent the Mr. East was acting as the superintendent:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&quot;I am going record what I have to say,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&quot;I have thought long and hard about whether or not I would ever do this,&quot; he said. &quot;Certain things have transpired that have left me no choice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&quot;I am tired of handling you with kids [sic] gloves,&quot; East said. &quot;Don&apos;t lob surprises at me and don&apos;t lay bombs at my doorstep.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For these reasons, the Commissioner concludes that Mr. East was acting as the District&apos;s superintendent when he made the recording and, therefore, that the recording is government data. Given that the meeting was open and no one provided arguments as to why the data in the recording are not public, the Commissioner concludes the recording is public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the data in the recording are public government data, the District has an obligation to make those data available for members of the public to access. Ms. Hastings states that the District never had possession of the recording and that it attempted to obtain the data from Mr. East. As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267794&quot; title=&quot;95-088&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-008:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Each government entity is responsible for assuring that data maintained away from the primary workplace are handled in compliance with Chapter 13. While neither Chapter 13 nor Rules Chapter 1205 provides any specific guidelines for this process, Section 13.05, subdivision 5, does address the issue in an indirect fashion. The language charges the government entity&apos;s responsible authority with establishing procedures to assure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which the data were collected and also with establishing appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The length of time the District is required to keep the recording depends upon whether or not it is an official record. Here, the District is in the best position to make that decision; the Commissioner neither has sufficient information nor knowledge of the issues that gave rise to Mr. East taping a portion of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data in the recording are an official record, they must be kept for the time specified in the District&apos;s retention schedule. If the data in the recording are not official record, the District is not required to maintain them for any specified period of time. (Minnesota Statutes, sections 138.17 and 138.225.) However, regardless of whether the data are official record, if they existed at the time Mr. Fronning made his request, the District should have provided him with a copy. Government entities should adopt procedures or policies that provide for the return of government data from soon-to-be former employees, contractors, or elected officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data in the recording still exist, the District promptly should provide a copy to Mr. Fronning in response to his request. If the recording no longer exists, the District needs to advise Mr. Fronning that it has no data responsive to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. If the data in the recording still exist, and Mr. East refuses to give the recording to the District, it is not appropriate that Mr. Fronning should bear the cost of going to court to get access to the data. This is the District&apos;s responsibility. However, government entities do not seem to have an adequate civil remedy under Chapter 13 to go after former employees and others who refuse to hand over government data. The Commissioner strongly encourages the Legislature to make changes to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08, so entities are in a better position to seek data from any person over whom the entities no longer have any leverage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also encourages the District to contact their appropriate prosecuting authority to initiate misdemeanor charges against Mr. East under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.09, should he continue to refuse to produce the data Mr. Fronning requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Fronning raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to Mr. Fronning&apos;s request. Because the superintendent of School District 846 was acting in his official capacity when he recorded a portion of the September 10, 2007, board meeting, the data in the audio recording are government data. The data are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data existed when Mr. Fronning made his data request, the District should have provided him with a copy. If the data still exist, the District promptly should provide him with a copy. If the data no longer exist, the District promptly should so inform Mr. Fronning. If the data no longer exist and they are an official record, and were destroyed prior to time stated in the District&apos;s retention schedule, the District is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 29, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266866</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-029</Title><title>Opinion 08 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266926&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-09-29T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the University of Minnesota comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for “annual athletically related income reports from head coaches Tubby Smith, Tim Brewster, J. Robinson and Don Lucia for the past 10 years?”</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 29, 2008; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 11, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated August 6, 2008, from Vadim Lavrusik, Co-Publisher and Editor in Chief, of &lt;em&gt;The Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Lavrusik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the University of Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel of the University, in response to Mr. Lavrusik&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 18, 2008, were to inform her of Mr. Lavrusik&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On September 5, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Smith.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Lavrusik is as follows. On June 26, 2008, newspaper staff requested data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I request annual athletically related income reports from head coaches Tubby Smith, Tim Brewster, J. Robinson and Don Lucia for the past 10 years, where applicable, or all data available if the coach has been here for a shorter time than that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The University responded by stating, &quot;Their outside income reporting is considered private personnel data under M.S. 13.43 and cannot be released.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Lavrusik&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the University of Minnesota comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for &quot;annual athletically related income reports from head coaches Tubby Smith, Tim Brewster, J. Robinson and Don Lucia for the past 10 years?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), the following data related to an employee&apos;s salary are public: &quot;actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota maintains policies requiring covered University employees, including head coaches, to report their outside activities in order to identify and manage potential individual conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The report that employees must file is a &quot;Report of External Professional Activities&quot; or &quot;REPA&quot; report.In REPA reports, University employees identify their external professional activities and financial or business interests, and must disclose whether they earn or have an interest in excess of $10,000. Employees are not required to report the amount of their outside compensation in further detail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As covered employees under these University policies, head coaches are required to file REPA reports identifying their outside activities. This requirement, which applies to all covered University employees, is reinforced for coaches by NCAA regulations. NCAA Bylaw 11.2.2 requires that contracts with coaches include a stipulation that coaches submit reports to their educational institution concerning athletically related income from sources outside the institution. University coaches&apos; contracts include this stipulation, and this reporting requirement for outside athletically related income is satisfied by the REPA report the coaches are already required to file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The University requires individuals to submit REPA reports about their outside income because those individuals are University employees. The data in the reports are clearly personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Smith then asserted that the data in question are classified as private. She stated that the financial terms listed in section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), all relate to the employee&apos;s employment with the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;with respect to the financial terms listed in the statute: &quot;actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer fringe benefits&quot; all relate to the employee&apos;s employment with the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The last phrase in the list of financial information - &quot;the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary&quot;relates to the employee&apos;s public employment. There is no support, in the language of the statute or elsewhere, for the conclusion that this phrase relates also to the employee&apos;s outside private employment. On the contrary, the phrase itself clearly relates to remuneration paid to the employee by the public employer - the example of &quot;expense reimbursement&quot; paid &quot;in addition to salary&quot; refers to compensation paid by the government entity to the employee. When the government entity remunerates the employee through salary, expense reimbursement, bonuses, and so on, those data are public. If the employee by the government entity is required to report income he or she has earned from an outside source, in contrast, that is private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Daily&lt;/em&gt; suggests that this conclusion should not hold for head coaches, because, it asserts, a coach&apos;s compensation package from the University &quot;relies only partially&quot; on University compensation, and that the University &quot;is directly involved in arranging and negotiating&quot; outside income for the coaches. Neither proposition is accurate, however. First, the University&apos;s compensation to coaches is based on a number of factors, including experience, academic success, athletic success, and the Big Ten and national markets for head coaches, and does not rely on the coaches&apos; outside employment. Coaches who run camps do so through their own private businesses. Those camps are not run by the University of Minnesota. Coaches are no different from other University employees who also hold employment outside the University, including physicians, pharmacists, law professors, and other faculty members offering consulting services. Coaches&apos; outside income is no more public than the outside income of these other public employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data requested by the newspaper about each of the four coaches, &quot;annual athletically related income reports,&quot; are collected, created, received because the coaches are employees of the University. Therefore, the data are personnel data and classified by section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Smith that the financial data listed as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), relate to the coaches&apos; employment at the University; not to outside income they may be earning. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, if the Legislature intended for these kinds of data to be public, the Legislature would clearly have so stated. Therefore, because that is not what section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), says, the data in question are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is appropriate. As discussed above, the &quot;value and nature of any employer paid fringe benefits&quot; and &quot;the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary&quot; are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1). Thus, if, for instance, one of the coaches ran an athletic camp or was filming commercials for a particular sponsor and was allowed to do so during time for which he was being paid to work, this would amount to a paid fringe benefit or added remuneration from the University and would be considered public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Lavrusik raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The University of Minnesota complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for &quot;annual athletically related income reports from head coaches Tubby Smith, Tim Brewster, J. Robinson and Don Lucia for the past 10 years.&quot; The data are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 29, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266926</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Financial related data (does not include outside income)</Title><Id>266925</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-027</Title><title>Opinion 08 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268025&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-09-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 834, Stillwater, comply with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to public data about certain applicants for employment by the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 29, 2008; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 14, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated August 13, 2008, from David C. Lorenz. In his letter, Mr. Lorenz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data Independent School District 834, Stillwater, maintains.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Keith R. Ryskoski, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Lorenz&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 18, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Lorenz&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. A summary of the facts follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated July 8, 2008, Mr. Lorenz wrote to the District and asked for the &quot;names, addresses and all related public information for all the persons that have been selected and offered interviews and/or selected and interviewed for the position of Principal of the Stillwater High School during the period March 1, 2008 to July 8, 2008.&quot;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated August 21, 2008, Cathy Moen, Director of Administrative Services for the District wrote to Mr. Lorenz (and copied IPAD), that she was enclosing &quot;the public data regarding the applicants . . .&quot; he requested. IPAD then wrote to Mr. Lorenz, in a letter dated August 29, 2008, asking him to confirm that he received the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 9, 2008, IPAD received a letter from Mr. Lorenz in which he stated &quot;I don&apos;t believe that the information I requested . . . is the same as the list that Ms. Cathy Moen provided to me. I understand that [an individual] was interviewed for the position and [s/he] is not on Ms. Moen&apos;s list.&quot;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPAD subsequently informed the District of Mr. Lorenz&apos;s correspondence, and invited the District to respond. On September 19, 2008, Ms. Moen wrote: &quot;[the individual named by Mr. Lorenz] was not interviewed for this position. In fact, [s/he] was not an applicant for the position. The information initially provided to Mr. Lorenz includes public data on all applicants interviewed for the position of Principal at Stillwater Area High School.&quot;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              Based on Mr. Lorenz&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Did Independent School District 834, Stillwater, comply with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to public data about certain applicants for employment by the District?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees or applicants for employment by a government entity. Certain personnel data are public under subdivisions 2 and 3; subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private. Pursuant to subdivision 3:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Except for [undercover law enforcement officers], the following personnel data on current and former applicants for employment by a government entity is public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. Names of applicants shall be private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, &quot;finalist&quot; means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District provided Mr. Lorenz with public data on five individuals. According to Ms. Moen, the list is complete, i.e., it contains the names and other public data of every individual who was selected to be interviewed for the position of principal. (Mr. Lorenz asked for addresses of the finalists, which are not public.) The individual named by Mr. Lorenz was not an applicant for the position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Lorenz raised is as follows:
                    
									&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Independent School District 834, Stillwater, complied with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, in its response to a request for access to public data about certain applicants for employment by the District.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Dana B. Badgerow
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 29, 2008
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268025</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-026</Title><title>Opinion 08 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267846&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-09-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the $22,000 CD that was cashed in August 2006?
Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the money showed on November 7, 2005, to be in the street fund?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 8, 2008; City of Palisade</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 28, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email, dated July 25, 2008, from Carol Morris. In her letter, Ms. Morris asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data from the City of Palisade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gaylene Spolarich, City Clerk, in response to Ms. Morris&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 6, 2008, were to inform her of Ms. Morris&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 22, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Spolarich.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Morris is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 13, 2008 I requested in writing from the Palisade City Clerk documents showing what happened to the $22,000 CD that was cashed in August, 2006 and documents showing what happened to the $61,614.55 that was in the street fund on a report dated 11-07-2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to the street fund, they are telling me the number in the street fund is wrong. Even if $61,614.55 (the ending balance) isn&apos;t the correct number, based on several other account balance sheets I sent you dating from 12-31-02 through 10-31-04, I know it was $64,390.75 as of October 31, 2004. These balance sheets were given out at council meetings. I am tired of arguing over the exact amount in the street fund, I just know there was a sum of money in there and I want to know where it went.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I submitted my request for these items and clarified it again in my June 12, 2008 letter of request. Now I have only received a deposit slip showing the $22,000 deposit and the clerk&apos;s letter of explanation. I do not think they have responded appropriately and would like an advisory opinion. On document &apos;A,&apos; which they sent me, it states that the money went into two places and the deposit slip shows the entire amount going into one place. Why aren&apos;t there two deposit slips? Document &apos;C,&apos; from [the city auditor] to Gaylene Spolarich specifically states the money was deposited into two separate accounts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Morris&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the $22,000 CD that was cashed in August 2006?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the money showed on November 7, 2005, to be in the street fund?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the $22,000 CD that was cashed in August 2006?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In responding to a data request, a government entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requestor is denied access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires government entities to create records that document their official activities. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 138.17, official records must be kept for time periods as prescribed in the entity&apos;s record retention schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her July 14, 2008, letter to Ms. Morris, Ms. Spolarich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The investments that are made can be assigned to any account, when the $22,000 CD was cashed in, it was assigned to the sewer account but in fact was partial general fund as well as partial sewer account. The sewer account costs the City $27,600 annually for the operator and debt that was incurred, that does not include maintenance when a pump is an issue. If I had to track the flow of money, the $22,000 wouldn&apos;t come close to the debt that has been incurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The reason for an annual audit is to assure that government funds are spent properly, if there was a problem with how monies were spent, the annual audits would show the discrepancies because all payments are generated by invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Spolarich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The comment that the money should go into separate accounts, the city has one checking account which all fire funds, water/sewer payments, community center rental, grant monies, state county funding are deposited into, therefore, when the audit is conducted on an annual basis, the monies are then separated into the accounts they belong to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Morris asked for data documenting what happened to the $22,000 CD that was deposited into the City&apos;s account. The City responded by providing a copy of the canceled check that shows the money was deposited. In her July 14, 2008, letter to Ms. Morris, Ms. Spolarich wrote that the CD &quot;was assigned to the sewer account but in fact was partial general fund as well as partial sewer account.&quot; In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Spolarich stated that the City has one checking account and &quot;when the audit is conducted on an annual basis, the monies are then separated into the accounts they belong to.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, section 15.17, requires that government entities create and maintain official records. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states that access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Thus, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be accessible pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Ms. Spolarich seems to be saying that the $22,000, while placed only in one bank account, was allocated to specific City programs. The designation of these monies to specific programs and how the money subsequently was spent would be an official activity that should be documented and then maintained as long as required by the City&apos;s retention schedule. Therefore, providing Ms. Morris with only a copy of the canceled check is not an appropriate response under Chapter 13 and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Palisade comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the money showed on November 7, 2005, to be in the street fund?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her July 14, 2008, letter to Ms. Morris, Ms. Spolarich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The CTAS balance you continue to refer to, should have gone into the Fire Department account, they generate $40,000+ from fire contracts, as you can see on the CTAS report, the Fire Department has no beginning balance. It is impossible for the street account to have that much in it when we are assessed approximately $6,000 annually and over half of that is paid out for snow maintenance and does not include other expenses such as lighting and repairs done to the street equipment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Morris asked for data that document what happened to money listed in a November 7, 2005, document to have been in the street fund. Ms. Morris provided the Commissioner with a copy of the November 7 document and the ending balance is shown as $61,614.55. As discussed above, pursuant to Chapter 13, the City needed to give Ms. Morris the data or inform her that the data do not exist. The City has not done this. Further, as the data at issue here are similar to the data discussed in Issue 1, if the City does not have the data, it is not in compliance with the requirements of section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Morris raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Palisade did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the $22,000 CD that was cashed in August 2006.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Palisade did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a request for data documenting what happened to the money showed on November 7, 2005, to be in the street fund. Additionally, if the City does not have any data, it is not in compliance with section 15.17.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 8, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267846</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Relationship to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266647</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records Management Act statute (138.17) (See also: Official Records Act)</Title><Id>266521</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-025</Title><title>Opinion 08 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267556&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-09-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data Independent School District 877, Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose, maintains: the addresses and home telephone numbers of individuals who have participated in community education classes offered by the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 4, 2008; School District 877 (Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 11, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Maureen Martell, Director of Human Resources for Independent School District 877, Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose. In her letter, Ms. Martell asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District received a request for the addresses and home telephone numbers of individuals who have participated in its community education classes. Ms. Martell asked whether community education programs are classified under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and if the data are public &quot;directory information&quot; data per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Martell&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data Independent School District 877, Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose, maintains: the addresses and home telephone numbers of individuals who have participated in community education classes offered by the District?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, &quot;directory information&quot; means &quot;information contained in an education record of a student...&quot; (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under federal law, a &quot;student&quot; is a person who is or has been &quot;in attendance&quot; at an educational agency or institution. Section 13.32, subdivision 1(c), defines &quot;student&quot; as &quot;an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered . . . at a public educational agency or institution . . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that individuals who enroll in community education programs are not &quot;students&quot; as that term is defined under state and federal law. Those individuals, both adults and children, take classes (e.g., gymnastics, knitting, etc.), that are administered by public school districts, but they are not &quot;in attendance&quot; or &quot;enrolled&quot; at the District, as those terms are commonly understood. Accordingly, data about community education program participants are not classified under section 13.32.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548 classifies as private the name, address, telephone number and certain other data collected and maintained by political subdivisions for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs. The Commissioner is of the opinion that data about community education program participants are the kind of data the Legislature intended to classify under section 13.548.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Martell raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.548, the following data Independent School District 877, Buffalo-Hanover-Montrose, maintains, are classified as private: the addresses and home telephone numbers of individuals who have participated in community education classes offered by the District.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 4, 2008&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267556</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Community education data</Title><Id>267127</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Social recreational data (13.548 / 13.57)</Title><Id>267116</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-024</Title><title>Opinion 08 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267467&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-08-26T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data when they are not collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the City of Buffalo, but are collected and maintained by GovDelivery, a privately owned and operated software service company, for the purpose of transferring important city alerts and notifications to registrants on behalf of the City?
If the data collected and maintained by GovDelivery are classified as government data, are they protected by the Data Practices Act, more specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.15?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> August 26, 2008; City of Buffalo</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notes: In 2013 the Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.356 which classifies as private certain personal contact and online account information&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 21, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated July 17, 2008, from Melissa Mogen, on behalf of the City of Buffalo. In her letter, Ms. Mogen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Mogen is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Buffalo maintains a government Web site on the City&apos;s server that contains information regarding various city issues, events, and projects. To improve communication with citizens, the Web site includes a link entitled &quot;E-mail Updates&quot; that utilizes e-mail to deliver important alerts, announcements, and updated information that are time sensitive and that are already published on the City&apos;s Web site. To service the automated e-mail subscription management system, the City has entered into a contract with GovDelivery, Inc., a privately owned and operated corporation .... The automated e-mail notification system works seamlessly with the City&apos;s Web site. GovDelivery watches the City&apos;s Web site and automatically sends appropriate e-mails when relevant changes are made to the Web site content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When an individual clicks on the &quot;E-mail Updates&quot; link, they are redirected to GovDelivery. In order to issue alerts, GovDelivery collects and maintains the registrant&apos;s personal information including their private e-mail address and cellular telephone number. Pursuant to the service contract, GovDelivery never shares information gathered through government service clients with third parties. The City of Buffalo does not collect, create, receive, maintain, or disseminate any of the e-mail addresses or cellular telephone numbers. Additionally, although the GovDelivery contract grants ownership of the user information to the City, the City has never received or maintained a copy of the data in any form, and just three people in the city have access to view the data only by logging into the GovDelivery computer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 21, 2008, the City of Buffalo received a request for a copy of the list of e-mail addresses for all registrants of the &quot;E-mail Updates&quot; link. The request alleges that the e-mail addresses are public data .... The City denied the request stating that the e-mail addresses relating to the &quot;E-mail Update&quot; service were not public data permitted to be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Mogen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data when they are not collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the City of Buffalo, but are collected and maintained by GovDelivery, a privately owned and operated software service company, for the purpose of transferring important city alerts and notifications to registrants on behalf of the City?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the data collected and maintained by GovDelivery are classified as government data, are they protected by the Data Practices Act, more specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.15?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data when they are not collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the City of Buffalo, but are collected and maintained by GovDelivery, a privately owned and operated software service company, for the purpose of transferring important city alerts and notifications to registrants on behalf of the City?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Mogen discusses that the City contracts with GovDelivery, a non-governmental entity. The Commissioner has not seen the contract. Ms. Mogen&apos;s description of the contractual relationship is that GovDelivery monitors the City&apos;s website and sends out email updates and alerts to individual subscribers. To provide this service on behalf of the City, GovDelivery collects and maintains certain subscriber information, including email addresses and cellular telephone numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Frequently, government entities (subject to Chapter 13) contract with non-government organizations (not subject to Chapter 13) to perform functions on their behalf. Chapter 13 discusses these contractual relationships in several provisions, the most recent and comprehensive of which is in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11. This provision went into effect on August 1, 1999. It states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, pursuant to its contract with the City, GovDelivery, on behalf of the City, collects certain data from people. The data, then, are government data, subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City argues the data could be classified as not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.15. The Commissioner disagrees and does not think section 13.15 applies. Section 13.15 classifies &lt;em&gt;electronic access data&lt;/em&gt; as not public. Electronic access data are defined as, &quot;data created, collected, or maintained &lt;em&gt;about a person&apos;s access&lt;/em&gt; to a government entity&apos;s computer for the purpose of: (1) gaining access to data or information; (2) transferring data or information; or (3) using government services.&quot; [Emphasis added.] The Commissioner&apos;s understanding is that this section classifies the following types of data about a person accessing a government computer: the IP (internet protocol) address of the person&apos;s computer, cookie information related to the person&apos;s internet browsing, geographic information of the person&apos;s computer, duration of time at the government website, person&apos;s activity on the government&apos;s website, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation Ms. Mogen presented, the data in question are not data about the individuals&apos; access to a computer. Rather, they are data related to the data subjects wanting a service from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the data classified by section 13.15 are typically not provided by the data subject. They are data unintentionally provided by the data subject during that person&apos;s access to a government computer. In the situation before the Commissioner, the data subjects intentionally provided their email addresses and/or cellular phone numbers to GovDelivery, as it acted on behalf of the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s conclusion is further buttressed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267156&quot; title=&quot;01-093&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-093&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, the District is producing an electronic newsletter. The District has collected the data in question because the subjects of the data wish to receive a copy of the newsletter. There is no provision in Chapter 13 or another statute that classifies these data as anything other than public. Therefore, the names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the subscribers are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City (via GovDelivery) collected the subscriber information because the subjects of the data wish to receive notice of updates to and alerts from the City&apos;s website. There is no provision in Chapter 13 or another statute that classifies these data as anything other than public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; If the data collected and maintained by GovDelivery are classified as government data, are they protected by the Data Practices Act, more specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.15?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Mogen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data collected by GovDelivery as part of its contract with the City of Buffalo are public government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 26, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267467</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Computer data (13.15)</Title><Id>266631</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Subscriber information (e.g., email address, name)</Title><Id>266610</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-023</Title><title>Opinion 08 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267490&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-08-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 192, Farmington, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for a copy of its Superintendent’s employment contract?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 26, 2008; School District 192 (Farmington)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 14, 2008, IPAD received an e-mailed letter, dated July 13, 2008, from Timothy S. Burke. In his letter, Mr. Burke asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data Independent School District 192, Farmington, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rosalyn Pautzke, Director of Administrative Services for the District, in response to Mr. Burke&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 15, 2008, were to inform her of Mr. Burke&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. Mr. Jeffrey D. Carpenter, attorney for the District, responded in a letter dated July 30, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the outcome of this opinion may affect the rights of the data subject, Superintendent Bradley L. Meeks, the Commissioner offered him an opportunity to submit comments; he did not. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Burke asked the District for access to a copy of Dr. Meeks&apos; contract in 2007. The District initially denied Mr. Burke&apos;s request on the basis that the data were private personnel data. Subsequently the District provided Mr. Burke with a redacted copy of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Burke continued unsuccessfully to ask the District for access to an unredacted copy of the contract. In July 2008, Dr. Meeks, acting personally, and not on behalf of the District, provided Mr. Burke with an unredacted copy of his contract. The District itself continued to deny Mr. Burke access to an unredacted copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Burke&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 192, Farmington, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for a copy of its Superintendent&apos;s employment contract?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines &quot;data on individuals&quot; as &quot;all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner, in this instance, has had the opportunity to compare the unredacted copy of the superintendent&apos;s contract with the redacted copy the District provided Mr. Burke; she has the following comments. The District redacted approximately half of the data in the contract. Examples of redacted data include statements about state statutes that are applicable to the contract; the duration of the contract and terms of expiration and termination; basic work year; calculation of a per diem salary; statute governing any medical leave; allowable outside activities; time allowed to pursue professional development; severance pay; process for annual evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267791&quot; title=&quot;03-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-008&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), states that the following data are public: &quot;actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursements, in addition to salary.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Legislature intended to make public all of the various types of compensation afforded to public employees and to make public the basis for that compensation. A practical application suggests that each component of an employee&apos;s compensation fits into one of the categories the Legislature included in subdivision 2(a)(1). For purposes of this opinion, the commissioner will limit his remarks to a discussion of two categories: actual gross salary and added remuneration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears to the Commissioner that actual gross salary describes that portion of an employee&apos;s compensation which is fixed and paid on a regular basis. It follows that the basis for a change in an employee&apos;s actual gross salary also is public because the underlying reasons for any such change are public, e.g., a change in the contract of the employee&apos;s bargaining unit, a change in the employee&apos;s length of service, a change in the employee&apos;s job title.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data about any remuneration an employee receives in addition to his/her actual gross salary also are public. Added remunerations, as opposed to actual gross salary, are not necessarily fixed or regular, e.g., merit increases, overtime pay. In addition to the dollar amount of any added remuneration, a description of the type of remuneration also is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267791&quot; title=&quot;03-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-008&lt;/a&gt;, each component of an employee&apos;s total compensation fits into one of the categories the Legislature included in subdivision 2(a)(1), namely, &quot;actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursements, in addition to salary.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267791&quot; title=&quot;03-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-008&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the terms and conditions of employment that apply to a bargaining unit are public. Here, the data are comparable even though they apply to a class of one, i.e., the District&apos;s superintendent. However, the District redacted the contract so that it is not possible for the public to determine the basis for the superintendent&apos;s total compensation, including gross salary, value and nature of fringe benefits, and any added remuneration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is one section of the contract that does not relate in some way to the basis for the District superintendent&apos;s compensation. Section IX (F) states that the District School Board shall evaluate the superintendent at least annually, and describes generally the process the Board will follow. Clearly, as part of a collective bargaining agreement this kind of data is public, but it doesn&apos;t fit the language that describes public data on individuals under section 13.43. However, as noted, the data in Section IX (F) of the contract are data that describe the general process the District uses to evaluate its superintendent, not specific performance evaluation data about Dr. Meeks. The data are not data on individuals as defined under section 13.02, subdivision 5, and are therefore public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District erred when it denied Mr. Burke access to the full contents of the contract; it should not have redacted any data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Burke raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 192, Farmington, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a request for a copy of its Superintendent&apos;s employment contract.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 26, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267490</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment</Title><Id>266740</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment contract</Title><Id>266741</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-022</Title><title>Opinion 08 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266639&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-08-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies: property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 12, 2008; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.0976, supersedes the conclusion the Commissioner reached here. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266903&quot; title=&quot;09-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;09-002&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 14, 2008, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received an email dated same, from Chad Staul, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Staul asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Staul provided them is as follows. In his opinion request he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul does not run or maintain a public electric utility. The City residents have those needs met by privately owned companies. Those privately owned companies have turned down requests from the public to disclose all property addresses (presumably residential and commercial) that have gone without power for more than thirty days. The reason for the power shut off has not been specifically requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Those private electric companies, however, are required by Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 46 (enclosed with this email) to provide this information to the City&apos;s code enforcement department for the purposes of allowing the City to monitor these properties in accordance with it policies. (This chapter has been in force in some manner since September 20, 1988)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The city now has this data and a request is being made on the City to provide all of the property addresses that have gone without power for more than thirty days. This amounts to potentially hundreds of addresses within the City of Saint Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.685 classifies data on customers of municipal electric utilities as private and nonpublic data. However, there is no similar exception for data on customers of a privately owned electric utility that comes to a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Staul&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies: property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1)
&lt;p&gt;Although data on customers of municipal electric utilities are classified as private pursuant to section 13.685, the data at issue here are neither coming to the City of Saint Paul from a municipal electric company nor does the City run or own a municipal electric utility. Therefore, the data in question are not classified by section 13.685.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather, the City is collecting the data in question from privately owned utility companies. The ordinance cited by Mr. Staul requires that the utilities provide the following data to the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a notice whenever service has been discontinued for any reason for a period of thirty (30) days. The notice shall include the reason for the discontinuation of service.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Saint Paul Legislative Code, section 46.02)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Once the property address and reason for discontinuation data are in the City&apos;s possession, they are government data. Because there is no statutory provision that classifies these data as anything other than public, they are public. This is the case for data about both residential and commercial properties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Staul raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: the property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 12, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266639</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T20:51:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-021</Title><title>Opinion 08 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266870&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-08-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In a situation where bids are opened and tabulated by designated city personnel prior to the Vadnais Heights City Council deciding to award the contract, what is the classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, of the bids and accompanying materials of each bidder when (1) the bids are opened and ranked by City personnel and (2) when the City Council awards the contract?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> August 8, 2008; City of Vadnais Heights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 26, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated June 25, 2008, from Caroline Bell Beckman, an attorney representing the City of Vadnais Heights. In her opinion request, Ms. Beckman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Beckman provided them is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you know, Minn. Stat. section 429.041 Subd. 1 requires the city to obtain competitive bids for projects over [$50,000]. Pursuant to that statute, the bids are open [sic] by designated city officers and consulting engineers, and tabulated (ranked) in advance of the future meeting where the council will decide whether to accept the bid of the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids. Obviously, some time elapses between the time that the bids are tabulated and ranked, and the time that the council takes action as indicated above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A question has risen as to when the bids and accompanying material of each bidder becomes public data. Minnesota Statute section 13.591 Subd. 3(a) states that all data in a bidder&apos;s response to a bid are private or non-public data until &quot;completion of the selection process,&quot; which is defined as when &quot;the government entity has completed its evaluation and has ranked the responses,&quot; after which all remaining data by all bidders are public, with certain exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Beckman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where bids are opened and tabulated by designated city personnel prior to the Vadnais Heights City Council deciding to award the contract, what is the classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, of the bids and accompanying materials of each bidder when (1) the bids are opened and ranked by City personnel and (2) when the City Council awards the contract?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, section 13.591, subdivision 3(a), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for bids as defined in section 16C.02, subdivision 11, are private or nonpublic until the bids are opened. Once the bids are opened, the name of the bidder and the dollar amount specified in the response are read and become public. All other data in a bidder&apos;s response to a bid are private or nonpublic data until completion of the selection process. For purposes of this section, completion of the selection process means that the government entity has completed its evaluation and has ranked the responses. After a government entity has completed the selection process, all remaining data submitted by all bidders are public with the exception of trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.591, subdivision 3(a), not until the City has completed its evaluation and ranked the responses do all data submitted by all bidders become public (except for certain trade secret data). Ms. Beckman explained that in the City&apos;s process, certain staff open the bids and rank them, and, at a future meeting, the City Council evaluates whether to accept the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids. The Commissioner assumes that part of the City Council&apos;s responsibility also is to make the final determination as to which bidder is the lowest responsible bidder. This assumption is buttressed by language in Minnesota Statutes, section 429.041, subdivision 1 (Council Procedure - plans and specifications, advertisement for bids), that states, &quot;the council may direct that the bids shall be opened publicly by two or more designated officers or agents of the municipality and tabulated in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered by the council.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because the City Council, not City staff, makes the final decision regarding the bids, the evaluation of the bids cannot have been completed until the City Council has made its final decision. At the point in time the bids are opened by City staff, the name of each bidder and the dollar amount specified in the bidder&apos;s response are public. At the point in time the City Council makes its final decision as to which bidder will be awarded the contract, all remaining data submitted by all bidders are public with the exception of trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is important to note that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (the Open Meeting Law), allows public bodies to discuss not public data at an open meeting without liability or penalty if the disclosure &quot;relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267725&quot; title=&quot;06-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-016&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Beckman raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the point in time the bids are opened by City staff, the name of each bidder and the dollar amount specified in the bidder&apos;s response are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the point in time the City Council makes its final decision as to which bidder will be awarded the contract, all remaining data submitted by all bidders are public with the exception of trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 8, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266870</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-020</Title><title>Opinion 08 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266815&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-08-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority’s (CRA) investigative process: the data described in the CRA’s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d)?
Given the answer(s) to Issue 1, would it violate a data subject’s rights if the CRA disclosed to a complainant the fact that his/her complaint was in whole or in part not sustained, as set forth in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 172.120, and CRA Rule 11 (K) and Rule 12, regarding the complainant’s right to make a request for reconsideration?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 6, 2008; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 6, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated June 3, 2008, from Susan Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Segal asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Lisa Needham, Assistant City Attorney, provided on June 25, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ann Walther, Michael Friedman, Michael Weinbeck, and James Cannon, in letters dated June 26, 2008, to inform them of Ms. Segal&apos;s request, because they had asked for the opportunity to provide comments, which each of them did. A summary of the facts follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Segal wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Via ordinance, the City established [the CRA] &apos;for the purpose of investigating allegations of misconduct on the part of officers of the Minneapolis Police Department and making findings of fact and conclusions based upon those findings of fact.&apos; &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Minneapolis Code of Ordinances [M.C.O.] 172.10. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The CRA&apos;s investigative process includes the following steps:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Receive complaint&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Perform preliminary review and determine whether the investigation is warranted&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-If warranted, investigate complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;-Following investigation, investigator prepares findings and recommends that the complaint be sustained or not sustained&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; M.C.O. 172.70-172.95.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A panel of the CRA conducts a hearing when an investigation is complete, after which the panel must, within 30 days, issue a report containing findings of fact and a determination of either &quot;complaint sustained&quot; or &quot;complaint not sustained.&quot; The CRA must notify the complainant and the officer of the hearing panel&apos;s determination. See CRA Rule 11 (K).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the complaint is not sustained by the CRA, the complainant may, within 30 days, request a reconsideration hearing; the CRA must grant such a request. If the complaint is sustained by the CRA, the CRA must forward, to the chief of police, the investigatory file, findings of fact, and the panel&apos;s determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Segal wrote that under M.C.O. 172.130:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once the file is forwarded to the police chief, the CRA&apos;s role in the matter is complete. The CRA has no authority to take disciplinary action against a police officer. The decision of whether to impose discipline is in the exclusive purview of the police department and its chain of command. Pursuant to the CRA Ordinance, however, the police department is not allowed to revise the findings or determination of the CRA, even if the police chief determines that no discipline is warranted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once the CRA file has been presented to the chief of police, the chief may, at his discretion, impose discipline, determine that discipline will not be imposed, or request that the CRA reconsider the sustained finding. . . . The chief is required to base his disciplinary decision on the facts as determined by the CRA. . . . If the chief decides to impose discipline, the officer is, of course, free to grieve the proposed disciplinary action under the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Segal&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority&apos;s (CRA) investigative process: the data described in the CRA&apos;s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Given the answer(s) to Issue 1, would it violate a data subject&apos;s rights if the CRA disclosed to a complainant the fact that his/her complaint was in whole or in part not sustained, as set forth in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 172.120, and CRA Rule 11 (K) and Rule 12, regarding the complainant&apos;s right to make a request for reconsideration?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation in which someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267431&quot; title=&quot;04-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the word &apos;status&apos; is not defined in section 13.43, or elsewhere in Chapter 13, the Minnesota Supreme Court used the following definition in a recent case: &apos;[a] stage of progress or development.&apos; (See &lt;em&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 652 N.W.2d, 9, 22 (Minn. 2002) (footnote 4).) . . . Thus, the &apos;status&apos; of a complaint against an employee means whether the complaint has been filed, is under investigation, is closed, no discipline was imposed, or similar descriptions of the stages in an entity&apos;s investigatory process. By releasing only data explaining the status of a complaint/charge in response to a data request, the government entity is able to inform the public what it is doing or has done in response to a complaint while simultaneously protecting the rights of employees who are the subjects of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data related to the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority&apos;s (CRA) investigative process: the data described in the CRA&apos;s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Segal:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The CRA has promulgated administrative rules providing more detailed information on CRA processes. Specifically of importance to this request, the CRA&apos;s administrative rules [Rule 6(B)(4)(d)] state that the following information is &apos;status&apos; information and therefore public data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The fact that a complaint has been withdrawn by the Complainant.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The fact that a Complaint has been dismissed.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The fact that a Complaint is in mediation.
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The fact that a mediation agreement has been reached.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The fact that a Complaint is being investigated.
&lt;br /&gt;
6. The fact that a Complaint has been referred to a panel of the board for hearing.
&lt;br /&gt;
7. The fact that a Request for Reconsideration to the full board is pending.
&lt;br /&gt;
8. The fact that a complaint was not sustained, or that a complaint was sustained.
&lt;br /&gt;
9. The fact that a Complaint has been referred to the Chief.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Segal, the CRA&apos;s current practice is that, even though the statements numbered 8 and 9 provide otherwise, prior to a final disposition it does not make public the fact that a complaint was sustained, and that a complaint was referred to the police chief. She wrote that the City considers these data private, because they are data related to &quot;interim pre-discipline steps.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Segal further described the CRA investigative process:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In cases where there is a &apos;split&apos; decision by the CRA - a finding that some allegations are sustained while other allegations are not - the CRA has been directed to advise complainants that &apos;some or all of their allegations were not sustained.&apos; While it could be inferred from this wording that part of the complaint was sustained, the CRA wanted a mechanism to inform complainants when there is a split decision of their right to seek reconsideration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In discussing the implications of the ordinance requirements, Ms. Segal wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the CRA&apos;s ordinance requires all files be forwarded to the chief of police for review, in practice, the only files that have been forwarded are those where a complaint has been sustained. Thus, disclosure of the fact that a CRA file is being &apos;forwarded to the chief for a disciplinary decision&apos; would, as a practical matter, reveal that a complaint has been sustained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When none of the allegations are sustained, complainants are advised that &apos;the complaint was not sustained&apos; as opposed to the statement in split decisions that &apos;some or all of the allegations were not sustained.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Segal noted, the CRA has no authority to impose disciplinary action against a police officer. She stated &quot;[t]he decision of whether to impose discipline is in the exclusive purview of the police department and its chain of command. . . . . [However,] the chief is required to base his disciplinary decision on the facts as determined by the CRA.&quot; Thus, the entire CRA process is pre-disciplinary. Accordingly, until there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the only data related to the CRA&apos;s investigation into a complaint or charge that are public are the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the CRA&apos;s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d), the data described in the statements numbered 1-9, listed above, are all &quot;status&quot; data and therefore are public, regardless whether there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees; in her opinion, some of the data at issue are public and some are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees that the data in the statements numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above are &quot;status&quot; data and are therefore public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One note about the statements numbered 3 and 4, which relate to mediation (complaint is in mediation; mediation agreement reached). According to M.C.O. 172.150 (k), all complaints shall be referred to mediation except under specified circumstances. Given the direction the Court provided in &lt;em&gt;Navarre&lt;/em&gt;, if the CRA at some point decides to provide more details regarding eligibility for mediation in its Administrative Rules, it is possible that statements numbered 3 and 4 might under some circumstances disclose more than the status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The CRA&apos;s process provides that the CRA shall notify the complainant immediately of the hearing panel&apos;s determination. If the complainant disagrees with the decision, s/he has the right to ask for reconsideration. (See M.C.O. 172.120 and CRA Rules Rule 11(K)(4) and (5).) The Commissioner finds this aspect of the CRA&apos;s process problematic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267481&quot; title=&quot;01-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-037&lt;/a&gt;, an entity cannot reveal to a complainant that his/her complaint has been substantiated prior to final disposition of disciplinary action; to do so amounts to a release of more data than simply the status of the complaint. The Commissioner acknowledges that in order to provide the right to reconsideration, the complainant must be informed of the hearing panel&apos;s determination. However, as the CRA process is structured, doing so violates the officer&apos;s rights, as the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267481&quot; title=&quot;01-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-037&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Statement number 7 states that a request for reconsideration is pending. Prior to final disciplinary action, that statement reveals not public data. Thus, the data described in statement number 7 are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Segal noted that despite the Rule, the CRA considers the data described in the statements numbered 8 and 9 to be private. The Commissioner concurs. However, once there is no possibility that the police chief will take disciplinary action, the Commissioner believes it is permissible for the City to inform the public that the matter is closed and no disciplinary action was taken.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the CRA&apos;s investigative process occurs, in its entirety, before the police chief makes any decision about discipline. Therefore, all of the data generated in that process are classified as private, with the exception of the existence or status of any complaint or charge. The Commissioner is of the opinion that the following data enumerated in the CRA&apos;s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d) are public, as they describe the &quot;status&quot; of a complaint or charge: statements numbered 1-6. Statements numbered 7-9 describe more than just the status of the complaint or charge, and therefore are not public prior to final disposition of disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given the answer(s) to Issue 1, would it violate a data subject&apos;s rights if the CRA disclosed to a complainant the fact that his/her complaint was in whole or in part not sustained, as set forth in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 172.120, and CRA Rule 11 (K) and Rule 12, regarding the complainant&apos;s right to make a request for reconsideration?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, it would violate an officer&apos;s rights if the CRA disclosed to a complainant, absent the data subject&apos;s consent, that his/her complaint was in whole or in part not sustained, because at that point in the process, there has been no final disposition of disciplinary action. As structured, the part of the CRA&apos;s process that allows for reconsideration is flawed, because it requires disclosure of more data than just the status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the CRA process was intended to be as open to public scrutiny as possible. However, it must be designed in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Segal raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data related to the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority&apos;s (CRA) investigative process, namely the data described in the CRA&apos;s Administrative Rule 6(B)(4)(d), are classified thus: the statements numbered 1-6 are public. The statements numbered 7-9 are private data prior to a final disposition of disciplinary action.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Given the answer(s) to Issue 1, it would violate a data subject&apos;s rights if the CRA disclosed to a complainant the fact that his/her complaint was in whole or in part not sustained, as set forth in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 172.120, and CRA Rule 11 (K) and Rule 12, regarding the complainant&apos;s right to make a request for reconsideration.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 6, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266815</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minneapolis Civilian Review Board (CRA)</Title><Id>266814</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-019</Title><title>Opinion 08 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267749&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-07-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If School District 544, Fergus Falls, releases data in two anonymous letters that set forth complaints about X, would X’s rights as a data subject be violated?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 31, 2008; School District 544 (Fergus Falls)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 12, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated June 11, 2008, from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her data practices rights relating to certain data that School District 544, Fergus Falls, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jerry Ness, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 16, 2008, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 3, 2008, IPAD received comments, dated July 1, 2008, from Mr. Ness.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Fergus Falls School District has in its possession two anonymous letters submitted to the School Board alleging complaints against [X, a former employee of the District].No disciplinary action resulted as a result of the complaints.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that the [District] has received a request from a third party for the release of the letters. I have been informed via legal counsel that the [District] has made an initial determination to release the letters to the third party requestor. As the employee in question and the subject of the data, I disagree with the [District&apos;s] determination and believe that this data is private personnel data in accordance with Minn. Stat. section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If School District 544, Fergus Falls, releases data in two anonymous letters that set forth complaints about X, would X&apos;s rights as a data subject be violated?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2, correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, according to X, the two letters in question were sent to &quot;the School Board&quot; and the authors did not identify themselves. The Commissioner assumes the District obtained the letters from the school board members. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ness wrote, &quot;Our [District] has reviewed the issue, but we have nothing further to add to the inquiry. We welcome the decision of the Department of Administration.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.601, the correspondence data in the hands of the school board members either are private or public. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 1205.0400, private data may be disclosed to individuals within a government entity whose work assignments reasonably require they have access to the data. It is reasonable that an elected official might need to seek assistance from the government entity with which the elected official is associated to deal with an issue raised by a member of the public. In this way, the school board members would have had authority to share private data with the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the board members considered the data to be public, the members did not need authority to disclose the data to the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue then becomes how the data are classified in the possession of the District. Depending upon the type of data in the letters, it is possible there is a more specific classification(s) for the data than the general classification in section 13.601. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1, provides that when a general provision is in conflict with a special provision, the &quot;two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the Commissioner has not seen the correspondence data, X (a former District employee) stated the data contain complaints made against X. It is likely, therefore, that at least some of the data in the correspondence are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Given the language in section 645.26, subdivision 1, it is reasonable that the data in the District&apos;s hands are classified by specific applicable statutory provisions (such as section 13.43) while the data in the hands of the board members are private unless the board members have made the data public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the Commissioner has not seen the data in question, she cannot make a specific determination of the classification of the correspondence data in the District&apos;s hands. However, given the language in section 645.26, subdivision 1, any data about X in the District&apos;s hands are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine with certainty whether School District 544, Fergus Falls, will violate X&apos;s rights as a data subject if it releases data in two anonymous letters that set forth complaints about X. However, based on Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1, data about X in the District&apos;s possession are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 31, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267749</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-018</Title><title>Opinion 08 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267648&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-07-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?
Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they gather together before each regular meeting behind closed doors?
Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 when they review printed materials at a meeting but do not make those materials available to the public in the meeting room?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 23, 2008; Drug Formulary Committee</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 8, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated May 6, 2008, from John P. Borger. In his letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner, on behalf of his client the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to issue an advisory opinion whether the members of the Drug Formulary Committee (DFC) at the Department of Human Services (DHS) had violated the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). In a letter to Mr. Borger dated May 13, 2008, IPAD requested additional information. The additional information was received by IPAD on June 9, 2008. Mr. Borger submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 12, 2008, IPAD wrote to Dr. William Korchik, Chairman of the DFC. In its letter, IPAD informed Dr. Korchik of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and gave the members of the DFC an opportunity to explain their position. The members of the DFC presented their position in a letter from their attorney, Sarina L. Turner, dated July 10, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Representatives of PhRMA have attended DFC meetings and provided comments on agenda items. In late 2007, Linda Carroll-Shern, Senior Regional Director for PhRMA sent a letter to Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of DHS. In that letter, Ms. Carroll-Shern raised several concerns about how the DFC meetings were being conducted including, among other things, the applicability of certain provisions of the OML. Commissioner Ludeman responded in a letter dated January 2, 2008, indicating that the members of the DFC were not subject to the OML because they do not transact public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Borger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they gather together before each regular meeting behind closed doors?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 when they review printed materials at a meeting but do not make those materials available to the public in the meeting room?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To provide a context for the issues presented in this opinion, a review of the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s general interpretation of the OML is of assistance. The court has recognized several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) &quot;to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences&quot;; (2) &quot;to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed&quot;; and (3) &quot;to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].&quot; &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law &quot;will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. See also &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune Co. v. Univ. of Minn. Board of Regents,&lt;/em&gt; 683 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Minn. 2004). With this background and the Court&apos;s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issues presented by Mr. Borger on behalf of PhRMA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The DFC is a legislatively-mandated committee whose members are appointed by the Commissioner of DHS, a state agency. DHS is directed to provide staff to support the DFC&apos;s work. See Minnesota Statutes, section 256B.0625, subdivision 13c. The part of section 13D.01, subdivision 1 that applies to state agencies is found in paragraph (a). Unfortunately, the layout of the language in subdivision 1 of section 13D.01 and the lack of definitions for some of the terms make the analysis difficult.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before analyzing the language, the Commissioner encourages the Legislature to review the language in subdivision 1 of section 13D.01 both for clarity and to determine whether modifications are needed to address the increased use of committees and boards by state agencies since the language in subdivision (a) was adopted in 1973. As more advice and recommendations are coming from those with expertise or interest in particular subjects through boards and committees, state agencies and other units in the executive branch need clearer direction about when the OML applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The pertinent language in subdivision 1 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) of a state
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) agency,
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) board,
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) commission, or
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) department,
&lt;br /&gt;
when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting; . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both Mr. Borger and Ms. Turner agree that the resolution of this issue is dependent on whether the members of the DFC are &quot;transacting public business.&quot; To better answer this question, some background information is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 256B of Minnesota Statutes is entitled &quot;Medical Assistance for Needy Persons&quot; and is a different program than medical assistance for the elderly. Because the DFC is established in Chapter 256B, it operates in support of the medical programs that serve the needy in Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The individuals appointed to the DFC by the Commissioner of Human Services must meet one of the following credentials:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Three physicians licensed in Minnesota and actively practicing medicine&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;One physician licensed in Minnesota with an active practice that treats people with mental illness&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;At least three pharmacists licensed in Minnesota who are actively practicing their profession&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;One consumer representative&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;An unspecified number of health care professionals licensed in their field with recognized knowledge in the &quot;. . .clinically appropriate prescribing, dispensing, and monitoring of covered outpatient drugs.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See section 256B.0625, subdivision 13c. The committee members cannot be employees of DHS. Subdivision 13c also states that the DFC is to &quot;. . .carry out duties as described in subdivisions 13 to 13g [of section 256B.0625].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The duties assigned to the DFC are as follows. References in the list below to &quot;Commissioner&quot; refer to the Commissioner of DHS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A. Consult about which over-the-counter drugs medical assistance will cover if they are prescribed (subdivision 13).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;B. Review and comment on the drug formulary established by the Commissioner (subdivision 13d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;C. Consult with the Commissioner on the list of specialty pharmacy products that must be obtained from specific providers that have negotiated a lower reimbursement rate with the Commissioner. Covered conditions include: multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, transplantation, hepatitis C, growth hormone deficiency, Crohn&apos;s Disease, rheumatoid arthritis and certain forms of cancer (subdivision 13e).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;D. Review and recommend which drugs will require prior authorization (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;E. Establish general criteria to be used for the prior authorization of brand-name drugs when there are generically equivalent drugs available (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;F. Recommend drugs that should have prior authorization (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;G. Conduct a review of a drug to determine if it should require prior authorization when requested by the Commissioner (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H. When a drug requires prior authorization, receive information on the impact on: the quality of patient care, program costs, whether the drug is subject to clinical abuse or misuse, and relevant data from the state Medicaid program, if available. The DFC must review the drug and hold a public forum to receive public comment (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I. Recommend general criteria to be used for prior authorization drugs to the Commissioner (subdivision 13f).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J. Consult with the Commissioner about additions, deletions and modifications to the preferred drug list which are the drugs that do not require prior authorization (subdivision 13g).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In performing these duties, the members of the DFC apply their expertise to information received and make choices that are then sent to the Commissioner of Human Services for use in providing medicine to the poor in Minnesota that are paid for with federal and state dollars.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question to be answered is whether the members of the DFC are &quot;transacting public business.&quot; This phrase is not defined and so it is interpreted according to &quot;common and approved usage.&quot; Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08(1). Several factors direct the Commissioner to conclude that the members of the DFC are transacting public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, several of the assigned duties have been mandated by the Legislature by the use of the word &quot;shall.&quot; Second, the drug formulary is established without having to comply with the rulemaking process (see section 256B.0625subdivision 13d(a)) and so the DFC provides comment that would otherwise come from the public during the rulemaking process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, Minnesota courts have concluded that the OML applies to a public body even if no decision or action is taken. See &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty Schools,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Fourth, the DFC has been holding its meetings so the public can attend and has allowed attendees to participate in discussions. Fifth, the influence the DFC has on the policies set by the Commissioner of Human Services that direct the provision of medical care to the needy in Minnesota affects how taxpayer dollars are spent and so is public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Evaluating all of the information about the role and responsibilities of the DFC, the impact the members&apos; advice has on the provision of medical care to the needy in Minnesota, and following the Supreme Court&apos;s direction to interpret the OML in favor of public access, the Commissioner concludes that the members of the DFC are subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they gather together before each regular meeting behind closed doors?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both Mr. Borger and the DFC indicate that the members of the DFC gather before meetings to eat dinner. The Minnesota courts have indicated that the OML is not violated if the members of a body subject to the OML are at a social gathering together. &lt;em&gt;See St. Cloud Newspapers,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W.2d at 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Commissioner accepts the statements on behalf of the members of the DFC that no business is conducted during dinner, the best way to avoid the appearance of a violation is to eat dinner in an open area. The Commissioner encourages the members of the DFC to change their dining area so that the public can monitor the conversations of the DFC members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the members of the Drug Formulary Committee in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 when they review printed materials at a meeting but do not make those materials available to the public in the meeting room?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 6 requires that one copy of any materials provided to the members of a public body needs to be available in the meeting room for the public in attendance to review. If members receive data that are not public as that term is defined in Chapter 13, those not public data need not be provided to the public in attendance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger stated that there have been some instances where members of the DFC were handed materials, reviewed the materials and returned the copies to staff. No copy of these materials was provided in the meeting room. When questioned about the practice, Commissioner Ludeman of the Department of Human Services wrote in a January 2, 2008, letter that&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;to the extent that printed materials used by the committees is prepared by contracted vendors, who view their materials as proprietary, and [sic] Department will be unable to make such materials available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response on behalf of the members of the DFC, Ms. Turner indicates that data classified as trade secret would not be provided in the meeting room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that there is a difference between &quot;proprietary materials&quot; and data that are trade secrets. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37 defines the term &quot;trade secret&quot; (subdivision 1(b)) and classifies trade secret data as private or nonpublic (subdivision 2). There are no similar provisions for &quot;proprietary materials&quot; and so those data are public under the presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Borger was unable to provide specific instances where public data were provided to members of the DFC but not to the public attending the meeting, the Commissioner is unable to conclude that the members of the DFC have violated section 13D.01, subdivision 6. The Commissioner encourages the members of the DFC to have staff help them determine if data provided by contract vendors meet the definition of &quot;trade secret&quot; in section 13.37. If the data provided by contract vendors do not meet the definition, then the data should be provided to the public in the meeting room in compliance with subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Drug Formulary Committee are subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Drug Formulary Committee are in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they gather together before each regular meeting behind closed doors so long as they do not conduct DFC business. The members of the DFC are encouraged to gather in open areas rather than behind closed doors before each regular meeting to avoid the appearance of an OML violation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Drug Formulary Committee are in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 when they review printed materials containing data that are classified as not public at a meeting but do not make those materials available to the public in the meeting room.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 23, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267648</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-017</Title><title>Opinion 08 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267838&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-07-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that relate to the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officer Association conference and subsequent DNR investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 22, 2008; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 3, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Sheila Gebhard, on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In her letter, Ms. Gebhard asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the DNR maintains. To her opinion request, Ms. Gebhard attached comments relating to the data classification issue from Paul Hannah, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 9, 2008, IPAD invited Mr. Hannah to submit comments on the issues raised by Ms. Gebhard. He did so in a letter dated June 24, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Gebhard provided them is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 2, 2008, the Minneapolis Star Tribune requested DNR data involving the 2007 North American Wildlife Enforcement Officer Association (NAWEOA) Conference. All public data were provided to the Star Tribune. Subsequently, several news stories were published beginning May 5, 2008, that included alleged violations of state law by the DNR.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a direct result of the news stories the following took place:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;- On May 5, 2008 the Office of the Legislative Auditor notified DNR Commissioner Holsten that an investigation into DNR activities related to the conference would take place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;- A legislative hearing was held on Friday May 9, 2008, to discuss and review alleged violations. At the hearing, DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten informed Legislators that an external firm would also be hired to investigate any DNR employee violations that may have occurred while preparing and hosting the NAWEOA Conference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;- On Monday May 12, 2008, two DNR employees were placed on administrative leave while the internal investigation takes place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;- A contract with the Parker Rosen Law Firm was issued to investigate employee misconduct, effective date May 13, 2008, or as soon as the State obtained all required signatures. All signatures were obtained on May 16.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 14, 2008, the DNR received an email from Mr. Chris Niskanen, Pioneer Press, asking for access to all documents previously requested by the [Star Tribune] that related to the conference and its organizers and attendees, including written correspondence and emails. In addition, the request was for all subsequent documents relating to the conference since the Star Tribune&apos;s request, including documents relating to the investigation of the conference and correspondence among DNR employees about the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gebhard provided a copy of the data request to the Commissioner (of Administration).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gebhard responded to the data request in a May 21, 2008, email:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because of an internal investigation and a legislative audit involving DNR activities relating to the NAWEOA conference, all DNR data related to the conference is currently classified as confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data not on individuals under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Gebhard&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that relate to the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officer Association conference and subsequent DNR investigation?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, the following data are classified by section 13.392, subdivision 1:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained by the internal audit offices of government entities, or persons performing audits for government entities, and relating to an audit or investigation are confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data until the final report has been published or the audit or investigation is no longer being pursued actively, except that the data shall be disclosed as required to comply with section 6.67 or 609.456. This section does not limit in any way:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) the state auditor&apos;s access to government data of political subdivisions or data, notes, or preliminary drafts of reports of persons performing audits for political subdivisions; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) the public or a data subject&apos;s access to data classified by section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.392 classifies data maintained by internal audit offices of government entities or persons performing audits for government entities. Section 13.392 does not define &quot;audit.&quot; Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, provides that words and phrases are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. M&lt;em&gt;erriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines &quot;audit&quot; as &quot;a formal examination of an organization&apos;s or individual&apos;s accounts or financial situation.&quot; Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that government entities can use section 13.392 as a basis to withhold data only when the reason for the audit or investigation revolves around financial issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gebhard did not provide specific information regarding the issues stemming from the 2007 conference. Nor did she state that the DNR has an internal audit office. She wrote that the Legislative Auditor would investigate DNR activities related to the conference and that the DNR had hired a law firm to &quot;investigate employee misconduct.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent the Legislative Auditor&apos;s investigation involves financial matters, the DNR may withhold, under section 13.392, &quot;data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained&quot; by the Legislative Auditor relating to the investigation. Other data are classified as public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent the law firm&apos;s investigation into employee misconduct involves financial matters, the DNR may withhold, under section 13.392, &quot;data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained&quot; by the law firm relating to the investigation. Other data are classified as public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, once the &quot;final report has been published or the audit or investigation is no longer being pursued actively&quot;, any data classified as not public under section 13.392, become public. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined about the status of personnel data in a final report:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes, however, that the situation here is complicated because the Report appears to contain data about District employees. Data about employees typically are classified pursuant to section 13.43 (personnel data). Section 13.392 provides that the data in the Report become public and section 13.43 provides that any private personnel data in the Report remain not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As Chapter 645 provides, it is important to try to give effect to both section 13.392 and section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner concludes, therefore, that if the Report contains personnel data classified as private under section 13.43 - and the District is in the best position to make that determination - those data remain private after the final audit/report is published.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In determining the classification of personnel data in the Report, the District should be mindful of the fact that data related to employee complaints/charges and related disciplinary action are classified by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (4) and (5).Thus, if data in the Report relate to a complaint made against an employee, the name of the employee in connection with the fact that a complaint was made and the status of that complaint would be public. If, in relation to that complaint, disciplinary action is taken and a final disposition occurs (see section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)), additional data would become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Gebhard raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent the investigations by the Legislative Auditor and the law firm involve financial data, &quot;data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained&quot; by the Legislative Auditor and the law firm that relate to the investigation are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data relating to the Legislative Auditor&apos;s investigation become public once the Legislative Auditor publishes a final report or is no longer actively pursuing an investigation. However, data that are personnel data are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data relating to the law firm&apos;s investigation become public once the law firm publishes a final report or is no longer actively pursuing an investigation. However, data that are personnel data are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 22, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267838</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal audit</Title><Id>266795</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-016</Title><title>Opinion 08 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267248&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-07-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regards to a May 6, 2008, request for a copy of an RFP associated with the contract between MDA and the University of Minnesota; and all correspondence between MDA, the University, and any other entity related to the project?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 17, 2008; Minnesota Department of Agriculture</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 3, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated June 5, 2008, from Charles Tyler. In his letter, Mr. Tyler asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner (of Administration), wrote to Gene Hugoson, Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, in response to Mr. Tyler&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 12, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Tyler&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On June 26, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated June 25, 2008, from Commissioner Hugoson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Tyler provided them is as follows. In a letter dated May 6, 2008, Mr. Tyler (using a pseudonym) wrote to Commissioner Hugoson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our firm has been contracted to evaluate the report prepared by the University of Minnesota concerning the feasibility of using E20 as a motor fuel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the May 6 letter, Mr. Tyler referred to a data request he had made on April 28, 2008, to someone at the Department who is not the responsible authority. Mr. Tyler reiterated his request for &quot;a copy of the Request for Proposal associated with the contract entered between your agency and the U of M regarding the feasibility study.&quot; The request also included, &quot;copies of all correspondence between your agency, the U of M, and any other entity related to the project.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Tyler wrote that on May 9, 2008, he received a voice mail message from Doug Spanier, of the Department, informing him that the data had been compiled and that Mr. Tyler should contact Mr. Spanier to arrange for payment and shipping.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a May 12, 2008, email, Mr. Spanier wrote to Mr. Tyler:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our search has found approximately 800 emails dealing with the correspondence between us and any outside entity regarding the E20 driveability [sic] study. My understanding from our I.T. department is that we should be able to put them all on a disk for you; thus, there would be no cost to you on printing, just the cost of the disk, which is .50 and staff time for searching and compiling the data. The total cost is $20. Please remit payment to the address. Once we have received payment, we will send you the disk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated May 13, 2008, Mr. Tyler wrote to Mr. Spanier advising that he had mailed the check.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated May 21, 2008, Mr. Tyler wrote to Mr. Spanier: &quot;What is the status of my data request? The check was mailed on May 15.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated May 23, 2008, Mr. Spanier responded: &quot;We are currently working through the emails checking to see if there is any protected information. We should be able to get the information to you next week some time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tyler wrote in his opinion request that on June 2, 2008, he contacted the Department&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official and did not receive any response. Mr. Tyler also wrote, &quot;As of this date, I have not received the data requested.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Tyler&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regards to a May 6, 2008, request for a copy of an RFP associated with the contract between MDA and the University of Minnesota; and all correspondence between MDA, the University, and any other entity related to the project?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Commissioner Hugoson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 9, Doug Spanier contacted [Mr. Tyler] and informed him that the Department was in the process of determining the extent of the request and to contact him to discuss how he would like the data sent to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Monday May 12th, you will note in the attached email that Mr. Spanier notified [Mr. Tyler] that the Department had approximately 800 emails, and that if he would like to narrow his search to reduce the amount in the request, he could let him know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department received [Mr. Tyler&apos;s] check on the 15th, and division personnel were notified on May 16th to start assembling the request. During the course of the next two weeks, Department personnel had to go through over 800 emails and correspondence to determine if there were any nonpublic data. This information was also on three separate staff computers, so the Department had to also coordinate between 3 divisions and determine how to compile the emails in one place to create one document so that the information could be copied electronically to a disk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 5, 2008, which was 30 days after the official request was received; the Department mailed him the information and emailed him to let him know the Department had sent the information (see attachment #7 email).On June 10th the Department sent [Mr. Tyler] [supplemental information that was inadvertently missed].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In sum, the Department took 30 days from the date of the official request to search and compile the data requested by [Mr. Tyler]. The information included over 800 emails from three separate individuals and involved personnel from three separate divisions. During these 30 days, the individuals involved also had their regular duties to perform.The Department not only responded in a timely fashion, but went out of its way to accommodate [Mr. Tyler&apos;s] questions and concerns about the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Tyler made his request to the Department&apos;s responsible authority on May 6, 2008. On June 5, 2008, the Department apparently mailed to Mr. Tyler some of the data he requested. Also on that same day, Mr. Spanier sent Mr. Tyler an email stating that the data were en route. (The Department sent a copy of this email to the Commissioner of Administration.) Apparently, the Department sent some additional data to Mr. Tyler on June 10, 2008. Assuming Mr. Tyler has received the data from the Department, the Commissioner concludes, given the volume of the data requested, that the Department&apos;s response was appropriate and timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Tyler raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regards to a May 6, 2008, request for a copy of an RFP associated with the contract between MDA and the University of Minnesota; and all correspondence between MDA, the University, and any other entity related to the project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 17, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267248</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-015</Title><title>Opinion 08 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267319&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-07-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Roseville City Council comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at a meeting held on February 11, 2008?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 9, 2008; Roseville City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 16, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated May 15, 2008, from John Kysylyczyn. In his letter, Mr. Kysylyczyn asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether the members of the Roseville City Council (Council) had violated the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, at a meeting held on February 11, 2008. In a letter to Mr. Kysylyczyn dated May 19, 2008, IPAD requested additional information. The additional information was received by IPAD on May 27, 2008. Mr. Kysylyczyn submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 29, 2008, IPAD wrote to Mr. Craig Klausing, Chairman of the Council. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Klausing of Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s request and gave the members of the Council an opportunity to explain their position. The Council presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Ann R. Goering, dated June 20, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council held a regular meeting on February 11, 2008. Agenda item 10 was a public hearing to impose a penalty for violation of laws and ordinances related to the sale of alcoholic beverages. The City of Roseville posts the documents provided to Council members before a meeting on its website. Mr. Kysylyczyn had downloaded the documents for the February 11, 2008, meeting and compared those documents to the ones available in the meeting room. The materials were identical. One of the items in the packet was a recommendation to revoke the license to sell alcoholic beverages due to the violation of the laws and ordinances by the license holder.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the course of the discussion of Agenda item 10, one Council member commented that the recommended penalty was a 30-day suspension of the license and a $1,000 fine. After reviewing a recording of the meeting at home twice, Mr. Kysylyczyn sent an email to the City Manager asking if there were additional documents provided to Council members but not provided to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City Manager responded by providing a copy of an email message he had sent to Council members the morning of the February 11th meeting. The email provided additional information from city staff about Agenda item 10, including a suggested penalty of a 30-day suspension of the license and a $1,000 fine. The email was not printed or provided in the packet of materials available to the public in the meeting room during the February 11, 2008, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Kysylyczyn&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the members of the Roseville City Council comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at a meeting held on February 11, 2008?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before turning to the issue raised by Mr. Kysylyczyn, it is necessary to establish that the Council is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(4), the governing body of a city is subject to the requirements of the OML. Therefore, the Council is subject to Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) &quot;to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences&quot;; (2) &quot;to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed&quot;; and (3) &quot;to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].&quot; &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.,&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law &quot;will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background and the Court&apos;s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issue presented by Mr. Kysylyczyn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The statutory language at issue here is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6. That subdivision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
&lt;br /&gt;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering, the attorney for the Council, argues that because the statute only speaks of &quot;printed materials,&quot; and because the email message from the City Manager was not printed, it did not need to be provided in the public packet in the meeting room. Additionally, she argues that neither a City employee nor the Council itself directed that the email be distributed and so the members of the Council did not violate subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in subdivision 6 does speak of &quot;printed materials&quot; and, technically, an email that is not printed does not fit the commonly understood meaning of that phrase. The Legislature should revise the language to recognize the use of electronic and other types of communication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is not persuaded by Ms. Goering&apos;s argument for two reasons. It would be an absurd result to apply the language in subdivision 6 when the email is printed and not apply it when the email is not printed. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17. Furthermore, taking the argument to its next logical step, public bodies could avoid providing any meeting materials to members of the public by merely sending all communications via email. Given the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s direction in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; to interpret the requirements of the OML in favor of public access and the need for clear requirements to assist with compliance, the Commissioner cannot accept the limited reading of subdivision 6 suggested by the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second argument presented is that neither a City employee nor a member of the Council directed that the email be distributed. This argument fails because the email was sent by the City Manager to the members of the Council. Therefore, a City employee chose to distribute the email and that portion of the subdivision 6 has been satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concludes that the members of the Council should have made the text of the email sent by the City Manager on the morning of February 11, 2008, available to the public as part of the materials provided in the meeting room per the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Kysylyczyn raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The members of the Roseville City Council did not comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at a meeting held on February 11, 2008 when they failed to provide a copy of an email they received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 9, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267319</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-014</Title><title>Opinion 08 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267367&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-06-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) determination regarding a report of alleged student maltreatment public data on individuals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), or alternatively, is the MDE’s determination private data on individuals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11(a), and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(c)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 26, 2008; School District 31 (Bemidji)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 7, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Kevin Rupp and Erin Ische. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data School District 31, Bemidji, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, in a letter dated May 22, 2008, invited the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) to submit comments. On June 11, 2008, IPAD received a response from Amy Roberts, Director of Compliance and Assistance. In a letter dated May 22, 2008, IPAD also invited X, the data subject, to submit comments. S/he did not do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts provided by Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische is as follows. In the opinion request, they wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[MDE] received a report alleging maltreatment of a student by a teacher employed by the District. This report was made pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 626.556. Subsequently, the MDE conducted an investigation into the alleged maltreatment. The School District conducted its own internal investigation as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the MDE issued its determination regarding the allegations of maltreatment. This determination was sent to the School District by the MDE in the form of a letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In its determination, the MDE concluded there was a preponderance of the evidence that maltreatment occurred on the part of the teacher. Based on the MDE&apos;s determination, the School District entered into a Resolution Agreement with the teacher [The Agreement establishes that the District disciplined the teacher. The Agreement also represents the final disposition of the disciplinary action.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District now wishes to determine the classification of the MDE&apos;s report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische provided a copy of the report to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;p&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Education&apos;s (MDE) determination regarding a report of alleged student maltreatment public data on individuals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), or alternatively, is the MDE&apos;s determination private data on individuals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11(a), and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(c)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified (see section 13.03, subdivision 1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische wrote, &quot;The MDE&apos;s determination was clearly used as a basis [of the disciplinary action] and includes data on the specific reasons for the School District&apos;s disciplinary action against the teacher. This analysis would tend to suggest that the MDE&apos;s determination is public data.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The MDE argues that the data in the report are private because Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11(a), classifies as private &quot;all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency or agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report under this section&quot; (See also section 13.03, subdivision 4(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined about the balance the Minnesota Legislature has struck in section 13.43. Of relevance here:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this particular balancing of interests, the public is able to find out that charges or complaints have been made against an employee and how the government entity is handling those complaints or charges. If a final disciplinary action is imposed on the employee, the public will also be able to learn the details of the action itself and why the action was taken, including all data that supports the action. If no disciplinary action is imposed or if a proposed disciplinary action is overturned because the employee grieved a proposed disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement, the employee&apos;s interest is protected because there is very limited dissemination to the public of any details about the allegations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, a final disposition has occurred and the District used the MDE&apos;s determination in the maltreatment report as a basis for disciplining X. In addition, the report includes data on the specific reasons for the District&apos;s disciplinary action against X. As stated above, data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action and the specific reasons for the disciplinary action are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5). Although the data in the report are classified as private pursuant to section 626.556, subdivision 11, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4(a), the data can change classification:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The classification of data in the possession of an entity shall change if it is required to do so to comply with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that any data in the maltreatment report that document the basis for the disciplinary action against X and any data in the report that represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action against X are public data. Remaining data in the report that do not document the basis for the disciplinary action or represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action are private pursuant to section 626.556, subdivision 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes the following. In releasing to the public the data in the report that document the basis for the disciplinary action against X and that represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action against X, it appears the District also would release private data about the victim, and might release private data about other students and District employees other than X. (The District is in the best position to determine whether the identities of these individuals would be revealed.) The data about students are classified as private pursuant to sections 13.32 and 626.556, subdivision 11. The data about employees other than X are classified as private pursuant to sections 13.43 and 626.556, subdivision 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concludes it would be incongruous for the District to release private data about District students and private data about District employees other than X when releasing public data related to the disciplinary action taken against X. (Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, when ascertaining legislative intent, the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable.) Therefore, the District must redact any such data in the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rupp and Ms. Ische raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data in the Minnesota Department of Education&apos;s (MDE) determination regarding a report of alleged student maltreatment that document the basis for the disciplinary action and the specific reasons for the disciplinary action are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5). However, any of these data that identify District students, including the victim, and other District employees are private (see sections 13.32, 13.43, and 626.556, subdivision 11. In addition, any data in the report that do not document the basis for the disciplinary action or represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action are private pursuant to section 626.556, subdivision 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 26, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267367</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data access to the public</Title><Id>266630</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child maltreatment</Title><Id>266465</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-18T18:08:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-013</Title><title>Opinion 08 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267984&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-06-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a request for access to copies of minutes from certain meetings (2003 – February 3, June 2, October 6, November 3, December 1; 2004 – all meetings; 2005 all meetings; 2006 – all meetings; 2007 all meetings; 2008 – January and February) and annual reports from years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007?
Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.04, with regard to providing notice for the past four regular Board meetings (January, February, March, and April 2008)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 17, 2008; Cass Lake Economic Development Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 2, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated April 29, 2008, from Sue Uhrinak, City of Cass Lake. In her letter, Ms. Uhrinak asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding issues related to the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority (EDA).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Pat Finn, Chair of the EDA, in response to Ms. Uhrinak&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 13, 2008, were to inform him of Ms. Uhrinak&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the EDA&apos;s position. On June 4, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated May 26, 2008, from Mr. Finn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Uhrinak is as follows. She wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Cass Lake created an [EDA] with an enabling resolution on May 22, 2002 and adopted its By-Laws September 11, 2002. I submitted a written request to the Chairperson of the EDA on March 18, 2008 requesting copies of the Minutes of their meetings and actions taken by the board. I have received no response as of today&apos;s date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Uhrinak attached a copy of her data request to her opinion request. She further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The EDA is to hold regularly scheduled meetings on the 1st Thursday of each month. For the past 4 meetings, there have been no notices posted at the offices. The EDA holds it&apos;s [sic] meetings at City Hall and there are 2 bulletin boards that are used for postings meetings. I work at City Hall and have never seen any posting for the regular EDA meetings on either of the bulletin boards.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Uhrinak also attached to her opinion request a copy of an April 24, 2008, email from Scott Anderson, the City Attorney. In his email, Mr. Anderson states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a City creates an EDA, as Cass Lake did in 2002 in Resolution 7-2002, it creates a separate and distinct legal entity that is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, with the power to sue and be sued. Minn. Stat. Section 469.091.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, the EDA is a public body. As a public body, and as an authority created pursuant to law and local resolution, it is subject to the requirements of the open meeting law and the data practices act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Uhrinak&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a request for access to copies of minutes from certain meetings (2003 - February 3, June 2, October 6, November 3, December 1; 2004 - all meetings; 2005 all meetings; 2006 - all meetings; 2007 all meetings; 2008 - January and February) and annual reports from years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.04, with regard to providing notice for the past four regular Board meetings (January, February, March, and April 2008)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Anderson discussed in his April 24, 2008, email, Minnesota Statutes, section 469.091, subdivision 1, authorizes cities to establish economic development authorities. Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 469.091, economic development authorities are political subdivisions and public bodies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Political subdivisions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 (see section 13.02, subdivision 11), and public bodies are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1). Thus, the Cass Lake EDA is subject to both Chapter 13 and Chapter 13D. Mr. Finn did not provide information indicating the EDA has appointed or designated an individual to serve as the responsible authority. Assuming that has not happened, Mr. Finn, in his role as Chair, presumably fills the role of responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a request for access to copies of minutes from certain meetings (2003 - February 3, June 2, October 6, November 3, December 1; 2004 - all meetings; 2005 all meetings; 2006 - all meetings; 2007 all meetings; 2008 - January and February) and annual reports from years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Finn wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have only been associated with the EDA officially since possibly September of 2006, and didn&apos;t even become chair until February 7, 2007. And most of the meetings that we held never even had a quorum to officially hold a meeting. So therefore, if there are missing minutes for the past 6 years, then not only were the past EDA secretary&apos;s [sic] not doing their jobs, but the City Clerks as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As far as 2007, when we did hold official meetings, the minutes were left with the EDA file along with the key for the door, at the City Council Chambers at close of the meeting, or dropped off the following day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As far as giving any reports to the City Council, including annual reports, nobody has ever asked for them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In closing, I would like to state that the EDA is still trying to establish protocol.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined that when a government entity responds to a data request, it should inform the requestor that the data do not exist, or inform the requestor that the data are classified as not public, or provide the data to the requestor. Ms. Uhrinak wrote that she had not received any response, which is not appropriate. Here, because minutes and annual reports are public data, Mr. Finn, as the person in charge of the EDA, needs to give Ms. Uhrinak copies of the minutes and annual reports she has requested or inform her that they do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the minutes and annual reports do not exist, the EDA faces some potential issues related to its compliance with the Official Records Act (Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17). As a government entity, the EDA is subject to section 15.17, which requires that entities create and maintain official records. Official records must be kept for time periods as prescribed in an entity&apos;s records retention schedule (see Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17). Both meeting minutes and annual reports are listed in the General Records Retention Schedule for Cities as official records that must be kept permanently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.04, with regard to providing notice for the past four regular Board meetings (January, February, March, and April 2008)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, the EDA Board is subject to Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.04, subdivision 1, prescribes how public bodies must provide notice of their regular meetings: &quot;A schedule of the regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices.&quot; This notice should include the date, time, and location of the meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Uhrinak wrote that the EDA is to hold regularly meetings on the 1st Thursday of every month. She stated that she had not seen posted notices for the months of January, February, March, or April 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Finn wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As far as the second question of posting our regular meeting times and dates, again the clerk&apos;s [sic] were responsible for this as well. Why were they stopped after December 2007? We did change the day and time of our meetings at that time. I myself talked to [the deputy clerk] about the changes and asked her to be sure they were posted. At this point in time, I never thought I needed to walk around with a recorder and tablet to document my every move. Again, the Clerk&apos;s [sic] control not only the bulletin but whether the minutes are maintained as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Finn states the EDA Board changed the day and time of its meetings, but he did not state when the Board meets or provide any information to demonstrate the Board has a schedule of its regular meetings on file at its primary offices. The policy behind requiring public bodies to keep meeting notice schedules on file is so that members of the public, such as Ms. Uhrinak, know when and where the public body is meeting. Here, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the EDA Board has complied with the notice requirement in section 13D.04, subdivision 1. If a schedule of the regular Board meetings is not now on file at the EDA primary office, the Board should promptly prepare one and make sure it is on file for public perusal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Uhrinak raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;1&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Cass Lake Economic Development Authority did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a request for access to copies of minutes from certain meetings (2003 - February 3, June 2, October 6, November 3, December 1; 2004 - all meetings; 2005 all meetings; 2006 - all meetings; 2007 all meetings; 2008 - January and February) and annual reports from years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot; type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Cass Lake Economic Development Authority Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.04, with regard to providing notice for the past four regular Board meetings (January, February, March, and April 2008).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 17, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267984</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-012</Title><title>Opinion 08 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267870&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Carver County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a December 12, 2007, request for the cost justification for its plat map pricing?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 30, 2008; Carver County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 11, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated April 9, 2008, from Elizabeth Sobotka, on behalf of her client, Plat Systems Services, a division of Regional MLS of Minnesota, Inc. In her letter, Ms. Sobotka asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about her client&apos;s rights regarding certain data Carver County maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Ms. Sobotka provided on April 18, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Hemze, Carver County Administrator, in response to Ms. Sobotka&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 2008, were to inform him of Ms. Sobotka&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. Thomas W. Haines, Assistant County Attorney, responded, in a letter dated May 15, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In a letter dated December 12, 2007, Plat Systems asked Carver County for &quot;a cost justification&quot; of its $15.00 charge per plat map.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 3, 2008, Mr. Haines responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Carver County maps are a graphical, spatial representation of data compiled from the records of the Carver County Recorder, Carver County Auditor and Carver County Public Works. These maps include parcel boundaries, transportation corridor centerlines and rights-of-way, water boundaries and Auditor Parcel Identification (PID) numbers. Maintenance of the maps is continuous as new parcels are created through the minor-subdivision process and subdivision plats, roads are realigned and right-of-way acquired and vacated, and as water boundaries change over time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the year 2006 the GIS costs totaled $47,379.00 and there were 902 maps sold at $15.00 per map, representing Carver County&apos;s expenditure in 2006 at $33,849.00. As of mid December 2007, the costs totaled $61,557.00 and there were 850 maps sold at $15.00 per map, representing Carver County&apos;s expenditure at $48,807.00. Please note that these costs only represent base salary; cost of fringe benefits is not included. Based on current and past costs, we believe that the $15.00 fee per map is a minimal expense and are thus in compliance with Minn. Stat. section 13.03 subd. 3 (d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Plat Systems wrote in response to Carver County, in a letter dated March 5, 2008, asking again for a justification of its plat map charge:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Carver County has provided no information to substantiate a contention that the actual or reasonable cost to provide the plat maps to Plat Systems in electronic form is $15.00 per map. Carver County&apos;s response . . . provided limited data regarding its plat maps for the years 2006 and 2007. The data included Carver County&apos;s volume of maps sold, its total revenue from those map sales, and its annual cost of maintaining the maps. It appears Carver County justifies the cost to Plat based on its cost to maintain its system; that is not a permissible basis, as the county would maintain the system regardless whether anyone requested the data under the MGDPA. Carver County&apos;s response did not provide any explanation of the $15.00 per map fee charged to fulfill a plat map data request. Carver County provided neither an adequate fee schedule, nor any breakdown of the actual reasonable costs to create the information such as labor, mailing or material costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Sobotka&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Carver County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a December 12, 2007, request for the cost justification for its plat map pricing?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the government entity may charge the &quot;actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies.&quot; In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a reasonable fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor, any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, according to section 13.03, subdivision 3(e):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority of a government entity that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. . . . . The entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of providing the copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Haines did not provide any documentation of the County&apos;s actual and reasonable cost to provide an electronic copy of a plat map. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267629&quot; title=&quot;04-072&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-072&lt;/a&gt; for further discussion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to charging actual, reasonable costs to provide an electronic copy of data, sometimes a government entity may charge an add-on fee. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, pursuant to section 13.03, when an individual requests copies of data, the government entity may charge certain actual costs related to providing copies of the data. If the data have commercial value, and the request otherwise fulfills the criteria set forth under section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), the entity may charge an additional fee. However, the entity must be able to demonstrate that any such additional fee relates to the actual development costs of the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haines described the County&apos;s on-going labor costs to update the data in its system. He did not provide any information about the County&apos;s initial development costs for the system, or how much of its initial costs it has recouped through an add-on fee, or how the current add-on fee relates to its development costs. The County must do so in order to meet its obligation to explain and justify an add-on fee under section 13.03, subdivision 3(d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267664&quot; title=&quot;02-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-004&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that when the Legislature adopted the commercial value add-on fee, it did not intend that a government entity recapture ongoing development/other costs beyond the initial development expenditure. In 1975, [Hennepin] County began the development of the PINS. However, the situation is not one in which the County&apos;s initial expenditure for development of the PINS occurred for 25 years (between 1975 and 2000), after which the County allowed the public access to the database. Rather, as the &quot;1991 Property Information System (PINS) Data Base Product Pricing&quot; document states, &quot;...copies of and direct access to this information have been made available to commercial firms for many years.&quot; The County, in calculating the development cost for the PINS for the period 1975 through 2000, apparently included ongoing costs. The burden is on the County to &quot;clearly demonstrate&quot; that the add-on fee relates &quot;to the actual development costs of the information.&quot; The County has not met that burden. Therefore, the County&apos;s charge is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Haines&apos; response, it appears the County calculates its add-on fee using its on-going labor costs to develop and maintain the plat map data, not its initial development costs for the system. Further, the County appears to calculate its costs to maintain its system based upon the number of plat maps it sells. In addition, Mr. Haines did not provide any documentation of the County&apos;s actual reasonable cost to provide an electronic copy of a plat map, so it is not evident how much of the $15.00 charge is actual cost, and how much is add-on fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For these reasons, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the County has not met its obligation to explain and justify its $15.00 per plat map charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Sobotka raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Carver County did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a December 12, 2007, request for the cost justification for its plat map pricing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 30, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267870</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-011</Title><title>Opinion 08 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267199&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 20, 2008, request for a copy of certain correspondence between the Commission and the Dakota County Court?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 29, 2008; Eagan Charter Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 10, 2008, IPAD received an e-mail from Paul Bakken. In his letter, Mr. Bakken asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to have access to certain data from the Eagan Charter Commission. IPAD requested additional information and clarification, which Mr. Bakken provided on April 22, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dee Richards, Chair of the Commission, in response to Mr. Bakken&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 2008, were to inform her of Mr. Bakken&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Commission&apos;s position. Ms. Richards did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. According to Mr. Bakken:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On or about March 19, 2007, the Chair and Secretary of the Commission sent official correspondence to the Chief Judge of Dakota County. . . . On March 20, 2008, I requested access to this letter under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. The Chair and Secretary have refused this request, claiming that the letter is not a record of the Charter Commission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bakken stated that he is a member of the Eagan Charter Commission, but &quot;I specifically made my March 20, 2008 request as a member of the public, pursuant to my rights under the Act.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a March 21, 2008, e-mail to Mr. Bakken, Ms. Richards wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While Charter Commission files do contain some communication with the court that has occurred [sic] over the years it is by no means a complete record. That complete record of communication is maintained in the official court file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Charter Commission is not required to provide copies of documents that are retained in the official file any more than it is required to provide copies of documents that are retained by the City of Eagan. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the Charter Commission has not received reimbursement of expenses for the past 2 years or so copies maintained by other parties have not been routinely retained. As I previously stated, since the letter to Judge Macklin is official correspondence which will be retained in the official file maintained by the court, I did not retain a copy. I stated I did not retain an electronic version because that is the format you requested. I also did not retain a hard copy. Whether as a member of the Charter Commission or as a member of the public you will need to request a copy of the letter from Judge Macklin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Bakken&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 20, 2008, request for a copy of certain correspondence between the Commission and the Dakota County Court?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously addressed issues related to the Commission, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267352&quot; title=&quot;04-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-059&lt;/a&gt;, which Mr. Bakken also requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated above, for purposes of Chapter 13, a political subdivision includes a commission created pursuant to law. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410, contains the enabling legislation that grants charter commissions their powers and responsibilities. Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that a charter commission, such as the Eagan Charter Commission, is a political subdivision and therefore is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Commission is a political subdivision, and as such, it is required to maintain official records and provide access to those data as requested. Here, Mr. Bakken asked for a copy of a letter Ms. Richards described as &quot;official correspondence which will be retained in the official file maintained by the court.&quot; It is not clear from that statement if the letter is an official record of the Commission. However, the Commission does not maintain a copy. Ms. Richards told Mr. Bakken that he must ask the Dakota County Court for access to it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267352&quot; title=&quot;04-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-059&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed the issue of whether the Commission should be retaining, and providing access to, such data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Felde also advised Mr. Bakken that certain of the data he requested were available at the League of Minnesota Cities, a local library, the District Court in Hastings, and the City of Eagan. Thus, it appears the Commission does not maintain some of the types of data Mr. Bakken requested. If so, the Commission may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the Official Records Act. Section 15.17, subdivision 1, states, &quot;All officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.&quot; Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, &quot;Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17.&quot; Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At least some of the data Mr. Bakken requested, e.g., meeting minutes, bylaws, annual reports, and financial reports, appear to document decisions made by the Commission. Such documentation constitutes an official record, must be maintained pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, and is subject to the access provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bakken submitted a copy of the public access procedures the Commission adopted on January 11, 2006. According to that document, the Commission maintains some of its data, and the Dakota County Court and the City of Eagan maintain various other kinds of data that apparently are official records of the Commission. Data requestors are directed to ask for access at one of the three entities, depending on the specific data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267352&quot; title=&quot;04-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-059&lt;/a&gt;, the Commission is obligated to maintain and provide access to its official records, and must establish proper procedures to ensure that it meets its obligations under Chapter 13. Ms. Richards stated that the letter is &quot;official correspondence.&quot; Thus, it is an official record of the Commission, the Commission should maintain a copy of it, and provide a copy to Mr. Bakken.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Bakken raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Eagan Charter Commission did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a March 20, 2008, request for a copy of certain correspondence between the Commission and the Dakota County Court, as the letter is an official record of the Commission, and as such, the Commission should maintain a copy of it.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 29, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267199</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Obligation to maintain and preserve records</Title><Id>266373</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T17:40:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-010</Title><title>Opinion 08 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267484&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Normandale Community College (part of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 12, 2008, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2008; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 14, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated April 9, 2008, from Anna Mackin, on behalf of Pic-A-Prof. In her letter, Ms. Mackin asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Pic-A-Prof&apos;s access to certain data from Normandale Community College (NCC), which is part of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James McCormick, Chancellor of MnSCU, in response to Ms. Mackin&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 22, 2008, were to inform him of Ms. Mackin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for NCC&apos;s position. On May 2, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kristine Kaplan, Deputy General Counsel for MnSCU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Mackin provided them is as follows. In a letter dated March 12, 2008, Pic-A-Prof staff wrote to NCC and asked for the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the grade distributions for all formal courses at [NCC] for the fall 2007 academic semester under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13].The report would include the following data points:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Course Abbreviation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Course Number&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section Number&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of A&apos;s given by professor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of B&apos;s given by professor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of C&apos;s given by professor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of D&apos;s given by professor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of F&apos;s given by professor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Number of Students that Dropped&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated March 17, 2008, NCC responded, &quot;Faculty grading information is, in part, used to evaluate the performance of instructors. Therefore, this information is private personnel data and cannot be released&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Mackin&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Normandale Community College (part of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 12, 2008, request for access to data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals is defined in section 13.02, subdivision 5, as government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner notes that Pic-A-Prof did not include the names of faculty in its data request. However, the data it asked for were from the fall 2007 academic semester, and the names of faculty and the courses they teach are public data at NCC and presumably published in paper and online directories. Thus, by asking for and obtaining the numbers of specific grades given in specific course and section numbers during the fall 2007 semester, Pic-A-Prof would be able to connect the names of the faculty members to the requested data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kaplan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Course grade information not only demonstrates individual student achievement, but is also data that is collected by colleges and universities from faculty because it reflects performance of assigned work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Grade distributions are sometimes used by [NCC] administrators for faculty performance evaluations, and may assist in identifying competency concerns if, for example, the distributions appear to be grossly skewed - or show all one grade. The timeliness, completeness and accuracy of grades are not unimportant administrative matters that may also be indicative of a faculty member&apos;s performance and factors in review proceedings, including tenure decisions. Thus, grade distribution information on an individual faculty member fits neatly into the statutory definition of personnel data that is collected on an individual because of his/her employment status.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To underscore the point that grade distribution information is &quot;about&quot; the faculty member, it is important to understand how that compilation reflects the individual&apos;s personal and professional philosophy; grading is not simply a scrivener&apos;s record about student performance. Higher education instructional literature identifies two basic grading systems: 1) &quot;criterion-referenced,&quot; where grades are based on objective, pre-determined standards of performance; and 2) &quot;norm-referenced,&quot; where grades are based on a preset distribution of scores (e.g., the &quot;bell curve&quot; distribution), and there are numerous recognized variations for each.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Individual faculty members at [NCC] have significant discretion to select a grading system and variation that he/she believes is appropriate for the discipline subject matter and relevant teaching and learning styles. An instructor&apos;s selection of grading methodology reveals that individual&apos;s considered balancing of all the relevant factors. Grade distribution patterns reflect that instructor&apos;s judgment and determination of an appropriate grading system - exactly the kind of information that the Commissioner has previously declared may constitute private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 4&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue here is the classification of data listing the distribution of grades a faculty member gives for a specific course. Section 13.43 applies and classifies the data only if the faculty member is the subject of the data. If not, the data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Kaplan asserts that NCC collects, creates, and maintains the requested data, at least in part, to evaluate the performance of its faculty members. She stated, &quot;grade distributions are sometimes used for faculty performance evaluations&quot; In addition, in NCC&apos;s response to Pic-A-Prof&apos;s data request, staff wrote, &quot;Faculty grading information is, in part, used to evaluate the performance of instructors.&quot; The Commissioner agrees that when the data in question are collected, created, and maintained to evaluate faculty performance, the faculty members are the subjects of the data and the data appropriately are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Because performance data are not listed as public in subdivision 2 of section 13.43, the data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This conclusion is buttressed by a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision involving the classification of certain data St. Paul police officers collected during traffic stops in eight months of the year 2000. (See &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul&lt;/em&gt;, 660 N.W. 2d 821.) The Court held, We conclude the police officers are the subjects of the data in question and that the data [were] collected because the police officers were employees of a government entity. As such, the data [are] classified as personnel data and [are] not publicly accessible under [Chapter 13]. &lt;em&gt;Id.&lt;/em&gt; at 828. The Commissioner notes that the Court&apos;s reasoning in the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; case appears based on a view that the police officers collected the traffic stop data so the City could evaluate their performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Commissioner opines that to the extent the data in question are collected, created, and maintained as tools for evaluating faculty performance, the data may be protected as private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Macking raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the extent Normandale Community College (NCC), which is part of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, is collecting, creating, and maintaining the grade distribution data for purposes of evaluating faculty members, NCC complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the data requested on March 12, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 16, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267484</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Determining if there is a data subject</Title><Id>267176</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Faculty grade distribution</Title><Id>267177</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-009</Title><title>Opinion 08 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267581&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the unpublished manuscript written by an individual under contract to the Foundation for Minneapolis Parks government data, as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7?
If the manuscript is government data, what is its classification?
If the manuscript is government data and its classification is public data, can the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board refuse to provide copies of the data because it is copyrighted by a third party, private entity?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2008; Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 15, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated April 14, 2008, from Ann Walther, an attorney representing the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon receiving Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the Foundation for Minneapolis Parks (Foundation), the organization that submitted the data in question to Park Board Commissioners. This letter was dated April 29, 2008. IPAD did not receive any response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Walther is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Foundation] is a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation. It is a 501(c)(3) (charitable) organization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In accordance with its purpose, the Foundation contracted with an author to write a book on the history of the Minneapolis park system. The Foundation would hold the copyright to the [book] and would sell the [book] to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In mid-March, 2008, the [book] was sent to print. As a courtesy to the Park Board, the Foundation mailed a copy of the final [manuscript] to each of the Park Board Commissioners on March 29 for their review prior to the scheduled release of media kits announcing the book&apos;s scheduled release to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the Park Board&apos;s April 2, 2008 regular meeting, several Commissioners mentioned that they had received the [manuscript] and some expressed issues about the [manuscript]. One Commissioner also provided their copy of the [manuscript] to the Mayor of the City of Minneapolis. On April 7, 2008, a citizen requested a copy of the [manuscript].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the April 2, 2008 meeting, the printing of the [book] has been temporarily postponed. The [book] has been, and may still be, edited, and therefore, the [manuscript] is not representative of the final [book].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the unpublished manuscript written by an individual under contract to the Foundation for Minneapolis Parks government data, as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the manuscript is government data, what is its classification?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the manuscript is government data and its classification is public data, can the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board refuse to provide copies of the data because it is copyrighted by a third party, private entity?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the unpublished manuscript written by an individual under contract to the Foundation for Minneapolis Parks government data, as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as &quot;all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As described by Ms. Walther, the Foundation is a private, nonprofit corporation. Typically, data collected and maintained by private nonprofit corporations are not subject to Chapter 13, unless there is contract between a government entity and the nonprofit. Here, the Commissioner was not provided with any information to suggest that there is a contract between the Foundation and the Park Board relating to the manuscript or the book. Thus, in the possession of the Foundation, it does not appear that the manuscript or any related data are subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, at the point in time when the Foundation provided copies of the manuscript to the Park Board Commissioners, the manuscript became government data. The Park Board is a government entity and its Commissioners clearly were acting in their official capacities when they reviewed and provided comments, at their meeting, on the manuscripts they had received. Thus, the manuscript in the hands of the Park Board and/or its Commissioners is government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the manuscript is government data, what is its classification?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.) The Commissioner is not aware of any provision that classifies the data in the manuscript as anything other than public. The fact that the manuscript still is in draft form does not affect the classification. As the Commissioner wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267671&quot; title=&quot;02-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-026&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;draft versions of public data are public data.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the manuscript is government data and its classification is public data, can the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board refuse to provide copies of the data because it is copyrighted by a third party, private entity?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267641&quot; title=&quot;02-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-012&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed the issue of public access to copyrighted business plans that a third party had submitted to a city. The Commissioner, basing her conclusion on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ag.state.mn.us/office/Opinions/852-19951204.pdf&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot;&gt;Minnesota Attorney General Opinion 852 (December 4, 1995)&lt;/a&gt;, wrote that the city complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by allowing inspection of the plans, but providing copies of the plans only with permission of the copyright holder.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Ms. Walther wrote that the Foundation holds the copyright to the manuscript and (later) to the book. Thus, based on &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ag.state.mn.us/office/opinions/852-20060714.pdf&quot; title=&quot;Attorney General Opinion 852&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Attorney General Opinion 852&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267641&quot; title=&quot;02-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-012&lt;/a&gt;, the Park Board must allow the public to inspect the manuscript but must have permission from the Foundation before providing a copy to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Walther raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;1&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The data in the unpublished manuscript in the hands of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and its Commissioners is government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, the manuscript is public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot; start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Based on Minnesota Attorney General Opinion 852 (December 4, 1995), and Advisory Opinion 02-012, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board must have permission from the Foundation before providing the public with a copy of the manuscript.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 16, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267581</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspection allowed, copying only with permission</Title><Id>266559</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Includes data not created by maintaining entity</Title><Id>266560</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T20:54:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-008</Title><title>Opinion 08 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266441&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data Independent School District 719, Prior Lake-Savage, received from an individual who is a former employee and current School Board member?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 1, 2008; School District 719 (Prior Lake-Savage)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 4, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Joseph Flynn and Jennifer Earley, attorneys, on behalf of their client, Independent School District 719, Prior Lake-Savage. In their letter, Mr. Flynn and Ms. Earley asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which they provided, after discussion and revision, on March 13, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the outcome of this opinion may affect the rights of the data subject, Mr. Chris Lind, the Commissioner offered him, through his attorney, an opportunity to submit comments. Upon their request, the Commissioner invited Mr. John Borger, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;, and Mr. Mark Anfinson, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt;, to submit comments. Mr. Borger did so in a letter dated March 31, 2008; Mr. Anfinson submitted comments during the time that IPAD was clarifying the issue with the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. Mr. Lind is a former employee of the District. According to Ms. Earley:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District [terminated] Mr. Lind and Mr. Lind did not appeal or otherwise challenge this decision, resulting in a final disposition of disciplinary action. See Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(a)(5). Therefore, it is the School District&apos;s position that Mr. Lind&apos;s termination, as well as the specific reasons for his termination and data documenting the basis of the action, would be public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After his employment was terminated, Mr. Lind was elected to the ISD 719 School Board, and is a current Board member. Subsequent to his termination, he submitted to the District the data at issue here, consisting of two documents ( One and Two ), which relate to his status both as a former employee and as a School Board member. Ms. Earley stated, [a]t the present time, the School District has classified the enclosed data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner notes that she determined that Mr. Lind likely could be identified by a description of the unique circumstances of his employment, termination, and election to the Board, which are public, and therefore will not use a pseudonym. Thus, the data at issue will be described generally; the opinion will not disclose private data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Earley wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the School District&apos;s understanding that as a School Board member, data of which Mr. Lind is the subject, may be classified as personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, depending upon School District policy or practices. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267769&quot; title=&quot;04-064&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;[Advisory Opinion] 04-064&lt;/a&gt;. To the extent this is relevant to the Commissioner&apos;s analysis, the Commissioner should be aware that the School District presently does not have a policy or practice with respect to the classification of data regarding its School Board members. Thus, should the data be determined to relate to Mr. Lind&apos;s status as a School Board member, the School District has not taken any affirmative action to classify such data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To the extent the data relates to Mr. Lind&apos;s status as a former employee, it would appear that the data in question would constitute personnel data if the data is &apos;&lt;em&gt;collected&lt;/em&gt; because the individual is or was an employee&apos; of the School District. . . . The School District did not take any affirmative action to collect the data. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Fylnn and Ms. Earley&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data Independent School District 719, Prior Lake-Savage, received from an individual who is a former employee and current School Board member?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Flynn and Ms. Earley, the District took final disciplinary action against Mr. Lind, when it terminated his employment. There is no dispute that the data in question were created subsequent to Mr. Lind&apos;s firing. Consequently, those data cannot be data that document the basis of final disciplinary action. The District could not have based its decision about disciplinary action on data that did not exist at the time it made its decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the data in the first document, it is the Commissioner&apos;s determination that the data are about Mr. Lind as a former employee and as such, are classified by section 13.43. The data are not among those listed as public in section 13.43, subdivision 2. Accordingly, the data in document One are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Document Two contains data that are about Mr. Lind as a former employee, and data about him as a School Board member. Ms. Earley stated that the District has no policy regarding data about School Board members, which the Commissioner interprets to mean that the District does not consider them to be employees. (&lt;em&gt;See &lt;/em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267769&quot; title=&quot;04-064&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-064&lt;/a&gt;.) Thus, section 13.43 does not apply, and the data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined previously that a government entity is in the best position to determine the subject(s) of the data it maintains. However, Ms. Earley asked for specific guidance, which the Commissioner has determined is possible in this case. Document Two, which consists of two short paragraphs, contains the following statements: . . . a parent group has started a petition drive with the intent to force Mr. Lind from the Board. The petition can be found at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/719cares/. The Commissioner believes those statements relate solely to Mr. Lind&apos;s status as a School Board member, and as such are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Earley and Mr. Borger raised a question which the Commissioner feels obliged to address, although it does not affect the outcome of this opinion. The issue is whether data that are not collected by an entity can be personnel data. Pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data are defined as data on individuals &lt;u&gt;collected&lt;/u&gt; because the individual is or was an employee . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Earley wrote that in 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in the matter of &lt;em&gt;Stephens v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, Co. No. A04-418, 2005 WL 287488 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (unpublished). Ms. Earley quoted from &lt;em&gt;Stephens&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Personnel data is defined as data &apos;collected&apos; on an individual based on the person&apos;s status as an employee. . . . A public agency collects data by taking some &apos;affirmative action . . . to gather or assemble the data,&apos; &lt;em&gt;Westrom v. Minn. Dept. of Labor Indus.&lt;/em&gt;, 686 N.W. 2d 27, 34 (Minn. 2004), not when it is a mere &apos;passive recipient&apos; of the information. &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/em&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993). Because the university was a passive recipient of the letter, the district court properly ruled that the university did not &apos;collect&apos; this data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Earley, noting that the &lt;em&gt;Stephens&lt;/em&gt; opinion is unpublished and, therefore, not precedential, asked whether the decision impacts the issue before the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Borger stated: [a]lthough &lt;em&gt;Stephens&lt;/em&gt; was an unpublished decision and therefore not binding as precedent, its reasoning rested on &lt;em&gt;Westrom&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt;, two decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court that are precedential and that any Advisory Opinion in this matter must follow.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Borger. Government data are classified at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity. Although personnel data are defined under section 13.43 as data on an individual that are collected by a government entity, that section also describes and classifies many data that are, for example, created (specific reasons for final disciplinary action), or received (complaints or charges against an employee). In addition, government entities create, receive and maintain lots of data about employees, including performance evaluations, specific medical reasons for leave, etc., that have always been treated as private personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 4. The Commissioner therefore does not find &lt;em&gt;Stephens&lt;/em&gt; persuasive; to do so would render meaningless most of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In further support of this position, section 645.17, states, (1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable; [and] (2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature may want to clarify the issue by amending the definition of personnel data to include the same language it used to define government data generally, i.e., data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Flynn and Ms. Earley raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the classification of the data Independent School District 719, Prior Lake-Savage, received from an individual who is a former employee and current School Board member, is as follows: the data in document One are private personnel data, pursuant to section 13.43; the data in document Two are a mixture of private personnel data and public data, as discussed above.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 1, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266441</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition - &quot;data collected&quot; interpreted as &quot;data created, received, maintained...&quot;</Title><Id>266440</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-007</Title><title>Opinion 08 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266807&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-05-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 1, 2008; Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 17, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated March 14, 2008, from Lorrie Louder on behalf of the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel (RCAP). In her letter, Ms. Louder asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether RCAP was subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Ms. Louder submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072. In a letter to Ms. Louder dated March 20, 2008, IPAD requested additional information and clarification. Clarification was provided by Ms. Louder in a letter dated April 14, 2008, and received by IPAD on April 17, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Louder is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2007, the Saint Paul Port Authority (SPPA) was provided with a one-time grant for a study related to a steam and electrical energy facility for Rock Tenn, a paper recycling facility in Saint Paul. As part of the grant, SPPA is required to convene a citizen&apos;s advisory committee to advise on the scope of the study. This citizen&apos;s advisory committee is composed of members recommended by four different district councils in Saint Paul and must meet regularly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Louder, this committee is known as RCAP and has developed a consensus process using a facilitator so there is no chair of RCAP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Louder&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To assist in the analysis of whether RCAP is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, some background is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background and the Court&apos;s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issue presented by RCAP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 lists the government organizations that are subject to the OML. These government organizations are referred to as public bodies. Subdivision 1 of this section states, in pertinent part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public: . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) of any&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) committee, . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;of a public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to 2007 Session Laws, Chapter 57, Article 2, Section 3, RCAP is a committee operating under the auspices of the SPPA. The study must do the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) assess the economic and technical feasibility of various fuel types to power the plant;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective economic and noneconomic impacts;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective environmental emissions, including carbon dioxide, and the cost of controlling those emissions that affect human health;
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) describe public subsidies related to the production and use of each fuel type;
&lt;br /&gt;
(5) describe potential energy efficiency improvement that can be made to the paper recycling operations and subsidies available for each improvement; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(6) evaluate additional uses for the steam and electricity produced at the facility and the cost of infrastructure needed to implement the additional uses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Legislature also gave RCAP the authority to issue recommendations on these study topics that are separate from those presented by SPPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All of these functions are actions taken on behalf of citizens who will be impacted by the decisions that are made about providing energy to the Rock Tenn recycling operation. As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; case, these are the types of discussions that should occur in public and any decision should be made in public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next question then is whether the RCAP is a public body and so subject to the OML. The SPPA is a public corporation created in 1929. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 465.719, subdivision 9, public corporations created before May 31, 1997, cannot be exempted from the OML. As a committee of a public body, RCAP is subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Louder raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel is subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 1, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266807</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-006</Title><title>Opinion 08 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267587&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-04-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Stearns County Attorney comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the following data related to a shooting that occurred on January 25, 2008: the names, dates of birth and city of residence of witnesses to the fatal shooting; the name, date of birth and city of residence of the alleged shooter; a brief reconstruction of the events associated with the fatal shooting; the address where the fatal shooting took place; and the transcript of the 911 call reporting the shooting?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 24, 2008; Stearns County Attorney</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 13, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data from the Stearns County Sheriff. Mr. Anfinson subsequently, on February 28, 2008, revised his request so that the involved entity was the Stearns County Attorney. Mr. Anfinson submitted additional clarification on March 5, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Janelle Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 11, 2008, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for her position. On March 24, 2008, IPAD received comments from Marcus Miller, Chief of the Civil Division of the Stearns County Attorney&apos;s office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Anfinson presented them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 25, 2008, a young Royalton man was shot to death at a private home. In response to media requests, law enforcement authorities provided some of the information specified in Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 6 (response or incident data), and Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner supplied additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In its early stages of coverage, the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; formally requested all response and incident data related to the shooting, as well as a transcript of the 911 call reporting it. However, Stearns County Attorney Janelle Kendall refused to furnish some of the information listed in section 13.82, subd. 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After further exchanges, the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; received a letter (dated January 8, 2008) from Marcus Miller, chief of the civil division in the County Attorney&apos;s office. A copy is enclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 8, 2008, letter, Mr. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You have requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- The names, dates of birth and city of residence of witnesses to a fatal shooting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- The name, date of birth and city of residence of the alleged shooter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- A brief reconstruction of the events associated with the fatal shooting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- The address where the fatal shooting took place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- Transcript of the 911 call reporting the shooting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have confirmed that a criminal investigation into these matters is active and ongoing. At this time, your request for the aforementioned active criminal investigative data is denied in whole. Minnesota Statutes section 13.03, subd. 3(f) provides that upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority. . . shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section. . . upon which the denial [is] based. Your request is denied pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subds. 2, 7, 14, and 17, as well as Minn. Stat. section 13.83, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson disagreed with Mr. Miller&apos;s response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Stearns County Attorney comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the following data related to a shooting that occurred on January 25, 2008: the names, dates of birth and city of residence of witnesses to the fatal shooting; the name, date of birth and city of residence of the alleged shooter; a brief reconstruction of the events associated with the fatal shooting; the address where the fatal shooting took place; and the transcript of the 911 call reporting the shooting?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue here is the classification of the specific data the newspaper requested. The Commissioner first will address the classification of data related to the witnesses of the shooting. The names and addresses of witnesses are response or incident data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(g). Response or incident data always are public even if there is an active criminal investigation relating to the incident. However, a government entity must withhold these data if the identities of the individuals qualify for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17. Mr. Miller argued that the County Attorney could withhold the response or incident data regarding the witnesses based on section 13.82, subdivision 17. Clause (d) of section 13.82, subdivision 17, states that a law enforcement agency shall withhold identifying data about witnesses when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;access to the data would reveal the identity of a victim or witness to a crime if the victim or witness specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the victim or witness would not threaten the personal safety of the individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 17 further states, Law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make the decisions described in clauses(d)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller did not provide information to the Commissioner suggesting that any of the witnesses had asked to have their names withheld because they feared for their safety. Nor did Mr. Miller discuss whether the County Attorney has procedures in place to document how they make their decisions when a witness is concerned about his/her personal safety. Without additional factual information, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether it was appropriate for the County Attorney to withhold data based on section 13.82, subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller also cited section 13.82, subdivision 14, as a basis upon which to deny the newspaper access to response or incident data about the witnesses to the shooting. Subdivision 14 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A law enforcement agency may temporarily withhold response or incident data from public access if the agency reasonably believes that public access would be likely to endanger the physical safety of an individual or cause a perpetrator to flee, evade detection or destroy evidence. In such instances, the agency shall, upon the request of any person, provide a statement which explains the necessity for its action. Any person may apply to a district court for an order requiring the agency to release the data being withheld.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, a government entity is in the best position to determine whether this provision applies. When the County Attorney initially cited this section, the newspaper had the right to ask the county for an explanation; the Commissioner does not know if the newspaper did this.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although it may have been appropriate for the County Attorney initially to withhold the names and addresses of witnesses, it does not seem appropriate for the County Attorney to continue to withhold data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 14 after an individual was charged in the incident. The County Attorney appears to take the position that her authority to temporarily withhold the data to prevent, among other things, the destruction of evidence, can continue throughout the criminal prosecution of the individual charged with the shooting unless ordered by a court to release it. The Commissioner does not agree with that interpretation of subdivision 14. Once an individual is charged with a crime, there are other mechanisms the County Attorney can use to address the protection of, or tampering with, victims, witnesses, or evidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The newspaper also requested the birth dates of the witnesses. These data are not listed in section 13.82, subdivision 6, as response or incident data. However, if the County Attorney maintains these data, they are subject to the general presumption in Chapter 13 and are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner next will address the classification of the name, date of birth, and city of residence of the shooter. The Commissioner discussed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267457&quot; title=&quot;00-078&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-078&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is reasonable to assume that witnesses to possible crimes are frequently also suspects. However, as discussed above, arrest, request for service, and response or incident data, including identities of witnesses, are always public. Subdivision 7 provides: [e]xcept for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data . . . is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Accordingly, the identity of an individual, &lt;u&gt;as a witness&lt;/u&gt;, is public under subdivision 6. A law enforcement agency is not obligated to disclose to the public that the individual is also a suspect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the individual who eventually was charged initially was identified by law enforcement as a witness, the classification of his name, date of birth, and city of residence is the same as the Commissioner discussed above. However, if this individual immediately was identified as the shooter, the data about him are public pursuant to the general presumption, and could be protected under section 13.82, subdivision 7 (active criminal investigative data). At the point the shooter was arrested and charged, his name, age, and last known address became public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 2(j) (arrest data).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner next will address the newspaper&apos;s request for access to a brief reconstruction of the events associated with the fatal shooting. These data are response or incident data listed in section 13.82, subdivision 6(f), and are public. It is possible that the County Attorney could exercise her discretion under section 13.82, subdivision 14, and withhold these data, but only &lt;em&gt;temporarily&lt;/em&gt;. For more information, see the discussion above related to the classification of the witness data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner next will address the newspaper&apos;s request for the address where the fatal shooting took place. Section 13.82, subdivision 6(a), lists as public the date, time, and place of action, whereas the newspaper asked for the address where the shooting occurred. The County Attorney responded by providing the name of the avenue in the township where the shooting took place. (This response was dated February 28, 2008, the same day the County Attorney released its statement naming the person who had been charged in the incident.) Mr. Anfinson argued, In our view, where an action occurs at a location having a specific address, that address must be provided, unless an exception otherwise found in section 13.82 applies. The Commissioner agrees; as the County Attorney does not appear to have provided a basis upon which to withhold the address, it should have been provided to the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner will address the classification of the transcript of the 911 call reporting the shooting. Section 13.82, subdivision 4, states, a written transcript of the audio recording [of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from a law enforcement agency] is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 17 (f), states that a law enforcement agency shall withhold public access:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;when access to the data would reveal the identity of a person who placed a call to a 911 system or the identity or telephone number of a service subscriber whose phone is used to place a call to the 911 system and: (1) the agency determines that revealing the identity may threaten the personal safety or property of any person; or (2) the object of the call is to receive help in a mental health emergency. For the purposes of this paragraph, a voice recording of a call placed to the 911 system is deemed to reveal the identity of the caller.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to the 911 phone call, the [newspaper] has never requested that a transcript be prepared and has made no attempt to arrange payment for the cost of preparing such transcript, as required by Minn. Stat. 13.82, subd. 4. More importantly, even if the [newspaper] has requested preparation of a transcript and arranged payment for the costs, the transcript is expressly subject to the protections of subdivision 17. Likewise, to the extent that it contains [response or incident data], the transcript is subject to the protections afforded in subdivision 14 as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller did not provide any information to explain how the personal safety or property of the caller or the service subscriber would be compromised if the County Attorney released the 911 call transcript. Thus, the Commissioner has no basis upon which to agree with the County Attorney&apos;s position that the data were appropriately withheld from the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller also asserted that the County Attorney can withhold the transcript of the 911 call pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 14. As discussed above, this provision permits law enforcement agencies to protect response or incident data from public access. Response or incident data are defined under section 13.82, subdivision 6, as data created or collected by a law enforcement agency which document the agency&apos;s response to a request for service or which describe actions taken by the agency on its own initiative. The transcript of a call to a 911 system is request for service data, not response or incident data. The Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Miller; the County Attorney may not withhold the 911 transcript based on section 13.82, subdivision 14.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following are two additional comments. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Miller cited 13.83, subdivision 4, as a basis upon which the County Attorney can withhold data. (Section 13.83 classifies medical examiner data.) He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the Stearns County Sheriff&apos;s Department is also the Office of the Medical Examiner. Medical examiner data provided to law enforcement agencies remain medical examiner data. While the scope of the request is unclear in this regard, any accurate brief reconstruction of the events associated with the incident would include the cause of death, as well as the findings and essential details of the autopsy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.83, subdivision 1, medical examiner data are data relating to deceased individuals and the manner and circumstances of their death which are created, collected, used or maintained by a county coroner or medical examiner in the fulfillment of official duties pursuant to Chapter 390. Section 13.83, subdivision 4, classifies data collected by a county coroner or medical examiner which are part of an active investigation mandated by Chapter 390. Generally, active investigative data are confidential/protected nonpublic and when the investigation is no longer active, the data revert to private/nonpublic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller did not explain how the data at issue in this opinion are medical examiner data as opposed to law enforcement data. Even if the two functions are being performed out of the same office, the Medical Examiner&apos;s responsibilities are different than those of the Sheriff. For these reasons as well as the Legislature&apos;s clear direction that certain response or incident data (as well as arrest and request for service data) always are public regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation, the Commissioner cannot agree that the data in question are classified pursuant to section 13.83.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is important to keep in mind that pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, any data the County Attorney was protecting as part of an active criminal investigation become public once those data are presented in court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 14, the Stearns County Attorney could have temporarily withheld from public access the names, dates of birth and city of residence of witnesses to the fatal shooting. However, as soon as an individual was charged in the incident, the County Attorney should have released the data to the newspaper, unless the identities of the witnesses qualified for protection under section 13. 82, subdivision 17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the request for the name, date of birth and city of residence of the alleged shooter, the data are not request for service data, but are public pursuant to the general presumption, and could be protected under section 13.82, subdivision 7 (active criminal investigative data). However, as soon as the County Attorney charged an individual in the shooting, his name, age, and last known address became public under section 13.82, subdivision 2(j) (arrest data).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 14, the Stearns County Attorney could have temporarily withheld from public access the brief reconstruction of the events associated with the fatal shooting. However, as soon as an individual was charged in the incident, the County Attorney should have released the data to the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 14, the Stearns County Attorney could have temporarily withheld from public access the address where the fatal shooting took place. However, as soon as an individual was charged in the incident, the County Attorney should have released the data to the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the request for the transcript of the 911 call reporting the shooting, the data are public, unless they reveal the identity of an individual otherwise protected under section 13.82, subdivision 17.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 24, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267587</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary withholding of data (13.82, subd. 14)</Title><Id>266725</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-005</Title><title>Opinion 08 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267863&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-04-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the names of Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) employees who are subject to discipline that is not yet final after DPS provided required notice to the public of a data breach?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 16, 2008; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Due to a legislative change in 2014, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, now applies to all government entities.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated same, from E. Joseph Newton, General Counsel for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). In his letter, Mr. Newton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data DPS maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon receiving Mr. Newton&apos;s opinion request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the DPS employees whose data are at issue in this opinion. The letters invited the employees to submit comments because their rights could be affected by the outcome of the opinion. The Commissioner did not receive any responses. A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Newton is as follows. In the opinion request, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[DPS] has received two separate requests for certain data related to, an investigation and data breach. Specifically, DPS undertook an audit of use of drivers license data and application data maintained on Minnesota residents applying for a driver&apos;s license. The data is collected under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 171 and is classified as private data under 18 U.S.C. section2721. The audit uncovered misuse by two DPS employees. DPS complied with Minnesota law relative to unauthorized use of the data. See Minn. Stat. section13.055. As required, under law, DPS notified affected individuals that certain data had been accessed, identified the specific data. DPS also issued a press release with the same information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS also sought to discipline the employees and as of the date of this letter the discipline is not considered final under Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Two individuals requested the names of the employees subject to the investigation and documents in reference to them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS takes the position that the names are private data. On the one hand, DPS is required to notify individuals of a data breach. By its very nature, the notice must go into some detail for it to be meaningful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DPS is also required to maintain certain personnel data as private under the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Members of the public should not be able to use the statutorily mandated data to receive what would otherwise be private data under a separate statute. To do so eviscerates the private rights of state employees, mandated by Minn. Stat. section13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Newton&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the names of Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) employees who are subject to discipline that is not yet final after DPS provided required notice to the public of a data breach?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public except as otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation in which someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following additional data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has described the legislative policy behind the language in section 13.43:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The current language balances two strongly competing interests. The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Newton stated that a final disposition has not occurred. Typically, at this point in an investigation into a complaint, the following data would be public: the employee&apos;s name connected with fact that a complaint exists against that employee and the status of complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the situation here is complicated because the complaint against the employees is an unauthorized use of data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A state agency that collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates private or confidential data on individuals must disclose any breach of the security of the data following discovery or notification of the breach. Notification must be made to any individual who is the subject of the data and whose private or confidential data was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See section 13.055, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DPS was required, under section 13.055, to provide notification of the security breach. The information DPS provided as part of that process, in effect, disclosed the nature of the complaint against the employees. If DPS now were to release publicly the names of the employees, the employees&apos; rights under section 13.43 would be violated because there has not been a final disposition of discipline in the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, discusses how to interpret statutory provisions that are in conflict. Subdivision 1 of section 645.26 states that when the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session. Here, section 13.055 required disclosure of the nature of the complaint prior to a final disposition having occurred at DPS, which, when the name of the employee is public, is in direct conflict with the classification of data in section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in section 13.055 was enacted during the 2005 Legislative Session. The language relating to complaints/disciplinary action was enacted prior to 2005. Based on the above analysis, the Commissioner concludes that because DPS has released the nature of the complaint, it cannot, at this time, release the names of the employees. DPS can release the names if a final disposition occurs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two final notes are appropriate. First, section 13.055 applies only to state agencies. Although local level governments voluntarily may wish to notify data subjects of any data breaches that occur, they need to consider the conclusions reached in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267860&quot; title=&quot;98-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-024&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267660&quot; title=&quot;01-063&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-063&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002): section 13.43 authorizes only the disclosure of existence and status of complaints prior to a final disposition of discipline; the type of complaint cannot be disclosed. In the situation currently before the Commissioner, DPS, as a state agency, was required to provide notice of the data breach.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the issue DPS raised is one that deserves legislative discussion, especially given the difference in outcome depending upon whether the entity is part of state or local government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Newton raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes sections 13.055 and 13.43, the names of Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) employees are private unless there is a final disposition pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 16, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267863</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Breach of security data (13.055)</Title><Id>266480</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Names of employees</Title><Id>266917</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-004</Title><title>Opinion 08 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266860&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-04-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the following data: the names of all retirees and dependents who currently receive &quot;free&quot; retiree health care from their employment with the City; and the total value and nature of health care benefits each person has received?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 11, 2008; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 12, 2008, IPAD received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Duluth. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Anfinson provided on February 22, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Hall, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Duluth, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 29, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. M. Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney, responded, in a letter dated March 6, 20008. Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Lutterman enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In a letter dated November 5, 2007, Brandon Stahl, a &lt;em&gt;News Tribune&lt;/em&gt; reporter, asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;* The names of all retirees and dependants [sic] who currently receive free retiree health care from their employment with the City of Duluth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;* The total value and nature of health care benefits each person has received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 2007, the City responded that because the requested data are not included in the data listed as public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), the data are private according to subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 4, 2007, Mr. Stahl asked the City for an explanation of its denial, and repeated his request for the data described above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 28, 2007, Ms. Lutterman wrote to Mr. Stahl:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I reiterate the City&apos;s earlier position. While the names of former employees may be public, the fact that they retired is not listed as data that is public [citation omitted.] Therefore, to give you the names of former City employees who receive retiree benefits would disclose whether a former employee retired. The City can provide the types and value of benefits a retiree receives but cannot disclose the name associated with that information. For example, the City can indicate the public data for Employee No. 1, but cannot provide the name of that employee. In addition, the statute does not identify dependent data as public; therefore, the names of dependents who receive retiree benefits cannot be disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Duluth comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the following data: the names of all retirees and dependents who currently receive free retiree health care from their employment with the City; and the total value and nature of health care benefits each person has received?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private, and also states [d]ata pertaining to an employee&apos;s dependents are private data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the data on current and former employees that are classified as public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1) are: name; actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our position can be simply stated. Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(a) appears quite clearly to classify as public certain specified personnel data on current and former employees. Among the data expressly classified as public in paragraph (1) are the employee&apos;s name &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the value and nature of employer-paid fringe benefits. Given this language, we do not understand how the City Attorney&apos;s office can conclude that if the City provides the types and value of benefits a retiree receives, it may not identify the retiree.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Correspondingly, it seems to us that since the health benefits paid for dependents of City retirees can be claimed only because the retiree was once an employee of the City, such data are also covered by the portion of paragraph (1) referring to the value and nature of employer-paid fringe benefits. In other words, health coverage for dependents of retirees is an employer-paid fringe benefit as well. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Lutterman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City does not dispute that the names of former employees and the nature and value of fringe benefits are public data [citation omitted.] However, the names of the employees in the context of the request is [sic] not public. This is so because by identifying the names of retired employees, the City is providing more data than just a name. The City is also providing the reason for the employee&apos;s termination of employment. The reason for an employee&apos;s termination of employment is not public unless the termination is a result of final disciplinary action, in which case the data would be public [citation omitted.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s position that the classification of the data needs to be informed by the context of the request is supported by the strict construction given the statute by the [Minnesota] Supreme Court in [&lt;em&gt;Navarre v South Washington County School District&lt;/em&gt;, 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002)], and by Commissioner [of Administration] opinions. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman cited Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267479&quot; title=&quot;07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266974&quot; title=&quot;07-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-001&lt;/a&gt; in support of the City&apos;s position. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267479&quot; title=&quot;07-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;07-004&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.43 provides that certain data on individuals are public and some are private. An employee&apos;s name is one of the types of data that is listed as public. However, the fact that certain personnel data are private means there are situations in which an employee&apos;s name cannot be released because pairing the data with the employee&apos;s name would release data about that employee that are classified as private by section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lutterman wrote, [h]ere, the City was faced with a similar context problem. . . . By providing a list of the names of former employees who are retired, the City would make public, data that is not public; namely, the non-disciplinary reason for the employment termination. She further stated, [t]he City does not dispute that the value and nature of health care benefits received by former employees of the City are public personnel data. However, [Mr.] Stahl&apos;s request would have required the City to identify each individual retiree and then connect the fringe benefit data to that retiree. As discussed above, the employee&apos;s identity as a retiree is not public data. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the data on dependents Mr. Stahl requested, Ms. Lutterman wrote that under section 13.43, subdivision 4, data pertaining to an employee&apos;s dependents are private data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City assumed in its response to [Mr.] Stahl that health care benefits received by a dependent of a former employee as a result of the former employment relationship are fringe benefits received by the former employee. Therefore, the nature and value of the benefit is public [citation omitted.] However, the context of the request asked the City to connect an identity to the benefit. If the City provided the data as requested, the City would have disclosed private data on individuals. The private data are (1) the fact that a former employee retired, (2) the fact that the retiree has dependents, and (3) the identity of the dependents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs. The reason a former employee left City employment (absent final disciplinary action) is not public. Mr. Stahl did not ask for otherwise public data on &lt;u&gt;former employees&lt;/u&gt;; he asked for identifying data about &lt;u&gt;retirees&lt;/u&gt; and their dependents. The City would have improperly released private data had it complied with his request as stated. However, if Mr. Stahl, or anyone, were to ask for the names, value and nature of fringe benefits, and any other public data on former employees, the City could provide access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Duluth complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the following data: the names of all retirees and dependents who currently receive free retiree health care from their employment with the City; and the total value and nature of health care benefits each person has received.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 11, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266860</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fringe benefits</Title><Id>266859</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-003</Title><title>Opinion 08 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267316&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-04-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Blue Earth County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a data request for all data relating to a complaint?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 1, 2008; Blue Earth County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 13, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated February 11, 2008, from Paul Grabitske, an attorney on behalf of his client. In his letter, Mr. Grabitske asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from Blue Earth County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis McCoy, Blue Earth County Administrator, in response to Mr. Grabitske&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 21, 2008, were to inform him of Mr. Grabitske&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On February 28, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated February 26, 2008, from Ross Arneson, Blue Earth County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Grabitske is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 17, 2007, County staff wrote to Mr. Grabitske&apos;s client. County staff referenced a complaint made against the client regarding alleged inappropriate activity on the client&apos;s property and informed the client that the County had determined current activities were not in violation of the County&apos;s Code of Ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 19, 2007, Mr. Grabitske wrote to the County and asked that his client be allowed to inspect all data relating to the complaint, including all request for service data and criminal investigative data. (Request for service and criminal investigative data are law enforcement data classified pursuant to section 13.82.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 27, 2007, Mr. Arneson responded to Mr. Grabitske by stating, The information you request is classified as confidential data under Section 13.44 of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 7, 2008, Mr. Grabitske wrote to Mr. Arneson, I do not necessarily agree with your analysis regarding the data concerning the recent complaint. The statute only declares the identity of the complaining party to be confidential. It does not protect all data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a February 7, 2008, email, Mr. Arneson wrote to Mr. Grabitske, In my opinion the county cannot release any information about the complaint absent a court order, as release of any information about the complaint could lead to identification of the complainant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Grabitske&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Blue Earth County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a data request for all data relating to a complaint?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.44, subdivision 1, classifies the following data as confidential: the identities of individuals who register complaints with government entities concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as government data in which any individual is or can be the identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Arneson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The identity of complainants is classified as confidential under Minnesota Statute 13.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Grabitske is seeking to circumvent that statute by requesting enough detail so that he can ultimately overcome the statute and identify the identity of the complainant. If Mr. Grabitske&apos;s argument that such information is public is accepted, it makes the provision providing that complainants can make complaints confidentially absurd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Arneson asserts that the County cannot release any data about the complaint because to do so would identify the complainant. It is correct that pursuant to section 13.44 the County cannot release any data that would identify the complainant. This is also the case for any data that are law enforcement data (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267380&quot; title=&quot;00-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-036&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, if all of the data in question are those from which the complainant can be identified, they cannot be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following. As section 13.44 is not a blanket-type classification, it is incumbent upon the County to make sure it has reviewed all the data in question and is withholding only those from which the complainant can be identified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Grabitske raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Blue Earth County cannot release any complaint-related data that identify the individual who made a complaint. If all data related to the complaint identify the complainant, Blue Earth County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the data request in question.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 1, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267316</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-002</Title><title>Opinion 08 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267289&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-03-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Saint Paul Public Housing Agency comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a tenant access to copies of complaints made against the tenant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> March 18, 2008; Saint Paul Public Housing Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 29, 2008, IPAD received a letter dated January 18, 2008, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her access to certain data from the Saint Paul Public Housing Authority (PHA).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jon Gutzman, Executive Director of the PHA, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 6, 2008, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the PHA&apos;s position. On February 15, 2008, IPAD received a response, dated February 14, 2008, from Laura Pietan, Assistant City Attorney and Attorney for the PHA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I live in Public Housing I wanted to file a grievance because of the complaint of unauthorized guests and noise disturbances I believe I am entitled to have the complaining tenants [sic] complaint in their own words (a copy of the actual complaint in writing) excluding information I am not entitled to have.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the PHA, X asked the PHA to provide documentation of the name of the complaining resident, the dates and times said resident claims of an &apos;Unauthorized Guests&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another letter to the PHA, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In other words, I request a copy of the original complaint in the tenants [sic] own words, but excluding information not subject to release (according to PHA)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, please provide the specific relevant Minnesota Statute under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] that PHA relies upon in its refusing to provide me information on the tenant who complained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to X, Ms. Pietan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The PHA will not provide names of complainants, nor will it provide the actual complaints with the protected data excluded from the content of the complaints as you suggest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The PHA takes the position that any data that might identify an individual as a public housing tenant is private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The pertinent section of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 which the PHA relies upon is section 13.462.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Saint Paul Public Housing Agency comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a tenant access to copies of complaints made against the tenant?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Benefit data are classified under section 13.462 and are defined in subdivision 1, in relevant part, as data on individuals collected or created because the individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing programs administered by government entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The operation of section 13.462 is such that all benefit data are private except for the data described in subdivision 2. The data listed in subdivision 2 as public include, The names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, or assistance through programs administered by a government entity that are intended to assist with the purchase, rehabilitation, or other purposes related to housing or other real property...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267677&quot; title=&quot;05-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-023&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the language in subdivision 2 does not cover data about individuals collected and maintained on individuals who receive housing benefits &lt;em&gt;for the purposes of rental assistance&lt;/em&gt;. Therefore, such data are private. (See section 13.462, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Pietan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested that the PHA provide [X] with the name of a PHA tenant who had made a complaint to PHA management about X. Later, X adjusted [X&apos;s] request to indicate [X] wanted to obtain the &lt;em&gt;original&lt;/em&gt; complaint letter that was written to PHA management, but with information deemed private by the PHA to be omitted. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The PHA declined to provide him with either the name of the complainant or the original letter with the suggested omission. The PHA based its determination on Minn. Stat. section 13.462. The PHA takes the position that the letter written by a PHA tenant and provided to management confidentially is private benefit data. It is highly likely that the author of the complaint letter would be identified by revealing the original letter to X. The original letter was collected and is maintained by the PHA because the author of the letter is a PHA tenant and as such, the PHA has a duty to protect the letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asked for the name of the complaining tenant and a copy of the original complaint. Pursuant to section 13.462, data about individuals who receive housing benefits for the purposes of rental assistance are private. Therefore, the PHA cannot release to the public any data identifying any individual who receives rental assistance. Ms. Pietan wrote that if the PHA released the complaint letter to X, the identity of the complaining PHA tenant most likely would be revealed. Therefore, the PHA complied with Chapter 13 in responding to X&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Saint Paul Public Housing Agency complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying a tenant access to copies of complaints made against the tenant.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 18, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267289</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:19:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 08-001</Title><title>Opinion 08 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266446&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2008-03-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What are the City&apos;s duties under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML), with regard to releasing or withholding the tapes of the closed meetings? Specifically, may the City Council authorize release of those tapes to the public before one of the events specified by section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred, which event makes the tapes of such meetings available to the public?
What is the classification of the tapes under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, before and after one of the events specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred? Specifically, but not by way of limitation, if data that are not public data are discussed on the tapes, are those parts of the tapes public or not public once the tapes are available to the public pursuant to the statute?
What is the classification under the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, of (a) the consultant&apos;s reports submitted to the Council at the closed meetings for purposes of discussing offers for the property, and (b) letters from the property owners involved in matter objecting to release of the tapes of the closed meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 5, 2008; City of Northfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 14, 2007, the Commissioner received a letter dated December 13, 2007, from Maren Swanson, an attorney representing the City of Northfield. In her letter, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion relating to the classification of certain data and certain of a governing body&apos;s duties under the Open Meeting Law. Shortly thereafter, IPAD received comments from David Lansing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Ms. Swanson dated December 21, 2007, IPAD requested additional information and clarification. Ms. Swanson submitted same in a letter dated January 14, 2008. In a letter dated January 31, 2008, IPAD invited Mr. Lansing to submit comments in response to Ms. Swanson&apos;s revised opinion request. IPAD received Mr. Lansing&apos;s comments on February 11, 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Swanson is as follows. In the opinion request, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 7, and June 26, 2007, the Northfield City Council held closed meetings to consider offers and counteroffers for the acquisition of an interest in two specified properties for purposes of constructing a new municipal liquor store. The meetings were closed pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3 (c). The City followed the requirements of that statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On November 19, 2007, in response to a lawsuit asserting that inappropriate subjects were addressed at the Closed Meetings (which the City denies) and in response to subsequent public and media interest in those meetings, the City Council voted to release the tapes of the [closed meetings] to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, persons with interests in property considered for acquisition at the [closed meetings] have objected, in writing, to the release of the tapes of the meeting (and related documentation). They contend that release would violate [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] by publicizing information deemed [not public] by statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Swanson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What are the City&apos;s duties under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML), with regard to releasing or withholding the tapes of the closed meetings? Specifically, may the City Council authorize release of those tapes to the public before one of the events specified by section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred, which event makes the tapes of such meetings available to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of the tapes under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, before and after one of the events specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred? Specifically, but not by way of limitation, if data that are not public data are discussed on the tapes, are those parts of the tapes public or not public once the tapes are available to the public pursuant to the statute?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification under the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, of (a) the consultant&apos;s reports submitted to the Council at the closed meetings for purposes of discussing offers for the property, and (b) letters from the property owners involved in matter objecting to release of the tapes of the closed meetings?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What are the City&apos;s duties under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML), with regard to releasing or withholding the tapes of the closed meetings? Specifically, may the City Council authorize release of those tapes to the public before one of the events specified by section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred, which event makes the tapes of such meetings available to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c)(3), states that public bodies may close a meeting to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. In addition:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The proceedings of a meeting closed under this paragraph must be tape recorded at the expense of the public body. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the meeting and made available to the public after all real or personal property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the statutory language, once one of the events described has occurred, the public body must release the tape recording. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the public body&apos;s duty is to withhold the recording until one of the conditions has been met. As this has not happened in the situation presented by Ms. Swanson, the public body&apos;s duty under Chapter 13D is to continue to withhold the recording, absent a court order to release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the classification of the tapes under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, before and after one of the events specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) has occurred? Specifically, but not by way of limitation, if data that are not public data are discussed on the tapes, are those parts of the tapes public or not public once the tapes are available to the public pursuant to the statute?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD briefly reviewed the videotapes in question. As the Commissioner previously has opined, a government entity generally is in the best position to make specific determinations about data it collects and maintains. Ms. Swanson wrote in her letter that the City Council closed the meetings to consider offers and counteroffers for acquisition of an interest in two specified properties. The Commissioner is not aware that such data are classified as anything other than public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, there is a conflict between the language in Chapter 13D which directs the public body to withhold the tape recording and the Chapter 13 classification of the tape, which is public. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, discusses how to interpret statutory provisions that are in conflict. Subdivision 1 of section 645.26 states that when the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the language in Chapter 13D was enacted during the 2004 Legislative Session. The language stating the public presumption of government data was enacted prior to 2004. Based on the above analysis, the Commissioner concludes that although the data in the videotapes are classified as public, the public body cannot release them based on the language in section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the classification under the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, of (a) the consultant&apos;s reports submitted to the Council at the closed meetings for purposes of discussing offers for the property, and (b) letters from the property owners involved in matter objecting to release of the tapes of the closed meetings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, the City of Northfield is in the best position to make specific determinations about data in the consultants&apos; reports and letters from the property owners. However, based on the Commissioner&apos;s review of these documents, it appears the data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Swanson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City Council&apos;s duty under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c)(3), is to withhold the videotape recordings until one of the described events has occurred or eight years have passed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because the classification of the data in the videotape recordings is presumptively public under Minnesota Statutes, there is a conflict. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, the language in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c)(3), prevails and the recordings must be withheld from the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, the data in (a) the consultant&apos;s reports submitted to the Council at the closed meetings for purposes of discussing offers for the property, and (b) letters from the property owners involved in matter objecting to release of the tapes of the closed meetings are presumptively public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 5, 2008&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266446</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property sale or purchase (13D.05, subd. 3(c))</Title><Id>266445</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T17:41:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-027</Title><title>Opinion 07 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267315&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-12-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 531, Byron, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data relating to a hazing incident: the particular athletic team involved, the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, and the disciplinary action taken?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 2007; School District 531 (Byron)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 26, 2007, IPAD received a letter from Kristi A. Hastings, an attorney, on behalf of her client, Todd County. In her letter, Ms. Hastings asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data Todd County maintains. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Ms. Hastings provided in an e-mail dated November 29, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Hastings&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jennifer Petersen, an attorney, on behalf of her client, Michael Petersen, former County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 2007, were to inform her of Ms. Hastings&apos; request and to ask her to submit comments, which she did in a letter dated December 14, 2007. A summary of the facts as Ms. Hastings presented them follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Petersen was hired in the fall of 2007 as County Administrator. The terms of his employment agreement contained a six-month probationary period. While still in the probationary period, the County terminated his employment after several employee complaints regarding Mr. Petersen were investigated by an independent investigator . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County Board passed a resolution and motion to terminate Mr. Petersen&apos;s employment which states, in part: [i]nformation has been brought to the attention of this Board concerning County Administrator Michael Petersen relative to the potential need for disciplinary action . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Hastings, Mr. Petersen is not a union member and is not subject to any Collective Bargaining Agreement with the County. She raised the issue of the possibility that Mr. Petersen could seek a remedy other than arbitration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 16, 2007, the County received a request from Tim King of the Browerville Blade, for copies of the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The nature of the complaint or charges against Mr. Petersen by the Todd County Commissioners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The final disposition of the disciplinary action against Mr. Petersen together with the specific reasons for the action and the data, investigative reports, and other written material that document the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. Any investigative reports or memos regarding the firing of Mr. Petersen that document the basis for that action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. The terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising from the disciplinary action and firing of Mr. Petersen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 20, 2007, Ms. Hastings replied to Mr. King, stating that she intended to request this opinion. She also told him that the County and Mr. Petersen did not enter into a settlement agreement. The County paid him a 30-day severance, per the County&apos;s employment agreement with him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Petersen wrote that because Mr. Petersen was not a public official within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), the data at issue are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Hasting&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data Todd County maintains?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Ms. Petersen noted that section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), which classifies data about public officials (who are certain employees of the State under the definition) does not apply to Mr. Petersen. Ms. Petersen is correct, because local government employees are not included in the definition of public official. However, subdivision 2(a)(5) applies to Mr. Petersen, as it does to other public employees who are not public officials.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In situations like this one, in which an employee is not subject to a collective bargaining agreement a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The classification of the data in question, i.e., the items numbered 1-3 in Mr. King&apos;s request (see above), is thus dependent upon whether there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action. In this situation, Mr. Petersen does not have grievance rights under a collective bargaining agreement, and the County has made its final decision about the disciplinary action, i.e., Mr. Petersen&apos;s termination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hastings raised the issue of the possibility that Mr. Petersen could seek a remedy other than arbitration. The Commissioner addressed similar issues in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266673&quot; title=&quot;96-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-050&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267643&quot; title=&quot;00-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-035&lt;/a&gt;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266673&quot; title=&quot;96-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-050&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court case . . . referred to is &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989). The Legislature amended Section 13.43 in 1990, following &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;. That case, in relevant part, dealt with the meaning of the terms final decision and final disposition of disciplinary actions as these terms were used in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, the Court found that a final &lt;u&gt;decision&lt;/u&gt; of the City was not the final &lt;u&gt;disposition&lt;/u&gt; of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt; at 29.) Subsequently, in 1990, the Legislature amended Section 13.43, subdivision 2, by adding clause (b), which provides the definition of final disposition of disciplinary action, and includes the language &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, according to the requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting disciplinary action taken against a public employee become public when there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceeding or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. The City has made its final decision; therefore there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, and, regardless of any later proceeding, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act, the data sought by &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; about J are public. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, data that the County maintains that document the basis of, including the specific reasons for, the disciplinary action the County took against Mr. Petersen are public, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Hastings raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The County has made its final decision, which is the final disposition of the disciplinary action taken, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. Accordingly, data that constitute the specific reasons for and document the basis of the disciplinary action are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 20, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267315</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-026</Title><title>Opinion 07 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266836&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-12-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Zimmerman comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to memos relating to the dismissal of a City employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 3, 2007; City of Zimmerman</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 21, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated August 16, 2007, from Soren M. Mattick, an attorney, on behalf of the City of Zimmerman. In his letter, Mr. Mattick asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Mr. Mattick provided in a letter dated September 13, 2007, and a revised opinion request dated October 16, 2007. In his submissions to IPAD, Mr. Mattick provided copies of the data at issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Mattick&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brandon M. Fitzsimmons, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Gregory A. LaFond, former City Administrator. The purpose of this letter, dated October 22, 2007, was to invite him to submit comments, which he did in a letter dated October 30, 2007. (Mr. Fitzsimmons had asked the Commissioner to address the same issue in a request dated September 14, 2007.) A summary of the facts as Mr. Mattick presented them follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. LaFond served as City Administrator until February of 2007; in that role he supervised Ms. Molitor, the former Deputy Clerk. On September 15, 2006, the City Council met to consider allegations against Ms. Molitor, and voted to terminate her employment, effective September 18, 2006. At the meeting, Ms. Molitor submitted a letter regarding the allegations to the City Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Mattick wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Following Ms. Molitor&apos;s termination, Mr. LaFond wrote a series of memoranda to the Mayor, City Council, Department Heads, and me. These memoranda ( the Memos ) were all written between September 19, 2006 and September 25, 2006. In the Memos, Mr. LaFond responded to various allegations that Ms. Molitor raised in her September 15 letter and statements that she made during the closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Mattick, in June of 2007, Mr. LaFond requested access to data related to the City&apos;s decision to terminate Ms. Molitor&apos;s employment. The City complied with part of his request, and denied him access to the data at issue, namely the memos Mr. LaFond authored and submitted to the City subsequent to the effective date of Ms. Molitor&apos;s termination. The City stated to Mr. LaFond that the data contained in the memos are private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Mattick stated that the data in the memos are private personnel data about both Mr. LaFond and Ms. Molitor. He wrote: [o]rdinarily, the subject of the data must be given access to the public and private data stored on him. See Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd. 3. The Memos present a more complicated problem because Mr. LaFond and Ms. Molitor are both data subjects and much of the data is about both of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Mattick discussed the applicability of &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), and Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-014&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fitzsimmons stated his agreement that the memos contain data about both Mr. LaFond and Ms. Molitor, but asserted that, for various reasons, the data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Mattick&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Zimmerman comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to memos relating to the dismissal of a City employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Private data are accessible to the subject of the data, and others who have specific authority granting them access. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12; section 13.04 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity has taken disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public under subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Mattick, the City took final disciplinary action against Ms. Molitor when it fired her. There is no dispute that the first of the memos was created the day after the effective date of Ms. Molitor&apos;s termination, and the others were created subsequently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that because the memos contain Mr. LaFond&apos;s responses to Ms. Molitor&apos;s September 15 letter, which the City has determined is public in connection with her termination, the data in the memos are public. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The data at issue were created after the City fired Ms. Molitor. Thus, those data cannot be data that document the basis of final disciplinary action. The City could not have based its decision about disciplinary action on data that did not exist at the time it made its decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. LaFond is entitled to gain access to data in the memos only if the data are public, or are private data of which he is the sole subject. The fact that Mr. LaFond authored the memos does not itself give him the right to gain access to them. When he was employed by the City, his work assignment could reasonably have required that he should get access, per Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2. As a former employee, however, he has no greater right to gain access to private data about another employee than any other member of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined previously in numerous opinions that government entities are in the best position to determine the subject(s) of the data they maintain. As Mr. Mattick noted, the Commissioner addressed the issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267622&quot; title=&quot;04-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a government entity is faced with redacting a document containing not public and public data, it is important for the entity to review the document carefully to determine whether the release of any of the data may result in the inappropriate release of not public data. Government entities are in the best position to make such determinations because they have all of the relevant information and are knowledgeable about the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/em&gt;, Inc., maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately. Given the clear presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the District should make every effort to avoid a situation where it must withhold an entire document from the public. The Commissioner adds that the District must disclose any public data in the document, including, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), that a complaint was made against a member of the administration, the status of the complaint, and the name of the employee about whom the complaint was made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Mattick wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here the City examined the memos and concluded that it would be impossible to redact the Memos. Because of the nature of the dispute between the two data subjects discussed in the memos, the data that each would ordinarily be entitled to as data subjects is so intertwined with other private personnel data that redaction is not a plausible solution. Further, as the Commissioner advised, the City is in the best position to make this determination. Accordingly, the City properly denied Mr. LaFond&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon cursory examination of the data at issue, the Commissioner has the following comments. The memos contain data about Mr. LaFond, Ms. Molitor, and other City employees, which are presumptively private under section 13.43. At least some of the same data appear to be about both Mr. LaFond and Ms. Molitor, such that the Commissioner could not determine a single data subject. Therefore, while she cannot state with certainty that the City&apos;s determination regarding all of the data in the memos is correct, the Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the City to take the position that the memos contain data that are inextricably intertwined, making redaction impossible. As she has opined previously, in situations like this one, government entities are in the best position to make those determinations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Mattick raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Zimmerman complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to memos relating to the dismissal of a City employee, if the data in the memos are inextricably intertwined, making redaction impossible.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 3, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266836</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-025</Title><title>Opinion 07 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267269&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Free Speech Working Group (creation of which was approved at the January 17, 2007, Minneapolis City Council meeting) subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D?
If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did the Free Speech Working Group comply with the notice requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 1, regarding its meeting on August 8, 2007?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 2007; Minneapolis City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated October 3, 2007, from Michelle Gross, on behalf of the Communities United Against Police Brutality. In her letter, Ms. Gross asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the Minneapolis City Council&apos;s Free Speech Working Group complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law. Ms. Gross submitted the $200 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 17, 2007, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Barbara Johnson, President of the Minneapolis City Council. In its letter, IPAD informed City Council President Johnson of Ms. Gross&apos; request and gave the Council an opportunity to explain its position. In a letter dated October 24, 2007, Lisa Needham, Assistant City Attorney, responded on behalf of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Gross is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 17, 2007, the Minneapolis city council approved a City Service Agreement for the 2008 Republican National Convention. In the process of doing so, language was adopted that formed a Free Speech Working Group. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In an effort to learn the dates, times and location of the meetings, I visited the Minneapolis City Council office. No notice for the August 8, 2007 meeting (or any prior meetings of this working group) was posted on the official city council bulletin board. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Recently] I spoke to [the City Coordinator who] stated You know, this meeting is not public. By this, I believe she meant that these meetings are not subject to the Minnesota open meeting law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Gross&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Free Speech Working Group (creation of which was approved at the January 17, 2007, Minneapolis City Council meeting) subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did the Free Speech Working Group comply with the notice requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 1, regarding its meeting on August 8, 2007?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the Free Speech Working Group (creation of which was approved at the January 17, 2007, Minneapolis City Council meeting) subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance here, the Open Meeting Law applies to all meetings of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body. (See section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c).) Meetings of these groups must be open to the public when the meeting requires or permits the group by law to transact public business. (See section 13D.01, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Needham wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Free Speech Working Group was created in light of the upcoming Republican National Convention. The City Council directed the City Coordinator to form a work group that would address free speech issues as they relate to the convention. . . The work group is comprised of the following members:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the Mayor&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- up to two members of the City Council&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the Chief of Police&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the Director of Civil Rights&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the City Attorney&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the Assistant City Coordinator, Emergency Preparedness Regulatory Services&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- two representatives of recognized civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Lawyers Guild.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Needham discussed that the work group was tasked with developing strategies regarding a number of goals; she listed those goals. She wrote, However, the work group does not possess any decision-making authority, nor does it transact any public business. Ms. Needham further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the Working Group is not tasked with the ability to make decisions on behalf of the City, but merely to develop and review strategies for addressing free speech concerns. Ultimately, any policy direction on the matter would come from the Council, and such a matter would be addressed in the public meetings of the Council and its duly appointed committees. Thus, the concern that the work group is designed to circumvent public scrutiny of City deliberations is unfounded. Next, as only two members, with one alternate, of the Council are members of the work group, no quorum of any council committee can be reached. Therefore the concerns that the work group constitutes a gathering whereby the members of the Council are discussing, deciding, or receiving information as a group are also unfounded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A 1993 Minnesota Court of Appeals case addressed an issue similar to the one before the Commissioner. In &lt;em&gt;Sovereign v. Dunn&lt;/em&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn.App. 1993), the Court found that a series of mediation sessions, in which less than a quorum of the Lake Elmo City Council members participated, were not a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of the City of Lake Elmo for purposes of the Open Meeting Law:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, we hold that a gathering of public officials is not a committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission subject to the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body. The capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a quorum of the body. It could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Lake Elmo delegation did not constitute a quorum of the city council, nor did it exercise any authority on behalf of the council. . . . Though the mediation sessions produced a negotiated agreement, this agreement was presented to the city council in an open meeting with opportunity for public involvement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; at 67-68.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, the Free Speech Working Group is not capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body. Its stated purpose is to create a model for how the City can preserve the right to political speech and civic debate without disrupting community life during the 2008 Republican National Convention. The Work Group must report approximately every six months, and as needed, to the City Council&apos;s Ways Means/Budget and Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committees. In addition, because only two Council Members are part of the Work Group&apos;s membership, no quorum of the City Council exists. Based on the language in section 13D.01 and the Court of Appeals decision in Sovereign, the Commissioner does not believe that the Free Speech Working Group is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, did the Free Speech Working Group comply with the notice requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 1, regarding its meeting on August 8, 2007?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Free Speech Working Group is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D. Therefore, it is not required to provide notice of its meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Gross raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Free Speech Working Group (creation of which was approved at the January 17, 2007, Minneapolis City Council meeting) is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Free Speech Working Group is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13D. Therefore, it is not required to provide notice of its meetings.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 16, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267269</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-024</Title><title>Opinion 07 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267288&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-11-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When the Minneapolis City Council&apos;s Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee and Health, Energy and Environment Committee met jointly on February 15, 2006, did they comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 14, 2007; Minneapolis City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated October 3, 2007, from Michelle Gross. In her letter, Ms. Gross asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding an issue related to a joint meeting of the Minneapolis City Council&apos;s Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee and its Health, Energy and Environment Committee (Committees) and their compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Ms. Gross submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 17, 2007, IPAD wrote to Ms. Barbara Johnson, President of the Minneapolis City Council (Council). In its letter, IPAD informed Ms. Johnson of Ms. Gross&apos; request and gave the Council an opportunity to explain its position. The Council presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Lisa Needham, dated October 24, 2007.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Gross is as follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Committees met jointly on February 15, 2006, to consider a report on the Civilian Police Review Authority&apos;s (CRA) policies and processes. Prior to the start of the meeting, Ms. Gross looked for a copy of the report and was unable to find a copy. Ms. Gross then requested a copy of the report from staff and was told the report would not be made available to the public until after it had been presented to the Committees at the meeting.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Gross wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                During the course of the meeting, a PowerPoint presentation was made on the report. After the presentation, committee members began to consider a number of recommendations in the report. When it became clear that committee members would actually be voting on the content of the report, I again approached [staff] and asked to inspect the report being discussed and she reiterated that it would not be made available until later. Committee members discussed the content of the report, referring to some recommendations as A through G without specifying what those recommendations were. The public present was unable to know what was being discussed or voted on.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Ms. Gross&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When the Minneapolis City Council&apos;s Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee and Health, Energy and Environment Committee met jointly on February 15, 2006, did they comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Committees are subject to the Open Meeting Law as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(4) and subdivision 1(c)(1).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a) states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In any meeting, which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) available in the meeting room to all members;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the Council&apos;s response to Ms. Gross&apos; opinion request, Ms. Needham wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      [Staff] indicated that she did not have copies of the report. . . . The City acknowledges that the report in question, a lengthy document addressing the CRA&apos;s performance, was not made available to individuals attending the PSRS/HEE committee meeting during the presentation of the report. However, copies were made available during the meeting immediately following the presentation.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a), requires any printed materials to be made available for public inspection while the governing body considers their subject matter. Even though the report was available for public inspection immediately following the presentation of the report, the Council acknowledges that the report was not made available during the actual presentation. Therefore, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the Committees did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 because the report was not available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the Committees were considering the subject matter of the report.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Gross raised is as follows:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minneapolis City Council&apos;s Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee and its Health, Energy and Environment Committee, which met jointly on February 15, 2006, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 14, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267288</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-023</Title><title>Opinion 07 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267981&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-11-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Newport comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 29, 2007, request to inspect certain government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 9, 2007; City of Newport</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 11, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated September 8, from Paul Hansen. In his letter, Mr. Hansen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Newport. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Mr. Hansen provided on September 24, 2007.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Hansen&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Larry Bodahl, City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 2007, were to inform him of Mr. Hansen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 3, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated October 1, 2007, from Veid Muiznieks, Chief of Police for the City. On October 18, 2007, Mr. Bodahl submitted additional information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Hansen presented them follows. In a letter dated May 29, 2007, Mr. Hansen requested access to and inspection of the public portions of complaint data on six City police officers. Mr. Hansen stated that the City did not respond, so he wrote again, reiterating his request, on July 12, 2007. According to Mr. Hansen, as of the date of his opinion request, he had not received either a reply to my request or access to the data requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Chief Muiznieks stated that Mr. Bodahl was out of the office until October 15. Chief Muiznieks wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Regarding the request for &apos;complaint&apos; information on police officers from [Mr.] Hansen, I had begun a search sometime after [Mr.] Hansen first requested data. The issues I have before me are multiple in [Mr.] Hansen&apos;s request. First and foremost, the City of Newport has no administrative staff to search for &apos;complaint&apos; data on the six (6) police officers (on two of whom [Mr.] Hansen misspelled names) named by [Mr.] Hansen. This leaves the search to me, the City of Newport Chief of Police. From day to day I am required to balance the needs of data requestors and other police issues. Secondly, the past Chief of Police may have placed &apos;complaint&apos; information on different storage media during his twelve and one-half years of City of Newport Employment. Media include paper, &apos;floppy disks&apos;, C.D.&apos;s, and computer files with different names and titles that need be searched. Lastly, some of the police officers named had careers dating to the mid-nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies. Some of the older files are more difficult to search because of filing technique and location and need to be hand searched.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City of Newport most certainly wishes all requestors to receive the data they wish and will continue to work toward providing the data in a &apos;reasonable&apos; practical time frame.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Hansen&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Newport comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 29, 2007, request to inspect certain government data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, entities must keep records containing data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chief Muiznieks wrote that the data apparently are filed in numerous places, on different storage media. He stated that the City does not have administrative staff available to respond to such requests like this, so that it is he who must respond.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to request and gain access to data. Mr. Hansen asked for specific data, and the City is obliged to provide those data regardless of how they are filed. The fact that the City cannot easily locate data documenting complaints filed against police officers does not negate the City&apos;s obligation to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, within a reasonable time. Chief Muiznieks also stated that some of the names of the officers were misspelled. If the City needed to clarify any aspect of Mr. Hansen&apos;s request it should have done so promptly upon receipt of his request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Hansen asked for the data on May 29, 2007, and the City has not yet provided him with access. This is not a timely response.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hansen raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Newport did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 29, 2007, request to inspect certain government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 9, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267981</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-022</Title><title>Opinion 07 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267368&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-10-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the home addresses of individual members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 2007; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, was further amended in 2008, after this opinion was issued. In the event that there is a conflict between the conclusion in the opinion and the statute, the later enacted statutory language governs.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 20, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated September 18, 2007, from Sheila Kihne. In her letter, Ms. Kihne asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Kihne&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brad Moore, Commissioner of MPCA. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 2007, were to inform him of Ms. Kihne&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MPCA&apos;s position. On October 1, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ann E. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of MPCA. Ms. Cohen submitted additional comments in a letter dated October 12, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Kihne presented them follows. Ms. Kihne wrote that she first requested access to the home addresses for the individual members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) in late June 2007, in a telephone conversation with an MPCA staff member. Initially she was told she could have the data; the following day she was told she could not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kihne stated that she then requested access to the home addresses of MCCAG members via e-mail and fax on July 12, 2007. David J. Thornton, Assistant Commissioner of MPCA replied in an e-mail on July 19, 2007, that the home addresses were private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kihne then sent a July 30, 2007, e-mail to Commissioner Moore, and repeated her request. In her e-mail, Ms. Kihne wrote: [i]f the PCA is going to deny access to this information then I&apos;d like to request for [sic] a citation of statute that supports that decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail dated July 31, 2007, Mr. Thornton replied, I regret that I did not include the statutory citation that we consulted prior to my response to your initial request. I have included it below. Mr. Thornton included citations to sections 13.601, elected and appointed officials, and 13.43, personnel data. He stated [a]gain, our interpretation of the statute is that their home address is private information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Cohen referred to MCCAG as an appointed advisory body. She stated that under section 13.43, the definition of personnel data includes data on individuals who perform services on a voluntary basis for a government entity, and that home addresses of volunteers are not public under that section. Ms. Cohen stated that MPCA&apos;s position is consistent with Advisory Opinion 00-049, in which the Commissioner opined that the home address of a member of a school board was private. She wrote: . . . such members were &apos;employees&apos; of the School District and . . . data about such persons was &apos;personnel data.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Kihne&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the home addresses of individual members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 2005 Legislature enacted changes to provisions relating to data on individuals who are members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions. Of relevance here, prior to August 1, 2005, data about members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions were classified under section 13.43; home addresses of those individuals were classified as public. The effect of the 2005 change is that data about members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions are now classified under section 13.601.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.601:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following data on all applicants for election or appointment to a public body, including those subject to chapter 13D, are public: name, city of residence, education and training, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors, and prior government service or experience.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267841&quot; title=&quot;05-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-036&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.601, subdivision 3, provides that certain data are public - essentially, restating the general presumption. This does not mean that all other data on applicants for election or appointment to a public body are not public. Given the operation of Chapter 13, if the Legislature intended for all other data on applicants for election/appointment to be not public, the Legislature needed to enact a provision so stating.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with MPCA&apos;s position, as articulated by Ms. Cohen, that members of MCCAG are considered volunteers for purposes of section 13.43. Members of and applicants to boards or commissions are treated as a group separate from volunteers. As noted earlier, in the definition of personnel data that was in effect prior to the 2005 legislation, volunteers and members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions were distinct categories of individuals, both of whose data were classified under section 13.43. Now, data on those distinct categories of individuals are classified under separate statutes. Data on volunteers are still classified under section 13.43; data on board/commission members/applicants are now classified under section 13.601.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also disagrees that &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-049&lt;/a&gt;, which was issued prior to the 2005 legislative change, applies here. In that case, school board members were considered employees of the District, and therefore data about them are classified under section 13.43. Ms. Cohen did not state that MPCA considers MCCAG members employees for purposes of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about appointed members of advisory boards like MCCAG are classified under section 13.601, which does not classify home addresses as private. Accordingly, the home addresses of MCCAG members are public under the general presumption in section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that subsequent to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267841&quot; title=&quot;05-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-036&lt;/a&gt;, the Minnesota Attorney General issued two opinions (July 14, 2006; October 6, 2006) related to narrow issues involving the application of section 13.601 to data about candidates for appointment or election to, or incumbents of, elective office, which are not applicable here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kihne raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied public access to the home addresses of individual members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 31, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267368</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for appointment to a public body and public body appointees</Title><Id>267004</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials (13.601)</Title><Id>266769</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-021</Title><title>Opinion 07 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266624&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-10-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 347, Willmar, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it determined that a student&apos;s name, which appears in certain data relating to an investigation of allegations of misconduct by a teacher, is only incidental to the data, and is not private educational data under section 13.32?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 17, 2007; School District 347 (Willmar)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On, August 30, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated August 28, 2007, from Nancy Blumstein, an attorney, on behalf of her client, Independent School District 347, Willmar. In her letter, Ms. Blumstein asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Ms. Blumstein provided in a letter dated September 17, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Blumstein&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Meg Kane, an attorney, on behalf of her client, the parent of a District student. The purpose of this letter, dated September 20, 2007, was to invite her to submit comments, because her client&apos;s rights may be affected by the outcome of this opinion. Ms. Kane provided comments in a letter dated October 9, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Blumstein presented them follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Blumstein:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District employs a teacher about whom complaints regarding the treatment of students have been made. The District has thoroughly investigated any and all complaints. No discipline resulted from the investigations. The parent of one of the students mentioned in the reports has now demanded copies of any and all investigation reports in which [his/her] child is mentioned. The student and [his/her] parent were interviewed for only one of the investigations. However, the Student&apos;s name was raised in the course of three investigations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District has provided the Parent copies of all educational records it maintains for the Student. This specifically includes a redacted copy of the summary of the one interview conducted with the Parent and the Student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District has not released any other portion of the investigation reports that the Parent has requested because it believes the information constitutes private personnel data to which the student and parent have no right of access. The investigations were undertaken as a result of the teacher&apos;s employment with the District and in order to determine the appropriateness of [his/her] conduct as a teacher. The District has reviewed the data in question and has determined that the teacher, not the student, is the subject of both the investigation and the data. The review confirms that the identity of the student about whom the teacher is alleged to have mistreated is completely incidental to the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Kane stated that the data in question are public under section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(4) (5), and 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Blumstein&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 347, Willmar, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it determined that a student&apos;s name, which appears in certain data relating to an investigation of allegations of misconduct by a teacher, is only incidental to the data, and is not private educational data under section 13.32?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals means government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See section 13.02, subdivision. 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data on individuals that are about students. Generally, pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law, data about students are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation in which someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If a government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following additional data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Blumstein, the District did not take disciplinary action against the teacher. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.43, the only associated data about the teacher that are accessible to the public are the existence and status of the complaint or charge. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Kane&apos;s assertion that the interviews and all other investigative data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If any of the data related to the District&apos;s investigations of misconduct by a teacher are classified as private educational data, however, the parent of the data subject child would be entitled to have access to those data. Ms. Blumstein asserts that the data in question are solely private personnel data about the teacher.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Blumstein wrote, [t]o the extent the Student was mentioned in the reports, [his/her] identity was incidental. In other words, whether it was [him/her] or another student whom the teacher was alleged to have mistreated was immaterial to the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Blumstein further commented:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the identity of any student referenced in the reports of which the Parent requested copies is merely incidental to the purpose for which the investigative reports were conducted and have been maintained (the employee&apos;s performance). Therefore, the Student(s) are not the subject [sic] of the data requested and the data cannot be considered educational data. See &lt;em&gt;Edina Education Association v. Independent School District No. 273&lt;/em&gt;, 562 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn.App. 1997); Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion: 00-065.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined previously that in situations like this, in which an entity must determine who is/are the subject(s) of government data, the entity is in the best position to make that determination. Ms. Blumstein stated that the District examined the data in question, and determined that the teacher is the only subject, and that the student&apos;s name is only incidental to the data. Therefore, the District appropriately denied the parent access to data other than the redacted interview with the parent&apos;s child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Blumstein raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 347, Willmar, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it determined that a student&apos;s name, which appears in certain data relating to an investigation of allegations of misconduct by a teacher, is only incidental to the data, and is not private educational data under section 13.32.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 17, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266624</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data incidental to the data subject</Title><Id>266325</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-020</Title><title>Opinion 07 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267982&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-09-27T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Stearns County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data in a parenting assessment to participants in a family group decision making conference?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2007; Stearns County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 23, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated July 11, 2007, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about X by Stearns County. IPAD requested additional information, which X provided on August 8, 2007.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roma Steil, Director of Stearns County Human Services, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 10, 2007, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On September 4, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Scott Anderson and Sonya Guggemos, attorneys representing the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . Stearns County set up a Family Group Decision Making Conference for my [child] . . . At this meeting one of the papers given out was [my] Parneting [sic] Assessment . . . handed out by [a Stearns County social worker]. [I] told [the social worker] that she shouldn&apos;t be giving that out. [The social worker] told me she could and handed it out to the rest of the people. [X noted that there were approximately 15 people at the conference-many of them family members.] [Later] I called [the social worker&apos;s supervisor] and left her a message about what [the social worker] had done. [About a month later] I received a letter from the [Supervisor] saying they were checking into the matter . . . Then . . . I received telephone calls from [4 family members who attended the conference] telling that [County staff] had called them and told them to send the Parneting [sic] Assessment back to Stearns County. Then I received a call from [County staff] asking me if I gave [the social worker] permission to hand out the Parneting [sic] Assessment and I told him no. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X also noted that the parenting assessment was ordered by the County regarding an issue about the custody of X&apos;s child and was conducted by a licensed psychologist.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Stearns County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data in a parenting assessment to participants in a family group decision making conference? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data in the parenting assessment that Stearns County created are classified by section 13.46, welfare data. Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.46, such data are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are accessible to the data subject and those within the government entity who need the data to do their work. Private data may not be disclosed to other individuals unless there is specific statutory authority or the data subject has given written informed consent for the release of the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos attached to their comments an affidavit from the County social worker regarding the family conference. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      . . . we note a couple of important things. First, there was a written release that was obtained from X to release information to the group invited to the meeting. As noted in the affidavit of [the social worker], however, the County has not been able to locate that release. As an aside, we would note that the County is concerned about the apparent misplacement of this release. It is intending to conduct an internal audit pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.392 as part of a process to ensure this doesn&apos;t happen again.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Notwithstanding, as [the social worker indicates], X gave verbal authorization at the meeting for the release and sharing of the parenting assessment . . . Because of this, the County vigorously disagrees with the statements that X is making at this time that there was no consent to release the information in question.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos attached to their comments a blank copy of the informed consent document.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her affidavit, the social worker wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      9. Prior to the start of [the conference], I gave X a copy of [the consent form] which listed the names and addresses of those individuals who had been invited to attend the Conference. This form explained that some of the information to be discussed at the meeting could be considered private and/or protected and by signing, the individual was knowingly waiving any rights to keep that information confidential in the course of the [conference]. I gave X the form to sign because the discussion at the meeting would concern custody of X&apos;s [child] and X was the custodial parent. X signed the [release form] in my presence.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      10. I placed the signed [consent form] in the County&apos;s case file after [the conference]. When the file was reviewed by [Stearns County Human Services] following X&apos;s complaint, they were unable to locate the signed form. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      There is a factual dispute the Commissioner is unable to resolve. In X&apos;s opinion request, X states s/he told the social worker that she shouldn&apos;t be disclosing the assessment at the conference. Conversely, the social worker states, in her affidavit, that X signed a release form in her presence. If X did not sign a release form indicating that the County could release the data in the assessment, the County inappropriately released the data. If X did sign a release form indicating the County could release the data in the assessment, the County appropriately released the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner adds the following comments. In situations where either a government entity or a data subject wishes to share private data with another person, and there is no statutory authority to do so, the data subject must sign a written informed consent. (See Minnesota Rules 1205.1400.) Before signing an informed consent, the data subject should read the consent document so s/he knows what data the entity will be releasing and to whom. If the data subject is unable to determine what data the entity will release, s/he should ask the entity to clarify.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether Stearns County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data in a parenting assessment to participants in a family group decision making conference. If X did not consent in writing to allow the County to release the data in the parenting assessment, the County inappropriately released the data. If X did consent in writing to allow the County to release the data, the County appropriately released the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 27, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267982</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-019</Title><title>Opinion 07 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266754&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-09-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) provide names and mailing addresses of members and/or retirees to a private vendor with which TRA has contracted to mail retirement-related information?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2007; Teachers Retirement Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt; In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 8, 2007, IPAD received a memorandum dated same from Lori Fiori Hacking, Executive Director of the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA). In her memorandum, Ms. Hacking asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data TRA maintains.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Hacking wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              TRA occasionally receives requests from external organizations to facilitate mailings to teachers and/or retirees. One example is a committee that would like to contact a particular group of teachers for a class reunion. Another is an employer who would like to contact a group of their former employees, but have lost current addresses for these individuals. While no formal policy exists to address these requests, TRA has generally declined to participate in such mailings.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              However, TRA has worked with retiree groups in the past to facilitate mailing of TRA-related materials, but has concluded that a new policy has to be formulated . . .
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Under the policy, TRA staff may continue to work with constituency groups to conduct mailings in which the Executive Director deems are directly related to TRA&apos;s mission and purpose in furthering the interest of its members and benefit recipients. The TRA Executive Director will evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis. No mailings will be facilitated by TRA that involve promoting political activities or the solicitation of goods and services.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              In all cases, the names and addresses of the members and/or retirees will not be released in any form to the constituent group. TRA will contract with a third party mailing vendor to facilitate mailing of TRA-related material. TRA shall obtain written certification from the vendor that the membership data transmitted to facilitate the mailing remains confidential and not provided to or used by the constituent group or the third party vendor for any other purposes.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              Based on Ms. Hacking&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, can the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) provide names and mailing addresses of members and/or retirees to a private vendor with which TRA has contracted to mail retirement-related information? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.63, subdivision 2, the addresses of beneficiaries and survivors of Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) members are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 3, the use . . . of private and confidential data on individuals shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Ms. Hacking discusses that TRA wishes to mail information that is directly related to TRA&apos;s mission and purpose in furthering the interest of its members and benefit recipients. This appears to be consistent with what the Legislature contemplated when it enacted section 13.05, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Government entities (subject to Chapter 13) contract with non-government organizations (not subject to Chapter 13) to perform functions on their behalf. Chapter 13 discusses these contractual relationships in several provisions, the most recently-enacted of which is section 13.05, subdivision 11. It states, in part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, in the contract between TRA and the mailing vendor, TRA must include language clarifying that the private addresses in the hands of the vendor remain subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hacking raised is as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) can provide names and mailing addresses of members and/or retirees to a private vendor with which TRA has contracted to mail retirement-related information. As section 13.05, subdivision 11, prescribes, the contract with the private vendor must contain language specifying that the names and addresses are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Dana B. Badgerow
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 27, 2007
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266754</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Teachers Retirement Association (TRA)</Title><Id>266753</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-018</Title><title>Opinion 07 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267617&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-09-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5, for a February 26, 2007, closed meeting, when the members knew in advance that a portion of the meeting would be closed to consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase of real estate?
Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers&apos; public statement given prior to closing a portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007, to discuss litigation strategies comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01?
Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, when they failed to record the entire closed portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 26, 2007; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 14, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated August 13, 2007, from David Hvistendahl on behalf of his client, James Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Hvistendahl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding several issues related to compliance by the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers (Board) with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Mr. Hvistendahl submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 28, 2007, IPAD wrote to Mr. Douglas Sorenson, Chairman of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Sorenson of Mr. Hvistendahl&apos;s request and gave the Board an opportunity to explain its position. The Board presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Jeffrey W. Hane, dated September 6, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Hvistendahl is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board provided notice for a February 26, 2007, regular meeting in the local newspapers. The notice did not mention that a portion of the February 26, 2007, meeting would be closed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hvistendahl provided an audio recording and a partial transcript of the open portion of the February 26, 2007, meeting. The transcript states in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The closed meeting now - uh - pursuant to the statute - we&apos;re going to close it for litigation (?) [sic] strategies and theories - uh - actually before we do that we&apos;re going to close it - uh - for the purpose of discussing offers and counteroffers for the purchase of sale of land in regard to Section 19 of Brandt Township of Polk County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hvistendahl also provided the approved minutes of the February 26, 2007, meeting. The minutes relative to closing the portion of the February 26, 2007, meeting state:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Jeff Hane requested that the meeting be closed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.05 (Subd. 3c) [sic] to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property in section 19 of Brandt Township; and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.05 (Subd. 3b) [sic] for purposes of discussing legal theories and strategies regarding the PL-566 litigation, Agassiz Valley Water Resources Management project settlement agreement, and conflict of interest issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hvistendahl wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the closed portion of the February 26th meeting, the Board discussed two topics: (1) whether to make an offer to purchase certain real estate; and (2) certain pending litigation. The Board recorded only a portion of the closed meeting, only that portion of the closed meeting having to do with offers for purchase of real property. The Board shut off the tape, part way through the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Hvistendahl&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5, for a February 26, 2007, closed meeting, when the members knew in advance that a portion of the meeting would be closed to consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase of real estate?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers&apos; public statement given prior to closing a portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007, to discuss litigation strategies comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, when they failed to record the entire closed portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute between the parties that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). As provided in section 13D.01, subdivision 1(c)(3), the Board is required to comply with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5, for a February 26, 2007, closed meeting, when the members knew in advance that a portion of the meeting would be closed to consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase of real estate?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The notice requirements of this section apply to closed meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not disputed that the February 26, 2007, meeting of the Board was a regular meeting. The notice requirements for regular meetings are in section 13D.04, subdivision 1, which states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A schedule of the regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this section for a special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The notice requirement for the closed portion of the February 26, 2007, regular meeting is governed by section 13D.04, subdivision 1. Even though the Board published notice of the February 26, 2007, regular meeting, section 13D.04, subdivision 1 does not require publishing notice of a regular meeting or a closed portion of a regular meeting. The only notice requirement for the February 26, 2007, regular meeting, including the closed portion of the meeting, was a schedule of the Board&apos;s regular meetings kept at its primary offices. Neither party provided information as to whether a schedule of the Board&apos;s regular meetings is kept on file at its offices; therefore, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the Board complied with the notice requirement for its February 26, 2007, regular meeting, including the closed portion of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers&apos; public statement given prior to closing a portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007, to discuss litigation strategies comply with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed the requirements to adequately close meetings in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This subdivision requires that three things be done before a meeting is closed: (1) a statement be made on the record; (2) specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting be given; and (3) a description of the subject to be discussed be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The audio recording transcript of the February 26, 2007, meeting provided by Mr. Hvistendahl confirms that a statement to close the meeting was made on the record. Therefore, it is undisputed the Board complied with the first requirement to close a meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parties dispute the adequacy of the second and third requirements to close a meeting. The Commissioner further interpreted these requirements in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1997, specific means explicitly set forth; definite and grounds means the foundation for an argument, belief, or an action; a basis. Therefore, the Board needs to provide the definite basis for closing the meeting. The easiest way to accomplish this is to cite the statute that gives the Board the authority to close the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The final element to be considered is whether the notice that the Board has used describes the subject to be discussed. The Court of Appeals has provided direction on how this language is to be interpreted. In &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), the Court was asked to decide if a statement that a meeting is being closed for a discussion of pending litigation under the attorney-client privilege met the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 3. In analyzing that statement used by Blue Earth County, the Court found that attorney client privilege provided the grounds and pending litigation &lt;em&gt;identified&lt;/em&gt; the subject to be discussed, but did not &lt;em&gt;describe&lt;/em&gt; the subject as required by the statute. &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; at 476 (emphasis in the original).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hvistendahl wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The approved minutes [of the February 26, 2007, meeting] are inaccurate. The specific litigation was never mentioned, when the announcement was made to close the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Board&apos;s response, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;What likely occurred is that after Mr. Stengrim stopped tape recording, but prior to the beginning of the closed meeting on the purchase of land, a more specific notice was given to the public concerning which pieces of litigation would be discussed during the closed meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hane noted that the meeting minutes reflect the specific notice that was given to close the meeting and a majority of the Board members determined the minutes to be correct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This presents a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve. If the February 26, 2007, meeting minutes reflect the statement that was made to close the meeting, the Board has complied with section 13D.01, subdivision 3. If the audio recording transcript reflects the actual statement to close the meeting, the Board has not complied because it did not provide the specific statutory authority to close the meeting nor describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, when they failed to record the entire closed portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body may close a meeting: (3) to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. Before holding a closed meeting under this paragraph, the public body must identify on the record the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The proceedings of a meeting closed under this paragraph must be tape recorded at the expense of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hvistendahl wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The purpose of a closed meeting is for the protection of the public at large. A court can review such a recording &lt;em&gt;in camera&lt;/em&gt;, if certain actions are challenged in court under the Open Meeting Law. Given the particular facts at hand, it was particularly important that the entirety of the February 26th closed meeting be recorded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Board&apos;s response, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Chapter 13D specifies when a meeting must be tape recorded. &lt;em&gt;See, e.g.,&lt;/em&gt; section 13D.03, subdivision 2(a) ( the proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss negotiations strategies shall be tape-recorded , section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c) the proceedings of a meeting closed &lt;strong&gt;under this paragraph&lt;/strong&gt; must be tape-recorded. ) (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Commissioner recognizes Mr. Hvistendahl&apos;s concern, the plain meaning of the statute supports Mr. Hane&apos;s comments. Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), which allows meetings to be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege, does not contain the same requirement to tape record meetings as is required by section 13D.05, subdivision 3(c). Therefore, the Board was only required to tape record the portion of the February 26, 2007, closed meeting when offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of property were discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Hvistendahl raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers complied with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 5, for its February 26, 2007, regular meeting, including the closed portion of the meeting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The issue of whether the public statement given by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers prior to closing a portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007, to discuss litigation strategies complied with the notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, is a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board of Managers complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, when they did not record the entire closed portion of a meeting on February 26, 2007.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 26, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267617</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement on record</Title><Id>266288</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recording meetings</Title><Id>266649</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-017</Title><title>Opinion 07 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268022&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-09-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Mahnomen County Treasurer comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 11, 2007, request for data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 14, 2007; Mahnomen County Treasurer</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 30, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jeff Armstrong. In his letter, Mr. Armstrong asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Mahonmen County Treasurer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brenda Lundon, Mahnomen County Treasurer, in response to Mr. Armstrong&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2007, were to inform her of Mr. Armstrong&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On August 13, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated August 9, 2007, from Ms. Lundon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Armstrong is as follows. In a letter dated June 11, 2007, he wrote to Ms. Lundon:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, I request copies of all documents relating to state county tax assessments on the Shooting Star Casino property belonging to the White Earth Indian Reservation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant correspondence between state/county officials and tribal officials, judicial or administrative determinations of state and county taxation authority, records of all actual tax payments or payments in lieu of taxes by White Earth to the county for aforementioned property, and any relevant formal or informal agreements pertaining thereto between the county and White Earth and/or official accounts of negotiations thereof.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Armstrong wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . My request was directed to the Mahnomen County Treasurer, who forwarded it to the county attorney. My request has not been formally acknowledged . . . I have tried on two occasions to contact the Mahnomen County Attorney, but she has not returned my calls. It seems apparent to me that the county is attempting to deny my request for public information without providing any statutory authority for doing so. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Armstrong&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Mahnomen County Treasurer comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 11, 2007, request for data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Lundon wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Mr. Armstrong followed up his written request with a phone call about one week after he sent it to me. I recall speaking with him on the phone at that time and acknowledging his request. I informed him that the Treasurer&apos;s office only deals with current year information as everything is turned over to the Auditor&apos;s office at the end of the year and they are the custodian of the records. . . . I also informed him that we are currently in litigation with the White Earth Reservation over taxation of the Casino property and were advised by our attorneys in handling the case not to give out information regarding it. I also informed him that I had forwarded his request to our County Attorney. My intention in doing that was to have her respond in writing to his request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Approximately one month later, I reminded her about this issue . . . She advised me to respond to him and before I did he called me again. At that time I informed him that the County Attorney and I had spoken and we both agreed that I could not give out the information because of litigation. However, we both also felt that we could not deny him access to the information. Therefore, he could come to our courthouse and view the records to glean the information he required. He then asked me a few more questions regarding the litigation and upon my attorney&apos;s advice I told him I could not give out any information.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Lundon&apos;s response to Mr. Armstrong is problematic. First, as required under section 13.03, subdivision 3, Ms. Lundon did not provide Mr. Armstrong with the statutory citation upon which her Office is relying to deny access to the data. From her comments, it appears as if the Treasurer&apos;s Office may be basing its decision on section 13.39, civil investigative data. This section can be employed only if the chief attorney has determined that a civil legal action is pending. Civil investigative data are confidential/protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Second, Ms. Lundon appears to have informed Mr. Armstrong that he can inspect the data but cannot get copies of the data; the statutory basis for which is unclear. Generally, when data are classified as confidential/protected nonpublic, members of the public are not allowed to inspect or get copies of the data - both types of access are restricted. Conversely, if Mr. Armstrong can inspect the data, he should be able to get copies of the data. For the reasons stated above, the Treasurer&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13 in regard to Mr. Armstrong&apos;s request for data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Armstrong raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Mahnomen County Treasurer did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 11, 2007, request for data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 14, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268022</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-016</Title><title>Opinion 07 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266979&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-08-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the data on the videotape classified as private educational data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 and/or private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 16, 2007; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 17, 2007, IPAD received a letter from Michael Waldspurger and Amy Mace, attorneys representing Independent School District 709, Duluth. In their letter, Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Mace asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD asked for clarification, which Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Mace provided in a letter dated June 15, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their opinion request, Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Mace wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District regularly videotapes certain locations within its schools. ... One of the locations routinely taped in [a District school] is the school&apos;s gymnasium. ... The security cameras are programmed to tape any activity in the gymnasium, regardless of whether the activity is open or closed to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[An athletic event was held.] The ... video shows an incident involving [a student] that occurred after the [athletic event]. The incident occurred between [the student] and an adult [who was not acting as a District employee during the event] ... The athletic event was open to the public. ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Besides the [student] and the adult who engaged in the interaction, the surveillance video contains images of other students of the School District, District employees, and public spectators. Although the surveillance video is fuzzy, because the [student] in question attends school in the District and thus knows various students and staff members, [s/he] would be able to identify students and employees of the District who are shown on the video.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Mace&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the data on the videotape classified as private educational data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 and/or private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that school districts maintain are government data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, section 13.32 and provisions of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (see 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99) classify data about students as private. One of the exceptions is that any data a school district designates as directory information are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about individuals who are employees of a government entity are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At issue before the Commissioner is whether some of the data in a videotape the District created at a public athletic event are classified as private educational and/or personnel data. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267834&quot; title=&quot;03-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-010&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The answer to the second part of Issue 2, i.e., a videotape the District made at a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public, is more complicated. If the District has designated photographs and other types of information about athletes as directory information, it seems fairly clear the data on the videotape are public. However, if that is not the case and some of the data on the videotape are private, the District&apos;s refusal to release the tape may create an absurd result. By agreeing to participate in an event held at a public place, the students and any employee coaches have, in effect, given consent for data about them to be released. The fact that the District videotaped the athletic contest does not change the practical effect of the students and coaches agreeing to participate, i.e., who participated, how they participated, and what happened is all public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s position has not changed. Here, because the athletic event was open to the public, any incidents that occurred during the event could have been viewed by any of the people in attendance. Thus, although certain data in the videotape may be private, the students and employees present at the event - either as participants or spectators - have, in effect, given consent for data about them to be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Waldspurger and Ms. Mace raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Although a videotape of a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public, may contain private data, practically speaking, the data subjects have given consent to release those data by participating in the event. Therefore, the data in the videotape are not classified as private educational data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 and/or private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 16, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266979</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Photos, videotapes</Title><Id>266317</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-015</Title><title>Opinion 07 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267822&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-07-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In responding to a March 28, 2007, data request, did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it copied the data into a response rather than allowing the requestor the opportunity to inspect the actual physical data?
Did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 28, 2007, request for daily logs and incident reports submitted by a particular officer?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 2007; Sherburne County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 22, 2007, IPAD received two letters dated May 12, 2007, from Greg LaFond. In his letters, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Sherburne County Sheriff&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bruce Anderson, Sheriff, in response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 30, 2007, were to inform him of Mr. LaFond&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On June 7, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated June 6, 2007, from Scott Lepak, an attorney representing the Sheriff&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. LaFond is as follows. Regarding the first issue, in a letter dated March 28, 2007, Mr. LaFond&apos;s attorney wrote to the Sheriff. Of relevance here, he asked to inspect various data related to an employee of the Sheriff&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 20, 2007, Mr. Lepak responded on behalf of the Sheriff&apos;s Office. Contained in the letter were data requested by Mr. LaFond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond wrote, . . . The request specifically asked that a number of documents be made available for &lt;u&gt;inspection and potential copying&lt;/u&gt;. At no time did [my attorney] request copies of these documents of . . . internally prepared summaries of selected information. (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second issue, also in the March 28, 2007, request, Mr. LaFond&apos;s attorney asked to inspect daily logs and incident reports submitted by an employee of the Sheriff&apos;s Office during a certain time period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the April 20, 2007, letter, Mr. Lepak wrote, The County does not appear to maintain incident data by deputy. It does maintain incident data by department. By law these data are classified as active or inactive. Mr. Lepak included instructions as to how Mr. LaFond could obtain the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond wrote, . . . it is inconceivable that a law enforcement agency would not require patrol officers to complete daily logs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. LaFond&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In responding to a March 28, 2007, data request, did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it copied the data into a response rather than allowing the requestor the opportunity to inspect the actual physical data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 28, 2007, request for daily logs and incident reports submitted by a particular officer?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In responding to a March 28, 2007, data request, did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it copied the data into a response rather than allowing the requestor the opportunity to inspect the actual physical data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lepak wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the requested information . . . involves personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43 and is private data unless specifically listed as public data. . . . Accordingly, in regard to these requests, the County is required to establish appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. . . . In the present case, the security safeguard was to separate the public from the private data. (Note that the County did not charge for this task . . .) It is the County&apos;s position that it fully complied with the data practices act by separating this data and providing the public information to Mr. LaFond. In those instances where information existed but was not provided, the letter notes that the requests for private data on the individual was [sic] denied pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, individuals have the right to request and gain access to public government data. Here, Mr. LaFond asked for certain data about an employee, some of which are public and some of which are not public. While Mr. Lepak is correct that government entities have an obligation to keep data on individuals secure, that obligation is not meant to supersede the requirement that, in responding to data requests, entities make the actual data available. (One exception, that does not apply here, is when the data are law enforcement data - see section 13.82, subdivision 16.) In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866&quot; title=&quot;04-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-031&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that individuals shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. This means that when an individual asks to inspect public data, the entity shall provide the requestor with the actual data. This ensures that the requestor will be able to gain an understanding of the context relating to the data s/he is seeking, especially if the entity has redacted (blacked/whited out) surrounding data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In situations where a particular document contains both public and not public data, and an individual has requested access to the public data, the entity might, for example, choose to copy the document, redact the not public data, and make the redacted copy available for the individual to inspect. The Commissioner is aware that some entities might prefer to lift public data from a document and place those data on an otherwise blank document for the individual to inspect (cut-and-paste). This is problematic because (1) the entity is withholding the actual data and (2) the possibility exists that the entity will make an error transferring the data from its original source onto another document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13 when it copied the data into a response rather than allowing Mr. LaFond and/or his attorney the opportunity to inspect the actual physical data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that inspection of data always is free and even if Mr. LaFond&apos;s attorney had asked for copies, the Sheriff&apos;s Office could not have charged the cost of separating the public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Sherburne County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 28, 2007, request for daily logs and incident reports submitted by a particular officer?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above in the Facts section, the Office&apos;s response was that it does not maintain incident data by deputy/officer. Mr. Lepak added that Mr. LaFond and/or his attorney could inspect the data as they are maintained - by department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lepak wrote, . . . the County responded . . . by simply notifying Mr. LaFond that he could inspect the public data by setting up an appointment. It is reasonable, in light of the potential volume of the data requested, to provide prior notice to the County of when Mr. LaFond would like to review this data so that the information may be made available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, indeed, none of the daily logs/incident reports contain data that identify responding officers, the Office&apos;s response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s attorney is appropriate. However, by not maintaining these data so they are connected to officers who respond to particular calls for service, it is possible the Office is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, commonly known as the Official Records Act. Section 15.17 requires government officials to make and preserve all records that document their official activities. Data that are official records must be maintained for periods of time as prescribed in record retention schedules. Knowing which officers respond to which calls and the details of what happened would seem critical for documenting action by the Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, if the Sheriff&apos;s Office, in maintaining the daily logs/incident reports by department, has a notation in the documents that identifies responding officers, the Office should provide to Mr. LaFond the documents related to the inquired-about officer. As the Commissioner wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267419&quot; title=&quot;06-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-029&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . The fact that the Office cannot easily locate grievances filed against the County Attorney should not significantly affect the response time. Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to request and gain access to data. The Committee asked for specific data - labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar - and the Office is obliged to provide those data regardless of how they are filed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Office&apos;s reply complied with Chapter 13 only if none of the daily logs/incident reports contain data that identify responding officers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. LaFond raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In responding to a March 28, 2007, data request, the Sherburne County Sheriff did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it copied the data into a response rather than allowing the requestor the opportunity to inspect the actual physical data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Sherburne County Sheriff complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 28, 2007, request for daily logs and incident reports submitted by a particular officer only if none of the daily logs/incident reports contain data that identify the officer.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 11, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267822</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual physical data</Title><Id>266983</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official Records Act (15.17) See also: Records management</Title><Id>266369</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T22:00:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-014</Title><title>Opinion 07 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267355&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-06-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, when it posted a notice for a special meeting on September 13, 2006, that contained the statement &quot;Other Legal issues may be discussed?&quot;
Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when a quorum left the meeting room on September 13, 2006, and had a discussion with the township&apos;s attorney?
Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 when it limited access to the journal in which votes are kept to once a month during the regular meeting of the Township Board?
Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at meetings held on December 19, 2006, January 16, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 21, 2007 and April 17, 2007?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 27, 2007; Hampton Township Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 10, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated May 7, 2007, from James R. McKenzie. In his letter, Mr. McKenzie asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding several issues related to how the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors (the Board) complies with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Mr. McKenzie submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 15, 2007, IPAD wrote to Mr. Pat Ramel, chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Ramel of Mr. McKenzie&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. The Board presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Troy J. Gilchrist, dated June 1, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McKenzie presented facts relating to the Board&apos;s compliance on several different issues. The general nature of the facts is summarized here; additional facts needed to address the issues can be found in the Discussion section below. The facts are summarized here according to the order in which the issues will be addressed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to holding a special meeting on September 13, 2006, the Board gave notice of the meeting. Two versions of the notice were issued. Along with the date, time and location of the meeting, the second notice stated that the purpose of the meeting was to . . . discuss the Land issue with the Township&apos;s Attorney. Other Legal issues may be discussed. At the September 13, 2006, meeting, the Township&apos;s attorney was called away unexpectedly. Before he left, the Board Chair, and then later the two other supervisors, talked to the Township attorney in the parking lot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Between August 17, 2006 and March 26, 2007, Mr. McKenzie made numerous requests for access to the journals of votes. The Board responded by stating that the journals are kept at the Town Hall and access could occur on the night of any regular Board meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At meetings on December 19, 2006, January 16, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 21, 2007, and April 17, 2007, the Board received reports on planning and zoning issues. As part of the presentation, Board members received a written report from the presenter. No copy of the report was made available to the public in the meeting room at any of the listed meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. McKenzie&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, when it posted a notice for a special meeting on September 13, 2006, that contained the statement Other Legal issues may be discussed?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when a quorum left the meeting room on September 13, 2006, and had a discussion with the township&apos;s attorney?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 when it limited access to the journal in which votes are kept to once a month during the regular meeting of the Township Board?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at meetings held on December 19, 2006, January 16, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 21, 2007 and April 17, 2007?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before turning to the issues raised by Mr. McKenzie, it is necessary to establish that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(5), the governing body of a town is subject to the requirements of the OML. Therefore, the Board is subject to Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background and the Court&apos;s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issues presented by Mr. McKenzie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, when it posted a notice for a special meeting on September 13, 2006, that contained the statement Other Legal issues may be discussed?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to conducting a special meeting, the Board is required to post a notice that must meet certain requirements. Section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that for the notice to be effective and meet the direction of the Supreme Court in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake&lt;/em&gt; case, the notice must provide detail about the purpose of the meeting. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267582&quot; title=&quot;04-057&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The township&apos;s attorney argues that the statutory requirements were met. However, in order for the Board to be able to give notice to those who have requested notice about special meetings for specific purposes, more detail is needed than was provided before the September 13th meeting. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13D.04, subdivision 2(b). Mr. Gilchrist outlined five different legal issues that the Board discussed at the September 13th meeting. Without a more specific notice, there is no way for the members of the public to know what will be discussed and whether they should attend a special meeting. The public also had no way of knowing that these were the five legal issues that would be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gilchrist also argues that the concepts of new business and old business that apply in a regular meeting should apply to a special meeting. However, the public knows that any business can be discussed at a regular meeting of the Board. The September 13th meeting was a special meeting and different rules apply. Specifically, the Board is limited to the topics listed in the notice of special meeting. The phrase other legal issues does not give notice that the Board would, and did, discuss a traffic issue, enforcement of a zoning provision, the duties of the planning commission, review of permits issued under the zoning code and cutting weeds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Construing the requirements in section 13D.04, subdivision 2 in favor of public access, the notice for the September 13th special meeting was not sufficient and the Board was not in compliance with section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when a quorum left the meeting room on September 13, 2006, and had a discussion with the township&apos;s attorney?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a gathering of a quorum or more of the members of a public body like the Board is a meeting for purposes of Chapter 13D and the requirements of that chapter must be met. &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983). In other words, the meeting needs to be conducted in a way that allows the public the opportunity to see and hear what is occurring. &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McKenzie has presented facts that indicate that at the special meeting on September 13th, then Board Chair Donna Otto told the other two supervisors to step outside to talk to the township&apos;s attorney . . .about that land deal, we can&apos;t do as we planned. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Gilchrist acknowledges that it . . .would likely be a violation of the open meeting law for a quorum of the Town Board to gather in the Town Hall parking lot to discuss Town business. . . . He goes on to state that a discussion of town business did not occur when the two supervisors went out to meet with the attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While this is a factual dispute the Commissioner is unable to resolve, it is difficult to understand how Town business was not discussed as the specific direction by the Board Chair was for the two other members of the Board to talk about the land deal, the specific reason the special meeting was occurring. The Commissioner encourages the members of the Town Board not to act in ways that could be construed as violations of the Open Meeting Law, such as having a quorum adjourn to the Town Hall parking lot with the Town&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of the factual dispute, however, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether a violation of Chapter 13D occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 when it limited access to the journal in which votes are kept to once a month during the regular meeting of the Township Board?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13D requires that the Board keep a journal of votes (section 13D.01, subdivision 4) and also requires that the public have access to that journal. The pertinent language states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The journal must be open to the public during all normal business hours where records of the public body are kept.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 5. Chapter 13D does not contain a definition for the term business hours nor is there any case law interpreting what it means. However, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the provisions of Chapter 13D in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735 (above).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gilchrist argues that because Hampton Township does not have any employees and because the journal is kept at the Town Hall, it is appropriate that access to the journal be limited to the night of the Board&apos;s monthly meeting. As an alternative, copies can be obtained any time during the month by contacting the Town Clerk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McKenzie argues that sections 365.55 and 367.11 control the location of the journal and that Hampton Township does not maintain its journal in the proper place. Each section will be reviewed in turn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 365.55 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The town clerk is clerk of the town meeting and shall keep full minutes of its proceedings. The minutes must contain the full text of every order, direction, and rule made by the meeting. If the town clerk is absent, the voters present shall elect a clerk of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting must be signed by the clerk of the meeting and by the judges. The minutes must be filed in the office of the town clerk within two days after the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While section 365.55 directs that minutes be filed in the office of the town clerk, there is no direction about where that office is to be located. In addition, section 365.55 is about meetings of all residents in a township, not meetings of the Town&apos;s Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parts of section 367.11 that are pertinent to minutes and journals state:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It shall be the duty of the town clerk:
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) to act as clerk of the town board and keep in the clerk&apos;s office a true record of all of
&lt;br /&gt;
its proceedings;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) unless otherwise provided by law, to have custody of the records, books, and papers of the town and file and safely keep all papers required by law to be filed in the clerk&apos;s office;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) to record minutes of the proceedings of every town meeting in the book of town records and enter in them at length every order or direction and all rules and regulations made by the town meeting; . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, there are directions to keep records in the clerk&apos;s office, but no direction on where that office is to be maintained. Without that direction, it appears that the Board can choose where the clerk&apos;s office will be located. In Hampton Township, it appears that the Board has chosen the Town Hall as the location of the clerk&apos;s office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the Supreme Court&apos;s direction to construe Chapter 13D in favor of public access, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that restricting public access to the journals to the night of the monthly Board meeting is not in compliance with Chapter 13D. The Board should establish more times when the journals are available at the Town Hall or consider changing the location where the journal is stored to one that allows requesters more access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Board is not in compliance with section 13D.01, subdivision 5 when it restricts access to the Town&apos;s journals to one night per month.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at meetings held on December 19, 2006, January 16, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 21, 2007 and April 17, 2007?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McKenzie has indicated that at five different meetings in late 2006 and early 2007, presentations were made to the Board that included the distribution of materials to members of the board but no copies were available for the public to review. Mr. Gilchrist stated that the materials in question involve work by a contractor charged with enforcing official controls of the Town. Mr. Gilchrist further argues that the names of the parties against whom enforcement actions were pending are confidential and that other materials in the reports were secret or confidential information as identified by the company.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For a government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the resolution of this issue would be straightforward as the provisions in Chapter 13 would direct an outcome on the classification and accessibility. However, Hampton Township is not subject to Chapter 13. &lt;em&gt;See &lt;/em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267231&quot; title=&quot;06-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-007&lt;/a&gt;. Therefore, there are no statutes that resolve the classification and access issue that has been presented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the absence of statutory direction, the Commissioner will follow the language in section 13D.01, subdivision 6 and the direction provided in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; to construe provisions of the OML in favor of public access. Although the Commissioner was not provided a copy of the materials in question, the fact that the company distributed the materials to the members of the Board indicates that the content is not protected. According to the common law governing trade secrets, protecting the information is one of the requirements for finding that a trade secret exists. The conclusion that the materials are not trade secrets is further enforced by the Town Clerk who provided copies of the February, March and April, 2007, reports to Mr. McKenzie. Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that nothing in the reports is protected and so the reports should have been accessible in the meeting room during each meeting for the public to review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear why the December 2006, and January 2007, reports were not sent to Mr. McKenzie. Given the disclosure of some of the reports, the Commissioner urges the Town Clerk to send the remaining reports to Mr. McKenzie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Board was not in compliance with section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at each of the meetings in 2006 and 2007 because copies of the zoning reports were not available in the meeting room for the public to review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. McKenzie raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, when they posted a notice for a special meeting on September 13, 2006, that contained the statement Other Legal issues may be discussed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine if the members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D when a quorum left the meeting room on September 13, 2006, and had a discussion with the township&apos;s attorney.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 5 when they limited access to the journal in which votes are kept to once a month during the regular meeting of the Township Board.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Hampton Township Board of Supervisors did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at meetings held on December 19, 2006, January 16, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 21, 2007 and April 17, 2007.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 27, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267355</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Quorum</Title><Id>266255</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-013</Title><title>Opinion 07 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266948&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-05-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Thief River Falls comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it did not release the make, year, and model of vehicles involved in traffic accidents?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> May 22, 2007; City of Thief River Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On March 28, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated same, from David Hill, on behalf of two newspapers, the &lt;i&gt;Thief River Falls Times and Northern Watch&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspapers&apos; right to gain access to certain data from the City of Thief River Falls. IPAD requested clarification, which was provided April 12, 2007.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jodie Torkelson, Administrator, in response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2007, were to inform her of Mr. Hill&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 23, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated April 19, 2007, from Delray Sparby, Assistant City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Hill is as follows. In a letter dated March 20, 2007, Mr. Sparby wrote to Mr. Hill:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This letter is in follow-up to your recent correspondence requesting that law enforcement reports of accidents include the make, year and model of vehicles.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.82, Subd. 6, addresses response or incident data, which specifically includes data created or collected by law enforcement agencies in response to traffic accidents and classifies certain categories of such data as public government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The statute does not list the make, year or model of the vehicle as public government data subject to disclosure. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Hill wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Recently, the [City] devised what is described as incident data report worksheets to assist employees of the [City] prepare information for release to news media . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Shortly after the new incident report documents came into use [the newspapers] . . . expressed our objection to the absence of make, year and model of vehicles involved in accident [sic] from the reports. Up until that point, it had been the regular practice of law enforcement agencies . . . to include such data in incident reports. It is still data that is created and collected by [the City].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Hill&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Thief River Falls comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it did not release the make, year, and model of vehicles involved in traffic accidents?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential/protected nonpublic.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 169.09, relates to traffic accidents. It states that peace officers who investigate certain types of traffic accidents must report specific information to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). (See section 169.09, subdivision 8.) Language in subdivision 13 of section 169.09 discusses that the reports and supplemental information are used primarily for accident analysis purposes.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, subdivision 13 of section 169.09 places restrictions on the use of and access to data in accident reports but provides situations in which certain data may be disclosed. Clause (d) of subdivision 13, states, Disclosing any information contained in any accident report, except as provided in this subdivision, section 13.82, subdivision 3 [request for service data] or 6 [response or incident data], or other statutes, is a misdemeanor.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sparby wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The question from the [City&apos;s] standpoint is the interaction of 169.09 with 13.82, in regard to the disclosure of information and/or data of the same type that is contained in the State Accident Report Forms. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The required State accident reports list the make model and year of the vehicles involved and therefore would constitute data contained in an accident report. Neither, Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 3, nor Subd. 6, address or specifically include the make, year or model of the vehicle(s) as public government data always subject to disclosure.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The [City] Law Enforcement Officers also put the State accident information data, or portions thereof, into other reports created or collected as part of a response to a traffic accident (ie. incident reports, call for services documentation, police response reports, etc.). The question then becomes whether the statutory confidential designation regarding all reports, supplemental information and data required to be reported under Section 169.09 . . . extends to the same information and/or data when said information or data is contained in other written material or reports (ie. incident reports, call for services, police response reports, etc.).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      It appears to be an anomaly that data collected in reference to the same incident would be classified as confidential in one form, but would lose its confidential status because it is merely reported in a different written format. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The concern from the governmental view is the exposure to liability and the confusing aspect that the provision of same data contained in the required State accident reports, albeit in a different format from the State accident report itself, may be construed as a misdemeanor violation of Section 169.09, Subd. 13 (d).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner is aware that many agencies have questions about how to classify data relating to traffic accidents. The Commissioner provides her analysis below but believes it would be best for the Legislature to clarify its intent on these matters.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Pursuant to the relevant language in section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), law enforcement agencies &lt;i&gt;may not disclose information contained in any accident report&lt;/i&gt;, (except for those types of data listed in section 13.82, subdivision 3 [request for service] or 6 [response or incident]). The Commissioner&apos;s interpretation is that this clause refers to the data only as they are located in the DPS traffic accident report documents. In other words, although neither the accident report documents nor the data in them can be released (with the exception of any request for service or response or incident data), if law enforcement agencies maintain the same data elsewhere in incident reports, call for service reports, police response reports, etc., the data in those other reports, databases, etc., are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Unless there is an active criminal investigation, most data classified by section 13.82 are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The opposite conclusion, that data maintained in call or response records that also have been included on the DPS traffic accident report documents are not public, is problematic given the Legislature&apos;s clear intent that most data maintained by law enforcement agencies are public. Again, the Commissioner encourages interested parties to solicit legislative clarification. She notes this situation illustrates the difficulties in classifying a document as opposed to classifying the data that exist within a document. Most, if not all, of the provisions in Chapter 13 classify data rather than documents.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Hill&apos;s question is whether the make, year, and model of vehicles involved in traffic accidents are public. If the City maintained these data on only the DPS traffic accident report documents, pursuant to section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), the City could release only those types of data listed as request for service or response or incident data in section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6. Vehicle make, year, and model are not listed specifically as request for service, or response or incident data. Therefore, the City would not be required to release the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      However, as Mr. Sparby wrote, the City maintains the vehicle data in forms, reports, etc., other than the DPS traffic accident report documents. Thus, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.82, rather than section 169.09. If there is an active criminal investigation involving the vehicle data, the City can protect the data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. If there is not an active criminal investigation involving the vehicle data, it appears the City must release the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Hill raised is as follows:
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Thief River Falls maintains the make, year, and model of vehicles involved in traffic accidents in reports other than the DPS traffic accident report documents.
                              &lt;p&gt;
                                Therefore, if there was an active criminal investigation involving data about a particular vehicle, the City did comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it did not release the data. But, if there was no active criminal investigation involving data about a particular vehicle, the City did not comply with Chapter 13 when it did not release the data.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 22, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266948</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-012</Title><title>Opinion 07 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267967&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-05-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #2 of the data request)?
Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data relating to the Ramsey County Jail (all data listed under #3 of the data request)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2007; Ramsey County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated April 3, 2007, from X. In X&apos;s letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data from the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 11, 2007, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. The Commissioner did not receive a response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In a letter dated February 15, 2007, X wrote to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for copies of certain data that appear to be related to a criminal investigation and copies of certain data related to the Ramsey County jail.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 8, 2007, X wrote again to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for the data s/he requested in the February 15, 2007, letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the opinion request, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On February 15, 2007 I submitted a letter requesting access to data about myself under [Chapter 13] to Bob Fletcher assuming that he is the responsible authority for the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Department. I requested from him data about myself that was obtained by . . . a Deputy with the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Department. With no response from him I submitted a second request on March 8, 2007, today&apos;s date is April 3, 2007 and I have not receive [sic] a response from him. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On February 15, 2007 I submitted a letter requesting access to data about myself under [Chapter 13] to Bob Fletcher, assuming that he is the responsible authority for the Ramsey County Jail. I requested from him data about myself that was obtained by personnel from the Ramsey County Jail. With no response from him I submitted a second request on March 8, 2007, today&apos;s date is April 3, 2007 and I have not receive [sic] a response from him. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #2 of the data request)?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data relating to the Ramsey County Jail (all data listed under #3 of the data request)?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #2 of the data request)? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It appears the data listed under #2 of X&apos;s data request are law enforcement data classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public and private. The Sheriff&apos;s Office should have provided a response to X about these data within ten business days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) X first made a request for the data in a letter dated February 15, 2007. As of the date of X&apos;s opinion request, over six weeks later, apparently X had not received any response. The Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public. The Sheriff&apos;s Office should have provided a response to X about these data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) Again, by not providing any response to X before April 11, 2007, the Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Did the Ramsey County Sheriff comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data relating to the Ramsey County Jail (all data listed under #3 of the data request)? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It appears the data listed under #3 of X&apos;s data request are corrections and detention data classified pursuant to section 13.85. Some corrections and detention data are classified as public, some are private, and some are confidential.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public and private. The Sheriff&apos;s Office should have provided a response to X about these data within ten business days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) X first made a request for the data in a letter dated February 15, 2007. As of the date of X&apos;s opinion request, over six weeks later, apparently X had not received any response. The Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public. The Sheriff&apos;s Office should have provided a response to X about these data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) Again, by not providing any response to X before April 11, 2007, the Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #2 of the data request).
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data relating to the Ramsey County Jail (all data listed under #3 of the data request).
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 16, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267967</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-011</Title><title>Opinion 07 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267704&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-05-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Metro Gang Strike Force comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #1 of the data request)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2007; Metro Gang Strike Force</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On April 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated April 3, 2007, from X. In X&apos;s letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Gang Strike Force. (The Commissioner notes this organization is now the &lt;i&gt;Metro&lt;/i&gt; Gang Strike Force.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff, in response to X&apos;s request. The Commissioner is under the impression that Sheriff Fletcher is the responsible authority for the Strike Force. The purposes of this letter, dated April 11, 2007, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. The Commissioner did not receive a response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In a letter dated February 15, 2007, X wrote to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for copies of certain data that appear to be related to a criminal investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 8, 2007, X wrote again to Sheriff Fletcher and asked for the data s/he requested in the February 15, 2007, letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the opinion request, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On February 15, 2007 I submitted a letter requesting access to data about myself under [Chapter 13] to Bob Fletcher, assuming that he is the responsible authority for the [Metro] Gang Strike Force. . . . With no response from him I submitted a second request on March 8, 2007, today&apos;s date is April 3, 2007 and I have not receive [sic] a response from him. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Metro Gang Strike Force comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #1 of the data request)? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following analysis is based on the understanding that the Metro Gang Strike Force is a joint powers entity created by multiple counties and cities. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 - joint exercise of powers.) The Commissioner also understands that Ramsey County is the fiscal agent for the Strike Force and that Sheriff Fletcher is the responsible authority. As previous advisory opinions have discussed, for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a joint powers entity is a statewide system. Therefore, the Strike Force is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It appears the data X requested are law enforcement data classified pursuant to section 13.82. Some law enforcement data are public, some are private, and some are confidential.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public and private. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data within ten business days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) X first made a request for the data in a letter dated February 15, 2007. As of the date of X&apos;s opinion request, over six weeks later, apparently X had not received any response. The Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, X is entitled to gain access to the data classified as public. The Strike Force should have provided a response to X about these data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) Again, by not providing any response to X before April 11, 2007, the Strike Force did not comply with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; The Metro Gang Strike Task Force did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a February 15, 2007, request for data (all data listed under #1 of the data request). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 16, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267704</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Joint powers agreements/entities (471.59)</Title><Id>266827</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Metro Gang Strike Force</Title><Id>266640</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-010</Title><title>Opinion 07 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267802&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-03-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: &quot;contingency plans the University may have for strikes by any groups of employees at MSUM?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 27, 2007; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated January 31, 2007, from Richard Kaspari, attorney for the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO). In his letter, Mr. Kaspari asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the IFO&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM), which is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (MnSCU).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James McCormick, Chancellor of MnSCU, in response to Mr. Kaspari&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 2007, were to inform him of Mr. Kaspari&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MnSCU&apos;s position. On March 7, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gail Olson, General Counsel for MnSCU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Kaspari is as follows. In an email dated January 18, 2007, an IFO member asked for copies of certain data referenced in a 2006 MSUM document entitled &lt;em&gt;Pandemic Response Plan&lt;/em&gt;. The IFO member wrote, I am hereby requesting copies of any contingency plans the University may have for strikes by any group of employees at [MSUM].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated January 22, 2007, MSUM&apos;s Director of Human Resources responded: Please be advised that this information is protected under Chapter 13.37 of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] and hence, it is not public data that must be disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon request for clarification, the Human Resources Director sent an additional email on January 22, 2007: The labor relations clause is the first to come to mind, i.e., labor relations positions that are not presented to the union at the bargaining table are non-public under 13.37. But in my opinion there may be others that apply such as the security clause.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Kaspari&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the following data: contingency plans the University may have for strikes by any groups of employees at MSUM?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies labor relations information as private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals), and states that labor relations information relating to a specific labor organization is protected nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), defines labor relations information as, . . . management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, including information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position. Once management presents the data, the data lose their not public status and are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), defines security information as, . . . government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, regarding labor relations data, Mr. Kaspari wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Labor relations information means a public employer&apos;s positions on contractual items governing its employees&apos; terms and conditions of employment which have not yet been presented in the collective bargaining process. . . . This definition serves to permit public employers to control the timing of the presentation of their positions on specific items relating to economic and non-economic terms and conditions of employment during the course of the collective bargaining process. The requested information does not relate to management&apos;s positions on items that might be discussed in collective bargaining. Instead, it appears to relate exclusively to management&apos;s plans to maintain operations in the event that collective bargaining fails to produce a collective bargaining agreement without an intervening strike.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Olson disagreed with Mr. Kaspari&apos;s interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . [section 13.37] protects management positions on economic and non-economic items from disclosure in all circumstances except where such positions have been presented during collective bargaining. . . . The plain language of the statute includes management positions on &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; economic or non-economic items regardless of whether they are terms and conditions that are required to be bargained . . . Thus, even if [section 13.37] required that labor relations information be linked to management&apos;s bargaining proposals, as the IFO erroneously argues, the university&apos;s strike plan still satisfies the statutory definition as the university&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not agree with Ms. Olson&apos;s characterization of the definition of labor relations data in section 13.37. This provision originated as a request for a temporary classification of data (see section 13.06) that the Commissioner approved in 1979. Some examples of the types of data presented to the Commissioner in support of the temporary classification include management collective bargaining positions not presented as formal offers during negotiations; salary plan alternative and salary cost information prepared for analyzing management and union alternatives and positions; drafts and salary plans not presented as formal offers; materials prepared for arbitration cases which describe and support management positions; management negotiations meeting notes; and management analysis of union proposals. Labor relations data become public pursuant to the general presumption once management presents them as part of the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In essence, the labor relations provision allows management officials to withhold their collective bargaining positions from the union before the officials decide to make particular offers or compromises during negotiations. A strike plan does not seem to be the type of information a government entity would create to be used during a bargaining session for analyzing a union&apos;s position or preparing its own proposals and alternatives. Rather, it is data the entity creates to prepare itself in the eventuality that negotiations fail and a strike occurs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, because management enters into separate contract negotiations with each employee union, the data protected by section 13.37 would not seem to include a strike plan that contains data about all the unions representing employees that work for the government entity. For these reasons, it does not appear that MSUM can deny access to the strike plan based on the labor relations section of section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MSUM also cited the security information section as a basis upon which to deny access to the strike plan. Ms. Olson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During a strike, a college or university campus is likely to be more vulnerable to a variety of security concerns if, for no other reason, than there may be attempts to take advantage of the fact that fewer employees are available to deal with situations that arise. MSUM&apos;s strike contingency plan includes specific and strategic information about measures that university administrators utilize to protect the health and safety of persons and state-owned resources in the event of a work stoppage. These measures generally include, but are not limited to: communication protocols; protections for important resources and infrastructure such as power plants, heating facilities, computer servers and other information technology; plans to address safe and lawful campus access by students, employees and others, plans to ensure adequate food delivery and safe living conditions in dorms; and other related matters to ensure the continued operation of all vital functions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MSUM believes that the public disclosure of its plan would likely lead to the substantial jeopardy of the persons and property it is charged to protect. If the university&apos;s strategies and plans were publicly available during a strike, protection measures and modes of communication could be easily disrupted; interference with deliveries and other actions that would substantially increase the vulnerability of persons and property to injury or damage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed the issue of security information in previous advisory opinions, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267835&quot; title=&quot;02-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Government personnel charged with assessing the vulnerability of public utility delivery systems must be granted the authority to protect the integrity of those systems. Accordingly, if those responsible persons within a government entity determine that the disclosure of any of the data [defined as security data in section 13.37, subdivision 1(a)] then those data may properly be classified as not public security information, pursuant to section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wants to emphasize that, in the exercise of this discretion, a government entity must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would likely lead to substantial jeopardy. The entity cannot simply protect data from disclosure under section 13.37 on an arbitrary basis, but must base the determination on reasoned analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Olson argues that MSUM&apos;s strike plan contains security information and cannot be released. The Commissioner has not seen the strike plan and, therefore, cannot comment specifically on the data contained therein. As previous advisory opinions discuss, government entities have discretion in these situations but should take care that their determinations are not arbitrary. Here, it seems possible that certain of the data in the strike plan are more likely to be security information than other data. For instance, if the plan includes a listing of which courses will or will not be taught, those data do not seem to pose a security risk, whereas a better argument could be made that a description about how computer server security will be handled is security information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the release of certain data in the strike plan would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury, MSUM can withhold those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Kaspari raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to contingency plans the University may have for strikes by any groups of employees at MSUM based on the labor relations provision of section 13.37.
&lt;p&gt;However, MSUM can deny access to data in the strike plan based on the security information provision of section 13.37 if release of the data will be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 27, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267802</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition (subd. 1(c))</Title><Id>266502</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Strike plan</Title><Id>266887</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data classification&apos;s origin</Title><Id>266468</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-009</Title><title>Opinion 07 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267652&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-03-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 720, Shakopee, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the Tennessen warning notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2?
If Independent School District 720, Shakopee, did not provide a Tennessen warning notice when it collected private data about the student from the student, did it comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it used data it collected from the student?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 9, 2007; School District 720 (Shakopee)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 18, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated January 17, 2007, from Daniel Becker, an attorney representing a student enrolled in Independent School District 720, Shakopee. In his letter, Mr. Becker asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s rights as a data subject under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John McBroom, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 24, 2007, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 5, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gregory Madsen, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Becker provided them is as follows. He wrote in his opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] is a student [On a day in 2006, X] was interviewed by [school administrative staff]. During the interview of [X], [X] repeatedly was asked to supply private data concerning other students. The questions related to [out of school activities]. [X] declined to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[School administrative staff] then proceeded to request that [X] provide private data about [him/herself]. At this point, [X] definitely should have received a Tennessen warning in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.04, Subdivision 2. [X] never received one at any time, however. [X] also was not provided a valid warning at any subsequent interviews, such as one that occurred later that same day with [X&apos;s parent] present. For example, [X] was not told in either interview that [X] could refuse to supply the requested information. [X] also was not told about any consequences that might arise from either supplying or refusing to provide the data. [X] certainly was not advised that the information [X] provided might be used by the School against [X] in disciplinary proceedings, or that it would be shared with other school officials, or that it could be disclosed to the Minnesota State High School League.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to repeated questioning by school officials [on that same day], [X] disclosed private data about [him/herself] to the School. This constituted the collection of private data by the School District in violation of [Chapter 13].On the basis of this private data, [school officials] made a determination that [X] had violated a bylaw of the Minnesota State High School League and made a determination that [X] was ineligible.This action constituted a further violation of [Chapter 13] because of the School District&apos;s use of the private data .Finally, the school District continues to maintain the illegally obtained data in its files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Becker&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Independent School District 720, Shakopee, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the Tennessen warning notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If Independent School District 720, Shakopee, did not provide a Tennessen warning notice when it collected private data about the student from the student, did it comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it used data it collected from the student?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Independent School District 720, Shakopee, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the Tennessen warning notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, when a government entity collects private or confidential data from an individual about that individual, the entity is required to provide a notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen warning. The notice must contain the following four elements: (1) the purpose and intended use of the data; in other words, why the entity is collecting the data and how it will use the data; (2) whether the individual can refuse or is legally required to provide the requested data; (3) what the consequences are of supplying or not supplying the data; and (4) what agencies or persons outside the collecting entity legally will be able to get the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Madsen related that the District had several conversations with X and/or X&apos;s parent(s) on the day Mr. Becker referenced in his opinion request. Mr. Madsen described the first two meetings as interviews and the third as a meeting. Apparently, the final conversation that day about the matter took place over the telephone, in the evening. The Commissioner has not seen a transcript of the meetings. However, based on the description Mr. Madsen gives of the first two meetings and some of the questions he says District staff asked of X and some of the answers he says X gave, it seems clear the District was asking X to provide private data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data on individuals that are about students. Generally, pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law, data about students are private.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding whether the District provided X with a Tennessen warning notice, Mr. Madsen wrote that during the first interview, X was not told that X could refuse to answer certain questions. Mr. Madsen did not provide information explaining when, or if, the District verbally provided the other elements of the notice or that the notice had been given to X in writing. Mr. Madsen further wrote, Even if the [Commissioner] were to determine that [X] received an incomplete Tennessen warning notice it is clear that, in the context of this matter, any such deficiency in the notice was at most a &lt;em&gt;de minimus&lt;/em&gt; violation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees. Because the District seemingly collected private data about X from X, during at least the first two meetings, the District should have provided X with a Tennessen warning notice. Because the District apparently provided no notice, it did not comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If Independent School District 720, Shakopee, did not provide a Tennessen warning notice when it collected private data about the student from the student, did it comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it used data it collected from the student?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 4, states that private or confidential data shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by a government entity for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-028&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature, by connecting the notice requirement of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, with the limitations on uses and disseminations of data established by Section 13.05, subdivision 4, also provided a consequence for government entities which do not meet their statutory obligation regarding the collection of private or confidential data. If a government entity does not administer a Tennessen Warning that meets the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, there are strict limitations imposed on the entity regarding any data it collects without giving the notice required by statute. That is, those data may not be stored, used or disseminated except as provided in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, as cited above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Madsen asserts that after the first day in which District officials interviewed X, all subsequent admissions by [X], [X&apos;s] parents and their lawyer were voluntary and no Tennessen warning notices were required. He added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Consequently, it was proper for the School District to rely on the multiple admissions . . . and to fulfill its obligations as a MSHSL [Minnesota State High School League] - member school to impose the MSHSL-mandated penalty. Equally significant, pursuant to the release signed by [X] and [X&apos;s] parent, they consented to the School District&apos;s documentation and use of such admissions in connection with the eligibility determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has examined the document Mr. Madsen provided entitled &lt;em&gt;2006-2007 MSHSL Athletic Eligibility Statement&lt;/em&gt;. It appears to have been created by the MSHSL and was signed by X and X&apos;s parent(s). It discusses the Student Code of Responsibilities. Of relevance here, the document contains the following statement, The student/parent authorizes the release of documents and other pertinent information by the school in order to determine student eligibility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner previously has opined, an individual cannot consent to have certain data released if s/he does not know what data will be released. When X and his/her parent signed the consent document, the data at issue in this opinion had not yet been collected from X. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote, In the present case, X was asked to sign the informed consent before GFA collected data about him/her. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that GFA violated X&apos;s rights by having him/her give informed consent before X knew what data GFA would be collecting from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because the consent signed by X does not seem valid, and the District apparently did not provide a Tennsessen warning notice when it collected certain private data from X about X, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 4, the District did not comply with Chapter 13 when it used those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Becker raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 720, Shakopee, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it collected private data about a student from the student without providing the Tennessen warning notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because Independent School District 720, Shakopee, did not provide a Tennessen warning notice when it collected private data about the student from the student, it did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it used data it collected from the student.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 9, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267652</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-008</Title><title>Opinion 07 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267754&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-02-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $124.85 for copies of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 14, 2007; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated January 3, 2007, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding copy charges assessed by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nick Drees, Administrator for the District, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 17, 2007, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 30, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jeffrey Hane, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 22, 2007, Mr. Stengrim asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. All expense statements for ditch JD 25-I from January 1990 to September 2006.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. All board minutes from January 1990 to September 2006 that ditch JD 25-I was discussed.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. All request for repair or installation of any and all types of crossings on ditch JD 25-I the Watershed District received from January 1990 to September 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 31, 2006, Mr. Stengrim asked for copies of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 6, 2006, the District responded, attaching an invoice that indicated the total copy cost would be $138.15. The breakdown was as follows: 133 copies at $.10 a page ($13.30) plus 5 hours to retrieve and copy documents at $24.97 an hour ($124.85).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 7, 2007, Mr. Stengrim asked how many pages contained the data he requested in Item 1 and how many pages contained the data he requested in Item 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 8, 2007, the District responded, The number of pages for item #1 of your request is 107 pages. The number of pages for item #2 of your request is 26 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 12, 2006, Mr. Stengrim wrote, After reviewing your response I have decided that at this time I only want copies of the 26 pages concerning the item #2 of my request. These copies will be the minutes of Board meeting from 1999 to September 2006 that JD25-I was discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 14, 2006, the District responded, This reduces your billing $10.70. The amount now is $127.45. The breakdown contained in the attached invoice was as follows: 26 pages at $.10 ($2.60) plus 5 hours to retrieve and copy documents at $24.97 an hour ($124.85).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 26, 2006, Mr. Stengrim wrote, It appears that your required payment is in violation of [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 29, 2006, the District wrote and indicated the fee remained $127.45.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $124.85 for copies of government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides for situations in which an individual who is not the data subject requests access to government data. If the individual wants to inspect the data, the entity may not charge any fee (section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the individual wants to get copies of the data, the entity may choose to charge a fee. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that if the number of requested paper copies is 100 or fewer, the entity may charge no more than $.25 per page. If the number of pages is more than 100, the entity&apos;s fee must be based on the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. The language establishing a different fee structure based on number of pages copied was enacted during the 2005 Legislative Session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, when Mr. Stengrim made his data request, he asked to inspect the data. Two months later, he wrote to the District and asked that they send him copies instead. Because the total number of pages was over 100, the District charged him $.10 per page and $124.85 to retrieve and copy the documents. The District asked Mr. Stengrim to pay prior to the District sending him the copies. Mr. Stengrim then asked that the District send him only some of the data, the total of which was under 100 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nothing in Chapter 13 prohibits an individual from making a request to inspect data then deciding to ask for copies. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-038&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a similar issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . Mr. Browning has engaged in what, technically, is a two-step process. First he asked to inspect certain data. . . . Second, upon examining the documents, he determined that he wanted copies of only 198 pages of data. Given the &apos;actual cost&apos; language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), it does not seem appropriate for Mn/DOT to charge Mr. Browning the cost it incurred searching for and retrieving data in all the documents he initially asked to inspect . . . Therefore, the Commissioner recommends that Mn/DOT prorate the search and retrieval portion of the copying charge. In other words, if it took Mn/DOT one hour at $34.85/hour to retrieve the data in all the pages Mr. Browning asked to inspect, Mn/DOT may charge the percentage of the $34.85 that the 198 pages represent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Stengrim revised his request for copies downward, asking for copies only of some of the data he originally requested. Nothing in Chapter 13 prevents him from doing this and the statute clearly states that if the number of paper copies is 100 or fewer, the District may charge him no more that $.25 cents per page. The Commissioner notes that this charge is a flat rate and is not to include any additional costs such as mailing, cost of paper, cost of toner, or searching for the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. The Commissioner is aware that in 2005 when the Legislature amended section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), there was discussion in committee about situations in which an individual interested in obtaining hundreds of paper copies might space the requests so the total number of pages is always under 100. Legislators made it clear that such a scenario would circumvent the intent behind allowing entities to charge a search for and retrieval fee if an individual requests a large amount of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $124.85 for copies of government data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 14, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267754</id><Tag><Description/><Title>25 cents per page</Title><Id>266936</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-007</Title><title>Opinion 07 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268008&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-02-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to an October 13, 2006, request for certain data? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 6, 2007; Red River Watershed Management Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 18, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 14, 2006, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Red River Watershed Management Board.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, the Board&apos;s data practices compliance official, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 22, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On January 5, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Erickson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In a letter dated October 13, 2006, Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Board:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The following public data is now requested.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                1. The adopted loan guidelines of the [Board].
                &lt;br /&gt;
                2. All loan requests received from member watershed districts prior to January 1, 2006.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. All Minnesota Statutes that govern the [Board] powers to make loans.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                4. The section of the [Board] governing bylaws that allows loans to be made.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, There has been no attempt by the [Board] to respond to the request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to an October 13, 2006, request for certain data?
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As part of her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson attached the District&apos;s January 5, 2007, response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s October request. In her letter to Mr. Stengrim she wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      . . . Enclosed is a copy of the adopted loan guidelines of the [Board]. We have reviewed [Board] history concerning loan requests prior to January 1, 2006, and have determined that there have been no loan requests from member watershed districts per se; there have been several cases in which member watershed districts have received an advance payment of committed project funding.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Our attorney, as well as the attorney for the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District, has advised that the loan provided for the Agassiz Valley Water Management project to that watershed district was authorized under Minnesota Statutes and other applicable law. Our attorney has also advised that the appropriate response to Items 3 and 4 of your data request is to refer you to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D and the [Board&apos;s] bylaws, which have been previously provided to you. There are no other documents or data in our possession on this subject. I am not authorized to provide you legal opinions in response to your requests for data under [Chapter 13].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As discussed above, government entities must respond to data requests promptly and appropriately. Regarding Mr. Stengrim&apos;s part of the October 13 request for the loan guidelines, in her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote, The amendment to the funding procedures identified in our response was the subject of deliberation at the November and December 2006 meetings of the [Board]; delay in action on this amendment lead to delay in our response to Mr. Stengrim. Mr. Stegrim made his request in a letter dated October 13, 2006. Given that the Board apparently did not communicate with Mr. Stengrim on this matter until January 5, 2007, the Board&apos;s response was not timely. The Commissioner is unable to determine if the Board provided all data response to this part of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding Mr. Stengrim&apos;s part of the October 13 request for prior loan requests, Ms. Erickson did not provide any information explaining why it took the Board approximately 12 weeks to inform Mr. Stengrim that no data existed regarding his request. This is not a timely response.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding the third and fourth items Mr. Stengrim requested on October 13, it appears they technically are not requests for data, but rather are questions. As such, they are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 and the District can choose to respond or not. (It appears the Board did refer Mr. Stengrim to Chapter 103D and the Board&apos;s bylaws - although it is not clear if he was provided copies of both.) If Mr. Stengrim had asked for copies of all data that document the Board&apos;s powers to make loans, the Board then would have been required to respond as required by Chapter 13, and provide any data it maintains that are responsive to the request. The Commissioner notes it is possible that some of the responsive data might include attorney client information that is protected by section 13.393.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Red River Watershed Management Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the first two items requested on October 13, 2006. It appears the third and fourth items requested are questions not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 6, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268008</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-006</Title><title>Opinion 07 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267740&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in audio tape recordings that two Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board managers made of board meetings?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of notes taken by a former Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board manager during board meetings while he was a member of the board?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 30 2007; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 20, 2006, IPAD received letters, dated November 16, 2006, from Jeffrey Hane, an attorney representing the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District. Mr. Hane asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data. IPAD sought clarification, which Mr. Hane provided in a letter dated December 8, 2006. The Commissioner sought and received comments from Tracy Anderson, Elden Elseth, and Loren Zutz.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Hane provided them is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a document dated October 13, 2006, Mr. Anderson requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . that existing audio recordings of District meetings or made in the course of conducting District business made by managers Mr. Loren Zutz and Mr. Elden Elseth be made available for public inspection at a convenient [sic] time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding, based in part by my presence at Board of Manager monthly meetings where Managers Elseth and Zutz were present, that the Managers used electronic devices to record the proceedings, recording them in whole or at least in part. I am not aware of either Manager using their recording device during the meeting for the purpose of taking private notes. When asked by the Watershed Administrator to assist him in responding to Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, it was my opinion that these recordings are more likely than not public data, since they were created by members of a public body and are a verbatim recording of the proceedings of a public body, and the Managers created them while exercising their official duties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 13, 2006, Wally Dietrich asked to inspect:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. All notes taken by Tracy Anderson while serving on the [District] as a Board Manager. This request includes regular, special, advisory and committee meetings.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. All notes taken by Tracy Anderson while serving on the [District] as a Board Manager at closed meetings concerning litigation where the issue has now been settled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am aware of a previous opinion where the commissioner believed that notes taken by a school board member for the purpose of creating official minutes were public data. Personal notes taken by individual board members for their own use or benefit, it would seem, would not be government data created by the agency itself. If such notes were government data created by the agency, then presumably all notes created by any member of any body of a political subdivision would be subject to a data practice request and subject to the data retention rules. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Especially troublesome to me is Mr. Dietrich&apos;s request to inspect notes taken during closed meeting [sic] where the attorney-client privilege was in place and attorneys for the [District] were explaining legal theories, discussing litigation strategy, or otherwise counseling our client. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Hane&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in audio tape recordings that two Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board managers made of board meetings?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of notes taken by a former Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board manager during board meetings while he was a member of the board?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in audio tape recordings that two Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board managers made of board meetings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The term government entity is defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7a, as a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision. Thus, any data an entity or its governing board creates, maintains, etc., are government data. One exception to this general rule is if an employee or governing board member creates, maintains, etc., data that are &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt;. That is, data an employee or official did not create in his/her government capacity and data the purpose of which are not related to the operations of government. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-049&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267417&quot; title=&quot;05-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-017&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether government data are public or not public depends upon how the data are classified in Chapter 13, other Minnesota laws, or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District is a political subdivision. Thus, any audio recordings of meetings of the District&apos;s governing board made by members of its governing board, including Mr. Elseth and Mr. Zutz, are government data, and the responsibility of the District. Because it does not seem possible that audio recordings of board meetings could contain &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; data, the Commissioner assumes all the data contained in the audio recordings are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Elseth and Mr. Zutz discussed that they recorded the meetings on digital recording devices. They wrote, After recording on the device it must either be downloaded onto a computer using a licensed computer program or erased. This does not change the fact that the recordings are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the classification of the audio recordings, the Commissioner was not made aware that any of the recordings occurred during a closed meeting or that any provision in Chapter 13 or another statute classifies the data as anything other than public. Therefore, they are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data consist of both official and non-official records. Official records are defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 those records . . . necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [one&apos;s] official activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government entities are required to keep official records at least as long as their retention schedules require. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Elseth and Mr. Zutz wrote, [Mr. Zutz] is unable to locate the recording and believes it was erased and that the recording does not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to [Mr. Elseth], a third party and not a member of the Board of managers . . . had asked Mr. Elseth to record meetings for him . . . The recordings were made on a device owned by [the third party]. . . . The recordings were later downloaded to [the third party&apos;s] personal computer and the recordings on the device owned by [the third party] were erased.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the audio recordings Mr. Elseth and Mr. Zutz made of the board meetings are not official records and, therefore, are not subject to retention requirements. Based on the comments from Mr. Elseth and Mr. Zutz, it appears the data no longer exist. Although the District is not required to maintain the data for any specific period of time, if the audio recordings existed at the time Mr. Anderson made his request, and the District was in possession of them, the District was required to provide access to them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. Mr. Elseth discussed that he made audio recordings for a third individual. Whether it is appropriate for governing board members to make audio recordings for members of the public and whether those recordings then take on a &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; data status depends upon many factors, such as whether there is a board policy permitting such recordings and whether governing board members are transparent about for whom they are making recordings. Here, as stated above, based on the facts presented to the Commissioner, her opinion is that the audio recordings are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of notes taken by a former Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board manager during board meetings while he was a member of the board?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above in the analysis of the Issue 1, the District is a political subdivision. Any notes Mr. Anderson took at board meetings when he was a governing board member are government data unless the data are unrelated to his fulfilling his board member responsibilities and are &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, the first part of the District&apos;s analysis into whether the notes may be released is to determine whether they contain any personal data; if so, such data are not government data and not subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the classification of any government data in the notes, the Commissioner offers the following guidance. All government data are public unless otherwise classified. If any of the data in the notes are classified in Chapter 13 or other statute as anything other than public, the District cannot release them. This would include any data classified by section 13.393 as attorney data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267759&quot; title=&quot;97-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-009,&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the notes Mr. Anderson took at board meetings when he was a board member are not official records and, therefore, are not subject to retention requirements. Although the District is not required to maintain the data for any specific period of time, if any of the notes existed at the time Mr. Dietrich made his request, and the District was in possession of them, the District was required to provide access to them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. If the District does not have a records retention schedule listing official records and how long they need to by maintained, it should create one promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Hane raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data contained in audio tape recordings that two Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board managers made of board meetings are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Notes taken by a former Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District board manager during board meetings while he was a member of the board are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 30, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267740</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Audio recordings</Title><Id>266648</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public meetings (see also: Open Meetings Law)</Title><Id>266641</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-005</Title><title>Opinion 07 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267391&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13, 175 and 176, if it releases certain data in its WC-Informix database in response to a request for summary data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 26 2007; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 2006, IPAD received a letter from Nancy J. Leppink, Director of Legal Services for the Minnesota Department of Labor Industry. In her letter, Ms. Leppink asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the public&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 18, 2006, IPAD invited Avner Ben-Ner to provide comments, which he did, in a letter dated December 26, 2006. Mr. Ben-Ner had requested an opinion from the Commissioner in October 2006; subsequently he withdrew his request and agreed to let the Department request this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Leppink presented them follows. Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On September 26, 2006 the DLI received a request from University of Minnesota Professor Ben-Ner for certain data DLI maintains in a database identified by DLI as the WC-Informix database. The data requested by Professor Ben-Ner included workers&apos; compensation data about injured employees, their employers, and their employer&apos;s insurers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following is a description of DLI&apos;s WC-Informix database:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Numerous paper documents and some electronic documents are received daily by DLI&apos;s Information Processing Center (IPC), opened and sent for scanning. Various provisions in Minn. Stat. Ch. 176 require that these documents be filed with and maintained by the DLI. The scanning operator makes sure the scanner correctly identifies a document using a Form ID that is affixed to the document and forwards documents with specific Form IDs to Data Entry. Data Entry operators capture or code specific fields of data from each of the documents forwarded to them. Once the data from the documents is entered, the paper document is shredded and the electronic data flows into a series of tables in the WC-Informix database. The scanned document is also maintained by the department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition a limited amount of data in the WC-Informix database is received by other means. Some information is forwarded as an electronic database from other state agencies (e.g., Commerce sends some insurer information, DEED sends an employer table). Some information is data-entered elsewhere in DLI (e.g., alternative dispute resolution documents, insurer penalties, QRC documents).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Informix program provides an inventory of all tables in the DLI-Informix database. There are approximately 40 tables in the database.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Most of the data in the WC-Informix database is data entered from reports filed with the department as required by Minn. Stat. section 176.231. [Reports are required where death or serious injury occurs to an employee during the course of employment. ] The reports filed in accordance with Minn. Stat. section 176.231 are specific to particular employee workers&apos; compensation claims.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The WC-Informix data requested by Professor Ben-Ner is data that is submitted to DLI in one or more reports employers, insurers and health care providers are required to file with DLI in accordance with Minn. Stat. section 176.231. DLI has identified the following statutory provisions that provide direction on how the data requested by Professor Ben-Ner is classified and whether DLI may release the data to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Leppink discussed the applicability of various statutes that relate to workers&apos; compensation: sections 175.10, 175.171, 175.24, 175.27, 176.138, 176.231 and 176.234.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for access to data, Mr. Ben-Ner asked the Department for various data elements it maintains in the database, matched against 850 companies. The data elements include, for example, employee&apos;s age, zip code, date of injury and employment status; and employer&apos;s name, address, zip code, insurance type, and unemployment insurance number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to that request, the Department responded that it would not grant him access, based on section 176.231, subdivisions 8 and 9. The Department acknowledged that it had provided Mr. Ben-Ner with access to similar data in the past, but that in light of a 2004 Minnesota Supreme Court decision (&lt;em&gt;Westrom v. Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry&lt;/em&gt;, 686 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. 2004)) it has reconsidered its practice in the release of all data more strictly even though [Westrom] was specifically only about whether a company&apos;s alleged violations of worker&apos;s compensation laws are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In his letter to the Department of Administration, Professor Ben-Ner cites to the summary data provision of the Minnesota Data Practices Act (MDPA), Minn. Stat. section 13.05, subd. 7 (2004), to support his position that DLI may release to him the data he has requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After careful review of the summary data provision on [sic] the MDPA, the department reached the following conclusions and identified the following difficulties in applying this provision to Professor Ben-Ner&apos;s request. To begin, Minn. Stat. section 13.05, subd. 7 provides that [t]he use of summary data derived from private or confidential data on individuals under the jurisdiction of one more responsible authorities is permitted. Unless classified pursuant to section 13.06, another statute, or federal law summary data is public. Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 19 defines summary data as statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which the individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. And Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 8 defines individual as a natural person.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on its review of the above language, the department concluded the summary data provision of Minn. Stat. section 13.05, subd. 7 (2004), applies only to data on individuals. Consequently subdivision 7 does not permit the use or release of summary data derived from protected nonpublic data and nonpublic data. The data requested by Professor Ben-Ner includes data on individuals and data not on individuals. Further, arguably the same data could be on both. The data in the WC-Informix is primarily provided by employers, insurers and medical providers. Professor Ben-Ner is researching employers&apos; management practices and workplace safety. To conduct this research he has requested data from the department about employers&apos; experience with workers&apos; compensation claims. So arguably he is requesting data about employers and not individuals. But clearly the data he is requesting is also employees&apos; workers&apos; compensation data and also to a lesser degree insurers&apos; workers&apos; compensation data. To the extent Professor Ben-Ner&apos;s request is seeking data that is not on individuals the summary data provision does not apply and the data cannot be release [sic] to him under that provision. Consequently, the department is seeking assistance on how to determine what data in its database is on individuals and what data is data not on individuals. Or does it depend on the request?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To the extent Professor Ben-Ner is seeking summary data on individuals, the department has the following concerns. The data requested is specific data about specific individuals, such as the individual&apos;s date of injury, nature of injury, employer, marital status, extent of disability. Therefore, is the data he has requested a statistical record or report derived from data on an individual when it is the actual data on the individual that is being requested? Further, Professor Ben-Ner is requesting an extensive amount of specific data about specific individuals. The department is seeking assistance on how to determine what data or set of data will result in the employee&apos;s identity or any other characteristic that could uniquely identify the employee being ascertainable? Some employees&apos; injuries are more unique than others. Consequently a small subset of data could uniquely identify the employee. Arguably providing an employee&apos;s date of injury, that the injury resulted in the employee&apos;s death and the employer name could uniquely identify the employee of a highly publicized workplace fatality. Particularly when matched with other readily available data from other sources outside the department. Thus providing any subset of data about a specific individual, even if individual&apos;s name, address, telephone number, social security number is not provided, could be found to be insufficiently summary . Again the department is seeking assistance in how to navigate this provision of the act in light of the significant amount of data Professor Ben-Ner is requesting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ben-Ner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The principal concern of [Ms. Leppink&apos;s December 12, 2006, letter requesting this opinion] appears to be that my request includes individual employee workers&apos; compensation data, which apparently does not qualify as summary data per Minnesota Statute 176.231 subdivision 9, and Minnesota Statute 13.05 subdivision 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As Ms. Leppink&apos;s letter notes, my original data request includes individual workers&apos; date of injury, nature of injury, age at the injury, etc. which could be regarded as insufficiently summary. As the letter further notes, my research project concerns the relationship between managerial practices and firm-level workers&apos; compensation claims outcomes. Indeed, individual employee-level information is not required for my research; all the variables I need from DLI&apos;s data base are at the firm level. The reason I requested individual employee information was to use it to generate firm-level summary variables. This is how we proceeded in the past; this was done in order to facilitate DLI&apos;s provision of the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I will be happy to receive the information I requested aggregated to the firm level. If necessary, I (or someone from my research staff) could work with DLI staff to generate the requisite data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Leppink&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13, 175 and 176, if it releases certain data in its WC-Informix database in response to a request for summary data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Leppink noted, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data, a term defined in statute, are data that are derived from private or confidential data on individuals, but are data in which individuals are not and can not be identified. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, and 1205.0700, provide additional guidance regarding summary data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508&quot; title=&quot;00-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-011&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data. Other detailed private or confidential data do not need to be redacted, once the personal identifiers are removed. The principal reason for the summary data provision is to allow access to otherwise private or confidential data for research purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Leppink, the WC-Informix database contains both public and not public data on individuals, and both public and not public data that are not about individuals. She stated that Mr. Ben-Ner requested access to data on individuals as well as data not on individuals. The Commissioner agrees with the Department that it cannot prepare &lt;u&gt;summary&lt;/u&gt; data that are responsive to Mr. Ben-Ner&apos;s request, because the data he requested do not derive solely from data on individuals. He asked for access to data about individuals linked to data about companies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, upon analyzing whether the Department must provide Mr. Ben-Ner with data aggregated to the firm level, as he proposed in his comments, the Commissioner has identified several issues that raise questions about the Department&apos;s ability to provide access to any data in the WC-Informix database. The following discussion is intended to provide guidance to the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Next it is the conclusion of the department that other statutes prohibit the department from releasing the requested data and consequently they trigger the language in Minn. Stat. 13.05, subd. 7 that provides [u]nless classified pursuant to . . . another statute, or federal law, summary data is public. There are several provisions in Chapters 175 and 176 that the department believes prohibit it from releasing the requested data in any form, including as summary data. In particular, Minn. Stat. section 176.231, subd. 8, provides that the reports and the content of reports filed with the Department under that section shall not be disclosed and expressly makes disclosure of the data a misdemeanor. The department has interpreted the term content to mean each and every data element contained in a report. Thus the provision precludes the department from providing data elements even if data that identifies or would tend to identify an individual is not provided. The department has also concluded that this provision precludes the department from entering into an agreement with Professor Ben-Ner as allowed by Minn. Stat. 13.05, subd. 7 (2004). As identified by Professor Ben-Ner, subdivision 9 sets out limited circumstance [sic] in which the department may use the data it is otherwise prohibited from releasing. Subdivision 9 allows the Department to use the data in hearings held under this chapter, and for the purpose of state investigations and for statistics. The statute does not allow the commissioner to release the data so that other persons may use it to create statistics. The statute also does not require the department to prepare statistical data at the request of the public. Moreover it is the conclusion of the department that the data Professor Ben-Ner is requesting is not statistics . It is the conclusion of the department that subdivision 8 and 9 must be interpreted to give effect to both.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are three additional provisions that apply to the release of the data requested. Minn. Stat. section 176.138 limits the release of injured employee medical data. The department has concluded that this section prohibits the department from releasing injured employee medical data maintained in the WC-Informix database to Professor Ben-Ner because he is not an employee, employer, insurer or the department and he does not have authorizations from injured employees to access their medical data. Minn. Stat. section 175.24 prohibits the department from disclosing the names of persons or concerns supplying information requested by the department and Minn. Stat. section 175.27 and makes such a disclosure a misdemeanor. Finally, Minn. Stat. section 176.171 provides that [a]ccess to and electronic data interchange of nonpublic data shall be only as authorized by the subject of the data, as authorized in chapter 13, or as otherwise authorized by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Leppink stated that most of the data in the WC-Informix database derive from the reports mandated under section 176.231, but the database also contains a limited amount of data . . . received by other means. Some information is forwarded as an electronic database from other state agencies (e.g., Commerce sends some insurer information, DEED sends an employer table). Some information is data-entered elsewhere in DLI (e.g., alternative dispute resolution documents, insurer penalties, QRC documents). Ms. Leppink did not discuss the classification of all of the data in the database that are not from mandated reports, but she did state that there are some public data in WC-Informix, which the Department must provide upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ben-Ner is seeking access to data from the mandated reports. It is the conclusion of the Commissioner that the key to analyzing whether the Department must provide any data to Mr. Ben-Ner depends upon the language in section 176.231, subdivisions 8 and 9.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 8 provides: [s]ubject to subdivision 9, a report or its copy which has been filed with the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry under this section is not available to public inspection. Any person who has access to such a report shall not disclose its contents to anyone in any manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 9 provides: [r]eports filed with the commissioner under this section may be used in hearings held under this chapter, and for the purpose of state investigations and for statistics. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, while data in the mandated reports are not subject to public disclosure, the data may be used for statistics. According to Ms. Leppink, the Department takes the position that subdivision 9 allows the &lt;u&gt;Department&lt;/u&gt; to use the data for statistics, but that it does not allow the commissioner to release the data so that other persons may use it to create statistics. Accordingly, the Department will not release to the public any data in the WC-Informix database that derive from the mandated reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking, section 176.231, subdivisions 8 and 9, do not classify data in the reports as not public, rather, they regulate access to the data. As noted on page 2 above, Ms. Leppink has identified various statutory provisions that together generally indicate the Legislature&apos;s intention to protect the data from public disclosure. The Commissioner is aware of the competing policy considerations regarding data in the mandated reports of injuries to workers. By protecting the data, employees and employers are given incentives to provide full details of workplace accidents. However, there is also public interest in research to help improve worker safety that can be conducted only if public access to data in the mandated reports is allowed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the language in section 176.231, subdivision 9, stating that data in the reports may be used for statistics, is vague, and the Commissioner cannot determine the meaning of the disputed language. The sentence construct reasonably could be interpreted to mean what the Department thinks it means, i.e., the data in the reports can be used for statistics only by the Department. It also reasonably could be interpreted to allow the Department to provide access to others, including Mr. Ben-Ner, to use the data for statistics. Under that interpretation, the Commissioner believes that the Department could enter into a non-disclosure agreement with a party to whom it provides access to the data to use for statistics. However, the Commissioner cannot resolve the issue. The Commissioner urges the Department, or other interested parties, to seek clarification from the Legislature about the scope and meaning of the language in subdivision 9, and also to revise the statutes to conform with the data classification scheme provided in Chapter 13. IPAD is available to assist in that effort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Ms. Leppink also discussed the Department&apos;s response to the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s decision in &lt;em&gt;Westrom&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The department acknowledges that it has changed its position on the release of data it maintains in the WC-Informix database. The recent Supreme Court decision in Westrom, which found that the Department had erroneously classified certain data as public, triggered a careful reconsideration by the Department of how it classifies and under what circumstances it may release the various data it collects, creates, receives, maintains, and disseminates. That reconsideration has resulted in the current change in position regarding the data requested by Professor Ben-Ner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the MDPA has long provided that government data is presumed to be public unless expressly made not public, the recent addition of the significant penalties and the right to damages for an agency&apos;s erroneous release of data ultimately found to be not public has in effect reversed that presumption. This is particularly true when the data is of the sensitive nature sought by Professor Ben-Ner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is understandable that &lt;em&gt;Westrom&lt;/em&gt; prompted the Department to evaluate its responses to data requests, which can explain the Department&apos;s shift in position regarding access to the data in question. However, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the &lt;em&gt;Westrom&lt;/em&gt; case, about civil investigative data, is not generally applicable to requests for access to data the Department maintains. The Department&apos;s response to &lt;em&gt;Westrom&lt;/em&gt; underscores the need for the Legislature to reconcile the conflicting policy considerations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To summarize, Mr. Ben-Ner did not ask the Department to create summary data, because he did not ask for data solely derived from private or confidential data on individuals. Instead, he asked for access to data linking data on individuals to data not on individuals. In addition, given the vague statutory language in section 176.231, the Commissioner cannot determine if the Department must otherwise provide access to data in the WC-Informix database, and urges the Department to seek clarification from the Legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Leppink raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry cannot prepare summary data derived from data in its WC-Informix database because the data in question are not solely private or confidential data on individuals. The Department should seek Legislative clarification of the scope and meaning of the restrictions placed upon access to the data in section 176.231.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 26, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267391</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor and Industry Department</Title><Id>266544</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)</Title><Id>266514</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-004</Title><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-004</Title><title>Opinion 07 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267479&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of employees whose private personnel data was either removed or redacted from council members&apos; and the Mayor&apos;s emails?
Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of persons who corresponded with Council Members Glidden and Remington?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 22 2007; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 5, 2006, from Ann Walther, an attorney representing the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Federation&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City&apos;s Responsible Authority for Data Practices, in response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 14, 2006, were to inform him of Ms. Walther&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On December 19, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 17, 2006, Ms. Walter asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All electronic mail, written correspondence or other documents sent or received by the following elected officials regarding: 1) the Police Officers&apos; Federation of Minneapolis ( Federation ); 2) any member of the Federation Board . . . 3) the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority ( CRA ) or 4) the CRA Work Group:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Councilmember Betsy Hodges
&lt;br /&gt;
Councilmember Elizabeth Glidden
&lt;br /&gt;
Councilmember Ralph Remington
&lt;br /&gt;
Mayor R.T. Rybak&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther specified, The scope of this request applies to all data sent or received since January 1, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 15, 2006, Mr. Steiner responded and apparently provided Ms. Walther with some of the data she requested. He noted that certain data had been redacted pursuant to sections 13.43 and 13.601.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated November 16, 2006, Ms. Walther wrote regarding the portions the City had redacted pursuant to section 13.43. She stated, . . . I am requesting that you provide me with the name of the employee whose personnel data it is. The name of the employee is public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another email dated November 16, 2006, Ms. Walther wrote, . . . I would like the names of the &apos;individuals&apos; with whom each councilmember communicated which resulted in their declaring the data non-public under section 13.601. I would also like the names of all employees whose private personnel data was &apos;removed&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated December 1, 2006, Mr. Steiner responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to your request for the names of the employees whose information was redacted or removed from the previously requested data, names of personnel are private data in the context of internal e-mail communications about their performance pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43 subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to your request for the names of the persons who corresponded with the Council Members, which resulted in the invocation of the correspondence privilege, Minn. Stat. section 13.601 subd. 2 makes correspondence between elected officials and individuals private. The names of other individuals are part of the correspondence and are therefore private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of employees whose private personnel data was either removed or redacted from council members&apos; and the Mayor&apos;s emails?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of persons who corresponded with Council Members Glidden and Remington?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of employees whose private personnel data was either removed or redacted from council members&apos; and the Mayor&apos;s emails?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In her letter to the Commissioner, Ms. Walther argues that the names of employees are always public. The City acknowledges her argument that [section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1)] provides that the name of an employee is public. However, the City disagrees that the name of an employee is public in all contexts. In certain contexts, identifying the name of an individual might result in the disclosure of private data. In such a case, the name cannot be released. For example, if a request for public data asked for the &lt;u&gt;number&lt;/u&gt; of allegations of employee theft in the past year and also the &lt;u&gt;name&lt;/u&gt; of any employee who had a complaint or charge against them during that same time period, and, if, in the hypothetical situation, the only complaint or charge against an employee received by the government entity during the relevant time period related to a single charge of an employee theft against a known employee, then release of the name would identify the nature of a complaint made (this example assumes that there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action [and that the nature of the complaint is private data]). [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present context, the e-mails in question between elected officials related to their concerns that Police Department disciplinary practices or procedures may be deficient and/or their concerns that police administration was not imposing appropriate discipline in certain cases. In the context of these e-mails, identifying the employee would have resulted in providing private personnel data about the named employees, specifically the internal debate about the appropriateness of discipline or lack thereof for that particular employee. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Steiner and adds the following. Section 13.43 provides that certain data on individuals are public and some are private. An employee&apos;s name is one of the types of data that is listed as public. However, the fact that certain personnel data are private means there are situations in which an employee&apos;s name cannot be released because pairing the data with the employee&apos;s name would release data about that employee that are classified as private by section 13.43. Here, Mr. Steiner states that some of the requested data contain private data about City employees. Therefore, the data are not accessible to Ms. Walther.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of persons who corresponded with Council Members Glidden and Remington?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.601, subdivision 2, provides that correspondence between individuals and elected officials are private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the City maintains that the purposes of Section 13.601 would be dramatically undermined if the identity of the correspondent with elected officials needed to be disclosed. Ms. Walther has argued that by failing to disclose the identity, the City is able to disguise whether the correspondent is a public employee and thereby allegedly misusing Section 13.601.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City is not invoking Section 13.601 improperly, nor are we seeking to hide the fact that the correspondent is a City employee. However, the context of the e-mails make [sic] it clear that the correspondent was acting as a citizen exercising First Amendment rights to petition elected officials. . . . From the context of the e-mails and consistent with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267360&quot; title=&quot;98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Commissioners&apos; opinion, 98-052&lt;/a&gt;; as Responsible Authority I made a determination that the employee was acting as a private citizen in sending the e-mails. Admittedly, the employee used the City e-mail system to communicate with the Council Members, but the City&apos;s Electronic Communications Policy allows for limited personal use of the e-mail. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267360&quot; title=&quot;98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-052&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed a situation in which the Clay County Sheriff wrote a letter to the Chair of the County Board. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter as an individual, rather than in his capacity as the Clay County Sheriff, the data can be classified as not public under [section 13.601]; but, if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter in his capacity as the Sheriff as part of his work, the data are presumed public unless classified otherwise by statute or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner has not seen the data in question. Mr. Steiner states that the employees, acting in their capacities as citizens, not as employees of the City, wrote to the elected officials. Assuming this is the case, the City properly withheld the data in the emails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Walther raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to provide the names of employees whose private personnel data was either removed or redacted from council members&apos; and the Mayor&apos;s emails.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming the employees were acting as citizens, not as government employees, when they wrote to the elected officials, the City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in withholding data in certain emails pursuant to section 13.601.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 22, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267479</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee name</Title><Id>266371</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-02-02T14:08:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-003</Title><title>Opinion 07 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267058&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to provide certain data contained in traffic accident reports?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 19 2007; Douglas County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 13, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jerod Ochsendorf. In his letter, Mr. Ochsendorf asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Troy Wolberson, Douglas County Sheriff, in response to Mr. Ochsendorf&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 18, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Ochsendorf&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. The Commissioner did not receive a response from Sheriff&apos;s Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Ochsendof is as follows. In a letter dated November 13, 2006, he asked for copies of the following data: Public data on any Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) report including names and addresses of any victims involved in the MVA from September 2006-Present.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Ochsendorf further wrote, I believe this data is public record in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13.83 Subd. 6 and Minnesota Statute 169.09 Sub.13 clause A and clause D.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated November 27, 2006, Christopher Karpan, Douglas County Attorney, denied the request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Ochsendorf&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to provide certain data contained in traffic accident reports?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 169.09, relates to traffic accidents. It states that peace officers who investigate certain types of traffic accidents must report specific information to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. (See section 169.09, subdivision 8.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Subdivision 13 of section 169.09 places restrictions on the use of and access to accident report data, but also provides situations in which certain data may be disclosed. Of relevance here is clause (d) of subdivision 13, which states, Disclosing any information contained in any accident report, except as provided in this subdivision, section 13.82, subdivision 3 or 6, or other statutes, is a misdemeanor.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 3, is the law enforcement data provision that addresses the classification of request for service data. Section 13.82, subdivision 6 addresses the classification of response or incident data. The operation of section 13.82 is such that the request for service data listed in subdivision 3 and the response or incident data listed in subdivision 6 are always public, regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation. (During the time an investigation is active, certain other data are protected. See section 13.82, subdivision 7.) Of relevance to this opinion, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(h), the names and addresses of any victims are public unless their identities qualify for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his November 27, 2006, letter, County Attorney Karpan wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Your request asks for public data on any motor vehicle accident report from September 2006 to the present date. If the motor vehicle accident reports you are referring to are the ones required by Minnesota Statute section 169.09 Subd. 8, those reports are private data and can only be released under certain circumstances, which are not present here. . . . There is no provision to allow the public to view every accident report completed as, again, the reports themselves are classified as private under Minnesota law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      If the intent of your request was not the actual motor vehicle accident reports but any police reports containing any information about motor vehicle accidents, then I believe your response is overbroad. While certain response data on motor vehicle accidents is almost always public, much of the information on police reports is not, at least not until after I have made a charging decision. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner disagrees with the County Attorney&apos;s position. As discussed above, pursuant to section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), any request for service or response or incident data contained in an accident report described under section 169.09, are public. Because these traffic accident reports are official records pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, law enforcement agencies should be maintaining copies after submitting them to the Department of Public Safety.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Upon examination of Mr. Ochsendorf&apos;s data request, it appears he is asking for public data from recent traffic accident reports, of the type discussed above. Pursuant to section 169.09, subdivision 13(d), he is entitled to any request for service or response or incident data contained in the reports.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Finally, it is important to note that if the Sheriff&apos;s Office is maintaining data on traffic accidents, the type which do not require reports to the Department of Public Safety, any request for service or response or incident data are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Ochsendorf raised is as follows:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to provide certain data contained in traffic accident reports. Any data of the type described in section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6 are public, except for identification data that specifically are protected. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 19, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267058</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-002</Title><title>Opinion 07 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267618&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Silver Bay comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $86.91 to retrieve and copy 109 pages of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 12 2007; City of Silver Bay</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: There is an error in this opinion. The quoted language from Advisory Opinion 04-044 in the Discussion Section is from &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267937&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-055&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 11, 2006, IPAD received a letter from David Mealey. In his letter, Mr. Mealey asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data the City of Silver Bay maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Mealey&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom C. Smith, Silver Bay City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated December 18, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Mealey&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On December 22, 2006, IPAD received a response from Mr. Smith. A summary of the facts as Mr. Mealey presented them follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 17, 2006, Mr. Mealey requested copies of all billing statements including the detail of charges to the City of Silver Bay by the law firm of Johnson and Morris for the period November 1, 2005 through October 31, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 2006, Mr. Healey requested a copy of the retainer fee schedule approved by the [City] for services provided by the [same firm] to become effective January 1, 2007. Also requested are copies of all communications from Johnson and Morris regarding their request for an increase in their retainer fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 30, 2006, Mr. Smith responded that the data were ready, enclosed an invoice, and requested prepayment. Mr. Healey stated that he received copies of 109 pages, for which the City charged the following to retrieve and copy:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Administrator Rate: $32.15 times; 1 1/2 hours = $48.22
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Clerk Rate: $22.11 times; 1 3/4 hours = 38.69&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The total charge to retrieve and copy 109 pages was $86.91. In his opinion request, Mr. Mealey questioned the reasonableness of the City charging copy costs at the Administrator and Deputy Clerk&apos;s hourly rates given that [t]here are two additional employees in the city office, both of whom are lesser paid . . . I believe that either of the lesser paid employees were capable of performing the task. Mr. Mealey wrote, [f]urther, it appears that the data requested was not kept easily accessible because it took a total of 3 1/4 man-hours to retrieve and copy 107 [sic] pages of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I believe we strictly complied with the statute. In my experience, as the Silver Bay City Administrator, this was the first request for copies of government documents this office has ever received. As the Responsible Authority I believed I had the responsibility to personally address Mr. Mealey&apos;s request and to designate a member of my staff that could most competently and efficiently search for, retrieve and copy the data requested. It was my opinion that the Deputy Clerk-Treasurer was that person, since she handles the finances, receives and pays all bills. I did not feel that the other two lower paid employees could as efficiently do so in the same period of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City Attorney sends a statement each month for its retainer and expenses together with a detail of time. There are usually separate billings for special services in addition to the monthly retainer. The each [sic] of the statements usually consists of two to three pages stapled together. Those statement [sic] are placed in a packet with other bills and submitted to the Council for approval. The total City bills average one hundred per month. After approval, the bills are paid by the Deputy Clerk. All paid bills are assembled and placed in monthly packets. Those packets are readily accessible. After the year end audit they are placed in the archives. To meet Mr. Mealey&apos;s request, it was necessary for the Deputy Clerk to go to the archives, search through the bills and retrieve the monthly paid bills of Johnson Morris for November and December 2005. She would have to go through the packet of approximately 100 bills to pull out the Johnson Morris bills. She would do the same for each month&apos;s packet from January through October of 2006. Since the Johnson Morris bills usually were stapled, it would be necessary to remove the staples to copy. The 1-3/4 hours of time involved in searching for, retrieving and copying the requested data is most conservative and reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As the Responsible Authority, I believed I had a duty to take the time to review the material to make certain it was complete and to participate in the search and retrieval of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Mealey also requested &apos;a copy of the retainer fee schedule . . . for services provided by the law firm . . . to become effective January 1, 2007&apos; and &apos;all communications from [the firm] regarding their request for an increase in their retainer fees.&apos; Since I attend all Council Meetings, where these matters were discussed, I felt I could most efficiently secure this material myself. It was necessary to go through correspondence over a period of time to search for, retrieve and make copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I was being most conservative in a charge of only 1 1/2; hours for my time. I did not charge Mr. Mealey for the actual cost to the City of my time or for that of the Deputy Clerk. I only charged the actual wage costs. We could have charged the full labor costs of wages and benefits in order to compensate the city for &apos;actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Smith, the City&apos;s actual hourly labor costs are: City Administrator, $46.20; Deputy Clerk-Treasurer, $34.36; Assistant Deputy Clerk, $28.38.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Mealy&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Silver Bay comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $86.91 to retrieve and copy 109 pages of government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), when an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, [and] compiling . . . the copies . . . but may not charge for separating public from not public data. However, if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page copied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, according to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, . . . the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Mealey made two requests for data, dated November 17 and November 20, 2006. The City charged Mr. Mealey approximately $.80 per page. The Commissioner was not given information as to whether each request was for copies of fewer than 100 pages, or if one of the requests was for more than 100 pages. Neither Mr. Mealey nor Mr. Smith addressed the statutory requirement that limits a government entity to charging no more than $.25 per page for fewer than 100 pages. Given that Mr. Mealey made his second request three days after his first, and it involved related data, it is understandable that the City treated them as one request. However, the statute requires an entity to respond to each request individually. Thus, if each of Mr. Mealey&apos;s requests was for fewer than 100 pages of data, the City may not charge more than $.25 per page for the copies, or a total of $27.25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If one of Mr. Mealey&apos;s requests was for more than 100 pages, then the City was entitled to charge its actual, reasonable cost to provide copies of those data. Mr. Smith stated that as responsible authority, he determined that he and the City&apos;s Deputy Clerk-Treasurer could most competently and efficiently search for, retrieve, and copy the requested data. He also stated that the City did not charge Mr. Mealey its actual full labor costs to provide the data, but rather charged the two higher-paid employees&apos; hourly rates excluding benefits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Advisory Opinion 04-044, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued many advisory opinions regarding copy charges. He consistently has discussed that it is not appropriate for a government entity to charge the labor rate of a highly paid employee unless it is necessary for that particular employee to search for and retrieve the data or to make copies of the data. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In other words, as government entities determine the actual costs of searching for and retrieving, and making copies of data, they should take into consideration that any charges must be reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Mr. Smith, as responsible authority, is in the best position to determine who among the City staff is best able to search for and retrieve requested data. However, as the Commissioner has opined previously, it is not reasonable to charge the highest labor cost to pull staples and make photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Smith said that the City did not charge its actual labor cost, i.e., including benefits, as it is entitled to do. Mr. Smith stated that the City&apos;s actual labor cost for 3 1/4 hours at its two lowest paid employees&apos; rates is higher than the cost it charged Mr. Mealey, namely $92.24 instead of $86.91. Thus, the actual cost is approximately $.85 per page of data, rather than the $.80 per page the City charged Mr. Mealey. The Commissioner finds either to be excessive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of a government entity&apos;s responsibilities under Chapter 13 is to locate and provide data, in a reasonable amount of time, in response to data practices requests. To better comply with this requirement, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City took 3 1/4 hours to locate and copy 109 pages of legal bills and correspondence, which seems excessive given the nature of the data requested. Based upon Mr. Smith&apos;s description, the Commissioner questions whether those data were easily accessible for convenient use. As noted above, a government entity&apos;s copy charges must be reasonable. For the reasons discussed, the Commissioner concludes that the City&apos;s charge of $.80 per page is not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, although apparently not at issue here, the Commissioner reminds her readers that a government entity may not charge its time to separate public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Mealey raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Silver Bay did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it charged $86.91 to retrieve and copy 109 pages of government data. If the two requests were each for fewer than 100 pages, the City may not charge more than $.25 per page, or $27.25. If one request was for more than 100 pages, the City may charge its actual, reasonable cost to provide copies of those data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 12, 2007&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267618</id><Tag><Description/><Title>25 cents per page</Title><Id>266936</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 07-001</Title><title>Opinion 07 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266974&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2007-01-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 531, Byron, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data relating to a hazing incident: the particular athletic team involved, the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, and the disciplinary action taken?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 2007; School District 531 (Byron)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On November 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated November 3, 2006, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Rochester Post-Bulletin&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data from Independent School District 531, Byron. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Anfinson provided on November 20, 2006.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wendy Shannon, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 7, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Nancy Blumstein, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Recently, the [District] was embroiled in allegations that one of the school&apos;s athletic teams had been involved in a hazing incident. The controversy was widely publicized and became a major item of public concern in the district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Shortly after the allegations arose . . . a reporter for the &lt;i&gt;Post-Bulletin&lt;/i&gt;, contacted Byron school authorities and requested certain information about the incident. [The reporter] knew that data identifying particular students could not be publicly disclosed, and therefore confined her request to more general information: the particular athletic team involved, the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, and what disciplinary action was taken. In response to this request, however, district officials declined to provide anything beyond the simple fact that allegations of hazing had been made, citing state data privacy laws. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At one point during the newspaper&apos;s efforts to obtain additional information about the hazing allegations, I spoke with an attorney for the school district about this matter. Her concern . . . was that if the non-identifying data the newspaper requested were disclosed and published, then at least a few people in the community who had somehow obtained other information regarding the incident might be able to add two and two and thereby deduce the identities of the students involved. . . . In our view, however, such an interpretation misconstrues the provisions of the Data Practices Act and grossly undervalues the public&apos;s right and need to know - something this particular incident graphically exemplifies.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson also wrote that the school board held a meeting in early October, which in part addressed the alleged hazing incident.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 531, Byron, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data relating to a hazing incident: the particular athletic team involved, the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, and the disciplinary action taken?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The data at issue here relate to a hazing incident involving District students. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data on individuals that are about students. Generally, pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law, data about students are private; that a particular student was the victim of hazing and that another conducted the hazing would be private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 4, further clarifies that data are data on individuals if the data identify an individual in itself, or can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Also relevant here is that pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data are accessible to the public. Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 16, provides that summary data may include reports once all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Blumstein wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The District&apos;s refusal to release information related to this hazing incident . . . was consistent with Minnesota law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The Department of Administration has recognized that public summary data can constitute private educational data if and when the release of the data can make a student&apos;s identity easily traceable and/or apparent. . . . This is exactly the situation presented here.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The disclosure of the sports team involved would have confirmed the identity of the [student(s)] subject to discipline . . . Similarly, if the District disclosed the exact nature of the discipline imposed, community members would have been able to identify the [perpetrator(s)] . . . Information concerning the nature of the incident would have released private educational information about the [victim(s)], [whose identity(ies)] already appeared to be well known in the community. In fact, because of the very small size of the Byron Community, the School District believed that the release of any specific facts concerning the hazing incident would likely result in the inadvertent release of private education data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her request to the District, the newspaper reporter apparently asked for four separate pieces of information related to a hazing incident: the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, the particular athletic team involved, and the disciplinary action taken. Regarding the nature of the alleged hazing, it does not appear this is the type of data the release of which would identify any of the involved students. Therefore, such data are public and the District should have released the information.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      However, the classification of the remaining information sought by the reporter may be more complicated. If, by stating the number of students disciplined and/or the particular athletic team involved and/or the type of discipline imposed, the District would, in effect, be identifying an individual student or students, the District cannot release the information.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      For example, if the District disclosed the number of students disciplined and the number exceeded the number of players on all but one team, the District would, in effect, be identifying the team involved. So, if the team involved is known and the type of discipline, while not disclosed by the District, is something a member of the public would be able to observe at a public school event, a student or students would, in effect, be identified. In addition, because each school district can designate certain educational data as directory (public), it is possible an individual who accesses public directory information would be will be able to identify a student or students by combining the directory information with any data the District has released.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Here, the District clearly is in the best position to determine whether it can appropriately release the data in question because it is familiar with all the relevant facts. The key is that the data cannot be released if they alone identify an individual or can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 531, Byron, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data relating to a hazing incident: the nature of the alleged hazing. The Commissioner is unable to determine whether releasing the number of students disciplined and/or the particular athletic team involved and/or the disciplinary action would release private data about any District students. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 10, 2007
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266974</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:21:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-033</Title><title>Opinion 06 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267452&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-12-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Rock Creek comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding its response to a September 22, 2006, request for access to certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 12, 2006; City of Rock Creek</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 26, 2006, IPAD received a letter from Donald Burger. In his letter, Mr. Burger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Rock Creek. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Mr. Burger provided on November 9, 2006.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Burger&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Dennis Bonk, Mayor of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated November 13, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Burger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 17, 2006, IPAD received a response from Heather Edmonds, Assistant Rock Creek City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Burger presented them follows. In a letter dated September 22, 2006, Mr. Burger wrote to Sandra Pangerl, the City Clerk /Administrator, and stated, I make this request to your attention assuming that you are the &apos;acting&apos; responsible authority absent the formal City Council designation. Mr. Burger wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am asking to view the following information in either annual &apos;05 or &apos;06 City fiscal year form as it exists in City documents that will allow determining [sic] the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                - Gross pay/salary for each City employee and Council member
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                - Individual benefit compensation amounts including retirement funds and insurance
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                - Individual gross mileage reimbursement
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                - Individual gross reimbursement for City expenses
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                - Gross compensation for City Assessor, City Engineer, Building/Sewer Inspector
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Burger clarified to the Commissioner that he was not asking to see pay stubs or tax withholding information. I am asking to see individual gross amounts in reference to my five bullet points. Mr. Burger enclosed the City&apos;s response to this request, and a copy of the minutes from the October 5, 2006, City Council meeting.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, dated September 27, 2006, Ms. Pangerl wrote to Mr. Burger:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Thanks for your interest on the subject of Chapter 13 Data Practices. This item has been placed on the agenda for the City Council&apos;s October meeting.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As you are aware, I am lacking the proper authority from the City Council, and as such I can&apos;t do anything regarding your request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The October 5, 2006, City Council minutes contain the following statement:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [Mayor] Bonk stated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act is a good idea to reflect on. This will be laid over to next month&apos;s meeting as we do not have a qualified staff member to do this. We have contacted the League of Minnesota Cities and the City Attorney regarding the matter and are waiting for further information and instructions. In reference to the letter received in the office dated September 22, 2006 [Mr. Burger&apos;s data request], all information requested is already published, monthly in the paper with the minutes and with the financial statement when it is published, the only requirement for PERA is the percentage number to be contributed. . . . Following the League of Minnesota Cities and the City Attorney&apos;s advice, the clerk responded to the requester with a letter dated September 27, 2006 letting him know that this will be placed on the City Council&apos;s October agenda, and lacking the proper authority from the City Council can not do anything regarding the request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Edmonds wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City acknowledges that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.43, Subd. 2, a City employee&apos;s gross salary and expense reimbursement are public data. The City&apos;s position on retirement funds, upon advice received from the League of Minnesota Cities, is that the percentage of PERA benefits paid by the City are public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The information regarding City employee salaries and PERA benefits is published annually. In addition, at the February 2006 Council meeting, the City provided copies of the 2005 financial statement to members of the public present at the meeting who were interested in such information. The financial statement included all of the salary and PERA information for City employees. A copy of the 2005 financial statement is attached. The City does not pay any other benefits to its employees.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. Burger also requested information regarding expense and mileage reimbursement. City employees seeking reimbursement for expenses report those expenses to the Council. The Council then approves or denies the request, and the City Treasurer cuts a check to pay the request. The slip requesting reimbursement is retained by the City. The City acknowledges that it did not provide this information to Mr. Burger.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City has ordered training videos so City employees can better understand their obligations under the Data Practices Act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Mr. Burger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Rock Creek comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding its response to a September 22, 2006, request for access to certain data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a)(1), the data Mr. Burger asked to inspect are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In response to Mr. Burger&apos;s request, the City Clerk/Administrator told him that she lacked the proper authority to respond to his request, and that the City Council would consider the matter at its next meeting. At that meeting the Council determined that the matter would be laid over to next month&apos;s meeting as we do not have a qualified staff member to do this.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Edmonds stated that the City acknowledges that it did not provide Mr. Burger with access to the expense reimbursement data he requested. She also wrote that the salary and benefit data are published annually, and that, at the February 2006 Council meeting, the City provided copies of the 2005 financial statement to members of the public present at the meeting who were interested in such information.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. Upon receipt of a request for access to government data under Chapter 13, the entity must either provide the requestor with access to the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. The City did none of those. Regardless whether the City had previously published the data, or had made the data available for public inspection at a council meeting, the City should have provided Mr. Burger with prompt access to the public data upon his request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Council&apos;s statement that no City staff is qualified or authorized to respond to requests for data is not acceptable. Apparently the City has not taken action to appoint a responsible authority, who, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 16, is the individual designated by the governing body of [a] political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination . . . of government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1000:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the governing body of each political subdivision . . . shall, by September 30, 1981, if it has not done so, appoint a responsible authority. . . . The governing body shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by the act and by this chapter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (B), the responsible authority for a city shall be an individual employee of the city appointed by the city council.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, there is a requirement, effective August 1, 2000, that required the City Council to appoint a data practices compliance official by December 1, 2000. The data practices compliance official is to serve as the government employee to whom questions or concerns about data practices issues may be addressed. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 13.) This requirement for the City to have a compliance official is in addition to the requirement that it have a responsible authority.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If it has not done so, the City should take the necessary action to appoint a responsible authority in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13 and its rules.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Rock Creek did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding its response to a September 22, 2006, request for access to certain data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 12, 2006
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267452</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO)</Title><Id>266566</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-032</Title><title>Opinion 06 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267013&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-11-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Mankato maintains: sales and use tax filings provided by businesses claiming hardship exceptions?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 30, 2006; City of Mankato</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 12, 2006, IPAD received an email, dated same, from Eileen Wells, Mankato City Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Wells asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City of Mankato maintains. IPAD required additional information and clarification, which Ms. Wells provided on October 23, 2006.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 25, 2006, IPAD invited the Minnesota Department of Revenue to provide comments. In a November 17, 2006, email, Richard Walzer, Attorney in the Legal Services Section, responded.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Wells wrote, The City of Mankato has an ordinance prohibiting smoking in public places and places of work. There is a provision for a hardship exception.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Wells provided a copy of the ordinance language. The relevant section states that businesses seeking an exception must provide the following information to the City:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . 2. Sales Tax statements prepared by a licensed certified public accountant comparing sales receipts for at least a three month period of compliance under this Section and the same time period in the year prior to compliance, or other periods acceptable to the City Managerhellip;
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Wells wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The ordinance took effect July 1st of this year and we have now granted 14 exceptions. . . . Before granting the exception the City has required that each establishment provide a letter from a CPA comparing gross sales receipts for July, August and September 2005 to July, August and September 2006 and copies of the Sales and use tax filings to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for the same period. The information has been provided to the City by the businesses requesting the exceptions, not the Department of Revenue. The City has now received a request for the information used in determining eligibility for the exceptions. The City believes that the sales and use tax filings are confidential and unobtainable from the Department of Revenue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Ms. Wells&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Mankato maintains: sales and use tax filings provided by businesses claiming hardship exceptions?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Walzer wrote, in part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is true that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 270B protects sales and use tax return information filed directly with the Department of Revenue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Additionally, there are various provisions in that chapter authorizing tax information to be shared by the Department with other government entities for one purpose or another. In such cases, the data is protected by the entity receiving the data to the same extent that it is protected by the Department. However, in the situation presented here, the data is furnished by the taxpayers themselves directly to the City of Mankato. Consequently, it is the city&apos;s data, and its classification is governed by whatever data practices laws are applicable to Mankato. The data is not protected under the tax disclosure laws of Chapter 270B.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner appreciates having received comments from Mr. Walzer and is in agreement with him that the data in question are not protected by Chapter 270B. As the Commissioner is not aware of any other law classifying the data as not public, they are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Wells raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, sales and use tax filings provided to the City of Mankato by businesses claiming hardship exceptions are public.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Dana B. Badgerow
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 30, 2006
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267013</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Taxation data</Title><Id>266900</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T20:55:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-031</Title><title>Opinion 06 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267751&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-11-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, to interview candidates to fill a vacancy on the council?
Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, following a notice that stated: &quot;NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the Stillwater City Council will conduct a Closed Special Meeting at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005 and Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at City Hall, 216 N. 4th Street. The purpose of the closed meeting is to conduct interviews for the-[sic] appointment of a Councilmember for Ward 4. Do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk&apos;s Office (651)430-8802 if you have any questions or need further information.&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 14, 2006; Stillwater City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 2, 2006, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Todd Remely. In his letter, Mr. Remely asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding actions by the Stillwater City Council (the Council) concerning a closed meeting of the Council that began on January 11, 2005 and was continued on January 12, 2005. Mr. Remely submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 5, 2006, IPAD wrote to Jay Kimble, Mayor of the City of Stillwater. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Kimble of Mr. Remely&apos;s request and gave the Council, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Council&apos;s position. On October 26, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from David T. Magnuson, the attorney for the City of Stillwater (the City).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Remely is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 11, 2005, the Council convened a closed meeting to interview candidates who had applied to fill a vacancy on the Council. The meeting was continued to January 12, 2005, and then an individual was selected to fill the vacancy. Prior to the meeting, the Council had published a notice, the content of which is contained in the second issue statement below. Publication of the notice in the &lt;em&gt;Stillwater Evening Gazette&lt;/em&gt;, occurred on January 5, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Remely&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, to interview candidates to fill a vacancy on the council?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, following a notice that stated: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the Stillwater City Council will conduct a Closed Special Meeting at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005 and Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at City Hall, 216 N. 4th Street. The purpose of the closed meeting is to conduct interviews for the-[sic] appointment of a Councilmember for Ward 4. Do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk&apos;s Office (651)430-8802 if you have any questions or need further information.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no question that the Council is required to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML). Section 13D.01, subdivision 1 (b)(4) states that the provisions of the OML apply to a . . . statutory or home rule charter city. Stillwater is a city and so its Council is covered by the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs&lt;/em&gt;., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background, the next step is to review the issues presented by Mr. Remely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, to interview candidates to fill a vacancy on the council?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To fill a vacancy on the Council due to the resignation of one of its members, the Council accepted applications from individuals who wished to serve out the term. The Council appears to have followed the process described in section 412.02, subdivision 2a. The pertinent part of that subdivision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . [A] vacancy in an office shall be filled by council appointment until an election is held as provided in this subdivision. In case of a tie vote in the council, the mayor shall make the appointment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council argues that the interviews were part of an election process and so required secrecy. The Council bases its argument on Article 7, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution which requires that elections be by ballot and that the ballots be secret. &lt;em&gt;See also&lt;/em&gt; section 204C.17. This argument is, however, directly contrary to the statutory language in section 412.02 that draws a distinction between election and appointment to office. The circumstances here involve an appointment, not an election, and so the casting of a ballot protected by secrecy is not the issue. Rather, it is whether there was a basis on which the meeting could be closed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The OML contains specific provisions that direct when a meeting of a public body must be closed and when it may be closed. For example, a meeting to discuss an active criminal investigation being conducted by the police department must be closed. See section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(2). A meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to the Council&apos;s authority, like the city administrator, may be closed. See section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a). There is no provision that requires or permits a meeting to be closed to interview candidates for appointment to the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the stated policy that the OML is to be construed in favor of public access, the Council did not comply with Chapter 13D when it closed its meeting on January 11 and 12, 2005, to interview candidates for appointment to the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Stillwater City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, following a notice that stated: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the Stillwater City Council will conduct a Closed Special Meeting at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005 and Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at City Hall, 216 N. 4th Street. The purpose of the closed meeting is to conduct interviews for the-[sic] appointment of a Councilmember for Ward 4. Do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk&apos;s Office (651)430-8802 if you have any questions or need further information.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 3 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner recently discussed the requirements of this provision. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated that section 13D.01, subdivision 3 requires that three things be done before a meeting is closed: (1) a statement be made on the record; (2) specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting be given; and (3) a description of the subject to be discussed be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neither party has provided information about whether the first requirement has been met. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267497&quot; title=&quot;06-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-020&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner found that the easiest way to satisfy the second requirement is to cite the statute that mandates or permits the meeting to be closed. As indicated in the discussion of Issue 1 above, there are no specific grounds that permit the meeting to be closed and none were listed in the notice that was published. The final requirement has been met as the notice does describe that the meeting was to be held to conduct interviews. Given the Council&apos;s failure to comply with at least one of the requirements, the notice was not in compliance with section 13D.01, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Remely raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Stillwater City Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when it closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, to interview candidates to fill a vacancy on the council.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Stillwater City Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they closed a meeting that began on January 11, 2005, and was continued on January 12, 2005, following a notice that stated: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the Stillwater City Council will conduct a Closed Special Meeting at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005 and Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at City Hall, 216 N. 4th Street. The purpose of the closed meeting is to conduct interviews for the-[sic] appointment of a Councilmember for Ward 4. Do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk&apos;s Office (651)430-8802 if you have any questions or need further information.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 14, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267751</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Posted or request for notice</Title><Id>266593</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T18:13:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory responsibilities government</Title><Id>375060</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-030</Title><title>Opinion 06 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266481&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-11-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In determining whether a breach of security has occurred pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, may a government entity consider the fact that the data in question were encrypted?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 8, 2006; Minnesota Office of Enterprise Technology</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 1, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Christopher Buse, Chief Information Security Officer with the Office of Enterprise Technology (OET). In his letter, Mr. Buse asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data OET maintains. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Mr. Buse provided in a letter dated September 21, 2006.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Buse wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.055 states that government entities must notify individuals after discovering that there has been a breach in security. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, subdivision 1(a)] defines a breach of security as an unauthorized acquisition that compromises the security and classification of the data. Data that is encrypted using modern encryption algorithms, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard, have virtually no chance of being decrypted by an individual who does not possess the cryptographic key. Therefore, even if encrypted data ends up in the hands of an unauthorized individual, the security and classification of the data is not in jeopardy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Notification is extremely expensive and results in a great deal of embarrassment for government officials. It also causes citizens to lose confidence in government&apos;s ability to protect their private data. Notification is important in situations where breached data is truly at risk. However, I do not believe that this is the case when data has been encrypted. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also in his opinion request, Mr. Buse discussed Minnesota Statutes, section 325E.61, which relates to notice requirements for private businesses in possession of certain electronic information. He noted that businesses do not need to notify individual data subjects of a breach of the security of the system if the data are encrypted. Although this may be the case for private businesses, section 13.055, which applies to government entities, does not provide such an exception if the data are encrypted.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Buse&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;In determining whether a breach of security has occurred pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, may a government entity consider the fact that the data in question were encrypted? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, subdivision 2, states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      A state agency that collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates private or confidential data on individuals must disclose any breach of the security of the data following discovery or notification of the breach. Notification must be made to any individual who is the subject of the data and whose private or confidential data was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.055, subdivision 1(a), in part, defines breach of the security of the data as, unauthorized acquisition of data maintained by a state agency that compromises the security and classification of the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.055, subdivision 1 (c), defines unauthorized acquisition as a person has obtained government data without the informed consent of the individuals who are the subjects of the data or statutory authority and with the intent to use the data for nongovernmental purposes.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Buse&apos;s question is whether a government entity, in determining if a breach of security has occurred, may consider the fact that the data in question were encrypted. According to section 13.055, a security breach occurs when an unauthorized person obtains data, intending to use them for nongovernmental purposes, and the security and classification of the data are compromised. Clearly, if the data were encrypted, there is a stronger likelihood that the person who inappropriately obtained the data will not be able to read/understand them. If that person cannot read/understand the data, given the statutory definition of breach of the security of the data, it does not seem that a breach has occurred. Therefore, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, whether data are encrypted is one factor a government entity may consider when analyzing whether there has been a breach of security.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner is aware that, generally speaking, there are varying methods and levels of encryption. Thus, when a government entity analyzes whether a breach of security has occurred involving encrypted data, the entity should consider the complexity of the encryption and the security of the keys. The more complex the encryption and the more secure the keys, the lesser the risk that the data have been breached.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Buser raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;In determining whether a breach of security has occurred pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, a government entity may consider the fact that the data in question were encrypted. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 8, 2006
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266481</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Breach of security data (13.055)</Title><Id>266480</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-029</Title><title>Opinion 06 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267419&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-10-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data requests made on September 14, 2005: (1) &quot;all travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney from 1999 to the present, including itinerary, cost and purpose&quot;; and (2) &quot;all daily, weekly and monthly schedules of Amy Klobuchar from 1999 to the present?&quot;
Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on February 22, 2006: &quot;all labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; 1999-2006?&quot;
Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on March 3, 2006: &quot;list and description of all matters referred by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office to the Hennepin County Domestic Fatality Review Board?&quot;
Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (in a timely and appropriate manner), to the following data request made on September 14, 2005: &quot;provide all caseload statistics tracked by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office from 1998 to present?&quot;
Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain data that were requested on July 27, 2006?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 19, 2006; Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 1, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated August 31, 2006, from Mark Stephens, Executive Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In his letter, Mr. Stevens asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data from the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office (Office).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Stevens&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated September 12, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stevens&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On September 20, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Randy Johnson, Chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On a procedural note, Commissioner Johnson objected to IPAD seeking a response from the County Attorney to Mr. Stevens&apos; opinion request. Commissioner Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;IPAD should have sent the letter to Gary Kamp, the Hennepin County Responsible Authority instead of Amy Klobuchar . . . In addition . . . [IPAD&apos;s] five proposed issues were incorrectly directed at the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office. Hennepin County is the entity responsible for management of most, if not all, of the information requested by the National Republican Senatorial Committee&apos;s operatives. The request should have been issued to Hennepin County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205.0200, subpart 14, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For counties, each elected official of the county shall be the responsible authority for the official&apos;s office. An individual who is an employee of the county shall be appointed by the county board to be the responsible authority for any data administered outside the offices of the elected officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County did not provide the Commissioner with sufficient information to demonstrate that Mr. Kamp is the responsible authority for certain data relating to the County Attorney&apos;s Office. For instance, do the County&apos;s procedures relating to access of public data specify to data requestors which requests should be made to whom? In addition, in 2001, an individual requested an advisory opinion involving the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office. The letter requesting comments was directed to the County Attorney and the issues were directed at her Office, not the County. IPAD received comments from a senior assistant county attorney and did not receive any objection from the County at that time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Beginning in a letter dated September 14, 2005, the Committee (or individuals working on its behalf) began requesting data relating to the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office. The Committee requested an advisory opinion regarding whether the Office complied with Chapter 13 in responding to certain of the requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Stevens&apos; opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data requests made on September 14, 2005: (1) all travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney from 1999 to the present, including itinerary, cost and purpose ; and (2) all daily, weekly and monthly schedules of Amy Klobuchar from 1999 to the present?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on February 22, 2006: all labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; 1999-2006?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on March 3, 2006: list and description of all matters referred by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office to the Hennepin County Domestic Fatality Review Board?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (in a timely and appropriate manner), to the following data request made on September 14, 2005: provide all caseload statistics tracked by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office from 1998 to present?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain data that were requested on July 27, 2006?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data requests made on September 14, 2005: (1) all travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney from 1999 to the present, including itinerary, cost and purpose ; and (2) all daily, weekly and monthly schedules of Amy Klobuchar from 1999 to the present?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;A. Travel records.&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An individual working on behalf of the Committee requested from the County Attorney&apos;s Office, among other items, access to the travel records in a letter dated September 14, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 21, 2005, Mr. Kamp acknowledged receipt of the letter. He wrote, [Chapter 13 gives] the responding agency a reasonable time to respond to a data practices request. Because of the expansiveness of your request, I anticipate that it will take several weeks to assemble the information requested. I will contact you once the estimated dollar amount to process your request has been determined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 13, 2006, an individual working on the Committee&apos;s behalf resubmitted the September 21, 2005, data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 17, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote again, requesting payment of $50 in advance. He stated, Once payment is received by the County, the copying of the data will commence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 2, 2006, an individual working on behalf of the Committee sent the requested prepayment of $50.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 12, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote that he was attaching the following information: All travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney for the years 2004, 2003, 2002. County Attorney Klobuchar did not submit any travel reimbursement requests for the year 2005. Mr. Kamp further wrote, Hennepin County staff continues to assemble the data for years 2001, 2000, and 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 25, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote that he was attaching the following information: All travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney, for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 31, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote that he was attaching travel information to supplement year 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner (of Administration), Commissioner Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The gravamen of the [Committee&apos;s] complaint is that Hennepin County took too long to respond to its numerous and expansive requests. It only challenges the timeliness of responses to four (4) of the twenty-two (22) requests it made. It also challenges two (2) of Hennepin County&apos;s responses that denied access to certain data as not public or because it was not an appropriate data practices request. It cannot be contested that Hennepin County has expended significant time, valuable employee resources and taxpayer dollars in responding to the [Committee&apos;s] broad and expansive requests. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Johnson also noted that between September 19, 2005, and June 5, 2006, the data requestor made written statements that she was appreciative of the County&apos;s responsiveness. He wrote, Since June 5, 2006, [Committee staff] has asserted that Hennepin County has not been responsive. Thus, almost nine (9) months elapsed without a complaint or statement of dissatisfaction. This claim of unresponsiveness is disingenuous and should be viewed for what it is, political maneuvering and strategy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the issue of timeliness, Commissioner Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . To be sure, what constitutes a reasonable response time depends not only on the amount of data requested, but also on the complexity and difficulty involved in searching for the relevant information. . . . Hennepin County has produced almost 700 pages of data. The effort involved in locating this data, and attempting to ensure that no other responsive public information existed was substantial. To put this in perspective, over 400 bankers&apos; boxes in the Hennepin County storage vault in the Hennepin County Government Center had to be located, retrieved, and sorted through just to locate the nearly eight (8) years of travel records. Each bankers&apos; box contained several thousand individual pieces of paper. Public information was separated from nonpublic data. This locating, retrieving, sorting, pulling, copying and redacting took several hundred hours. Retrieving the travel records represents just one of the twenty-two (22) requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond promptly, appropriately, and in a reasonable time. In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, entities must keep records containing data in such as arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that over the course of several months the individuals working on behalf of the Committee made numerous requests for data relating to the County Attorney. However, that does not mean the Office was relieved of its obligation to respond in a timely manner. The fact that the Office does not seem to have its files organized in a manner so that time spent locating data is kept to a minimum is not a burden that should be shifted to the data requestor. Further, the Office was obliged to respond in a timely manner regardless of whether the Committee appeared to be satisfied with the Office&apos;s responsiveness.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Committee made its initial request on September 14, 2005. It was not until May of 2006, eight months later, that the Committee received the data. The Office&apos;s response was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional note is in order. In their policies regarding data practices requests, it may be useful for entities to include general standards for handling situations when a single party makes multiple data requests over a several month period of time. This will help ensure that entities respond to each request in a timely manner. The entity may choose to respond to each request in the order it was received. Or, the entity may ask the requestor to rank the requests in order of importance. Certainly, though, it is important for entities to seek clarification promptly regarding any request that is confusing or to identify any requests/questions that do not fall under the purview of Chapter 13. Also, if entities keep their data inventories up to date, determining the classification of certain data should be relatively uncomplicated. Finally, it is always important to keep in touch with the requestor on a regular basis by providing updates and data, as they are available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;B. Schedules.&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It also was in the September 14, 2005, letter that the individual working on behalf of the Committee requested the schedule data. As discussed above, an individual resubmitted the request in a letter dated January 13, 2006, and in a letter dated February 2, 2006, she sent the pre-payment fee of $50.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 5, 2006, an individual working on behalf of the Committee wrote to inquire about several outstanding requests, including the schedule data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kamp responded in a letter dated June 26, 2006, stating, This information is currently under review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 27, 2006, the Committee asked again about the schedule data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 25, 2006, Mr. Kamp denied access to the schedule records citing sections 13.43, 13.37, 13.39, 13.601, 13.80, 13.82, 13.822, 13.87, 13.875, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 611A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, when an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. Here, the Committee initially requested the schedule data on September 14, 2005. It was not until July 26, 2006, ten months later, that Mr. Kamp informed the Committee that the data were classified as not public. This was not a timely response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on February 22, 2006: all labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; 1999 - 2006?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 22, 2006, an individual working on the Committee&apos;s behalf requested All labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; 1999 - 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 19, 2006, Mr. Kamp responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under Hennepin County&apos;s collective bargaining agreements, grievances are not filed against department heads. Rather, a labor grievance is filed against the employer which in turn is defined as the County of Hennepin. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County Attorney&apos;s Office does not keep a centralized file of all its labor grievances; instead grievances are contained in the files of the employee involved. Similarly, the County&apos;s Labor Relations Department does not organize grievances by department; it files them by employee name.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, staff has been consulted with to try to create a list of all the grievances you are seeking. A total of nine grievances were located going back to 1994. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, many of the relevant employees with whom to consult have moved on. If additional information is found, it will be forwarded to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Attached please find copies of the documents. There are 36 pages. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Commissioner Johnson reiterated that the County does not have a centralized filing system for grievances by department. He wrote, Hennepin County staff searched the relevant files in the Labor Relations Department and the Human Resources Department. County staff reviewed files of numerous current and former employees to ascertain whether they had any responsive information. At least sixteen (16) current or former employees were consulted in this process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner (of Administration) has the following comments. The fact that the Office cannot easily locate grievances filed against the County Attorney should not significantly affect the response time. Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to request and gain access to data. The Committee asked for specific data - labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar - and the Office is obliged to provide those data regardless of how they are filed. The Committee made its request on February 22, 2006, and the County did not provide any data until May 19, 2006, three months later. This is not a timely response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that Mr. Kamp discussed creating a list of all the grievances. The Committee did not ask the Office to create data and, as previous advisory opinions have discussed, government entities are not required to create data to respond to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on March 3, 2006: list and description of all matters referred by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office to the Hennepin County Domestic Fatality Review Board?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 3, 2006, an individual working on behalf of the Committee requested the following records: a list and description of all matters referred by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office to the Hennepin County Domestic Fatality Review Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 3, 2006, Mr. Kamp responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Session Laws 2000, Chapter 468 Sec. 31, Subd. 3b, the proceedings and records of the Domestic Fatality Review Team are not public. . . . The data received, kept, maintained and assembled by the Domestic Fatality Review Team are confidential data and protected non-public data as defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.02, Subds. 3 and 13, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The domestic fatality review team prepares an annual report. This is a public document. I have attached a copy of the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Committee requested the data on March 3, 2006. Five months later, on August 3, 2006, the Office denied access because the data are classified as not public. The Office&apos;s response was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (in a timely and appropriate manner), to the following data request made on September 14, 2005: provide all caseload statistics tracked by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office from 1998 to present?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 14, 2005, an individual working on behalf of the Committee requested all caseload statistics tracked by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office from 1998 to the present.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 26, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote, It is estimated that this information will be sent the week of July 24, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 31, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote, Attached please find the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office caseloads for 1998 to 2005. This represents the most up-to-date information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 4, 2006, the Committee wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . yesterday we received a one and one-half (1) page spreadsheet of selected case statistics. The spreadsheet lists only the number of cases charged for various offenses. Notably, the spreadsheet lacks numerous caseload statistics ordinarily tracked by prosecutorial offices. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County Attorney has made several claims regarding her Office&apos;s performance . . . Assuming she relies on official caseload statistics, we expect to be provided with those same statistics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 16, 2006, the Committee wrote that they had received a copy of a memo dated August 10, 2006, from the County Attorney&apos;s Chief Deputy: With regards to the memorandum . . . I am pleased to learn that Hennepin County tracks more caseload statistics than what your office initially provided. Now, more than 11 months later, all that remains is for your office to provide them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 25, 2006, Ms. Jelink, Hennepin County Chief Information Officer, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The request you made in your letter dated August 4, 2006, provided some clarification. This clarification was helpful, but uninformed and lacked general knowledge of the criminal justice system. . . . You will be provided with the caseload statistics referenced in . . . [the August 10, 2006 memorandum]. Mr. Kamp will be sending this responsive data under a separate cover letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 25, 2006, Mr. Kamp apparently provided additional caseload statistics including number of trial - court/bench and jury, conviction rate statistics - adult, adult career property cases, and mental health commitment petitions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An individual working on behalf of the Committee first requested caseload statistics on September 14, 2005. It was not until July 31, 2006, ten months later, that Mr. Kamp responded by sending certain statistical data. After the Committee objected, Mr. Kamp sent additional data on August 25, 2006. Given the response time requirements set forth in section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, the Office&apos;s reply was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the issue of whether the Office&apos;s response was appropriate, the Commissioner offers the following comments. The Committee asked for caseload statistics. Nothing in Chapter 13 requires that the Office create additional data to respond to the Committee&apos;s request. Therefore, if the Office maintains additional statistics, it should forward those to the Committee promptly. If not, and the Committee is in possession of all caseload statistics, the County has responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it appears from some of the County&apos;s comments that there may have been some question about what caseload statistical data the Committee was seeking. If the County was unsure, it needed to seek clarification - but should have done so shortly after the request was received. Also, the Commissioner encourages data requestors to try to be as specific as possible in identifying the data they are seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 5:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to certain data that were requested on July 27, 2006?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 27, 2006, the Committee made additional requests :&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all legislation Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney proposed or sought to have enacted during her time as County Attorney. This includes, but is not limited to, legislation relating to criminal activity and firearms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all instances or programs since January 1999 where the Hennepin County Attorney worked with the various Hennepin County City Attorneys to set uniform prosecution standards.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all instances since January 1999 in which the Hennepin County Attorney supported the construction of new jails or detention facilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all instances since January 1999 in which the Hennepin County Attorney made the public aware of certain judges it believed had treated offenders too leniently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document any programs instituted by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office since January 1999 to train police officers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all instances since January 1999 in which the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office appealed criminal sentences it considered too lenient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;List, describe, and document all instances or programs since January 1999 in which the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office took steps to discourage gang membership. This includes, but is not limited to, measures to prevent children from joining gangs, to help current gang members quit, or to encourage gang tattoo removal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 11, 2006, Mr. Kamp wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;These requests, however, are not really Data Practices Act requests . . . Neither Hennepin County, nor the County Attorney&apos;s Office have information organized in the very specific manner you are seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To be sure, the Data Practices Act does not require a government entity to have its data organized in a particular manner, or in the precise way a data requestor desires. . . . The Act also does not give the public the right to dictate the specific form in which the data to which they seek access are provided. Advisory Opinion 95-037.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Johnson wrote, [The July 27, 2006, requests] were not data practices requests, but framed as broad questions and not requests for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner (of Administration) agrees with the County&apos;s position. Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to gain access to data that exist. Here, as the questions are written, they are not the type of requests that fall under the purview of Chapter 13. Rather, they appear to ask the Office to make a list, write a description, and create documentation. Had the Committee, for example, asked the County Attorney&apos;s Office for copies of data that document any legislation Amy Klobuchar proposed or sought to have enacted during her time as County Attorney, the Office would have been required to respond as prescribed by Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stevens raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office did not respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data requests made on September 14, 2005: (1) all travel records for Amy Klobuchar, in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney from 1999 to the present, including itinerary, cost and purpose ; and (2) all daily, weekly and monthly schedules of Amy Klobuchar from 1999 to the present.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office did not respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on February 22, 2006: all labor grievances filed against Amy Klobuchar in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; 1999 - 2006.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office did not respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on March 3, 2006: list and description of all matters referred by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office to the Hennepin County Domestic Fatality Review Board.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office did not respond in a timely manner, as required by Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, to the following data request made on September 14, 2005: provide all caseload statistics tracked by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office from 1998 to present . The Commissioner is unable to determine if the response was appropriate.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request made on July 27, 2006.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 19, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267419</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-028</Title><title>Opinion 06 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267888&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-10-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Marshall comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the names of the two finalists for the position of economic development director?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 2, 2006; City of Marshall</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On August 18, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Marshall Independent&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Marshall. IPAD requested additional information and clarification, which Mr. Anfinson provided on August 22, 2006.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mike Johnson, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated August 24, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 5, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Dennis Simpson, the Marshall City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City of Marshall recently sought to hire a new economic development director. . . . four of the candidates were selected to be interviewed. At that point . . . they became finalists within the meaning of Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 3, and the city did disclose their names to the newspaper.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A few days later, however, the newspaper learned from the city administrator that the list of four finalists had been narrowed to two. It is not clear why the other two were dropped from consideration. In any event, the newspaper then asked for the names of the remaining two finalists. The city administrator refused to provide them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson provided copies of related email correspondence he had with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Simpson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In an email dated August 4, 2006, Mr. Simpson wrote to Mr. Anfinson:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. Johnson has provided to the Marshall Independent, the names of the four candidates interviewed. . . . The list of finalists includes all four candidates brought in for interviews.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It appears the Marshall Independent is requesting a ranking or some other categorization of the finalists. Any such ranking or other categorization limits the ability of the City to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement with the successful candidate. Therefore, no additional information will be provided by the City to the Marshall Independent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In an email dated August 7, Mr. Anfinson responded:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . I am a little bit perplexed about the argument you make, however, since I didn&apos;t mention (nor has my client, as far as I know) anything about a ranking or some other categorization of the finalists. Instead, what the newspaper seeks are simply the names of the current finalists. The city administrator has told the Independent point-blank that only two finalists remain. As I wrote before, it seems to me pretty clear that where the law says the names of finalists are public, the fact that a long list of candidates has been reduced to a shorter one doesn&apos;t meant [sic] that the identities of the individuals on that short list are not public; they are the current finalists, and their identities are thus subject to disclosure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Marshall comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the names of the two finalists for the position of economic development director?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Government data about job applicants are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3. This provision, in relevant part, states, Names of applicants shall be private data except . . . when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, &apos;finalist&apos; means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Simpson wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City of Marshall reviewed all initial applicants and decided to interview four candidates for the position of Economic Development Director. The names and other disclosable information regarding those four candidates ( finalists ) were released to the Marshall Independent, . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Thereafter, the four candidates ( finalists ) were interviewed by a series of committees as established by the City Administrator. . . . After the interview process, all four candidates remained as viable candidates for the position . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City Administrator then began the process of conducting additional background checks and reference checks for two of the four candidates. During this time frame, two of the four finalists withdrew their names from consideration. The City was then left with only two candidates for consideration. The City . . . then did hire one of the two remaining candidates . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      All four finalists as previously identified remained in the mix for consideration as the Economic Development Director. The ranking of those candidates on a scale of 1 - 4 is immaterial and irrelevant. To disclose the ranking of the candidates would do nothing but disrupt morale and would be counter productive to the successful completion of the hiring process . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3, the name of an applicant who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority is public. Here, it appears the City initially considered four candidates to be finalists. At some point in the ensuing process, two of the finalists dropped out so two finalists remained. At that time, the City, in responding to a data request for the names of the finalists should have released the names of the two individuals. Although the Commissioner did not see a copy of any data request(s) made by the newspaper, Mr. Anfinson, in his email of August 2, 2006, asks for the names of the two remaining finalists. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3, the data are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Finally, Mr. Simpson appears to believe the newspaper asked for a ranking of the four candidates. Mr. Anfinson denies this assertion. As the Commissioner has not seen copies of any data requests (other than Mr. Anfinson&apos;s August 2, 2006, email), she is not in a position to comment.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Marshall did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to the names of the two finalists for the position of economic development director.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 2, 2006
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267888</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-027</Title><title>Opinion 06 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267124&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-09-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Breezy Point City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 3 when they held an emergency meeting on July 24, 2006?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 28, 2006; Breezy Point City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 11, 2006, IPAD received a letter, dated September 5, 2006, from David Slipy on behalf of the board of directors of LAGT, Inc., an organization based in Breezy Point, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Slipy asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding actions by the Breezy Point City Council (the Council) concerning an emergency meeting of the Council held on July 24, 2006. Mr. Slipy submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 13, 2006, IPAD wrote to Douglas Rach, Mayor of the City of Breezy Point. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Rach of Mr. Slipy&apos;s request and gave the Council, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Council&apos;s position. On September 26, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated September 25, 2006, from Steven R. Qualley, the attorney for the City of Breezy Point (the City).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Slipy is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At a regular meeting of the Council on June 5, 2006, it was decided that the City would issue a request for proposals (RFP) for building inspection services. The City had been receiving complaints about the services of the existing building inspector. An emergency meeting of the Council was held at 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2006. The purpose of the meeting was to remove the City&apos;s building official and hire a new firm to fill that role.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the July 24th emergency meeting, the contract with the existing building inspector was terminated and an interim building inspector was hired from the respondents to the RFP. The Council made the appointment permanent at its August 7, 2006, regular meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Sliipy&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the members of the Breezy Point City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 3 when they held an emergency meeting on July 24, 2006?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no question that the Council is required to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML). Section 13D.01, subdivision 1 (b)(4) states that the provisions of the OML apply to a . . . statutory or home rule charter city. Breezy Point is a city and so its Council is covered by the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background, the next step is to review the issue presented by Mr. Slipy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are three types of meetings that a public body can conduct: a regular meeting, a special meeting and an emergency meeting. As its name suggests, a regular meeting of a public body occurs at the same time and place on a regular or routine schedule. For example, a city council might establish its regular meeting time as the second Monday of each month beginning at 7:00 p.m. Section 13D.04, subdivision 1 states that the schedule of regular meetings must be kept on file at the primary offices of the public body. No other notice of a regular meeting need be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A special meeting is conducted at a time or place other than the regularly scheduled meeting time or place. In fulfillment of the public&apos;s right to participate in its government that was noted in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American case&lt;/em&gt;, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 requires that notice of a special meeting be given either by posting notice on the principal bulletin board of the public body or on the door of the meeting room. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 2 requires that notice of special meetings be provided to those who have filed a written request for notice and that the notice be mailed or delivered at least three days in advance of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To hold an emergency meeting, the public body is required to make a good faith effort to notify any news medium that has filed a written request for notice. The statute also defines an emergency meeting as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.04, subdivision 3(e).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are no cases that describe the circumstances that fit this definition nor is there a further statutory definition of what constitutes an emergency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the rules of statutory construction in Minnesota is to use the common meaning of words that are otherwise undefined by the Legislature. Turning to the dictionary, emergency means&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. A serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action. 2. A condition of urgent need for action or assistance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Council argues that the number of complaints regarding the services of the building inspector justified an emergency meeting. Mr. Slipy argues that by issuing an RFP for building inspector services, the City was not in an emergency situation that would justify an emergency meeting of the Council. The complaints received by the City were not unexpected; the Council had issued an RFP in June and was planning to decide whether to change building inspectors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner must also consider the purpose of the Open Meeting Law&apos;s provisions as described in the &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; case. Applying the standards from that case to the concept of an emergency meeting leads to the conclusion that emergency meetings should be used rarely and for circumstances where public safety is jeopardized. Examples of emergency situations would include holding a meeting to respond to a natural disaster or to a health epidemic caused by an event such as an accident or terrorist activity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While understanding that there had been problems with the performance of the building inspector, the aggregated complaints did not rise to the level of emergency stated above. The Council could have taken action at a special meeting following a three day notice that would allow the public to detect improper influences, be informed of the Council&apos;s actions and to contribute to the discussion of the issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following the spirit of the Open Meeting Law that public bodies should act at open meetings with as much notice to the public as possible, it must be concluded that the July 24, 2006, emergency meeting of the Council did not comply with Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The members of the Breezy Point City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 3 when they held an emergency meeting on July 24, 2006.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 28, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267124</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Emergency meetings</Title><Id>266658</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-026</Title><title>Opinion 06 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267879&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-09-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: data indicating all licensed child care providers who have received child care assistance payment for services rendered in the past month?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 21, 2006; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: This opinion has been edited to correct inaccuracies.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 26, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated July 24, 2006, from Jerry Soma, Division Manager of Anoka County Human Services. In his letter, Mr. Soma asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that Anoka County maintains. IPAD requested additional information and clarification, which the County provided on August 11, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 17, 2006, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, invited the Service Employees International Union Minnesota Kids First to submit comments. IPAD did not receive comments from the Union.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Soma is as follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The] data request . . . [seeks] program data concerning payments made by Anoka County to all child care providers - licensed and non-licensed - pursuant to the Child Care Assistance Program who received payments for services rendered in the most recent payment cycle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Anoka County is uncertain whether requested data about payment of child care assistance is classified as private data on individuals. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267698&quot; title=&quot;06-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 06-013&lt;/a&gt;, issued at the request of Anoka County, the Commissioner addressed the classification of data relating to legal non-licensed child care providers. Thus, the analysis in this opinion will focus only on data relating to licensed child care providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Soma&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: data indicating all licensed child care providers who have received child care assistance payment for services rendered in the past month?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals relating to a welfare program are classified pursuant to section 13.46. In section 13.46, individual does not include a vendor of services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4 of section 13.46 provides various classifications for licensing data, which are defined as, all data collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system pertaining to persons licensed or registered or who apply for licensure or registration or who formerly were licensed or registered under the authority of the commissioner of human services. (See section 13.46, subdivision 4(a)(1).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Child care providers are licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 245A, by the Commissioner of Human Services or the Commissioner&apos;s designated representative, including county agencies and private agencies. (See section 245A.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Soma wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. Chap. 119B addresses the requirements on who is eligible to receive child care assistance funding (individual recipients) as well as requirements related to who may provide child care services to the recipient in order for the recipient to receive the funding. Child care assistance payments are made on behalf of a recipient to . . . [a] licensed child care provider.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The child care assistance program is administered by the Minnesota Department of Human Services [DHS]. Programs administered by DHS are part of the welfare system. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The county does not contract with these individuals [an individual licensed under Minn. Stat. Chap. 245A]. They are not providing services to the county. They are providing services to a child care assistance recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the child care assistance program determines that an overpayment has been made, the child care assistance recipient is responsible to repay the funds, not the child care provider. Payment data relates to specific recipients. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the data request, [the Union compared payments made by the County to child care providers with payments made by the county to a foster parent]. Anoka County does not agree with this comparison. When a child is placed in foster care, the county makes the placement and is responsible for the payment. There is a direct relationship between the foster care provider and the county. The foster care provider does provide services on behalf of the county.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In contrast, under the child care assistance program, the county does not place the child with the child care provider. Child care arrangements are made by the parent(s). Services are not provided at the request of or on behalf of the county.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267503&quot; title=&quot;01-091&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-091&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed data about child care providers and opined that, generally, such data are classified pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 4. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the County asked the Commissioner to opine on the classification of data naming all licensed child care providers who have received child care assistance payment for services rendered in the past month. The operation of section 13.46, subdivision 4, is such that all licensing data are presumed private unless there is language specifically stating that certain of the data are public. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267698&quot; title=&quot;06-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;06-013&lt;/a&gt;.) Nowhere in section 13.46, subdivision 4, does it state that the date on which a licensed day care provider receives a child care assistance payment is public. Therefore, the data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Soma raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4, the following data that Anoka County maintains are private: data indicating all licensed child care providers who have received child care assistance payment for services rendered in the past month.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 21, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267879</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Daycare, child care provider</Title><Id>266743</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-025</Title><title>Opinion 06 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267695&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-08-17T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>
Is the City of Rice in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases certain data relating to vehicle accidents to Watab Township?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 17, 2006; City of Rice</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 17, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated July 12, 2006, from Thomas Wenner. In his letter, Mr. Wenner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City of Rice maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Wenner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has a Fire Protection Agreement with Watab Township and under the terms of the Fire Protection Agreement provides fire protection and emergency services regarding property located in Watab Township and medical emergencies which occur in Watab Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Township has requested that the City supply certain information with respect to vehicle accidents such that the Township may exercise its authority under Minnesota Statute section366.011 to collect service charges for such services. The information requested is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Name of each vehicle owner.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Name of vehicle insurance company for each vehicle.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Name of driver for each vehicle.
&lt;br /&gt;
4. VIN number and vehicle license number for each vehicle.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Whether a call was a medical or rescue call.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The township is not requesting information regarding the names or conditions of the victim or anything concerning the health care services which were provided to the victim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Wenner provided the Commissioner with a copy of the Fire Protection Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Wenner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Rice in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases certain data relating to vehicle accidents to Watab Township?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Certain metropolitan townships are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 pursuant to language in section 13.02, subdivision 11. To the best of the Commissioner&apos;s knowledge, Watab Township is not subject to Chapter 13. The following analysis is based on that assumption.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation before the Commissioner is one in which, through a contractual relationship, a government entity subject to Chapter 13 (the City) is performing services on behalf of a person not subject to Chapter 13 (the Township). In providing services to the Township, the City apparently has collected and maintains certain data and now has inquired whether it may release those data to the Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly, if any of the data in question are public, the City must release those data to anyone, including the Township, who makes a request. Here, the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine the classification of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally, private government data about individuals can be disseminated to non-governmental entities only if there is statutory authority for the release or if the data subjects have consented to the release. In this case, the City did not provide any information suggesting there is statutory authority for the City to release the data or that the data subjects provided consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did recognize there are times when government entities contract with private persons. To address such situations, the Legislature, over the years, has adopted five provisions in Chapter 13: sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.05, subdivision 11; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5. The Commissioner has examined each of these provisions and finds that none of them allows for the sharing of data in the scenario presented by Mr. Wenner. Section 13.05, subdivision 6, states, in any contract between a government entity subject to this chapter and any person, when the contract requires that data on individuals be made available to the contracting parties by the government entity, that data shall be administered consistent with this chapter. However, there is no language in the Fire Protection Agreement that discusses the City providing data to the Township. Thus, it does not appear, pursuant to Chapter 13, that the City may release the data in question to the Township, unless the data are public or the data subjects have consented to the release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that this seems a peculiar result given the Township should have access to, at a minimum, data demonstrating that the City is fulfilling its terms of the contract. However, absent specific language in the contract regarding the sharing of data between the City and the Township, there does not appear to be authority for the City to release the data. Based on the language in section 13.05, subdivision 6, if the City&apos;s current or future contract(s) with the Township did discuss specifically the sharing of data, the data would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. As pursuant to section 13.02 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data is accessible to those individuals whose work assignments reasonably require access. Thus, Township employees who need the data to do their jobs would be granted access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, given that government entities may increasingly be contracting out their services to private parties, it would be helpful for the Legislature to address issues related to data sharing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wenner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It does not appear that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Rice may release to Watab Township certain data relating to vehicle accidents.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 17, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267695</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-024</Title><title>Opinion 06 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267610&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-08-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Metropolitan Airports Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding several requests, beginning April 19, 2002, for access to certain invoices for legal fees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 17, 2006; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter from Guy Heide, on behalf of the Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee ( Committee. ) In his letter, Mr. Heide asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Metropolitan Airports Commission ( MAC. ) IPAD required clarification and additional information, which Mr. Heide provided on July 14, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Heide&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Lanners, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The purposes of this letter, dated July 19, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Heide&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On August 2, 2006, IPAD received a response from Pamela J. Rasmussen, Deputy General Counsel for the MAC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By way of background, the dispute at issue here involves data related to the MAC&apos;s Part 150 Noise Abatement Program, a federal program that approves aircraft noise mitigation measures in communities surrounding an airport. According to Ms. Rasmussen, the MAC retained the services of Mr. Thaddeus R. Lightfoot, an attorney with the Environmental Law Group, Ltd. ( ELG ), to investigate and respond to accusations the Rogers Lake East Committee made to the FAA and numerous other federal, state, and local authorities. The Committee claims that MAC Commissioners, staff and attorneys have engaged in fraudulent, criminal, unethical or otherwise illegal conduct in the Part 150 process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Heide presented them follows. In a letter dated April 19, 2002, Mr. Heide asked the MAC to provide him with the opportunity to inspect and/or copy all invoices submitted to MAC by ELG for the months of January-April, 2002. Mr. Heide inspected the invoices on May 24, 2002. According to Mr. Heide:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;None of the inspected ELG invoices were stamped &apos;privileged&apos; or &apos;confidential.&apos; None of the inspected ELG invoices were redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Narrative portions requested payment for professional services on &apos;files&apos; described as, &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt;, File 051-05 (DNL Contour Map Challenge), File 051-01 (General Environmental), File 051-03 (Lower Minnesota River Watershed District), File 051-04 (Fisher Sand Aggregate).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Heide subsequently made similar requests for access to ELG invoices. He stated that the invoices the MAC provided had been redacted to conceal or mask government data in narrative portions. No ELG invoices were stamped &apos;privileged&apos; or &apos;confidential.&apos; Mr. Heide provided the Commissioner with copies of two representative redacted ELG invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 9, 2003, the MAC responded to Mr. Heide&apos;s first request: [a]ll of the documents provided to you are entirely responsive to your request. As we have indicated to you previously, all communications between MAC staff and Mr. Lightfoot are attorney-client privileged. Therefore, those portions of the invoices were not provided. See Minn. Stat. 13.393. The MAC responded similarly to Mr. Heide&apos;s subsequent requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rasmussen wrote that Mr. Heide was incorrect in stating that the MAC provided him with access to unredacted invoices. She stated that the MAC redacted portions of each of the invoices to remove detailed descriptions of legal work. Ms. Rasmussen provided the Commissioner with unredacted copies of two representative ELG invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rasmussen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC provided copies of [the requested] invoices to Mr. Heide, but declined to produce the descriptions of work on these invoices on the grounds that these communications between MAC staff and ELG are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege through Minn. Stat. section13.393. Descriptions of work on these invoices also are protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine and under Minn. Stat. section13.39, civil investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rasmussen further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. section 13.393 allows certain data used, collected, stored and/or disseminated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity to be protected from disclosure under the Data Practices Act. The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the attorney-client privilege: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived. &lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 574 N.W.2d 436, 440 (Minn. 1998). In &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, the court used a three-part test to determine whether documents were protected under attorney-client privilege: (1) whether they constitute a communication, (2) whether that communication was intended in confidence, and (3) whether the attorney was acting in the course of his professional duty. &lt;em&gt;Id.&lt;/em&gt; at 441.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. App. 2003), the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the disclosure of attorney billing records for work done jointly for the state and another client under the Data Practices Act. The court found that the attorney billing statements were not protected from disclosure in their entirety by the attorney-client privilege, but there may be portions of the billing records protected under attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. The Court of Appeals stated, in dicta, that the attorney-client privilege protects those parts of the billing records in which RKMC communicated legal advice that would not have been disclosed but for the existence of the privilege and that the work-product doctrine protects those parts of the billing records in which RKMC communicated opinions, conclusions, legal theories or mental impressions prepared in anticipation of litigation. 655 N.W.2d at 839. MAC is not obligated to provide Mr. Heide unredacted legal services invoices if there is attorney-client privileged or work-product information on those invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In a footnote in &lt;em&gt;City Pages&lt;/em&gt;, the Court of Appeals noted that it examined sample RKMC billing records in camera and that those records contained a number of items, including (1) dates; (2) names of timekeepers; (3) numbers of hours worked; (4) generic descriptions of activities, e.g., review files, update database, prepare for deposition, search and retrieve files, research on summary judgment motion; (5) occasional references to legal theories that were the subject of research; (6) occasional references to the source of documents being reviewed; and (7) total fees and disbursements for the month. The Court further noted that much of the information in these records was not confidential and that the degree to which the billing records rendered legal advice was minimal: only those entries referring to specific legal theories even arguably meet this standard. &lt;em&gt;Id.&lt;/em&gt; at 839.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC has taken the reasonable position that much of the information on the ELG invoices is public, which is why MAC has already provided Mr. Heide copies of ELG invoices that contain dates, names of timekeepers, number of hours worked, names of files, total fees and disbursements and other information. However, unlike the data described by the court on the RKMC billing records, as a general matter of course ELG invoices contain detailed descriptions of confidential work, strategies and legal theories that are attorney-client privileged communications. ELG would not have used such detail if it thought these narrative statements were not in confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By providing the ELG invoices and showing the hours worked and the fees due, even without including detailed descriptions of work, a person who sees this data arguably may be able to determine legal strategy such as which claim MAC believes needs the most work to prepare a response to, or possibly which claim currently presented has the strongest arguments, or whether MAC is preparing a suit. If the detailed descriptions of work are provided as well, legal strategy will be revealed. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, it is the conclusion of MAC&apos;s General Counsel, Thomas W. Anderson, that data about Mr. Heide and the Committee are retained in anticipation of civil legal action. The background for this conclusion is set forth in the attached 2003 submission from MAC [relating to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767&quot; title=&quot;03-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-003&lt;/a&gt;.] As such, data describing the work done in anticipation of civil legal action is not public data available to Mr. Heide under Minn. Stat. section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Heide&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Metropolitan Airports Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding several requests, beginning April 19, 2002, for access to certain invoices for legal fees?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.393:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data used, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rasmussen discussed in detail the MAC&apos;s claim that the redacted data are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product. It is possible that certain of the data requested by Mr. Heide fall under the exemption in section 13.393. However, having examined the sample unredacted invoices, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the MAC&apos;s claim is appropriate. For additional guidance on the operation of section 13.393, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-009&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rasmussen also stated that the data are protected from public disclosure under section 13.39, which provides, according to subdivision 2, that the following data are not public: data collected by [government entities] . . . which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. According to subdivision 1, whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Rasmussen, Thomas W. Anderson, the MAC&apos;s General Counsel, has determined that data about Mr. Heide and the Committee are retained in anticipation of civil legal action. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the background for this conclusion is set forth in the attached 2003 submission from the MAC, relating to allegations of accusations of criminal fraud the Committee made against the MAC staff. In that document, the MAC stated [t]he Committee&apos;s threat of litigation is apparent on the face of its correspondence with local, state and federal government representatives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rasmussen did not provide the Commissioner with documentation of Mr. Anderson&apos;s determination that the disputed data are subject to protection under section 13.39. Thus, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Mr. Anderson had made such a determination at the time of Mr. Heide&apos;s requests, and so informed Mr. Heide. The first mention in the record before the Commissioner that MAC was relying upon section 13.39 as a basis for denying Mr. Heide access to the data was made by Ms. Rasmussen in her comments to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously has opined that a government entity&apos;s chief attorney has substantial discretion to make the determination that data are protected under section 13.39 (see for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267410&quot; title=&quot;99-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-029&lt;/a&gt;), and given the history of the dispute between the Committee and the MAC, it is reasonable for the MAC to anticipate civil legal action. However, generally, the chief attorney for a government entity should make the determination that data are not public under section 13.39 early in the process, and communicate such clearly and promptly to a data requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. Pursuant to section 13.39, subdivision 2a, there is a remedy available to Mr. Heide and the Committee:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the time when a civil legal action is determined to be pending under subdivision 1, any person may bring an action in the district court in the county where the data is maintained to obtain disclosure of data classified as confidential or protected nonpublic under subdivision 2. The court may order that all or part of the data be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In making the determination whether data shall be disclosed, the court shall consider whether the benefit to the person bringing the action or to the public outweighs any harm to the public, the agency, or any person identified in the data. The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Heide raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Metropolitan Airports Commission complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding several requests, beginning April 19, 2002, for access to certain invoices for legal fees.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 17, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267610</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-023</Title><title>Opinion 06 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267849&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-08-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the complaint government data? If yes, what is the classification?
What, if any, limitations are on employee A disclosing information to the media about the incident or the complaint?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee C&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?
What, if any, limitations are on employee C in giving information or a copy of the witness statement to employee A or to the media?
What, if any, limitations are on employee A in giving a copy of a witness statement to the media?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 11, 2006; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 30, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated June 28, 2006, from Dave Orren, the data practices compliance officer and responsible authority designee for the Minnesota Department of Health. In his letter, Mr. Orren asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Orren wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Employee A prepares a written complaint alleging improper behavior by Employee B. Employee A submits a copy of the complaint to the agency and keeps a copy. Before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee A discloses facts about the complaint to the media.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Employee C was a witness to the incident between Employee A and Employee B. Employee C is interviewed about the incident and also prepares a written witness statement for the agency. Employee C submits a copy of the witness statement to the agency and keeps a copy. Before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee C gives a copy of the witness statement to Employee A. Also before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee A gives a copy of the witness statement to the media.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Mr. Orren&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the complaint government data? If yes, what is the classification?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              What, if any, limitations are on employee A disclosing information to the media about the incident or the complaint?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee C&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              What, if any, limitations are on employee C in giving information or a copy of the witness statement to employee A or to the media?
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              What, if any, limitations are on employee A in giving a copy of a witness statement to the media?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Government data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. Additional data become public when the entity makes its final decision about disciplinary action and a final disposition occurs (see section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(5), and 2(b).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the situation Mr. Orren asked the Commissioner to address, no final disciplinary action has been taken.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the complaint government data? If yes, what is the classification?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Orren wrote that employee A prepared a written complaint about alleged improper behavior by employee B and that A kept a copy of the complaint.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the data in the statement employee A provided to the Department are government data. The statement contains data the Department, a government entity, collected and maintains. The fact that A possesses a copy of his/her statement does not change the fact that the statement is government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has not seen the complaint but assumes it contains data about both employee A and B. Because A and B are employees of the Department, data about them are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Regarding data about B, it would seem the only public data related to the complaint are the fact that a complaint was made and the status of the complaint. The remaining data about B presumably are private. The data about A in the complaint likely are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What, if any, limitations are on employee A disclosing information to the media about the incident or the complaint?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In this situation, employee A plays two roles. One is as an employee of the Department. The second is as a subject of data. Mr. Orren did not provide any information suggesting that A, in his/her role as an employee, is either the Department&apos;s responsible authority or a data practices designee. Thus, the Commissioner assumes A is not responsible for handling release of the Department&apos;s data nor does s/he have authority to release the Department&apos;s data. However, A also is a subject of some of the data. In this capacity, A has the right to release any data about him/her. Thus, A may release data about him/her but not other of the Department&apos;s data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 3:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee C&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, employee C&apos;s copy of the witness statement is government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has not seen the witness statement but assumes it contains data about employees A, B, and C. Data about A, B, and C are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Most of the data about A and C likely are private as are most of the data about B. (See also Issue 1.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 4:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A&apos;s copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, employee A&apos;s copy of the witness statement is government data. See Issue 3 for comments about the classification.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 5:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What, if any, limitations are on employee C in giving information or a copy of the witness statement to employee A or to the media?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      See Issue 2. Employee C can release only data about him/her.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 6:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What, if any, limitations are on employee A in giving a copy of a witness statement to the media?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      See Issue 2. Employee A can release only data about him/her.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Orren raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, employee A&apos;s copy of the complaint is government data. Its classification likely is a combination of public and private data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Employee A may disclose only data of which s/he is the subject.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, employee C&apos;s copy of the witness statement is government data. Its classification likely is a combination of public and private data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, employee A&apos;s copy of the witness statement is government data. Its classification likely is a combination of public and private data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Employee C may release only data of which s/he is the subject.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Employee A may release only data of which s/he is the subject.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 11, 2006
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267849</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee release to media</Title><Id>267017</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Witness statement</Title><Id>267119</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Witness identity or statement</Title><Id>267171</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-022</Title><title>Opinion 06 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267226&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are active warrants classified that are maintained by the City of Moorhead?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 2006; City of Moorhead</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 24, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated May 17, 2006, from Robert Larson, Deputy Chief of the Moorhead Police Department. In his letter, Mr. Larson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City of Moorhead maintains. IPAD requested additional information and clarification, which IPAD received on June 19, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Larson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Moorhead Police Department has received a request to allow public access to a spreadsheet containing all active warrants in Clay County. The access could be allowed via our website and/or a crime update email newsletter with a link to the spreadsheet. The newsletter is sent to anyone who requests it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The belief is that by allowing the public access to the list of active warrants, a public purpose would be served by receiving information from the public to apprehend offenders.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Currently, the spreadsheet contains the name, date of birth, last known address and the reason for the issued warrant. Any of the aforementioned items could be removed from the spreadsheet if necessary. The spreadsheet also includes all active warrants for the entire county.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The warrant information we are looking to use on our website is gathered from a query taken from the information entered and maintained in our local records management system. At the present time through a joint powers agreement with the Clay County Sheriff&apos;s Department they enter all warrants on persons that have been arrested by our agencies or have been cited/summoned, and filed to appear in court. This information is derived from the county attorney&apos;s office. This information is also submitted to the BCA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our query is formatted in an excel spreadsheet, and only utilized by officers at this time to locate persons with outstanding warrants against them. This spreadsheet contains the date of the warrant, description of the warrant, the name of the person, DOB, and last known address. This spreadsheet contains warrants issued on the behalf of both agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Larson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are active warrants classified that are maintained by the City of Moorhead?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 does not provide a specific classification for data in arrest warrants, i.e., the data in the actual warrant documents. Therefore, unless there is a court order limiting access, the data are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13, however, does provide a specific classification for data in arrest warrant indices. Subdivision 19 of section 13.82, provides, Data in arrest warrant indices are classified as confidential data until the defendant has been taken into custody, served with a warrant, or appears before the court, except when the law enforcement agency determines that the public purpose is served by making the information public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 does not define the term warrant indices. &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam Webster&apos;s Incorporated, 1996, defines index as a list arranged usually in alphabetical order of some specified datum&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City is interested in allowing access to a spreadsheet that contains a listing of active warrants. Mr. Larson wrote that the spreadsheet contains the name, date of birth, last known address, and reason for each warrant. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is a warrant index and the data contained therein are confidential, unless the City determines that the public purpose is served by making the information public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature, in not defining the term public purpose, left law enforcement agencies with some discretion in determining when to publicly release data in arrest warrant indices. Here, Mr. Larson wrote that the City wants to release data to enlist the assistance of the public in apprehending offenders. This appears to be a valid and worthwhile reason. Thus, because the City has determined there is a public purpose for releasing the data, the City may exercise its discretion under 13.82, subdivision 19, and make data public. If the City has not already done so, the Commissioner recommends it document its determinations regarding these matters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in his opinion request, Mr. Larson stated that the City maintains Clay County&apos;s warrant data pursuant to a joint powers agreement. The Commissioner does not have any details regarding the agreement and, therefore, is not in a position to comment as to whether the City can release any of the County&apos;s data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Larson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 19, the City of Moorhead&apos;s listing of active arrest warrant data is confidential; however, the City may release the information as it has determined a public purpose is served. The data in the individual warrants are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, unless there is a court order limiting access.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 9, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267226</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest warrant indices</Title><Id>267134</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-021</Title><title>Opinion 06 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267584&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-06-23T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in the letter, which was referenced in the March 10, 2006, Pequot Lakes School Board minutes and subsequently placed in the Superintendent&apos;s file?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 23, 2006; School District 186 (Pequot Lakes)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 5, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated April 4, 2006, from Kevin Rupp and Kimberley Sobieck, attorneys representing Independent School District 186, Pequot Lakes. In the letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD required clarification, which Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck provided on May 11, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD invited both the &lt;em&gt;Pine River Journal&lt;/em&gt; newspaper and the data subject to submit comments. On May 25, 2006, IPAD received comments from Kelly Virden, editor of the newspaper. On May 26, 2006, IPAD received comments from the data subject&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Recently, the [District&apos;s Board] received a complaint against the District&apos;s Superintendent. During a Board Meeting on March 10, 2006, the Board went into closed session to give preliminary consideration to the allegations against the Superintendent. Following the closed session, the Board passed a motion placing the Superintendent on paid administrative leave through June 30, 2006 and placing a letter in her personnel file. The Board considered the complaint matter concluded, and the Board imposed no resulting discipline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Two local newspapers requested the final disposition of any disciplinary action taken against [the Superintendent], together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. The Lake County Echo and the Pine River Journal asserted that the leave was disciplinary and consequently the data is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in the letter, which was referenced in the March 10, 2006, Pequot Lakes School Board minutes and subsequently placed in the Superintendent&apos;s file?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If a government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following additional data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), prescribes the point in time at which a final disposition has occurred:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck stated, Neither the leave nor the letter was intended to be a disciplinary action imposed by the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. When someone complains about a government employee, unless and until there has been a final disposition, only the fact that a complaint exists and the status of the complaint are public. For there to have been a final disposition, the entity must have made its final decision about taking disciplinary action. Here, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck assert the District has not taken disciplinary action against the Superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the letter in question, it appears that a complaint was made and that some investigation has taken place. It also appears, based on statements in the letter, that the letter does not constitute disciplinary action. If the District has not taken disciplinary action against the Superintendent, there cannot have been a final disposition and the data in the letter are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Virden argues that based on the District&apos;s Policy 403 - &lt;em&gt;Discipline, Suspension, and Dismissal of School District Employees&lt;/em&gt;, dated April 26, 2004, the Superintendent was disciplined. She states that according to the policy, placing an employee on a leave with pay is a disciplinary measure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Virden also asserts that because the Board&apos;s placement of the Superintendent on paid leave coincides with placement of a letter in her personnel file, it seems unlikely the letter was merely a warning requiring improvements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District&apos;s Policy 403 lists some forms of discipline that may be imposed. (See Section IV.) Included in that list is disciplinary suspension, demotion or leave of absence with pay. (See Section IV (A)(4).) Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The newspapers assert that since a leave of absence with pay is listed as a form of discipline, the Board disciplined the Superintendent when it placed her on a leave of absence with pay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;But the Board did not place the Superintendent on a disciplinary leave of absence with pay. Rather the Board placed the Superintendent on an administrative leave of absence with pay. Had the Board intended the leave to be disciplinary, the Board would not have used the term administrative; the Board would have utilized [the Policy&apos;s] terminology (i.e., a &apos;disciplinary leave of absence with pay. ) [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it does not appear the District has followed the procedures for administering discipline that are set out in Section V of the policy. Thus, based on all of the above, the Commissioner finds nothing to indicate the District took disciplinary action and that a final disposition has occurred. The data in the letter, therefore, are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. The District&apos;s action of putting the Superintendent on administrative leave with pay from March 10 to June 30, 2006, at the same time it closed a board meeting to discuss a complaint against her suggests that the leave is related to an investigation. If this is so, and the leave is not disciplinary, it would seem the investigation is still ongoing. If the District ultimately finds no basis for discipline, presumably, the reason for placing the Superintendent on administrative leave would cease to exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rupp and Ms. Sobieck raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data contained in the letter, which was referenced in the March 10, 2006, Pequot Lakes School Board minutes and subsequently placed in the Superintendent&apos;s file, are classified as private.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 23, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267584</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Policy or contract determines</Title><Id>266857</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-020</Title><title>Opinion 06 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267497&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-06-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they conducted closed meetings on October 25, November 8, November 15, November 29, December 6, December 10, December 13, and December 20, 2005 and on January 10, January 31, February 14, February 21, March 14, March 21, and March 28, 2006, following notices that consisted only of the broad statement: &quot;If necessary, the Board will also meet in a closed Executive Session prior to or after the meeting for the purpose of discussing and/or acting on legal matters, personnel items, negotiations and expulsions?&quot;
Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) on November 29, 2005, when they (through their Chair) summarized a closed meeting conducted on the same date concerning the performance of the superintendent?
Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) when they conducted closed meetings on September 6 and November 29, 2005, to evaluate the performance of a single individual who was subject to the Board&apos;s authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 23, 2006; Minneapolis School Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 12, 2006, IPAD received a letter, dated May 10, 2006, from John P. Borger on behalf of his client the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding actions by the Minneapolis School Board (the Board) concerning (1) the notices provided before multiple meetings in 2005 and 2006 that were closed, (2) the summary that was provided of an evaluation of a particular employee, and (3) whether the Board could conduct multiple meetings to evaluate that same employee. Mr. Borger submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 15, 2006, IPAD wrote to Joseph Erickson, chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Erickson of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. On June 7, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Allen E. Giles, the general counsel for the Minneapolis School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Borger is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger and his client, the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;, monitor the activities of the Board. One of the ways in which this is done is by receiving the notices issued before Board meetings. Mr. Borger presented information about 15 closed meetings held by the Board in late 2005 and early 2006. (The specific dates of the meetings and the content of the notices are in Issue Statement 1.) Of concern is the information provided in notices announcing these 15 meetings and whether it was sufficient to satisfy statutory requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger also presented information about the evaluation of an employee subject to the Board&apos;s authority and asked whether the statutory requirements were met. A statement was issued by the Board Chair (see the discussion of Issue 2 for the content of the statement) regarding the evaluation of the employee&apos;s performance on November 29, 2005. Mr. Borger and his client take the position that the statement was not sufficient. Additionally, Mr. Borger presented information about meetings held on September 6, 2005, and November 29, 2005, to evaluate this same employee&apos;s performance and asked whether the statute allows multiple meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his submission, Mr. Giles noted that the evaluation of the employee in question began in July 2005 and the meeting was recessed and reconvened on a number of occasions until January 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Borger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they conducted closed meetings on October 25, November 8, November 15, November 29, December 6, December 10, December 13, and December 20, 2005 and on January 10, January 31, February 14, February 21, March 14, March 21, and March 28, 2006, following notices that consisted only of the broad statement: If necessary, the Board will also meet in a closed Executive Session prior to or after the meeting for the purpose of discussing and/or acting on legal matters, personnel items, negotiations and expulsions?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) on November 29, 2005, when they (through their Chair) summarized a closed meeting conducted on the same date concerning the performance of the superintendent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) when they conducted closed meetings on September 6 and November 29, 2005, to evaluate the performance of a single individual who was subject to the Board&apos;s authority?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute between the parties that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). As specifically provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision b(1), the Board is required to comply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they conducted closed meetings on October 25, November 8, November 15, November 29, December 6, December 10, December 13, and December 20, 2005 and on January 10, January 31, February 14, February 21, March 14, March 21, and March 28, 2006, following notices that consisted only of the broad statement: If necessary, the Board will also meet in a closed Executive Session prior to or after the meeting for the purpose of discussing and/or acting on legal matters, personnel items, negotiations and expulsions?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 3 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This subdivision requires that three things be done before a meeting is closed: (1) a statement be made on the record; (2) specific grounds permitting the closure of the meeting be given; and (3) a description of the subject to be discussed be provided. It is Mr. Borger&apos;s position that for each of the meetings listed, these three things were not done.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Giles addressed the first task noting that the Board Chair does announce the purpose of the closed meeting on the record. However, the content of any of the announcements made by the Board&apos;s Chair was not provided and so the Commissioner is unable to review them for compliance with the statute. As an announcement is statutorily required, the Board should continue to make these announcements giving content as is further described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second task is to provide specific grounds that permit the meeting to be closed. The Legislature has not indicated how the Board, or any other public body, should meet this requirement. There also are no cases that interpret this language, so it is appropriate to consider the plain meaning of the phrase specific grounds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1997, specific means explicitly set forth; definite and grounds means the foundation for an argument, belief, or an action; a basis. Therefore, the Board needs to provide the definite basis for closing the meeting. The easiest way to accomplish this is to cite the statute that gives the Board the authority to close the meeting. The general notice that the Board used prior to the meeting dates listed in the issue statement does not include a citation to any statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The final element to be considered is whether the notice that the Board has used describes the subject to be discussed. The Court of Appeals has provided direction on how this language is to be interpreted. In &lt;em&gt;The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth&lt;/em&gt;, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), the Court was asked to decide if a statement that a meeting is being closed for a discussion of pending litigation under the attorney-client privilege met the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 3. In analyzing that statement used by Blue Earth County, the Court found that attorney client privilege provided the grounds and pending litigation &lt;em&gt;identified&lt;/em&gt; the subject to be discussed, but did not &lt;em&gt;describe&lt;/em&gt; the subject as required by the statute. &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; at 476 (emphasis in the original).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Applying the holding from &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; to these facts, the general statement used by the Board does not describe the subject to be discussed. The general statement does identify possible issues, but does not provide the specificity required by the Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board is concerned with balancing access by the public with individual privacy. While the Commissioner appreciates the Board&apos;s concern, there are ways to provide the public with the specificity required by the statute without disclosing the specific individual involved. Mr. Borger provided several suggestions in his submission and the Commissioner will take this opportunity to offer guidance for others facing the need to provide notice before closing a meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Almost all public bodies subject to the OML will need at some point to consider allegations or complaints against an employee. According to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the existence and status of any complaints against a public employee are public. What is not public is the basis or substance of the complaint or charge. To protect the privacy of the employee, the public body could indicate that it will be reviewing a complaint against an unidentified employee and give a general description of the basis or substance of the complaint. A second option would be to identify the employee and indicate that the public body will be considering an unspecified complaint or charge against the employee. Either method gives the public a description of what will be discussed at the closed meeting without violating the privacy rights of the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another routine reason for a public body to close a meeting is to evaluate the performance of an employee subject to the body&apos;s authority. Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) requires that the public body identify the employee to be evaluated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A third basis for closing a meeting is to consider strategy for labor negotiations. According to section 13D.03, subdivision 1(b), a majority of the public body must vote to close a meeting for this purpose. Subdivision 1(c) directs that the time the closed session will begin and its location be announced at the public meeting. The description requirement of section 13D.01, subdivision 3 can be met by naming the union or group of employees involved in the negotiations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A fourth basis for closing a meeting is to discuss a matter covered by attorney-client privilege. As was outlined in &lt;em&gt;The Free Press&lt;/em&gt; case, specificity is required. Mr. Borger has suggested that the public body could provide the names of the litigants, the venue or location of the court where the action is pending and the nature and substance of the legal matter. Providing the venue and description may be more complicated in those situations where a complaint has not yet been served and the public body needs to discuss the threat of litigation and a strategy for response with its attorney. That does not, however, mean that a description cannot be provided so that the public will understand what the public body is about to consider.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The final basis for closing a meeting that will be discussed here is unique to school boards - closing a meeting to discuss discipline of a student. Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3) requires a meeting to be closed when data about a student will be discussed. According to section 13.32 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC section 1232g and 34 CFR part 99, all data about a student are private, with limited exceptions. Discipline, including the possible expulsion of a student, is not one of the exceptions and so the school board will need to use care in describing the basis for closing this type of meeting. As was outlined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267851&quot; title=&quot;01-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-053&lt;/a&gt;, age, grade level, gender, hometown, race and the act that is the basis for the discipline may all be disclosed, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. As was noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267851&quot; title=&quot;01-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-053&lt;/a&gt;, if any one of the elements listed above would identify the student involved (i.e.,only one male student from Anytown in grade 11), then that element cannot be disclosed. A school board and its attorneys will need to consider the appropriate elements to release on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is needed. Neither of the parties addressed whether the notices that are the subject of this discussion were provided in advance of regular or special meetings of the Board. Section 13D.04, subdivision 1 only requires that a schedule of regular meetings be maintained in the files of the Board&apos;s primary offices with no further notice required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before a special meeting, notice is required by section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a). Because of the need to provide notice of special meetings to parties who have filed a written request (see section 13D.04, subdivision 2(b)), the notice of a special meeting must be specific and the Board is limited to the topics stated in the notice of special meeting. For further discussion of notices for special meetings, see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267582&quot; title=&quot;04-057&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-057&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To summarize, the statement used by the Board in its meeting notices is not in compliance with the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 3. Assuming that this same language was used by the Board in its announcement prior to closing the meeting, the content of the announcements is also not in compliance. The Commissioner recognizes that there may be other information that is not part of this record that could change this conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) on November 29, 2005, when they (through their Chair) summarized a closed meeting conducted on the same date concerning the performance of the superintendent?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of this issue, the focus is on the portion of paragraph (a) that requires a summary of the Board&apos;s conclusion once an evaluation is complete. According to Mr. Borger, the Board Chair made the following statement on November 29, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The board just met in a closed executive session to discuss private personnel matters. First we discussed the superintendent&apos;s benchmark performance goals, and the board is continuing to review the superintendent&apos;s performance in accordance with the performance goals agreed to by the superintendent and the board earlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger has argued that this statement is not sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements and cites several previous advisory opinions in support of his position. These Advisory Opinions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-021&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267659&quot; title=&quot;02-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-035&lt;/a&gt;, all support Mr. Borger&apos;s contention that the Board&apos;s statement is not a sufficient summary of the performance evaluation. The Commissioner has repeatedly opined that each salient point of the evaluation should be summarized so that the public is able to best understand the performance of the employee in question, whether that performance is good, bad, or indifferent. &lt;em&gt;See &lt;/em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-018&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, according to Mr. Giles, the Board was not finished with its evaluation when the Board Chair provided information about the evaluation process on November 29, 2005. If the evaluation process was not complete, then the Board was not required to make a statement. It would have been better if the Board had taken the opportunity presented on November 29, 2005, to explain the evaluation process that it was using and to let the public know that the evaluation was not yet complete. While it can be argued that the phrase the board is continuing to review the superintendent&apos;s performance indicates the evaluation is not yet over, the phrase can also be interpreted as an indication that the superintendent&apos;s performance for a specific time period has been reviewed and that evaluation is complete. Given the ambiguity of the Board&apos;s statement, it is understandable why some members of the public would believe the evaluation was complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is a factual dispute between the parties whether the superintendent&apos;s evaluation was complete as of November 29, 2005. The Commissioner is unable to resolve this dispute and so cannot reach a conclusion about the status of the superintendent&apos;s evaluation, or whether the Board was in compliance with section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Minneapolis School Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) when they conducted closed meetings on September 6 and November 29, 2005, to evaluate the performance of a single individual who was subject to the Board&apos;s authority?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A meeting may be closed to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to the Board&apos;s authority. Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) (see Issue 2 above for text of section). The individual subject to the Board&apos;s authority in this case was the superintendent. The critical phrase for this issue is close a meeting. (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger argues that the a means that a single meeting may be closed to evaluate the employee&apos;s performance. Mr. Giles indicates that there was a single meeting but that it began in July 2005, and was recessed several times as the evaluation was not complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, according to the materials provided by Mr. Borger, the first time that the Board provided notice that it was evaluating the superintendent&apos;s performance was in a meeting notice dated December 16, 2005, that described a meeting to be held Tuesday, January 17, 2006. The Commissioner has not been provided with any facts (such as meeting notices, minutes or transcripts of the meetings) that support Mr. Giles&apos; assertion that the Board conducted a single meeting that was recessed several times.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Board identified the superintendent as the employee about to be evaluated in July 2005, and if the meeting was recessed and resumed, then it appears that the Board has complied with section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Board did not identify the superintendent as the employee it was about to evaluate in July 2005, or if the meeting was not recessed and resumed, then the Board is not in compliance. If the Board was giving preliminary consideration to complaints or charges against the superintendent in July 2005, then section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) &lt;em&gt;requires&lt;/em&gt; the Board to close one or more meetings to consider the complaints or charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The record here is not sufficient for the Commissioner to be able to determine if the meetings were for purposes of considering complaints or charges or whether the superintendent&apos;s performance was being evaluated. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the Board was in compliance with section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Minneapolis School Board were not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 when they conducted closed meetings on October 25, November 8, November 15, November 29, December 6, December 10, December 13, and December 20, 2005 and on January 10, January 31, February 14, February 21, March 14, March 21, and March 28, 2006, following notices that consisted only of the broad statement: If necessary, the Board will also meet in a closed Executive Session prior to or after the meeting for the purpose of discussing and/or acting on legal matters, personnel items, negotiations and expulsions and if no further information was provided at the time the meeting was closed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine if the members of the Minneapolis School Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) on November 29, 2005, when they (through their Chair) summarized a closed meeting conducted on the same date concerning the performance of the superintendent as the evaluation of the performance because it is unclear whether the evaluation was complete.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine if members of the Minneapolis School Board were in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) when they conducted closed meetings on September 6 and November 29, 2005, to evaluate the performance of a single individual who was subject to the Board&apos;s authority.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 23, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267497</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual performance</Title><Id>266629</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:06:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-019</Title><title>Opinion 06 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267833&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-06-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a December 13, 2005, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 9, 2006; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 14, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Cindie Charest. In her letter, Ms. Charest asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The Commissioner required clarification that Ms. Charest provided on April 26, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Scott Brener, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Ms. Charest&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 2, 2006, were to inform him of Ms. Charest&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 10, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Nancy Leppink, General Counsel for the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Charest provided copies of certain documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 13, 2005, Ms. Charest wrote to the Department:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to your letter of October 28, 2005, you stated that upon completion of findings, all documents regarding my file(s) would be available to me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now that your audit is complete, please provide me with the report of findings on my file(s), as well as all document considered evidence in the file, as well as letters to the opposing party&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 15, 2005, the Department responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In regard to your request for documents in the case file, I have been advised that those documents must be reviewed by the data privacy staff for redaction purposes. They will be forthcoming after the review, hopefully mailed by the end of the day on December 16, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Apparently, on December 23, 2005, an attorney with the Department spoke by telephone with Ms. Charest and informed her that the data she had requested were private. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote, [the staff attorney] spoke with Ms. Charest and advised her that the data she requested was protected under Minn. Stat. section 13.39 as protected nonpublic and confidential data and could not be provided to her. At Ms. Charest&apos;s request, Ms. O&apos;Neil agreed to put the Department&apos;s determination in writing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 30, 2005, the Department stated, It is the Department&apos;s position that the documents you requested are civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39.The department will notify you in writing when the documents you requested become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 1, 2006, the Department wrote to Ms. Charest and advised that the original order has been rescinded. The Department further stated, The file is closed effective March 1, 2006, and has been referred to our legal services unit for review to determine public and private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 14, 2006, the Department wrote to Ms. Charest:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Enclosed please find the public data maintained by the [Department] that is responsive to your data practices requests. The names, social security numbers and payroll data of other individuals employed by [the former employer] have been redacted from the documents provided to you. This data is not public pursuant to the protections set out in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355 and section270B.01-.02 (2004). In addition, data that is protected by the attorney client privilege has also been redacted from the documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink provided the following synopsis of the events leading to Ms. Charest&apos;s opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In March of 2005, the Labor Standards Unit (LSU) of the Department received a wage claim from [Ms. Charest] alleging her former employer had failed to pay her all of the wages she owed her. Upon receipt of Ms. Charest&apos;s wage claim, the LSU initiated an investigation to determine whether [the former employer] failed to pay Ms. Charest wages in accordance with Minnesota&apos;s wage and labor laws. [In July 2005] the Department issued an Order to Comply: Labor Law Violation that the employer contested [in August 2005]. After receipt of the employer&apos;s contest, the LSU expanded its investigation to include additional employees formerly employed by the [employer]. Ultimately, the LSU concluded, based on employment records collected during its investigation, that it could not establish that [the former employer] had violated Minnesota&apos;s wage and hour laws in the payment of wages to her employees including Ms. Charest. After consulting with the Department&apos;s general counsel, Nancy Leppink and a staff attorney the LSU decided not to pursue further administrative action against the employer, rescinded its Order to Comply: Labor Law Violation, and closed its investigation file on March 1, 2006. The data collected during its investigation of Ms. Charest&apos;s wage claim includes data on several individuals including Ms. Charest and also data not on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Charest&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a December 13, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote, When the Department received Ms. Charest&apos;s December 13, 2005 letter it determined that the data Ms. Charest was requesting was protected under Minn. Stat. section 13.39 and was either protected nonpublic data or confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.39, subdivision 2, states that data collected by government entities as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action are classified as confidential (data on individuals) and protected nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 1 of section 13.39, states, A &apos;pending civil legal action&apos; includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. Whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the [government entity]. Generally, when an investigation becomes inactive, the data are public. (See section 13.39, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the Supreme Court held in &lt;u&gt;Westrom v. Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry&lt;/u&gt;, 686 N.W.2d (Minn. 2004), that even data created by the Department is protected by section 13.39 when it is inextricably linked to and [is] the product of the data collected by DOLI during its investigation. 686 N.W.2d at 34.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota Statutes, section 177.27, subd. 1, the Commissioner has the authority to investigate wage claims or complaints by an employee against an employer if the failure to pay a wage may violate Minnesota law or an order or rule of the Department. Further, the Commissioner may issue an order requiring an employer to comply with any of the provisions of Minn. Stat. 177 and certain provisions of Ch. 181. Minn. Stat. section 177.24, subd.4 (2004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data requested by Ms. Charest had been collected or created by the Department as part of its investigation initiated by her wage claim for purposes of the commencement of a pending civil legal action, and at the time of her request was being retained by the Department in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. At the time Ms. Charest submitted her request, the Department had issued the Order to Comply and it had been contested by the employer. Unless and until the order was rescinded or settled, the Department was required to proceed to an administrative hearing. The Supreme Court in &lt;u&gt;Westrom&lt;/u&gt; made clear that the statutory requirement that the Commissioner refer the contest for an administrative hearing fit within the definition of pending civil legal action and any investigative data collected by the agency would need to be retained in anticipation of that pending civil legal action 686 N.W.2d at 36. Consequently, based on the language of Minn. Stat. section 13.39 and the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s decision in &lt;u&gt;Westrom&lt;/u&gt;, the Department determined that the data requested by Ms. Charest was protected nonpublic data and confidential data and could not be provided to [her].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon rescission of the Order to Comply and the closing of the investigative file on March 1, 2006, the Department determined that the data requested by Ms. Charest was, as of that date, inactive civil investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The data then were] reviewed by [a Department staff attorney] in order to determine whether any data in the file continued to be not public data. Based on this review the Department determined that the following data remained not public data: (1) The names, social security numbers and payroll data of individuals other then [sic] Ms. Charest, who had been employed by [the former employer] pursuant to the protections set out in Minnesota Statutes section 13.355 and section 270B.01-02 (2004) and (2) data that is protected by the attorney client privilege pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Charest requested data in a letter dated December 13, 2005. She is the subject of some of the requested data, but not all. Regarding the data of which Ms. Charest is not the subject, pursuant to section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, the Department is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Regarding the data of which Ms. Charest is the subject, the Department is required to respond within ten business days. Apparently, on December 23, 2006, the Department advised Ms. Charest during a telephone conversation that the data she requested were classified as not public pursuant to section 13.39. The Department&apos;s response, thus, was timely. Further, the Commissioner agrees with the Department&apos;s position that the data were classified as not public during the time the investigation was active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the investigation became inactive, however, the data became subject to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, and are public unless otherwise classified. According to the Department, the investigation became inactive on March 1, 2006. At that time, Ms. Charest&apos;s data request remained before the Department and the Department was required to respond in the manner discussed above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In reviewing the Department&apos;s position regarding the data in the inactive file, the Commissioner agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part. First, pursuant to section 13.355, the Social Security numbers of individuals other than Ms. Charest are private data about those individuals and not accessible to Ms. Charest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, given the nature of the dispute between the Department, Ms. Charest, and her employer, it is possible that certain of the data requested by Ms. Charest fall under the exemption in section 13.393. However, because the Commissioner has not seen the data, she cannot comment on the appropriateness of the Department&apos;s determination. For additional guidance on the operation of section 13.393, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-009&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner disagrees with Ms. Leppink&apos;s assertion that Minnesota Statutes, section 270B.02 classifies data in the investigative file as private. Chapter 270B applies to tax return information collected and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The wage data Ms. Leppink provided to the Commissioner as part of her response to Ms. Charest&apos;s opinion request appear to be time sheet information submitted to the Department by the estate of Ms. Charest&apos;s former employer. To the best of the Commissioner&apos;s knowledge, these are not data that were provided to the Department (of Labor and Industry) by the Department of Revenue. Therefore, the wage data cannot be protected pursuant to section 270B.02, and are subject to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Charest raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a December 13, 2005, request for access to data, when it withheld data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 270B.02.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 9, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267833</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor and Industry Department</Title><Id>266544</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Taxation data</Title><Id>266900</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-018</Title><title>Opinion 06 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267744&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-06-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for all public data related to a Minneapolis Police Department Internal Affairs Unit investigation of a complaint?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 6, 2006; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 19, 2006, IPAD received a letter from Eric Hageman, an attorney for X. In his letter, Mr. Hageman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Hageman&apos;s request IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, responsible authority for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Hageman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On May 9, 2006, IPAD received a response from Mr. Steiner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Hageman presented them follows. Mr. Hageman represents X, the parent of a minor, Y. Y was injured while being arrested by the Minneapolis Police Department; subsequently X filed a complaint with the City Internal Affairs Unit ( IAU. ) In a letter dated December 14, 2005, the City notified X that the IAU had completed its investigation, and that [a]fter a thorough investigation, and case review, the complaint was sustained and discipline has been imposed. (Emphasis omitted.) The letter also stated, [u]nder Section 13.43 of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the law prohibits us from providing you with any further information about this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail dated January 25, 2006, to Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Hageman wrote: I would like to obtain all of the documents in the [IAU] file, including copies of all of the statements, police reports, medical records, etc. Please let me know if you anticipate any problems fulfilling this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Marzitelli responded by e-mail the same day and stated I&apos;ll look into this and report back to you no later than noon tomorrow. According to Mr. Hageman, Mr. Marzitelli faxed thirteen pages of documents to him on February 8, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hageman stated to the Commissioner that he was unsatisfied with the City&apos;s response and so wrote to Mr. Steiner, in a letter dated March 10, 2006, and requested any and all materials contained in the Internal Affairs case unit related to the investigation of [X&apos;s] complaint . . . Mr. Hageman cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), stating that pursuant to same, the City was required to disclose as public data . . . &apos;the specific reasons for the [final disciplinary] action and data documenting the basis of the action&apos;. He stated that if the City did not release the data, he would seek an advisory opinion from the Commissioner. Mr. Hageman referenced Advisory Opinion 97-048 in support of his position that the City should provide him with access to the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Mr. Steiner dated March 29, 2006, Mr. Hageman repeated his March 10, 2006, request for access to all documentation related to X&apos;s IAU complaint, and reiterated his intention to seek this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 12, 2006, Mr. Marzitelli wrote to Mr. Hageman:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To date, you have received those portions of the 05-49 which we have determined to be &lt;em&gt;public&lt;/em&gt;. These portions included the discipline work sheets (MP-1408) which set out the final disposition for the sustained allegations in file. Any specific reasons for the discipline imposed would be set out on the 1408 form under &apos;Final Disposition&apos; on the bottom of the second page of each 1408. The data documenting the basis for the discipline is enclosed herewith.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, because 05-49 contains multiple officers (5) each having multiple allegations, the complete file cannot be released to you as it contains private personnel data about complaints for which no discipline resulted. The file, as it&apos;s been requested by you, has several outcomes for each officer and for each allegation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although you rely upon, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/266295&quot; title=&quot;97-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-048&lt;/em&gt;, Opinion 97-048&lt;/a&gt; stands for the unremarkable proposition that data documenting the basis for a disciplinary action is public. It is distinguishable because it does not address the issue of multiple data subjects with multiple allegations contained within the same file. In the case such as the present one, only the specific reasons for the discipline and the data documenting the basis for the discipline can be released to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Hageman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for all public data related to a Minneapolis Police Department Internal Affairs Unit investigation of a complaint?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Under section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to provide access to public data, even when that requires separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified at section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, X made a complaint against employees of the Minneapolis Police Department, which the IAU investigated. As a result of the investigation, some of the charges against some of the employees were sustained, and the City imposed disciplinary action. Mr. Steiner did not state explicitly that, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), final disposition of the disciplinary action has occurred, however, from the context, the Commissioner assumes that it has. According to Mr. Steiner, the IAU file contains a mixture of public and not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his April 12, 2006, letter to Mr. Hageman, Mr. Marzitelli informed him that the City had provided him with the public portions of the investigative file, but that the complete file was unavailable because there are multiple data subjects with multiple allegations contained within the same file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In Mr. Hageman&apos;s April 17, 2006 letter he acknowledges that he is not entitled to release of the &lt;em&gt;complete&lt;/em&gt; Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) file because some of the data therein relate to complaints for which no discipline resulted. The City agrees with Mr. Hageman on this point. Unfortunately, Mr. Hageman&apos;s position on this issue was not clear until the City received a copy of this letter to the Commissioner of Administration. Mr. Hageman now asserts &apos;that the City clearly misapprehend[ed] the nature of [his] narrowly-tailored request for public data&apos;. Review of the correspondence leading up to his request for a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion does not support Mr. Hageman&apos;s current assertion that he was only asking for public data out of the file. Instead, his prior correspondence reasonably led the City staff to the conclusion that he was seeking access to an unredacted copy of the entire file based upon the fact that a couple of officers were disciplined as a result of the investigation, notwithstanding the fact that some allegations against those officers were not sustained and all allegations against other officers were not sustained. Thus, the correspondence trail between Mr. Hageman and the City was directed toward Mr. Hageman&apos;s apparent position that he should be entitled to an unredacted copy of the complete file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Now that the issue in controversy has been resolved with Mr. Hageman&apos;s concession that the City was right as to its position that he was not entitled to an unredacted copy of the complete file, the remaining question is whether the City&apos;s production of data relating to the sustained allegations was sufficient. . . . . The City produced the documents reflecting the specific reasons for the discipline of [some of the officers investigated in connection with X&apos;s IAU complaint] and also produced a redacted copy of a memo describing a pre-disciplinary hearing that documented the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Hageman now claims that he should be entitled to other portions of the file, redacted to protect private data on other officers. Upon review of the file, the City agrees. We have completed the editing of the file and will provide Mr. Hageman today with a copy of edited Internal Affairs statements, police reports and photographs that address the issue of why the three officers were disciplined. In reviewing the file for this purpose, it became apparent that [IAU] obtained medical data on the juvenile pursuant to a signed release for the data that limited the Police Department&apos;s use to the investigation. It is the City&apos;s position that Mr. Hageman would not be entitled to the medical data on the juvenile because it was received pursuant to a limited release. In addition, to the extent that the photographs or the police reports would identify the arrested juvenile, they are protected pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 260B.171. It may be that Mr. Hageman represents the juvenile and would be able to obtain a release for the juvenile data, but to this point, he has not produced one. Accordingly, data identifying the juvenile have been redacted from the copy that is being produced for Mr. Hageman.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has several comments about the City&apos;s response to Mr. Hageman&apos;s request for access to data related to final disciplinary action. In its December 14, 2005, letter to X, informing him/her that the City had taken disciplinary action in response to her/his complaint, the City stated: [u]nder Section 13.43 of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the law prohibits us from providing you with any further information about this case. Clearly, under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), that statement is not correct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Marzitelli&apos;s statement to Mr. Hageman that the complete file cannot be released to you because it contains a mixture of public and private data on multiple data subjects, the Commissioner has issued numerous opinions that advise that government entities must provide access to public data, even if that requires them to separate public from not public data. Furthermore, Chapter 13 regulates access to government &lt;u&gt;data&lt;/u&gt;, not documents, records or files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Steiner suggests the City reasonably concluded that Mr. Hageman thought he was entitled to the complete, unredacted file, and its response was directed thus. According to Mr. Steiner, Mr. Hageman did not clarify his position that he sought only public data related to the investigation and resulting discipline until he requested this Opinion. However, in his March 10, 2006, follow-up to his earlier requests to the City for the data, Mr. Hageman cited section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), and stated that the City was required to disclose &lt;u&gt;as public data&lt;/u&gt; . . . &apos;the specific reasons for the [final disciplinary] action and data documenting the basis of the action&apos;. (Emphasis added.) The Commissioner does not agree with the City that Mr. Hageman was unclear as to the scope of his request. If the City needed to, it was obligated to seek clarification from Mr. Hageman promptly upon receipt of his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner acknowledges that the City did not provide Mr. Hageman with access to all of the data he requested and was entitled to, and that it was preparing to do so, nearly six months after his initial request. That response is neither prompt nor reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hageman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for all public data related to a Minneapolis Police Department Internal Affairs Unit investigation of a complaint.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 6, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267744</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-017</Title><title>Opinion 06 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267022&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-05-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Spring Grove City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, on March 31, 2006, when a majority voted by telephone to hire a candidate for the position of accountant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 25, 2006; Spring Grove City Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 19, 2006, IPAD received a letter, dated April 14, 2006, from Mark R. Anfinson on behalf of his client the &lt;em&gt;Spring Grove Herald&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a series of telephone calls between the city administrator and members of the Spring Grove City Council (the Council) on March 31, 2006. The Commissioner required clarification of the issue to be addressed and that was received on April 20, 2006. Mr. Anfinson submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 24, 2006, IPAD wrote to Pearl Holland, Mayor of Spring Grove and chair of the Council. In its letter, IPAD informed Mayor Holland of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and gave the Council, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Council&apos;s position. On May 23, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated May 16, 2006, from Joseph Hammell, the attorney for the City of Spring Grove.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Anfinson is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the process of hiring a new accountant, the City of Spring Grove designated a hiring committee that solicited and screened applicants for the position and developed a slate of finalists. The top candidate declined an offer of employment; the second candidate resigned after a week on the job.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 31, 2006, the city administrator conducted a telephone poll of four of the members of the Council who each responded yes to the proposal to hire the third candidate for the accountant position. One of the members of the Council, Karen Folstad, wrote a letter to the editor of the &lt;em&gt;Herald&lt;/em&gt; that was published on April 12, 2006. In that letter, Council Member Folstad confirmed the process that was used and indicated that the four votes represented a majority of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Hammell, on March 31st, the city administrator contacted each council member to determine whether the third candidate should be contacted about the job. As described by Mr. Hammell, the city administrator indicated that each council member was told that if the third candidate expressed interest in the position, hiring would be subject to council approval.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A special meeting of the Council was held on April 14, 2006, for the purpose of hiring an accountant. Mr. Hammell indicates that the members of the Council made the hiring decision at the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the members of the Spring Grove City Council comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, on March 31, 2006, when a majority voted by telephone to hire a candidate for the position of accountant?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no question that the Council is required to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML). Section 13D.01, subdivision 1 (b)(4) states that the provisions of the OML apply to a statutory or home rule charter city. Spring Grove is a city and so its Council is covered by the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted by Mr. Anfinson, there is a quorum rule for bodies covered by the OML. In essence, when a quorum of the members of a public body subject to the OML want to discuss or decide public business, that discussion or business must occur at a public meeting. &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). As part of its discussion in Moberg, the Supreme Court directed members of a public body not to use serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum to avoid a public hearing or reach an agreement on a particular issue. &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt; at 518.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The conduct at issue here is whether there was a serial solicitation of approval to hire a candidate for the position of accountant in the City of Spring Grove by the city administrator. There is no language in the OML that authorizes members of a public body to vote by telephone. If the members of a public body are unable to gather in person, then section 13D.02 authorizes the use of interactive TV, if certain preconditions are met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter to the editor from Council Member Folstad that was published in the &lt;em&gt;Herald&lt;/em&gt; on April 12th seems to indicate that a serial vote occurred. However, the response by the City states that the statements by the council member were not accurate. Instead, the City states that There was no discussion with more than one council member at a time by [the city administrator] and no discussion was held between council members about this issue. There is a disagreement whether a vote was taken or whether there were simply one-on-one discussions that there was a need to fill the position. This factual dispute means that the Commissioner cannot resolve the issue presented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its submission, the City suggests that it is appropriate for the city administrator to follow standard operating procedure by notifying council members of the resignation and that the third candidate would be contacted. The Commissioner believes that it would be possible for the Council, at an open meeting, to have established a procedure that would give the city administrator the authority to act in the manner described. However, the disputed facts here prevent a determination whether there was a procedure in place and how it was followed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The round robin style of contact was discussed by the Court of Appeals in &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato&lt;/em&gt;, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App.1997). While that case involves the use of round robin interviews to hire a city administrator, the Court noted that the OML was enacted to benefit the public and must be construed in the public&apos;s favor. &lt;em&gt;Mankato&lt;/em&gt; at 294, citing &lt;em&gt;Claude v. Collins&lt;/em&gt;, 518 N.W.2d 836, 841 (Minn. 1994). If, as suggested by Council member Folstad&apos;s letter, a majority of the members of the Council took action with respect to the hiring of the accountant, then the OML has been violated. That the city administrator served as the go-between among the members should not change the outcome, given the manner in which the OML is to be construed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner will also take this opportunity to remind members of public bodies that the OML requires that public business be conducted in public. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Minn. 1983). While it may be appropriate for the city administrator to inform council members that a City employee has resigned, the better process would be to convene a special meeting of the Council to discuss what the appropriate next step(s) are in the hiring process. Avoiding public scrutiny of a decision by having a city employee serially contact Council members is the type of conduct that was of concern to the Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Moberg&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D, it is not appropriate for members of a public body to vote by telephone to hire a candidate for a position. However, in this case, there is a factual dispute between the parties and so the Commissioner is unable to determine if a violation occurred.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 25, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267022</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Quorum</Title><Id>266255</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Serial meetings</Title><Id>266363</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T21:14:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-016</Title><title>Opinion 06 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267725&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-05-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Because Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), classifies applications and supporting documents as private data, can those documents be released to claimant&apos;s employers, who would be responsible for the continuing health benefits of the claimant should the Panel determine that claimant is eligible for continued health benefits, to allow employers to present evidence either in support of or denial of the claim?
Can the Panel close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant&apos;s medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3)?
Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a) that classify an application and supporting documents as private data, prohibit the Panel from discussing the name of a claimant in an Open Meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 17, 2006; Public Safety Officer Benefit Eligibility Panel</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes 299A.465 subdivision 6 expired on July 1, 2008.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 3, 2006, the Commissioner received a letter, dated same, from Bernard Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the Public Safety Officer Benefit Eligibility Panel. In his letter, Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Panel maintains. IPAD required additional information, which Mr. Johnson provided on both March 30 and April 13, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Johnson provided them is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The 2005 Minnesota Legislature created the [Panel] to review claims by injured peace officers and firefighters for continued health insurance benefits under Minn. Stat. section 299A.465, subd. 1. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Panel determines whether a public safety officer has been approved to receive a duty-related disability pension and determines whether the officer&apos;s or firefighter&apos;s occupational duties or professional responsibility put the officer or firefighter at risk for the type of illness or injury actually sustained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The panel is subject to the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 13D. . . . &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In reviewing a public safety officer&apos;s request for benefits, the Panel is supplied medical data to substantiate the claimant&apos;s disability and injury, allowing the Panel to determine whether or not the public safety officer is eligible for benefits . . . . &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The medical data furnished to the [Panel] is provided by the applicant themselves[sic]. Medical data is not sent to the Panel by a hospital, clinic, doctor or any healthcare provider. The medical documentation is submitted by the Claimant and attached to their Benefit Eligibility Form . . . . &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Johnson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), classifies applications and supporting documents as private data, can those documents be released to claimant&apos;s employers, who would be responsible for the continuing health benefits of the claimant should the Panel determine that claimant is eligible for continued health benefits, to allow employers to present evidence either in support of or denial of the claim?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Can the Panel close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant&apos;s medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a) that classify an application and supporting documents as private data, prohibit the Panel from discussing the name of a claimant in an Open Meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), classifies applications and supporting documents as private data, can those documents be released to claimant&apos;s employers, who would be responsible for the continuing health benefits of the claimant should the Panel determine that claimant is eligible for continued health benefits, to allow employers to present evidence either in support of or denial of the claim?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Panel is created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 7. It appears, therefore, to be a political subdivision and subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. (See section 13.02, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), states that whenever a peace officer or firefighter has been approved to receive a duty-related disability pension, the officer or firefighter may apply to the Panel for a determination of whether or not s/he meets certain requirements. Subdivision 6(a) of section 299C.465 classifies the applications and supporting documents as private data. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are accessible to the data subject but not to members of the public. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400, further clarifies that private data also are accessible to individuals within the entity whose work assignments require access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the claimants&apos; applications and supporting documents are accessible only to the data subjects, the Panel members, and Panel employees. A claimant&apos;s application and supporting documentation are available to his/her employer only if the claimant consents to the release of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can the Panel close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant&apos;s medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in Issue 1, a claimant&apos;s application and supporting documents are private data pursuant to section 299C.465, subdivision 6(a). Based on Mr. Johnson&apos;s comments, the Commissioner assumes that any medical information a claimant submits is part of his/her application and supporting documentation. As such, any medical information is private data under section 299C.465, subdivision 6(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) Except as provided in this chapter, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) Data that are not public may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.05, subdivision 2, sets forth the situations in which a public body either is required or allowed to close a meeting. As there is no provision in section 13D.05 allowing or requiring the closing of a public meeting to discuss application data made private by section 299A.465, subdivision 6, the Panel may not close a meeting to discuss medical data that are part of a claimant&apos;s application.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that even though a meeting may not be closed to discuss application data, the data retain their classification as private data on individuals. However, any of the data that are part of a record of the meeting are public. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), which states, Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), that classify an application and supporting documents as private data, prohibit the Panel from discussing the name of a claimant in an Open Meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, pursuant to Section 13D.05, subdivision 1, public bodies may discuss private data in open meetings without liability or penalty, assuming the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation currently before the Commissioner, if the Panel is uncomfortable discussing the claims in public, it seems the Panel could discuss each claim without identifying the individual applicants by assigning random numbers or letters as identifiers. Ultimately, however, the Panel and its legal advisors will have to determine what private data the Panel may discuss publicly to comply with Chapter 13D and will have to decide, as well, how best to conduct the work of the Panel effectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Johnson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), applications and supporting documents are private data and cannot be released to a claimant&apos;s employer unless the claimant gives his/her consent for the release.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Panel may not close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant&apos;s medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, the Panel may discuss private data in an open meeting if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the Panel&apos;s authority, and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the Panel.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 17, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267725</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public Safety Officer Benefit Eligibility Panel</Title><Id>266945</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-05-17T14:35:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-015</Title><title>Opinion 06 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267559&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-05-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), when the Council did not indicate any willingness to produce the document until January 31, 2006, and did not state any specific legal basis for refusing to provide the document until January 27, 2006?
Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2?
Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was an Application for Temporary Classification of Data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.06, subdivision 1, submitted on January 25, 2006?
Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was a &quot;gag&quot; Order issued by the Bureau of Mediation Services mediator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 4, 2006; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 16, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated March 15, 2006, from John Borger, an attorney representing Star Tribune, the publisher of the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to data from the Metropolitan Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peter Bell, Chair of the Council, in response to Mr. Borger&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 23, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Council&apos;s position. On April 14, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Nils Grossman, the Council&apos;s General Counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, also invited the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) to submit comments related to one of the issues Mr. Borger raised. On April 4, 2006, IPAD received comments, dated same, from James Cunningham, Commissioner of BMS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Borger is as follows. In his opinion request, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In mid-January 2006, after more than six months of negotiations, the Metropolitan Council presented an offer for a three-year contract with bus drivers, train operators, and other transit union members. Star Tribune reporter Laurie Blake was unable to obtain comments about specific items in the contract proposal before the vote, which occurred between January 15 and January 16, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger wrote, &quot;On January 17 or 18, Ms. Blake requested a copy of the rejected contract.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated January 18, 2006, Robert Gibbons of the Council responded: &quot;The Met Council has deferred to the Bureau of Mediation Services on your request for the ATU [Amalgamated Transit Union] contract offer. As we moved toward the final offer, our bargaining sessions were conducted by BMS.&quot; Mr. Gibbons provided the name of the mediator and his telephone number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Borger wrote, &quot;On January 18 or 19, [Ms. Blake] asked the Council for a specific &lt;u&gt;legal&lt;/u&gt; reason for its denying her access to the contract.&quot; (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated January 23, 2006, Mr. Gibbons responded: &quot;Here is the reply I received from the Met Council: &quot;We&apos;ve decided not to release the details of our rejected ATU offer at this time. We&apos;re back in mediation and making progress, and the mediator has asked to [sic] two parties not to comment publicly on our talks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Borger wrote, &quot;Ms. Blake again asked for a &lt;u&gt;legal&lt;/u&gt; reason for the denial of the access.&quot; (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated January 25, 2006, Mr. Gibbons replied, &quot;I understand Steve Dornfeld, the Met Council&apos;s director of public affairs, will be calling you about the rejected contract offer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Borger wrote, &quot;Midday on January 25, at the newspaper&apos;s request and on its behalf, I telephoned [Mr. Grossman]. . .I left a voicemail. . . [and] I faxed him a letter. . . that day.&quot; Mr. Borger provided a copy of the letter in which he stated, &quot;We expect the Council to provide immediate access to this specific document, or an immediate specific legal reason for denying access.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Grossman responded in a letter dated January 27, 2006:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . .the Metropolitan Council&apos;s Responsible Authority does not intend to grant Ms. Blake&apos;s request, in the absence of a court order compelling production of the document requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I believe the document in question falls within the classification of nonpublic data as described in Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd. 2. . .
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are at least two other reasons to reject your client&apos;s request. The first is a &quot;gag&quot; Order issued by the BMS mediator pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 179A.04, subd. 3 (2005), a copy of which is attached. This written Order confirms the verbal order previously issued. . .
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Secondly, the document requested is currently classified as &quot;nonpublic data&quot; by virtue of Minn. Stat. [13.06, subd. 1]. Because the risk of misinterpretation of Minn. Stat. section13.37, subd. 1(c), the Responsible Authority of the Metropolitan Council filed an &lt;em&gt;Application for Temporary Classification of Data Not on Individuals as Nonpublic or Protected Nonpublic Data&lt;/em&gt;. To date the Commissioner [of Administration] has not acted on the application.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Borger wrote that the transit union approved the Metropolitan Council&apos;s revised contract proposal on January 30, 2006. He also provided a copy of the letter in which the Council withdrew its Application for Temporary Classification. Although the letter is not dated, Mr. Grossman faxed Mr. Borger a copy on January 31, 2006. In part, the letter states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you may have heard, the Metropolitan Council and ATU Local 1005 reached an agreement which was approved by the ATU membership vote yesterday. Consequently, BMS Mediator Weisenburger has lifted his Order prohibiting disclosure of the data. Therefore, the issue of the subject application is moot&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Borger&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), when the Council did not indicate any willingness to produce the document until January 31, 2006, and did not state any specific legal basis for refusing to provide the document until January 27, 2006?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was an Application for Temporary Classification of Data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.06, subdivision 1, submitted on January 25, 2006?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was a gag Order issued by the Bureau of Mediation Services mediator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), when the Council did not indicate any willingness to produce the document until January 31, 2006, and did not state any specific legal basis for refusing to provide the document until January 27, 2006?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have established that, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, on January 17 or 18, 2006, the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; reporter made a verbal request to Mr. Gibbons. It appears the reporter made a request for data, namely the proposed contract document, as opposed to having asked a question. The distinction is important because Chapter 13 applies only when individuals make requests for data that exist in some type of physical form. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his January 18, 2006, email to the reporter, Mr. Gibbons responded on behalf of the Council. In his email, Mr. Gibbons defers to BMS and suggests the reporter contact the mediator. In his January 23 email in response to the reporter&apos;s verbal request for a legal reason as to why she could not gain access to the proposed contract, Mr. Gibbons wrote that the Council would not be releasing the data. Mr. Gibbons did not provide a statutory basis for refusing to provide the data, which is required by section 13.03, subdivision 3. Therefore, the Council&apos;s response was not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Grossman remarked that the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; reporter did not make her request to the responsible authority of the Council, as outlined in section 13.03, subdivision 3. Technically, this is correct. However, if the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; did not follow the Council&apos;s policy/procedures for requesting data, Mr. Gibbons should have advised the reporter to re-direct her request. Mr. Gibbons did not do so. Once the Council received the data request from the reporter, it had a reasonable time to respond. The Council could have used that time to evaluate thoroughly the request before providing its response to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. While Mr. Gibbons apparently was trying to be sensitive to the reporter&apos;s deadlines, it might have been more prudent to take the time allowed by Chapter 13 to prepare an appropriate response, i.e., to advise Ms. Blake that the Council had determined that the data are classified as not public, and to cite the statutory basis for that determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. In the discussion of Issue 1, she concluded that the Council did not respond appropriately to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; data request because Mr. Gibbons, in his January 23, 2006, email, did not provide a statutory basis upon which the Council was denying access to the data. Later, Mr. Grossman offered three reasons as to why the data in the rejected contract should be protected. Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to comment; her analysis follows below in Issues 2, 3, and 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies labor relations data as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and private (data on individuals). Subdivision 1(c) of section 13.37 defines labor relations data as management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, including information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Metropolitan Council, prior to the data request, had presented the data in the rejected contract during the collective bargaining process. Therefore, the data did not fit the definition of labor relations data and section 13.37, subdivision 2, was not an appropriate basis upon which to deny access to the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006), where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was an Application for Temporary Classification of Data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.06, subdivision 1, submitted on January 25, 2006?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.06, government entities may apply to the Commissioner of Administration for permission to classify data or types of data as private or confidential (data on individuals) or nonpublic or protected nonpublic (data not on individuals). Pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 13.06, upon filing of the application with the Commissioner, the data shall be deemed to be classified as set forth in the application for a period of 45 days, or until the application is disapproved, rejected, or granted by the Commissioner, whichever is earlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner received the Council&apos;s request for a temporary classification on January 25, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Grossman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the Metropolitan Council was mediating, under the established statutory process, a dispute with a labor union where the mediator&apos;s verbal order, as well as the applicable rules, classified information disclosed to and received by the mediator as nonpublic. The Metropolitan Council also reviewed Minn. Stat. section 13.37 The Metropolitan Council was, however, concerned that a possible argument under Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd. 1(c) could be construed as requiring this type of information to be public and therefore subject to disclosure. As a result, the Metropolitan Council was concerned about disclosing data that could later be found to be nonpublic, and in the process potentially undermining the chances for a successful mediation of the dispute with its potential to disrupt needed services to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under these circumstances, the Metropolitan Council appropriately turned to the procedure for temporary classification&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, &lt;em&gt;temporary classification&lt;/em&gt;, or federal law. If, as part of determining its response to a data request, a government entity concludes there is a need to request a temporary classification and submits an application, the data are protected once the Commissioner receives the application. This protection continues for 45 days, or until the Commissioner either disapproves, rejects, or grants the request, whichever is earlier. Thus, the fact that the Council had filed an application for a temporary classification &lt;em&gt;was an appropriate basis upon which to deny access to the rejected contract.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Commissioner adds the following note. By enacting section 13.06, the Legislature has provided entities with an option to protect certain data immediately if an entity has concerns about publicly releasing those data. This policy would be frustrated if the entity were prohibited from applying for a temporary classification once it had received a data request for the data in question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the Metropolitan Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006) where the Council&apos;s stated basis for refusing to provide the data was a gag Order issued by the Bureau of Mediation Services mediator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner (of Administration), Commissioner Cunningham wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the time of Ms. Blake&apos;s request for access to the proposed contract, the Metropolitan Council and the transit union had engaged the BMS to provide mediation services pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 179A.15 (2004). Accordingly, the Commissioner was allowed to take the most expedient steps to bring about a settlement, including assisting in negotiating and drafting an agreement. &lt;em&gt;Id.&lt;/em&gt; Properly read, this statute provides the Commissioner with authority to instruct the participants in a matter he is mediating on the extent to which they can disclose their bargaining positions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The authority for the Metropolitan Council to comply with [the nondisclosure directive] is found in Minn. Stat. section 13.79, subd. 2(b) (2004). That subdivision provides that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;All data received or maintained by the commissioner or staff of the Bureau of Mediation Services during the course of providing mediation services to the parties to a labor dispute under the provisions of chapter 179 are classified as protected nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals and as confidential data on individuals except to the extent that the commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services determines such data are necessary to fulfill the requirements of section 179A.16, or to identify the general nature of parties to a labor dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the Metropolitan Council&apos;s proposed contract was presented to the mediator, it became subject to this provision and as such, classified as either protected nonpublic or confidential data. Minn. R. 5510.2905, subp. 1 thus governed the Metropolitan Council when it considered Ms. Blake&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules, section 5510.2905, subp. 1, is one of several sections in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 5510 that governs, among other things, the conduct of mediation. Section 5510.2905, subpart 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Information disclosed to the commissioner or an authorized agent by any party during mediation, and all files, records, reports, documents, or other papers received or prepared by the commissioner during the performance of duties and responsibilities related to mediation of a dispute are classified as protected nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals and as confidential data on individuals, except to the extent the commissioner determines to unclassify such data in the referral of a dispute to interest arbitration or to identify the general nature of or parties to a labor dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As prescribed in section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. Accordingly, Minnesota Rules do not classify data, nor does a mediator&apos;s Order. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the Council to deny access to the data in the rejected contract offer based on either Minnesota Rules, section 5510.2905, or the mediator&apos;s Order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner believes an argument can be made that the Council appropriately withheld the data in the rejected contract pursuant to section 13.79. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Grossman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In deference to the urgency of the Star Tribune&apos;s request, the Metropolitan Council quickly prepared a response setting forth the bases for its classification of the requested data as nonpublic data. The combined pressure of a time constraint imposed by the ongoing labor negotiations coupled with the need to promptly respond to the Star Tribune&apos;s data request, resulted in no reference to Minn. Stat. section 13.79, which specifically covers the type of data requested and is dispositive of the issue in this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the time the Star Tribune requested the rejected contract proposal on January 17 or 18, 2006, the requested data fell squarely within the definition of mediation data as set forth in Minn. Stat. section 13.79, subd. 2(b). The Metropolitan Council and the Transit Union submitted this labor dispute to the Bureau of Mediation Services and were working with their appointed mediator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.79, subdivision 2(b), appears to classify only those data maintained by the Bureau of Mediation Services. Such a reading, however, creates an absurd result, which, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, is not to be presumed. If data relating to a mediation conducted by BMS are protected at BMS but not protected in the agency that created the data, the purpose in classifying the data at BMS is frustrated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner, however, strongly encourages interested parties to take this issue to the Legislature to ensure that the valid policy reasons for protecting data during mediation are considered and appropriate data classifications adopted. In addition, the Council may wish again to seek a temporary classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to the Star Tribune&apos;s January 17 or 18, 2006, request for a copy of the proposed contract with the transit workers union (that the union rejected in initial voting on January 15 and 16, 2006).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Council did not comply with Chapter 13 in denying access to a request for a copy of the rejected contract based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Council did comply with Chapter 13 in denying access to a request for a copy of the rejected contract based on the filing of an application for a temporary classification pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.06.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Council did not comply with Chapter 13 in denying access to a request for a copy of the rejected contract based on a gag Order issued by the Bureau of Mediation Services mediator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 179A.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 4, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267559</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Bureau of Mediation Services data (13.708)</Title><Id>266464</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition (subd. 1(c))</Title><Id>266502</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mediation data, generally (See also: Bureau of Mediation Services data and Labor relations data)</Title><Id>266503</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary classification (13.06)</Title><Id>266504</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-19T19:44:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-014</Title><title>Opinion 06 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267469&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-04-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Corrections comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a January 22, 2006, request for data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 28, 2006; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 16, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated March 14, 2006, from Stephen Danforth. In his letter, Mr. Danforth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Corrections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Mr. Danforth&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 21, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Danforth&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On April 14, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated April 12, 2006, from Randy Hartnett, Policy and Legal Services, Data Compliance Official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Danforth provided them is as follows. In a letter dated January 22, 2006, he wrote to the Department and asked for access to various types of data. Mr. Danforth wrote, In the event that you do have possession of, or control of, or access to any respective data item requested herein, please indicate in your response the copying cost rate, and the total cost, to provide me a single, full copy of the data as described in that specific item.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Danforth wrote, To date of this letter, I have not received any response from [the Department] in response to that data request letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Danforth&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Corrections comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a January 22, 2006, request for data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have established that, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hartnett noted that Mr. Danforth had made at least one previous data request to the Department:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Danforth&apos;s requests for data are complex and involve a number of data elements, not all of which are entirely clear. They related to the MSOP [Minnesota Sex Offender Program], which is a clinical program of the DHS housed at MCF [Minnesota Correctional Facility] - Moose Lake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the request was reviewed by the chief counsel for the DOC to determine whether it fell under Minn. Stat. section 13.39 as civil litigation data. While the conclusion was that the data probably did not, this added additional time to the process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hartnett then went though the various elements of Mr. Danforth&apos;s January 22, 2006, data request, stating that certain data can be found in specific Department policies, certain data are maintained by DHS, certain data do not exist, and that in a couple of instances, it is not clear what Mr. Danforth is asking for.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. In his January 22, 2006, data request, Mr. Danforth asked for access to certain data - whether he was asking to inspect or to obtain copies is not entirely clear. As of seven weeks later, the date of his opinion request, he had not received a response from the Department. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this was not appropriate or timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming the Department has not yet responded to Mr. Danforth&apos;s January 22, 2006, request, it should do so promptly, first by clarifying whether he is asking to inspect the data or have copies. The Department should locate the specific policies that are responsive to the request and provide them either for inspection or in the form of copies. If the Department is not clear about the data Mr. Danforth is seeking, it should seek clarification. In addition, the Department needs to advise Mr. Danforth what data it does not maintain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Danforth raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Corrections did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding a January 22, 2006, request for data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 28, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267469</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspection vs. copying, in general</Title><Id>266356</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-013</Title><title>Opinion 06 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267698&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-04-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: data related to the registration of legal non-licensed child care providers?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 12, 2006; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 27, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated February 24, 2006, from Jerry Soma, Division Manager of Anoka County Human Services. In his letter, Mr. Soma asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 1, 2006, IPAD invited the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to submit comments. On March 24, 2006, IPAD received comments from Commissioner Kevin Goodno.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Soma is as follows. In a letter dated February 9, 2006, a labor union requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A list of all legally non-licensed child care providers participating in or receiving payment from the state&apos;s child care assistance programs, specifically the Minnesota Family Investment Program and Basic Sliding Fee Child Care Program in Anoka County, who have been paid since January 1, 2006. Also, if there are legally non-licensed child care providers in Anoka County who do not receive payment from the state&apos;s child care assistance programs, please enclose a separate list of those providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For each childcare provider on the list, please provide the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Provider Name/Facility Name
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Street Address
&lt;br /&gt;
3. City
&lt;br /&gt;
4. State
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Zip Code
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Telephone Number, if available&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Soma wrote, In conclusion, is data collected by the welfare system in connection with the registration of legal non-licensed child care providers properly classified as private data on individuals or as public data on individuals?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Soma&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: data related to the registration of legal non-licensed child care providers?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.02, subdivision 6, states, Data collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system pertaining to persons selected as legal nonlicensed child care providers by families receiving child care assistance shall be treated as licensing data as provided in section 13.46, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.46, subdivision 4, provides various classifications for licensing data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Goodno noted that the state and county human services agencies maintain data about some legal non-licensed child care providers; specifically those who provide services to a family receiving government-subsidized assistance. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 119B.125 and Minnesota Rules, section 3400.0010, subpart 38.) Commissioner Goodno wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The provider must submit an acknowledgement to the county which, in turn, determines whether the provider can be authorized to receive payment from the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The only reason that DHS or a county human services agency would have data about a legal nonlicensed child care provider is because that provider is or has been providing services to a family receiving child care assistance.&lt;/strong&gt; Neither the State nor the county collect or maintain the names of legal nonlicensed child care providers who are providing services to families that are not receiving child care assistance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 2004, the Minnesota Legislature attempted to clarify the status of government data about legal nonlicensed child care providers. Pursuant to federal law, the state agency overseeing child care assistance is required [sic] maintain a record of substantiated parental complaints against providers participating in the program, and to make such information available to the public. To make it clear in state law that such data is public data, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statute 199B.02, subdivision 6, to read: data collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system pertaining to persons selected as legal nonlicensed child care providers by families receiving child care assistance shall be treated &lt;em&gt;as licensing data as provided in [section 13.46, subd. 4]&lt;/em&gt;. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The union asked for the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all legal non-licensed childcare providers who have been paid via CCAP since January 1, 2006. As stated above, data about legal non-licensed providers are classified by section 13.46, subdivision 4. As the Commissioner opined in Advisory Opinion 01-091, the operation of section 13.46, subdivision 4, is such that all licensing data are presumed private unless there is language specifically stating that certain of the data are public. Nowhere in section 13.46, subdivision 4, does it state that the date on which a provider receives a CCAP payment is public and the Commissioner is not aware of any federal law making such data public. Therefore, the data as requested by the union are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, the Commissioner notes that if the union had asked &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; for the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all legal non-licensed providers, the County would have been required to release those data pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 4. The County must look to section 13.46, subdivision 4, to determine the classification of other data it maintains about legal non-licensed providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Soma raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data maintained by Anoka County about legal non-licensed childcare providers are classified pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 4. Because the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of providers who have been paid since January 1, 2006, are not included in the list of licensing data that are public, they are private.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 12, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267698</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Daycare, child care provider</Title><Id>266743</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-012</Title><title>Opinion 06 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267613&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-04-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held a meeting outside the territorial limits of Brunswick Township on August 26, 2005?
Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?
Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 7, 2006; Brunswick Town Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 1, 2006, IPAD received a letter, dated February 27, 2006, from Ronald L. Peterson. In his letter, Mr. Peterson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding closed meetings held by the Brunswick Town Board (the Board) on August 26 and 29, 2005. Mr. Peterson submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 3, 2006, IPAD wrote to Rick Kawalek, chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Kawalek of Mr. Peterson&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. The Board presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Kevin A. Hofstad, dated April 3, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Peterson is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 26, 2005, the members of the Board met at Mr. Hofstad&apos;s offices. According to a January 25, 2006, written statement by the town clerk, Gladys Nelson, Mr. Hofstad called the meeting, no notice of a special meeting was posted and the meeting was held at Mr. Hofstad&apos;s office. Mr. Hofstad&apos;s office is located in Pine City, Minnesota. According to a February 12, 2006, written statement from Board Supervisor Loren Barnick, the lawyer&apos;s office is located more than 15 miles outside the territorial limits of Brunswick Township. Supervisor Barnick, who was present at the meeting, also stated that there was no declaration during the August 26th meeting giving the reason why the meeting was closed or the statutory basis for its closure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another meeting of the Board was held on August 29, 2005. Clerk Nelson&apos;s January 25th statement indicates that this was not a regular meeting of the Board and that no notice was posted. The August 29th meeting was held at the Town Hall. Supervisor Barnick was also present for the August 29th meeting and his written statement provides that no declaration was made giving the reason why the meeting was closed or the statutory basis for its closure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Peterson&apos;s request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held a meeting outside the territorial limits of Brunswick Township on August 26, 2005?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before turning to the issues raised by Mr. Peterson, it is necessary to establish that the Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(5), the governing body of a town is subject to the requirements of the OML. Therefore, the Board is subject to Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. With this background, the next step is to review the issues presented by Mr. Peterson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held a meeting outside the territorial limits of Brunswick Township on August 26, 2005?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public bodies, such as the Board, are generally required to hold meetings in public. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to mean that meetings must be held within the borders of the public body. &lt;em&gt;Quast v. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (Minn. 1967).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The information provided by Mr. Peterson states that the August 26, 2005, meeting was held in Pine City, Minnesota that is located outside the borders of Brunswick Township. Mr. Hofstad indicated that the meeting was held at his office for two reasons: to save attorney expense based on his travel to the town hall and because of his tight time schedule. The OML does not provide bases on which a public body can be excused from holding a meeting within the borders of the public body. Therefore, the August 26, 2005, meeting was not in compliance with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the information provided by Mr. Peterson, the meetings on August 26 and 29, 2005, were special meetings of the Board. Therefore, the notice requirements are found in section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a). That provision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The written statement by the Town Clerk clearly states that no notice was provided before either meeting. As there was no posting, either on the Town&apos;s principal bulletin board or on the door of the usual meeting room, the notice requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a) were not met and the Board was not in compliance with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the members of the Brunswick Town Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The meetings on August 26 and 29 were closed to the public. Before a meeting can be closed, section 13D.01, subdivision 3 requires that there be a statement about the closure on the record. Specifically, that subdivision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The statement by the Supervisor Barnick, who attended both meetings, indicates that no statement was made before either meeting was closed. Therefore, the Board was not in compliance with section 13D.01, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Peterson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Brunswick Town Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they held a meeting outside the territorial limits of Brunswick Township on August 26, 2005.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Brunswick Town Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a), for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The members of the Brunswick Town Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, for meetings held on August 26, 2005 and August 29, 2005.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 7, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267613</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement on record</Title><Id>266288</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-20T22:14:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-011</Title><title>Opinion 06 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266955&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-03-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Sherburne County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request to inspect, remotely, certain data the County maintains?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 28, 2006; Sherburne County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Tony Pistilli. In his letter, Mr. Pistilli asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from Sherburne County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brian Bensen, Administrator of the County, in response to Mr. Pistilli&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 10, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Pistilli&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On February 21, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Todd Schoffelman, Assistant Sherburne County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Pistilli provided them is as follows. In a January 5, 2006, letter to the County he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Can I gain access electronically and inspect, remotely from my computer, not a copy, without fee, information such as dwelling size, property sketch, number of finished rooms in the basement and main level, etc., that is located on the subscription based Sherburne County GIS web site?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am aware that the data that I am requesting is also contained within the County but outside of the GIS web site.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have already inspected certain data available on the Sherburne County public web site and some of the data is available in the subscription -based portion of the County web site.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am looking specifically for the additional data not available on the Sherburne County web site without subscription.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County responded on January 25, 2006, The information you seek is available over the internet, by subscription. You can also inspect the same information, at no cost, at the Sherburne County Assessor&apos;s Office. However, if you wish to have copies of the data, you will need to pay the applicable copying charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Pistilli wrote, The information I was requesting is collected and assembled using public tax dollars. Some of this information is available to the public via the Internet. The other public information is being restricted from public viewing on the Internet and is only available for viewing with a subscription.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Pistillit&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Sherburne County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request to inspect, remotely, certain data the County maintains?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), states, in part, A government entity may charge a fee for remote access to data where either the data or the access is enhanced at the request of the person seeking access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Schoeffelman argued that, here, both the access and the data are enhanced:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Sherburne County&apos;s paid subscribers have access to the following enhanced remote access and enhanced data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The ability to search property records by last name of property owner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The ability to do a comparable search of every parcel in Sherburne County by the following parameters:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a. Year Built
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Total Square Footage
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Construction Quality
&lt;br /&gt;
d. Bedrooms
&lt;br /&gt;
e. Sale Price
&lt;br /&gt;
f. Sale Date
&lt;br /&gt;
g. Assessed Value
&lt;br /&gt;
h. Style of dwelling&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The ability to access property ownership information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. The ability to access per parcel dwelling details, such as square feet of dwelling, number of bedrooms and bathrooms and the year the dwelling was built.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. The ability to review any available sketches of a dwelling.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;6. The ability to review sales history of a dwelling.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;7. The ability to access the above mentioned data 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;8. The unlimited ability to remotely download, print and/or copy the above mentioned enhanced data 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All of these enhancements assist the subscriber in searching and accessing public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Of particular note, is searching for comparable properties. This remote enhancement and data enhancement allows for near instantaneous and simultaneous search of all the public data maintained by the Assessor&apos;s Office according to subscriber chosen parameters and manipulation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The same search conducted in person at the Assessor&apos;s Office would either require the manual searching of numerous public documents or using the public access computer. Both of these searches would have to occur during business hours. The individual would also need to pay any applicable copying fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, if Sherburne County can not use this modest reasonable fee to help offset the cost of maintaining this remote access, Sherburne County will have to cancel its contract with the outside vendor that provides this service and cease offering any remote access to its public data. The fee structure in Minn. Stat. 13.03 Subd (3) (b), recognizes this fiscal limitation of government and provides for Sherburne County&apos;s reasonable fee for access to the enhanced remote access to data and enhanced data. Consequently, Sherburne County&apos;s fee is legal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Schoffelman&apos;s comments, it appears to the Commissioner that the subscription service available from Sherburne County does offer data and access that have been enhanced. According to Mr. Schoffelman, the County has at least 32 subscribers. Thus, based on the language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), the County may charge a fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Pistilli argues that he should be able to gain access remotely, without charge or enhancement, to the same types of data that are available to individuals who pay the subscription fee. However, nothing in Chapter 13 requires government entities to provide inspection of public data on a remote basis. Clearly, though, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), Mr. Pistilli is entitled to inspect and/or obtain copies of any and all public data in the Assessor&apos;s Office at reasonable times and places set by the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Pistilli raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Sherburne County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request to inspect, remotely, certain data the County maintains.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 28, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266955</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Remote access</Title><Id>266320</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-010</Title><title>Opinion 06 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266892&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-03-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of North Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the names and addresses of three individuals, each of whom made a complaint against a City police officer?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 23, 2006; City of North Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated February 1, 2006, from Rose Kubiatowicz. In her letter, Ms. Kubiatowicz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from the City of North Saint Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wally Wysopal, Manager of the City, in response to Ms. Kubiatowicz&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 8, 2006, were to inform him of Ms. Kubiatowicz&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 22, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated February 17, 2006, from Thomas Lauth, the City&apos;s Police Chief.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Kubiatowicz is as follows. In a letter dated December 30, 2005, she wrote to the City and asked for certain data about a City employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 17, 2006, Chief Lauth provided some of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a January 25, 2006, letter, Ms. Kubiatowicz wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On my [December 30, 2005] request I asked for the names and addresses of any and all Complainants. The [City&apos;s response] did not give me names and addresses, but rather listed three instances where the complainant was described as an individual. I am hereby requesting the names and addresses of the three individuals who have made complaints.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a January 27, 2006, letter, Chief Lauth responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am unable to honor your request [the employee] has disputed the disposition as is afforded him by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, as such, the information you have requested is not public data until a final disposition. Please refer to Minnesota State Statute 13.43, Subdivision 2 (8) (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Kubiatowicz&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of North Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the names and addresses of three individuals, each of whom made a complaint against a City police officer?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Chief Lauth wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some of the information requested by Rose Kubiatowicz is not public data (Private) at this time. Specifically, the information she has requested is in regards to an employee who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The employee has disputed the disposition as is afforded by the CBA. The employee and the Union Representative have filed grievances regarding the three (3) dispositions, in accordance with the labor agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pending final resolution of the grievances will determine whether the data requested is public or private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his January 27, 2006, response to Ms. Kubiatowicz, Chief Lauth cited section 13.43, subdivision 2(8)(b), as the basis upon which the City was denying access to the data. As there is no section 13.43, subdivision 2(8)(b), the Commissioner assumes Chief Lauth is referring to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b). This statutory provision prescribes the conditions that must exist for a final disposition to have occurred. Once there is a final disposition, a government entity must make public certain data about an employee against whom a complaint has been lodged. What Chief Lauth seems to be asserting is that, because the employee against whom complaints have been lodged has grieved the City&apos;s disciplinary action, limited data about the matter are public at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kubiatowicz has asked for identifying information about the individuals who made complaints against the City employee, not for data about the employee against whom the complaints were lodged. It appears Chief Lauth has taken the position that data identifying the complainants are data about the employee against whom the complaints have been lodged. The Commissioner disagrees. The names and addresses about the complainants are data about the complainants. If the complainants are members of the public, the data about them are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. (See &lt;em&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/em&gt;, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt;.) If the complainants are employees, their names and addresses are private data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kubiatowicz raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the complainants are members of the public, the City of North Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for their names and addresses. If the complainants are employees, the City appropriately withheld their names and addresses; however, the basis for denying access is section 13.43, subdivision 4, not section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 23, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266892</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-009</Title><title>Opinion 06 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267179&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-03-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Historical Society respond appropriately to a March 14, 2005, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 17, 2006; Minnesota Historical Society</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 27, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated January 26, 2006, from Bruce White. In his letter, Mr. White asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Historical Society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nina Archabal, Director of the Society, in response to Mr. White&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 30, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. White&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Society&apos;s position. On February 24, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Shari Jerde, an attorney representing the Society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. White is as follows. In a letter dated March 14, 2005, he wrote to Ms. Archabal and asked to inspect certain data, including all versions, draft or final, of a report relating to an archaeological survey. Over the next several months, Mr. White and the Society corresponded regarding the data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. White wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are two issues involved in this case. One relates to the question of whether the [Society] is subject in any way to [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13]. The other concerns the question or [sic] whether the [Society] responded properly in dealing with requests for the ... archaeological report and related documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. White&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Historical Society respond appropriately to a March 14, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in government entities. (See section 13.01, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity is defined as a state agency, political subdivision, or a statewide system. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7a.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A state agency is defined as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. (See section 13.02, subdivision 17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Jerde argues that the Society is not subject to Chapter 13:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The society is neither a political subdivision nor a statewide system as defined by [Chapter 13]and therefore the only way Chapter 13 applies to the Society is if it can properly be considered a state agency under [Chapter 13].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Analysis of the Minnesota Statutes, as well as historic treatment of the Society, demonstrates that the Society is not a state agency for the purposes of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jerde cites statutory provisions in support of her argument, including Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, dealing with government records. (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 138, relates, among other things, to historical societies and archives.) She asserts that section 138.17 demonstrates a clear legislative intent that government records transferred to the Society be given different treatment than that provided by Chapter 13. Pursuant to section 138.17, subdivision 1a, employees of the archives division of the Society are granted access to all government records and are explicitly made subject to the penalty provisions of Chapters 13 and 270B. Ms. Jerde wrote, If the Society&apos;s archives&apos; employees were state employees, the penalty provisions of Chapter 13 would applyand an explicit statement to that effect would be unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Ms. Jerde wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Specifically, section 138.17 subd. 1a provides that the Society&apos;s archives&apos; employees must be given access to government records that a government entity lists on a records retention schedule or disposition application for the purpose of determining the historical or other continuing value of the records, regardless of the records&apos; classification pursuant to Chapter 13 or 270B. (emphasis added).If Chapter 13 were made applicable to the Society, it would create confusion and conflict with these provisions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Significantly, [subdivision 1a was] added as a result of discussions during the 1982 legislative session in which the Society took the position that it needed special statutory treatment with respect to transferred government records because it was not a state agency subject to Chapter 13. It is also significant that this section regarding government records explicitly exempts the Society from the provisions of the state records management statute. See Minn. Stat. section 138.17 subd. 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jerde also refers to language in Minnesota Statutes, sections 138.081 and 138.25 as further support for the position that the Society is not a state agency for purposes of Chapter 13. In these provisions, the Legislature designates the Society or its executive council as a state agency for a very limited purpose, such as administering the national historic records act (see section 138.25). Ms. Jerde wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The legislature&apos;s designation of the Society or its executive council to act as a state agency for specific, limited purposes demonstrates that the Society is not generally considered a state agency. If it were, language designating it as such for these specific purposes would be unnecessary.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jerde also notes language in Minnesota Statutes, section 138.01, subdivision 2, which provides that Society employees are to be paid a salary comparable to the salaries paid to state employees in the classified state civil service. She wrote, This language would similarly be unnecessary if the Society was a state agency, as its employees would be state employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jerde cites several other provisions in Minnesota Statutes to support her contention that the Society is not a state agency for purposes of Chapter 13. Her list includes Minnesota Statutes, section 15.01, relating generally to stage agencies, which explicitly excludes the Society from the definition of a state agency; and Minnesota Statutes, section 3.3005, relating to federal monies and expenditure reviews, which explicitly excludes the Society from the definition of state agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jerde added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Minnesota Statute section 352.01, subds. 1, 2, 2a make clear that for the purposes of th[e Minnesota State Retirement System] a &apos;state employee&apos; means any employee or officer in the classified and unclassified service of the state, [as well as] the special classes of persons listed in subdivision 2a, [which includes] employees of the Minnesota historical society. Similarly, &apos;[f]or the purposes of workers&apos; compensation as provided by this chapter, the Minnesota historical society is a state department and such chapter applies to its employees the same as it applies to any department of the state government. If the Society were a state agency, the Minnesota Legislature would not have needed to require specific language referencing and including the Society in these chapters.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Ms. Jerde references an Attorney General Opinion issued on May 26, 1944:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;the Minnesota Attorney General was asked to determine, among other things, whether the Society was subject to the Reorganization Act of 1939.The Attorney General concluded that:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Society as organized under the 1849 act was an ordinary private corporation.However, it appears to us that the effect of the 1856 act and the 1875 amendment was to place the Society in that class of private corporations characterized as quasi public corporations or corporations affected with a public interest. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;the Attorney General concluded the Act as amended did not apply to the Society.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Society today is still treated like a private corporation. For example, for IRS purposes, the Society is a 501(c)(3) organization and, as such, it is required to annually file a federal tax statementIf it were a state agency, it would not be required to file this form.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, Ms. Jerde stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Minnesota Legislature knows when and how to specifically include non-governmental entities within the definition of a state agency or government entity for various purposes set out in Minnesota Statutes. Indeed, the legislature made such a determination with respect to the University of Minnesota when it decided to specifically include the University in the definition of state agency for purposes of Chapter 13. See Minn. Stat. section13.02, subd. 17. If the legislature had intended Chapter 13 to apply to the Society, it most likely would have similarly included the Society in the definition of state agency. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Moreover, in addition to the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Legislature has determined that other entities that are not traditional government entities ought nonetheless to be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 and it has therefore included specific language to that effect in the chapters governing those entities.Significantly, nowhere in Chapter 138 does the legislature indicate an intent that the Society be subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Society was therefore under no duty to respond to Mr. White&apos;s request pursuant to Chapter 13 and its response, which was made pursuant to its own policy governing disclosure of data, was appropriate.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner is unaware of any statutory provision subjecting the Society to Chapter 13 or requiring compliance with Chapter 13 as a condition of accepting public funds, her opinion is that the Society is not a state agency and is not subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. If the Society enters into a contract with a government entity to perform functions on behalf of the entity, data related to the contract would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. White raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Historical Society is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Therefore, the Society was not required to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a March 14, 2005, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 17, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267179</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minnesota State Historical Society</Title><Id>266916</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-008</Title><title>Opinion 06 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267578&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-03-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage: data in five memoranda relating to a former District employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 8, 2006; School District 191 (Burnsville-Eagan-Savage)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 27, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated December 21, 2005, from Maggie Wallner. In her letter, Ms. Wallner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data about a former employee that Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage, maintains. IPAD requested additional information, which Ms. Wallner provided on January 25, 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 31, 2006, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the data subject (the former employee) and invited him/her to provide comments. In a letter dated February 8, 2006, the employee&apos;s attorney, Christina Clark, replied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Wallner is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [District] has received a request from the media for the personnel file of a former employee. The [District] hereby requests an opinion regarding the classification of the enclosed documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The employee did not grieve any of the foregoing documents and the time to grieve has expired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner attached a copy of the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Burnsville Education Association, for years 2003 - 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The additional information Ms. Wallner provided on January 25, 2006, is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. [The employee] resigned pursuant to a Separation Agreement. All investigations regarding [the employee] were concluded at the time of [his/her] resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. [The employee] did not file grievances regarding any of the documents submitted to the [Department of Administration] and the time to grieve has expired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Ms. Wallner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by Independent School District 191, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage: data in five memoranda relating to a former District employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following personnel data also are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Clark referenced &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267765&quot; title=&quot;96-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-001&lt;/a&gt;. She noted that it involved District 191 and addressed an issue similar to the one Ms. Wallner has raised. Ms. Clark further noted that the collective bargaining agreement language discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267765&quot; title=&quot;96-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-001&lt;/a&gt; is the same as what currently exists in the 2003 - 2005 agreement Ms. Wallner provided to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267765&quot; title=&quot;96-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-001&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The answer to Ms. Krisnik&apos;s question depends on whether disciplinary action was taken by Burnsville and if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(Again, if the data are not disciplinary in nature, a final disposition could not have occurred, and therefore, only very limited data regarding the complaints or charges are public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In determining whether either, or both, of the memos are disciplinary in nature, the Commissioner has relied upon the language, which relates to discipline, contained in the employees&apos; contract. As provided by Ms. Krisnik, Section 12 of this contract states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 2. The School District shall draw [an employee&apos;s] attention to the lack of professional ways:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a. oral reprimand
&lt;br /&gt;
b. written reprimand
&lt;br /&gt;
c. suspension without pay
&lt;br /&gt;
d. notice of deficiency
&lt;br /&gt;
e. loss of salary increase for substandard performance
&lt;br /&gt;
f. discharge per M.S. section 125.12.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Use of items a to f above need not be in progressive order; dependent on the frequency and severity of the lack of professional conduct any or all of the above may be used.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 3. The following information will be provided with notice of disciplinary action:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a. a review of the rule, regulation, code, policy, etc., that defines the expected behavior;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. a description of the inaction or failure of the employee to comply with the expectation, including an outline of previous oral or written reprimands;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. a reference to the grievance process as defined in the Master Agreement; and
&lt;br /&gt;
d. notice that the Association President will be copied [on] any suspension without pay, notices of deficiency, loss of salary increases, or notice of discharge unless the [employee] objects in writing within ten (10) calendar days; any grievance in this category would begin at Level lll.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on the above contract language, it appears that while there are many ways in which Burnsville may draw an employee&apos;s attention to a lack of professional conduct, any such actions taken by Burnsville are not considered disciplinary unless certain information accompanies the notice of inappropriate behavior.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the situation-at-hand, based on the information provided by Ms. Krisnik, it is clear that none of the information required to be provided with a notice of disciplinary action, was, in fact, provided to either employee, in either memo number one or memo number two. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that neither of the memos contains data documenting disciplinary action by Burnsville against the two employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Discussing the situation currently before the Commissioner, Ms. Clark stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;None of the memoranda satisfy all the requirements of the [collective bargaining agreement] for disciplinary actions. It follows that the memoranda do not constitute or consist of data that document disciplinary action under [section 13.43].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has reviewed the five memoranda and is in agreement with Ms. Clark that none of them contains all four pieces of information that must be provided with a notice of disciplinary action, as outlined in the 2003 - 2005 collective bargaining agreement. If, therefore, none of the memoranda constitute disciplinary action, a final disposition has not occurred and the data in the memoranda are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner reminds both the District and Ms. Clark that pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), if the separation agreement between the employee and the District contains data constituting the terms of an agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employee&apos;s employment relationship with the District, those data are public. In addition, if the agreement involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money, it must include specific reasons for the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Wallner raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When considered in light of the collective bargaining agreement between Independent School District 191 and the Burnsville Education Association, the data in five memoranda about the District former employee do not constitute disciplinary action. Therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, there is no final disposition and the data are private.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 8, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267578</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Policy or contract determines</Title><Id>266857</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-007</Title><title>Opinion 06 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267231&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Hampton Township&apos;s determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11?
If Hampton Township is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did it comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2006; Hampton Township</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 26, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated January 24, 2006, from James McKenzie. In his letter, Mr. McKenzie asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data from Hampton Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Eunice Schiller, Clerk of Hampton Township, in response to Mr. McKenzie&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 31, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. McKenzie&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Township&apos;s position. On February 10, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Peter Tiede, an attorney representing the Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. McKenzie is as follows. In a December 20, 2005, letter to Ms. Schiller, Mr. McKenzie asked to inspect certain data: plat plans, an ordinance, and data relating to a district court complaint/summons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 17, 2006, Mr. Tiede responded first by asserting that the Township is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Regarding the requested data, Mr. Tiede also wrote that the Township did not maintain any data beyond what it previously had provided to Mr. McKenzie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. McKenzie&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Hampton Township&apos;s determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If Hampton Township is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did it comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is Hampton Township&apos;s determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, applies to state agencies, political subdivisions, and statewide systems. In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature amended the definition of political subdivision to include certain townships: any town exercising powers under chapter 368 and located in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Tiede wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We believe it is clear that Hampton township is not a political subdivision under the definitions of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Hampton Township] is located within the metropolitan area as defined, so the only question as to whether the town is a political subdivision is where the town is exercising powers under Chapter 368.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The powers under Chapter 368 which a town might exercise are found at section 368.01, the urban powers statute. Subdivision 1 of that statute provides urban town powers for towns which are located within twenty miles of the city hall of the [sic] city of the first class having over a 200,000 population. Hampton Township would not qualify under that section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The second subdivision, Subd. 1A provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;A town with a population of 1,000 or more that does not qualify under Subd. 1 shall have the enumerated powers upon an affirmative vote of its electors at the annual town meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 30 of that statute requires that notice be given to the auditor and the Secretary of State when the powers are assumed. Those notices are to be filed by the auditor and the Secretary of the State respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;So, for Hampton Township to be exercising powers under [Chapter 368] it would have to have had an elector approval and filings would have to be made with the Secretary of State and the county auditor. If those things were done, then Hampton Township would qualify as an urban town and be subject to [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am enclosing for you e-mail messages from the Dakota County Auditor and the Secretary of the State indicating that neither of them has any record of any filing by Hampton Township of assumption of those powers. I am enclosing for you a letter from the Town Clerk indicating, among other things, the results of her search of annual meeting minutes indicating that she was able to find no other elector authorization of assumption of urban town powers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is true that Hampton Township, like other towns in Dakota County (which does not do its own zoning, but rather leaves that entirely to the townships) exercises greater authority in certain areas than townships in other counties. Indeed, most of the powers available upon exercise of Chapter 368 powers are available to all towns in the county in one form or another under other statutes or special legislation such as was passed in 1977. However, none of that matters under the plain language of [Chapter 13]. The key question is whether &lt;u&gt;Chapter 368&lt;/u&gt; has been employed, and complied with, to exercise powers. [Emphasis provided.] It appears to us conclusive that Hampton Township has done nothing to exercise powers under Chapter 368. Therefore Hampton conclusively does not fall within the ambit of [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the analysis Mr. Tiede provided, the Commissioner agrees that Hampton Township is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If Hampton Township is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did it comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in Issue 1, Hampton Township is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Therefore, it is not obliged to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to data requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. McKenzie raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hampton Township&apos;s determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hampton Township is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Therefore, it was not obliged to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 27, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267231</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Townships</Title><Id>267104</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-006</Title><title>Opinion 06 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267978&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-24T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Revenue comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 5, 2005, request for access to data relating to an investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 24, 2006; Minnesota Department of Revenue</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 10, 2006, IPAD received a letter from John Musgjerd, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Revenue (Department.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Salomone, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 17, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On February 7, 2006, IPAD received a response from Harriet J. Sims, Supervising Attorney representing the Department. A summary of the facts as Mr. Musgjerd presented them follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to Commissioner Salomone, dated June 5, 2005, Mr. Musgjerd wrote: [a]s the investigation into misconduct by the Greenwood City Assessing Officer is now formally concluded, I am requesting to inspect all of the records detailing your department&apos;s investigation. (Mr. Musgjerd submitted documents relating to his earlier efforts to gain access to these data. In a letter to IPAD dated December 8, 2003, Mr. Musgjerd stated that he was in receipt of a letter from the Department of Revenue confirming that their investigation has been formally concluded. )
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 20, 2005, Commissioner Salomone responded to Mr. Musgjerd:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I received your letter of June 5, 2005, requesting to inspect all records detailing the department&apos;s investigation. You are welcome to come to the Department to review the records whenever it is convenient for you during the time period of July 18-29, 2005. Please notify us as to what day and time will work best for you. We realize this is a month and a half from the date of your letter, however, the State Board of Equalization, as well as a physical remodeling within the Department that has physically displaced the Property Tax Division and their records, prevents us from having the records available before July 18.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Musgjerd was unable to inspect the data during the timeframe Commissioner Salomone proposed. According to Mr. Musgjerd, he arranged an appointment with the Department for November 23, 2005, at which he was to be provided the opportunity to inspect all data regarding the Department of Revenue&apos;s investigation(s) into the assessing practices in the City of Greenwood. Mr. Musgjerd stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [I]t is evident that all of their investigative material has still not been made available for inspection as statutes . . . stipulate. Moreover, it is evident from the data made available to me that their investigation has long since been concluded, as indicated in internal correspondence to the Office of the Governor. However, some of the documents made available clearly indicate that there are additional documents pertaining to their review of the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor that have not been provided for inspection (specifically those documenting the nature and depth of their own investigation).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Accordingly, I have not been provided with information requested that relates to their criminal investigation (contrary to Minnesota Statutes). Moreover, they have still not provided me with the opportunity to inspect the records supporting the [sic] own investigation (and analysis of the violations) in the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor - which their internal communications state have occurred.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Sims wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have identified some documents which were inadvertently omitted from the box of documents which Mr. Musgjerd inspected. These documents will be mailed to Mr. Musgjerd. Aside from those documents we do not know which additional documents Mr. Musgjerd refers to. [Staff] is in the process of contacting Mr. Musgjerd to determine which additional documents he refers to.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. Musgjerd also stated in his letter that we have not provided him with information relating to [our] &apos;criminal investigation.&apos; The documents do not exist. We will inform Mr. Musgjerd that we did not do a criminal investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Finally, Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s letter states that &apos;. . . they have still not provided me with the opportunity to inspect the records supporting the (sic) own investigation&apos; into the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor. Again, we believe that we have now provided all of the documents which relate to our investigation and to which Mr. Musgjerd is entitled and we do not know which additional documents he refers to.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The only information not provided was the names and addresses of complainants . . . [who] requested that information concerning their complaints be kept confidential because they feared physical or financial injury if their names and addresses were made public. This information was redacted . . . pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Based on Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Revenue comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 5, 2005, request for access to data relating to an investigation? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Upon receipt of a request under Chapter 13 for access to government data, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Musgjerd, he first requested access to the data at issue in 2003. In its June 20, 2005, response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s June 5, 2005, request, the Department stated that it needed six weeks to provide him with access. The Department did not state that it needed that much time because of the size or complexity of his request, but said: the State Board of Equalization, as well as a physical remodeling within the Department that has physically displaced the Property Tax Division and their records, prevents us from having the records available before July 18. That response is neither prompt nor reasonable under the circumstances.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, as of the date of its response to the Commissioner, the Department had not provided Mr. Musgjerd with access to all of the data to which he was entitled, advised him of the statutory basis upon which it relied to deny him access to some of the data, or informed him that some of the data he requested do not exist. According to the Department, as of the date of its response to the Commissioner, it still needs to clarify with Mr. Musgjerd just what data he seeks.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner encourages both parties to make reasonable efforts to resolve disputes like this one. Both the Department and Mr. Musgjerd had obligations to seek clarification from one another as issues arose. Mr. Musgjerd could have sought the assistance of the Department&apos;s Responsible Authority or Data Practices Compliance Official; the Department should have contacted Mr. Musgjerd promptly as soon as it realized it needed clarification.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
										
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Musgjerd raised is as follows:
                      
										&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; The Minnesota Department of Revenue did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 5, 2005, request for access to data relating to an investigation. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 24, 2006
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267978</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-005</Title><title>Opinion 06 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267399&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety maintains: a response to a Department request for proposal?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 21, 2006; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 3, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 30, 2006, from E. Joseph Newton, Legal Counsel for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. In his letter, Mr. Newton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Department maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Newton wrote that the State Patrol requested proposals to provide certain services:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Two proposals were submitted and one accepted. Subsequently, a request was made under [Chapter 13] for information related to the recent request for proposals for pre-employment psychological evaluations of State Patrol Trooper candidates [including] all proposals submitted to whom the proposal was awarded and feedback as to the reason or reasons that our proposal wasn&apos;t [sic] unsuccessful. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon receipt of the request the State Patrol informed the only other entity that submitted a response to the request, which was ultimately the successful vendor, (hereinafter data subject ) [Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow Associates] of the pending request. The State Patrol received a letter from the data subject claiming the requested data was general non-public data under the trade secrets definition found at Minn. Stat. sec. 13.37 subd. 1(b). The State Patrol then corresponded with the requester informing him of the trade secrets claim and contemporaneously notified the data subject setting forth the reasons the Department of Public Safety determined the data was public under [Chapter 13] and asking for any information supporting the contention the data was trade secret. The data subject corresponded with the Department of Public Safety setting forth its analysis Upon receipt of the response the Department of Public Safety determined the data was not trade secret and therefore public and informed both parties of the intent to seek an opinion. The Department of Public Safety is of the opinion the data requested is public data&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his November 2, 2005, letter to Mr. Campion, Lt. Colonel Daly of the State Patrol wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am in receipt of your October 28 letter wherein you allege the Response to Proposal with regard to your psychological testing contract is trade secret. Please inform us how this information is trade secret. Specify in all detail any and all reasons the data is trade secret only items that you can sufficiently claim to be trade secret will be protected non public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his November 15, 2005, response, Mr. Campion stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We have no problem with you releasing the psychological testing contract that you mentioned. We understand that it is public information. However the written document apart from the contract that we produced is of independent economic value. To release our several-hundred-page RFP would provide information that took us a number of years to develop as to the format and content, as well as generating the various documents. As per the statute mentioned, we definitely consider our RFP, aside from the contract, to be trade secret as defined and classified in section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The statute you mention in your letter, I think, clearly indicates that you do not have to release our RFP response because it will be used solely by our competition to learn how to write an RFP, which would cause us economic harm, as well as the fact that it is a trade secret as protected by section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Newton&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety maintains: a response to a Department request for proposal?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.591, subdivision 3 (b), classifies data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data as defined in section 16C.02, subdivision 12, are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name of the responder is read and becomes public. All other data in a responder&apos;s response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic until completion of the evaluation process. After a government entity has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a responder that submitted data are copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the data contained in the response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4(a) of section 13.591 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data created or maintained by a government entity as part of the selection or evaluation process referred to in this section are protected nonpublic data until completion of the selection process or completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trade secret is defined in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an effort to provide further clarification, the Commissioner previously has described the required trade secret elements as follows: (1) a collection of information; (2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; (3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and (4) that a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267811&quot; title=&quot;03-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-017&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner remarked in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267690#/detail/appId/1/id/267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-009&lt;/a&gt;, because the authority in section 13.072 is limited, it is difficult for her to become an expert in understanding whether certain data derive an independent economic value by being protected from public disclosure. Clearly, the individuals who create the data, whether they are outside vendors or government staff, are in the best position to make the case as to how the data satisfy the requirements of section 13.37, subdivision 1(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, Campion, Barrow and Associates provided the data to the Department as part of its response to a request for proposal. Mr. Campion informed the Department that the data were trade secret and should not be released. The Department, in complying with its obligation to determine the classification of the data, contacted Mr. Campion and asked him to explain how the data meet the criteria established in section 13.37. Upon receiving Mr. Campion&apos;s response, the Department apparently was not persuaded: Mr. Newton informed Mr. Campion that the Department&apos;s position remains that the data are public. The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Newton that Mr. Campion&apos;s argument was not persuasive. If Mr. Campion disagrees, he has the option of bringing an action in court to prevent the Department from releasing the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Newton raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that the response to a Department request for proposal is public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 21, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267399</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner&apos;s limited authority</Title><Id>266474</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-004</Title><title>Opinion 06 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266994&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 25, 2005, request for data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 14, 2006; Red River Water Management Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 5, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated January 2, 2006, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Red River Water Management Board (RRWMB).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, Administrator of RRWMB, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 11, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the RRWMB&apos;s position. On February 3, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Louis Smith, an attorney representing the RRWMB.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated August 25, 2005, he wrote to Ms. Erickson and asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Data that shows the specific area the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project provides flood protection for.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The data that shows what townships initiated the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The data that shows that the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project will protect the townships infrastructure.
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The data that shows that the combined efforts of the projects mentioned will affect the peak flows on the main stem of the Red River and offer flood protection downstream.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 23, 2005, Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Stengrim:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Your request of August 25, 2005 requests data concerning the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project. The RRWMB will provide its Agassiz Valley project file for your inspection on the dates noted below; you are also directed to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District [MSTRWD] for further information about the project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 2, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Mr. Smith: It is not clear in your letter if the specific data pertaining to the request dated August 25, 2005 will be available for inspection. Please confirm that this specific data will be available and easily identifiable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When Mr. Stengrim went to inspect the data on October 24, 2005, he apparently was presented with a letter, dated same, from Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Concerning your request of August 25, 2005, the RRWMB has produced its Agassiz Valley project file for your inspection, and marked the relevant items in the file responsive to your request. Concerning item #2 of that request, please note that the Step One submittal identifies the various stakeholders involved in project initiation; we have not located in the RRWMB&apos;s files data concerning specific township initiation, but such data may be available with the MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 31, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson: [referring to the inspection] when data to be responsive to [items #1 and #3] was produced for inspection the data did &apos;not&apos; address the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 15, 2005, Ms. Erickson wrote to Mr. Stengrim:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Step 1 submittal and Preliminary Engineer&apos;s Report for the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project were produced for your inspection in response to the items you referenced. Further, specific pages were marked in these reports with Post-It notes and clearly identified in reference to your questions. When you stated that you were seeking more specific detail concerning local benefits of the proposed project, we indicated that the information produced was all that was in the possession of the RRWMB on this topic and we referred you to the [MSTRWD] for further information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To this date it is unclear if the RRWMB produced all the requested public data. It appears that the RRWMB has been very unclear and ambiguous in responding to the August 25, 2005 data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 25, 2005, request for data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comment to the Commissioner, Mr. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In summary, the RRWMB clearly provided all data in its possession responsive to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request; he simply appears to desire additional information that the RRWMB does not have, and this was clearly explained to him. Ms. Erickson and Mr. Deal pointed out that the RRWMB funds projects like the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project based on a regional benefit, and that data concerning more localized benefits may be available through the local watershed district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim and the RRWMB appear to be having a dispute as to what data the RRWMB does or does not have that are responsive to his request. Some of this dispute might have been avoided if the RRWMB had sought clarification from Mr. Stengrim about his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When Mr. Stengrim inspected the data, Mr. Smith&apos;s letter advised that the RRWMB had marked the relevant items in the file responsive to [his] request. Upon inspecting the data, Mr. Stengrim determined that the data RRWMB located relating to items #1 and #3 of his request were not what he was seeking. At that point it is not clear whether Mr. Stengrim asked the RRWMB if they had the data. Ms. Erickson&apos;s letter of November 15, 2005, also lacks clarity in that the Commissioner cannot determine whether she is addressing Mr. Stengrim&apos;s concerns about items #1 and #3 of his request. Not until Mr. Smith&apos;s February 3, 2006, letter to the Commissioner is the RRWMB&apos;s position clear - it provided to Mr. Stengrim all data in its possession responsive to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The facts of this situation are such that the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the RRWMB complied with Chapter 13 in communicating what data did not exist. As the Commissioner has written in previous opinions involving the same two parties, she encourages them to find a way to resolve the data practices issues they are experiencing. She specifically notes that a government entity, in fulfilling its obligation to respond to data requests, first must determine whether it maintains the requested data. If not, it must so inform the requestor. Further, if the request is written in such a way that it is not easily understood, the entity should seek clarification before proceeding. Finally, the Commissioner notes that data requestors need to be as clear as possible in their communications relating to data requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 25, 2005, request for data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 14, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266994</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-003</Title><title>Opinion 06 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267543&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-10T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect &quot;financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 10, 2006; Red River Water Management Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 5, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 31, 2005, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, Administrator of RRWMB, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 11, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for RRWMB&apos;s position. On January 24, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Erickson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated August 29, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson and, among other items, asked to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Valley Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Louis Smith, an attorney representing the RRWMB, responded on September 23, 2005, stating, The RRWMB&apos;s complete file for the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project will be provided for your inspection. He offered several dates and times for Mr. Stengrim to choose among.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 31, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson regarding his October 24, 2005, inspection of the data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data produced for inspection was a letter dated November 16, 2004 from the MSTRWD signed by President Doug Sorenson requesting payment of $396,080.93. Also produced was a document titled Red River Watershed Management Board Disbursement Voucher . This document indicates that $396,080.93 was disbursed on November 17, 2004. The conclusion based on the data is that the RRWMB has only made payments of $396.080.93 to the MSTRWD for the Agassiz Project.&lt;/p&gt;
In a letter dated November 15, 2005, Ms. Erickson wrote to Mr. Stengrim, we produced the data you requested, which reflects a single payment made to the [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Project in the amount of $396,080.93.
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In reviewing the annual audits of the [MSTRWD] for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 it appears that the RRWMB has given the MSTRWD almost $500,000 for the Agassiz Project. It is difficult to understand how the RRWMB claims a single payment was made when the annual audits reflect at least four payment have been made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim provided a copy of the MSTRWD&apos;s &lt;em&gt;Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and Changes in Fund Balance - Capital Project Funds - Construction - Modified Cash Basis&lt;/em&gt; for years 2001, 2002, and 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [RRWMB] has made a single payment to the [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Project, on November 17, 2004 in the amount of $396,080.93. This information was provided to Mr. Stengrim at his request. In addition, the Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group is an entity, separate from the [RRWMB], which receives funding directly from the Minnesota Legislature, appropriated to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of this Work Group is to facilitate implementation of the Mediation Agreement signed in December of 1998. The RRWMB acts as a fiscal agent to pass through these state funds as allocated and approved by the Work Group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The RRWMB forwarded Work Group funding in 2001 to the [MSTRWD]. Work Group funding was disbursed to the District for preliminary engineering and for final engineering for the Agassiz Project. In addition to this direct funding for the Agassiz Project from the Work Group, the Work Group has authorized funding for the [MSTRWD] for more general project team alternative analysis and support costs. Some of these funds could have been used by the local watershed district for the Agassiz Project, but the Work Group and the RRWMB would have no way of recording such an allocation to the project by the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I wish to point out that all of the above information was provided to Mr. Stengrim. The annual financial reports of the RRWMB document these pass-through funding allocations from the Work Group to local watershed districts, and were provided to Mr. Stengrim. As you know, Mr. Stengrim also obtained annual reports and financial information from the [MSTRWD] that also provides this information. We feel at all times the RRWMB has endeavored to comply with [Chapter 13] to provide Mr. Stengrim with the data he has requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim asked to inspect financial records showing payments for the Agassiz Project made by the RRWMB to the MSTRWD. The RRWMB&apos;s response was to provide, for his inspection, a document indicating that $396,080.93 was disbursed on November 17, 2004. Ms. Erickson states the RRWMB has made a single payment to the MSTRWD. Therefore, it appears the RRWMB responded appropriately to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following additional comments are in order. If Mr. Stengrim was seeking information about expenditures from the RRWMB as fiscal agent for the Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group, he needed to be more specific in his data request. Similarly, if Ms. Erickson suspected Mr. Stengrim was asking for data relating to the Work Group expenditures, she could have sought clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 10, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267543</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Sufficiency of request</Title><Id>266398</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-002</Title><title>Opinion 06 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267980&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-02-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a November 10, 2005, request for data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 10, 2006, 2006; Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 29, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated December 27, 2005, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nick Drees, Administrator of MSTRWD, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 30, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MSTRWD&apos;s position. On January 11, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jeffrey Hane, an attorney representing MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 10, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Mr. Drees and asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. All data concerning requests for funds from the Red River Watershed Management Board for the Agassiz Valley Project.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. All financial data showing all funds received from the Red River Watershed Management Board for the Agassiz Valley Project.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. All data related to the spending of funds received from the Agassiz Valley Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 23, 2005, Mr. Drees responded: I have received your data request and I am looking for information on the Agassiz Valley Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 15, 2005, Mr. Drees wrote a second letter to Mr. Stengrim. Mr. Drees stated: In reviewing your request ... it appears this request is similar to a request that you previously made. Much of this data you appear to be asking for was made available to you. Are you asking for an update of this data? Would you be more specific on your request. Mr. Hane wrote that Mr. Stengrim did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, The requests were made more than 45 days ago and the last correspondence concerning the requests is over 30 days ago.
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a November 10, 2005, request for data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have discussed that when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hane wrote that after Mr. Drees wrote to Mr. Stengrim on November 23, 2005, it appeared to Mr. Drees that most of the materials had already been provided to Mr. Stengrim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hane cited six previous instances in which Mr. Stengrim has made requests for data relating to the Agassiz Project. Mr. Hane stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim&apos;s requests are so broad that they are nearly impossible for the Watershed to satisfy with any certainty....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The majority of the requests include the phrases any data or all data. The frustration of the Watershed is that the requests put the Watershed in the position of having to try and discern what materials are included in the various requests and then place the burden on the Watershed to dig through all available files and sort through to find every single item that might be responsive to these requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s November 10, 2005, request, Mr. Hane wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request does not narrow the data he seeks at all in terms of chronology. It appears he is asking Mr. Drees to produce for Stengrim&apos;s inspection any data, written or electronic, that pertains whatsoever to any funds from the Red Board that had ever been requested, received or spent on the Agassiz project. In theory, Mr. Stengrim&apos;s letter asks to review every single receipt, cancelled check, letter, financial print-out, etc. that has anything to do with the Agassiz Valley Project....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It should be apparent why Mr. Drees asked Mr. Stengrim to clarify the scope of his request given the volumes of data previously provided to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. One of a government entity&apos;s responsibilities under Chapter 13 is to locate and provide data, in a reasonable amount of time, in response to data practices requests. To better comply with this requirement, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Further, when an individual wants to gain access to data about a certain issue but doesn&apos;t know specifically what kinds of data the entity maintains related to that issue, it is reasonable for the individual to make a request for all/any data relating to the specific issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s November 10, 2005, request, the MSTRWD apparently sought clarification after receiving the request. Mr. Hane states Mr. Stengrim did not respond. Given the number and substance of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s previous data requests related to the Agassiz Project, it seems reasonable that Mr. Drees would ask for clarification. It also seems reasonable that Mr. Stengrim would provide clarification. The key, however, is that the MSTRWD needed to seek clarification soon after receiving the November 10 letter to give itself enough time to respond appropriately. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267593&quot; title=&quot;04-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-066&lt;/a&gt;.) The MSTRWD sought clarification approximately 35 days after receiving the request; in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a November 10, 2005, request for data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 10, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267980</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 06-001</Title><title>Opinion 06 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267998&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2006-01-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for copies of the following data: &quot;data that document how much money the District spent on the summons and complaint - Independent School District 281 v. Service Employees International Union Local 284 - and all grievances related to the summons and complaint?&quot;
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 31, 2006; School District 281 (Robbinsdale Area)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 15, 2005, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Gregory Carlson. In his letter, Mr. Carlson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stan Mack, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Carlson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 19, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Carlson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 13, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated January 12, 2006, from Susan Hansen, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Carlson presented them is as follows. In a letter dated September 21, 2005, Mr. Carlson wrote to the District and asked for certain financial data relating to issues between the District and Service Employees International Union Local 284. Mr. Carlson&apos;s request included, among other items, the specific data at issue in this opinion - data relating to costs the District incurred for work on an August 25, 2005, Summons and Complaint and all related grievances. Mr. Carlson asked for the data Broken down by category (per-day, per-month, per-year) and total expense for each category.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District responded by stating that the District does not maintain the data you are seeking in the format you are requesting. Rather than explaining how the District does maintain the actual data, the District provided Mr. Carlson with a spreadsheet, which contains the legal costs incurred. The District also provided a list, which contained salary information for the district negotiations team.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 12, 2005, Mr. Carlson wrote again to the District stating that some of the information he requested was not provided. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am sending a second data request asking for all copies of data that document how much money the District spent on the Summons and Complaint - &lt;em&gt;Independent School District v. Service Employees International Union Local 284&lt;/em&gt; and all grievances related to the Summons and Complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am asking for the expenses to be itemized by (date, event, type of expense, etc.) if you maintain the data that way. If you do not maintain the data in this way, please inform me as to whether you are able to provide the data in this way and how much it will cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District responded in a letter dated November 29, 2005, The legal fees from Frank Madden Associates related to the litigation matter totaled $546. (October 1, 2005 billing)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Carlson wrote, I do not feel [the District&apos;s response] answers what I am requesting for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on Mr. Carlson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for copies of the following data: data that document how much money the District spent on the summons and complaint - &lt;em&gt;Independent School District 281 v. Service Employees International Union Local 284&lt;/em&gt; - and all grievances related to the summons and complaint?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Hansen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District complied with Mr. Carlson&apos;s [September 21, 2005] request for data to the extent it understood the request. Specifically [the District] provided him with information regarding the legal costs incurred by the School District. The School District provided Mr. Carlson with a detailed spreadsheet which included the dates legal services were rendered, a description of the legal services provided on the respective dates, the identity of the law firm that provided the legal services, the amount of the legal fees, and the date of the School District&apos;s payment of the legal fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Regarding the November 12, 2005, data request] The School District again promptly complied with Mr. Carlson&apos;s request to the extent the District understood it. On November 29, 2005, the District responded to Mr. Carlson&apos;s second data request and indicated that the legal fees related to the Summons and Complaint totaled $546 from the October 1, 2005 billing from the law firm of Frank Madden Associates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a December 7, 2005 letter to [IPAD], Mr. Carlson stated that based on the School District&apos;s initial October 13, 2005 submission, he received &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; of the data requested. (emphasis added). Mr. Carlson stated, however, that he believed there was more data that the School District had not provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The School District did not provide copies of the billing statements from the law firm that provided the legal services based on the fact that the statements included fees for matters not included in Mr. Carlson&apos;s request for data. Instead, the School District provided Mr. Carlson with a spreadsheet on October 13 and information in the November 29 letter specific to the matters referenced by Mr. Carlson. In the interest of cooperation and in an effort to satisfy Mr. Carlson, in addition to the information previously submitted to Mr. Carlson on October 13 and November 29 by the School District, we are enclosing with this letter all itemized billing statements from the law firm of Frank Madden Associates from September 1, 2004 to the present. These documents provide a detailed and itemized listing of the School District&apos;s legal fees including, but not limited to, the Summons and Complaint filed on August 29, 2005 and grievances related to the Summons and Complaint, the first of which was filed on October 12, 2004. These billing statements are being provided to Mr. Carlson by copy of this letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue before the Commissioner is whether the District complied with Chapter 13 in responding to Mr. Carlson&apos;s request for copies of financial data concerning the Summons and Complaint, and related grievances. He first asked for these data as part of a larger request. Upon receiving the spreadsheet from the District, Mr. Carlson narrowed his request to those data concerning the Summons and Complaint, etc. The District&apos;s response was to provide a total dollar expenditure amount. Later, as part of her comments regarding Mr. Carlson&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Hansen provided to Mr. Carlson copies of itemized billing statements sent from her law firm to the District, but these statements also include billings for projects other than the Summons and Complaint, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual makes a request under Chapter 13 for access to government data, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. If the individual asks the entity for data categorized in such a way that the entity must create data to respond to the request, the entity should advise the requestor that nothing in Chapter 13 requires government entities to format/create data to respond to a data request and that such requests are beyond the purview of Chapter 13. It is up to the entity and the requestor to determine if they can arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement to create or format the data; no statutory language dictates what the entity may or may not charge. In addition, when an individual requests data such that an entity must create data to respond, the entity should give the requestor the option of compiling the information him/herself, using the data that do exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, in his second request, Mr. Carlson asked for copies of data. He also asked that the data be itemized in a specific way, if possible. The District responded by providing him with a total dollar expenditure amount. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the District&apos;s response was not appropriate; it needed to explain to Mr. Carlson what data do exist, how those data are categorized, that the District can charge a fee to create data, and ask him how he would like to proceed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Ms. Hansen provided monthly billing statements as part of her response to Mr. Carlson&apos;s opinion request, she did not clarify whether these are the only data the District maintains regarding how much money the District spent on legal services - in other words, that there are no data providing a break-down of expenditures relating to the Summons and Complaint, etc. The Commissioner knows only that the District did not previously provide copies of these documents to Mr. Carlson because the [billing] statements included fees for matters not included in Mr. Carlson&apos;s request for data. As previously stated, the District needed to explain to Mr. Carlson what data it does maintain and ascertain whether Mr. Carlson wished to access those data or request that the District create new data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Carlson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for copies of the following data: data that document how much money the District spent on the summons and complaint - Independent School District 281 v. Service Employees International Union Local 284 - and all grievances related to the summons and complaint.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 30, 2006&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267998</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:22:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-041</Title><title>Opinion 05 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267735&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-12-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Hopkins comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for the 2004 study of the &quot;Van Buren area drainage system?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 28, 2005; City of Hopkins</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 21, 2005, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Erwin Stobbe. In his letter, Mr. Stobbe asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Hopkins.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Getschow, Hopkins&apos; City Manager, in response to Mr. Stobbe&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Stobbe&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On December 9, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Wynn Curtiss, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Stobbe provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Stobbe wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the Spring of 2004 the City of Hopkins hired an engineer to study the flooding in the area of my property in Hopkins, Minnesota. This study was conducted after a tenant of the property brought a suit to conciliation court, against myself as property owner. The suit was a result of the tenants [sic] flooded car that was parked in [sic] underground garage on the property. The tenants&apos; [sic] car was flooded in July of 2003. The conciliation court ruled in favor of myself, owner of the property, thus releasing any liability of the City of Hopkins or myself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting a copy of the engineers&apos; [sic] study.The City of Hopkins attorney has refused to release a copy of the study, citing MN statute. 13.39 Subd 2. I believe that argument is invalid due to the fact that any possible lawsuit is no longer valid. The statute of limitations has expired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To his opinion request, Mr. Stobbe attached copies of several letters. One letter is his data request, dated October 22, 2005. The second letter is an October 26, 2004 (the Commissioner assumes this to be a typographical error), response from Mr. Curtiss:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the City&apos;s position that the engineering study was obtain [sic] pursuant to [section 13.39] and is, therefore, not public information. Further, it is the City&apos;s position that this information is protected from disclosure as it is attorney work product and constitutes the opinion of the City&apos;s expert witness.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stobbe&apos;s attorney responded in a letter dated November 1, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You are aware that the study which was done in early 2004, was predicated upon a possible lawsuit that might have occurred due to a July 2003 incident. I believe the time period for a lawsuit on that action has now expired. As the Statute of Limitations has passed, your argument that the material is being maintained for the purposes of commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action no longer applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Stobbe&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Hopkins comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for the 2004 study of the Van Buren area drainage system?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Curtiss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the summer of 2003, flooding occurred in [the parking garage owned by Mr. Stobbe]. In September 2003, an attorney contacted Mr. Stobbe [Mr. Curtiss provided a copy of this letter] seeking payment for damages allegedly caused to tenant&apos;s [sic] vehicles as a result of the flooding. In turn, Mr. Stobbe, through his attorney, Mr. Lawrence Marofsky, contacted Hopkins by letter dated September 30, 2003, and stated that any claim by a tenant against my client will result in a request for indemnification by the city for its failure to maintain its drainage system. [Mr. Curtiss attached a copy of this letter.] In response to Mr. Marofsky&apos;s letter, and after consultation with my office, Hopkins retained an outside engineering firm to determine whether Hopkins was liable for the flooding and the resulting damages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon the completion of the study by Hopkins&apos; engineering firm, Hopkins Public Works Director Steve Stadler wrote Mr. Stobbe on March 17, 2004 [Mr. Curtiss provided a copy of this letter] indicating that Hopkins&apos; engineers had determined the city was not liable for [the flooding]. In response, Mr. Marofsky sent a letter on March 31, 2004 [Mr. Curtiss provided a copy of this letter] requesting a copy of the engineering report.The report was not provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In August 2004, an attorney representing [Mr. Stobbe&apos;s] tenants filed a conciliation court action against Mr. Stobbe, claiming that the flooding damaged his client&apos;s [sic] vehicles. On August 9, 2004, Mr. Marofsky sent a letter to Hopkins indicating that [Mr. Stobbe] considered Hopkins legally responsible for the damages and demanding that Hopkins agree to pay any damages or [Mr. Stobbe] would file suit against Hopkins. Mr. Marofsky enclosed a copy of an executed Third Party Complaint naming the City of Hopkins as the Third Party Defendant. [Mr. Curtiss attached a copy of the letter and the complaint.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Stobbe did, in fact, file his Third Party claim against Hopkins. In November 2004, the tenant&apos;s [sic] claim against Mr. Stobbe was dismissed and the Third Party claim against Hopkins also was dismissed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on the threat of litigation against Mr. Stobbe and the threat of litigation from Mr. Stobbe against Hopkins, it was my position that this matter involved a pending civil legal action against Hopkins and thus, the information collected by Hopkins regarding this matter is non-public, including specifically but not limited to, the engineer&apos;s report obtained by Hopkins after receipt of the letter from Mr. Stobbe&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.39, if a government entity&apos;s chief attorney determines that a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) and confidential (data on individuals): data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of the pending civil legal action, or retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3 of section 13.39 provides that civil investigative data become public upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) a decision by the entity not to pursue the civil action; (2) the expiration of the time to file a complaint under the statute of limitations or agreement applicable to the civil action; or (3) the exhaustion of or expiration of rights of appeal by either party to the civil action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Curtiss states that the engineering report was created/collected because of the threat of litigation from Mr. Stobbe. Mr. Curtiss also states that his position was that the matter involved a &lt;em&gt;pending civil legal action&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, based on the language in section 13.39, it appears the City&apos;s initial withholding of the report was appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Mr. Stobbe asserts that because the statute of limitations now has expired on any civil action, the City should release the report. He wrote, any possible lawsuit is no longer valid. Mr. Stobbe added, The engineer for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was given the opportunity to review the [City&apos;s] engineered report from the spring of 2004. If this study is truly protected and private, then why was an engineer allowed to view the report? Mr. Curtiss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the data was acquired [as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action] it remains protected nonpublic data permanently. There is nothing in the statutes or case law that indicates that this type of data is converted to public data after a set period of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees. Section 13.39, subdivision 3, provides that civil investigative data previously classified as not public become public when the time to file a complaint under the statute of limitations has expired. Assuming the statute of limitations for Mr. Stobbe to bring an action against the City has expired, the engineer&apos;s report now is public. (The Commissioner notes Mr. Curtiss did not argue with Mr. Stobbe&apos;s assertion that the statute of limitations on Mr. Stobbe&apos;s claim has expired.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Curtiss also argues that the report is protected from disclosure on the grounds it is attorney work product and is the work product of an expert witness, which is not generally discoverable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 05-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed section 13.393, which allows government entities to protect certain data from disclosure. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data created, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267516&quot; title=&quot;05-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn.App. 2003). In finding that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine protected the attorney billing records in their entirety, the Court wrote, Therefore, to be protected by the doctrine, material must contain opinions, conclusions, legal theories, or mental impressions of counsel, and it must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation. (&lt;em&gt;City Pages&lt;/em&gt;, p. 846.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner has not seen the engineer&apos;s report. Therefore, she cannot determine, with certainty, whether the data in the report are attorney work product and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. However, if Mr. Strobbe is correct that the City provided a copy of the report to another entity, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the City&apos;s argument that the report is attorney work product seems less plausible. Finally, the Commissioner notes that section 13.393 states, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stobbe raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the City of Hopkins complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to provide a copy of the 2004 study of the Van Buren area drainage system.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 28, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267735</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statute of limitations expiration</Title><Id>266352</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-040</Title><title>Opinion 05 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267337&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-12-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request to review the test s/he took as part of the lieutenant&apos;s examination?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 14, 2005; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 2, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated November 1, 2005, from Ann Walther, an attorney representing the Police Officers&apos; Federation of Minneapolis (POFM). In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official, in response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 8, 2005, were to inform him of Ms. Walther&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 18, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Walther is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In May, 2005, the City of Minneapolis began civil service testing for the position of lieutenant. After the first phase of testing, several POFM members sought copies of their tests. By letter dated August 22, 2005, [Ms. Walther] requested of the Chief of Police that any employee who sat for the May 21, 2005, lieutenant&apos;s examination be provided with a copy of the test at his or her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther provided to the Commissioner a copy of the City&apos;s response, dated September 1, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;we are unable to comply with your request. The City of Minneapolis is unable to provide this information. Under [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34], the information requested is nonpublic. The responsible authority has determined that release of this information would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated October 6, 2005, one of the POFM members sent an email to the City regarding his previous September 27, 2005, request to review the lieutenant&apos;s test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded in an email dated October 14, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s position has not changed Under [section 13.34], the information is nonpublic. The responsible authority has determined that release of this information would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated October 18, 2005, Ms. Walther wrote to the City, is the City&apos;s position any different if the employees are seeking ACCESS to their examinations, rather than copies of their examination?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded, the City&apos;s position is not different either way.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request to review the test s/he took as part of the lieutenant&apos;s examination?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, individuals are entitled to gain access to data of which they are the subject. Generally, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.34 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data consisting solely of testing or examination materials, or scoring keys used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public service, or used to administer a licensing examination, or academic examination, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process are classified as nonpublic, except pursuant to court order. Completed versions of personnel, licensing, or academic examinations shall be accessible to the individual who completed the examination, unless the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. Notwithstanding section 13.04, the responsible authority shall not be required to provide copies of completed examinations or answer keys to any individual who has completed an examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to the completed lieutenant&apos;s tests, clearly [section 13.34] allows the individual POFM members to access (although not to copy) their examinations except if such access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. The City has relied upon this language to deny the individual POFM members access to their tests. Further, it is our position that the City is not entitled to claim that the integrity of the testing process would be compromised by access to the tests &lt;em&gt;now that the testing process has been completed&lt;/em&gt;. To find otherwise would render [section 13.34] superfluous because a governmental entity could always claim that access to the tests could compromise the testing process, thereby effectively ensuring an employee could never see his or her test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The position of Lieutenant is a supervisory position. The written portion of the test is in a multiple-choice format. It is a situational, judgment test that has been validated specifically for law enforcement purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Each test question consists of a brief description of a police management situation that a Lieutenant is likely to face.In other words, the candidates are required to identify what is the best initial action and what is the worst initial action for each situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because of the breadth and scope of the Lieutenant&apos;s examination, combined with its specialized application to law enforcement, the test itself is not easy to create, let alone replicate on a repeated basis. Moreover, the cost associated with the test&apos;s development is expensive. Recreating the test every time a Lieutenant&apos;s position becomes open creates an undue financial hardship for an employer in the public sector.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to the completed Lieutenant&apos;s test, [section 13.34] provides an exception to the general rule that completed versions of the examinations shall be accessible to the individual who completed the examination. A close review of the statute reveals that the City need not disclose the requested data where the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;POFM&apos;s final assertion is that since the testing process is now completed, the City is not entitled to claim that the integrity of the testing process would by compromised by access to the examination. Such a position, however, ignores the specific language of [Chapter 13] and necessitates a narrow interpretation of what constitutes the testing process. POFM is well aware that the examination process is ongoing. As the Department&apos;s ranks swell, so, too, does the number of Lieutenants. As such, the Department anticipates that additional testing will take place and desires to use some or all of the testing components at some time in the near future. Further, as noted above, the cost associated with the development of the Lieutenant&apos;s examination is expensive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Moreover, the individuals who seek access to the examination are the very same individuals who may apply for the new openings. Clearly, under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the responsible authority to determine that revealing the examination would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Section 13.34 essentially has two parts. The first part classifies data &lt;em&gt;solely consisting of testing or examination materials, or scoring keys used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public service&lt;/em&gt;. Any of these data that would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process are classified as nonpublic. In Chapter 13, a classification of nonpublic applies only to data that are not about an individual. Nonpublic data are not accessible to the public but are accessible to the subjects, if any. Thus, because Ms. Walther&apos;s clients are individuals, they cannot be the subjects of the testing or examination materials/scoring keys and the City is not required to provide them with any such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second part of section 13.34 discusses treatment of completed versions of examinations. An individual who has completed an examination can gain access to his/her completed exam unless the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, it is not clear whether Ms. Walther&apos;s client was asking to review the test questions or copies of his/her completed examination. Regardless, it appears the City responded appropriately. First, the test questions - themselves - are nonpublic data and not accessible to Ms. Walther&apos;s client(s). Second, Mr. Steiner makes valid arguments as to why allowing an individual who has taken the lieutenant&apos;s examination either to inspect or get a copy of his/her completed examination would compromise the objectivity/fairness/integrity of the testing process. Therefore, the City responded appropriately in denying Ms. Walther&apos;s clients access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. In her opinion request, Ms. Walther objected to the fact that while the City denied access to the data based on section 13.34, the City has never explained how access by the individuals to their tests would compromise the testing process. It does not appear Ms. Walther made a data request for data documenting how the City reached its determination that objectivity/fairness/integrity would be compromised if it allowed access to the completed examinations. If she had, and the City has created and maintains such data, the City would have been required to provide the data, as they would be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner stated that section 13.34 does not require the City to explain its reasoning. This is correct. However, it appears Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the official records act, does require creation and retention of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Walther raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request to review the test s/he took as part of the lieutenant&apos;s examination.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 14, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267337</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-039</Title><title>Opinion 05 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267636&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an August 11, 2005, request from the data subject for the following data: the complete record of the scoring for the B-PAD portion of the City&apos;s Fire Captain test?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 30, 2005; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Saint Paul. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, requested additional information and clarification, which IPAD received on October 13, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Shari Moore, Acting City Clerk, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 17, 2005, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 28, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gail Langfield, Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Fire Captain test] was a three part test with each portion of the test accounting for a third of your final score. Part one was a written test, part two was a fire simulator, part three was the B-PAD test. The B-PAD test is designed to assess interpersonal competencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After all three parts of the test were completed test candidates were allowed to review and contest both the written portion and the fire simulator portion of the test. Candidates were not allowed to review the B-PAD portion of the test. Scores did change after the review of the other parts of the test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(B-PAD is a private company. X did receive from the City a numerical score for the B-PAD portion of the Fire Captain test.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 11, 2005, X wrote to the City and to B-PAD and asked for the complete record of my testing results for the B-PAD portion of the test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded by sending X a copy of the letter it previously sent to X on January 15, 2004. The letter provides only the numerical score for the B-PAD portion of the test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;B-PAD apparently did not respond to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on X&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an August 11, 2005, request from the data subject for the following data: the complete record of the scoring for the B-PAD portion of the City&apos;s Fire Captain test?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, an individual is entitled to gain access to data of which s/he is the subject. Generally, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, X questioned why the City does not have data documenting the numerical results of the test score. X cited language in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, and wrote, I believe more information should have been generated. X further noted that it is difficult to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of the numerical test score if there are no data that document how the City or B-PAD arrived at the numerical score.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Langfield wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;on January 15, 2004 the [City&apos;s] Office of Human Resources provided [X] with [X&apos;s] results Information provided about the B-PAD portion of the test was in the form of a numerical score.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;B-PAD is a video test during which the candidates what [sic] a series of professionally produced simulations. Candidates taking the B-PAD are placed before a video monitor. At a particular point in each scene the word respond appears on the monitor and the candidate is then given 45 seconds to respond verbally. A video camera which is placed next to the monitor records the candidate&apos;s responses for later scoring by trained raters. These raters assign a score in the form of a number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For the Fire Captain&apos;s exam, the City contracted with B-PAD to score the test and provide the City with results. The videotaped responses of the candidates were sent to B-PAD, and the City received a numerical score for each candidate. This is the information which was then provided [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] alleges there must be more data available. However, the City has no additional information. The City does no [sic] have examination materials or scoring keys for this test. Scoring for this examination was done by the B-PAD company. Obviously, when rating the responses, B-PAD had criteria/scoring keys which it applied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that Ms. Langfield provided copies of two letters written by B-PAD staff. Prior to requesting this opinion, X was part of a group that filed a grievance and challenged group members&apos; test results. Both letters apparently are related to the grievance. The February 2004, letter is addressed to the City&apos;s Human Resources department. In part, it states, It is the policy of The B-PAD Group, Inc. not to share test information with candidates. All test materials are copyrighted. Your city has also signed a test security agreement precluding you from divulging any test material.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The November 2004, letter is addressed to the Saint Paul Civil Service Commission. In part, it states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The B-PAD Group, Inc. has data only in the form of numerical scores from the exam raters. We have never received individual performance evaluations or notes related to individuals&apos; performance ratings used by the scorers of the B-PAD test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Any data that we have has already been sent to the City of Saint Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the conclusion the Civil Service Commission reached in June 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The lack of individual performance evaluations and notes related to the individual&apos;s performance ratings used by the scorers of the B-PAD test defeats the ability of employees to challenge their test results under Civil Service Rule 6E and the scoring methods should be reviewed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The first relates to the contractual relationship between the City and B-PAD. In her comments, Ms. Langfield wrote that the City contracted with B-PAD to score the test and provide the City with the results. She also stated that the videotaped responses of the candidates were sent to B-PAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 provides that when a private person, such as B-PAD, contracts with a government entity, data related to the contract that are maintained by the private person may become subject to Chapter 13. Section 13.05, subdivision 11, states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13] and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003), the Court discussed a situation in which a contract between a private person and Steele County did not contain the language required by section 13.05, subdivision 11. The Court held that the District Court&apos;s decision to not infer the language was in error:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To accept WDSI&apos;s argument and the district court&apos;s reasoning would be to simply ignore the mandate of the statute. Although the mandate was not expressly reflected in the contract, it applies nevertheless, and neither contracting parties nor courts can simply ignore it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;em&gt;WDSI&lt;/em&gt;, p.622. Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the City did not provide the Commissioner with any contractual documents. X provided the Commissioner with a document entitled, &lt;em&gt;Limited Use Agreement&lt;/em&gt;, signed by the City and B-PAD. This document does not contain the term required by section 13.05, subdivision 11. In addition, some of the provisions appear to be in violation of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11, any data relating to the scoring of the results that B-PAD collected and created as part of its contractual agreement with the City are subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s second comment regards Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the Official Records Act. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Langfield asserts that the only data the City maintains in relation to the B-PAD portion of the captain&apos;s test is the numerical score, which the City has provided to X. However, pursuant to section 15.17, it appears the City should be maintaining data beyond the numerical score.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 15.17 requires entities both to create and to keep official records, which must be kept for time periods as prescribed in the entity&apos;s record retention schedule (see Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17). Subdivision 1 of section 15.17 states, All officers of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Thus, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be accessible pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, it appears that data documenting how the City reached the numerical score of the B-PAD portion of X&apos;s exam constitute an official record, which the City should maintain. The fact that the City contracted with B-PAD to score the test does not negate the City&apos;s obligations under Chapter 13 and section 15.17. Further, because B-PAD is under contract to the City and it seems the scoring data are subject to Chapter 13 requirements, it is not appropriate for B-PAD to refuse access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, because the Commissioner does not know for certain what data were collected and created related to the scoring of the test, she cannot determine the classification of those data. Generally, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.43, X would be entitled to inspect or obtain copies of data of which s/he is the subject. However, if some of the data are examination data (see section 13.34), it is possible that the City could restrict access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an August 11, 2005, request from the data subject for the following data: the complete record of the scoring for the B-PAD portion of the City&apos;s Fire Captain test. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the City should maintain additional data relating to the scoring of the test.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 30, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267636</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Obligation to maintain and preserve records</Title><Id>266373</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Test scores</Title><Id>266332</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-038</Title><title>Opinion 05 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267731&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a January 16, 2005, request for access to data?
Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 15, 2005, request for access to data?
Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a September 7, 2005, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 2005; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 10, 2005, IPAD received a letter from Vicki Pellar Price, on behalf of &lt;em&gt;Zero Expansion/talktrans&lt;/em&gt;. In Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s letter, she asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data that the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel for MAC, in response to Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 11, 2005, were to inform him of Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MAC&apos;s position. On October 20, 2005, IPAD received a response from Cameron Boyd, an attorney representing MAC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pellar Price related her efforts, in connection with &lt;em&gt;Zero Expansion/talktrans&lt;/em&gt;, to gain access to data related to a runway/hangar expansion and takeoff weight limitation changes at Flying Cloud Airport (FCM.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a January 16, 2005, e-mail request to Bridget Rief, Airside Project Manager for MAC, Ms. Pellar Price requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide all documents, data, correspondences, including all written correspondences, research, meeting minutes, memorandums of phone surveys, any materials upon which the FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement] is based as a Data Practices Request (as you requested in your last e-mail dated 1-7-2005), which would identify who the operators (names) are that would require such a [sic] expensive expansion at FCM? Have they all signed agreements to base out of FCM? Show why other facilities, other relievers and MSP, are unable to handle these additional operators.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail dated January 28, 2005, Ms. Rief responded, [r]eceipt of message acknowledged. MAC is working on a response. Ms. Pellar Price e-mailed Ms. Rief on June 12, 2005, and stated that she still had not received a response. On June 14, 2005, Ms. Rief replied:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Metropolitan Airports Commission has received your latest e-mail and letter regarding the proposed expansion at the Flying Cloud Airport. MAC continues to prepare the Final EIS document, which will include responses to comments made during the last public comment period. The questions you have posed since then will be answered in the Final EIS document within those responses to comments. Prior to that, the information is not considered public information. At the time the final document is released, you will receive a response to these questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While no specific date for completion is set, it is anticipated that the final EIS will be submitted to the FAA yet this year in 2005, possibly as early as the month of August.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a June 15, 2005, e-mail to Ms. Rief, Ms. Pellar Price repeated her January 16, 2005, request, and in addition requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide all documents, data, correspondences, including all written correspondences, research, meeting minutes, memorandums of phone surveys, any materials that will provide clear evidence that MAC will be able to uphold the 60,000 lb. pavement base weight limitation they committed to in the Final Agreement with the city of Eden Prairie.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rief responded, in an e-mail dated July 1, 2005, regarding Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s January request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The FEIS does not base the purpose and need for the project on specific operators who need the expansion. The purpose and need for the project is defined in Section II of the FEIS. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC is interpreting the remaining portions of your First Request as questions, and to the extent they were asked in the public comment period, they will be addressed in the Final EIS and Record of Decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s June 15, 2005, request for data about weight limitations, Ms. Rief wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The attached letter [dated June 10, 2005, to Scott H. Neal, City Manager for the City of Eden Prairie] indicating MAC&apos;s intent regarding the Final Agreement with Eden Prairie was sent to the City earlier this month. Please note that &apos;clear evidence&apos; is not producible by MAC. The FAA&apos;s position regarding the weight based restriction will be addressed in the Final EIS and Record of Decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail dated July 12, 2005, Laura L. Neuman, a &lt;em&gt;Zero Expansion/talktrans&lt;/em&gt; associate of Ms. Pellar Price, wrote to Ms. Rief and reiterated Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s requests. Ms. Rief replied in a July 15, 2005, e-mail: MAC has received your letter dated July 12, 2005 and is currently preparing a response. We hope to send it out by the end of next week.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, Ms. Pellar Price and Ms. Neuman contacted IPAD staff. Throughout August, Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, Director of IPAD, had multiple contacts with Mr. Boyd in an effort to assist MAC in responding to Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a September 7, 2005, e-mail, Ms. Pellar Price submitted a clarifying request to MAC in which she requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Survey questions and all responses to the April 1997 survey of FCM Fixed Base Operators conducted by/or for MAC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. All data related to contact between Larry Dallam or other MAC employees/contractors in January 2004 with Elliott Aviation, Executive Aviation and any other aviation provider on their use of Flying Cloud Airport.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. All data documenting verbal, e-mail or written contact on the issue of operator needs at Flying Cloud Airport that has been conducted by MAC with operators since 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4.All data related to Ordinance 97 of December 17, 2002 and the issue of changing the takeoff weight limit from 20,000 lbs to less than 60,000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5.Draft copies and all data related to the drafting of the FEIS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;6.Emails, correspondence, public comments submitted, on Flying Cloud expansion and alteration of the 60,000 takeoff weight limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;7.All data that has been created, gathered or maintained in relation to preparation of the FEIS for Flying Cloud Airport.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boyd responded in a letter dated September 21, 2005, in which he asked Ms. Pellar Price for clarification of some of the data, and otherwise stated that MAC was currently working to assemble this data and that, for various reasons, it may take some time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a January 16, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 15, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a September 7, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a January 16, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Subdivision 1 of section 13.03 provides that government entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As earlier opinions have advised, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide prompt access to the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her June response to Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s January request, Ms. Rief stated that Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s questions will be answered in the Final EIS document within those responses to comments. Prior to that, the information is not considered public information. At the time the final document is released, you will receive a response to these questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Boyd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC interpreted this [January 16, 2005] request to seek only materials upon which the FEIS is based. Within that universe of documents, Ms. Pellar Price requested documents that would identify which operators at Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) would &apos;require such an expensive expansion.&apos; MAC is not able to determine which operators would &apos;require&apos; a specific plan, much less for which operators a less expensive expansion would not suffice. MAC has not collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated any documents that indicate which, if any, operators would require such an expensive expansion. Furthermore, any request that would force MAC to make guesses as to such determinations, and then provide a list thereof, is not a valid request under the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Additionally, the second sentence of the request is not a proper request under the Act because it does not identify any documents to be produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boyd made substantially similar comments in a letter to Ms. Neuman dated October 6, 2005. Thus, MAC did not state clearly that it did not have data responsive to part of Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s January 16, 2005 request, and that it did not consider another part of her request to be valid under Chapter 13 until October, 2005. MAC ought to have so informed Ms. Pellar Price promptly, upon receipt of her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, MAC&apos;s position that it has no data that are responsive to Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s is puzzling, given that in other public documents, MAC has described responses it received to surveys and described conducting additional telephone surveys in relation to this issue. Under section 15.17, subdivision 1, government entities have a duty to create records documenting their official activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, MAC denied Ms. Pellar Price access to a draft version of the EIS. Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267671&quot; title=&quot;02-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-026&lt;/a&gt; advises that draft versions of public data are public; Ms. Pellar Price raised that issue with MAC in July 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 15, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner Mr. Boyd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC believes this is not a proper request under the Act. By phrasing the request in the manner she chose, Ms. Pellar Price has demanded that MAC provide a characterization of any produced data as clear evidence that MAC will be able to uphold the 60,000 lb. weight limitation. This determination would involve subjective interpretation and is therefore inappropriate and, furthermore, not within the scope of the Act. Aside from the practical difficulties in ascertaining which documents might be responsive to this subjective request, there are also policy reasons why it should be held invalid. While it is beyond dispute that the Act exists, in part, to allow citizens to acquire evidence against government action, the Act should not be used as a tool to force government entities to simultaneously provide characterizations of the strength of such evidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Contrary to Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s subsequent assertions, this request does not ask MAC to produce all documentation related to this restriction. However, her subsequent assertions serve to exemplify Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s imprecision and confusion about what she has requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boyd made substantially similar comments in his October 6, 2005, letter to Ms. Neuman. The analysis of MAC&apos;s responses related to Issue 1 also applies to this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. Ms. Pellar Price phrased her requests in a manner that allows them to be challenged, as Mr. Boyd did, as technically outside the scope of Chapter 13. However, from the record available to the Commissioner, it appears that MAC did not so inform Ms. Pellar Price until October 6, 2005 (in a letter to Ms. Neuman), after numerous contacts over many months. MAC reasonably could have worked with Ms. Pellar Price to clarify and identify the data she sought. MAC is unreasonable in asserting that the entire problem is the result of her phrasing, imprecision and confusion. MAC&apos;s Responsible Authority or Data Practices Compliance Official should have taken steps to resolve this conflict early in the process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did MAC comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a September 7, 2005, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Boyd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Based on conversations with the Department of Administration and Ms. Pellar Price&apos;s apparent confusion over earlier requests, MAC decided to follow-up with Ms. Pellar Price to ensure that MAC accurately understood each of the requests, and to maximize efficiency. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC is currently working to gather the hundreds, if not thousands, of documents Ms. Pellar Price has requested. This process has been delayed somewhat due to plaintiffs&apos; discovery requests in the class action Wiencke et. al v. Metropolitan Airports Comm&apos;n, Court File No. 05-012976, before Judge Aldrich of the Minnesota State District Court, Hennepin County. I would be happy to provide a copy of the document requests from that action, if you wish. The document requests have required hundreds of hours of MAC employee time, and many of those employees are the same ones who must gather the documents for Ms. Pellar Price. Also adding to MAC&apos;s response time is the fact that, Mark Ryan, the former Airport Planner, who kept many of the documents Ms. Pellar Price seeks, passed away and another employee must search through his materials for responsive documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In short, MAC has acted, and continues to act, in a reasonably timely manner with respect to this data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of October 10, 2005, MAC had not yet provided Ms. Pellar Price with any of the data she requested. Instead, in response to her September 7, 2005, request, MAC sought further clarification of some of the data she requested, and otherwise informed her that MAC was working to fulfill her request and would provide her with access as soon as possible. That approach does not meet the statutory mandate for a prompt response. MAC has been on notice since January 2005 that Ms. Pellar Price was seeking data. If MAC has not yet provided Ms. Pellar Price with access to all data responsive to her request then MAC should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner reminds her readers that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, subdivision 1, [a]ll officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, [a]ccess to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, section 13.03 obligates government entities to keep records in such an arrangement so they are easily accessible for convenient use. To comply with this provision and to respond to data practices requests, entities need to have a general knowledge of what types of data they maintain and where those data are located. The Commissioner encourages MAC to work to correct related issues so MAC is able to respond appropriately to future data practices requests. As a final note, the Commissioner also encourages both data requestors and government entities to work cooperatively in cases like this.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Pellar Price raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MAC did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a January 16, 2005, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MAC did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a June 15, 2005, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MAC did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with regard to a September 7, 2005, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 29, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267731</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Draft documents</Title><Id>266609</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-037</Title><title>Opinion 05 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267291&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-18T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry maintains: the identity of an individual who complained about a Department employee?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 2005; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 3, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 29, 2005, from Cynthia Valentine, Acting Director of Human Resources for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. In her letter, Ms. Valentine asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Department maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 4, 2005, IPAD received a letter from an attorney representing X. In the letter, X&apos;s attorney asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data the Department maintains. (The data X seeks are the same data about which the Department asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, accepted the Department&apos;s opinion request and invited X&apos;s attorney to submit comments in addition to those the attorney sent on October 4, 2005. IPAD received additional comments on October 20, 2005. IPAD also invited the individual who made a complaint about X to submit comments. IPAD received comments from the complainant on October 19, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by the Department is as follows. Ms. Valentine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Earlier this year, a complainant contacted the [Department] to [make a complaint about a Department employee].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Department] initiated an investigation into this report. no disciplinary action was taken. In response to [X&apos;s] request for a copy of the investigation report, the [Department] gave [X] a summary report which did not disclose the identity of the complainant. [X] now has requested the [Department] to [sic] identify the name of the complainant&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Valentine wrote that the complainant alleged X was using his/her State position to intimidate and threaten the complainant and others to obtain a favorable outcome in a personal matter. Ms. Valentine wrote, If true, these allegations would constitute a conflict of interest in violation of Minn. Stat. section 43A.38 [code of ethics for employees in the executive branch].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Valentine provided copies of various pieces of correspondence between the Department and X&apos;s attorney. In a letter dated August 3, 2005, the Department wrote to X&apos;s attorney denying access to the complainant&apos;s identity based on Minnesota Statutes, section 181.932, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Valentine&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry maintains: the identity of an individual who complained about a Department employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Department has denied X access to the complainant&apos;s identity based on Minnesota Statutes, section 181.932. Of relevance, section 181.932, subdivision 1, clause (a) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee&apos;s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2, in relevant part, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The identity of any employee making a report to a governmental body or law enforcement official under subdivision 1, clause (a) or (d), is private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3 states, This section does not permit an employee to make statements or disclosures knowing that they are false or that they are in reckless disregard of the truth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Valentine stated, Here, the complainant made a report of the violation of the state conflict of interest statute to the [Department], which is a governmental body. The complainant&apos;s identity therefore is private data and the [Department] is precluded from disclosing the complainant&apos;s identity to the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Valentine also refuted several arguments X&apos;s attorney made in an August 12, 2005, letter:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s attorney] argues that since pursuant to subdivision 3 [of section 181.932], an individual is not permitted knowingly to make false statements, and since, [X&apos;s attorney] alleges, the complainant&apos;s report was false, the complainant therefore should not enjoy the protections of confidentiality. While this argument may be an effective defense against a Whistleblower lawsuit, it does not destroy the classification of this data in the hands of the [Department] as private under [Chapter 13]. The [Department] has no evidence that complainant&apos;s report was knowingly false or in reckless disregard of the truth [sic] the [Department&apos;s] obligation is to maintain its private classification under [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s attorney] also argues that the classification of the identity of the complainant as private data violates the Minnesota Constitution, Article 1, section 8, which entitles every person to a remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs. [X] claims that because [X] is prevented from confronting [his/her] accuser, [X] is deprived of a remedy for the complainant&apos;s alleged defamation. Minn. Stat. section 181.932, subd. 2 does not violate this constitutional provision. [Chapter 13] sets forth a procedure to be followed for discovery of not public data in Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 6. [X] may discover the information [X] seeks through court order if [X] meets the requirements of Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s attorney] argues additionally that Minn. Stat. section 181.932, subd. 2 does not apply since the Whistleblower statute prohibits actions of employers, and [X] is not an employer. According to the plain language of the statute, the Whistleblower Act does not limit its definition of report to reports of violations of law committed by employers. The Act protects the identity of individuals who report violations of law to a governmental body, without regard to whether the violator is an employer or another individual. The complainant in this case made a report of the violation of law to a governmental body. As such, as the recipient of that report, the [Department] must treat the complainant&apos;s identity as private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Valentine&apos;s analysis. The complainant complained to the Department alleging X was using his/her State position to intimidate and threaten the complainant and others to obtain a favorable outcome in a personal matter - a violation of a state law. Pursuant to section 181.932, the identity of an individual making such a complaint is private and not accessible to X. If X wants access, s/he should bring an action under section 13.03, subdivision 6, or section 13.08.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Valentine raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 181.932, the following data that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry maintains are private: the identity of an individual who complained about a Department employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 18, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267291</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Whistleblowers (181.932)</Title><Id>266709</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-036</Title><title>Opinion 05 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267841&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for contact information about city council candidates?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 2005; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, was further amended in 2008, after this opinion was issued. In the event that there is a conflict between the conclusion in the opinion and the statute, the later enacted statutory language governs.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 11, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated October 6, 2005, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Northeaster&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 17, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 27, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A &lt;em&gt;Northeaster&lt;/em&gt; reporter recently called the Minneapolis elections office to obtain contact information for city council candidates. However, she was informed that state law limited the disclosure of some this information, including the candidates&apos; addresses. This struck my client as peculiar, because in the past contact information for council candidates (specifically including addresses and phone numbers) had always been public. Futhermore, this type of information - especially the street address - is important because candidates are of course required to live in the ward they propose to represent, verification of which requires access to their addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Assistant City Attorney Jim Moore] explained that in the city&apos;s view, a 2005 amendment [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3] restricted the disclosure of contact information, including the addresses of candidates. The city attorney&apos;s office interpreted the new statute to mean that only the information about candidates specifically described in subdivision 3 is public; all other information is private. Indeed, Mr. Moore told my client that the city elections office was no longer collecting addresses from candidates when they filed for office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for contact information about city council candidates?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner provides the following information. The 2005 Legislature enacted changes to provisions relating to data on individuals who are members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions. Prior to August 1, 2005, certain data about these individuals were classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data. The effect of the changes enacted in the 2005 Session is that data about members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions are classified by section 13.601 (data on elected and appointed officials), rather than section 13.43. The Legislature created a new subdivision, subdivision 3, under section 13.601, which became effective August 1, 2005. It states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following data on all applicants for election or appointment to a public body, including those subject to chapter 13D, are public: name, city of residence, education and training, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors, and prior government service or experience.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Moore cited section 13.601, subdivision 3, and wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notably, the candidate&apos;s or appointee&apos;s address is omitted from this list of public items in the statute. In responding to media requests, the City followed the plain language of the new statute, enacted in the 2005 legislative session. Indeed, in light of the new language, the City discontinued collection of address information from candidates for election. Unless candidates provided the City with the required Statement of Economic Interest form, the City itself obtained information from the State Voter Registration System if the City needed to contact the candidate. The City is, of course, required to both collect and disclose address information on the state-mandated Statement of Economic Interest, but stopped disclosing address information once it was determined that the address was not public regardless of how and where it was collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Given the new statutory language, the logical presumption is that the legislature intended to delineate &lt;em&gt;only those specific terms&lt;/em&gt; relating to candidates for elected office and appointed boards as public. As such, the City would appreciate guidance as to how to interpret this new statutory provision. It is clear, given that other municipalities have responded differently, that reasonable minds can come to differing conclusions as to whether addresses of candidates are to be considered public or private [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We believe that the interpretation apparently adopted by Minneapolis is contrary to both the express terms of the new statute and the intention of the Legislature in adopting it. Under [Chapter 13], of course, it is well established that all government data are presumptively public unless expressly classified otherwise. Correspondingly, where Chapter 13 itemizes data in a particular category that must be publicly disclosed, the itemization does not automatically mean that the Legislature intended all other information in the category to be not public data, unless that intention is expressly stated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s analysis. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.601, subdivision 3, provides that certain data are public - essentially, restating the general presumption. This does not mean that all other data on applicants for election or appointment to a public body are not public. Given the operation of Chapter 13, if the Legislature intended for all other data on applicants for election/appointment to be not public, the Legislature needed to enact a provision so stating.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because there is no provision classifying contact information about city council candidates as private, they are public. If Minneapolis maintains the contact information, it is required to provide those data to the &lt;em&gt;Northeaster&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Assuming the City of Minneapolis maintains the requested contact information about city council candidates, the City did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and promptly should provide the data to the Northeaster.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 18, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267841</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials (13.601)</Title><Id>266769</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Advisory boards or commissions (13.601)</Title><Id>266628</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Advisory board or commission</Title><Id>266770</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-035</Title><title>Opinion 05 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267371&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: a written report provided to a school district by a consultant?
Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: responses by an applicant to questionnaires and assessment instruments analyzing the strengths and weaknesses for an applicant for a position of employment used by the consultant to reach his/her conclusions and make his/her recommendations?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 17, 2005; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 15, 2005, from Paul Ratwik and Jennifer Wolf, attorneys representing Independent School District 273, Edina. In their letter, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their opinion request, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District requests an opinion on an issue that has arisen in connection with its search for a new superintendent. As part of its search for qualified applicants for employment, the District currently requires finalists for selected District vacancies, including the superintendent position, to undergo an assessment conducted by a private consulting firm. The assessment process is one tool used by the District to assess a candidate&apos;s compatibility with the District&apos;s needs and to predict whether a candidate will be successful in the relevant position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The consultant&apos;s assessments are grounded in organizational psychology and the science of measuring and assessing an applicant&apos;s personality and skills. The consultant uses a highly skilled but subjective method to assess a candidate&apos;s strength [sic] and weaknesses. The consultant does not rank the candidates or compare and contrast the candidate&apos;s [sic] against one another. Rather, the consultant conveys to the District its conclusions and recommendations about an applicant&apos;s strengths and weaknesses relating to the vacant position;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Following the analysis of information, the consultant provides a verbal report to the District of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the candidate&apos;s professional capabilities in the context of the requirements of the vacant position. A written report also is provided to the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District treats the reports it received from the consultant as private data and has classified the reports as such in the past. However, the District is concerned that an argument could be made that the reports, either in whole or part, could be construed to constitute a relevant test score under Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 3 and, therefore, perhaps constitute public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: a written report provided to a school district by a consultant?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: responses by an applicant to questionnaires and assessment instruments analyzing the strengths and weaknesses for an applicant for a position of employment used by the consultant to reach his/her conclusions and make his/her recommendations?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: a written report provided to a school district by a consultant?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about individuals who are employees of a government entity or who apply for employment with government entities are classified pursuant to section 13.43. For purposes of this opinion, the following data about all applicants are public: veteran status, relevant test scores, rank on eligible list; job history; education and training, and work availability. An applicant&apos;s name is not public until s/he becomes a finalist. (See section 13.43, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf wrote,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the reports do not constitute test scores as the term is commonly used.Typically when a term such as test score is used, it is to describe a numerical score generated thru the application of one of a battery of tests to obtain an objective result that will permit a comparison of one individual&apos;s achievements against another individuals [sic].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the assessment reports do not yield an objective score. They are not used to provide a ranking of the applicants or compare one applicant&apos;s skills to another. Rather, the reports provide the District with a trained consultant&apos;s subjective interpretation of an applicant&apos;s perceived strengths and weaknesses in relation to a specific position with the District. Unlike an objective exam, there is no right or wrong answer during the assessments. Rather, these assessments are an additional tool used by the District to determine whether a candidate&apos;s professional style matches and/or is compatible with that of the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As there is no definition in Chapter 13 of &lt;em&gt;relevant test score&lt;/em&gt;, a reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the term is as follows: a quantifiable, objective, as opposed to subjective, score from an evaluation/test that is a requirement of the job for which an individual has applied. Given this definition, it does not seem that the results of an applicant&apos;s IQ test, Meyers-Briggs test, or other psychological/personality tests would be public data. The Commissioner believes this position is buttressed by the fact that if an employee of a government entity took an IQ or personality test, the results of the test would not be public under section 13.43. In other words, the Legislature&apos;s pattern has been to classify data of such a highly sensitive nature as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue here is whether a written report comprising the consultant&apos;s conclusions and recommendations contains public data, specifically relevant test score data. Given Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf&apos;s description of the report, it seems unlikely that the written report contains relevant test score data. Therefore, the data in the report are private personnel data pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the following data classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3: responses by an applicant to questionnaires and assessment instruments analyzing the strengths and weaknesses for an applicant for a position of employment used by the consultant to reach his/her conclusions and make his/her recommendations?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First, finalists respond to various assessment questionnaires. These questionnaires are designed to obtain information regarding the applicant&apos;s personality, professional background and capabilities and management style. For example, one of the questionnaires is a personality inventory. Another questionnaire requests detailed information about a candidate&apos;s prior professional experience.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The candidates also participate in simulated exercises presenting real-life scenarios that the candidate may face if hired. The exercises consist of both written and interactive scenarios.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, the candidates may also take standardized tests which assess their intellectual capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in Issue 1, an applicant&apos;s response is public if it is a quantifiable, objective, as opposed to subjective, score from an evaluation/test that is a requirement of the job for which the individual has applied. Also as discussed in Issue 1, the Commissioner does not believe that results from psychological/personality tests constitute relevant test scores.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the questionnaires/assessment instruments/standardized tests; therefore, she can provide only limited guidance. If the scores are quantifiable and objective, and are a requirement of the applied-for job, the scores are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Wolf raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;It seems unlikely that a written report provided to a school district by a consultant would contain public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The following data are classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, if they constitute a quantifiable, objective, as opposed to subjective, score from an evaluation/test that is a requirement of the job for which an individual has applied: responses by an applicant to questionnaires and assessment instruments analyzing the strengths and weaknesses for an applicant for a position of employment used by the consultant to reach his/her conclusions and make his/her recommendations.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 17, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267371</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for employment</Title><Id>266522</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Candidates for employment</Title><Id>360796</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-034</Title><title>Opinion 05 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267459&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-11-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Lake Superior Center comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 16, 2005, request for government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 9, 2005; Lake Superior Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 22, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 20, 2005, from Peter Rebhahn of the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Rebhahn asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that Lake Superior Center, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, maintains. The Center contracts with the Lake Superior Center Authority to operate the Great Lakes Aquarium. The Authority is a government entity subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patrick Schoff, Center chair, in response to Mr. Rebhahn&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 23, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Rebhahn&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Center&apos;s position. On October 13, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Harold Frederick, an attorney representing the Center.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD also invited Elaine Hansen, Chair of the Authority to submit comments. On October 14, 2005, IPAD received comments dated October 13, 2005, from Mark Pilon, an attorney representing the Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Rebhahn provided them is as follows. In a letter dated July 15, 2005, Mr. Rebhahn wrote to Ms. Hansen and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;asked for the following data relating to the Office of the State Auditor&apos;s report on the Center and the Authority for years 2003 and 2004:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The names and addresses of all creditors subsumed under the Liabilities heading&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The amount each of the above creditors is owed by either the [Center] or the [Authority]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The repayment terms for all the debts owed the above creditors&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The product or service each creditor provided to either the [Center] or the [Authority].&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
In a letter dated August 15, 2005, Mr. Pilon responded:
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As these inquiries relate to the [Authority] and its records, they have been answered previously. The Authority&apos;s financial statements and audit report notes have been provided and described to you by Ms. Hansen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While postured as a [Chapter 13] request, your inquiry clearly encompasses information relating to the [Center]. The [Center], a separate entity, can respond only on its own behalf, and your requests as they relate to the [Center] must be taken up separately with that entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 16, 2005, Mr. Rebhahn wrote to Mr. Schoff, Center chair, and asked for the same data he requested of the Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To his opinion request, Mr. Rebhahn attached a copy of the Management Agreement between the Center and the Authority, dated November 8, 1998. Mr. Rebhahn also attached a copy of the Great Lakes Aquarium Amended and Restated Operating Revenue Participation Agreement, adopted on March 15, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Rebhahn&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Lake Superior Center comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 16, 2005, request for government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, it should be noted that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267521&quot; title=&quot;01-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-044&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the Center was not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The Commissioner reached this conclusion for two reasons. One was that none of the provisions in Chapter 13 that subject non-government entities to Chapter 13 applied. The second was that the November 1998 Management Agreement (1998 Management Agreement) did not contain any language specifically subjecting the Center or any of its data to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner now is revisiting the issue because of information Mr. Rebhahn provided regarding a subsequent contract that the Center and the Authority entered into, the Great Lakes Aquarium Amended and Restated Operating Revenue Participation Agreement, adopted on March 15, 2004 (2004 Agreement).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates data collected, created, and maintained by government entities. Section 13.02, subdivision 7a, defines government entity as a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Center is a not a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. However, Chapter 13 provides that when a private person, such as the Center, contracts with a government entity, data related to the contract that are maintained by the private person may become subject to Chapter 13. Section 13.05, subdivision 11, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 11, became effective on August 1, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Pilon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It has been suggested that [the 2004 Agreement] has supplemented or taken the place of the [1998 Management Agreement], and that [section 13.05, subdivision 11], passed after the [1998 Management Agreement] was signed, therefore brings the Center within the scope of [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the [2004 Agreement] does not supplant the [1998 Management Agreement]. Instead, it merely amends and restates an entirely separate document, an original Operating and Revenue Participation Agreement signed in December of 1998 [1998 Operating and Revenue Agreement].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Frederick&apos;s comments echo those of Mr. Pilon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s analysis is as follows. The 1998 Management Agreement between the Center and the Authority provides that the Center will manage the Great Lakes Aquarium. The terms of this agreement extend to December 31, 2003. Article IV, Section 4.03, &lt;em&gt;Obligation of Center to the City and DEDA&lt;/em&gt; [Duluth Economic Development Authority] provides that both the Center and the Authority agree to be subject to and comply with the provisions of the Duluth agreements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Article I, Section 1.01, &lt;em&gt;Definitions&lt;/em&gt;, the Duluth agreements are defined as the one or more contracts which may be entered into by and among one or more of the Authority, the Center, DEDA and the City, or any combination of the foregoing, pursuant to which financial assistance is provided to the Project. The Project is defined as the Land, the Building and the Improvements [of the Great Lakes Aquarium].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the 2004 Agreement may not supplant the 1998 Management Agreement, it appears to be a Duluth agreement that, at the very least, modifies the 1998 Management Agreement, as well as the 1998 Operating and Revenue Agreement. For example, Number 3 of the 2004 Agreement discusses the relationship of the Center and the Authority:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is understood between the parties hereto that while it is the intent of [the Center] and Authority that Authority will be primarily responsible for the construction of the Project and [the Center] will be primarily responsible for the operation of the Project, in the event that for any reason [the Center] or the Authority cease to exist, cease to have an interest in the Project or become, for any reason, disabled from being or not involved in the construction or operation of the Project or both, the other of [the Center] or Authority remaining involved shall be obligated to perform all of the obligations of both of said parties under this Agreement. It is contemplated that [the Center] may, with the consent of the Authority, and the written consent of the Mayor of the City of Duluth, enter into a management or operating agreement with a third party organization to manage the Project, subject to the terms hereof and those imposed by or agreed to with the State of Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Number 12 of the 2004 Agreement discusses the Center&apos;s operating covenant. The provision discusses various items related to operating and maintaining the aquarium building: maintenance, utilities, licenses and permits, payment of taxes, assessment fees and charges, obligations and claims, charitable purposes, revenue generation, and exclusive operation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By describing the relationship between the Center and the Authority, and how the Center will operate the Aquarium on behalf of all who are involved, it appears that the 2004 Agreement modifies the 1998 Management Agreement. Therefore, the 2004 Agreement should contain the language required in section 13.05, subdivision 11. The contract does not contain any such language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003), the Court discussed a situation in which a contract between a private person and Steele County did not contain the language required in section 13.05, subdivision 11. The Court held that the District Court&apos;s decision to not infer the language was in error:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To accept WDSI&apos;s argument and the district court&apos;s reasoning would be to simply ignore the mandate of the statute. Although the mandate was not expressly reflected in the contract, it applies nevertheless, and neither contracting parties nor courts can simply ignore it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;em&gt;WDSI&lt;/em&gt;, p.622. Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because section 13.05, subdivision 11, now applies to data the Center collects, creates, and maintains related to its contract with the Authority, the Center is required to respond to Mr. Rebhahn&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Rebhahn raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;By virtue of the 2004 Agreement, certain data the Center collects, creates, and maintains are subject to Chapter 13. Although provisions to that effect should have been included in the Agreement, their absence does not negate the Center&apos;s obligations under Chapter 13. Thus, the Center&apos;s data that relate to the contract are public unless classified otherwise.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 9, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267459</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Lake Superior Center</Title><Id>266642</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clause to be inferred</Title><Id>266665</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-033</Title><title>Opinion 05 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267558&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-10-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) commissions another person or entity to perform a research study, and MPAAT thereafter receives and makes a public report from that person or entity which presents the results of the research study, what is the status under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, of the underlying raw data collected by the researchers in the course of conducting the study?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 27, 2005; Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 21, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 19, 2005, from Laurie Miller, an attorney representing the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT). In her letter, Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that MPAAT maintains. IPAD required additional information, which Ms. Miller provided on September 26 and 28.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I represent [MPAAT], an independent, non-profit organization that seeks to improve the health of Minnesotans by reducing the harm caused by tobacco. MPAAT was created and funded by three percent of the settlement of the State of Minnesota&apos;s litigation against tobacco companies. MPAAT has asked me to request an advisory opinion of the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While MPAAT is not a state agency, the Ramsey County District Court, which administers the settlement of the State&apos;s tobacco litigation, issued an Order on December 30, 2002 that makes applicable to MPAAT the provisions of the Data Practices Act. The basis of the Order was the Court&apos;s finding that MPAAT would benefit from the additional public accountability imposed by the Data Practices Act - not that MPAAT was a state agency or other entity subject to state data practices requirements. While the Court&apos;s Order does not address all aspects of MPAAT&apos;s relationship to the Data Practices Act, MPAAT&apos;s working assumption is that to the extent possible, MPAAT must conduct itself as though it were fully subject to the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MPAAT enters into contracts with a variety of other organizations to conduct specific research projects. When each research project is completed, the researcher provides a report to MPAAT, presenting the research results. MPAAT typically publicizes the results of the research projects it commissions through a variety of means MPAAT does not, however, typically release to the public all of the raw data underlying each research project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question posed by this letter arises when, after release of a research study report, MPAAT receives a request under [Chapter 13] for production of raw data underlying the report. While the report itself may clearly be public data, can the underlying raw data, which is not typically released, have a more protected status?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As an example, MPAAT recently commissioned a research project to study the effects of the smoking bans enacted this year in both Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The Minnesota Institute for Public Health and the Center for Energy and the Environment conducted the study with funding from MPAAT. The study consisted of measuring the air quality at 25 bars and restaurants in Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota counties, both before and after the enactment of the smoking bans, to learn what impact the bans had on air quality. The research results were presented in a report, which MPAAT released to the public. The report did not disclose the names of the 25 bars and restaurants where the air quality monitoring was conducted. After the report was made public, however, MPAAT received a [Chapter 13] request for the raw data underlying the report, including the identification of the 25 bars and restaurants that were studied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The underlying raw research data, including the names of the 25 establishments, to the extent it was not included in the final study report, is an example of the kind of raw research for which MPAAT seeks the Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Miller&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) commissions another person or entity to perform a research study, and MPAAT thereafter receives and makes a public report from that person or entity which presents the results of the research study, what is the status under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, of the underlying raw data collected by the researchers in the course of conducting the study?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, it must be determined whether MPAAT is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Chapter 13 regulates data collected by government entities. Section 13.02, subdivision 7a, defines government entity as a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MPAAT is not a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system. However, based on an order of the Ramsey County District Court, MPAAT apparently is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. In the December 30, 2002, Order, the Court held, The Star Tribune&apos;s motion to subject MPAAT to and require its compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. section13D.01 et seq. and [Chapter 13], Minn. Stat. section 13.01 et seq. is GRANTED.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is not necessary to determine whether or not [Chapter 13D] and [Chapter 13] apply to MPAAT&apos;s operations because of the single funding source, i.e., the tobacco settlement funds channeled to MPAAT by the legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is sufficient to say that the court&apos;s continuing jurisdiction allows the court the discretion to make applicable the requirements of [Chapter 13D] and [Chapter 13] simply because MPAAT&apos;s compliance with the requirements of each of those chapters will benefit the primary ends for which MPAAT was created.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;em&gt;State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al&lt;/em&gt;, Court File No. C1-94-8565 (Second Judicial District Ramsey County State of Minnesota).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, by virtue of this court order, data MPAAT collects, creates, and maintains are subject to Chapter 13. In addition, the Commissioner assumes data collected, created, and maintained by MPAAT&apos;s contractors also are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to discuss the classification of underlying raw data researchers collect as they conduct various studies on behalf of MPAAT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Generally, there is no provision in Chapter 13 that specifically classifies raw or underlying research data as anything other than public. Without knowing precisely the types of data MPAAT researchers collect, the Commissioner can respond only in terms of generalities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If there is no provision in Chapter 13, another Minnesota statute, or federal law, that classifies the research data in question as private, nonpublic, confidential, or protected nonpublic, MPAAT must release the data upon request. If, however, certain provisions of law classify the data as not public, MPAAT cannot release them. In analyzing the classification of the research data, MPAAT must keep in mind that Chapter 13 classifies individual data elements, as opposed to documents. Thus, it is possible for a single document to contain data of differing classifications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that Ms. Miller stated that MPAAT and its researchers maintain the names of the 25 bars and restaurants studied as part of a recent research project. The Commissioner is not aware of any provision in Chapter 13 that classifies those data as anything other than public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Miller raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) commissions another person or entity to perform a research study, and MPAAT thereafter receives and makes a public report from that person or entity which presents the results of the research study, the underlying raw data, whether in MPAAT&apos;s possession or that of its contractors, are public unless the data are classified by law as not public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 27, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267558</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court - discretion to subject non-government entity to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266727</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Research/raw data</Title><Id>266728</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-032</Title><title>Opinion 05 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267722&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-10-25T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Grand Marais complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a September 1, 2005, request for data relating to a conservation easement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 25, 2005; City of Grand Marais</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 24, 2005, from Molly Hoffman, on behalf of Harbor Friends, a non-profit organization. In her letter, Ms. Hoffman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the organization&apos;s right to gain access to certain data that the City of Grand Marais maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Roth, City Clerk, in response to Ms. Hoffman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 26, 2005, were to inform him of Ms. Hoffman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 7, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated October 4, 2005, from Mr. Roth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Hoffman is as follows. To her opinion request, Ms. Hoffman attached a copy of a data request John Haluska made on behalf of Harbor Friends. Of relevance to this opinion, Mr. Haluska asked for the following data on September 1, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the course of entering into the conservation easement relating to the area surrounding the harbor in Grand Marais, notes, documents, photos, maps, files, document logs, phone logs, and other materials were produced relevant to the matter of the easement and negotiations with the Minnesota Land Trust.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide a list of all such materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Included with these documents reportedly was a spiral notebook. It is reported to have been recently in the possession of the city administration staff. Please provide a copy of this notebook.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Hoffman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The city did not provide a written response. The City Administrator Mike Roth told Mr. Haluska that the supporting documentation for the Conservation Easement did not exist in city files and that there was no spiral notebook, that it was a 3-ring binder and that it wasn&apos;t in the city files either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Contacts with past and present city officials confirm that the Conservation Easement materials we had requested are in city files. Last week City Attorney Donald Davidson confirmed that the 3-ring binder and additional documents are in city files. City Administrator Mike Roth, as recently as September 9, 2005, continued to deny that the 3-ring binder or any other of the requested documents related to the Conservation Easement were in city files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Hoffman&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Grand Marais complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a September 1, 2005, request for data relating to a conservation easement?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have discussed that when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, section subdivision 1 of section 13.03 provides that government entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Roth wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In regards to [Mr. Haluska&apos;s] request, there is no such list of materials. Also, he referenced someone reporting a spiral notebook recently in the possession of the City Administration staff, presumably me. There is no such spiral notebook. I thought he might be referring to the property report that was to be included with the Conservation Easement. I was unaware of its existence at the time. I had previously discussed this property report with my Park Director. In 2001, we had met with Minnesota Land Trust staff that were preparing a detailed property report. We were shown a draft of the report but never provided with a copy. I informed both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Haluska of this situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Tuesday, September 20, I received an email from the City Attorney notifying me of the existence and location of documents relating to the Conservation Easement, including the property report. He had informed Mr. Haluska of the existence of the materials on Friday, September 16. The City Attorney indicated to me that Mr. Haluska would be coming to City Hall to view these documents. As of today, Mr. Haluska has not stopped by.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my determination that all of the files that were recently located in regards to the Conservation Easement are public. Mr. Haluska and Ms. Hoffman may examine them in my office and request copies of any or all of the information. It is clear in Ms. Hoffman&apos;s letter that the spiral notebook in Mr. Haluska&apos;s request is indeed the property report in my possession, so a copy will be forwarded to them immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Roth provided a copy of the September 20 email he received from attorney Donald Davidson. In part, Mr. Davidson wrote, There is a large amount of historical data concerning the conservation easement in the vault, as well as the property condition report, mainly a photographic record of the property as it existed in &apos;96 - &apos;97. John [Mr. Haluska] said none of this information was provided to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 1, 2005, Mr. Haluska asked for a list of certain documents relating to the conservation easement. He also asked for a copy of a related spiral notebook. Regarding the request for a list, Mr. Roth replied that the City did not have a list. If the City does not maintain a list, it is not required to create one to respond to Mr. Haluska&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the request for the spiral notebook/3-ring binder, the Commissioner has the following comments. As stated in previously issued opinions, when government entities respond to data practices requests they should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. Here, Mr. Roth first advised Mr. Haluska that the notebook did not exist in City files. Sometime thereafter, the City Attorney advised Mr. Roth that certain data relating to the conservation easement did exist and that those data were in the vault. Apparently, the City then informed Mr. Haluska of the situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, government entities are obligated to keep records in such an arrangement so they are easily accessible for convenient use. To comply with this provision and to respond to data practices requests, entities need to have a general knowledge of what types of data they maintain and where those data likely are located. Here, it appears Mr. Roth, the City&apos;s responsible authority, was not aware that data responsive to Mr. Haluska&apos;s request were in the vault. It is not clear why Mr. Roth did not know about the data in the vault but the Commissioner encourages the City to work to correct related issues so the City can respond appropriately to future data practices requests. If Mr. Haluska has not yet been given a copy of the notebook/binder, the City should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a final note, the Commissioner encourages data requestors to ask for specific data rather than asking for documents. Here, it would have been clearer if Mr. Haluska had asked for the data he believed to be in the spiral notebook, as opposed to asking for a copy of the notebook, itself. The ensuing discussion then would have revolved around whether the data did or did not exist, rather than specifics about the type of notebook.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hoffman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Regarding a September 1, 2005, request for a copy of list of data relating to a conservation easement, the City of Grand Marais&apos; response complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Regarding a September 1, 2005, request for a notebook relating to the easement, the City&apos;s response was not appropriate; therefore, the City did not comply with Chapter 13.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 25, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267722</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Organization of data, in general</Title><Id>266538</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor responsibility</Title><Id>266550</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-031</Title><title>Opinion 05 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267819&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-10-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Moorhead comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request for a transcript of a 911 call?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 25, 2005; City of Moorhead</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 23, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 16, 2005, from Steven Wagner, of The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. In his letter, Mr. Wagner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the City of Moorhead maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bruce Messelt, City Manager, in response to Mr. Wagner&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 26, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Wagner&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 13, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated October 11, 2005, from Brian Neugebauer, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wagner provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 16, 2005, Mr. Wagner requested data from the City regarding an August 16 incident involving an alleged killing at a hotel. Police had responded to a 911 call. Of relevance here, Mr. Wagner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please consider this a formal request under the state&apos;s Data Practice laws for access to all public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are also requesting a transcript of the 911 call relating to this incident, as provided in Minnesota Statute 13.82, subdivision 4. The law says a transcript of the call shall be prepared upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 22, 2005, the City responded via a memorandum prepared by an assistant Clay County attorney. The attorney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In considering the Forum&apos;s request for a transcript of the 911 call relative to this incident, it is my opinion that release of that information should be denied. Such information is currently classified as confidential or protected nonpublic data, Minn.Stat. section 13.82, Subd. 7, as it is active investigative data, which has been collected or created by the Moorhead Police Department in order to prepare a case against a person for the commission of a crime. The Moorhead Police Department currently maintains the primary investigative responsibility for the incident.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Wagner&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Moorhead comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request for a transcript of a 911 call?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 4 of section 13.82, in relevant part, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from a law enforcement, fire, or medical agency is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making the call, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17. A transcript shall be prepared upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Neugebauer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subdivision 4 makes available the transcript of calls for service placed to a 911 system, it is inapplicable in the instant case. Subdivision 4 is inapplicable because the call in the instant case involves evidence of a crime and has been collected by the Moorhead Police Department as part of its active investigation of [the caller] and it is not merely a call for service. Subdivision 7 [of section 13.82] makes confidential information concerning active investigations and specifically does not exempt subdivision 4 from its broad protection for investigative information.This interpretation is consistent with the practical needs of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors not to release transcripts of 911 calls that involve evidence of criminal activity that will be utilized to prosecute the individual making the call.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees, having opined on a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267631&quot; title=&quot;01-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-050&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Rofuth also argued that the caller&apos;s identity and the 911 transcript are not public because they are criminal investigative data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, arrest, request for service, and response or incident data, including the name and address of the individual making the request, are always public. Subdivision 7 provides: [e]xcept for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data . . . is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Accordingly, the identity of an individual making a request for service is public under subdivision 6. A law enforcement agency is not obligated to disclose to the public that the individual is also a suspect. See also Advisory Opinion 00-078 in which the Commissioner addressed a similar issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As discussed above, Ms. Rofuth did not demonstrate that, in this case, the caller&apos;s identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17. Therefore, the transcript is public data. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the transcript cannot be protected under subdivision 7 as criminal investigative data because it is not data that the Department collected or prepared in order to prepare a case against the caller. Rather, a call of this nature to a 911 center is a type of request for service data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 7 of section 13.82 temporarily protects &lt;em&gt;data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, because the August 16, 2005, call placed to the 911 center is not data the City collected or created to prepare a case against an individual, it is not appropriate for the City to use subdivision 7 to deny access to the data. Further, section 13.82, subdivision 17, allows an entity to withhold certain public data if the data reveal the identity of an individual protected under subdivision 17. Mr. Neugebauer did not assert that the caller&apos;s identity should be protected under subdivision 17. The City promptly should release a copy of the transcript to Mr. Wagner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wagner raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Moorhead did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a request for a transcript of a 911 call.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 25, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267819</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-030</Title><title>Opinion 05 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267353&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-10-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a September 20, 2004, request to inspect the annual audits for the past five years?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 4, 2005; Red River Watershed Management Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 29, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated August 25, 2005, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the Red River Watershed Management Board maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, the Board&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official, in response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 2, 2005, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On September 16, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Louis Smith, an attorney representing the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated September 20, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson and asked to inspect various government data. Of relevance to this opinion is Item 3 of his request for, Past five years annual audits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, A meeting was scheduled for September 30, 2004 to inspect the requested data. Upon arriving for the meeting, the [Board] representatives handed [sic] a letter dated September 30, 2004, from Mr. Smith, their attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the September 30, letter, Mr. Smith stated, In response to your request of September 20, all of the data referred to in Items 1-13 have been produced for your inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, Copies were made of the documents presented as annual audits. Since time was an issue a careful review of the documents was not conducted until later. It was discovered that they were not annual audits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 2, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Board, noting that the annual audits were not among the data made available to him on September 30. He again asked for the audits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, As of the date of this letter, there has been no response from the [Board].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Stengrim provided to the Commissioner a copy of the September 20 and 30 letters, and a copy of the December 2 letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Stengrim&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a September 20, 2004, request to inspect the annual audits for the past five years?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, previously issued advisory opinions have discussed that when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Board] provided to Mr. Stengrim in response to his request all annual financial statements for the past five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Apparently, Mr. Stengrim&apos;s concern is that the annual financial statements provided to him were not audited. The [Board] does not possess audited statements for the years in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his September 20, 2004, letter, Mr. Stengrim asked to inspect annual audits for the past five years. On September 30, 2004, the Board provided what it indicated were data responsive to the request. However, the Board did not provide the audits or explain that the audits did not exist. When Mr. Stengrim again inquired about the audits on December 2, 2004, the Board did not respond. As stated above, the Board has certain obligations when responding to data practices requests. When the Board responded to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s September 20, 2004, request, the Board should have notified him that it was not in possession of the annual audits. Thus, the Board&apos;s response was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. It is not clear what Mr. Smith means by stating that the Board does not &lt;em&gt;possess&lt;/em&gt; the data. The Commissioner assumes he means that the data do not exist, not that someone else other than the Board is in possession of the data. As the Commissioner has opined previously, it is important for government entities to be clear and unambiguous in their communications regarding data practices requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Red River Watershed Management Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a September 20, 2004, request to inspect the annual audits for the past five years.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 4, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267353</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data does not exist</Title><Id>266383</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-11-02T14:11:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-029</Title><title>Opinion 05 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267772&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-09-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data the City of Kimball typically would include in the minutes of an open meeting: two resolutions regarding the discipline of two City of Kimball employees who have collective bargaining rights?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the classification of the data be the same if the employees did not have collective bargaining rights?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 28, 2005; City of Kimball</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 4, 2005, IPAD received a letter from Rhonda Pagel, an attorney representing the City of Kimball. In her letter, Ms. Pagel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. Ms. Kimball provided additional information and clarification in a letter dated August 12, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Pagel is as follows. In her August 12, 2005, letter, she discussed two draft resolutions. Each resolution contains data about an employee who is the subject of a complaint(s). Ms. Pagel wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that the data in the Resolution is normally private data. However, Minn. Stat. section 13D.05, subd. 5 indicates that data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s normal practice is to include the entire text of resolutions in the minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The League of Minnesota Cities suggests that non-public data that is discussed at an open meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes. However, as the Resolution encompasses the Council&apos;s findings, it obviously needs to be detailed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The discipline is not final as the employees are part of a union and have the ability to request arbitration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting an opinion to determine the classification of the resolutions. I would also greatly appreciate any information regarding the classification of the resolutions if the employees involved were &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;part of [sic] union and did not have collective bargaining rights. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pagel provided to the Commissioner a copy of the draft resolutions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Pagel&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data the City of Kimball typically would include in the minutes of an open meeting: two resolutions regarding the discipline of two City of Kimball employees who have collective bargaining rights?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the classification of the data be the same if the employees did not have collective bargaining rights?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data the City of Kimball typically would include in the minutes of an open meeting: two resolutions regarding the discipline of two City of Kimball employees who have collective bargaining rights?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final disposition occurs when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Pagel, the involved employees have collective bargaining rights. Ms. Pagel noted that a final disposition has not occurred as both employees have the ability to request arbitration. Therefore, based on section 13.43, any data in the resolutions of which the employees are the subjects are private. Other data in the resolutions are subject to the general presumption that all government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, because the Kimball City Council apparently has authority to discipline the employees in question, provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, also must be considered. Section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data that are not public may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the content of the resolutions, the City apparently has concluded that disciplinary action against the employees is warranted. Thus, the Kimball City Council must conduct related discussions in an open meeting. According to Ms. Pagel, the City Council&apos;s past practice is to create a resolution documenting the basis for the discipline and include the text of the resolution in the minutes of the meeting. Section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), states, Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. Thus, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, if the Kimball City Council incorporates the resolutions into the minutes of an open meeting, the resolutions, as part of the meeting record, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, however, additional comments are in order. The Legislature did not define &lt;em&gt;record of a meeting&lt;/em&gt;. One interpretation certainly supports the conclusion that if the data in the resolutions are incorporated into the minutes of an open meeting, the data are public. Technically, the City appears not to be in violation of Chapters 13 and 13D if it incorporates the resolutions into the meeting record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pagel stated in her opinion request that the League of Minnesota Cities does not encourage the inclusion of not public data in meeting minutes. In terms of maintaining a record of an open meeting, Chapter 13D requires only that public bodies keep a journal of the votes of the members. (See section 13D.01, subdivision 4.) Therefore, the City Council has discretion as to what it will include in the &lt;em&gt;record of the meeting&lt;/em&gt; when employees are to be disciplined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the matter at hand, the employees have rights under a collective bargaining agreement to grieve discipline imposed by the City Council. When that process is complete or the employees choose not to exercise their rights, a final disposition will have occurred and any data that support the City Council&apos;s decision to discipline are public. Until there is final disposition, the data that are the basis for the discipline are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature granted to public bodies immunity from liability for discussing not public data at open meetings; however, the Commissioner questions what the Legislature intended in terms of the extent of such releases. Here, the City can document the decision of the council members by referring to the private data and record the votes of the Council&apos;s members as is required by section 13D.01, subdivision 4, without disclosing private personnel data. This practice would preserve the protections for employees provided in section 13.43. Data that support the discipline eventually would become public as provided in section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the legislative intent behind &lt;em&gt;record of a meeting&lt;/em&gt; is unclear, based on the plain words, it appears that if the City Council incorporates the resolutions into the minutes of an open meeting, the resolutions, as part of the meeting record, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the classification of the data be the same if the employees did not have collective bargaining rights?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As provided in section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), when an employee is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement, a final disposition occurs when the entity makes its final decision about disciplinary action. Thus, when a government entity has made its final decision about disciplinary action, the final disposition of the disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action all become public. Here, based on the contents of the resolutions, the Commissioner assumes most of the data in the resolutions would be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in the analysis of Issue 1, because the matter of disciplining the employees has come before the Kimball City Council, the provisions of Chapter 13D also must be considered. Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), if the Kimball City Council incorporates the resolutions into the minutes of an open meeting, the resolutions, as part of the meeting record, are public. Thus, if the employees do not have collective bargaining rights, both provisions of law provide that the data are public, so there is no need to take steps to protect the privacy rights of those employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Pagel raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, if the two employees have collective bargaining rights, and the Kimball City Council incorporates the resolutions into the minutes of an open meeting, the resolutions, as part of the meeting record, are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, if the two employees do not have collective bargaining rights, and the Kimball City Council incorporates the resolutions into the minutes of an open meeting, the resolutions, as part of the meeting records, are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 28, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267772</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Record of meeting</Title><Id>266389</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-028</Title><title>Opinion 05 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267869&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-08-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Nicollet County Attorney&apos;s office maintains: psychiatric records and data relating to psychiatric records about an alleged perpetrator gathered from a regional treatment center by a local police department as part of a criminal investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 25, 2005; Nicollet County Attorney</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Under &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=144.293&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 144.293, subd. 2&lt;/a&gt;, a provider or person that receives health records directly from a provider may not disclose those records without consent/specific authority/court order.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 26, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated April 25, 2005, from Michelle Zehnder Fischer, Assistant Nicollet County Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Fischer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the County maintains. IPAD required additional information, which Ms. Fischer provided in a letter dated June 20, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD invited the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Kevin Goodno, to provide comments, which he did in a letter dated July 26, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Fischer provided them is as follows. In her April 25, 2005, letter, she wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;a file was forwarded to my office for charging consideration that involved an alleged sexual assault that occurred at the St. Peter Regional Treatment Center between two patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As part of the investigation, the St. Peter Police Department gathered information regarding the alleged perpetrator&apos;s commitment status and his psychiatric assessment records. The information also included the daily progress notes for the date in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The alleged victim, through her power of attorney, is requesting that we disclose to her the police reports in this matter. A final determination has not been made as to whether the alleged perpetrator will be prosecuted. I understand that under Minn. Stat. section13.82, subd. 13, I must disclose the police reports to the alleged victim, as I do not believe that the release of this data would interfere with the investigation or that the request is prompted by a desire to engage in unlawful activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The specific question, however, pertains to the release of the alleged perpetrator&apos;s psychiatric records which would appear to be covered under many aspects of [Chapter 13] as well as potential [HIPAA] laws.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her June 20, 2005, letter, Ms. Fischer added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The investigation at issue began when the St. Peter Police Department received a Vulnerable Adult Maltreatment Report under Minn. Stat. section626.557. The alleged victim was considered to be a vulnerable adult due to her hospitalization in a facility. As part of the investigation, the St. Peter Police Department gathered information regarding the alleged perpetrator&apos;s commitment status and his psychiatric assessment records. The information also included the daily progress notes for the date in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the course of his investigation [the detective] obtained a search warrant for the alleged perpetrator&apos;s records at the St. Peter Regional Treatment Center. [The detective] included the reports that he gathered, pursuant to the search warrant, in his case file. In his investigative report [the detective] references receipt of the reports, note [sic] the admission date of the alleged perpetrator, and his diagnosis. His report further states, please refer to the additional information from the [St. Paul Regional Treatment Center] accompanying this report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Fischer&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Nicollet County Attorney&apos;s office maintains: psychiatric records and data relating to psychiatric records about an alleged perpetrator gathered from a regional treatment center by a local police department as part of a criminal investigation?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.384, subdivision 3, classifies medical data as private. Subdivision 1 of section 13.384 defines medical data as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;data collected because an individual was or is a patient or client of a hospital, nursing home, medical center, clinic, health or nursing agency operated by a state agency or political subdivision including business and financial records, data provided by private health facilities, and data provided by or about relatives of the individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the St. Peter Regional Treatment Center is a facility operated by the Department of Human Services, it appears the data at issue, as they are created and maintained at the St. Peter Regional Treatment Center, are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to classifying medical data as private, subdivision 3 of section 13.384 provides restrictions on the data subject&apos;s access in certain situations and, of relevance here, states that medical data can be released pursuant to a valid court order and as otherwise required by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When government data travel from one government entity to another, section 13.03, subdivision 4, provides guidance regarding issues of classification. Subdivision 4(a) of section 13.03 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the St. Peter Police Department collected private data from the Regional Treatment Center for the purpose of conducting a law enforcement investigation. Law enforcement data are classified specifically at section 13.82. Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the data at issue, as they currently exist in the possession of the St. Peter Police Department and the Nicollet County Attorney&apos;s office, are classified pursuant to section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Fischer stated, A final determination has not been made as to whether the alleged perpetrator will be prosecuted. She also wrote, I do not believe that the release of this data would interfere with the investigation or that the request is prompted by a desire to engage in unlawful activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 7 of section 13.82 classifies active criminal investigation data as confidential. However, subdivision 13 of section 13.82 provides that crime victims and alleged crime victims can gain access to these data in certain situations:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On receipt of a written request, the prosecuting authority shall release investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency to the victim of a criminal act or alleged criminal act or to the victim&apos;s legal representative unless the release to the individual subject of the data would be prohibited under section 13.821 [not applicable here] or the prosecuting authority reasonably believes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) that the release of that data will interfere with the investigation; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) that the request is prompted by a desire on the part of the requester to engage in unlawful activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, given the statutory provisions discussed above and the assertion by the Assistant County Attorney that the release of the data will not interfere with the investigation, it appears the psychiatric records and data relating to psychiatric records about the alleged perpetrator currently are confidential but may be released to the alleged victim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, does not appear to restrict the alleged victim&apos;s access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Fischer raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, because the criminal investigation currently is active, the following data are confidential but may be released to the alleged victim: psychiatric records and data relating to psychiatric records about an alleged perpetrator gathered from a regional treatment center by a local police department as part of a criminal investigation.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 25, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267869</id><Tag><Description/><Title>HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164)</Title><Id>266996</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical data</Title><Id>266987</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Victim access to active investigative data (13.82, subd. 13 / subd. 6)</Title><Id>266500</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vulnerable adults</Title><Id>266695</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-027</Title><title>Opinion 05 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267803&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-08-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: audiotapes of two closed Saint Paul Board of Education meetings containing &quot;labor relations information&quot; as defined in section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process?
Regardless of the classification of the data in the audiotapes, must the District make the tapes available to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 2, if all labor contracts have not been signed by the governing body for the current budget period?
If the audiotapes, or parts of them, contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data, pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), and the Board has signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, does section 13D.03, subdivision 2, require that the District make the tapes available to the public?
If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District withhold the tapes because the public and nonpublic or protected nonpublic data are so inextricably intertwined that redaction would be unreasonable?
If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District charge for the cost of redacting nonpublic or protected nonpublic data?
If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, must the District provide copies or is providing an opportunity to listen to the tapes sufficient?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> August 10, 2005; School District 625 (Saint Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 17, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Nancy Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for Independent School District 625, Saint Paul. In her letter, Ms. Cameron asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which the District provided on June 21, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Cameron wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The District] negotiates with over 20 labor unions. Approximately half of the contracts are renegotiated every year, usually for two-year contract periods.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the fall of 2004, the School District negotiators negotiated with AFSCME Council, 5, Local #844 over the terms of and conditions of the next contract, anticipated to be effective from July 1, 2004 through July 1, 2006. After several negotiation sessions, the District and AFSCME negotiators could not reach agreement AFSCME requested mediation and a mediator was appointed by the Bureau of Mediation Services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After mediation commenced in November 2004, School District negotiators reached their settlement authority within the parameters set by the Board of Education. The negotiators accordingly needed them to return to the Board of Education to determine what direction the Board wanted them to take and what additional authority, if any, they had to settle the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board of Education noticed and held a closed meeting on December 7, 2004, for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. This meeting was tape recorded as required by Minn. Stat. section 13D.03, subd. 2(a) (2004) Negotiators received direction from the Board as to how the Board wanted negotiators to proceed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mediation resumed among the District and union representatives on January 14, 2005. At that meeting, District negotiators presented the District&apos;s Final Settlement Proposal to AFSCME Council 5, Local #844 Thereafter, the Board of Education noticed and held a closed Board meeting on January 18, 2005, for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. That meeting was tape recorded as required by Minn. Stat. section 13D.03, subd. 2(a) (2004). The same topics were addressed at this meeting as at the December 7, 2005 meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Union leadership presented the School District&apos;s offer to AFSCME members on January 31, 2005. Although leadership recommended a strike vote, AFSCME members voted to accept the School District&apos;s proposal. The AFSCME contract was signed by the School Board on March 22, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District&apos;s 2005 fiscal year runs from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Contracts for four unions-representing the pipefitters, plumbers, roofers and sheet metal workers-expired on May 1, 2005. The School Board has not signed new labor contracts with these unions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 26, 2005 [an individual] requested copies of the tapes of the closed School Board meetings held in December 2004 and January 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Cameron&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: audiotapes of two closed Saint Paul Board of Education meetings containing labor relations information as defined in section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Regardless of the classification of the data in the audiotapes, must the District make the tapes available to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 2, if all labor contracts have not been signed by the governing body for the current budget period?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the audiotapes, or parts of them, contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data, pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), and the Board has signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, does section 13D.03, subdivision 2, require that the District make the tapes available to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District withhold the tapes because the public and nonpublic or protected nonpublic data are so inextricably intertwined that redaction would be unreasonable?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District charge for the cost of redacting nonpublic or protected nonpublic data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, must the District provide copies or is providing an opportunity to listen to the tapes sufficient?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: audiotapes of two closed Saint Paul Board of Education meetings containing labor relations information as defined in section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, a governing body, such as the Saint Paul Board of Education, may hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03.) Subdivision 2 of section 13D.03 requires the governing body to (1) tape-record the proceedings of a closed meeting and (2) preserve the recording for two years after the contract is signed and make the recording available to the public after the governing body signs all labor contracts for the current budget period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies labor relations information as private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals), and states that labor relations information relating to a specific labor organization is protected nonpublic (data not on individuals). Section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), defines labor relations information as, management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, including information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Cameron stated that the two audiotapes in question were recorded at closed meetings of the Board on December 7, 2004 and January 18, 2005. She further stated that the Board signed the AFSCME contract on March 22, 2005. In addition, Ms. Cameron wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District&apos;s 2005 fiscal year runs from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Contracts for four unions-representing the pipefitters, plumbers, roofers and sheet metal workers-expired on May 1, 2005. The School Board has not signed new labor contracts with these unions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Cameron also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Information contained in much of the discussion of the tapes is &apos;labor relations data&apos; as defined by Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd 1(c). It consists of &apos;management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process&apos; and &apos;information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position. At the meetings, the Board of Education was presented with written information and analyses, and discussed with the District&apos;s administrative staff and negotiators: negotiation history, theory, and strategy; developments and proposals in the AFSCME negotiations and mediation process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.03 provides that audiotapes must be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and must be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed for the current budget period. Here, the AFSCME contract was signed on March 22, 2005, but the Board apparently has not signed all labor contracts for the current budget period. Thus, at this time, it appears the audiotapes are not available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Had the Board signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the District would be required to make the audiotapes available to the public pursuant to section 13D.03. The issue Ms. Cameron raises is whether the District could then withhold any labor relations data , as defined in section 13.37, that exist in the audiotapes. Section 13.37 classifies labor relations data as not public. Because there appears to be a conflict between the two provisions, the Commissioner consulted Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, which provides guidance on statutory interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, provides that when the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the Legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail. Here, in 1980 the Legislature passed the language in section 13.37 classifying certain labor relations data as not public and in 1981 passed the language in section 13D.03 making public audiotapes of meetings closed for labor negotiation strategies. (See Laws of Minnesota for 1980, Chapter 603, section 15, and Laws of Minnesota for 1981, Chapter 174, section 1.) Therefore, it appears section 13D.03 controls in situations where an audiotape of a closed meeting contains data relating to management positions on economic and noneconomic items that were not presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Regardless of the classification of the data in the audiotapes, must the District make the tapes available to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03, subdivision 2, if all labor contracts have not been signed by the governing body for the current budget period?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated in the analysis regarding Issue 1, if the Board has not signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the District is not required to make the audiotapes available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the audiotapes, or parts of them, contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data, pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), and the Board has signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, does section 13D.03, subdivision 2, require that the District make the tapes available to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated in the analysis regarding Issue 1, if the Board has signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the District is required to make the audiotapes available to the public regardless of whether they contain labor relations information, as that term is defined in section 13.37, subdivision 1(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District withhold the tapes because the public and nonpublic or protected nonpublic data are so inextricably intertwined that redaction would be unreasonable?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated in the analysis regarding Issue 1, if the timing is such that, pursuant to section 13D.03, the District must make the audiotapes available to the public, the data in the audiotapes cannot be withheld pursuant to section 13.37. Therefore, the issue of data being inextricably intertwined is moot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 5:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, and the tapes contain nonpublic or protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(c), may the District charge for the cost of redacting nonpublic or protected nonpublic data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated in the analysis regarding Issue 1, if the timing is such that, pursuant to section 13D.03, the District must make the audiotapes available to the public, the data in the audiotapes cannot be withheld pursuant to section 13.37. Therefore, the issue of charging for redaction of the tape is moot. However, the Commissioner notes that, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), government entities may not charge for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 6:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the District must make the audiotapes, or parts of them, available to the public, pursuant to section 13D.03, subdivision 2, must the District provide copies or is providing an opportunity to listen to the tapes sufficient?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, the audiotapes are government data. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), individuals are permitted to inspect and obtain copies of government data. Thus, if the individual asking to gain access to the audiotapes wants a copy, rather than an opportunity to listen to the audiotapes, the District must provide a copy. The District may charge for the copy as provided in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Cameron raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because the Saint Paul Board of Education apparently has not signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the audiotapes of two Board meetings closed for labor negotiations are not available to the public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the Board has not signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the District is not required to make the audiotapes available to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the Board had signed all labor contracts for the current budget period, the District would be required to make the audiotapes available to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the timing is such that, pursuant to section 13D.03, the District must make the audiotapes available to the public, the data in the audiotapes cannot be withheld pursuant to section 13.37. The issue of charging for redaction is moot.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the timing is such that, pursuant to section 13D.03, the District must make the audiotapes available to the public, the data in the audiotapes cannot be withheld pursuant to section 13.37. The issue of data being inextricably intertwined is moot.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), upon request, the District is required to provide copies of the audiotapes.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 10, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267803</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification (subd. 2)</Title><Id>266349</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor negotiations</Title><Id>266350</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-05T15:52:55Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-026</Title><title>Opinion 05 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266914&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data that Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert, maintains as per Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.24 (specifically applying to home-schooled children)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 2005; School District 2154 (Eveleth-Gilbert)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 21, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated June 20, 2005, from John Colosimo, an attorney representing Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert. In his letter, Mr. Colosimo asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Colosimo provided in a letter dated June 28, 2005.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 30, 2005, the Commissioner invited the Minnesota Department of Education to submit comments. The Department of Education did not submit comments.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Colosimo asked the Commissioner to opine as to the classification of data relating to children who are home-schooled.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Mr. Colosimo&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data that Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert, maintains as per Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.24 (specifically applying to home-schooled children)? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students and their parents. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Pursuant to section 13.32, most data about students and their parents are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Colosimo&apos;s question to the Commissioner specifically relates to data collected and maintained by the District pursuant to reporting requirements in Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.24. Subdivision 1 of section 120A.24 states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The person in charge of providing instruction to a child must submit the following information to the superintendent of the district in which the child resides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      1) by October 1 of each school year, the name, birth date, and address of each child receiving instruction;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      2) the name of each instructor and evidence of compliance with one of the requirements specified in section 120A.22, subdivision 10;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      3) an annual instructional calendar; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      4) for each child instructed by a parent who meets only the requirement of section 120A.22, subdivision 10, clause (6), a quarterly report card on the achievement of the child in each subject area required in section 120A.22, subdivision 9.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In 2003, the Legislature enacted language specifically classifying data about children or their parents whose identities must be reported pursuant to section 120A.24. (See Laws of Minnesota 2003 First Special Session, Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 5.) This language was incorporated into section 13.32 as subdivision 4a. It provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Data collected by a public school on a child or parent of a child, whose identity must be reported pursuant to section 120A.24, is private data which:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      1) shall not be designated directory information pursuant to subdivision 5 unless prior consent is given by the child&apos;s parent or guardian; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      2) may be disclosed only pursuant to subdivision 3, clause (a), (b), (c), or (f).
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      This provision does not apply to students who receive shared time educational services from a public agency or institution.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Thus, based on section 13.32, subdivision 4a, any data the District collects and maintains about home-schooled students or their parents as required pursuant to section 120A.24, are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Colosimo raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 4a, data that Independent School District 2154, Eveleth-Gilbert, collects and maintains as per Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.24 (specifically applying to home-schooled children) are private. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 9, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266914</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Home schooling</Title><Id>266913</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-025</Title><title>Opinion 05 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267499&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-06-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, relating to the resignation of two former District employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2005; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 20, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Kevin Rupp and Amy Mace, attorneys representing Independent School District 709, Duluth. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains. IPAD required clarification, which Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace provided on May 5, 2005. IPAD invited two former District employees, X and Y, to submit comments. On May 24, 2005, IPAD received comments from X&apos;s attorney. Y did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their opinion request, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On... the District received a written complaint about [X and Y.] When the District informed [X and Y], they offered to resign. District Administrators told them that they were in the process of gathering information and that they would get back to them. [About a week later], the District Administration told [X and Y] that they needed their resignations based on the complaints against them. [Shortly thereafter X and Y submitted their resignations.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After receiving the original complaint, the District received an additional unrelated and more serious complaint against [X]. The District investigated both complaints. A written investigation report dated... was completed regarding the first complaint. A copy of the investigation report is included as Exhibit A. A written investigation report regarding the second complaint was also completed. A copy of the investigation report is included as Exhibit B.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After completing the second investigation, the District determined that [X] would never be eligible for employment with the District again. The District sent [X] a letter dated... stating that the letter confirmed and documented [X&apos;s] resignation. The letter also notified [X] that [X] was precluded from applying for or obtaining employment in any future Duluth Public School District positions. A copy of the letter is enclosed as Exhibit C.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On... the District sent [Y] a letter, stating that the letter confirmed and documented [Y&apos;s] resignation and that [Y] is precluded from applying for or obtaining employment in any future Duluth Public School District... ;for a period of three years... A copy of the letter is enclosed as Exhibit D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, relating to the resignation of two former District employees?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace asked the Commissioner to comment on the classification of four documents. Upon examination, it appears that while the documents contain data about District employees and District students, most of the data are about either X or Y. Thus, before proceeding, it is important to resolve the issue of the classification of the data about X and Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 classifies data about former and current employees. Of relevance to this opinion, subdivision 2(a)(4) states that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2(b) provides a definition of final disposition :&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, X&apos;s attorney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to [X], the Commissioner need not reach the question posed in your May 13, 2005 letter because [X] was not asked to resign.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... [X] spoke with [a District employee - Z] and verbally tendered [X&apos;s] resignation. At that time, [Z] encouraged [X] not to resign, but [X] submitted a formal resignation letter on. To [X&apos;s] knowledge, neither investigation described in [the District&apos;s letter confirming X&apos;s resignation] had begun as of the date [X] verbally tendered [X&apos;s] resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Whether or not [X&apos;s] belief about the timing is correct, &lt;strong&gt;at no time did [Z] or anyone else at School District 709 ask [X] to resign.&lt;/strong&gt; [Emphasis provided.] [X] spoke recently with [Z], who confirmed that [Z] did not ask [X] to resign. Indeed, the [District&apos;s letter confirming X&apos;s resignation] was written &lt;strong&gt;more than a month after [X] resigned&lt;/strong&gt;, further demonstrating that [X] did not resign because the [District], having investigated certain allegations asked [X] to step aside. [Emphasis provided.] Because the [District] did not ask [X] to resign, [X&apos;s] resignation cannot be viewed as disciplinary action...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While it is clear from the above that [X] was not asked to resign, even on a theoretical level, a governmental agency that asks an employee to resign, prior to final disposition of an investigation, is not carrying out discipline that may be publicly disclosed...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under [Chapter 13], a governmental agency may publicly disclose that an employee has been disciplined, and the reasons for the discipline, only upon the final disposition of the matter... Final disposition does not occur until the political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action. The statute specifically states that [f]inal disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the [government entity or arbitrator]. ... (Emphasis added.) Thus, by implication, [Chapter 13] contemplates that an individual&apos;s resignation &lt;u&gt;before&lt;/u&gt; the final decision would not be a final disposition. [Emphasis provided.] Had the legislature intended that a resignation prior to a final decision would transform private disciplinary data into public data, it would have said so in Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Moreover, a request that an individual resign cannot be a final disposition of discipline unless the governmental body has made a final decision that it will issue discipline in the absence of the resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s attorney then referenced several Commissioner of Administration advisory opinions relating to final decisions of disciplinary action: &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267686&quot; title=&quot;02-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-053&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267576&quot; title=&quot;00-072&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-072&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267864&quot; title=&quot;96-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-010&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... If an employer requests an employee to resign before making a final decision on discipline, and the employee declines to resign, &lt;em&gt;only then&lt;/em&gt; would the employer be required to make a final decision on the potential discipline. [Emphasis provided.] Conversely, under the same scenario, if the employee resigns upon his or her employer&apos;s request, prior to a final decision on discipline, the resignation makes a final decision on discipline unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... In sum, not only was [X] not asked to resign, but even had the school district asked [X] to resign, such a request would not have constituted discipline that permits the school district to disclose data regarding the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, with regard to X, there is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve. Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace state that the District asked X to resign. X&apos;s attorney, conversely, states that the District did not ask X to resign. With regard to Y, however, no one submitted information contrary to the District&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, as to whether the District&apos;s apparent request for X and Y to resign represents a final disposition, the Commissioner agrees with the position asserted by X&apos;s attorney. As previous opinions have discussed, if no final disposition has occurred, only the existence and status of a complaint are public. A final disposition cannot occur until the agency has made a final decision about disciplinary action. Further, a resignation occurring prior to a final decision about disciplinary action is not a final disposition. As X&apos;s attorney argues, and according to documents provided to the Commissioner, X (and Y) submitted their resignations almost a month prior to the District completing its investigation of the original complaint. This indicates the District had not reached a final decision about disciplinary action at the time X and Y submitted their resignations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that neither the District nor X&apos;s attorney provided information as to the District&apos;s policies regarding what type of action constitutes disciplinary action. The Commissioner assumes, therefore, that nothing in the policies is definitive on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, of the data in Exhibits A - D relating to the complaints about X and Y, only the existence and status of the complaints are public. Other data in the exhibits, relating to the complaints, are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Exhibits A - D also contain data about students and other employees. Both Minnesota and federal law govern data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student... (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace did not provide information indicating that the District has designated, as public directory information, any of the data of which the students are the subject. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes data in the exhibits about the students are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The exhibits also contain data about employees other than X and Y. Most, if not all, of the data about the employees do not appear to be the type of data classified as public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2. Those data, therefore, are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Rupp and Ms. Mace raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, of the data in Exhibits A, B, C, and D that relate to the complaints about X and Y, only the existence and status of the complaints are public. Data in the exhibits relating to students appear to be private. Data in the exhibits relating to other employees appear to be private.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267499</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data)</Title><Id>266980</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-024</Title><title>Opinion 05 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267586&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-06-24T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Resource and Training Solutions (RTS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data: the operating agreement between RTS and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 24, 2005; Resource Training and Solutions</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 26, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jeff Leyk. In his letter, Mr. Leyk asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that Resource Training and Solutions (RTS) maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Leyk provided on May 12, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Cavanna, Executive Director, in response to Mr. Leyk&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 13, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Leyk&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for RTS&apos; position. On June 6, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated June 3, 2005, from Thomas Pursell, an attorney representing RTS. In his letter, Mr. Pursell advised that he, on May 31, 2005, sent a copy of the data Mr. Leyk was seeking to Mr. Leyk&apos;s attorney. Mr. Pursell wrote, Because Blue Cross Blue Shield has waived its &apos;trade secret&apos; designation for this document, [RTS] has produced it (except a portion of the document which was withheld provisionally on different grounds.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD contacted Mr. Leyk who indicated he still wished the Commissioner to issue the advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 15, 2005, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Mr. Pursell regarding the issue Mr. Leyk asked the Commissioner to address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated March 21, 2005, Mr. Leyk asked to inspect, among other items, the operating agreement between RTS and Blue Cross Blue Shield.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 19, 2005, Mark Kinney, another attorney representing RTS, wrote to Mr. Leyk:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have enclosed a copy of a letter dated August 11, 2004, from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. According to Blue Cross, the Operating Agreement between itself and [RTS] is trade secret information as defined in Minn.Stat. section 13.37, subd. 1(b). Accordingly, it is nonpublic data under Minn.Stat. section 13.37, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question of whether the Blue Cross Blue Shield Operating Agreement is a trade secret protected by [Chapter 13] was not addressed in [Advisory Opinion 05-011]. The Service Cooperatives intend to be responsive to any Opinion of the Commissioner in regards to [Chapter 13], and you may wish to submit this issue to the Commissioner for interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Leyk&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Resource and Training Solutions (RTS) comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data: the operating agreement between RTS and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, on March 21, 2005, Mr. Leyk wrote to RTS and asked to inspect the operating agreement between RTS and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. RTS denied the request on the basis that Blue Cross had taken the position that the data in the agreement were classified as trade secret and, therefore, were not public. After Mr. Leyk requested this opinion, RTS reversed its position and provided parts of the operating agreement, stating that Blue Cross had waived its &apos;trade secret&apos; designation. (Mr. Pursell stated that a portion of the agreement was withheld provisionally on different grounds.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Pursell wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... Because [Chapter 13] imposes on public agencies not only the obligation to make available public data, but also the obligation to protect nonpublic data, and because revealing the trade secrets of a third party could subject the organization to liability under... [Chapter 13]... RTS] declined to produce the Operating Agreement, inviting Mr. Leyk to request an IPAD Advisory Opinion if he took issue with [RTS&apos;] position... Because [RTS] faced potential legal action from both Jeff Leyk and [Blue Cross], it hoped to rely on the immunity accorded it by acting consistent with the IPAD Advisory Opinion on this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Pursell further stated that since that time, Mr. Leyk has filed a lawsuit in district court relating to possible violations of Chapter 13. Mr. Pursell wrote, Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, [Blue Cross] waived its claim of trade secret for the operating agreement... RTS] promptly provided the document to Mr. Leyk...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267890&quot; title=&quot;96-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-035&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The vendors need to provide specific rationales for their assertion that their proposals contain trade secrets, and the District needs to make its own determination regarding the appropriateness of those claims. After doing so, the District must make public those portions of the proposals that are not trade secret data, and are therefore available for public inspection and copying, pursuant to Section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity, such as RTS, has an obligation to respond promptly and appropriately to data practices requests from individuals who are not data subjects. To do so requires that the entity be aware, generally, of how data it collects and maintains are classified. When an entity collects or receives data from a private person and the data are marked trade secret or confidential or something similar, the entity should require the private person to provide analysis as to why, pursuant to Chapter 13, the person considers the data to be not public. If the entity does not agree with the private person&apos;s analysis, one option is for the entity to seek assistance from IPAD in determining whether the data meet standards established in section 13.37 for trade secret data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, RTS relied upon its contractor, Blue Cross, to determine the classification of the data in the operating agreement. Then, shortly after Mr. Leyk requested this opinion, Blue Cross reversed its position. Mr. Cavanna is the responsible authority of RTS and, as such, bears responsibility for determining whether or not to release requested data. Apparently, RTS determined its reliance on the trade secret exemption was inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Leyk raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Resource and Training Solutions (RTS) did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access, based on the trade secret provision of section 13.37, to the following data: the operating agreement between RTS and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 24, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267586</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination by responsible authority</Title><Id>266973</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination of data classification</Title><Id>266858</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination made by entity</Title><Id>266435</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-023</Title><title>Opinion 05 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267677&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-06-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: street addresses of rental properties, occupied by recipients of rental assistance benefits, which are owned by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 24, 2005; Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 17, 2005, IPAD received a letter from Kathleen Brennan, counsel for the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( Authority. ) In her letter, she asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Authority maintains. A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Brennan follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Authority owns approximately 56 scattered-site properties within Washington County that the Authority rents to eligible families under the Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program ( MHOP ). The MHOP program is a federally-assisted public housing program and was created pursuant to the &lt;em&gt;Hollman&lt;/em&gt; consent decree. &lt;em&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/em&gt;, No. 4-92-712 (D. Minn. 1995). . . . . The eligible families are tenants, not owners of the property, and as tenants they receive rental assistance benefits to assist with monthly rent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A member of the public has asked for the street addresses of the Authority&apos;s MHOP properties within Washington County. The request did not concern any home-ownership or home-rehabilitation assistance programs in which the Authority may participate. The request was limited to the location of properties involving rental assistance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan enclosed copies of correspondence between the Authority and the data requestor, in which it informed the requestor of the total number of housing units the Authority owns, the cities in which they are located, and the number of units it owns in two specific townhome developments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan asked the Commissioner to address the classification of data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, in light of a 2003 amendment to that section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Brennan&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data: street addresses of rental properties, occupied by recipients of rental assistance benefits, which are owned by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, benefit data are data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, rehabilitation and community action agency . . . programs administered by [government entities].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 3, benefit data are private, except for the following, which are public pursuant to subdivision 2:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, or assistance through programs administered by any [government entity] that are intended to assist with the purchase, &lt;u&gt;rehabilitation, or other purposes related to&lt;/u&gt; housing or other real property are classified as public data on individuals. &lt;u&gt;If an applicant or recipient is a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers of the corporation are public data on individuals. If an applicant or recipient is a partnership, the names and addresses of the partners are public data on individuals. The amount or value of benefits, aid, or assistance received is public data&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added. The 2003 amendment is indicated by the underlined text.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to that amendment, the only benefit data that were public were data about individuals receiving benefits related to &lt;u&gt;purchasing&lt;/u&gt; housing or other real property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Authority is mindful of prior advisory opinions issued by the Department concerning benefit data. The Department concluded that the Minneapolis Public Housing Agency could not reveal the addresses of scattered site housing owned by the Agency because it constituted data that can identify recipients of housing benefits therefore making it private data under the Act. [See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267565&quot; title=&quot;94-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-009&lt;/a&gt;.] . . . The Department distinguished between home-ownership programs and rental-assistance programs. Except for certain data about individuals who seek and receive assistance to purchase housing or other real property, all benefit data are private data on individuals. Id. at 3 (emphasis added); see also Advis. Opin 97-021 at 4 (limiting public data to names or addresses to those purchasing housing or other real property and holding that rehabilitation grant recipients constitute private data). Similarly, in a later advisory opinion, the Department concluded that addresses contained in housing inspection reports involving Section 8 participants are private data if the individuals may be identified through the address. [See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267569&quot; title=&quot;02-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-048&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Brennan cited Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 4, which provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All data, in whatever form it is maintained, is &apos;data on individuals&apos; if it can in any way identify any particular individual . . . . [including] if it identifies an individual in itself, or if it can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual. Such data shall include, but is not limited to, &lt;u&gt;street addresses&lt;/u&gt;, job titles, and so forth where the particular data could only describe or identify one individual. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present case, the Authority has received a request for street addresses involving rental assistance properties. Because the rental assistance properties are scattered-site housing units, the street addresses uniquely identify the families living in those rental units. The Authority&apos;s typical practice would be to withhold street address information as information that may identify specific tenant families, and therefore [sic] private data on individuals under section 13.462, subd. 3 and Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subps. 4 and 9.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One might argue that one should refer to the provision in section 13.462, subdivision 2. But that provision, as the Department has reasoned in past cases, concerns home ownership, rather than rental assistance. It specifically refers to benefits that are intended to assist with the purchase, rehabilitation, or other purposes related to housing or other real property. Id. The rental assistance properties involved in the present case do not concern the purchase of homes, the rehabilitation of homes, nor [sic] other real property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the Authority&apos;s past practices, the phrase other purposes related to housing should be read in the context of the narrow, surrounding language, which expressly concerns home ownership - house purchase and house rehabilitation. See &lt;em&gt;State v. Suess&lt;/em&gt;, 52 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn. 1952) (statutory language must be construed in context of associated language; when two or more words are grouped together and ordinarily have a similar meaning, but are not equally comprehensive, the general word will be limited and qualified by the special word. ); &lt;em&gt;Kolledge v. Famp;L Appliances&lt;/em&gt;, 80 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn. 1956) ( It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a particular provision of a statute cannot be read out of context but must be taken together with other related provisions to determine its meaning. ); Minn. Stat. section 645.17 ( The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain ). And subdivision 2 must also be construed as a narrow exception to the general rule that benefit data are to remain private, as clearly and expressly stated in subdivision 3. Minn. Stat. section 13.462, subd. 3 ( all other benefit data are private data on individuals ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . To construe section13.462, subdivision 2, so broadly as to require even rental assistance families&apos; names and addresses to be public data would be to give no effect to the general rule in subdivision 3 that benefit data on recipient families are private data on those families. But all parts of a statute must be given effect. Minn. Stat. sections 645.16-.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Construing section 13.462, subdivision 2 as applicable to home-ownership benefits, rather than rental-assistance benefits, is consistent with the overall statutory scheme and the Legislature&apos;s long-standing intent to protect home addresses from disclosure by public agencies that collect or have that information. Other provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act require information concerning assisted families to remain confidential or private data on individuals and unavailable to the general public. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. section 13.585 (housing agency data, including income information on individuals). It would be absurd, and contrary to these privacy provisions, to protect income of tenant families as private data but release home addresses to the public, essentially identifying the families by income status as low income persons. See &lt;em&gt;Swenson v. Waseca Mut. Ins.&lt;/em&gt;, 653 N.W.2d 794, 797 (Minn. App. 2002) (courts must not construe statutes to produce an absurd result, or clearly at odds with the policy of the legislation as a whole. ), &lt;em&gt;rev. denied&lt;/em&gt; (Minn. Feb. 29, 2004). The Legislature has not supported identifying Minnesota families to the general public by income status. See Minn. Stat. section 645.16(6) (legislative intent may be ascertained by considering the consequences of a particular interpretation ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to the 2003 amendment, section 13.462 classified, as public, data on individuals who applied for or received benefits to &lt;u&gt;purchase&lt;/u&gt; housing or other real property through various housing programs. Historically, there were no income limits on qualification for those programs. Home rehabilitation and other programs (which provide assistance for, e.g., emergency aid for roofs and furnaces) typically did have income eligibility requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Due to the 2003 amendment, data about individuals who receive housing benefits for rehabilitation or purposes other than purchase, even when those programs have income eligibility requirements, are now classified as public. However, it is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that the Legislature intended the 2003 amendment to treat data about property &lt;u&gt;owners&lt;/u&gt; who applied for or received housing benefits for rehabilitation purposes consistently with data about individuals who received assistance to &lt;u&gt;purchase&lt;/u&gt; housing or other real property, but did not intend for data about all individual housing benefit applicant/recipients, such as those receiving rental assistance, to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did not define other purposes related to in its 2003 amendment to section 13.462, subdivision 2, and the dictionary definition of purposes is not helpful in this context. However, the relevant legislative history supports Ms. Brennan&apos;s analysis that the data in question are private under section 13.462. (IPAD staff relied, in part, on the recording of the Minnesota House Civil Law Committee hearing in which the 2003 amendment was heard, discussed, and approved.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is aware that there is disagreement with respect to the classification of the data in question, and acknowledges that the meaning of other purposes related to housing or other real property might be construed to include rental assistance. However, as Ms. Brennan discussed, all provisions of a statute must be given effect. (See sections 645.16 and 645.17.) The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Brennan&apos;s assertion that to construe section13.462, subdivision 2, so broadly as to require even rental assistance families&apos; names and addresses to be public data would be to give no effect to the general rule in subdivision 3 that benefit data on recipient families are private . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature has consistently acted to protect the identities of individual applicants for or recipients of various income-assistance programs. Had it intended to make such a significant departure from this long-standing policy, the Legislature could have been more explicit. Furthermore, in its 2003 amendment, the Legislature included clarifying language that specifically classifies as public the names and addresses of individual members of a housing benefit applicant or recipient that is a corporation or partnership, but it did not specifically classify as public the identities of individual applicants for or recipients of rental assistance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Brennan discussed above, and as the Commissioner previously has opined, under Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 4, home addresses are data on individuals. Addresses of the scattered-site housing (including individual unit numbers of multi-unit housing) the Authority owns are private housing benefit data, pursuant to section 13.462, subdivision 3, because the data identify individuals who receive housing benefits for purposes of rental assistance. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267565&quot; title=&quot;94-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of the confusion regarding the scope of the 2003 amendment, the Commissioner encourages the Legislature to clarify its intent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note: Ms. Brennan indicated that MHOP receives federal funding; she did not discuss and the Commissioner is not aware of any provision in federal law that applies to and thereby classifies housing benefit data that the Authority maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Brennan raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, street addresses of rental properties, occupied by applicants or recipients of rental assistance benefits, which are owned by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, are private data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 24, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267677</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.462 or 13.31</Title><Id>266890</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-022</Title><title>Opinion 05 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267861&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-06-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would Independent School District 701, Hibbing, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released to the school district&apos;s Pupil Support Assistants (as a group), the following data about students with disabilities: name, disability of the student, and services to be provided to a student in accordance with an IEP?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 16, 2005; School District 701 (Hibbing)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 28, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated April 27, 2005, from John Colosimo, an attorney representing Independent School District 701, Hibbing. In his letter, Mr. Colosimo asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the District&apos;s release of certain data would violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Colosimo is as follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;AFSCME Council 65 is the exclusive representative of all non-certified employees of the Hibbing School District, including Pupil Support Assistants (PSAs). The PSAs are aides working with special education teachers to provide services to meet the needs of students with disabilities in accordance with the students&apos; IEP [Individualized Education Plan].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Up until the current school year, prior to the start of the educational year, the PSAs requested and received the name of each special needs student and the student&apos;s disability so as to allow the PSAs the opportunity to bid on the student (and assigned teacher) to whom services would be provided. The document containing this information would ostensibly be used only by the PSAs for that purpose. Since the level of service provided to each disabled student may differ and require different levels and hours of work, PSAs would be given the opportunity to select their own assignment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In August, 2004, the school district administration and special [education] director advised the PSAs that the name, disability, and services to be provided for each student would no longer be provided them because such a release would infringe upon federal and state laws pertaining to special needs students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Colosimo&apos;s request for an advisory opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would Independent School District 701, Hibbing, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released to the school district&apos;s Pupil Support Assistants (as a group), the following data about students with disabilities: name, disability of the student, and services to be provided to a student in accordance with an IEP?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students and their parents. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One exception is that private educational data can be released to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400.) The corresponding language in FERPA states that data can be released without consent if, The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(1).) Furthermore, 34 C.F.R. section 99.7(a)(3)(iii) states that if a district has a policy of disclosing records under section 99.31(a)(1), the district must include in its annual notification to parents a specification of criteria for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes a legitimate educational interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School districts also must consider the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) when the student in question has a disability. Of relevance here, IDEA generally follows the provisions of FERPA and states that in an educational institution, such as the District, parental consent must be obtained before personally identifiable information is disclosed to anyone other than officials of participating agencies. (See 34 C.F.R. section 300.571.) Also, each participating agency shall maintain, for public inspection, a current listing of the names and positions of those employees within the agency who may have access to personally identifiable information. (See 34 C.F.R. section 572 (d).) Participating agency is defined as any agency or institution that collects, maintains, or uses personally identifiable information, or from which information is obtained. (See 34 C.F.R. section 300.560(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Colosimo wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;AFSCME Council 65 takes the position that disclosing the name, disability, and services to be provided to a special needs student to all of the PSAs is an internal posting which does not violate any of the aforementioned laws or statutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district&apos;s position is that the release of the data and information to the PSAs - as a group - regarding the teacher/student would be inappropriate if not illegal. Until an individual PSA is assigned to work with a specific student with disabilities, he/she has no legitimate educational interest in data or information involving that student. To give all of the PSAs the identities and disabilities of every student receiving services would give them data which is otherwise private on or about students with whom they may never be working and about whom they have no educational interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district believes that the disclosure of this information could result in special ed sanctions and a due process complaint by the parents of the students with disabilities. The release of this information would violate the student&apos;s IEP and also the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing Mr. Colosimo&apos;s question, the Commissioner reviewed language in FERPA as well as information from the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) of the United States Department of Education. The FPCO implements FERPA and another federal educational law, both of which seek to ensure student and parental rights in education. As part of its work, the FPCO handles complaints from parents and students regarding FERPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following is contained in FPCO&apos;s &lt;em&gt;Model Notification of Rights for Elementary and Secondary Schools&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... One exception, which permits disclosure without consent, is disclosure to school officials with legitimate educational interests. A school official is a person employed by the School as an administrator, supervisor, instructor, or support staff member (including health or medical staff and law enforcement unit personnel); a person serving on the School Board; a person or company with whom the School has contracted to perform a special task (such as an attorney, auditor, medical consultant, or therapist); or a parent or student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. A school official has a legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibilityhellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also distributed by FPCO is a document entitled, &lt;em&gt;Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local Education Agencies&lt;/em&gt;, National Forum on Education Statistics, NCES 2004-330. Washington, DC: 2004. This document provides some relevant guidance:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In determining the school officials who might need access to education records, it is more practical to establish broad position criteria than to list exactly who, or what individual positions, qualify. General criteria such as the following might be useful:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- a person employed by the agency or school in an administrative, counseling, supervisory, academic, student support services, or research position, or a support person to these positions; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- a person employed by or under contract to the agency or school to perform a special task.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Identifying a person as a school official does not automatically grant him or her unlimited access to education records. The existence of a legitimate educational interest may need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. A sample policy statement of what constitutes legitimate educational interest might include substantiation such as the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the information requested if necessary for that official to perform appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the information is to be used within the context of official agency or school business and not for purposes extraneous to the official&apos;s areas of responsibility or to the agency or school.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the information is relevant to the accomplishment of some task or to a determination about the student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;- the information is to be used consistently with the purposes for which the data are maintained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, Mr. Colosimo did not provide information regarding whether the District, in its annual notification, has defined PSAs as school officials with legitimate educational interest. If the District has not, it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to whether all the PSAs have a legitimate educational interest in private data about each of the District&apos;s special needs students, it seems, based on the guidance provided in the &lt;em&gt;Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local Education Agencies&lt;/em&gt;, that individual PSAs should have access only to the private data of students with whom those PSAs will have interaction as part of their work. The specifics of who gets access to what data is up to the District to determine as the District has authority, as well as an obligation, to establish policies about which officials/employees have legitimate educational interests to private data. Mr. Colosimo did assert that some of the PSAs might never work with some of the special needs students. Thus, it would seem inappropriate for the District to release private data about students to PSAs who have no educational interest in the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Colosimo specifically mentioned the process of assigning PSAs to special needs students. If the District can make those assignments without releasing private data about individual students to PSAs who will not have interaction with those students as part of their work assignments, it should do so. If, however, the process requires all PSAs to have access to identifying data about all the special needs students, the District should clearly state that in its policy relating to legitimate educational interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the District must heed the provision in IDEA that requires a current listing of the names and positions of those employees within the District who may have access to personally identifiable data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Colosimo raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 701, Hibbing, would not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released the following data about students with disabilities - name, disability, and services to be provided in accordance with an IEP - to PSAs whose work assignments do not require that they gain access and who have no legitimate educational interest in the data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 16, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267861</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA</Title><Id>266318</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-021</Title><title>Opinion 05 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267386&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-06-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do routine, written K-12 classroom tests and quizzes which are completed by students and count toward their grade for the class fall within the definition of &quot;academic examinations&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, such that a student who completed such an examination (and the parents of minor students) would only have the access rights accorded by section 13.34?
Would Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan, be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law if it declined to provide students (and the parents of minor students) with copies of their completed tests and quizzes, but provided them with access to their completed examinations by allowing them to inspect and review the completed tests and quizzes in school under the circumstances described in the analysis section of the School District&apos;s April 18, 2005, letter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 10, 2005; School District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 18, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jill Coyle, an attorney representing Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan. In her letter, Ms. Coyle asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification, which Ms. Coyle provided in a letter dated April 22, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. The issues Ms. Coyle raise relate to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, which classifies examination data. In her opinion request, Ms. Coyle wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An individual from outside the School District has suggested that the parents of minor students should always be entitled to receive copies of the completed tests of their children, notwithstanding the provisions of [section 13.34]. In doing so, the individual has specifically questioned the validity of [section 13.34] as it pertains to K-12 classroom examinations. This inquiry regarding the validity of [section 13.34] has prompted the School District&apos;s request for an opinion. It is the School District&apos;s position that [section 13.34] is valid and that the parents of minor students are not generally entitled to receive copies of completed tests taken by their children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Coyle&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Do routine, written K-12 classroom tests and quizzes which are completed by students and count toward their grade for the class fall within the definition of academic examinations for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, such that a student who completed such an examination (and the parents of minor students) would only have the access rights accorded by section 13.34?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Would Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan, be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law if it declined to provide students (and the parents of minor students) with copies of their completed tests and quizzes, but provided them with access to their completed examinations by allowing them to inspect and review the completed tests and quizzes in school under the circumstances described in the analysis section of the School District&apos;s April 18, 2005, letter?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do routine, written K-12 classroom tests and quizzes which are completed by students and count toward their grade for the class fall within the definition of academic examinations for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, such that a student who completed such an examination (and the parents of minor students) would only have the access rights accorded by section 13.34?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, generally provides that data subjects have the right to inspect or obtain copies of data about themselves. Thus, a student who is a minor, and his/her parents, have the right to gain access to educational data about that student. (See sections 13.32 and 13.02, subdivision 8.) However, section 13.34 permits government entities to withhold certain information relating to academic examinations:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data consisting solely of testing or examination materials, or scoring keys used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public service, or used to administer a licensing examination, or academic examination, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process are classified as nonpublic, except pursuant to court order. Completed versions of personnel, licensing, or academic examinations shall be accessible to the individual who completed the examination, unless the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. Notwithstanding section 13.04, the responsible authority shall not be required to provide copies of completed examinations or answer keys to any individual who has completed an examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing Ms. Coyle&apos;s question, the first issue is whether section 13.34 applies to the type of academic examinations she describes. Section 13.34 does not define the term academic examination. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, provides that words and phrases are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines academic as, of, relating to, or associated with an academy or school esp. of higher learning, and examination as, an exercise designed to examine progress or test qualification or knowledge. The Commissioner, in looking to the common and approved usage of academic examination, concludes that section 13.34 does apply to routine, written K-12 classroom tests and quizzes, which are completed by students and count toward their grades.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue is resolving the apparent conflict between section 13.04 and section 13.34. Section 645.26 provides that when a general provision in a law is in conflict with a specific provision, and the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Here, section 13.34 appears to be a special provision that is an exception to section 13.04. In addition, when the Legislature enacted section 13.34, it clearly was aware of the conflict and added the following language, &lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding section 13.04&lt;/em&gt;, the responsible authority shall not be required to provide copies of completed examinations or answer keys to any individual who has completed an examination. (Emphasis added.) This suggests the Legislature intended section 13.34 to be an exception to section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Would Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan, be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law if it declined to provide students (and the parents of minor students) with copies of their completed tests and quizzes, but provided them with access to their completed examinations by allowing them to inspect and review the completed tests and quizzes in school under the circumstances described in the analysis section of the School District&apos;s April 18, 2005, letter?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Coyle wrote, The [District&apos;s] second question is whether Minn. Stat. section 13.34 has the potential to conflict with federal law governing access to student data, and, if so, how such a potential conflict should be reconciled. Generally, federal law preempts state law, which, in this case, means that state law, specifically section 13.34, cannot place further restrictions on the rights of a minor student, or his/her parents, to gain access to data about the student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Federal law addresses access to student records in both the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Generally, FERPA applies to all students attending educational institutions that receive funding from the federal Department of Education, and IDEA applies to children with disabilities. Except in a few situations not applicable here, FERPA provides that a parent or student must be given the opportunity to inspect and review the student&apos;s education record. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.10(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Providing copies of an education record is discussed in 34 C.F.R. section 99.10(d):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If circumstances effectively prevent the parent or student from exercising the right to inspect and review the student&apos;s education records, the educational [institution]... shall-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) Provide the parent or eligible student with a copy of the records requested or;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) Make other arrangements for the parent or eligible student to inspect and review the requested records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IDEA contains a similar provision. (See 34 C.F.R. section 300.562.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Coyle wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... Neither law requires that copies be provided except in rare situations in which circumstances effectively prevent the parents from physically exercising the right to inspect and review... (e.g., significant distance from school, parental disability or serious illness, extended travel, lack of transportation). In these atypical circumstances, a school district must either provide the copies or, under FERPA, make other arrangements for the parents to inspect and review the records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Coyle noted, For purposes of this request for an opinion, assume that the rare circumstances that may necessitate copies under federal law do not apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In School District 196, when parents are not provided with copies of completed examinations due to security concerns, they (and their child) are permitted to come to school to access to [sic] the completed tests through in-school inspection. This approach would appear to comply with both state and federal law regarding access to completed tests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Coyle attached to her opinion request a copy of a memorandum prepared by the Minnesota Department of Education dated May 24, 2004. It is addressed to, Directors of Special Education, Other Interested Parties. The subject is, Test Protocols: Access and Retention. In the section entitled, Test Protocols as Educational Data, the Department wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... The Family Policy and Compliance Office (FPCO), the federal office responsible for implementation of FERPA, determined in a &lt;em&gt;Letter to Thomas&lt;/em&gt; that test protocols, as educational data, may be accessible to the parents under the following conditions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;1. If the test questions and answers are both personally identifiable to the student (that is, if the answers appear on the same sheet as the questions, and are identified by the student&apos;s name), the parents have a right to inspect both the questions and answers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;2. If the questions are separate from the answers, and only the answers are personally identifiable to the student, the parent has the right of access to the answers only. However, since 34 C.F.R. section 99.10 also requires an agency to respond to a reasonable request for explanation or interpretation of the record, the agency would have to inform the parent of the questions, if so requested, in order to explain the answers to the questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(See &lt;em&gt;Letter to Thomas&lt;/em&gt;, 211 IDELR 240 (FPCO 1986).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, if a school were to maintain a copy of a student&apos;s test answer sheet (an &apos;education record&apos;), the parent would have a right under Part B [of IDEA] and FERPA to request an explanation and interpretation of the record. The explanation and interpretation by the school district could entail showing the parent the test question booklet, reading the questions to the parent, or providing an interpretation for the responses in some other adequate manner that would inform the parent. 34 C.F.R. section 300.562 (discussion).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the section of the memo entitled, Providing Copies of Test Protocols and Educational Data, the Department wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The district is not unequivocally obliged to distribute copies of test protocols containing educational data to the parents unless failure to do so would effectively prevent the parents from exercising their right to inspect and review. 34 C.F.R. section 300.562(b)(2). In other words, if parents are physically unable to inspect and review the educational data about their child, the district must provide copies of the data to them. The U.S. Department of Education has interpreted this to mean that a parent shall receive copies of the records when he or she lives too far from the school district to see the records in person. &lt;em&gt;Letter to Anonymous&lt;/em&gt;, 213 IDELR 188 (OSERS 1989) and &lt;em&gt;Letter to Kincaid&lt;/em&gt;, 213 IDELR 271 (OSERS 1989). The parent also might be prevented from exercising the right to inspect and review for other reasons, such as a disability, lack of transportation, etc. Representatives from the district may use their own judgment regarding whether a parent is effectively denied access, but should take the above examples into consideration when making this determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, in the situation presented by Ms. Coyle, it appears that, beyond those contemplated in federal law, section 13.34 does not place restrictions on a data subject&apos;s right to gain access to data. It appears, therefore, that if the District elects not to provide copies of completed tests and quizzes to data subjects, the District will be in compliance with state and federal law as long as it provides data subjects an opportunity to inspect and review the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Coyle raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Routine, written K-12 classroom tests and quizzes, which are completed by students and count toward their grade for the class, fall within the definition of academic examinations for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, such that a student who completed such an examination (and the parents of minor students) would have only the access rights accorded by section 13.34.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan, would be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law if it declined to provide students (and the parents of minor students) with copies of their completed tests and quizzes, but provided them with access to their completed examinations by allowing them to inspect and review the completed tests and quizzes in school under the circumstances described in the analysis section of the School District&apos;s April 18, 2005, letter.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 10, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267386</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-020</Title><title>Opinion 05 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267195&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-05-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Resource Training and Solutions in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring a data requestor to inspect data at its attorney&apos;s office, which is located in a different city?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 20, 2005; Resource Training and Solutions</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 14, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jeff Leyk. In his letter, Mr. Leyk asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that Resource Training and Solutions (RTS) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Cavanna, Executive Director of RTS, in response to Mr. Leyk&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 21, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Leyk&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for RTS&apos; position. On April 26, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Thomas Pursell, an attorney representing RTS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. A dispute over RTS&apos; response to a data request by Mr. Leyk is the subject of a previous advisory opinion, 05-011. Subsequent to the opinion, Mark Kinney, an attorney representing RTS, wrote to Mr. Leyk in a letter dated March 16, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing in response to your request for nonpublic documents pertaining to the health insurance pool and the annual audit of [RTS]. It is our intent that this response conform to the Opinion of the Commissioner of Administration dated March 14, 2005hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kinney stated that RTS was making certain data available for Mr. Leyk&apos;s review. He wrote, We will make all public data you requested available for inspection at [the Lindquist Vennum law offices in Minneapolis].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Leyk wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under Minnesota Statute Chapter 13hellip;the inspection of public data will be At reasonable times and places (MN Stat. 13.03, subd. 3). By moving this inspection to an independent contractor of RTS in Minneapolis, MN, they appear to violate the language and intent of Chapter 13hellip;.What would prevent a Minnesota Government Agency from hiring a law firm, or other entity, from a different state and claiming that site will be the inspection location?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Mr. Leyk and RTS are located in the St. Cloud, MN, area, approximately 60 minutes northwest of Minneapolis.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Leyk&apos;s request for an advisory opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Resource Training and Solutions in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring a data requestor to inspect data at its attorney&apos;s office, which is located in a different city?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes there is no dispute that RTS is a service cooperative pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123A.21, and as such, is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government entities are required to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. In addition, subdivision 3 of section 13.03 provides that persons shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Pursell cited section 13.03, subdivision 3, and wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The statute conspicuously does not require this inspection at the agency&apos;s offices. When the Legislature intends such a result, it knows how to say so... The obvious answer to Mr. Leyk&apos;s what if scenario is that making records available to a Minnesota resident through a law firm in another state would probably not meet the statutory reasonableness test. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... In this instance, reviewing records at the law office will have two advantages. In the past, Mr. Leyk has sought non-public data. Many of his questions are likely to require judgment calls about what is public under the statute. These questions will require the advice of counsel, and are better made in the law office than requiring outside counsel to travel to the agency&apos;s office. Review at the law office will also avoid disrupting the agency&apos;s functioning...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, RTS is the involved government entity. As such, it is subject to certain requirements in Chapter 13, namely - for purposes of this opinion - maintaining government data so they are easily accessible for convenient use and providing opportunities, at reasonable times and places, for data requestors to inspect and copy data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Pursell (and his law firm), in his role as RTS&apos; attorney, apparently is in possession of some of the data Mr. Leyk requested. The Commissioner, having not received any information regarding the contractual relationship between RTS and Mr. Pursell, assumes that RTS, not Mr. Pursell, is the entity responsible for ensuring a proper response to Mr. Leyk&apos;s data request. If Mr. Pursell&apos;s law firm were located relatively close to the offices of RTS, it would be reasonable for RTS to require Mr. Leyk to inspect the data at the law firm. This is not the case, however, as the law offices are located some 60 miles away. Pursuant to Chapter 13, RTS is obligated to provide the data to Mr. Leyk at reasonable times and places. Here, it is not reasonable for RTS to require him to go to Minneapolis to gain access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is appropriate. In his comments, Mr. Pursell wrote that it would be advantageous for Mr. Leyk to travel to Mr. Purcell&apos;s office because many of Mr. Leyk&apos;s questions are likely to require judgment calls about what is public under the statute and that [such] questions will require the advice of counsel. To clarify, RTS is obligated under Chapter 13 to provide Mr. Leyk with access to the public data he requested. Either RTS does or does not have public data for him to inspect. Whether or not public data exist is not a matter Mr. Leyk should need to discuss with Mr. Purcell. In addition, if Mr. Leyk has questions about the public data RTS provides, RTS is obligated to inform him of the meaning of the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Leyk raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Resource Training and Solutions is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in requiring a data requestor to inspect data at its attorney&apos;s office, which is located in a different city.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 20, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267195</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-019</Title><title>Opinion 05 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267390&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-05-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would the Winona Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it provides a complainant access to data that consist of an &quot;investigator&apos;s notes and interview summaries regarding interviews of individuals who have made complaints, either orally or in writing, against employees of the entity&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 16, 2005; Winona Housing and Redevelopment Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 12, 2005, IPAD received a letter from Ann R. Goering, an attorney, on behalf of the Winona Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA.) In her letter, she asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a complainant&apos;s right to gain access to certain data that the HRA maintains. IPAD asked Ms. Goering for clarification, which she provided on April 18, 2005. A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Goering follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Goering, the HRA investigated a complaint made against HRA employees. As of the date of her request, the HRA had not taken disciplinary action against any of them, and therefore the documents related thereto are classified as private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5), and subdivision 2(b).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Goering stated, [t]here remains, however, a question as to whether the interview summary of the complainant constitutes a &apos;statement&apos; for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(d). Ms. Goering wrote that her opinion request relates only to investigators notes and interview summaries, and [a] written complaint made by an individual would, in our opinion, constitute a &apos;statement&apos; for purposes of that statutory provision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . interview summaries of an investigator . . . are not verbatim and are not signed by the complainant. The investigator&apos;s notes and summaries are based on decisions by the investigator as to which comments are relevant to the investigation, the order and emphasis as to how the information is recorded and subsequently reported, it [sic] uses the investigator&apos;s words to express what was said by the complainant rather than a verbatim transcript, and filters out unnecessary information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In making a decision as to whether such summaries are &apos;statements&apos; the HRA recognizes that the investigation summaries are private data on the employee being investigated, not the complainant, and that the complainant&apos;s access is an exception to the classification of the data as private personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Ms. Goering&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td height=&quot;98&quot; id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would the Winona Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it provides a complainant access to data that consist of an investigator&apos;s notes and interview summaries regarding interviews of individuals who have made complaints, either orally or in writing, against employees of the entity ?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public; under subdivision 4, most other types of personnel data are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The existence and status of any complaint or charge against an employee are public data. If the government entity takes disciplinary action against an employee, and a final disposition of the disciplinary action has occurred, then additional data become public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).) According to Ms. Goering, the HRA has not taken disciplinary action against any employee in connection with the complaint/allegations here. Therefore, the existence and status of the complaints or charges are the only associated data that are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Goering stated that the HRA has determined that the subjects of the data in question are the employees under investigation, not the complainant. Generally speaking, private data are accessible only to the data subject and others authorized to gain access to private data. However, subdivision 2(d) of section 13.43 provides, a complainant has access to a statement provided by the complainant to a [government entity] in connection with a complaint or charge against an employee.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Section 13.43 does not define statement. The definition of that term in &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/i&gt;, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1997, is [t]he act of stating or declaring; something stated; a declaration. In addition, provided means to furnish; supply.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Ms. Goering, the data in question, i.e., notes and summaries that were created by the investigator, do not include a written complaint made by an individual, or a verbatim recording, which she stated would, in our opinion, constitute a &apos;statement&apos; for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(d). Rather, the investigator created the data in the course of his/her investigation, which are based on decisions by the investigator about what data to record and report.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Section 13.43, subdivision 2(d), provides a complainant with access to the statement the &lt;u&gt;complainant provided&lt;/u&gt;to the government entity. The data at issue here do not satisfy that requirement. Therefore, the data in question are private personnel data that are not accessible to the complainant.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Goering raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Winona Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it provides a complainant access to data that consist of an investigator&apos;s notes and interview summaries, because those data are private personnel data about employees other than the complainant, and are not a statement provided by the complainant for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(d).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 16, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267390</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant access to data</Title><Id>266751</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement provided by complainant</Title><Id>266626</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-018</Title><title>Opinion 05 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267478&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-05-11T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data about a former City employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 11, 2005; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 18, 2005, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Tim Nelson, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In the letter, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the City of Saint Paul maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Luna, City Clerk, in response to Mr. Nelson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Nelson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 14, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gail Langfield, Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In an email dated March 9, 2005, Mr. Nelson wrote to the City and asked for certain data regarding Gina LaForce, the former head of the City&apos;s public library system:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing to request a copy of [Gina LaForce&apos;s] letter of resignation... as well as any paperwork, email or documentation related to the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The existence and status of any complaints or charges against LaForce, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement or termination pay. If the payment involves more than $10,000 of public money, please include the specific reasons for the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deputy Mayor Dennis Flaherty responded in a letter dated March 10, 2005:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... There was a complaint against Ms. LaForce. Its status is that it was investigated and the investigation was completed. By law, specifically Minnesota Statutes section13.43, subd. 4, I cannot release nor comment upon any documentation related to the complaint. There is no final disposition of any disciplinary action. I have enclosed the March 7, 2005, resignation of Ms. LaForce along with documentation necessary for her to obtain her severance benefits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Nelson&apos;s request for an advisory opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data about a former City employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources. For purposes of this paragraph, public official means:
&lt;br /&gt;
1) the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) members of boards or commissions required by law to be appointed by the governor or other elected officers; and
&lt;br /&gt;
3) executive or administrative heads of departments, bureaus, divisions, or institutions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Nelson argued that the City did not release as much information as is required. He relied upon an unpublished United States District Court, District of Minnesota case, &lt;em&gt;Burns v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/em&gt;, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Civil No. 00-577, 2001), and argued that (1) the City should have detailed the nature of the allegations against Ms. LaForce, and (2) the City should have released all data relating to the complaint because Ms. LaForce was a public official as that term is defined in section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding whether the City was required to release details about the nature of the allegations, Ms. Langfield wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... Mr. Nelson&apos;s reliance upon &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt; is misplaced. First, in &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt; the court has confused when reasons should be provided. According to statute, specific reasons for disciplinary action are to be provided if and only when there is a final disposition of disciplinary action...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Langfield also cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case, &lt;em&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002), which was issued after the &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt; decision. In &lt;em&gt;Navarre&lt;/em&gt;, the Court held:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... a government entity&apos;s public comments before final disposition of any disciplinary action are limited to the possible existence of a complaint or complaints or charges against the government employee. Any disclosure by the government entity during the investigation that describes any quality or characteristic of the complaint, whether general or specific, goes beyond the mere existence of the complaint, and therefore violates section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). &lt;em&gt;Navarre&lt;/em&gt; at 22-23.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the City&apos;s position and finds the analysis in &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt; distinguishable from the current situation. In &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt;, the Court appears to suggest that statements appearing in two newspaper articles that were attributed to the City of Minneapolis did not directly connect the police officers under investigation with the fact that Minneapolis was investigating the mounted patrol&apos;s finances. The Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The December 5, 1997 newspaper article reported the existence and status of an investigation into the mounted patrol&apos;s financial management... That specific reasons and data documenting the basis for an investigation cannot be released to the public until after a final disposition does not mean the public may be informed of &lt;em&gt;no reasons at all&lt;/em&gt; for the investigation... .No reasonable reading of the articles could indicate that the City improperly released personnel data on [one of the defendants]. Emphasis provided. &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt;, slip opinion at 16.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court also stated, Defamatory meaning attributable to Defendants cannot be found on the face of this [newspaper article]. Nor can defamatory meaning be drawn from Olson&apos;s remarks by implication. &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt;, slip opinion at 8.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the facts are clear that Mr. Nelson asked for data about Ms. LaForce. There is no question that she is the subject of any data the City releases in response. In such situations, the Commissioner consistently has opined that details about a complaint or charge cannot be released until there has been a final disposition of the matter. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... The current language of [section 13.43] section declares a legislative policy that balances two strongly competing interests. The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this particular balancing of interests, the public is able to find out that charges or complaints have been made against an employee and how the government entity is handling those complaints or charges. If a final disciplinary action is imposed on the employee, the public will also be able to learn the details of the action itself and why the action was taken, including all data that supports the action. If no disciplinary action is imposed or if a proposed disciplinary action is overturned because the employee grieved a proposed disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement, the employee&apos;s interest is protected because there is very limited dissemination to the public of any details about the allegations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267431&quot; title=&quot;04-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. At the point in time Chief Johnson stated that X had been suspended, a final disposition had not occurred. Thus, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), data relating to the existence and status of the complaint/charge were public, but data relating to any disciplinary action taken against X were not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the word status is not defined in section 13.43, or elsewhere in Chapter 13, the Minnesota Supreme Court used the following definition in a recent case: [a] stage of progress or development. (See &lt;em&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 652 N.W.2d, 9, 22 (Minn . 2002) (footnote 4).) In &lt;em&gt;Navarre&lt;/em&gt;, the Court cited &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition&lt;/em&gt;, 1309 (2d ed. 1982). Thus, the status of a complaint against an employee means whether the complaint has been filed, is under investigation, is closed, no discipline was imposed, or similar descriptions of the stages in an entity&apos;s investigatory process. By releasing only data explaining the status of a complaint/charge in response to a data request, the government entity is able to inform the public what it is doing or has done in response to a complaint while simultaneously protecting the rights of employees who are the subjects of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding whether Ms. LaForce was a public official for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), and, therefore, that all data regarding the complaint are public, Ms. Langfield cited &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267374&quot; title=&quot;01-083&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-083&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature originally enacted part of [section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)] in 1995. At that time, the definition of public official was the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant agency heads. (See Minnesota Laws 1995, Chapter 259, Article 1, Section 7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 1996, the Legislature amended the provision by adding the language in clauses (2) and (3). (See Minnesota Laws 1996, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 10.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;IPA staff attended and testified at the Legislative hearings in 1995 and 1996 during which discussions about section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) occurred. There is no question that this provision applies only to state agencies, which are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 17, as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. The Legislature considered including local levels of government but did not do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), the Clay County Sheriff is not a public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ascertaining legislative intent is one way to interpret laws. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, states, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Here, the legislative history, as discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267374&quot; title=&quot;01-083&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-083&lt;/a&gt;, indicates that the provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), do not cover Ms. LaForce, contrary to the decision in &lt;em&gt;Burns&lt;/em&gt;. The Commissioner follows the legislative intent and concludes that the City was not required to release all data relating to the complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Nelson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul did comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data about a former City employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 11, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267478</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action data, access</Title><Id>266891</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-017</Title><title>Opinion 05 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267417&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-05-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 11, 2005, request for &quot;copies of any requests for public information under [Chapter 13] that [the City received] from any other [media organizations]&quot;?
Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to release certain data in emails relating to a specific City employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 11, 2005; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 18, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Tim Nelson, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the City of Saint Paul maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Luna, City Clerk, in response to Mr. Nelson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Nelson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 14, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Gerald Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Nelson provided them is as follows. In an email dated February 6, 2005, Mr. Nelson wrote, We would like to see Sia Lo&apos;s personnel file, as well as any other written or recorded records of any complaints against him in the city&apos;s possession.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email to the city dated February 11, 2005, Mr. Nelson amended and clarified his February 6, 2005, request. Of relevance to this opinion, he asked for:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Any email in the city&apos;s possession regarding Sia Lo&apos;s work on the Hmong Funeral home; any other electronic communications he or any other city employees had regarding that project and Song Lo Fawcett, J. Kue Vang, Kue Vang, JB Realty, Cha Vang, the St. Paul Port Authority, the Vang Pao Foundation, the Kelly and Fawcett law firm Kamp;F Acquisitions, Kamp;F Development or Kurt Schultz; any email detailing allegations against Lo brought by city employees or non-city employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Any documents in the city&apos;s possession regarding Sia Lo&apos;s work on the Hmong Funeral Home; any other paper communications or records in the possession of Lo or any other city employees had regarding that project,... any paper communications between Song Lo Fawcett, J. Kue Vang, Cha Vang, the St. Paul Port Authority, or... Kurt Schultz; any email detailing allegations against Lo brought by city employees or non-city employees...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. I would like a copy of Sia Lo&apos;s city personnel file, including any allegations of wrongdoing lodged against him... and the accuser; any disciplinary records, training or counseling documents and job descriptions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;6. I would like copies of any requests for public information under [Chapter 13] that you receive from any other... ;media organizations...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded in an email dated March 3, 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is in response to your request for a written justification for not providing access to the personal e-mails of Sia Lo, an employee of the City of Saint Paul. This correspondence explains more fully what I told you verbally earlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Office of the City Attorney advised me that Mr. Lo&apos;s personal e-mails were not subject to disclosure under Minnesota law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Where, as in Saint Paul, city policy allows for incidental personal use of the city e-mail system, and where the employee does not create or maintain an e-mail in his capacity as a government employee, the e-mails are personal, and not government data subject to disclosure...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul Internet Access and E-Mail Policy does allow for incidental personal use of the city e-mail system by employees. Thus those e-mails on Mr. Lo&apos;s computer that were not created or maintained in his capacity as a city employee are personal, not governmental data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We carefully reviewed all of Mr. Lo&apos;s e-mails. We gave you all those e-mails that were created or maintained by him in his capacity as a city employee or relating to his governmental duties. The only documents which we did not provide to you are those that do not fit these standards. It is our belief that the law makes these his personal e-mail messages, not government data. That is they are his, not the City&apos;s, so we are not authorized to release them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I also want to make it clear to you that Mr. Lo&apos;s duties included working on the Hmong funeral home matter. Consequently, we gave you all of Mr. Lo&apos;s e-mails dealing with that subject...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Nelson&apos;s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1. Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 11, 2005, request for copies of any requests for public information under [Chapter 13] that [the City received] from any other [media organizations] ?
&lt;p&gt;2. Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to release certain data in emails relating to a specific City employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 11, 2005, request for copies of any requests for public information under [Chapter 13] that [the City received] from any other [media organizations] ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hendrickson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the time of Mr. Nelson&apos;s request for data, the City intended to provide him with the copies of other media organizations&apos; request [sic], but through inadvertence, failed to do so. This first came to our attention in your letter to Mr. Luna. Thereafter, the City provided this data to Mr. Nelson along with an apology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hendrickson provided a copy of the April 7, 2005, letter the City sent to Mr. Nelson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nelson requested the data on February 11, 2005. Two months later, the City mailed him the data. Such a response time is not reasonable and therefore the City did not comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in refusing to release certain data in emails relating to a specific City employee?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted there are situations in which a government entity may be in possession of data that are beyond the purview of Chapter 13. For example, if an entity has a policy that allows for personal use of Internet access, email, or government-owned equipment, related data are not government data, and are personal data. The entity&apos;s decision to release or not release those data is not governed by Chapter 13. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, while the vast majority of data that exist on a City employee&apos;s PC or laptop are government data, there also may be data on the employee&apos;s computer that are personal. What constitutes these personal data depends on what the City has authorized for personal use. Any such personal data are not government data because, although they have been created and/or maintained on a government-owned PC or laptop, the employee did not create them in her/his capacity as a government employee, and the purpose of the data is not related to the operation of government. Personal data, therefore, do not fall under the purview of Chapter 13 and the Commissioner does not have authority to address the classification of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267577&quot; title=&quot;02-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-003&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-049&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267767&quot; title=&quot;04-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-030&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hendrickson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Your division, in [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;], takes the position that the mere fact that e-mail records are on a city-owned computer does not make the e-mail government data subject to [Chapter 13]. The touchstone of the analysis in that opinion depends on what the City has authorized for personal use. Where, as in Saint Paul, city policy allows for incidental personal use of the city e-mail system, and where the employee does not create or maintain an e-mail message in his capacity as a government employee, an e-mail message is personal, and not government data subject to disclosure...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul Internet Access and E-Mail Policy does allow for incidental personal use of the City e-mail system by employees. Thus, the e-mail messages in question that were not created or maintained in the City employee&apos;s capacity as a City employee are personal, not governmental data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nelson provided the Commissioner with a copy of the &lt;em&gt;City of Saint Paul Internet Access and E-mail Policy, Revised Effective May 1, 2002&lt;/em&gt;. In relevant part, it states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Personal Use of E-Mail and Internet Access&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidental and occasional personal use of e-mail and Internet access is tolerated subject to the same policies, procedures and legal considerations that apply to business-related e-mail and Internet use. Incidental and occasional personal use must be done on employee time such as during lunch or breaks. Such personal use is permissible so long as the incremental cost is negligible, no city&apos;s business activity is preempted by the personal use, and no city policies or laws are violated. Excessive personal use and personal use in violation of this Policy, can be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. Personal use of the city&apos;s Internet access and e-mail constitutes the user&apos;s consent to the city to monitor, read, and use in any way any message, record, or other information created by the personal use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, the City&apos;s policy clearly allows for some personal use of its email and Internet connection. Second, the City apparently is in possession of personal emails that Mr. Lo created. Third, as the Commissioner consistently has discussed, such data are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that if the City is maintaining any of the data in the personal emails to document any past or future disciplinary action it may take against Mr. Lo, it appears those data become government data and are subject to Chapter 13. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-049&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Nelson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1. The City of Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 11, 2005, request for copies of any requests for public information under [Chapter 13] that [the City received] from any other [media organizations].
&lt;p&gt;2. Assuming the data in the emails withheld by the City were not created by Mr. Lo in his capacity as a government employee, are not related to the operation of government, and are not being maintained to document past or future disciplinary action, the data are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 11, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267417</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Computers/internet - personal data</Title><Id>266776</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-016</Title><title>Opinion 05 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267579&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-05-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $14.25 for seventeen pages of data relating to per diem claims by Rock County Board members?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 3, 2005; Rock County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 4, 2005, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Greg LaFond, on behalf of the City of Luverne. In his letter, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer Office&apos;s fee for copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gloria Rolfs, the Auditor/Treasurer, in response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 5, 2005, were to inform her of Mr. LaFond&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On April 22, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jeffrey Haubrich, Assistant Rock County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. LaFond is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... in January of 2005, my office requested copies of the per diem reports of Rock County Commissioners for the year 2004. The request was made of the Rock County Auditor-Treasurer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Rock County Auditor-Treasurer provided 17 pages of per diem reports in mid-January of 2005. The copies were accompanied by a billing that included a charge of $.25 per page for the copies and a $10.00 service charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On January 31, 2005, I wrote to the Rock County Auditor-Treasurer and questioned the $10.00 service fee. To date, I have not received a response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. LaFond&apos;s request for an advisory opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $14.25 for seventeen pages of data relating to per diem claims by Rock County Board members?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haubrich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You will note that accompanying this letter is a photocopy of a Rock County Combination Warrant Check for $1.93, the refund for what Mr. LaFond believes to have been an overcharge for the data requested. The County has in the past used $10.00 minimum charge to administer large data requests such as the extensive request the City and Mr. LaFond sought which was a copy of all the per diem records for each county commissioner. In this particular instance, it appears the $10.00 charge was actually a slight overcharge and that is why the County is refunding the $1.93. In practice, the County only charges this charge when it is a large request and the fee and time required are substantial. In this particular case, as I indicated, it did, upon further review, appear that the County had slightly overcharged by using the minimum, while in many other cases, it is assured that the County has undercharged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To rectify this situation, the County will now calculate precise charges for all of the requests and bill them regardless of how small the amount of time required is...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am sure if the County took the time to trace back through its records and if they were able to calculate the actual expenses on the handful of times the $10.00 minimum was applied, that it would be equally often that the County shorted itself and provided a discount rate to the requester of the data. However, in a technical sense the County realizes that this practice isn&apos;t probably in absolute strict compliance with the technical requirements of the act and, therefore, it will abandon the fixed minimum charge in favor of calculating a precise charge in each data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to Mr. Haubrich&apos;s comments was a copy of an April 22, 2005, letter he wrote to Mr. LaFond. In the letter, Mr. Haubrich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Department staff spent approximately one-half hour time preparing and researching your request. The lowest hourly rate in the department is $12.38 cash, and when figuring a 1.4 multiplier for labor additives, the total hourly cost becomes $17.33, one-half of which is $8.67 for the time spent. This is in addition to the $4.25 for the copies at 25 cents per page, equated to a total bill of $12.32 as opposed to the $14.25 you were charged, therefore the $1.93 refund.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that government entities, in responding to requests for copies of data, may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving, and for making the copies. In his April 22, 2005, letter to Mr. LaFond, Mr. Haubrich states that the Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office spent 30 minutes preparing and researching the request. The Commissioner does not know if preparing and researching is the same as searching for and retrieving. If not, it is possible the $8.67 (half of $17.33) charge includes labor costs that are not allowable, such as separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Haubrich also did not provide documentation explaining how the 25 cents per page fee represents the actual cost of making the copies, i.e., toner, paper, or labor fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, it should be noted that the Commissioner&apos;s calculation of the Office&apos;s revised charge does not match with that of Mr. Haubrich. The Office made seventeen copies at 25 cents per page. In adding that portion of the fee, $4.25, to the prepare and research charge, $8.67, the total is $12.92, not $12.32.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in previous opinions, the Commissioner has stated that Chapter 13 does not allow government entities to assess minimum charges, such as that set here by the Office. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-042&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267988&quot; title=&quot;01-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-019&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267040&quot; title=&quot;01-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-020&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. LaFond raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $14.25 for seventeen pages of data relating to per diem claims by Rock County Board members.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 3, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267579</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Searching and retrieving</Title><Id>266273</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minimum charge not allowed</Title><Id>266919</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-015</Title><title>Opinion 05 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267662&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-04-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 728, Elk River comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to follow-up requests for data, dated December 23 and 29, 2004?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 20, 2005; School District 728 (Elk River)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 22, 2005, IPAD received a letter from Harold Shogren, on behalf of the Elk River Education Association (EREA). In his letter, Mr. Shogren asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the EREA&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 728, Elk River. Mr. Shogren&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff, which he provided on April 1, 2005.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alan Jensen, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Shogren&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 4, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Shogren&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 12, 2005, IPAD received a response from Ivars Krafts, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                At the outset, the Commissioner notes that Mr. Shogren and William Hjerstedt, President of the EREA, asked for access to the data at issue here, and subsequently communicated with the District, jointly, on behalf of the EREA. A summary of the facts follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to the District dated September 21, 2004, Mr. Hjerstedt requested copies of all the Superintendent&apos;s &apos;Friday Briefings&apos; to the school board.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 23, 2004, Mr. Shogren wrote to Mr. Jensen: [t]his is a follow up to an EREA letter to you dated September 21, 2004. That letter requested the EREA be provided the complete file of the superintendent&apos;s Friday letters to the School Board. This letter reiterates that request . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter, Mr. Shogren modified the time frame applicable to the EREA&apos;s original data request to reflect that, in response, the District had provided copies of the Friday Briefings for the time period of November 15, 2002, to November 14, 2003. (In a letter dated December 29, 2004, Mr. Hjerstedt corrected certain dates in Mr. Shogren&apos;s December 23 letter.) They both stated that they were still requesting copies of the Friday Briefings that the District had not yet provided.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Jensen responded to Mr. Shogren, in a letter also dated December 23, 2004. Mr. Jensen wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                When I gave [Mr. Hjerstedt] copies of the year of Friday Notes I asked if that would suffice as I see no positive value in your request. . . . [He] was asked to let me know if you still wanted more copies and the matter was left at that. Therefore I do not feel constrained by you [sic] comment suggesting that the time has past and that I am remiss in causing this to happen. . . . I will, however, comply with your recent request as soon as possible. Please check your records as I have already given you the second half of your request. . . . I will provide copies of the others you have requested. You will receive letters from the period January 2001 through October 8, 2002.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Shogren wrote to the Commissioner that the Friday Briefings are notes written by the Superintendent and sent to each member of the school board. They were written in the period from sometime in 2000 or 2001 and extended into sometime in 2004. Mr. Shogren wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                After [his December 23, 2004, request, Mr. Jensen] stated that he would only give the EREA the Briefings for the period from January 2001 through October 2002. In [Mr. Jensen&apos;s December 23, 2004 letter,] he also stated that the delay was a result of his request of [Mr. Hjerstedt] to forgo the Briefings not yet received. [Mr. Hjerstedt] did not respond to this verbal request because he thought that in the context of the conversation his failure to respond to the request would be understood as a denial of the request and that the EREA was pursuing its request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Krafts wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As is apparent from the written communication between representatives of the Elk River Education Association and the Superintendent, Dr. Jensen, there was also oral discussion between the Superintendent, and the President of the EREA, William Hjerstedt. Delay resulted from confusion about the time periods for which the notes were requested. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The request by the EREA is a valid one in that portions of the notes do contain public data. The District has very few people qualified to analyze the notes and redact the private data. The District has done its best to comply with the request; yet, the very time-consuming but necessary process of redaction has resulted in a slower than usual response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Krafts stated that the District is in the process of redacting the data and will provide copies to the EREA.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Based on Mr. Shogren&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 728, Elk River comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to follow-up requests for data, dated December 23 and 29, 2004?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes the confusion, due to verbal communications that neither party clarified, that contributed to the time the District has taken to respond to the EREA&apos;s request. However, some seven months after the original request, and four months after the follow-up requests, the District has not yet provided the EREA with copies of all of the requested data, a response that is neither prompt nor within a reasonable time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, it should be noted that in his letter to Mr. Shogren dated December 23, 2005, Mr. Jensen stated: [a]s you are aware these notes must be reviewed by counsel to ensure that we are releasing public information only as they were not originally written for public distribution. You are also aware that there will be a cost involved in this process that, I am sure, you are not asking the district, during these times, to cover. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Krafts wrote that the Superintendent no longer commingles private and public data in the Friday notes, but now sends private data by separate communication clearly identified as private. The Commissioner commends that change, and reminds her readers that government entities are obliged to maintain data such that the data are easily accessible for convenient use, and entities may not charge a fee for separating public from not public data. (See section 13.03, subdivisions 1 and 3(c).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Shogren raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 728, Elk River, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to follow-up requests for data, dated December 23 and 29, 2004, because its response was neither prompt nor within a reasonable time. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 20, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267662</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-014</Title><title>Opinion 05 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266495&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-04-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the committees of the Cannon Falls Community Hospital Board in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they meet in closed session?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 18, 2005; Cannon Falls Community Hospital Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 10, 2005, IPAD received a letter, dated March 3, 2005, from Shirley Workman. In her letter, Ms. Workman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding public access to meetings of committees of the Cannon Falls Community Hospital Board (the Board). Ms. Workman submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 14, 2005, IPAD wrote to Glenn Christian, interim chief executive officer of the Cannon Falls Hospital. In its letter, IPAD informed Mr. Christian of Ms. Workman&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. The Board presented its position in a letter dated March 23, 2005, from its attorney, John E. Diehl.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Ms. Workman is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board has five members and has a number of standing committees. Two members of the Board sit on these standing committees. The committees meet regularly to discuss and consider matters pending before the Board. In most cases the meetings are closed to the public. Ms. Workman stated that when a committee has considered an issue, there is little discussion of that issue by the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Workman provided a copy of a February 22, 2005, letter from Mr. Diehl to Mr. Christian discussing whether the committee meetings were subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML), and so needed to be open to the public. The conclusion of the February 22, 2005, letter was that the committee meetings were not subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Ms. Workman&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner will address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the committees of the Cannon Falls Community Hospital Board in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they meet in closed session?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parties agree that the Board is subject to the OML. The question before the Commissioner is whether committees of the Board are subject to the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.01, subdivision 1 states in pertinent part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public ... when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) of any&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) committee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) subcommittee,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(3) board,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(4) department, or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(5) commission,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;of a public body...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The express language of the statute requires open meetings for any type of committee transacting public business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The committees at issue are described as standing committees. According to the Board, the Hospital District bylaws require that standing committees be established by Board resolution. No resolutions were provided to the Commissioner so there is no way to determine if the standing committees have been created as required by the bylaws nor is there a way to determine what authority has been granted to the standing committees by the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board indicated that the standing committees are responsible for management liaison, collection of information, and formulation of issues and recommendations for the Board. The Board takes the position that these activities do not give the standing committees sufficient authority to require that the committees comply with the OML. In support of its position, the Board references two decisions by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Each of the cases will be discussed and analyzed in turn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first case, &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988), involved the Presidential Search Advisory Committee (PSAC) that was created in 1988 to provide advice and consultation to the regents of the University on the selection of the next president. PSAC was made up of faculty, student and staff members and its duties included the screening of applicants and creating a short list of finalists. PSAC&apos;s decisions were subject to review by the regents. At open meetings, PSAC established general procedures and adopted an evaluation system for candidates. Once specific candidates were to be discussed, PSAC meetings were closed. The &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt; sued alleging violations of the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The district court found that the OML did not apply to PSAC as it was not a committee of the regents. The Court of Appeals agreed finding that PSAC did not have the power to decide who the new university president would be and so was not transacting the public&apos;s business. As a result, PSAC did not have to comply with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt; case is not dispositive here, as the Board&apos;s standing committees are not performing a one-time function as was PSAC. Instead, the standing committees are performing tasks that relate to the ongoing operation of the Cannon Falls Hospital District. Examples of these tasks include directing the appraisal of the chief executive officer, developing meeting agendas for the Board, doing an annual review of governance effectiveness, defining quality as it relates to the operational functioning of the hospital district, assessing the adequacy of the quality improvement plan, preventing or detecting and reporting violations of applicable laws and regulations, developing financial performance indicators and analyzing and presenting major capital plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order to complete these tasks, the standing committees of the Board will need to receive information and analyze it in order to make recommendations to the Board. The very nature of this process requires that the standing committees make decisions about what should or should not be communicated to the Board. Ms. Workman indicated that when a committee has considered an issue, there is very little discussion by the Board about that issue. This appears to indicate that the Board has delegated to the committees the responsibility to make recommendations on which the Board will act without much deliberation. This is the type of conduct that the Minnesota Supreme Court warned governing bodies to avoid when using committees. See &lt;em&gt;Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281&lt;/em&gt;, 336 N.W.2d 510, 517 (Minn. 1983). Given the nature of the work assigned to the standing committees and the level of responsibility placed in them by the Board, the committees are transacting public business and so must comply with the OML.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sovereign v. Dunn&lt;/em&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) is the second case referred to by the Board as supporting its conclusion that the OML does not apply to its standing committees. Kenneth Sovereign alleged that the City of Lake Elmo had violated the OML when the mayor and a member of the city council attended a series of mediation sessions that were not open to the public. The purpose of the mediation sessions was to resolve an annexation dispute between Lake Elmo and the City of Oakdale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In upholding the district court&apos;s dismissal of the action, the Court of Appeals found that because less than a quorum of the Lake Elmo City Council was involved in the meetings and because the two-member delegation from Lake Elmo did not have the power to bind the City, the OML did not apply. &lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; at 67. Again, the findings in &lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; are not directly applicable to the Board in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Much as in the &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt; case cited above, the &lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; case involves a committee acting on an &lt;em&gt;ad hoc&lt;/em&gt; basis--not as a standing committee such as those under consideration here. The finding in Sovereign with respect to the quorum issue is not applicable here - a quorum of the standing committee is needed to transact the business of the committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This case is more like that of &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). There, the Court found that a meeting of the school board for the St. Cloud area school district to discuss long-range planning was a meeting for which notice had to be given, in compliance with the OML. While the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud&lt;/em&gt; case is different from this one in that all members of the St. Cloud school board participated in the meeting, it is similar to this case in that the standing committees of the Board receive information that may influence later decisions of both the committee and the Board. The Court in &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud&lt;/em&gt; held that when this type of information is to be received, the OML applies. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud&lt;/em&gt; at 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case before the Commissioner, the standing committees are transacting the business of the Hospital District and its Board. By the express terms of the OML, the standing committees must comply its requirements. The OML was enacted for the public benefit and is liberally construed in favor of openness. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud&lt;/em&gt; at 4-5; &lt;em&gt;Sovereign&lt;/em&gt; at 66; &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt; at 191. Therefore, the meetings of the standing committees must be open to the public unless there is an express statutory provision that authorizes or requires that the meeting, or a portion of a meeting, be closed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Workman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The committees of the Cannon Falls Community Hospital Board are not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, when they meet in closed session.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 18, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266495</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Standing committees</Title><Id>266494</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-013</Title><title>Opinion 05 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267867&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-03-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Chapter 13D, may the Wild Rice Watershed District close an open meeting to discuss its contract with an independent contractor?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 28, 2005; Wild Rice Watershed District Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 17, 2005, the IPAD received a letter from Elroy Hanson, an attorney for the Wild Rice Watershed District Board (Board). In the letter that was dated February 14, 2005, Mr. Hanson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion on a matter relating to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Commissioner requested additional information from Mr. Hanson and the final items were received on March 8, 2005. Mr. Hanson submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue to be addressed in this opinion may have an effect on the parties hired by the Board to provide services. Therefore, the Commissioner determined that the service providers should be notified of the request for an advisory opinion. A letter dated March 9, 2005, provided notice to each service provider offering them an opportunity to comment on the issue outlined below. No responses were received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The facts as presented by Mr. Hanson are as follows. The Board is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML). The Board has no employees; services are provided by contract. At its February 2005 regular meeting, one member of the Board&apos;s members moved to close the meeting for purposes of discussing the Board&apos;s contract with the Board&apos;s engineering firm. As attorney for the Board, Mr. Hanson advised the members of the Board that the meeting could not be closed unless there was statutory authority to do so. The Board did not close the meeting in February and determined that it would ask for an advisory opinion on the issue stated below. The Board has taken the position that the language does not apply to its service providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Hansen&apos;s request, the Commissioner will address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13D, may the Wild Rice Watershed District close an open meeting to discuss its contract with an independent contractor?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board acknowledges that it is subject to the OML. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1 (b)(6). The Board purchases administrative, secretarial, accounting, engineering, legal and public relations services from what the Board characterizes as independent contractors. The Board wants to review its contract with one of the parties with whom it has a contract for services. The question before the Commissioner is whether the Board can close a portion of a meeting to conduct that review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The OML requires that meetings of public bodies such as the Board be open to the public, unless the closure is authorized by statute. See section 13D.01, subdivision 1. There are several statutory provisions that require or permit a public body such as the Board to close a portion of a meeting. For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes that a discussion of contract terms includes an evaluation of the performance of those terms. Therefore, the provision at issue here is found in section 13D.05, subdivision 3 (a). It states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether this provision applies to a service provider requires the interpretation of the word individual. There is no definition of the term in Chapter 13D or Chapter 645 of Minnesota Statutes (provides general rules for interpreting statutes and rules). The Commissioner turns then to the common usage of the word individual. See section 645.08 (1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As defined in &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1997, individual means of or relating to an individual, especially a single human being. Utilizing this definition, the Board may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of a human being who is subject to its authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next step in the analysis is whether the service providers are human beings. The first determination is whether the contract is with a human being or a business organization that is a legal entity separate and distinct from the human beings who own it. Examples of a separate legal entity are corporations and limited liability companies. Partnerships and sole proprietorships are examples where the human being who owns the business is personally liable for the business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the Commissioner&apos;s request, the Board has provided copies of documents that relate to each of the five services that are purchased by contract. Applying the steps outlined above leads to the following conclusions. When, as with the contract between the Board and Mr. Hanson, it is an employment agreement between the Board and Mr. Hanson as an individual and uses the words employ throughout, Mr. Hanson is an individual whose performance may be evaluated in a closed session of the Board. See section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the amended contract between the Board and JB Associates Limited, Inc. for administrative services specifically uses the phrase independent contractor and is between the Board and a corporation. An evaluation of the performance of JB Associates Limited, Inc. is not an evaluation of an individual and so there is no authority to close the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board did not provide a copy of the contract between it and the engineering firm, Houston Engineering, Inc. Assuming that Houston Engineering, Inc. is a business organization like a corporation as the term Inc. in its name would certainly imply, then an evaluation of the terms of its contract would not be an evaluation of an individual and so there is no authority to close the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the identity or status of each provider, the relationship between each provider and the Board, along with the terms of the contractual agreement will need to be evaluated to determine how the language in section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) applies in a particular situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that the Wild Rice Watershed District Board raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13D, the Wild Rice Watershed District Board may close an open meeting to discuss its contract with an independent contractor when that contractor is an individual human being. If the contractor is a business organization like a corporation, then the meeting may not be closed.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 28, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267867</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual vs. business entity</Title><Id>266357</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual performance</Title><Id>266629</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:45:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-012</Title><title>Opinion 05 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267473&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-03-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Was Faribault County in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disseminated to the public a copy of a document containing data about an employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 21, 2005; Faribault County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 25, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from X, an employee of Faribault County. In X&apos;s letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s right to gain access to certain data that the County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brenda Ripley, Director of County Personnel and Data Processing, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 1, 2005, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On February 18, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Susan Hansen, an attorney representing the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On [date removed] I gave my supervisor... a letter response to a written reprimand. Later that day I received a call from a local newspaper asking me what they were supposed to do with my letter. Without my knowledge or consent, a County employee had faxed my letter to the newspaper. I asked the paper not [sic] publish the letter and to fax the letter to me, which they did immediately... .I did not know who Sue Hansen (the post-it on the fax) was or why the County would send my letter to her or to the newspapers...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The next business day [date removed] I provided a written demand letter to the County, asking that any copies of the [letter response to the written reprimand] provided to newspapers or others be immediately retrieved.On [date removed] I received an email from the County Personnel Director responding to my letter. According to the County, my letter was faxed to the newspaper by mistake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in X&apos;s letter, s/he stated, I wish to clarify that there has been no final disposition of this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X attached to the opinion request a copy of his/her response to the reprimand, a copy of his/her letter to the County regarding the newspaper&apos;s receipt of the response to the reprimand, a copy of the newspaper employee&apos;s email explanation of what happened, and a copy of the County Personnel Director&apos;s email apology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on X&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Was Faribault County in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disseminated to the public a copy of a document containing data about an employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the existence and status of the complaint or charge are public. (See 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).) A final disposition occurs when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[the government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Hansen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On [date removed] X was issued a written reprimand. [Fifteen calendar days later], X submitted a letter to [his/her] supervisor in response to the written reprimand (hereafter X&apos;s letter ). The supervisor provided a copy of X&apos;s letter to the County&apos;s personnel Director. The Personnel Director then attempted to transmit X&apos;s letter to [Ms. Hansen]. [Ms. Hansen&apos;s office] serves as Faribault County&apos;s labor and employment law attorneys. When the Personnel Director placed X&apos;s letter on the facsimile machine for transmission to [Ms. Hansen] the Personnel Director inadvertently touched the wrong speed dial number on the facsimile machine. Specifically, instead of touching the speed dial number for the office of [Ms. Hansen], the Personnel Director touched the speed dial number for the Wells Mirror and Shopper newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hansen explained that only one employee at the newspaper saw the letter. The employee, after calling the number listed at the top of the facsimile, faxed the letter back to the County and destroyed the copy in the newspaper&apos;s possession. The employee then submitted an email to the County&apos;s Personnel Director describing the events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hansen also stated that the actions of the Personnel Director were not deliberate or willful. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Instead, the Personnel Director&apos;s actions were inadvertent, accidental and in error. The Personnel Director apologized to X for this error... In order to prevent such an error from occurring by chance again, the County has deleted its labor attorney&apos;s facsimile number from the speed dial function on its facsimile machine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hansen also commented on the issue of whether or not there had been a final disposition for purposes of Chapter 13. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The original [date removed] written reprimand that was issued to X was not grieved pursuant to the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement between Faribault County and [the exclusive representative of X]. Therefore, based upon the failure of X to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement, a final disposition regarding this disciplinary action has occurred... The final disposition of this disciplinary action, together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, are therefore public data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. There is a disagreement between the parties as to whether or not a final disposition has occurred and the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine which is the case. However, it appears the classification of the data in X&apos;s response letter can be determined, irrespective of this question. If a final disposition &lt;em&gt;has not&lt;/em&gt; occurred, the data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4. If a final disposition &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; occurred it appears the data also are private. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), when a final disposition has occurred, the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action... are public. Here, it does not appear that data in X&apos;s response letter constitute specific reasons for the County&apos;s disciplinary action and/or data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, assuming the data in the response letter are private, the County was not in compliance with Chapter 13 when it faxed a copy of the letter to the &lt;em&gt;Wells Mirror and Shopper&lt;/em&gt;. The Commissioner notes, however, that while the County&apos;s dissemination technically is a violation of Chapter 13, the County has admitted it made a mistake, has apologized to X, and has taken a positive step toward ensuring that such a mistake will not happen again.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It does not appear Faribault County was in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disseminated to the public a copy of a document containing data about an employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 21, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267473</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disclosure or Dissemination of data</Title><Id>266825</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-011</Title><title>Opinion 05 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267563&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-03-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Resource Training and Solutions comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a copy of the following data: all financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool and the annual audit of Resource Training and Solutions?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 14, 2005; Resource Training and Solutions</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 21, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated same, from Jeff Leyk. In his letter, Mr. Leyk asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that Resource Training and Solutions (RTS), a Minnesota service cooperative, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Cavanna, Executive Director of RTS, in response to Mr. Leyk&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 25, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Leyk&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for RTS&apos; position. On February 4, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Thomas Pursell, an attorney representing RTS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Leyk is as follows. In a letter dated September 29, 2004, Mr. Leyk wrote to Mr. Cavanna:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting a copy of all financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool at [RTS]. Please include ledgers containing all income and expenditures, listing the names, amounts, and services provided by each vendor or entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 8, 2004, Mr. Leyk wrote again to Mr. Cavanna.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Let me clarify what I would like to receive. I am NOT interested in the individual claims data of each school district. I am only interested in receiving the financial records pertaining to the health insurance pool. The financial records I am requesting should show all inflows and expenditures pertaining to the health pool, as well as all stabilization accounts. The focus of my inspection will be identifying how much and whom is receiving monies from the premiums charged to the school districts. I would also like the worksheet or a statement from Blue Cross/Blue Shield that will match and verify the amounts paid during the same period as the dates on the financial records. (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 26, 2004, Mark Kinney, an attorney representing RTS wrote to Mr. Leyk. He cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.203, which classifies certain service cooperative data as nonpublic. Mr. Kinney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We have carefully considered your request, and have determined that you are requesting either claims experience or related information...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The statute provides that the Executive Director of a Minnesota Service Cooperative may release nonpublic data not on individuals if he or she determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. It is our understanding that you are a licensed insurance broker, and that you are not requesting this information on behalf of an employer that is a member of the pool. Accordingly, I have advised [RTS] that the release of the data requested will likely be detrimental to the pool.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;... Also note that [RTS] has offered and will make available to you at no cost its audited financial statements, which may contain summary information on the health pools, as those statements are already in the public domain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an October 28, 2004, letter to Mr. Cavanna, Mr. Leyk noted that he received the denial letter from Mr. Kinney. Mr. Leyk further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would like a copy of the audit performed on the health pool and again, I am requesting a copy of the health pool financials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, let me clarify what I would like to receive. Minnesota Statute 13.203 only applies to the information received from carriers and administrators. I am not interested in the claims information for which this statute applies. I would like to inspect the financials of [RTS] that pertain to the health pool, NOT claims information. The transactions that occur within [RTS] are not protected information and are subject to public inspection under [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 3, 2004, Mr. Kinney wrote to Mr. Leyk:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Contrary to your assertion, claims experience is not limited to information received from carriers and claims administrators. [Section 13.203] protects claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators. Applying its ordinary commercial meaning, claims experience includes individual claims (which would be protected without regard to Section 13.203), and claims that are aggregated at both the employer and pool level. Claims experience is the central component of the health pool audit, and is inextricably intertwined with health pool financials. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to your request, [RTS] has retained an actuary to assist it in determining whether public data contained in the health pool audit, if any, may be separated from claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators. We will contact you when that determination is complete, and make any resulting public data available for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Leyk and Mr. Kinney exchanged additional emails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Leyk wrote, Although I have requested several documents, my primary interest is in the financials and the annual audit. These are the requests on which I would like an advisory opinion at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that RTS provides a number of services, including software training, professional development, and parenting workshops, in addition to a group health purchasing coalition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Leyk&apos;s request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Resource Training and Solutions comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a copy of the following data: all financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool and the annual audit of Resource Training and Solutions?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.203 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators participating in a group health or dental plan, including any long-term disability plan, offered through the Minnesota service cooperatives to Minnesota school districts and other political subdivisions, and survey information collected from employees and employers participating in these plans and programs, except when the executive director of a Minnesota service cooperative determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program, are classified as nonpublic data not on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, there appears to be no dispute that RTS is a service cooperative pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 123A.21, and as such, is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Pursell wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to the other part of Mr. Leyk&apos;s request - all financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool - this request is impossibly vague in light of the fact that claims experience is nonpublic data under Minn. Stat. section 13.203. The health insurance pool is an important function of [RTS], which is one of the State&apos;s service cooperatives. Virtually every bit or byte of information generated by the insurance pooling function [sic] derived from or related to claims experience. In order to be responsive to Mr. Leyk&apos;s request, [RTS] has retained an actuarial firm to determine whether financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool (or portions thereof) are public data. [RTS] will provide information pursuant to an appropriately articulated request. Until then, a substantive response on all financial documents is premature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[RTC] has engaged an actuarial firm at considerable expense to separate public from protected information if an appropriate Data Practices request is received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Leyk&apos;s request for the audit of the health pool, Mr. Purcell referred to Mr. Kinney&apos;s October 26, 2004, letter (see &lt;em&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/em&gt; above).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, there appears to be a disagreement between the attorneys representing RTS and Mr. Leyk regarding the language in section 13.203. Mr. Kinney, in his November 3, 2004, letter, asserted that the term claims experience discussed in section 13.203 is not limited to information received from carriers and claims administrators. Conversely, Mr. Leyk, in his opinion request, argued that section 13.203 does not protect financial data within the service coop. The classification of &apos;nonpublic data&apos; only applies, as stated in the statute, to claims experience and related information received FROM THE CARRIERS AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS. (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the first phrase in section 13.203 classifies the following data received from carriers and claims administrators: claims experience and all related information. Thus, data that RTS collects, creates, and maintains that are not claims experience and all related information from carriers and claims administrators are not protected pursuant to section 13.203. The Commissioner&apos;s interpretation is buttressed by the legislative intent behind section 13.203. Mr. Kinney, in his October 26, 2004, letter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota State Legislature categorized claims experience and all related information as nonpublic in order to protect the Service Cooperative pools from being forced to reveal data that could be used by competitors to lure away employers with good experience, or to undercut competitive bids that are made on the pool as a whole through the public bidding process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the plain language of section 13.203 and the legislative intent provided by Mr. Kinney, it seems highly likely that the Legislature did not intend for section 13.203 to protect all of the financial data relating to RTS&apos; health insurance pool. For example, it does not appear that competitors could use data such as financial ledgers showing income and expenses associated with the pool to lure away certain employers or undercut competitive bids. Thus, it seems probable that RTS maintains some financial data responsive to Mr. Leyk&apos;s request. Mr. Leyk began making requests for data in October of 2004. The Commissioner urges RTS promptly to provide Mr. Leyk with copies of all public financial documents relating to the health insurance pool. If, for some reason, RTS does not understand Mr. Leyk&apos;s request, RTS should obtain clarification promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the copy of the health pool audit Mr. Leyk asked for in his October 28, 2004, letter, it is not clear whether RTS has provided any of the data or informed Mr. Leyk that the data are not public (see section 13.03, subdivision 3(f)). Mr. Kinney, in his November 3, 2004, letter, stated that RTS had retained an actuary to review the audit and separate any public from not public data. Mr. Kinney wrote, We will contact you when that determination is complete, and make any resulting public data available for inspection. If RTS has not either provided the data or informed Mr. Leyk that the data are not public, it should do so promptly. The Commissioner notes that government entities may not charge for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Leyk raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It does not appear that Resource Training and Solutions complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for a copy of the following data: all financial documents pertaining to the health insurance pool and the annual audit of Resource Training and Solutions.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 14, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267563</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Service cooperative claims data (13.203)</Title><Id>266826</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Service cooperative claims data (13.203)</Title><Id>266826</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-010</Title><title>Opinion 05 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267644&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-03-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (B) regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?
Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a November 14, 2004, request to inspect public data related to the construction of a fence?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 7, 2005; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 30, 2004, IPAD received a letter from John Musgjerd, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Greenwood. Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request required additional information and clarification with IPAD staff, which he provided on February 8, 2005.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the City. The purposes of this letter, dated February 16, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 23, 2005, IPAD received a response from Mark W. Kelly, attorney for the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts follows. In a letter and fax addressed to Terry Nagel, then Mayor of Greenwood, dated November 14, 2004, Mr. Musgjerd asked to inspect public data related to the construction of a fence. In his opinion request, Mr. Musgjerd stated that he directed his request to the Mayor due to the fact that the responsible authority for the City had passed away and another individual has still not been appointed to fulfill the responsibilities of the office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his February 5, 2005, opinion request, Mr. Musgjerd stated the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Greenwood City Office was visited and the minutes of every Council Meeting (both Regular and Special) for the months of June through December 2004 were examined. There was no official action taken on the part of the City Council to appoint another responsible authority. In addition, all supporting information in the council packets was reviewed to ascertain whether this matter was addressed; and, no evidence was found.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Musgjerd, as of the date of his request, the City had not provided him with access to the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Greenwood Ordinance Code Section 125.00, Subd. 2 establishes that &apos;the responsible authority for the City of Greenwood shall be the City Clerk . . . . It is true that in the summer of 2004, the City Clerk of the City of Greenwood passed away. Subsequently, on September 7, 2004, the City engaged the services of a new individual to serve as City Clerk. Consequently, the office of the &apos;Responsible Authority&apos; was filled at all times pertinent hereto. The office was not vacant on November 14, 2005 [sic].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Nagel, the former Greenwood Mayor, has no recollection of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s November 14, 2004, request for data, and [c]onsequently, no action was taken. Mr. Kelly continued:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City regrets the government data request contained in the letter was not directed to the attention of the &apos;Responsible Authority&apos; for the City of Greenwood nor [sic] to the City Clerk. City Code places the public on notice that the City Clerk is the &apos;Responsible Authority&apos; for the handling of Government Data requests. A notice regarding how to make a government data request is posted at the City Clerk window. (See copy enclosed). This system has served the City, and the public, well. In the past, Mr. Musgjerd has directed Government Data practice requests to the attention of the City Clerk and, on information and belief, received the assistance requested. On information and belief, Mr. Musgjerd did not follow his past practice in the request at issue. In fact, his [opinion request dated] February 5, 2005, [stating that the minutes of every regular and special Council Meeting for the months of June through December 2004 were examined at the Greenwood City Office] . . . appears to confirm that Government Data can be accessed at the office of the City Clerk. . . . The City regrets that Mr. Musgjerd did not recognize that the person serving as City Clerk, and not a specific individual, is Greenwood&apos;s &apos;Responsible Authority&apos; under the Government Data Practices Act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The notice, posted at the City Clerk&apos;s office, states:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The responsible Authority of the City of Greenwood is Roberta Whipple, City Clerk, City of Greenwood 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior MN 55331 appointed by Ordinance 130 (Greenwood Ordinance Code Section 125) and Resolution No. 6-01. The Responsible Authority is responsible for answering inquiries from the public concerning the provision or dissemination of government data. The Responsible Authority is also charged with creating an inventory of data varieties that the City maintains. All data is presumed public unless specifically determined confidential or private by State or Federal Law.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In summary, Mr. Kelly wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At the time in question, November 2004, the office of Responsible Authority under the Government Data Practices Act was filled. The City is of the opinion that the first alleged infraction did not occur. Mr. Musgjerd is entitled to inspect public Government Data in the custody of the City of Greenwood, including but not limited to, the ordinances, files, and records, as requested. The Responsible Authority for the City is the City Clerk. (Greenwood Ordinance section125.00). The request in question was not directed to the attention of the City Clerk, the Responsible Authority for the City. The City regrets that Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s the [sic] letter is not recalled by former Mayor Nagel. The requested data awaits Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s inspection at the office of the City Clerk during regular Greenwood City Clerk office hours.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (B) regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a November 14, 2004, request to inspect public data related to the construction of a fence?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (B) regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the responsible authority in a city is the individual designated by the governing body of that city who is responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (B), the city council shall appoint [as responsible authority] an individual who is an employee of the city.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The public notice posted at the City Clerk&apos;s office identifies the Clerk by name, and states that she is the City&apos;s responsible authority. However, Mr. Kelly did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of any resolution that indicates that the City Council took official action to appoint her as responsible authority, as it is required to do. Furthermore, Mr. Kelly stated that [t]he City regrets that [according to Greenwood Ordinance section125.00] Mr. Musgjerd did not recognize that the person &lt;i&gt;serving&lt;/i&gt; as City Clerk, and not a specific individual, is Greenwood&apos;s Responsible Authority&apos; under the Government Data Practices Act. Mr. Kelly stated that the City had met its obligations with respect to appointing a responsible authority under Chapter 13 because Greenwood Ordinance Code Section 125.00, subdivision 2, contains the following statement: the responsible authority for the City of Greenwood shall be the City Clerk.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The statement in the City&apos;s ordinance that the City Clerk is the responsible authority does not comply with the requirement under statute and rule that the City Council must appoint a specific &lt;u&gt;individual&lt;/u&gt; as responsible authority. The Commissioner addressed this issue, also involving the City of Greenwood, in Advisory Opinion 00-021. The City may wish to review the advisory form provided at Minnesota Rules, part 1205.2000, subpart 3, for a model resolution to assist it in appointing a responsible authority.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a November 14, 2004, request to inspect public data related to the construction of a fence?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The responsible authority of a government entity must establish procedures to ensure that the entity complies with requests for government data from an individual who is not the subject of the data in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Musgjerd stated that he directed his data request to the then Mayor of Greenwood. According to Mr. Kelly, the former Mayor has no recollection of the request. It is not clear what happened to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request; therefore the Commissioner cannot determine whether the City was in compliance with Chapter 13 with respect to that request. However, the Commissioner does have the following comments.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Kelly, the City hired the current City Clerk on September 7, 2004, two months prior to the date of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request to the Mayor. Mr. Kelly also stated that it was his belief that in the past, Mr. Musgjerd directed data requests to the City Clerk. As noted above, the City is in technical violation of Chapter 13 because it has not appointed an individual as its responsible authority. However, the City employs an individual as City Clerk, who is named in the public notice posted at her City office, and is identified as the City&apos;s responsible authority. She was serving in that capacity at the time Mr. Musgjerd directed his request to the Mayor.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If Mr. Musgjerd did not know whether the City had a responsible authority, it seems reasonable to expect him either to direct his request to the City Clerk, to whom, according to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Musgjerd had directed previous requests, or to contact the City about where to direct his data request. Apparently he did neither. Both parties need to make reasonable efforts to satisfy their respective responsibilities and rights under the statute. If the City has not done so, it needs to provide Mr. Musgjerd the opportunity to inspect the data he requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Musgjerd is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The City of Greenwood is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (B), because it has not appointed an individual as responsible authority.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City complied with a November 14, 2004, request to inspect public data related to the construction of a fence.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 7, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267644</id><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Name, title, and address</Title><Id>266627</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-009</Title><title>Opinion 05 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267516&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-02-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of St. Mary&apos;s Point comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a copy of a memo issued by the City Attorney regarding ineligible candidates for the November 2004 election?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 9, 2005; City of St. Mary&apos;s Point</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated December 20, 2004, from Rosemary Feehan. In her letter, Ms. Feehan asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data that the City of St. Mary&apos;s Point maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Holly Whalen, City Clerk, in response to Ms. Feehan&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 23, 2004, were to inform her of Ms. Feehan&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 18, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated January 17, 2005, from Mark Vierling, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Feehan provided them is as follows. In a letter dated November 22, 2004, Ms. Whalen wrote to Ms. Feehan:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the November 9, 2004 City Council meeting you requested a copy of the memo issued by the City Attorney regarding ineligible candidates for the Election. That item was an internal memo issued and retained within his office and is considered privileged and confidential information. The $320 on the City Attorney&apos;s bill was for research on the issue and the memo produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 29, 2004, Ms. Feehan wrote to Ms. Whalen and asked her to cite the specific statutory provision upon which the City was denying access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 2, 2004, Ms. Whalen wrote to Ms. Feehan, The specific statute is 595.02 subd. 1(b) and is based on the attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 7, 2004, Ms. Feehan wrote to Ms. Whalen and argued that the City&apos;s denial was inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 14, 2004, Ms. Whalen wrote to Ms. Feehan, Your request for reconsideration is denied. The City&apos;s position remains as previously provided to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Feehan asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of St. Mary&apos;s Point comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a copy of a memo issued by the City Attorney regarding ineligible candidates for the November 2004 election?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 allows government entities to protect certain data from disclosure:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15,17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data created, collected, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, data exempted by section 13.393 relate to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or are data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work-product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Vierling wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The document sought to be obtained by Ms. Feehan is an internal document to the law office which serves as legal counsel for the City... The document was prepared relative to the prospect of litigation by Ms. Feehan as it affects the application of her daughter, an under-aged minor, to run for public office in the City of St. Mary&apos;s Point, a matter which is prohibited both by statute and state constitution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vierling stated that Ms. Feehan and her husband have commenced three lawsuits against the City in recent years. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Given the history of Rosemary Feehan and David Nelson, her husband, in commencing multiple matters of litigation against the [City] and further, in consideration of the fact that judicial determination has already been made on at least one case that their action was frivolous and unfounded, it was certainly anticipated by this office that the effort to mount a candidacy of an age inappropriate and ineligible candidate for office for the [City], which was illegal both under state statute as well as state constitution, was being initiated preparatory to lawsuit number 4, to be initiated against the [City] by the Feehan-Nelsons...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vierling further wrote, The internal memo prepared was directly addressed to that situation and not otherwise or routinely or generally prepared for any other purpose. It is, thus, entitled to work product - attorney-client protection under the law and is not a public document subject to a data practices request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vierling provided to the Commissioner a copy of an article that appeared in the October 3, 2004, edition of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. In it the reporter wrote, Feehan-Nelson said that if she receives the highest number of votes but is not certified, she is prepared to hire an attorney and take the matter to court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vierling cited &lt;em&gt;City Pages v. State of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) and stated, The &lt;em&gt;City Pages&lt;/em&gt; decision of the Minnesota appellate courts reaffirms the work product doctrine as contained within the privilege of the attorney-client relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees that government entities should review the &lt;em&gt;City Pages&lt;/em&gt; case when making decisions about the classification of data created, collected, or maintained by attorneys. In essence, the issue before the Court was whether a law firm&apos;s billing records were public pursuant to Chapter 13. On the matter of refusal to disclose based on the attorney-client privilege, the Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Certainly, the public has a right to at least some of the government data contained in the billing records, and the attorney-privilege protects only data that renders legal advice and that might not have been disclosed absent the privilege... We conclude that the district court erred in deciding that the attorney-client privilege protected all the data in the billing records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding refusal to disclose based on attorney work-product, the Court wrote, Therefore, to be protected by the doctrine, material must contain opinions, conclusions, legal theories, or mental impressions of counsel, and it must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court cited &lt;em&gt;Bieter Co. v. Blomquist&lt;/em&gt;, 156 F.R.D. 173, 180 (D. Minn. 1994):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Whether documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation is a factual determination. The test should be whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. But the converse of this is that even though litigation is already in prospect, there is no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of business rather than for purposes of litigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court found that the work-product doctrine did not protect the billing records in their entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation currently before the Commissioner, because she has not seen the data in question, she cannot determine, with certainty, whether the City&apos;s refusal to disclose is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Feehan raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City of St. Mary&apos;s Point complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to a copy of a memo issued by the City Attorney regarding ineligible candidates for the November 2004 election.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 9, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267516</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Billing statements</Title><Id>266977</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-008</Title><title>Opinion 05 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267016&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Independent School District 15, St. Francis, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a September 29, 2004, request for access to &quot;data that documents who the school board appointed as responsible authority for the District?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 28, 2005; School District 15 (St. Francis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 30, 2004, IPAD received a letter from William Gardner, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from Independent School District 15, St. Francis.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Gardner&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Edward C. Saxton, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 3, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Gardner&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 12, 2005, IPAD received a response from Paul C. Ratwick, attorney for the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts follows. Mr. Gardner asked the District for access to data that document the District&apos;s appointment of its responsible authority. The District responded by providing Mr. Gardner with a copy of the minutes from its June 8, 1998, School Board meeting, and a copy of School Board Policy 510, which the Board adopted at that meeting. That Policy states that the District has designated the Director of Human Resources and Services as the authority responsible for personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwick stated the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The District has determined that naming the Director of Human Resources and Services as its Responsible Authority for personnel and employment data does not satisfy the MGDPA&apos;s requirement that a specific individual be appointed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On December 13, 2004, the School Board adopted a resolution (copy attached) adopting School Board Policy 415, specifically designating Mr. Jay J. Reker as its the [sic] Responsible Authority for student data. On January 10, 2005, the School Board adopted a resolution naming a specific individual, Mr. Jay J. Reker, as its Responsible Authority for all purposes and with regard to all governmental data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Gardner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Independent School District 15, St. Francis, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a September 29, 2004, request for access to data that documents who the school board appointed as responsible authority for the District? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the responsible authority in a school district is the individual designated by the governing body of that district who is responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (C), the the school board shall appoint an individual who is an employee of the school district.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Ratwick acknowledged that the School Board erred when it adopted the provision of School Board Policy 510 that named the Director of Human Resources and Services as its Responsible Authority for personnel and employment data, because it did not satisfy the requirement under statute and rule that a specific individual be appointed. The Board has since properly appointed an individual as responsible authority for the District.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Garnder raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 15, St. Francis, was not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a September 29, 2004, request for access to data, because at that time it had not appointed an individual as responsible authority; it has since done so, and is now in compliance.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 28, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267016</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Name, title, and address</Title><Id>266627</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-007</Title><title>Opinion 05 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268021&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-27T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Lonsdale comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a July 21, 2004, request for access to the following data: all e-mails, letters, site plans, committee minutes, maps and or communications with consultants or developers that deal directly with any siting of utilities including the street lights that are placed within the Rolling Ridge development?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 2005; City of Lonsdale</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 24, 2004, IPAD received a letter from David Anderson, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the City of Lonsdale. Mr. Anderson&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Myles McGrath, (former) City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated December 16, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 10, 2005, IPAD received a response from Joel A. Erickson, current City Administrator. A summary of the facts follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In an e-mail to Mr. McGrath dated July 21, 2004, Mr. Anderson requested access to data regarding the placement of street lighting and other utilities in the development in which he resides. Mr. McGrath responded by e-mail the same day, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, and stated that Mr. Anderson&apos;s data request will be processed as quickly as possible. Our City Engineer is out on Vacation but will return the [following week.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anderson, as of the date of his opinion request, the City had not contacted him again about his request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Erickson first stated that the City should have responded in a timelier manner than it did to Mr. Anderson&apos;s request. Mr. Erickson wrote that he has been employed by the City since December 14, 2004, and that, after receiving notice from the Commissioner about this opinion, I have extensively reviewed all emails, letters, site plans, committee minutes, maps and communications with developers and consultants dealing with the information Mr. Anderson is requesting. Mr. Erickson wrote that he subsequently contacted Mr. Anderson, and has since provided him with the data he requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Erickson also discussed reasons, including that the City was short-staffed, which contributed to the delay in its response to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Erickson stated that once he was aware of the request, he responded in an appropriate, prompt and timely manner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Lonsdale comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a July 21, 2004, request for access to the following data: all e-mails, letters, site plans, committee minutes, maps and or communications with consultants or developers that deal directly with any siting of utilities including the street lights that are placed within the Rolling Ridge development? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Erickson, the City provided Mr. Anderson with the data he requested in January 2005, some five months after he requested it. The Commissioner acknowledges the circumstances Mr. Erickson described that contributed to the time frame in which the City responded; however, its response to Mr. Anderson was neither prompt nor within a reasonable time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anderson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Lonsdale did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a July 21, 2004, request for access to data related to the placement of street lighting and other utilities within the Rolling Ridge development, because its response was neither prompt nor within a reasonable time.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 27, 2005
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268021</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-006</Title><title>Opinion 05 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267708&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 624 (White Bear Lake Area Schools) maintains: data in certain invoices relating to extended day care that the District provides for a particular child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 2005; School District 624 (White Bear Lake)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 8, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated December 6, 2004, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing Independent School District 624. In her letter, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Kepple provided them is as follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This letter is to request an advisory opinion... as to one parent&apos;s right to access data that includes both data about [his/her] child and private data about [his/her] former spouse, parent B. The data requested by parent A cannot be separated or redacted in a way which would effectively permit release of the data pertaining to the child, and prevent release of the private data pertaining to parent B.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple provided a copy of the data in question, in redacted form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;parent A, has requested invoices for the extended day care provided by [the District] for the benefit of [his/her] minor child. The school district recognizes that a non-custodial parent has the same right to access educational data about [his/her] child as the custodial parent. However, the request is complicated by the fact that the data requested pertaining to the child, is inseparable from the data specifically pertaining [sic] the contract parent B has with [the District] for the provision of day care services and [his/her] financial obligations to [the District] resulting from that contract&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple explained that the District&apos;s directory information policy provides that the name, address, and telephone number of a student&apos;s parent(s) are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, under school district policy, other data relating to a parent is private data and cannot be released to the other parent, absent the parent&apos;s written consent. Parent B objects strongly to the release of the invoices to parent A. The school district has released, upon request of parent A, the months and years of attendance at the day care program, which is data pertaining to the child, but not the actual invoices for those dates of attendance, as requested by parent A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 624 (White Bear Lake Area Schools) maintains: data in certain invoices relating to extended day care that the District provides for a particular child?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that the analysis in this opinion is based upon the assumption that the data about the child of parent A and B are educational data; therefore, they are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 2(c), data concerning parents are classified as private data on individuals but school districts have the option of designating them as public directory information. (See also section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Ms. Kepple provided a copy of the District&apos;s policy on &lt;em&gt;Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records&lt;/em&gt;, which states that the name, address, and telephone number of a student&apos;s parent(s) are public directory information. Given the category types in the invoices, i.e., date, category, child, class, description, charges, credits payments, and balance, it appears that most, if not all, of the data in the invoices are private data about parent B and the child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals is defined as, all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, parent A is entitled to gain access to any data in the invoices of which s/he is the subject. In addition, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 2, parent A also is entitled to gain access to data of which his/her child is the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Kepple noted that the District already has released to Parent A the months and years the child attended the day care program. The issue before the Commissioner is whether the District may release the data in the invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447&quot; title=&quot;02-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a similar situation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Neither the statute nor the implementing rules address the issue that Rice County raised in its response to X&apos;s opinion request, i.e., what should a government entity do when a parent requests access to data about his/her minor child and release of the data about the minor may inadvertently or directly reveal data about the other parent?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In many situations where government entities maintain data about a minor child, particularly when the parents were never married or currently are divorced, one can argue that release of any data about the child in response to a data request by one of the parents will inadvertently or directly release data about the other parent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, as stated above, the Legislature has placed great import on the policy that parents are entitled, in most cases, to gain access to data about their children. Therefore, a government entity should not be precluded from providing data to one parent simply because doing so may mean the entity inadvertently or directly releases data about the other parent. To accept the contrary view would, in many instances, effectively and absolutely thwart the legislative policy set forth in section 13.02, subdivision 8.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner finds it appropriate to comment that in a recent unpublished case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals deliberated on the issues discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447&quot; title=&quot;02-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-042&lt;/a&gt; and concluded that the custodial parent was the subject of the data, not the child. The Court stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The name of [the child] only appears in the file incidentally in relation to [the custodial parent&apos;s] benefits application. Therefore, because any references to [the child] are &apos;only incidental to the data and the data [is] not accessed by the name or other identifying data of [the child], [the non-custodial parent] is not entitled to access the remaining portions of [the custodial parent&apos;s] file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Seeber v. Weiers&lt;/em&gt;, et al., No. A04-288 (Minn. Ct. App. October 12, 2004) (unpublished).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that the &lt;em&gt;Seeber&lt;/em&gt; case is unpublished and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 480A.08, subdivision 3, carries no precedential value. Thus, it does not control the outcome here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity is faced with redacting a document containing private data on multiple data subjects, it is important for the entity to review the document carefully to determine whether the release of private data to one data subject will result in the inappropriate release of private data about another data subject. Here, the District is in the best position to make such determinations because it has all of the relevant information and is knowledgeable about the circumstances. The Commissioner, though, offers the following guidance. Pursuant to section 13.04, parent A is entitled to gain access to any data in the invoices of which s/he is the subject. In addition, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 2, parent A also is entitled to gain access to data of which his/her child is the subject, i.e., the child&apos;s name or other identifying data are not incidental to the other data in the document(s).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears that certain invoices relating to extended day care that School District 624 (White Bear Lake Area Schools) provides for a particular child contain private data about Parent B and the child. Parent A is entitled to gain access to any data of which A or A&apos;s child is the subject.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 27, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267708</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data incidental to the data subject</Title><Id>266325</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent data</Title><Id>266386</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent access to data on other parent</Title><Id>266542</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determines redaction</Title><Id>266543</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-04-04T12:41:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-005</Title><title>Opinion 05 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266637&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Health comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an October 4, 2004, request for access to the following data: &quot;addresses of homes participating in the water testing program as well as the corresponding test results (including lead and copper)&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 26, 2005; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
        Facts and Procedural History:
      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        On December 8, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Mike Maybay, on behalf of KSTP-TV, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) maintains.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        In response to Mr. Maybay&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dianne Mandernach, Commissioner of MDH. The purposes of this letter, dated December 13, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Maybay&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 20, 2004, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Mandernach.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        A summary of the facts follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Maybay related his attempts, beginning in May or June of 2004, to gain access to data related to MDH&apos;s water testing program. Mr. Maybay directed his initial requests to Department staff; he requested access to the data from Commissioner Mandernach, as responsible authority, in a letter dated October 4, 2004. Mr. Maybay described the data he sought:
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        The Health Department&apos;s Drinking Water Protection Program collects samples of drinking water from homes across the state. Those samples are tested for the presence of many substances including lead and copper. Health uses the test results to identify communities whose water systems may be in need of improving for the health and safety of their residents.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        In his opinion request, Mr. Maybay wrote to the Commissioner that he worked with a Department staff person to help me better understand the data they keep so that I could formulate a request to get the data in a form that would be useful to me. Mr. Maybay wrote:
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        At one point, I believe in late June, [staff] told me she would be asking a supervisor whether the data I was requesting could, in fact, be released to me. When I heard back from her, [she] informed me that she had been told that the Department of Health would be attempting to have IPAD temporarily classify the addresses of the tested homes as non-public. This was confirmed by a person in the Department&apos;s Communications department.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        From your office I have learned Health submitted an application to IPAD on August 2. That application was returned to Health with a request for further information. As of this letter [dated December 8, 2004], I do not believe Health has responded to that request.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        Commissioner Mandernach responded to Mr. Maybay&apos;s October 4, 2004, request, in a letter dated October 8, 2004, in which she stated that the Department would not provide him with access to the addresses of homes participating in the water testing program. What follows are excerpts from her comments to Mr. Maybay:
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        We believe the release of this data would constitute an invasion of privacy for the people living in those homes and would seriously erode participation in this voluntary program, eventually rendering it unworkable.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        The data we seek to protect are not classified as private or nonpublic under current law. However, the Data Practices Act allows a state agency or political subdivision to apply to the Commissioner of Administration for temporary classification of data as [not public] (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.06). The Department of Health and four political subdivisions (the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners and the Cities of New Hope, Virginia, and Moorhead) have submitted such an application to the Department of Administration, seeking to classify [the data in question as not public].
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        The Department of Administration returned the Department&apos;s initial application with a request for additional information and also verification that requests from two of the participating political subdivisions had been made by each subdivision&apos;s &apos;responsible authority,&apos; as that term is defined in the Data Practices Act. We have requested the additional information from the participating political subdivisions, and are awaiting their response. The application will be resubmitted in the near future.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
        The Department intends to maintain data about individual homes and homeowners as if the data were private or nonpublic data until such time as the Commissioner of Administration approves or rejects our request for temporary classification on its merits. The Data Practices Act requires an agency to provide data as soon as reasonably possible after the agency receives a request. MDH considers the time during which our temporary classification is pending to be part of the reasonable amount of time we are allowed.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        The Department submitted two applications for temporary classification on August 2, 2004. After reviewing the applications, IPAD staff informed the Department on August 9, 2004, that significant issues needed to be addressed before the applications could be considered complete and in compliance with the statutory requirements set forth at section 13.06, and therefore subject to action by the Commissioner.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        On December 16, 2004, the Department submitted to the Commissioner two applications for temporary classification of the data in question. In a letter dated January 24, 2005, IPAD notified the Department that those applications were not complete and in compliance with statutory requirements, and, therefore, the Commissioner will not take any official action on those applications until the Department resolves the issues identified by IPAD.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
          Issue:
        &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
          In his request for an opinion, Mr. Maybay asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Health comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an October 4, 2004, request for access to the following data: addresses of homes participating in the water testing program as well as the corresponding test results (including lead and copper) ?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Discussion:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06. The Department acknowledges that the data in question are public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Under section 13.06, a government entity may submit to the Commissioner an application for temporary classification, for permission to classify data as not public until a proposed statute can be acted upon by the Legislature. Once the application is complete and in compliance with statutory requirements, the data which are the subject of the application are classified as set forth in the application for a period of 45 days, or until the application is disapproved, rejected, or granted by the Commissioner, whichever is earlier.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              At the time Mr. Maybay requested access to the data, there were no applications for temporary classification before the Commissioner, and, as of this date, the applications the Department submitted on December 16, 2004, are not before the Commissioner. The Commissioner acknowledges the reasons Commissioner Mandernach cited in support of the Department&apos;s position that it was reasonable under the circumstances to deny public access to the data in question. However, there is no statutory basis for that position; the data are public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Opinion:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Maybay raised is as follows:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Health did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it denied an October 4, 2004, request for access to public government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Signed:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Dana B. Badgerow
                &lt;br /&gt;
                Commissioner
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                Dated: January 26, 2005
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266637</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary classification (13.06)</Title><Id>266504</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-004</Title><title>Opinion 05 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266739&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-07T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 700, Hermantown, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data about an employee to the employee&apos;s labor union?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 7, 2005; School District 700 (Hermantown)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 19, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated November 18, 2004, from X. In X&apos;s letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data that Independent School District 700, Hermantown, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Majeski, District Superintendent, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 29, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 15, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kevin Rupp and Jennifer Wolf, attorneys representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have been having problems with the Superintendent... sending my personnel information from my personnel file to my labor union without my permission. I&apos;ve been told by my attorney that I should be the one to decide when and if I want it released to my Labor Union.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the time the documents were released to the union I wasn&apos;t involved in any grievances. And it seems to me that they would fall under the category of private information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With his/her opinion request, X attached copies of four memoranda from Superintendent Majeski to X - one dated in June of 2003, two dated in August of 2003, and one dated in January of 2004. Each of the documents apparently had been copied to X&apos;s labor representative.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 700, Hermantown, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data about an employee to the employee&apos;s labor union?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 6, provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Personnel data may be disseminated to labor organizations to the extent that the responsible authority determines that the dissemination is necessary to conduct elections, notify employees of fair share fee assessments, and implement the provisions of chapters 179 and 179A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the data in the memoranda appear to relate to X&apos;s performance of his/her job. As such, they are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4. In their comments, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Wolf wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The letters X attached to X&apos;s opinion request] outlined certain job performance expectations for [X]. [X] asks whether the District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data about [X] to [his/her] labor union.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] is a District employee and a member of the Hermantown Federation of Teachers, Paraprofessional and School Related Personnel Unit...[X&apos;s] terms and conditions of employment are governed by a Master Agreement, which is negotiated between the District and the bargaining unit. As a member of that bargaining unit, [X] receives the benefit of union representation in matters involving job performance...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During [X&apos;s] employment, [X] has had several performance related issues. Fred Majeski, the District&apos;s Superintendent and the responsible authority under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], has had several discussions with [X] regarding those issues. After some of those conversations, [X] would discuss those performance issues with [X&apos;s] union representative, who would then contact Mr. Majeski. Often times, [X] would misconstrue the facts when [X] related them to [the] union representative. Mr. Majeski would then need to clarify the actual situation to [X&apos;s] union representative. Furthermore, [X&apos;s] union representative was part of at least one meeting in August 2003 regarding [X&apos;s] performance expectations. Based on the union representative&apos;s prior involvement in [X&apos;s] performance issues and Mr. Majeski&apos;s previous experiences with [X], Mr. Majeski made a determination that in order to effect [X&apos;s] rights under [the Public Employees Labor Relations Act] and the collective bargaining agreement, he should send a copy to the union of the letters at issue...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District does not have a policy regarding providing information to exclusive bargaining representatives. Rather, it makes a determination whether to disseminate the information on a case by case analysis and pursuant to the limitations of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Ms. Wolf further assert that Mr. Majeski, in implementing certain provisions of Chapter 179A, acted appropriately in releasing the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. In reviewing the provisions of Chapter 179A cited by Mr. Rupp and Ms. Wolf, namely sections 179A.06, and 179A.07, it is not clear that to implement them, the release of X&apos;s data was necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, there appears to be a factual dispute regarding whether X may have given some type of consent for the union representative to gain access to the data. X wrote that X was not involved in any grievances at the time the District released the documents and that s/he had not given permission for the release of the data. Conversely, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Wolf stated that the union representative was part of at least one meeting in August 2003 regarding [X&apos;s] performance expectations, and that X was discussing those performance issues with [his/her] union representative, who would then contact Mr. Majeski. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether Independent School District 700, Hermantown, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released certain data about an employee to the employee&apos;s labor union.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 7, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266739</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)</Title><Id>266738</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-003</Title><title>Opinion 05 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266477&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-07T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 7, 2005; Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Greg LaFond, City Administrator for the City of Luverne. IPAD required clarification from Mr. LaFond, which he provided on December 1, 2004. Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s response to a request for access to its written data practices procedures, as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). Mr. LaFond requested the same data from Rock County and the Rock County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office. The Commissioner addresses the issues involving the latter two entities in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/268005&quot; title=&quot;05-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-001&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/268006&quot; title=&quot;05-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-002&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mike Winkels, Rock County Sheriff and responsible authority. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. LaFond&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s position. On December 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Donald R. Klosterbuer, Rock County Attorney, on behalf of the County, the County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office and the County Sheriff&apos;s Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond stated that the City had attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of Rock County&apos;s public data access procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Klosterbuer stated that the County has consistently maintained a policy and practice of complying with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Klosterbuer described efforts the County has taken to comply with Chapter 13, both before and subsequent to Mr. LaFond&apos;s opinion request. He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County has not adopted any single source data practices policy and, in particular, has not specifically adopted the concise and specific written procedures apparently contemplated by Minnesota Statutes section13.03, subd.2. When the County first became aware in early November of the initial complaint filed by [Mr.] LaFond, [Mr.] Oldre contacted your office in regards to the same. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since that time, County administration has undertaken a concerted effort to bring the County into compliance with written requirements of the statute. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;More importantly, we would also indicate that the County has consistently complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 as relates [sic] to the provision of public data. I do not have any recollection of an instance where my office has been advised by any party of the County&apos;s failure to provide the data requested. Based on the same, it is our office&apos;s belief that the County, and all of its officials, have been in substantive compliance with the substantive provisions of Minnesota Statute [sic] Chapter 13 even if [the] County may not have been in technical compliance with the written requirements. While we certainly recognize that the &apos;written form requirements&apos; of the statute have legitimate purposes, we do believe that substantive compliance with the intent of the law is perhaps paramount to &apos;technical concerns&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (a), states: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), was adopted during the 1999 Legislative Session and went into effect on January 1, 2001. It states clearly that all government entities must create, and update annually, procedures relating to public access to data. The Commissioner acknowledges the County&apos;s efforts to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13. However, according to Mr. Klosterbuer, Rock County is working on, but has not yet adopted its public access procedures. Therefore, the County is not in compliance with Chapter 13.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. LaFond is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Office is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 7, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266477</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-002</Title><title>Opinion 05 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268006&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-07T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 7, 2005; Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Greg LaFond, City Administrator for the City of Luverne. IPAD required clarification from Mr. LaFond, which he provided on December 1, 2004. Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office&apos;s response to a request for access to the County&apos;s written data practices procedures, as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). Mr. LaFond requested the same data from Rock County and the Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Department. The Commissioner addresses the issues involving the latter two entities in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/268005&quot; title=&quot;05-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-001&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/266477&quot; title=&quot;05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gloria Rolfs, Rock County Auditor-Treasurer and responsible authority. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. LaFond&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s position. On December 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Donald R. Klosterbuer, Rock County Attorney, on behalf of the County, the County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office and the County Sheriff&apos;s Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond stated that the City had attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office&apos;s public data access procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Klosterbuer stated that the County has consistently maintained a policy and practice of complying with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Klosterbuer described efforts the County has taken to comply with Chapter 13, both before and subsequent to Mr. LaFond&apos;s opinion request. He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County has not adopted any single source data practices policy and, in particular, has not specifically adopted the concise and specific written procedures apparently contemplated by Minnesota Statutes section13.03, subd.2. When the County first became aware in early November of the initial complaint filed by [Mr.] LaFond, [Mr.] Oldre contacted your office in regards to the same. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since that time, County administration has undertaken a concerted effort to bring the County into compliance with written requirements of the statute. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;More importantly, we would also indicate that the County has consistently complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 as relates [sic] to the provision of public data. I do not have any recollection of an instance where my office has been advised by any party of the County&apos;s failure to provide the data requested. Based on the same, it is our office&apos;s belief that the County, and all of its officials, have been in substantive compliance with the substantive provisions of Minnesota Statute [sic] Chapter 13 even if [the] County may not have been in technical compliance with the written requirements. While we certainly recognize that the &apos;written form requirements&apos; of the statute have legitimate purposes, we do believe that substantive compliance with the intent of the law is perhaps paramount to &apos;technical concerns&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (a), states: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), was adopted during the 1999 Legislative Session and went into effect on January 1, 2001. It states clearly that all government entities must create, and update annually, procedures relating to public access to data. The Commissioner acknowledges the County&apos;s efforts to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13. However, according to Mr. Klosterbuer, Rock County is working on, but has not yet adopted its public access procedures. Therefore, the County is not in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. LaFond is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Rock County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s Office&apos;s is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 7, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268006</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 05-001</Title><title>Opinion 05 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268005&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2005-01-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Rock County in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 7, 2005; Rock County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Greg LaFond, City Administrator for the City of Luverne. IPAD required clarification from Mr. LaFond, which he provided on December 1, 2004. Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Rock County&apos;s response to a request for access to the County&apos;s written data practices procedures, as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). Mr. LaFond requested the same data from the Rock County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office and the Rock County Sheriff&apos;s Department. The Commissioner addresses the issues involving the latter two entities in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/268006&quot; title=&quot;05-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-002&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/266477&quot; title=&quot;05-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;05-003&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. LaFond&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kyle Oldre, Rock County Administrator and responsible authority. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. LaFond&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On December 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Donald R. Klosterbuer, Rock County Attorney, on behalf of the County, the County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office and the County Sheriff&apos;s Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts follows. In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond stated that the City had attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of Rock County&apos;s public data access procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Klosterbuer stated that the County has consistently maintained a policy and practice of complying with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Klosterbuer described efforts the County has taken to comply with Chapter 13, both before and subsequent to Mr. LaFond&apos;s opinion request. He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County has not adopted any single source data practices policy and, in particular, has not specifically adopted the concise and specific written procedures apparently contemplated by Minnesota Statutes section13.03, subd.2. When the County first became aware in early November of the initial complaint filed by [Mr.] LaFond, [Mr.] Oldre contacted your office in regards to the same. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since that time, County administration has undertaken a concerted effort to bring the County into compliance with written requirements of the statute. . . . More importantly, we would also indicate that the County has consistently complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 as relates [sic] to the provision of public data. I do not have any recollection of an instance where my office has been advised by any party of the County&apos;s failure to provide the data requested. Based on the same, it is our office&apos;s belief that the County, and all of its officials, have been in substantive compliance with the substantive provisions of Minnesota Statute [sic] Chapter 13 even if [the] County may not have been in technical compliance with the written requirements. While we certainly recognize that the &apos;written form requirements&apos; of the statute have legitimate purposes, we do believe that substantive compliance with the intent of the law is perhaps paramount to &apos;technical concerns&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Rock County in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (a), states: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 (b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), was adopted during the 1999 Legislative Session and went into effect on January 1, 2001. It states clearly that all government entities must create, and update annually, procedures relating to public access to data. The Commissioner acknowledges the County&apos;s efforts to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13. However, according to Mr. Klosterbuer, Rock County is working on, but has not yet adopted its public access procedures. Therefore, the County is not in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. LaFond is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Rock County is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 7, 2005&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268005</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:23:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-078</Title><title>Opinion 04 078</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267032&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-12-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Racing Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an individual&apos;s August 16, 2004, request for the following data relating to a trainer&apos;s test: &quot;the test or copy of the test, the scorecard, answer key and the percentages necessary to have a passing grade&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 15, 2004; Minnesota Racing Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 25, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated October 21, 2004, from Peter Nickitas, on behalf of his client, X. In the letter, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Racing Commission maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Krueger, Executive Director of the Commission. The purposes of this letter, dated October 28, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for Commission&apos;s position. On November 4, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated November 3, 2004, from Mr. Krueger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Nickitas provided them is as follows. In an email dated August 16, 2004, X wrote to the Commission:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Last Friday, I made a request for data under [Chapter 13] for data concerning a...test that was taken 9/5/2000. I will again be coming to the MRC office this coming Friday, August 20, 2004 to make that same request. The request is for the test or copy of the test, the scorecard, answer key and the percentages necessary to have a passing grade. At that time it is requested that a person delegated by the MRC be able to review the test that was taken in September, 2000 with [me.] [I have] and continue to contend that [I] submitted a test to the stewards that would have passed if fairly graded in 2000. [I] based on the data practices act can demand to see the test for six years and [am] exercising [my] rights for access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the Commission responded in an email on August 19, 2004:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In reply to your e-mail, the Minnesota Racing Commission is denying your request in reference to the trainer&apos;s test. We feel we have completely answered your questions on previous requests....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In reference to your application for a...license, we are returning your application and licensing fee....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are also requesting that you do not come to the MRC [Minnesota Racing Commission] office tomorrow, Friday, August 20th or any time in the future....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] wrote a letter to the Racing Commission dated August 16, 2004, requesting access to data of and concerning him in the Commission&apos;s possession or control. Specifically, [X] demanded access to the score sheet for the...exam [X] took...in 2000, and all other data accessible to him under Minn. section 13.34....The Commission admits that [X] took the written test in question. The Commission refused him access, in its e-mail dated 20 August 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mr. Nickitas&apos; request for an opinion, he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Racing Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an individual&apos;s August 16, 2004, request for the following data relating to a trainer&apos;s test: the test or copy of the test, the scorecard, answer key and the percentages necessary to have a passing grade ?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance to this opinion, section 13.34, examination data, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data consisting solely of testing or examination materials, or scoring keys used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public service, or used to administer a licensing examination, or academic examination, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process are classified as nonpublic, except pursuant to court order. Completed versions of personnel, licensing, or academic examinations shall be accessible to the individual who completed the examination, unless the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. Notwithstanding section 13.04, the responsible authority shall not be required to provide copies of completed examinations or answer keys to any individual who has completed an examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Krueger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The issue that the Commissioner desires to address in an advisory opinion regarding our not responding to an individual&apos;s request relating to a trainer&apos;s test; the test or copy of the test, the scorecard, answer key and the percentages necessary to have a passing grade? , is quite simple, we don&apos;t have the material requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is customary that we review the results of a test with the person taking the test, but we do not give them a copy of the test... I&apos;ve indicated this to [X] many times. I have discussed this matter with the Chief Steward at that time who administered the test to [X]. At this time he has no records in his possession regarding this matterhellip;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In short, we have no record to produce for [X]...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When X made his/her data request on August 16, 2004, the Commission was required to respond by (1) advising X that the data do not exist; (2) advising X that the data are classified so as to deny X access; or (3) arranging a time for X to inspect the requested data. Regarding any data of which X is the subject, the Commission was required to respond within ten working days. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Regarding any data of which X is not the subject, the Commission was required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission&apos;s August 20, 2004, email did not contain any of the possible appropriate responses listed above; rather, it states, We feel we have completely answered your questions on previous requests. However, Mr. Krueger, in his comments to the Commissioner, did not explain how or when the Commission previously had answered X&apos;s data request. Thus, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the Commission did not comply with Chapter 13 in its response to X&apos;s August 16, 2004, request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Nickitas raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Racing Commission did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an individual&apos;s August 16, 2004, request for the following data related to a trainer&apos;s test: the test of copy of the test, the scorecard, answer key and the percentages necessary to have a passing grade.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 15, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267032</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-077</Title><title>Opinion 04 077</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267843&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-29T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to gain access to the addresses of those businesses and individuals who are the ultimate recipients of either loans or grants from the Neighborhood STAR program?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 2004; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 20, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated October 13, 2004, from Toni Coleman of the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Coleman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that the City of Saint Paul maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Coleman&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Luna, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated October 21, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Coleman&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for City&apos;s position. On November 1, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated October 29, 2004, from Peter McCall, Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Coleman provided them is as follows. In an email dated April 23, 2004, Ms. Coleman wrote to City staff:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I need addresses for all of the STAR [Neighborhood Sales Tax Revitalization Program] grant awardees. More precisely, I need the address where the brick and mortar improvements were made. For example, if a local CDC received money to rehab five homes, having the address of the CDC doesn&apos;t really help me. I&apos;d like to know the address of the five homes where that money was spent. I&apos;m thinking that information is only in the files of each grant. In that case, I&apos;d need to inspect each file and retrieve that info. If I&apos;m wrong and you somehow have the addresses for all awardees on a handy little Excel file somewhere, let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated May 3, 2004, City staff responded, Unfortunately, I&apos;m unable to provide you with the Neighborhood STAR program participants&apos; names and addresses through the CDC&apos;s.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Staff cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, subdivision 2, and wrote, Assistant City Attorney Peter McCall has advised us that the customer lists of the CDC&apos;s are covered under this statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Coleman asked Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to gain access to the addresses of those businesses and individuals who are the ultimate recipients of either loans or grants from the Neighborhood STAR program?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity. Data maintained by organizations other than government entities are sometimes subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 because the organizations have a contractual relationship with a government entity. In the present case, the Commissioner assumes the pass-through organizations, via contracts, are acting as government entities or agents of the City. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.) If the contracts do not contain language regarding Chapter 13, such language is implied. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-009&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003).) Thus, for purposes of this opinion, it is assumed the data the ultimate recipients submit to either the City or the pass-through organizations are government data and, as such, are governed by Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. McCall wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By a special law enacted by the legislature...the City of Saint Paul was given the right to collect a sales tax and spend it on projects to further cultural, residential, commercial and economic development in the city. The City has adopted Neighborhood Guidelines in the administration of the program. Eligible applicants for sales tax funds are public, private and non profit entities which do &lt;em&gt;business&lt;/em&gt; within the City. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An applicant for sales tax funds submits an application to the City that describes the intended use of the sales tax funds. The applications that are pertinent to the issue described in your letter provides [sic] that the funds will be used for the applicant&apos;s &lt;em&gt;customers&lt;/em&gt;....[Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon receiving the request from the Pioneer Press to gain access to the identities of the CDC&apos;s [Community Development Corporation] &lt;em&gt;customers&lt;/em&gt;, a review of Minn Stat 13.591 was made. Minn Stat 13.591, Subd. 1 provides that &lt;em&gt;customer lists&lt;/em&gt; (and other data) submitted to the City by a &lt;u&gt;business&lt;/u&gt; requesting financial assistance are private and nonpublic data, and under Subd. 2 &lt;em&gt;customer lists&lt;/em&gt; remain private or nonpublic even after assistance is given by the City....[Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s understanding is that, at a minimum, both nonprofit entities and for-profit businesses may apply to serve as pass-throughs to the STAR program for loans and grants for capital improvement projects in Saint Paul neighborhoods.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s argument is that section 13.591 classifies as private the addresses of those businesses and individuals who are the ultimate recipients of either loans or grants from the STAR program. Section 13.591, subdivision 1, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following data, that are submitted to a government entity by a business requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds, are private or nonpublic data: financial information about the business, including credit reports; financial statements; net worth calculations; business plans; income and expense projections; balance sheets; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 of section 13.591 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data submitted to a government entity under subdivision 1 become public when public financial assistance is provided or the business receives a benefit from the government entity, except that the following data remain private or nonpublic: business plans; income and expense projections not related to the financial assistance provided; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, feasibility studies not paid for with public funds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner makes the following comments. Section 13.591 does not define the word &lt;em&gt;business&lt;/em&gt;. It is customary, therefore, to look to its common and approved usage. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08.) &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines business as, a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, when the Legislature enacted section 13.591, it intended to classify, as not public, certain data submitted to government entities by businesses that operate for profit, as opposed to entities that operate as nonprofits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, when the City provides a loan or grant, and the ultimate beneficiary either is an individual or an entity other than a for-profit, the addresses of those individuals or organizations are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. When the City provides a loan or grant and the ultimate beneficiary is a for-profit, some of the data submitted by the for-profit are classified pursuant to section 13.591. However, Ms. Coleman asked for the address of the ultimate beneficiary. The address is not classified as not public by section 13.591 and so is public pursuant to 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the Commissioner disagrees with Mr. McCall that the address of an ultimate recipient of a loan or grant appropriately can be considered not public data as part of the customer list of a for-profit pass-through entity. &lt;em&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996, defines customer as, one that purchases a commodity or service. Thus, the fact that the for-profit pass-through entity awards a grant or provides a loan to another for-profit entity, does not make the ultimate recipient a customer of the pass-through business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the above discussion, it appears that data submitted by ultimate recipients who are individuals are public. The Commissioner notes, however, that certain of these data, other than names and addresses, may be classified as private pursuant to section 13.462, benefit data: Section 13.462, in relevant part, classifies data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an applicant for or a recipient of services provided under various housing, home ownership, and rehabilitation programs administered by government entities. Data submitted by ultimate recipients that are nonprofit organizations appear to be public. Data submitted by ultimate recipients that are for-profits appear either to be public or classified as not public pursuant to section 13.591.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Coleman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to gain access to the addresses of those businesses and individuals who are the ultimate recipients of either loans or grants from the Neighborhood STAR program. The data are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 29, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267843</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Loan or grant</Title><Id>266679</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Business data (13.591)</Title><Id>266680</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-076</Title><title>Opinion 04 076</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268009&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an August 30, 3004, request to inspect certain government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 2004; Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 8, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated October 6, 2004, from Adrian Wesolowski. In his letter, Mr. Wesolowski asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Adrian, the MSTRWD Engineer. The purposes of this letter, dated October 11, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MSTRWD&apos;s position. On November 2, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Blake Sobolik, an attorney representing the MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wesolowski provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 30, 2004, Mr. Wesolowski wrote to Mr. Adrian and asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Any documents or notes, including handwritten notes, which would show measurements and calculations for the cfs or fps or any other public data showing velocity, flowage or volume of water in the Snake River area taken at or in the vicinity of the bridge known as the Morkassel Bridge in McCrea Township on CSAH 34 during the years 1996 and 1997. Also any documents showing measurements and calculations for velocity, flowage, or volume of water which overtopped CSAH 34 within one mile in each direction of the Morkassel Bridge during the years 1996 and 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Any documents or notes, including handwritten notes or records showing the dates and exact times when water flow measurements were taken in the 1996 and 1997 time period at or near the above Morkassel Bridge or on CSAH 34 within in [sic] one mile north or south of the above Morkassel Bridge. 3. Any documents or notes which show the instruments used to measure the above cfs or fps showing the type of velocity meter used, whether the counter was manual or electronically metered, and whether or not sounding weights, and whether a sounding reel were used to make measurements for questions #1 and #2 above. Also, any documents showing whether or not a bridge board was used in obtaining measurements in questions #1 and #2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. Receipts showing records of purchase for the equipment or documents showing how the above instruments (in question #3) were acquired by the MST Watershed District for use in taking measurements in questions #1 and #2 above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. Any other public data in relation to water velocity or volume measurements during the years 1996 and 1997 at or near the above Morkassel Bridge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;6. Any public data which would show what members of the MST Watershed staff took the above measurements in questions #1 and #2 above. Also, any public data which would show whether or not any one other than the MST Watershed District staff took velocity, flowage, or volume measurements at the locations and time periods outlined in questions #1 and #2 above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Wesolowski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My [August 30th, 2004, data practices request] was personally handed by myself to [the MSTRWD secretary] during regular business hours [on August 31]....After over a month, the MSTRWD has not provided access to documents nor has allowed any inspection of public data referred to in the above request to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request for an opinion, he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding an August 30, 3004, request to inspect certain government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sobolik noted that Mr. Wesolowski has commenced litigation against the District relating to issues stemming from a flood control project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sobolik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the District is a small public entity. The District office personnel consists of Ronald Adrian, who is the District Engineer and also must function as its Administrator. The District also employs a full-time secretary. The District also employs three (3) full-time technical personnel who primarily deal with survey work and monitoring of construction projects....As the Department is aware, Ronald J. Adrian is designated as the responsible authority for management of the data practices of the District....I provide this information...so that you are aware of the fact that Mr. Adrian is the only one responsible for complying with these data practices requests....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request] came at a time when [he] knew that Mr. Adrian was not going to be in the office. [He] knows this because recently [he is] at every regular meeting of the District. Specifically, on the August 16, 2004, regular Board meeting, [Mr. Wesolowski was] present. At the close of the meeting, the schedule of Mr. Adrian was discussed. Mr. Adrian reported that for personal reasons he would be out of the office from August 26th through September 1st and from September 14th through September 21st....While Mr. Adrian was in the office from approximately September 2nd through September 13th, were four weekend days, one holiday, and a budget hearing set for September 9th...In addition, Mr. Adrian had to oversee the various projects that were in progress as well as do his other engineering and administrative functions. The timing of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request that underlies his request for an advisory opinion was received by the District after Mr. Adrian was on leave....Since the receipt of the Department&apos;s letter on October 13th, the District has simply been putting together their response to this advisory opinion as opposed to answering Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Mr. Wesolowski] has also been contacted with respect to the data underlying the request which is at issue in this opinion. To date, the District has not heard from Mr. Wesolowski.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner makes the following comments. First, there is no provision in Chapter 13 preventing an individual from requesting and gaining access to data merely because that person is involved in litigation with the government entity maintaining the requested data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267580&quot; title=&quot;95-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there is no provision in Chapter 13 granting government entities more time to respond to a data request because the entity is short staffed. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X&apos;s request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267227&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-031&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is well established that government entities are required to respond to data requests in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. In his opinion request, Mr. Wesolowski states that he delivered his data request to the MSTRWD on August 31, 2004. The copy of the data request he submitted to the Commissioner has what appears to be a date stamp that reads, Received Aug 31 2004. Below the date stamp are the initials CK , which are the initials of the MSTRWD secretary. It appears, based on Mr. Sobolik&apos;s comments, that, as of November 2, 2004, nine weeks after having received Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, the MSTRWD still was putting together their response. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely. If the MSTRWD has not yet responded to Mr. Wesolowski and (1) advised him the data do not exist; (2) advised him that the data are classified as not public; or (3) arranged a time for inspection; it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner notes the previous analysis is identical to those contained in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/268010&quot; title=&quot;04-073&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-073&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/266771&quot; title=&quot;04-074&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-074&lt;/a&gt;, in which Mr. Wesolowski raised similar issues regarding separate data requests he made of the MSTRWD.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following. In his comments, Mr. Sobolik questioned whether items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s data request are data practices requests. The Commissioner has reviewed these items and finds them to be requests for government data. Either the MSTRWD maintains these data or it does not. If not, it needs to so inform Mr. Wesolowski. If so, and the data are public, the MSTRWD promptly needs to provide Mr. Wesolowski with access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wesolowski raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 30, 2004, request to inspect certain data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 29, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268009</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-075</Title><title>Opinion 04 075</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267462&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data related to a case in which a complaint is made against a licensed day care provider and no disciplinary, corrective or other enforcement action is taken against the licensee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 2004; Washington County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 15, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Richard D. Hodsdon, Assistant Washington County Attorney. In this letter, Mr. Hodsdon asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 1, 2004, IPAD wrote to Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), to invite him to submit comments. IPAD received Commissioner Goodno&apos;s comments on October 26, 2004. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Hodsdon stated that he was seeking guidance and reconciliation of the provisions of Minn. Stat. section13.46, subd. 4 relative to a welfare licensing data and a licensing renewal memorandum dated March 18, 2004 issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Services in light of decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Hodsdon wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Washington County Department of Community Services, acting as an agent of the State of Minnesota, licenses day care providers. That agency receives numerous inquiries on a daily basis over the telephone in which parents who seek to place their children in a licensed day care center ask for licensing data as defined by Minn. Stat. section13.46, subd 1. Of particular interest to those who make the inquiry is whether or not the licensee has been subject to any complaints or disciplinary action for violations of licensing standards. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In relevant part, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4(b)(1), provides:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Except as provided in paragraph (c), the following data on current and former licensees are public: name, address, telephone number of licensees, date of receipt of a completed application, dates of licensure, licensed capacity, type of client preferred, variances granted, type of dwelling, name and relationship of other family members, previous license history, class of license, and the existence and status of complaints. When a correction order or fine has been issued, a license is suspended, immediately suspended, revoked, denied, or made conditional, &lt;u&gt;or a complaint is resolved&lt;/u&gt;, the following data on current and former licensees are public: the substance and investigative findings of the complaint, licensing violation, or substantiated maltreatment; the record of informal resolution of a licensing violation; orders of hearing; findings of fact; conclusions of law; specifications of the final correction order, fine, suspension, immediate suspension, revocation, denial, or conditional license contained in the record of licensing action; and the status of any appeal of these actions. [Emphasis added.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Hodsdon wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The purpose of this request for an opinion is to seek guidance in situations in which a complaint is made and found to be classified as unsubstantiated or unable to determine and no disciplinary, corrective or other enforcement action is taken against the licensee. The historical practice of Washington County, based on wide-spread practice throughout the state and a memorandum of [DHS] dated March 18, 2004, . . . would allow the general allegations and nature of the substance of the complaint to be disclosed as public data, even when no disciplinary action was imposed and it was determined that there was no violation of any licensing standard.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The Washington County Attorney&apos;s Office has advised Washington County Community Services that it is seriously concerned about the legal propriety of the position of the Commissioner of [DHS] in light of Minnesota Supreme Court and Appeals Court decisions interpreting provisions of Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. [2(a)(4)], which classifies as private data &apos;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in disciplinary action.&apos; This statutory language appears to be very similar to the statutory language found in Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1). The decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;i&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County School District&lt;/i&gt;, 652 N.W. 2d. 9 (Minn. 2002) appears to have given very narrow interpretation to the provisions of Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(4). In that decision the Minnesota Supreme Court held it to be a violation of the privacy rights of a public employee when the employer characterized allegations that were under investigation of an employee&apos;s conduct as &apos;very serious.&apos; As cited by the Supreme Court in its decision, this opinion is based on a significant line of precedent that would seem to provide significant privacy rights to public sector employees when allegations of misconduct are made and do not result in disciplinary action.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Washington County Attorney&apos;s Office is concerned that Washington County Community Services in relying on the [DHS] memorandum, may be exposing itself to liability under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for violation of the privacy rights of certain licensees who are the subject of allegations of misconduct that are found to be unsubstantiated or unable to be proven. On the other hand, the Washington County Attorney&apos;s Office and the Washington County Department of Community Services also desire to assist parents in making an informed choice in a decision as to whether or not to place their child in a particular licensed day care facility.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Goodno provided the following background information:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 245A (Human Services Licensing Act), governs the licensure of programs and services by the Commissioner of [DHS.] Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.16, delegates to county human services agencies the authority and responsibility to perform certain functions with regard to the licensing of family child care services, including the investigation of complaints of alleged licensing violations. Counties also investigate allegations of maltreatment of children in family child care settings pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 626.556 (Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act). In fulfilling these responsibilities, county licensing agencies maintain a variety of licensing data on family child care licensees and applicants.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The classification of welfare data is governed by Minn. Stat. section 13.46. The classification of data that is defined as licensing data is found in subdivision 4. This provision applies to DHS and the county licensing agencies in any disclosure by the governmental licensing agency of data defined as licensing data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Additional substantial comments from Commissioner Goodno appear below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hodson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data related to a case in which a complaint is made against a licensed day care provider and no disciplinary, corrective or other enforcement action is taken against the licensee?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As noted above, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4(b)(1), provides that, among other data, the existence and status of complaints against licensees are public. Additional data become public when a correction order or fine has been issued, a license is suspended, immediately suspended, revoked, denied, or made conditional, or a complaint is resolved.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.43 defines personnel data as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity. As Mr. Hodsdon noted, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the existence and status of a complaint or charge against a public employee are public data, regardless whether the complaint or charge resulted in disciplinary action. Under subdivisions 2(a)(5) and 2(b), the specific reasons for, and data documenting the basis of, any disciplinary action, do not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of the disciplinary action.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Commissioner Goodno addressed Mr. Hodsdon&apos;s concerns:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1), explicitly states that, as the data relates to the licensee, the substance and investigative findings of a complaint are public when a disciplinary action has been issued or when a complaint is resolved.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Under Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, &apos;When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded . . . .&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1), clearly states that the substance and findings of a complaint are public data once the complaint is resolved.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       The meaning of the phrase &apos;complaint is resolved&apos; is clear and has a common meaning. &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition&lt;/i&gt;, 1052 (2d. ed. 1982), defines the term &apos;resolve&apos; as: &apos;To make a firm decision about; to cause to reach a decision.&apos; Once DHS or a county licensing agency has concluded an investigation regarding an alleged violation of applicable law or rule, a determination is reached. An investigative determination includes a decision that the complaint is substantiated, unsubstantiated, or that the investigating agency was unable to determine whether any violation occurred. The determination, regardless of whether the complaint is substantiated or not, means that a decision has been made regarding the complaint: that is, the complaint is resolved. In situations in which the investigative findings result in a determination that violations did occur, licensing sanctions or disciplinary action may be issued. Of course, if the investigation results in a determination that the allegations that formed the basis for the complaint are unsubstantiated or the investigating agency is unable to determine whether any violation occurred, disciplinary action will not be issued. However, in each situation and regardless of whether disciplinary action is issued, a decision has been made regarding the complaint, and the complaint is resolved.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1), is clear that if a parent requests information about any complaints against a child care licensee, DHS or the county may provide the parent with public data on the licensee, including the substance and findings of a complaint once the complaint is resolved. Therefore, if a parent inquires about a licensee that was the subject of a complaint that was ultimately found to be unsubstantiated or the county was unable to determine whether any violations occurred, the county licensing agency must disclose the fact that there was a complaint and the substance and findings of that complaint.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The legislative history of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4, reflects a clear intent to classify data regarding a licensing complaint that has been resolved as public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       The legislative intent is clear that information regarding the substance and investigative findings of a complaint may be disclosed not only when disciplinary action has been taken, &lt;u&gt;but once the complaint is resolved as well&lt;/u&gt;. It is clear that disciplinary action need not be taken in order to disclose such information. The intent is made clear by the legislative history of and amendments to Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4. Prior to 2001, Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1), stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                      When disciplinary action has been issued or the complaint is resolved, the following data are public: the substance of the complaint, the findings of the investigation of the complaint . . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In 2001, the Legislature amended this provision in part, to draw out the distinction between the various types of &apos;disciplinary action&apos; or licensing sanctions; i.e., correction order, fine, conditional license, suspension, immediate suspension, and revocation, and complaints that do not result in a licensing sanction, but for which a decision has been made and the complaint is resolved. These amendments were passed in the larger context of clarifying what data are public regarding applicants and substantiated maltreatment. While this provision was carefully considered and the subject of multiple legislative committee hearings, the language regarding the resolution of a complaint, specifically that the substance and findings of a complaint are public data once the complaint is resolved, was not changed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Commissioner Goodno also provided an in-depth discussion regarding Mr. Hodsdon&apos;s remarks about the applicability of &lt;i&gt;Navarre&lt;/i&gt; to the data in question. In summary, Commissioner Goodno stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       The Court held in &lt;i&gt;Navarre&lt;/i&gt; that Washington County School District&apos;s statements went beyond identifying the existence and status of the complaints by identifying specific facts surrounding the complaints and describing the types of complaints while the complaint was under investigation and before there was a final disposition of any disciplinary action. The scope of &lt;i&gt;Navarre&lt;/i&gt; is clearly limited to disclosures of personnel data during a personnel investigation and does not apply to the explicit language of Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1), which classifies the substance and investigative findings of a licensing complaint as public data once the complaint is resolved.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Commissioner Goodno concluded:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The March 18, 2004, memorandum issued by DHS to the county licensing agencies and referenced and enclosed by Washington County in its request for an opinion, is clear in its direction and consistent with the plain meaning of Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1). In this memorandum, DHS specifically advises counties that the when a citizen contacts the county for information about complaints on a licensee, the county is to disclose the substance and findings of complaints, once a complaint is resolved. Examples provided by DHS include complaints in which the investigative disposition was substantiated, the county was unable to determine whether the alleged violations occurred, and violations were not determined. In each of these examples, a decision has been made regarding the complaint, meaning that the complaint has been resolved and therefore data regarding the substance and investigative findings of the complaint are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In summary, the language of Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4(b)(1) explicitly states that the substance and investigative findings of a complaint when the complaint is resolved are public data. The provisions governing the disclosure of this data with respect to licensing data under Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 4 and personnel data under section 13.43, subd. 2, differ significantly, and only section 13.46 governs the disclosure of licensing data. The decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Navarre pertained to the disclosure by a government entity of private personnel data during an investigation, not the disclosure of public licensing data after the investigation was completed and the complaint was resolved. Finally, the classification of the substance and investigative findings of a complaint that has been resolved as public data is consistent with and promotes the important public policy of assuring parents have the information necessary to make an informed choice about child care services.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner agrees that the March 18, 2004, DHS memorandum to county licensing agencies is correct in stating that, once a complaint is resolved, the substance and findings of the complaint are public data. The Commissioner concurs that the phrase in section 13.46, subdivision 4(b)(1), or a complaint is resolved includes a decision that the complaint is substantiated, unsubstantiated, or that the investigating agency was unable to determine whether any violation occurred. The Commissioner agrees with DHS that in those situations, the complaint has been resolved and therefore data regarding the substance and investigative findings of the complaint are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Hodsdon&apos;s concerns in light of &lt;i&gt;Navarre&lt;/i&gt;. However, the Commissioner accepts Commissioner Goodno&apos;s explanation and reasoning that &lt;i&gt;Navarre&lt;/i&gt; is not applicable to the data in question.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Hodson is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4(b)(1), data related to a case in which a complaint is made against a licensed day care provider and no disciplinary, corrective or other enforcement action is taken against the licensee are public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana B. Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 18, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267462</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-074</Title><title>Opinion 04 074</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266771&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-12T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 2004; Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 23, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 20, 2004, from Adrian Wesolowski. In the letter, Mr. Wesolowski asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Adrian, the MSTRWD Engineer. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MSTRWD&apos;s position. On October 14, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Blake Sobolik, an attorney representing the MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wesolowski provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 25, 2004, Mr. Wesolowski wrote to Mr. Adrian and asked to inspect the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. In 2003, approximately $145,000.00 was spent by the MST Watershed District for attorney&apos;s fees. I request the right to inspect any data which the Watershed District has which would show the source of those funds for the attorney&apos;s fees including but not limited to state and federal grant funds and local real estate tax revenue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. In 2003, a number of checks from the U.S. Treasury were deposited by the Watershed District. I request the right to inspect copies of all checks from the U.S. Treasury deposited by the Watershed District for the year 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. In 2003, there appears to be an expenditure by the Watershed District of $30.00 to Mr. David Bakke for a Sam&apos;s Club Membership. I request the right to inspect a copy of that membership with Sam&apos;s Club.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Wesolowski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My August 25, 2004 letter of request was personally handed by myself to [the MSTRWD secretary] during regular business hours [on August 25]....After nearly a month, the MSTRWD has made no response of any kind to [my] request to inspect documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wesolowski asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sobolik noted that Mr. Wesolowski has commenced litigation against the District relating to issues stemming from a flood control project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sobolik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the District is a small public entity. The District office personnel consists of Ronald Adrian, who is the District Engineer and also must function as its Administrator. The District also employs a full-time secretary. The District also employs three (3) full-time technical personnel who primarily deal with survey work and monitoring of construction projects....As the Department is aware, Ronald J. Adrian is designated as the responsible authority for management of the data practices of the District....I provide this information...so that you are aware of the fact that Mr. Adrian is the only one responsible for complying with these data practices requests....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request] came at a time when [he] knew that Mr. Adrian was not going to be in the office. [He] knows this because recently [he is] at every regular meeting of the District. Specifically, on the August 16, 2004, regular Board meeting, [Mr. Wesolowski was] present. At the close of the meeting, the schedule of Mr. Adrian was discussed. Mr. Adrian reported that for personal reasons he would be out of the office from August 26th through September 1st and from September 14th through September 21st....While Mr. Adrian was in the office from approximately September 2nd through September 13th, were four weekend days, one holiday, and a budget hearing set for September 9th...In addition, Mr. Adrian had to oversee the various projects that were in progress as well as do his other engineering and administrative functions. The timing of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request that underlies his request for an advisory opinion was received by the District on the day before Mr. Adrian was scheduled to go on leave....Since the receipt of the Department&apos;s letter on September 28th, the District has simply been putting together their response as opposed to answering Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although I am not sure if it has any bearing on the Department&apos;s decision, the District will respond to Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request and Mr. Wesolowski will have the ability to review any data the District has regarding his August 25th request which is at issue in this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner makes the following comments. First, there is no provision in Chapter 13 preventing an individual from requesting and gaining access to data merely because that person is involved in litigation with the government entity maintaining the requested data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267580&quot; title=&quot;95-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there is no provision in Chapter 13 granting government entities more time to respond to a data request because the entity is short staffed. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X&apos;s request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267227&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-031&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is well established that government entities are required to respond to data requests in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. Mr. Wesolowski delivered his data request to the MSTRWD on August 25, 2004. It appears, based on Mr. Sobolik&apos;s comments, that, as of October 14, 2004, seven weeks after having received Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, the MSTRWD still was putting together their response. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely. If the MSTRWD has not yet responded to Mr. Wesolowski and (1) advised him the data do not exist; (2) advised him that the data are classified as not public; or (3) arranged a time for inspection; it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner notes the previous analysis is identical to that contained in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268010&quot; title=&quot;04-073&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-073&lt;/a&gt;, in which Mr. Wesolowski raised a similar issue regarding a separate data request he made of the MSTRWD.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following. In his comments, Mr. Sobolik questioned whether item number one of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request is a proper request. Mr. Sobolik wrote, Specifically, it is the position of the District and Mr. Wesolowski will be so notified, that question number 1 which asks for &apos;any data&apos; is not a proper request in that it is so general that the reader cannot possibly know what is being requested. The Commissioner disagrees. The first item in Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request is: In 2003, approximately $145,000.00 was spent by the MST Watershed District for attorney&apos;s fees. I request the right to inspect any data which the Watershed District has which would show the source of those funds for attorney&apos;s fees including but not limited to state and federal grant funds and local real estate tax revenue. Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to gain access to, i.e., inspect or obtain copies of, government data. Here, Mr. Wesolowski is asking to inspect any data that show or document the source of monies the MSTRWD spent on attorney&apos;s fees in 2003. Either the MSTRWD has such data or it doesn&apos;t.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Sobolik stated the following regarding the second item of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request: I also draw attention to question number 2 of this request and ask whether this is a valid one or one which is frivolous. Clearly the District would not have cancelled checks from the U.S. Treasurer&apos;s Department. The second item Mr. Wesolowski asked to inspect is all checks from the U.S. Treasury deposited by the Watershed District for the year 2003. This is a data practices request and the MSTRWD is obliged to respond. If the MSTRWD does not maintain the data, it needs to so inform Mr. Wesolowski.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wesoloski raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266771</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data involved in litigation</Title><Id>266591</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-073</Title><title>Opinion 04 073</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268010&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 2004; Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 22, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 20, 2004, from Adrian Wesolowski. In the letter, Mr. Wesolowski asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Adrian, the MSTRWD Engineer. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MSTRWD&apos;s position. On October 14, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Blake Sobolik, an attorney representing the MSTRWD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Wesolowski provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 25, 2004, Mr. Wesolowski wrote to Mr. Adrian and asked to inspect the following data relating to the removal of a water main:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Copy of the asbestos survey conducted by the MST Watershed District in the area of where the pipe will be removed or disturbed.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. A copy of the notice given to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
&lt;br /&gt;
3. A copy of the notice given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
&lt;br /&gt;
4. A copy of any documentation which shows the analysis of the composition of the water line removed.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. A copy showing the name of the licensed contractor who will remove the above waterline for the watershed district.
&lt;br /&gt;
6. A copy of the deed restriction which will be placed on the property where the pipe is disturbed and removed.
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Any other public data in relation to the removal of the above water main.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Wesolowski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My August 25th, 2004 letter of request was personally handed by myself to [the MSTRWD secretary] during regular business hours [on August 25]....After nearly a month, the MSTRWD has made no response of any kind to [my] request to inspect documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wesolowski asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sobolik noted that Mr. Wesolowski has commenced litigation against the District relating to issues stemming from a flood control project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sobolik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the District is a small public entity. The District office personnel consists of Ronald Adrian, who is the District Engineer and also must function as its Administrator. The District also employs a full-time secretary. The District also employs three (3) full-time technical personnel who primarily deal with survey work and monitoring of construction projects....As the Department is aware, Ronald J. Adrian is designated as the responsible authority for management of the data practices of the District....I provide this information...so that you are aware of the fact that Mr. Adrian is the only one responsible for complying with these data practices requests....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request] came at a time when [he] knew that Mr. Adrian was not going to be in the office. [He] knows this because recently [he is] at every regular meeting of the District. Specifically, on the August 16, 2004, regular Board meeting, [Mr. Wesolowski was] present. At the close of the meeting, the schedule of Mr. Adrian was discussed. Mr. Adrian reported that for personal reasons he would be out of the office from August 26th through September 1st and from September 14th through September 21st....While Mr. Adrian was in the office from approximately September 2nd through September 13th, were four weekend days, one holiday, and a budget hearing set for September 9th...In addition, Mr. Adrian had to oversee the various projects that were in progress as well as do his other engineering and administrative functions. The timing of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request that underlies his request for an advisory opinion was received by the District on the day before Mr. Adrian was scheduled to go on leave....Since the receipt of the Department&apos;s letter on September 28th, the District has simply been putting together their response as opposed to answering Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although I am not sure if it has any bearing on the Department&apos;s decision, the District will respond to Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request and Mr. Wesolowski will have the ability to review any data the District has regarding his August 25th request which is at issue in this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner makes the following comments. First, there is no provision in Chapter 13 preventing an individual from requesting and gaining access to data merely because that person is involved in litigation with the government entity maintaining the requested data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267580&quot; title=&quot;95-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there is no provision in Chapter 13 granting government entities more time to respond to a data request because the entity is short staffed. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X&apos;s request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267227&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-031&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is well established that government entities are required to respond to data requests in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. Mr. Wesolowski delivered his data request to the MSTRWD on August 25, 2004. It appears, based on Mr. Sobolik&apos;s comments, that, as of October 14, 2004, seven weeks after having received Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request, the MSTRWD still was putting together their response. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely. If the MSTRWD has not yet responded to Mr. Wesolowski and (1) advised him the data do not exist; (2) advised him that the data are classified as not public; or (3) arranged a time for inspection; it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following. In his comments, Mr. Sobolik questioned whether item number seven of Mr. Wesolowski&apos;s request is in fact a valid request for data under Minnesota Statute Chapter 13. The seventh item Mr. Wesolowski requested is: Pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act I request to inspect the following public data...Any other public data in relation to the removal of the above water main. Chapter 13 confers upon individuals the right to gain access to (inspect or obtain copies of) government data. Here, it appears that Mr. Wesolowski has asked to inspect any additional data that the MSTWRD maintains relating to the water main, beyond those specified in items number one through six. Either the MSTRWD has additional public data or it does not. The Commissioner views this as a valid data practices request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wesolowski raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 25, 2004, request to inspect certain data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268010</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-072</Title><title>Opinion 04 072</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267629&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Corrections in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $177.22 for a copy of jail booking data from the Statewide Supervision System for the time period November 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 2004; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 15, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 14, 2004, from Janet Roberts of the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Roberts asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the Minnesota Department of Corrections had charged an appropriate rate for a copy of certain public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Roberts&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated September 21, 2004, were to inform her of Ms. Roberts&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for Department&apos;s position. On October 6, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated October 5, 2004, from Commissioner Fabian.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Roberts provided them is as follows. In a letter dated July 30, 2004, Ms. Roberts wrote to the Department:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I...request a copy of statewide jail bookings from the Department of Corrections Statewide Supervision System. I would like all bookings from Nov. 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I would like the data in the same fixed-width, plain-text format you provided last year and I am enclosing a copy of the file layout so you can see exactly what we received. I can take the data on CD-ROM or by FTP, whichever is easiest for [Department] staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to the data request we submitted last year, [your technology staff] set up a BCP bulk-export routine to copy the data from your SQL Server database to plain text files. His plan was to save that routine to re-run each time we request the data. As a result, we anticipate your actual cost for creating the extract will be minimal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Department staff responded in an August 6, 2004, email:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...While our developers have created the BCP bulk-export routine you referenced, the cost for this process was reflected in a letter to you dated November 17, 2003 [from Department staff].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In that letter, the cost was itemized for providing booking data as
&lt;br /&gt;
6 hours x 33/hour (salaries and server resources) $198
&lt;br /&gt;
Disk $2&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Total cost $200&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As we discussed at that time, this cost reflects the ongoing costs for providing you with the public jail booking data....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Roberts wrote back in an email dated August 6, 2004:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[In November 2003] the Pioneer Press agreed to pay the $200 because it was the first time we had requested a copy of records from your new Statewide Supervision System and, as such, your IT staff had to write a BCP bulk-export routine to copy the data from the SQL Server. Since that work was done last year - and, as you acknowledge, the export routine already exists - we do not believe it is part of the actual cost of copying the data for my new request. In effect, you appear to be doubling billing for that work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Department staff responded in an email dated August 19, 2004. Attached to that email was an email of the same date from Randy Hartnett, the Department&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official. Mr. Hartnett wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Ms. Roberts stated her belief that the $200.00 charged the Pioneer Press for the data release last year included the cost of developing the bulk export routine from SQL. This is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While our IT department did indeed need to develop the routine to perform this transfer, according to their records, this project required in excess of 140 hours of staff time....on the basis that this project had the effect, in part, of separating the private from the public information in the database, my advice was that the charge made to the Pioneer Press last year should include only the cost of producing a copy of the data from the [Statewide Supervision System] database using that routine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The breakdown of those costs, according to IT people is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table align=&quot;center&quot; border=&quot;2&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Task&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Minutes&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Fee&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Project Mgr reviews and routes the request (salary and benefits)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$12.38&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Info. Tech Specialist (ITS) 4 administers request&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$10.40&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 3 modified extract for data range&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;30&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$19.50&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 3 executes DTS package&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$9.75&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Server processes DTS package&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;120 - 180&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$40.00&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 3 verifies files to determine if size appropriate&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$9.75&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 4 verifies files to determine if data appropriate&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$12.38&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 4 makes data changes as required&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;30&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$20.80&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Project Mgr reviews for required changes&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;30&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$24.75&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;ITS 3 burns CD&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;45&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$39.00&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;CD cost&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td /&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$2.00&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Total&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;5.5 - 6.5 hours&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;$200.71&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Roberts and Department staff exchanged additional emails related to the $200 fee. The Department agreed to reduce the labor part of the fee estimate by $22.78, for a new total of $177.22. (The Commissioner assumes the Department removed the first and second charges, relating to reviewing, routing, and administering the request.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Roberts raised the following specific objections to the Department&apos;s fee: the labor costs are inconsistent; there are charges related to ensuring integrity of the data; Chapter 13 requires that entities make data easily accessible; and the charge includes time spent for a computer specialist to watch a CD burn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Ms. Roberts&apos; request for an opinion, she asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Corrections in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $177.22 for a copy of jail booking data from the Statewide Supervision System for the time period November 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Fabian discussed Ms. Roberts&apos; concerns, but provided little explanation as to how the Department&apos;s charge represents the actual cost of making a copy of the jail booking data. It should be noted, however, that Commissioner Fabian agreed to further reduce the copy fee by $11.73, in response to Ms. Roberts&apos; question about inconsistent labor charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner of Administration makes the following comments regarding the Department&apos;s fee. First, it would not have been appropriate for the Department to include in its copy charge a fee for staff time to review, route, and administer the data request. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267827&quot; title=&quot;04-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-003&lt;/a&gt;. (It appears these parts of the charge were removed prior to Ms. Roberts making her opinion request.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, it is not appropriate for the Department to charge for time spent verifying the accuracy of the data. As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267785&quot; title=&quot;04-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-042&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, the fax fee included in the cost for the Sheriff&apos;s assistant to contact a state agency to verify the accuracy of its data. That charge is not allowable. Implicit in the requirements of Chapter 13, and section 15.17 [the Official Records Act] is that government entities must maintain accurate data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, the Commissioner questions the appropriateness of the $16 per hour (for two to three hours) charged for the server to process the DTS package. Commissioner Fabian argues that these are special costs as allowed by language in Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, subpart 4. The language in subpart 4 provides a list of costs intended to guide government entities in arriving at a reasonable fee for providing copies. Commissioner Fabian refers to clause (D), which states, [The entity shall be guided by] any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based record keeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems. Commissioner Fabian wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the case of the SSS system, there are clear machine-based special costs. Because the system contains such a large volume of data comprised in part of the booking and detention records of the booking entities, in many cases over several decades, the system requires substantial server resources. The special costs associated with running the request by the Pioneer Press is simply the cost associated with the inability to do other work while it is being run....With a server such as the one used for the SSS system, however, when it is being used to retrieve and compile the data to comply with the request, it cannot be used for the other purposes demanded of it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-013&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner briefly discussed this same provision:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...However, the rationale behind the special costs language is that it is reasonable for government agencies to recover, as part of their copy charges, any special costs associated with making copies of data from a machine-based, i.e., computer, record keeping system. Special costs might include writing or modifying a computer program to format data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, Secretary Growe has not provided information sufficient enough to clearly show that special costs are involved in the copying of the voter registration tapes. The fact that the copying entity is a computer rather than a copying machine is not, in itself, sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that it is not appropriate for the Department to charge server time to the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. First, it does not appear to be a type of special cost which the Department can charge to a data requestor. Second, the Department&apos;s argument appears similar to one with which the Commissioner consistently has not agreed, i.e., government entities charging for electricity used to run a copy machine, and for wear and tear on a machine. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-059,&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Presumably Rosemount must operate and maintain copy machines for its internal operations. Rosemount did not submit information to the Commissioner which indicates that it must operate and maintain machines other than those necessary for its internal operations in order to provide members of the public with copies of public data. It is not reasonable for government entities to recover a portion of their normal operating expenses by charging a copying fee which is higher than the actual cost to supply the copy. (See also Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion #94-040&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267403&quot; title=&quot;04-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-040&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267598&quot; title=&quot;01-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-066&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that because the server housing the Statewide Supervision System serves a function that is part of the Department&apos;s everyday operations, it is not appropriate to include in the copy fee a charge for portions of its time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fourth, the Commissioner questions the Department&apos;s charge of 45 minutes for an ITS 3 to burn (copy the data to) the CD. In her comments, Commissioner Fabian wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...According to the IT personnel who do this task, creating the CD delivered to the Pioneer Press is not like the simple copying of a data CD in which a staff member sets the CD in the drive and comes back to it when the process is complete. The ITS 3 needs to monitor the process and input instructions to ensure the finished copy contains the data requested....[t]he ITS 4 who supervises the process notes: These are large files that we are transferring to CD/DVD, and require PC system resources to run effectively. Other Developer tools, Visual Studio and SQL Query Analyzer, also require significant resources. We need to be careful not to create a resource conflict. ... Failure to monitor the process could result in the need to re-do the task, resulting in substantial lost time and effort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the comments of the IT staff, it seems that this step in the process is more than simply copying the data to the CD. It appears to represent part of the searching for and retrieving component of the charge. In addition, it is not clear if part of the charge represents the actions taken by the Department to ensure that private, inaccurate, or incomplete data from the Statewide Supervision System database are not released to the requestor. As stated in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the Department may not charge for separating public from not public data. The Commissioner encourages the Department to revisit this part of the fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as to the other components of the copy charge, the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether they represent the actual costs of either searching for and retrieving the data or making the copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because the Commissioner finds some of the copy charge components inappropriate and cannot determine the appropriateness of others, she is unable to state, with certainty, whether the Department&apos;s overall charge of $165.49 (reduced from $177.22) is allowable pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised that Ms. Roberts raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the Minnesota Department of Corrections is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $165.49 (reduced from $177.22) for a copy of jail booking data from the Statewide Supervision System for the time period November 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 3, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267629</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complete and current 13.05</Title><Id>266530</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Operating expenses excluded</Title><Id>266306</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special costs (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266939</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Verification of data accuracy</Title><Id>266874</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-071</Title><title>Opinion 04 071</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267102&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-11-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association maintains: the names and addresses of its policyholders?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 2004; Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association v. Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; that MJUA is not a government entity, which supersedes the discussion portion of this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 14, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 13, 2004, from John Bjorkman. In the letter, Mr. Bjorkman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) maintains. In a letter dated September 21, 2004, IPAD sought comments from the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Donna Watz, Staff Attorney, provided comments in a letter dated September 28, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Bjorkman presented them is as follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the MJUA has been asked to disclose the names and addresses of its policyholders by an insurance agent who intends to solicit those policyholders. The MJUA has declined to release the information pending receipt of an advisory opinion from the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By way of background, the MJUA is a statutorily created entity authorized to issue insurance to entities and individuals unable to obtain insurance in the private marketplace. See Minn. section 62I.02. The MJUA is considered a state agency within the purview of [Chapter 13]. The MJUA is also, in our view, considered an insurer or insurance company as those terms are used in various state and federal privacy provisions. Indeed, the MJUA is regulated by the Department of Commerce in the same manner as any other insurance company. For instance, the MJUA is required to file an Annual Statement, the Commissioner approves all of the MJUA&apos;s rates and the Commissioner has the right to inspect MJUA&apos;s books. Perhaps, most tellingly, the MJUA is required to pay premium taxes to the State just like any other insurer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;State and federal law prohibits an insurer or insurance company from disclosing private information concerning its policyholders....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under federal law, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prohibits an insurer from disclosing private policyholder information....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 1996 the Commissioner provided the MJUA with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267107&quot; title=&quot;96-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-005&lt;/a&gt;, on the very issue raised by this request. The opinion found the MJUA was subject to [Chapter 13] and that all information gathered by the MJUA is public unless otherwise classified in statute, federal law or by temporary classification. The advisory opinion ultimately concluded that the MJUA was required to disclose the names and addresses of its policyholders because the Commissioner is not aware of any other Minnesota statute or federal law which would classify the data in question as private or non-public. The MJUA questions the continuing applicability of the 1996 advisory opinion for two reasons. First, the advisory opinion does not reference Minn. Stat. section 72A.502 and the MJUA is concerned the Commissioner may not have considered that statute. Second, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was not enacted until well after the Commissioner&apos;s 1996 advisory opinion and we believe the Act may impact the opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mr. Bjorkman&apos;s request for an opinion, he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association maintains: the names and addresses of its policyholders?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267107&quot; title=&quot;96-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-005&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner took the position that the MJUA is a state agency for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Section 13.02, subdivision 17, defines state agency as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district, or agency of the state. Given the [MJUA] is an association created by Minnesota statute, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that the [MJUA] is a state agency, for purposes of Chapter 13, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All data subject to Chapter 13 are presumed to be public unless those data are otherwise classified in statute, in federal law, or by a temporary classification....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, because the data relating to Dram Shop liquor liability insureds do not appear to be classified as anything other than public, those data are public by operation of...Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Bjorkman noted that both state statute and federal law appear to prohibit the MJUA, a state agency, from disseminating certain data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 72A. 502, subdivision 1, An insurer...must not disclose any personal or privileged information about a person collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction without the written authorization of that person except as authorized by this section. Section 72A.491, subdivision 14, defines insurer as any insurance company... Section 60A.02, subdivision 4, states that insurance company includes every insurer, corporation, business trust, or association engaged in insurance as principal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act state, It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers&apos; nonpublic personal information. (See 15 U.S.C. section 6801.) The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act defines financial institutions to include insurers. (See 12 U.S.C. section 1843(k)(4) and 15 U.S.C. section 6809.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that government data are public unless otherwise classified in statute, federal law, or by temporary classification (not relevant here).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although neither the language in Chapter 72A nor federal law provides an explicit classification of data, i.e., private, it appears to operate as the functional equivalent. Therefore, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the MJUA is prohibited from disclosing the names and addresses of certain of its policyholders without consent. (See below for a discussion of the difference in the treatment of data about individual policyholders and other types of policy holders, e.g., corporations, partnerships, etc.) However, the Commissioner urges the MJUA to seek change to its enabling legislation, Chapter 62I, so that its policyholder data specifically are classified as private. This would remove any question about whether its policyholders are entitled to other rights of subjects of private data, such as the right to receive a Tennessen warning notice (see section 13.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner adds the following. Ms. Watz, on behalf of the Commerce Department wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department agrees with the conclusions reached by Mr. Bjorkman...We concur that Minn. Stat. section72A.502 and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act should prohibit the [MJUA] from disclosing personal information about its individual policyholders without the approval of the policyholder. As a point of clarification, we note that Minn. Stat. section72A.502 and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act pertain to personal information on individuals and do not address the privacy classification for information about companies or other entities that are policyholders....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees. In state law, section 72A.491, subdivision 17, defines personal information as any individually identifiable information gathered in connection with an insurance transaction from which judgments can be made about an individual&apos;s character, habits, avocations, finances, occupation, general reputation, credit, health, or any other personal characteristics. In federal law, 15 U.S.C. section 6809 (4), defines nonpublic personal information as that provided by a consumer to a financial institution. Further, 15 U.S.C. section 6809 (9) defines consumer as an individual who obtains...financial products or services which are to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes... Therefore, the names and addresses of MJUA&apos;s policyholders who are individuals cannot be released without consent, but the names and addresses of other types of policyholders are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Bjorkman raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 72A, and federal law, the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association is prohibited from releasing, without consent, the names and addresses of its policyholders who are individuals.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana B. Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 3, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267102</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) (Superseded by MJUA v. Star Tribune, A13-2112, April 8, 2013 (Minn.))</Title><Id>267101</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:26:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-070</Title><title>Opinion 04 070</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267820&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a June 23, 2004, request for copies of data?
Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an August 13, 2004, request for &quot;all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 29, 2004; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 8, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data about his/her child that Hennepin County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Daniel Engstrom, Assistant Administrator, Hennepin County Human Services. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On October 6, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Arthur Katzman, Senior Assistant County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In a letter dated June 23, 2004, X wrote to Mr. Engstrom:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am writing to obtain copies of all data related to my [child] which is maintained by Hennepin County Developmental Disabilities and which corresponds to each of the ten requests below. I am requesting:
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Telephone logs
&lt;br /&gt;
3) Communications logs
&lt;br /&gt;
4) Meeting notes, observation notes, etc.
&lt;br /&gt;
5) Emails
&lt;br /&gt;
6) Memoranda, correspondence
&lt;br /&gt;
7) Reports
&lt;br /&gt;
8) Invoices, billings, claims
&lt;br /&gt;
9) Intake documents
&lt;br /&gt;
10) All other data not contained in requests 1-9.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X wrote again to Mr. Engstrom on July 27, 2000. In part, X stated, To date, I have had but one phone contact from my [child&apos;s] worker...and she faxed me a copy of a [sic] Hennepin County&apos;s Data Practices Policy. X also wrote, Depending upon whether there are any charges involved I may come inspect them at your location and order individual copies...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The social worker wrote back in a letter dated August 11, 2004:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On June 23rd Hennepin County received your request for data on your [child]. On July 6th we had a telephone conversation regarding this request. On that date I also faxed to you a copy policy regarding fees for data. I did not hear back from you regarding how you wanted to proceed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 24th we received your request for data related to your [child]. On August 2nd I left you two telephone messages as I hoped to clarify how you wished to proceed to review [your child&apos;s] case record and other requested information. I have not had any response to date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The cost of copies is 25 cents per page as indicated on my July 6th fax to you. You are welcome to come and review [your child&apos;s] records here at the [County] and determine what documentation you would like to have copied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 13, 2004, X wrote to Mr. Engstrom. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On 7/27/04 I sent you a letter indicating that I had not received any response to my request except a telephone call from my [child&apos;s] worker...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On 8/2/04 [the social worker] called again and left a message on my answering machine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting that all further communications related to servicing this request be conveyed to me in writing unless I specify otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting that you immediately gather my [child&apos;s] records and inform me as to whether or not there will be a fee for the copies of the records....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If there will be a fee then I request that you provide me the fee and a copy of all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs. I would consider a per page charge of 25 cents to be unreasonable and not reflective of actual costs....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a June 23, 2004, request for copies of data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an August 13, 2004, request for all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a June 23, 2004, request for copies of data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests access to government data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity must respond within ten working days. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent may gain access to private data about his/her child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Katzman wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] sent [X&apos;s] initial data request to Daniel Engstrom on June 23, 2004....On July 6, 2004 (the eighth business day after [X&apos;s] request), Ms. Wolf called [X] and spoke with [X] regarding [X&apos;s] request, as well as advising [X] that there would be a charge for the data. In connection with the charge, she faxed [X] Hennepin County&apos;s policy regarding charges. Ms. Wolf&apos;s understanding was that [X] would get back to her as to how [X] wanted her to handle the data request, in light of the fact that there would be charges involved....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] never responded to Ms. Wolf. Instead, [X] wrote to Mr. Engstrom a second time on July 27, 2004, saying, Since {the July 6 phone call and fax from Ms. Wolf} I have not received any communications regarding the fulfillment of my requests. My clients would respectfully submit that the responsibility shifted to [X] to get back to Ms. Wolf...to tell her how [X] wanted her to proceed....In fact, [X] had already been told by Ms. Wolf that there would be charges for copies, and what is more, she provided [X] with the county&apos;s policy regarding those charges and what the per page amount would be....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Wolf again responded in a timely fashion by calling [X] on August 2nd, and left [X] telephone messages to clarify how [X] wished to proceed to review [X&apos;s child&apos;s] case record and other requested information. (See Ruth Wolf&apos;s letter of August 11, 2004). Again, she received no written or oral response from [X]. In a further attempt to comply with [X&apos;s] request, Ms. Wolf wrote to [X] on August 11, 2004....Again, instead of contacting Ms. Wolf, [X] again wrote to Mr. Engstrom on Aug. 13, 2004. Once again, [X] acknowledges that On 8/2/04 Ms. Wolf called again and left a message on my answering machine. But rather than call her back and arrange to inspect the records consistent with [X&apos;s] earlier suggestion in [X&apos;s] July 27 letter, [X] inexplicably wrote to Mr. Engstrom again on August 13, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Wolf made further attempts to comply with [X&apos;s] data request. On August 18, she again left a message on [X&apos;s] answering machine regarding [X&apos;s] request to review [X&apos;s] child&apos;s file. [X] failed to return her call or otherwise respond. On August 23, 2004, Ms. Wolf contacted [X] and let [X] know that [X&apos;s child&apos;s] file was available for review. [X] again chose not to review it. [X] acknowledges this call in [X&apos;s] letter to you dated Sept. 8....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X requested copies of data in a letter dated June 23, 2004. Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the County was obligated to respond within ten business days. Here, because X requested copies and the County&apos;s policy states that, generally, it collects fees up front, communication between the parties needed to occur prior to X receiving the data. There is no dispute that Ms. Wolf spoke with X by telephone on the eighth business day and faxed X a copy of the County&apos;s policy on &lt;em&gt;Copy and Data Fees&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, from that point on, the Commissioner cannot determine whether it was the County or X who did not follow through to ensure that X received copies of the data s/he requested. According to Mr. Katzman, Ms. Wolf understood that X would get back to her to as to how [X] wanted her to handle the data request. X&apos;s July 27, 2004, letter suggests that, perhaps, X was expecting additional communications regarding the fulfillment of [X&apos;s] requests. If X does not yet have copies of the data s/he requested in June 2004, the Commissioner urges both parties to work to resolve the matter promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Did Hennepin County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an August 13, 2004, request for all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comment to the Commissioner, Mr. Katzman wrote, Ms. Wolf had not received [X&apos;s August 13, 2004, letter] and, while I have no doubt that [X] sent it, my clients could find no record of having received it. Thus, my clients have not responded to it. Accordingly, we will respond at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Katzman attached a copy of a memo from the county&apos;s senior program analyst, who originally did the research and study on how that per page cost should be determined. It clearly breaks down the component costs. Mr. Katzman stated that a copy of the memo was being provided to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, she is puzzled by Mr. Katzman&apos;s assertion that the County did not receive the August 13, 2004, letter. Mr. Katzman referred to the letter in his comments regarding Issue 1 and made no mention of the County not having received the letter. Then, in regard to Issue 2, Mr. Katzman states that the letter was not received. Either the County did or did not receive the letter, but the Commissioner cannot make a certain determination. If the County did receive the letter, it did not respond in a timely manner. If the County did not receive the letter, it had no obligation to respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, X asked to be provided with the fee and a copy of all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs. It is the perspective of the Commissioner that, while the County&apos;s memo represents a breakdown of the copy fee, it is not clear if it represents all data used in calculating the fee. The Commissioner reminds her readers that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, subdivision 1, All officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13. If the County created and compiled detailed data in determining its copy charge, e.g., an analysis of the costs of all materials, labor/fringe benefits, and equipment usage, those data likely are official records and, based on X&apos;s request, should be made available to X, if they exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Hennepin County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a June 23, 2004, request for copies of data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner has no basis upon which to conclude, with certainty, whether Hennepin County complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to an August 13, 2004, request for all data used in calculating the fee, including a breakdown of all component costs.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dana Badgerow
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 29, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267820</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Prepayment</Title><Id>266407</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days</Title><Id>266515</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:23:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-069</Title><title>Opinion 04 069</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266412&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7, to which the requestor, a member of the public, previously was granted access?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 28, 2004; Lake County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 11, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Russ Conrow, County Attorney for Lake County, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Conrow asked the Commissioner to address the classification of certain criminal investigative material maintained by the Lake County Sheriff&apos;s Office. According to Mr. Conrow:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The material concerns the disappearance of [an] individual on May 12, 1985. The material gives the investigative file of the sheriff&apos;s department from that time period. Two local individuals have subsequently begun their own investigation into the disappearance. They have obtained large amounts of information, however [they] would like to review the sheriff&apos;s files. We have told them that under . . . Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 7, the investigation is still open and, therefore, is confidential or non-public protected information. However, one of the individuals had access to the materials during a previous sheriff&apos;s administration. He believes that since he already had access to the information, it is no longer confidential or non-public information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Conrow asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7, to which the requestor, a member of the public, previously was granted access?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, criminal investigative data, i.e., data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data is public [with exceptions].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Further, an investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a) a decision by the agency or appropriate prosecutorial authority not to pursue the case;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (b) expiration of the time to bring a charge or file a complaint under the applicable statute of limitations,
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      or 30 years after the commission of the offense, whichever comes earliest; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (c) exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal by a person convicted on the basis of the investigative data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.82, subdivision 7, also states: [d]ata determined to be inactive under clause (a) may become active if the agency or appropriate prosecutorial authority decides to renew the investigation.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Conrow, one of the data requestors had obtained access to the data in question during a previous sheriff&apos;s administration. He stated that the investigation is still open.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regardless whether a previous sheriff reached a different conclusion, the current Lake County Sheriff is the responsible authority for the data in question, and, accordingly, has the responsibility to provide proper access to those data. Mr. Conrow stated the investigation is still active; therefore, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, the data are confidential or protected nonpublic, and not accessible to the public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Conrow is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7, are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic, regardless whether a previous responsible authority provided a member of the public with access to those data.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Dana Badgerow
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 28, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266412</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-068</Title><title>Opinion 04 068</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267487&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 1, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 21, 2004; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 5, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 9, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data about his/her child that Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, the Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated September 14, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for District&apos;s position. On September 24, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In a letter dated June 1, 2004, X wrote to Superintendent Wolak, I am requesting copies of my [child&apos;s] special education records beginning with the school year 1997-1998 through the present.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The District&apos;s Data Compliance Official/Designee, Kay Korupp, responded in a letter dated June 8, 2004: The District has provided you with copies in the past and is not obligated to give you a second copy. No new material has been added since we last gave you copies of those materials.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In X&apos; s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 1, 2004, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When an individual requests access to government data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity must respond within ten working days. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent may gain access to private data about his/her child.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.04, subdivision 3, also contains a provision that puts a limit on a data subject&apos;s access to data: After an individual has been shown the private data...the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. However, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that this provision does not apply to educational data. Access to educational data is governed by both Chapter 13 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. FERPA does not contain any provision permitting educational institutions to withhold data in situations similar to those regulated by section 13.04, subdivision 3. Federal law preempts state law, which, in this case, means that state law cannot place further restrictions on a data subject&apos;s rights to gain access to educational data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The fact of the matter is [X] had been provided already with copies of [X&apos;s child&apos;s] special education records, recently enough that the record had not changed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...It is reasonable to assume that either [X] had no intention of reviewing the data requested on June 1, 2004 or that [X] did not review the same data previously requested and already provided. Presumably, [X] did not intend to review the same 1,000 pages twice. It is much more likely that [X&apos;s] latest request is an attempt to inflict upon the district the cost and burden of compiling and making 1,000 copies again.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to state and federal law, the District was required to provide X copies of the data s/he requested in the June 1, 2004, letter. Further, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District was required to provide the data to X within ten working days. The District did not do so.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following note is in order. A government entity is within its right to establish a policy that requires data requestors to pay all or part of any copy costs before providing copies. If the District is concerned that individuals will not pay copy fees, it is reasonable for the District to establish a policy requiring advance payment. In this case, because the data X requested are educational records that relate to a child with a disability, the District must consider the following provisions of state and federal law: (1) An agency or institution that receives a request for copies of the educational records of a child with a disability may charge a fee that reflects the costs of reproducing the records except when to do so would impair the ability of the child&apos;s parent...to exercise their right to inspect and review those records (section 13.04, subdivision 5); (2) Each participating agency may charge a fee for copies of records that are made for parents under this part if the fee does not effectively prevent the parents from exercising their right to inspect and review those records (34 C.F.R. section 300.566, of the federal regulations promulgated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and (3) Unless the imposition of a fee effectively prevents a parent or eligible student from exercising the right to inspect and review the student&apos;s education records, an educational agency or institution may charge a fee for a copy of an education record which is made for the parent or eligible student (34 C.F.R. section 99.11).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a June 1, 2004, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kent Allin
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Acting Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 21, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267487</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Prepayment</Title><Id>266407</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA</Title><Id>266318</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-067</Title><title>Opinion 04 067</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267096&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-20T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Gary L. Fischler &amp; Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to X&apos;s April 28, 2003, request for data?
Did Gary L. Fischler &amp; Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Donna Wood on June 19, 2003?
Did Gary L. Fischler &amp; Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Roberta Pisa between September 15, 2003, and December 5, 2003?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 2004; Gary Fischler &amp; Associates</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 30, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated August 17, 2004, from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that Gary L. Fischler and Associates (GFA) maintains, and whether GFA inappropriately released private data of which X is the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Fischler. The purposes of this letter, dated September 1, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for GFA&apos;s position. On September 20, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing GFA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some brief background information is as follows. In the opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I...request opinions about actions arising from my relationship with Gary L. Fischler and Associates, hired for services by the Department of Rehabilitation Services (VR), division of DEED [the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development]....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I am losing my hearing...I applied, and was accepted for services from VR in June, 2000 on the basis of my hearing impairment....I did not use the offered services at that time, as I got a full-time...position. In February, 2002, after another significant drop in my hearing, I left this position, returned to VR, and was again accepted for services on the basis of my hearing impairment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first issue X asked the Commissioner to address is whether GFA responded in a timely manner to an April 28, 2003, request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second and third issues relate to whether GFA inappropriately released private data about X to DEED.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner takes the position that GFA, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 as if it were a government entity. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-009&lt;/a&gt;.) Also, because GFA did not indicate that statutory authority exists for it to disseminate private data about X to DEED, GFA may not do so lawfully without first obtaining informed consent from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to X&apos;s April 28, 2003, request for data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Donna Wood on June 19, 2003?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Roberta Pisa between September 15, 2003, and December 5, 2003?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to X&apos;s April 28, 2003, request for data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity must respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an April 28, 2003, email to Dr. Fischler, X wrote, This is also a formal request for release of records. I am asking now that all of my records pertaining to these sessions be released to me immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her opinion request, X wrote that on May 7, 2003, X called GFA to inquire about the records. X stated that s/he spoke with a staff person and also left a message for Dr. Fischler. X also wrote an email on that day to Dr. Fischler and inquired about the status of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the opinion request, X wrote, Gary Fischler wrote back to me and indicated that he had not sent my records because he did not have my address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X responded to Dr. Fischler in an email dated May 7, 2003, I didn&apos;t realize you would be sending the records yourself and that you were waiting personal receipt of my address. I assumed your administrator...would be sending the file; she has my address (she has told me she was waiting on your order to release my records to me). X provided the mailing address to Dr. Fischler.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X further wrote in the opinion request that X received some of the records on May 9, 2003. X realized that some data were missing. X wrote to Dr. Fischler on May 11, 2003, via email and asked for the missing data. In X&apos;s opinion request, X wrote, On May 14th, 2003, Gary Fischler sent the missing e-mail with another e-mail pertaining to me, attached to it. I want to note that had I not seen the reference to one of the missing emails in the data Gary Fischler sent, I would not have known that the missing emails existed at all, and I would not have known that I would have to ask Gary Fischler it [sic].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In [X&apos;s] August 17, 2004 letter seeking the Opinion, X states that [X] made a written request for copies of [X&apos;s] records in an e-mail to Dr. Fischler on April 28, 2003. While this is correct, [X] did not include in the request a mailing address, nor did [X] suggest any other method for obtaining the copies. As X acknowledges, Dr. Fischler contacted [X] on May 7, 2003, telling [X] that the records could not be forwarded without a mailing address (I note that this was still well within the time period permitted under the statute). X suggests that Dr. Fischler&apos;s administrator (apparently the office manager) did have [X&apos;s] mailing address. This, however, is incorrect, as an e-mail Dr. Fischler sent to his office manager the next day corroborates; a copy of that e-mail (dated May 8) is enclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X subsequently provided [X&apos;s] address, and Dr. Fischler&apos;s office then promptly sent all of the requested records to [X]. While X says that [X] received some of [X&apos;s] records on May 9, the fact is that [X] admits [X] received essentially all them. [X&apos;s] request for an opinion states that [X] saw there was that [sic] least one document missing. This demonstrates that under any interpretation, [X] received virtually [X&apos;s] entire file, as requested. Nonetheless, I emphasize that according to Dr. Fischler, X was sent everything in the first mailing. In other words, we do not agree that any documents were missing from the records initially mailed to X, nor does it appear that [X] has evidence to the contrary. I would also note that when X did contact GFA claiming a document was missing, the requested document (and more) was promptly sent to [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, there is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve. X made his/her data request on April 28, 2003. X asserts that s/he received most of the data on May 9, 2003, which is within the ten day time period prescribed by statute. X also asserts that s/he received additional data on May 14, 2003, which is past the ten day deadline. Conversely, Mr. Anfinson states GFA sent all the data in the first mailing and does not agree that any documents were missing. Because the Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute, he cannot determine, with certainty, whether GFA responded in a timely manner to X&apos;s April 28, 2003, request for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler amp; Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Donna Wood on June 19, 2003?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because GFA must comply with the requirements of Chapter 13 as if it were a government entity, and there is no statutory provision authorizing dissemination of private data about X to DEED, GFA can release private data about X only if it has obtained X&apos;s informed consent. (See section 13.05, subdivision 4(d).) Further, the data GFA maintain about X are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 268A.05.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On 6/19/03 Ms. Wood called me back and told me she had talked with Gary Fischler that day about my case. I was quite surprised that she had talked with him without obtaining a release of information from me....I would most certainly have assumed that if Gary Fischler were going to speak with staff at VR [a division of DEED] that he would have asked me to sign a release of information agreement....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I had signed no further release of information agreement with [GFA] after I rescinded the 1st release agreement, save for an agreement to release a three page report, signed on 4/24/03. Gary Fischler did not have any release of information agreement, signed by me, allowing him or anyone from his office to speak with Donna Wood or anyone at VR about my case. And I had rescinded my release of information for VR to speak with Gary Fischler about my case on 5/10/03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My client categorically denies that any private data about X were released to DEED employee Donna Wood, on June 19, 2003 or any other date. While Dr. Fischler did talk to Ms. Wood on June 19, at no time during that conversation were private data disseminated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Wood had contacted Dr. Fischler pursuant to X&apos;s evident request to DEED that the records on X maintained by Dr. Fischler be expunged. According to Dr. Fischler&apos;s records, he and Ms. Wood then talked about whether an expungement request could be granted, and the operations and procedures generally employed at GFA regarding such a request. Indeed, Dr. Fischler&apos;s notes indicate that he expressly told Ms. Wood that he could not talk specifically about X&apos;s file on that occasion. In other words, at no time during this conversation did Dr. Fischler and Ms. Wood improperly discuss [X&apos;s] case in any way whatsoever. Based on X&apos;s request for the advisory opinion and the accompanying documents, I do not understand that [X] has any evidence to the contrary. Instead, [X] appears to be engaging in pure speculation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the documentation provided by both parties, the Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether GFA released private data about X to Ms. Wood. X asserts that GFA released private data about X to a DEED employee and Mr. Anfinson denies this allegation. The Commissioner is unable to resolve this factual dispute. If GFA did release private data about X to Ms. Wood without first obtaining consent from X, GFA did not comply with Chapter 13. However, if, as Mr. Anfinson argues, GFA did not release any private data about X to Ms. Wood, GFA is in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did Gary L. Fischler Associates comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Roberta Pisa between September 15, 2003, and December 5, 2003?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s opinion request, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Eventually, on 9/15/03, I spoke with VR Director of Consumer Services, Roberta Pisa. She indicated she would conduct an investigation of my numerous complaints. Again, I never dreamed that she or VR would feel free to discuss my case and therefore my private data with Gary Fischler...I spoke to Ms. Pisa one time on the telephone, and asked to meet with her. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me, long before she and I ever met to discuss my complaints, Ms. Pisa had apparently already discussed my case with Gary Fischler when we met in December 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At some point, between the time Ms. Pisa and I first spoke on 9/15/03, and the time we met, on 12/05/03, Ms. Pisa had conducted an investigation of my complaints, and had spoken with Gary Fischler about my case.... &lt;strong&gt;And again, I did not give Gary Fischler permission to discuss my case or my private information with Roberta Pisa, or anyone at VR. Neither VR or Gary Fischler offered me the opportunity to have any control over the release of my private information.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, it appears that Gary Fischler and Roberta Pisa openly discussed me and my case, neither of them in possession of a release of information agreement signed by me. Ms. Pisa assured me, at our meeting in December 2003, that she had discussed my case with Gary Fischler. In an email to me, dated December 15, 2003, Roberta Pisa indicates that she had at least one conversation with Gary Fischler about my case. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...At no time did Dr. Fischler or anyone else in his office discuss with Ms. Pisa private data about X. Furthermore, X offers no evidence of any kind to the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Again, Dr. Fischler did talk with Ms. Pisa about X on occasion during the time period specified. However, these conversations were confined to general discussions about how the complaints that X was apparently making to VR might be dealt with. Dr. Fischler took the same position with Ms. Pisa as he has with Ms. Woods: any specific information created or collected about X in his files could not be disclosed by him. Furthermore, they divulged no private data about X to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In [X&apos;s] request for an opinion, X claims among other things that Ms. Pisa indicated in an e-mail that she had at least one conversation with Gary Fischler about [X&apos;s] case. To the extent this is intended to suggest that any private data were discussed, it is simply wrong. Furthermore, X&apos;s characterization of the e-mail is inaccurate. Nothing in the e-mail (included as an exhibit with X&apos;s request for an opinion) in any way supports the notion that private data were disseminated or discussed in the conversation between Ms. Pisa and Dr. Fischler.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X also contends there is other evidence that GFA passed private information about [X] to VR. This allegation appears to be confined to information about the fact that X had evidently stopped therapy, which X claims [X] had disclosed orally to an associate of Dr. Fischler&apos;s. Once again, however, X is engaging in sheer speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the accusation. Certainly GFA denies that any such transfer of private data occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner carefully has examined the documentation X provided and is of the opinion that it does not demonstrate, with certainty, that GFA released private data about X to Roberta Pisa. Without such documentation, the Commissioner must look to the comments provided by X and Mr. Anfinson. X asserts that GFA did release private data to Ms. Pisa while Mr. Anfinson counters that GFA did not release any private data. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute and, therefore, cannot determine whether GFA inappropriately disseminated private data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Gary L. Fischler Associates complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to X&apos;s April 28, 2003, request for data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Gary L. Fischler Associates released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Donna Wood on June 19, 2003.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Gary L. Fischler Associates released private data about X, without X&apos;s consent, to DEED employee Roberta Pisa between September 15, 2003, and December 5, 2003.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kent Allin
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 20, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267096</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Vocational rehabilitation data</Title><Id>266813</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-066</Title><title>Opinion 04 066</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267593&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to July 15 and August 4, 2004, requests for (1) a copy of all past written forms of public access procedures of the City, including the dates they were officially adopted and (2) a copy of the resolution the City passed adopting the City&apos;s Request for Information Policy?
Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect the transcript or minutes of any public hearing regarding the City&apos;s &quot;current Request for Information Policy or past public access procedures?&quot;
Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect (1) the document &quot;showing who [is] the current designated authority or responsible authority&quot; and a document showing the date of appointment of that person and (2) the document &quot;showing who [is] the current data practices compliance official&quot; and a document showing the date of appointment of that person?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 2004; City of Warren</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 7, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Elden Elseth. In his letter, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Warren maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Elseth&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Brooks, the City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated September 9, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Elseth&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 13, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Brooks.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Elseth wrote two letters to the City, in which he asked for certain data. In a letter dated July 15, 2004, Mr. Elseth wrote to Mr. Brooks; the first and second items of the letter are relevant to this opinion. Mr. Elseth wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 1. I note that there is no date of adoption of the &lt;strong&gt; Request for Information Policy &lt;/strong&gt;. . When was the official adoption date by the City Council of Warren of this policy? I would request a single copy of the resolution which was passed adopting said policy...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 2. When was the &lt;strong&gt; Request for Information Policy &lt;/strong&gt; first adopted? I would request single copies of all previous Policy statements or past written forms of the public access procedures of the City of Warren, MN which should include dates that they were officially adopted....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Elseth noted that as of September 7, 2004, the date of his opinion request, he had not received a response from the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 4, 2004, Mr. Elseth clarified the requests he made on July 15, 2004. Regarding the requested documents referred to above, Mr. Elseth wrote that if the City were going to charge him for single copies of the documents, he wished to inspect them. In addition, Mr. Elseth asked to inspect the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                3. ...the transcript or minutes of any public hearing in regard to the City of Warren&apos;s current Request for Information Policy or past public access procedures
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                4. ...the document showing who the current designated authority or responsible authority for the City of Warren is in regard to public access procedures and a document showing the date of appointment of that person. In addition, I request access for the purpose of inspection the document showing who the current data practices compliance official is for the City of Warren in regard to public access procedures and a document showing the date of appointment of that person.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Elseth noted that as of September 7, 2004, he had not received a response from the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                               Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to July 15 and August 4, 2004, requests for (1) a copy of all past written forms of public access procedures of the City, including the dates they were officially adopted and (2) a copy of the resolution the City passed adopting the City&apos;s &lt;i&gt;Request for Information Policy?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                               Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect the transcript or minutes of any public hearing regarding the City&apos;s current &lt;i&gt;Request for Information Policy&lt;/i&gt; or past public access procedures?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect (1) the document showing who [is] the current designated authority or responsible authority and a document showing the date of appointment of that person and (2) the document showing who [is] the current data practices compliance official and a document showing the date of appointment of that person?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Brooks wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City is prepared to produce the information requested in the July 15 and August 4, 2004 letters to the extent it is [sic] exists, with respect to past written forms of public access procedures of the City and a copy of the resolution adopting the City&apos;s Request for Information Policy. The City will further arrange to allow inspection of any transcript or minutes of public hearings regarding the City&apos;s Request for information Policy and any documentation showing the current designated responsible authority or current data practices compliance official.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City is in the process of identifying documents responsive to these requests and cannot represent at this time that all of the requested documents by Mr. Elseth exist. We also note that there is no beginning date for some of the requests. This makes it burdensome to identify all documents that may be responsive to the request for, e.g., past policies.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities must respond within a reasonable time. Here, Mr. Elseth hand delivered his July 15 request on July 16, 2004. He hand delivered his August 4, request on August 4. Mr. Elseth apparently did not receive any response from the City until after he submitted his opinion request on September 7, 2004. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following comments are in order. In his response, Mr. Brooks states, [the City] cannot represent at this time that all of the requested documents by Mr. Elseth exist. Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states, The responsible authority in every [government entity] shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Further, section 13.03, subdivision 2, states, The responsible authority in every [government entity] shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. The Commissioner reminds his readers that, pursuant to Chapter 13, government entities should be able to determine within a reasonable time whether requested data either do or do not exist. The Commissioner finds it troubling that, after two months, the City has not been able ascertain whether it maintains the data Mr. Elseth requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Finally, if a government entity has a question about the scope of a data request, it needs to ask the requestor for clarification. Clarification should be sought soon after receiving a request to ensure a timely response. Here, if the City needs clarification about some parts of Mr. Elseth&apos;s requests, it should seek it immediately.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Elseth raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                   The City of Warren did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to July 15 and August 4, 2004, requests for (1) a copy of all past written forms of public access procedures of the City, including the dates they were officially adopted and (2) a copy of the resolution the City passed adopting the City&apos;s &lt;i&gt;Request for Information Policy.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                   The City of Warren did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect the transcript or minutes of any public hearing regarding the City&apos;s current &lt;i&gt;Request for Information Policy&lt;/i&gt; or past public access procedures.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The City of Warren did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect (1) the document showing who [is] the current designated authority or responsible authority and a document showing the date of appointment of that person and (2) the document showing who [is] the current data practices compliance official and a document showing the date of appointment of that person.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kent Allin
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Acting Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 20, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267593</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-065</Title><title>Opinion 04 065</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267868&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to certain directory information about a student&apos;s parents?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 18, 2004; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 8, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated September 5, 2004, from John Wachlarowicz. In the letter, Mr. Wachlarowicz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a response by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, to his June 23, 2004, request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 13, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 24, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 23, 2004, Mr. Wachlarowicz made a request to Mr. Wolak, the District&apos;s responsible authority, for ... all directory information the District maintains or has maintained on the parents of [a named student] (name, address, phone number, etc.). Kay Korupp, the Data Compliance Official/Designee for the District, responded in a letter dated July 2, 2004, that the data were not available to Mr. Wachlarowicz because of School Board Policy 509 that limited use of directory information on parents to ...matters pertaining to school district business, functions, or purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wachlarowicz asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to certain directory information about a student&apos;s parents?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Congress did provide some exceptions so that certain disclosures could be made and those are detailed in the federal regulations that are found at 34 CFR part 99. Minnesota has generally followed these exceptions and the state provisions can be found within section 13.32. The Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Directory information is one of the categories of data about students that can be disclosed. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267591&quot; title=&quot;01-078&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-078&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner described the process for designating directory information in the following way:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;FERPA provides that the school board must determine what data elements about students are not considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. 20 U.S.C. section 11232g (a)(5). The data elements that the U.S. Department of Education has offered as examples to a school board for consideration as directory information include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;student&apos;s name, home address, telephone number, email address, photograph, date and place of birth, field of study, dates of attendance, grade level, enrollment status, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, degrees, honors and awards received and the most recent educational agency or institution attended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;34 CFR section 99.3 (definition of directory information, as amended and effective August 7, 2000).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The school board is free to choose which of the data elements it wants to designate as directory information, to make its determination of what constitutes directory information once each year, and notify parents of its decision. 34 CFR section 99.7. Parents are also given the option to have the directory information about their children not be public and the school district must have a way to honor such a request. 34 CFR section 99.37. Directory information is public data in Minnesota and must be provided to anyone who asks. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature classified data about the parents of students as private but has provided a mechanism by which school districts can treat data about the parents of students as public. Specifically, according to section 13.32, subdivision 2 (c):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data concerning parents are private data on individuals but may be treated as directory information if the same procedures that are used by a school district to designate student data as directory information under subdivision 5 are followed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.32, subdivision 5, provides that directory information is public data. According to section 13.02, subdivision 15, public data on individuals, such as data about students and their parents, ...is accessible to the public in accordance with the provisions of section 13.03. In addition, Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, subpart 2, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall provide access to public data to any person, without regard to the nature of that person&apos;s interest in the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, section 13.05, subdivision 12, prohibits a government entity from asking an individual who is requesting access to public data to identify him/herself, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing the situation presented to the Commissioner, it appears that the District has followed the requirements of federal law and established what data elements are directory information. This decision is documented in School Board Policy 509 entitled Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records. In Section I, Paragraph A, directory information is defined in the following way:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;District 832 has identified selected Directory Information relating to students. This information is public. The parent or student may, however, request in writing that any or all of the information below not be released on that individual student. The written request must be received within 30 days after the official notice is published.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Directory information includes the following information relating to a student: The student&apos;s name, date and place of birth, sex, major field of study, participation in officially organized teams, dates of attendance, grade levels completed, degrees and awards received, the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student, pictures for school-approved publications/newspapers, school or classroom websites, or cablecasts, bulletins, programs, or similar school-produced information pieces. Directory information also includes the name, address and telephone number of the student&apos;s parent(s) for use in matters pertaining to school district business, functions, or purposes. Except as specifically provided above, directory information does not include identifying data that references religion, race, color, social position or nationality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At issue here is whether the District can set limits on use of directory information about the parents of students. The District argues that the restrictions it has imposed meet the requirements of state and federal law and have the effect of protecting student safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the District&apos;s argument. Having established the name, address and telephone number of the student&apos;s parent(s) as directory information, section 13.32, subdivision 5, says that the data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public data are accessible to anyone for any reason and the District cannot place limitations on the use of the data that are public. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267536&quot; title=&quot;96-036&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-036&lt;/a&gt;. Therefore, the policy as written does not comply with state law. As the policy is inherently flawed, Mr. Wachlarowicz should have received the directory information he requested June 23, 2004, regarding the parents of a named student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District indicated that it wants to limit access to home address and telephone number information about students and their parents. To accomplish this, the District should not include home address and telephone number for either students or parents in the District&apos;s definition of directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wachlarowicz is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied access to certain directory information about a student&apos;s parents.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kent Allin
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 18, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267868</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent data</Title><Id>266386</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-064</Title><title>Opinion 04 064</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267769&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-15T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka), comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 5, 2004, request for public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 15, 2004; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 7, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Bill Slowter. In his letter, Mr. Slowter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination made by Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka) about a data practices issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Slowter&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated September 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Slowter&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 27, 2004, IPAD received a response from Joseph E. Flynn, an attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 25, 2004, Mr. Slowter wrote to Peggy Stefan, the District School Board Chair, and raised questions regarding whether X, a former School Board member, had violated provisions of Chapter 13. In a letter dated April 15, 2004, Ms. Stefan responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, I can acknowledge that when a complaint is raised, as you have done in this [the March 25, 2004] letter, we will investigate that complaint and if we believe action is appropriate would so act. However, it would appear, given my understanding of data practices law, that such investigation and actions would be private under the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 5, 2004, Mr. Slowter wrote to Ms. Stefan, and asked for [t]he existence and status of any complaints against [X] during [his/her] tenure on the Board. Mr. Slowter also sent that letter to Michael J. Lovett, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and the District&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 28, 2004, Ms. Stefan replied:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By letter dated March 25, 2004, you made inquiry regarding various alleged conversations with School Board member [X] and inquiring whether certain alleged conversations with [X] and various persons relating to the reorganization of the Arts Center constituted a &apos;possible&apos; violation of data privacy. Please be advised that I have investigated these inferences [sic] and find no evidence of any data privacy violations as suggested in your letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . As you know, elected officials are the subject of frequent comment by various individuals, but there are no complaints on file in School District offices relating to any formal complaints against [X] or any other board members. Also there are no complaints or evidence of any data privacy violations on file, with the exception of your letter dated March 25, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Slowter wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am troubled by the District&apos;s response. First, it doesn&apos;t seem reasonable to require almost 3 months before responding to a simple, straightforward request. Secondly, I&apos;m puzzled by their lack of data. I served on the Minnetonka School Board from 1998 though [sic] 2001 and [X] joined the Board in 2000. During my term as Chair, in October of 2000, a formal complaint was made against [X]. Furthermore, in a letter to another Minnetonka resident dated December 12, 2002 (copy enclosed) that complaint was acknowledged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The December 12, 2002, letter to which Mr. Slowter referred contains the following statements, under the heading Investigation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A complaint was made against [X]. Based on the fact that no disciplinary action resulted from the investigation, the School District is not permitted to identify the substance of the charge, as such data is classified as private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn provided the Commissioner with copies of letters and e-mails between Mr. Slowter and the District, which Mr. Flynn said address overlapping and similar questions . . . . References to the documents will show that Mr. Slowter communicated with Dr. Lovett on numerous occasions from March 25, 2004, through June 29, 2004, addressing various facets of the information request . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn stated, . . . there was confusion relating to the communication regarding [Mr. Slowter&apos;s] request dated May 5, 2004, since he sent both to the School Board chair, as well as [Dr. Lovett], creating some misunderstanding as to who was responding to the request. Mr. Flynn wrote that Ms. Stefan believed that she already had addressed &apos;the complaint question&apos; relating to X in letters she wrote to Mr. Slowter dated April 15, 2004 and June 10, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn stated: [f]inally, communications were delayed because of the summer recess and attendant vacations of School District personnel and correspondence related to clarification of Mr. Slowter&apos;s requests as evidenced in the enclosed communications. According to Mr. Flynn, . . . there were various circumstances which led to the delay in addressing Mr. Slowter&apos;s informational requests, including but not limited to . . . [t]he lack of clarity in Mr. Slowter&apos;s informational request and the mixing of data information requests with opinion and argument . . . [and] ongoing communications between Mr. Slowter and Dr. Lovett relating to necessary clarification to respond to Mr. Slowter&apos;s requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr Flynn wrote: [i]n summary, the line of numerous communications between the School District and Mr. Slowter demonstrate [sic] an ongoing, good faith effort on the part of the School District to provide responses to the data requests of Mr. Slowter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn also discussed Mr. Slowter&apos;s question about why the District told him that there were no complaints against any Board members, when, in Dr. Lovett&apos;s letter of December 12, 2002, to a third party, Dr. Lovett referred to a complaint against a Board member and subsequent investigation. According to Mr. Flynn, Ms. Stefan believed the complaint data sought by Mr. Slowter in his May 5, 2004, request, related to the allegations he (Mr. Slowter) made against X in his March 25, 2004, letter. As noted above, Ms. Stefan discussed her investigation of those allegations in her July 28, 2004, letter to Mr. Slowter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn wrote: Mr. Slowter&apos;s opinion request . . . suggests that during his term as School Board Chair in October 2000, a formal complaint was made against X and that this was acknowledged by the School District in a communication dated December 12, 2002 . . . . Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Slowter reached an erroneous conclusion that Ms. Stefan was inaccurate when she stated to him in her July 28, 2004, letter that there are no formal complaints against X or any other School Board member on file with the School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Flynn, in a letter dated October 7, 2000, Mr. Slowter, who was then School Board Chair, and the then-Vice Chair, raised questions as to whether or not data privacy rights [of a student and District employee] had been violated . . .by [X]. Mr. Flynn stated that they were not alleging a data privacy violation by School Board member [X] but were calling upon legal counsel to review certain documents and to conduct an investigation to make such a determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Flynn, in apparent reference to the December 12, 2002, letter to the third party, [a]pparently Dr. Lovett, who was not involved in the matter, but was aware of it by hearsay information, took it as a &apos;complaint&apos; within the generic usage of the word.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn, in apparent reference to the October 7, 2000, letter from Mr. Slowter, further stated: School Board Chair Stefan did not regard it as a &apos;complaint&apos; within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, but rather regarded it as an inquiry letter . . . . Part of the confusion resulted because apparently Mr. Slowter was asking about the very document that he in fact coauthored . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In summary, it is respectfully suggested that the October 7, 2000, &apos;letter of inquiry&apos; was not a &apos;complaint&apos; within the meaning of Chapter 13, and this determination created some confusion because Dr. Lovett regarded it as a complaint, at least generically speaking, and School Board chair Stefan regarded it simply as an inquiry. This conclusion is further reinforced because the School District would hardly be attempting to conceal a document from the person who coauthored it and obviously had it in his possession.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Slowter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka), comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 5, 2004, request for public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data at issue here relate to X, a former District 276 School Board member. School Board members are elected officials. Chapter 13 does not contain a specific classification for data about elected officials. However, the Commissioner has opined that the classification of data about elected officials depends upon whether the entity considers the elected official to be an employee. If so, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If not, the data are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267969&quot; title=&quot;99-043&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-043&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Roszak further stated: School Board members cannot be treated the same as employees because School Board members are, in effect, the employer and generally cannot be held accountable to a superior other than the public. If data on School Board members were private, then no mechanism for accountability to the public would exist and one of the overall objectives of the [Minnesota Government Data Practices] Act would be frustrated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Roszak, the School District does not consider School Board members to be employees, but rather elected officials without employee status. The Legislature did not provide a definition of employee in section 13.43. &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary - Second College Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Houghten Mifflin Company, 1985, definition of employee as a person who works for another in return for compensation is inconclusive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A review of several statutes relating to public employees also appears to be inconclusive. Elected officials are considered employees for purposes of worker&apos;s compensation, but not for unemployment compensation or eligibility under the Public Employee Labor Relations Act. (See section 176.011, subdivision 9 (6), section 268.035, subdivision 20 (12), and section 179A.03, subdivision 14 (a).) Pursuant to section 471.61, subdivision 1, a school district (among other government entities) may elect to offer group life, health and/or accident insurance to its officers and employees. According to Mr. Roszak, the District has so elected. In addition, under the same statute, a school district (among others) may determine that a person is an officer or employee if the person receives income from the governmental subdivisions without regard to the manner of election or appointment . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, it is the District&apos;s position that School Board members are not District employees, and ultimately it is up to the District to make that determination. The Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the District to reach the conclusion that School Board members are not employees, particularly in light of Mr. Roszak&apos;s comments concerning public accountability concerns. Accordingly, absent any statute or federal law that provides otherwise, data maintained by the District about any of the School Board members, including data relating to the School Board&apos;s deliberations about the allegations against the Board member, are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that the result is that data about elected officials is treated inconsistently in different government entities. Nonetheless, here, the District apparently has determined that its Board members are employees for purposes of Chapter 13; accordingly, the data at issue here are classified as personnel data under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The October 7, 2000, letter from Mr. Slowter and the Board Vice Chair to Mr. Flynn contains the following statements:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We asked you a very simple question - &apos;What is our responsibility when possible data practices infractions surface?&apos; Your response was quick and succinct. You indicated that our strict adherence to data practices guidelines is a very serious matter and we have a clear obligation to investigate possible violations, and if necessary, take action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We don&apos;t believe that the Board should investigate, as we have neither the legal expertise nor the required objectivity. Thus, as Chair and Vice Chair, we are requesting that your firm, as District legal counsel, conduct an investigation into possible infractions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter describes a phased review process for Mr. Flynn to follow, and concludes, [w]hile we&apos;re saddened by the need to make this request we strongly believe that protecting the interests of students and staff is our top priority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn states that the District takes the position that the October 7, 2000, letter was a letter of inquiry, and does not constitute a complaint or charge within the meaning of section 13.43. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the information provided the Commissioner, at least two Board members discussed with the District&apos;s legal counsel their concerns that another Board member had violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The October 7, 2000, letter contains references to allegations raised in those discussions, which Mr. Flynn, as the District&apos;s legal counsel, subsequently investigated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Flynn stated that he did conduct an investigation and ultimately made a report to the School Board. . . . . The School Board determined not to take any disciplinary action against [X] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Dr. Lovett, the District&apos;s DPCO, referred to the allegations made against X as a complaint in his December 12, 2002, letter, and stated the data that identify the substance of the charge were classified as private because the investigation of the complaint did not result in disciplinary action, as provided under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn stated that Dr. Lovett was using the generic meaning of complaint in that letter. However, because the Legislature did not define complaint or charge in section 13.43, the generic or plain meaning is applicable. (See section 645.17, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267412&quot; title=&quot;97-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-003&lt;/a&gt;, which discusses the applicability of dictionary definitions of those terms.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the context here, i.e., that two School Board members made allegations that another Board member violated provisions of state law, resulting in an investigation and report by the District&apos;s legal counsel, the Commissioner is of the opinion that those allegations constitute a complaint or charge within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision 2 (4). Accordingly, the District erred in stating otherwise to Mr. Slowter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the timeliness of the District&apos;s response to Mr. Slowter, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, a government entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a)) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn stated that among several factors that contributed to the delay in the District&apos;s response were the District&apos;s need for clarification, and misunderstanding as to who within the District was responding to the request. If the District needed to clarify with Mr. Slowter what data he meant by [t]he existence and status of any complaints against [X] during [his/her] tenure on the Board, it needed to do so upon receipt of his request. Furthermore, the District stated Mr. Slowter&apos;s request was confusing because he directed his data requests to both Ms. Stefan and Dr. Lovett. However, the record does not show that the District asked him to do otherwise, and they both responded to his inquiries. If the District has not done so, it should implement the policies and procedures necessary to ensure it responds appropriately to data requests pursuant to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District did not respond directly to Mr. Slowter&apos;s May 5, 2004, request for data until July 28, 2004. That response time is neither prompt nor reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Slowter is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka), did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a May 5, 2004, request for public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kent Allin
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 15, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267769</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-063</Title><title>Opinion 04 063</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267235&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Richfield comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a July 23, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 15, 2004; City of Richfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 7, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination about a data practices issue made by the City of Richfield.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Samantha Orduno, City Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated September 14, 2004, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Mary Tietjen, an attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X was the subject of a traffic stop in February 2002. On July 23, 2004, X requested the following data, of which s/he is the subject, from the City: radio log for a specific case #, dated 2.2.02; criminal record check log, dated 3.19.02; and audio video recording inventory log, dated 2.2.02. X signed an Information Disclosure Request form on July 29, 2004. That form contains notations stating do not have on the lines listing the radio log, and the audio video recording inventory log. The copy of the criminal record check log that X submitted contained the dates of February 2, 2002, and March 1, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided the Commissioner with a memorandum dated July 27, 2004, in which City Department of Public Safety staff wrote, in reference to X&apos;s data request, that the log of criminal history checks was run along with detention information entered by our department. This information was provided by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension at the State of Minnesota. The memorandum also states the following: [w]e do not have a radio Log or an Audio Video Recording Inventory Log for the information that [X] requested. We only keep radio traffic recorded and on the logger for 90 days. The information is then erased after that. The video log for booking tapes is kept for a period of 30 days and then is erased after the tape is used.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X and Ms. Tietjen also provided the Commissioner with a copy of the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities (GRRS) which, apparently, the City has adopted. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17.) X stated to the Commissioner his/her belief that, according to the GRRS, the City is obligated to maintain the radio log for seven years, and the audio video recording inventory log must be retained permanently. X also stated [t]he Criminal Record Log information was inconsistent with date asked for . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Tietjen stated that in response to X&apos;s request, the City provided the data promptly to X if the data still existed. If the data no longer existed, [X] was informed of that fact. Also in retaining the records, the City complied with the [GRRS] for all of the relevant categories.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to X&apos;s request for a copy of the radio log, Ms. Tietjen wrote the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City interpreted this as a request for the car-to-dispatch radio recording made as a result of [X&apos;s] police stop. Under the Retention Schedule, Code # POL 02700 - 911 Recordings, this data must be retained for 30 days. . . . . The City&apos;s policy is to retain the 911 Recordings for 90 days. [X] had also requested a copy of the &apos;car-to-dispatch record&apos; on January 27, 2004 and February 18, 2004 . . . . All of [X&apos;s] requests were made after the 90-day period that the City maintains these records and, thus, the data could not be provided. On each occasion, [X] was informed that the data no longer existed. Shortly after [X&apos;s] request on July 23, 2004, the City Clerk . . . contacted [X] by telephone and informed [him/her] that the radio log no longer existed and was not available. X signed the Information Disclosure Request form [that contained the notation Do Not Have ] on July 29, 2004; thus, the telephone call would have been made after July 23, 2004, but before July 29, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a separate matter that is not before the Commissioner here, X and the City appeared at a contested case hearing on September 8, 2004, at which X gave testimony about his/her right to have access to the data at issue in this opinion. Ms. Tietjen wrote to the Commissioner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the hearing on September 8, 2004, [X] referred to a record prepared by the dispatcher when officers perform a traffic stop. This information is known as a &apos;CAD event&apos; (Computer Aided Dispatch) and is essentially a time stamp of an event when a dispatcher receives a call for service. This was the first time [X] referenced the CAD record, which is different and separate from the &apos;radio log.&apos; The CAD records are categorized under the Retention Schedule as Code #POL 02800 - Radio Logs Dispatcher and must be retained for seven years. . . . . As [X&apos;s] first request for the CAD record was via an implied request through testimony at the September 8, 2004, hearing, the City had not previously provided this record to him. Under separate cover to [X] dated [September 21, 2004], the City is providing [him/her] with a copy of the CAD record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In reference to X&apos;s request for the criminal record check log, Ms. Tietjen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This document is produced by the State of Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension who logs all of the criminal histories run by dispatchers at the various dispatch terminals. This information is categorized under Code # POL 03600 of the Retention schedule (Criminal Record Check Log) and must be retained for three years. . . . . The City obtained a print out of the criminal record check log from the State of Minnesota and it was provided to [X.] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, regarding X&apos;s request for a copy of the audio video recording inventory log, dated 2.2.02, Ms. Tietjen made the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When an individual is brought into the police department, a video tape of the booking processing is made. Under Code # POL 05600 - Video Tape of Booking, these video tapes must be retained for 30 days. . . . Consistent with this, the City&apos;s policy is to retain the tapes for 30 days. The City made a video tape of [X&apos;s] booking on February 2, 2002. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City also creates a written log of the audio and video booking recordings, which is the data [X] requested on July 23, 2004. This log, however, only contains an inventory of the tapes that are needed for evidentiary purposes. Under Code # POL 05810 - Audio Video Recording Inventory Log, (an inventory of evidentiary audio video recordings) of the Retention Schedule, this log must be retained permanently. . . . . [X&apos;s] booking tape was not needed or used for evidentiary purposes; thus it was not entered into the log. Therefore, because the log did not contain any information related to the February 2, 2002, events as requested by [X], it was not provided to [him/her]. . . . the City Clerk telephoned [X] shortly after July 23, 2004 to inform [him/her] that the log was not available. . . . X signed the Information Disclosure Request form [that contained the notation Do Not Have ] on July 29, 2004; thus, the telephone call would have been made after July 23, 2004, but before July 29, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Richfield comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a July 23, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days. In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2, requests must be complied with in an appropriate manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to X&apos;s request for a copy of the radio log, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the City needed to clarify the data X was requesting at the time X made the request. The GRRS contains entries for 911 Recordings and Radio Logs - Dispatcher. The City interpreted X&apos;s request for a copy of the radio log to be for the former, until the hearing on September 8, 2004, when it interpreted X&apos;s testimony to mean that s/he was actually seeking the latter. It is not clear to the Commissioner just what X meant by his/her July 23, 2004, request; given the two descriptions on the retention schedule, the City should have clarified which, if either, X was seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to X&apos;s request for a copy of the criminal record check log, dated March 19, 2002, X stated to the Commissioner that the log the City provided him/her was inconsistent with date asked for. The City gave X a copy of the criminal record check log dated February 2, 2002, and March 1, 2002. Ms. Tietjen did not discuss the discrepancy in the dates. If there is an entry related to X in the criminal history check log dated March 19, 2002, the City should have provided X with a copy. If there is not, the City should have so informed X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding X&apos;s request for a copy of the audio video recording inventory log, for February 2, 2002, Ms. Tietjen stated that because his/her booking tape was not used for evidentiary purposes, it was not entered into the log, so therefore the log did not contain any information related to the February 2, 2002, events as requested by [X]. Under the City&apos;s retention schedule, it must retain permanently its inventory log of audio video recordings that are used for evidentiary purposes. The City properly informed X that it did not maintain data about him/her in its audio video recording inventory log for February 2, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Richfield did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a July 23, 2004, request by a data subject for access to the radio log dated February 2, 2002, because it needed to clarify with the data subject the specific data sought. The City also needed either to provide a copy of the criminal record check log, dated March 19, 2002, to the data subject, or inform him/her that it did not have an entry in the log for that date that contained data about him/her. The City did respond properly to the request for the audio video recording inventory log, dated February 2, 2002.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kent Allin
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 15, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267235</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-062</Title><title>Opinion 04 062</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267213&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Education comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its responses to requests for data dated April 6, 2004, and July 19, 2004?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 13, 2004; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) about a data practices issue. IPAD asked Mr. Pachl to supply additional information, which he did on September 7, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alice Seagren, Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of this letter, dated September 9, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On September 24, 2004, IPAD received a response from Chas Anderson, MDE Assistant Commissioner. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 6, 2004, Mr. Pachl asked MDE for a copy of any special education fiscal complaints filed with MDE against Mahtomedi ISD #832 from 2000 to present as well as any MDE findings and documentation of District corrective actions and/or responses regarding same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, MDE provided Mr. Pachl with redacted data. Mr. Pachl wrote again to MDE, in a letter dated July 19, 2004, and asked for the legal basis for the redaction. In a letter dated August 20, 2004, MDE responded that it is unable to disclose this information because it could be personally identifiable information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 [and therefore classified as private].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl asked whether MDE had responded appropriately to his requests, given that they sent me redacted data and didn&apos;t tell me the legal basis for the redaction . . . . [and] [w]hen I wrote and asked them the reason - it took them a month to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson stated that MDE had properly redacted private data from the data it provided to Mr. Pachl. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On April 6, 2004, Mr. Pachl requested copies of MDE complaint decisions. On April 15, 2004, MDE provided Mr. Pachl the public information. That was a timely response. MDE did not deny Mr. Pachl access to government data in April 2004; it provided him the information as he requested. There is no requirement in Chapter 13 that a government agency - when disclosing public data - must explain the legal basis for redacting the private data so that the person receives public data. Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3(f) (which requires a government agency to cite the specific statutory section as the basis for which it denied access to requested data) has no application to the April 2004 request and response because MDE provided Mr. Pachl access to the data he requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                With respect to Mr. Pachl&apos;s July 2004 request for the legal basis for the redaction, Ms. Anderson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                When someone other than the subject of the data submits a request for public data, the agency must comply with the request in an &apos;appropriate and prompt manner.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 2; Minn. R. 1205.0300, subp. 3. In addition, when a government agency denies access to data, the law requires that the agency inform the requesting person of the determination &apos;in writing as soon after that time as possible.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3(f). In reassessing whether or not Mr. Pachl was entitled to the name of the complainant, MDE had to make multiple factual and legal determinations. For example, MDE staff had to consult with employment and licensing records (to determine whether the complainant was an employee of the district). MDE had to check whether the parent gave written consent for disclosure of the information. MDE also consulted with legal counsel. It was important that MDE assure that it does not violate multiple federal or state laws to comply with Mr. Pachl&apos;s request. At the end, MDE concluded that the data Mr. Pachl requested remained private data and it promptly notified Mr. Pachl of its determination in writing as soon after that time as possible. In sum, MDE&apos;s response was appropriate and reasonably prompt in light of the significant factual and legal issues raised by Mr. Pachl&apos;s request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Anderson also discussed the classification of the redacted data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Education comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its responses to requests for data dated April 6, 2004, and July 19, 2004?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes that although it is his understanding from Mr. Pachl&apos;s written request that the classification of the redacted data is not at issue in this opinion, MDE properly redacted the data, which are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f):
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination &lt;i&gt;either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based&lt;/i&gt;. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. [Emphasis added.]
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Anderson stated that this statutory provision has no application to Mr. Pachl&apos;s initial data request. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), states that a government entity must provide the legal basis for denying access to data, upon receipt of the request, or as soon as possible thereafter. That requirement applies to situations like this one, in which a government entity must redact otherwise public data. The purpose of the requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), is so that an entity provides a data requestor with as much information as possible about why certain data may not be accessible. The data requestor then can determine if s/he has a basis upon which to contest the entity&apos;s determination.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Accordingly, upon determining that it would need to redact data in order to respond properly to Mr. Pachl&apos;s April 2004 request, MDE should have so informed him, and should have cited to him the legal basis for redacting the data. Had MDE done so, Mr. Pachl would not have needed to make his subsequent request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Anderson stated that in response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s July request, MDE had to take numerous actions to determine, in essence, how the redacted data are classified. MDE should have done that at the time it was preparing its response to his initial request, and should have made and preserved a record of that determination. (See section 15.17.) Ms. Anderson did not state any reason that the data might have changed classification subsequent to Mr. Pachl&apos;s initial request for those data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Also, Mr. Pachl asked MDE to provide the legal basis for the redaction on July 19, 2004; MDE responded in a letter dated August 20, 2004. Given that MDE ought to have determined the classification of the redacted data in April 2004, the Commissioner does not believe it was reasonable for MDE to take four and one-half weeks to respond to Mr. Pachl&apos;s July 2004 request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Education did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its responses to requests for data dated April 6, 2004, and July 19, 2004. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kent Allin
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 13, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267213</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-061</Title><title>Opinion 04 061</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268000&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-10-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> October 8, 2004; City of Warren</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 1, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated August 30, 2004, from Elden Elseth. In his letter, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Warren maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Elseth&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Brooks, the City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated September 2, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Elseth&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 22, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated September 21, 2004, from Mr. Brooks.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Elseth provided them is as follows. In a letter dated August 4, 2004, Mr. Elseth wrote to Mr. Brooks:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I would request access for purposes of inspection all public data which the City of Warren has which would show the amounts of funding which have been guaranteed by the State of Minnesota (including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and the Federal Government for the above flood project [the PL 83-566 flood reduction project for the Warren, MN area]. I would also request for purposes of inspection documentation showing the amount of funds which will be paid through local real estate taxes for the above project.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Elseth wrote that he hand delivered the data request to the City on August 4, 2004. He further stated, To date, over three weeks later, there has been no response of any kind by the City of Warren in regard to my request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect certain data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Brooks wrote, The City has sent the attached letter to Mr. Elseth regarding a time for him to review documents. This should be considered our response to his request to you. We are attempting to set up a meeting.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Brooks&apos; letter to Mr. Elseth is dated September 17, 2004. It states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      This is to notify you that the documents in your request of August 4th, 2004 are ready for your review and can be reviewed at City Hall from 9 A.M. to Noon on September 23rd, 2004. If additional time is needed, a time can be arranged on the 23rd.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Brooks further notified IPAD that Mr. Elseth was unable to review the data on September 23, 2004, and that, as of September 22, the inspection date had been rescheduled for September 29.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities must respond within a reasonable time. Here, Mr. Elseth delivered his request to the City on August 4, 2004. The City did not communicate with Mr. Elseth about his request until September 17, 2004. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely. If the City and Mr. Elseth have not yet set up a time for him to inspect the data, the City promptly should contact him and do so.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Elseth raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Warren did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 4, 2004, request to inspect certain data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kent Allin
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Acting Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 8, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268000</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-060</Title><title>Opinion 04 060</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267252&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-09-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 833, South Washington County, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 2, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 16, 2004; School District 833 (South Washington County)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 12, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated August 10, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her access to certain data that Independent School District 833, South Washington County, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Regan, the Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated August 17, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 9, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mark Porter, Director of Legal Services for the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In letters dated March, 2, 2004, sent to both Superintendent Regan and Mr. Porter, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] I am requesting access to, all legal data documenting all legal fees and expenses spent in any manner pertaining to my [child] by Washington County, School District 833.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 11, 2004, Mr. Porter responded:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...My review of the documentation I have available indicates that the South Washington County Schools paid a total of $50,481.37 in legal fees and expenses to prepare and defend itself in the special education due hearing you requested to contest the IEP&apos;s of your [child].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If you would like additional information regarding this matter I can provide the actual bills received, but I will have to take the time to redact any and all attorney-client privileged information contained therein.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 2, 2004, X wrote to Mr. Porter:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On March 2, 2004 I made a request in accordance with [Chapter13]. In your response to my letter you stated you would need time to redact any and all attorney-client privileged information contained there in [sic]. I am again, in accordance with [Chapter 13], at this time requesting access to all legal data documenting all legal fees and expenses spent in any manner pertaining to my [child] by Washington County School District 833 to present date. And that you proceed in a manner that will allow me access to all information requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Please inform me...as to the date in which all documentation pertaining to my request will be ready for review.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 833, South Washington County, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 2, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent may gain access to private data about his/her minor child.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The District acknowledges a De minimis failure to comply in a timely manner with the request of [X], however, the measure of non-compliance should be from [X&apos;s] letter dated July 2, 2004...not [X&apos;s] letter dated March 2, 2004...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Following receipt of [X&apos;s] request for documentation of &apos;all legal fees and expenses spent in a manner pertaining to my [child]&apos; on March 2, 2004, in a letter dated March 11, 2004...the District provided a summary of legal fees and expenses indicating a total expenditure of $50, 481.37. In addition, in this same letter the District stated, &apos;If you would like additional information regarding this matter I can provide the actual bills received, but I will have to take the time to redact any and all attorney-client privileged information contained therein.&apos; The District received no further correspondence from [X] until [X&apos;s] letter of July 2, 2004.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      On or about August 17, 2004, in response to [X&apos;s] request of July 2nd, the District provided a complete copy of legal fees and expenses...The District did experience delays in the provision of this data due primarily to summer vacation schedules and time necessary to review the data provided as to inclusion of attorney-client privileged information. Due to the unintended delays the District did not seek any reimbursement or costs associated with the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In previous opinions with similar facts, the Commissioner has opined that when a data subject seeks data about him/herself, the entity, within ten working days, must either provide the data or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. Here, in a letter dated March 2, 2004, X requested access to certain data from the District. Although it is not clear whether X was asking to inspect or to obtain copies, X stated that s/he was making the request in accordance with Chapter 13. Thus, the District&apos;s obligation was to attempt to clarify whether X wanted to inspect or obtain copies and then to make the data available for X to inspect or provide X with copies of the data within ten days. However, Mr. Porter&apos;s response was to review the data himself and provide X with a total dollar expenditure amount. This was not an appropriate or timely response to X&apos;s request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      An additional note is in order. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter noted that attached to an August 17, 2004, letter to X from the District were detailed billing statements provided by the School District&apos;s legal counsel for services rendered to defend the School district in the special education due process hearing [X] requested to contest [X&apos;s child&apos;s] IEP. Regardless of whether these data are responsive to X&apos;s March 2, 2004, request - and the Commissioner does not know - X made it clear in the July 2, 2004, letter that s/he wanted to review (inspect) the data, not obtain copies of the data. If X still wishes to inspect the data s/he requested on July 2, 2004, the District promptly should arrange a time for X to do so.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 833, South Washington County, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 2, 2004, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 16, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267252</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days</Title><Id>266515</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-059</Title><title>Opinion 04 059</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267352&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-09-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Eagan Charter Commission subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a July 16, 2004, request for access to data?
If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the Eagan Charter Commission in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?
If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to allow the data requestor to make copies with his portable copy machine or take digital photographs of the data he was inspecting?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 16, 2004; Eagan Charter Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 19, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated August 18, 2004, from Paul Bakken. In his letter, Mr. Bakken asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Eagan Charter Commission maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Bakken&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Betty Fedde, the Chair of the Commission. The purposes of this letter, dated August 23, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Bakken&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Commission&apos;s position. On August 31, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jon Felde, Secretary of the Commission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in a letter dated August 23, 2004, IPAD invited the City of Eagan to provide comments. Michael Dougherty, an attorney representing the City, responded in a letter dated August 31, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Bakken provided them is as follows. In a letter dated July 16, 2004, Mr. Bakken wrote to Mr. Felde:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to [Chapter 13], I write to request access to all organizational documents, meeting minutes, videotape records of meetings, financial records, and end of year reports of the Eagan Charter Commission. I also request access to any studies or research materials that the Charter Commission has used to support its decision to submit a charter to a vote in Eagan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon inspection, I may wish to obtain copies of selected documents. I will make arrangements with you to copy all such items at my expense, and under your supervision, if required....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Felde responded in a letter dated July 30, 2004. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[At an earlier point in time] the Eagan City Attorney stated that the Eagan Charter Commission is a part of the District Court, not a part of the City....Under that interpretation, the Charter Commission is not subject to [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Felde also informed Mr. Bakken that some of the documents Mr. Bakken requested were located at various locations, including the League of Minnesota Cities, a local library, the City of Eagan, and the District Court in Hastings. Mr. Felde further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I will assemble other Charter Commission records for your review at our next scheduled Charter Commission meeting....If you would like copies of any of the documents, identify them from among those we make available, and we will copy them for you according to the standard copying charges established by the District Court....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Bakken noted that he attended the Commission meeting to inspect the data the Commission maintains:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[At the Commission meeting] I also asked if the Commission had a copy of its data practices procedures available. The Commission does not have a written data practices procedure document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I then asked if I could bring in the portable copy machine that I had out in my car and use it to make copies of documents. This request was refused on the grounds that this activity would be disruptive to the meeting. I next asked if I could make digital photographs of records with a camera that I had on my person. Again, I was told that this would not be permitted because it would be too disruptive....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bakken asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Eagan Charter Commission subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a July 16, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the Eagan Charter Commission in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to allow the data requestor to make copies with his portable copy machine or take digital photographs of the data he was inspecting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the Eagan Charter Commission subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.02, subdivision 11, defines political subdivision as ...any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Felde wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The position of the Commission is that it is a part of the City. The City has taken a contrary position and has insinuated that the Commission is part of the judiciary. A dubious alternative position is that the Charter Commission is an independent political entity. This is a threshold issue. Under the Charter Commissions [sic] interpretation, [Chapter 13] does apply to the Commission as part of the City in the same way that [Chapter 13] applies to the City&apos;s other boards and commissions. Requests for the inspection of data made under [Chapter 13] should be directed to the City&apos;s responsible authority. It is only through an effort to provide access to data by the Commission that I responded to Mr. Bakken. In hindsight, [Mr.] Bakken should have been directed to the City of Eagan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dougherty, in his comments to the Commissioner, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Having reviewed the four issues that the Commissioner will address in its advisory opinion it does not seem like the City can offer much assistance in the determination. While the question of whether the Charter Commission is required to comply with Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes may affect the residents of the City and others, the decision should not impact the City of Eagan&apos;s administration....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The material you provided includes my written opinion of October 12, 2001 regarding the Charter Commission together with a letter from John [sic] Felde...to Paul Bakken... Contrary to the statements made in Mr. Felde&apos;s letter, my opinion neither expressly nor by implication asserted that the Eagan Charter Commission is part of the district court. The opinion is limited to addressing the structure of the organizations as being distinct from each other, essentially recognizing the existence of two entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, for purposes of Chapter 13, a political subdivision includes a commission created pursuant to law. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410, contains the enabling legislation that grants charter commissions their powers and responsibilities. Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that a charter commission, such as the Eagan Charter Commission, is a political subdivision and therefore is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a July 16, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity, including a political subdivision, receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 16, 2004, Mr. Bakken made a request to inspect certain data. Mr. Felde advised Mr. Bakken that Mr. Bakken could review some of the data at the next scheduled Charter Commission meeting, August 11, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. In his opinion request, Mr. Bakken stated that regular meetings of the Commission are held only once a month. Based on the reasonable times and places language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), if this is the only time the Commission allows individuals to inspect data it maintains, the Commission is not in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Felde also advised Mr. Bakken that certain of the data he requested were available at the League of Minnesota Cities, a local library, the District Court in Hastings, and the City of Eagan. Thus, it appears the Commission does not maintain some of the types of data Mr. Bakken requested. If so, the Commission may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the Official Records Act. Section 15.17, subdivision 1, states, All officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At least some of the data Mr. Bakken requested, e.g., meeting minutes, bylaws, annual reports, and financial reports, appear to document decisions made by the Commission. Such documentation constitutes an official record, must be maintained pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, and is subject to the access provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot state definitively that the Commission did not comply with Chapter 13 in responding to Mr. Bakken&apos;s request. However, it appears the Commission may be in violation of section 15.17 and, if the only time the Commission permits inspection of data is at its monthly meetings, the Commission needs to allow more frequent inspection opportunities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the Eagan Charter Commission in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Bakken wrote, I also asked if the Commission had a copy of its data practices procedure document. The Commission does not have a written data practices procedure document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Felde, in his comments to the Commissioner, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated before, the Charter Commission is a part of the City of Eagan. As such, it does not need to prepare its own public access procedures. If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Commission is an independent political entity, then the Commission has not complied with Minn. Stat. section13.03, subd. 2(b), because it has not prepared public access procedures. The only mitigating factors that I can raise are that the Commission did not believe that it is independent of the City, was not trained in [Chapter 13], and therefore, did not know that public access procedures are required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), was adopted during the 1999 Legislative Session and went into effect on January 1, 2001. It states clearly that all government entities must create, and update annually, procedures relating to public access to data. According to Mr. Felde, the Commission has not prepared its public access procedures and, therefore, is not in compliance with Chapter 13. The Commissioner urges the Commission to prepare the public access procedures as soon as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the answer to question 1 is yes, did the Eagan Charter Commission comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it refused to allow the data requestor to make copies with his portable copy machine or take digital photographs of the data he was inspecting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Bakken wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I then asked if I could bring in the portable copy machine that I had out in my car and use it to make copies of the documents. This request was refused on the grounds that this activity would be disruptive to the meeting. I next asked if I could make digital photographs of records with a camera that I had on my person. Again, I was told that this would not be permitted because it would be too disruptive....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, I waited until adjournment of the meeting and asked again to make digital photos. I pointed out that I wouldn&apos;t be disrupting the meeting at this time, given that the meeting had adjourned. After some discussion, I was allowed to make photographs of 6 pages. Because the meeting ran until well after 8:00 PM, and the building in which the meeting was held closes at 8:30 PM, I did not have sufficient time in which to organize the material and take photos of a larger selection of documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Felde, in his comments to the Commissioner, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With the Commission&apos;s consent, [Mr.] Bakken made digital photographs of all of the documents that he selected. The Minnesota Attorney General has issued an opinion under the Open Meeting Law that open meetings may be taped by a member of the public so long as the conduct does not disturb the meeting. That is the same reasonable restriction placed on [Mr.] Bakken. [Mr.] Bakken chose not to retrieve his portable copying machine from his car. As he did with his digital camera, [Mr.] Bakken could have made copies on his portable machine in a way that would not disturb the meeting. Since [Mr.] Bakken was not refused the use of his portable copying machine or digital camera in making copies of data, this issue is moot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is unable to resolve the factual dispute regarding whether the Commission did or did not permit Mr. Bakken to make copies with his portable copy machine or his digital camera.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner makes the following comments. As stated above, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), requires government entities to allow individuals to inspect and copy government data at reasonable times and places. The Commissioner previously has opined that it is permissible for an individual to use a personal electronic device, i.e., a tape recorder or a scanner, either to aid in inspection or to make copies of data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267086&quot; title=&quot;01-086&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-086&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267645&quot; title=&quot;04-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-051&lt;/a&gt;.) Similarly, it would be appropriate for Mr. Felde to use a portable copy machine or a digital camera to make his own copies of data as long as such use is reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Bakken raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Eagan Charter Commission is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, if the Eagan Charter Commission complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a July 16, 2004, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Eagan Charter Commission is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, if the Eagan Charter Commission refused to allow the data requestor to make copies with his portable copy machine or take digital photographs of the data he was inspecting.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 16, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267352</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Charter commissions (Chapter 410)</Title><Id>267006</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copies made by requestor</Title><Id>266253</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal electronic device used</Title><Id>266888</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissions</Title><Id>267062</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records Management Act statute (138.17) (See also: Official Records Act)</Title><Id>266521</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-058</Title><title>Opinion 04 058</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266756&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-09-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in assessing a fee when the data requestor asked to review certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 13, 2004; City of Warren</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 30, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Elden Elseth. In his letter, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Warren maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Elseth&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Brooks, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated July 30, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Elseth&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for City&apos;s position. On August 11, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Brooks.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 5, 2004, Mr. Elseth wrote to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Elseth asked to review the Data Practices Policy of the City of Warren. He also asked to review the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...any and all documents relating to the rural water line in the area northeast of Warren sometimes referred to as the Great Eastern waterline which is owned and operated by the City of Warren, MN....I would also request to review documents you have in regard to the dike sometimes referred to as the Yutrzenka dike which is located east of the Warren golf course area along the Snake River and the permit you have for construction of that dike.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Brooks responded in a letter dated July 6, 2004: I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2004 and have forwarded it on to our Legal Counsel. I will contact you when I have information for you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Elseth wrote back in a letter dated July 9, 2004 and reiterated his request. He also wrote, If there is a delay in providing access to review data, at minimum you should be immediately able to provide me your policy and procedure as to data access. To further clarify, I immediately request the &lt;strong&gt;written form of the public access procedure of the City of Warren, MN .&lt;/strong&gt; (Emphasis provided.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Brooks responded in a letter dated July 12, 2004. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...I have attached the Cities [sic] Request for Information Policy....Due to the fact the request is for a type of information and is not a specific document, it will take some time to compile the information for your review. It will also entail a significant amount of employee time to fill the request. We will attempt to complete the task by July 20th. I will notify you on that date if it will take additional time or if the data is ready for your review.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is estimated that the task will take four hours at a billable rate $21 per hour or a total of $84....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Elseth asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Warren comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in assessing a fee when the data requestor asked to review certain data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a) states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places...If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Brooks wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      We have been advised that inspection of data must be permitted without charge under Minnesota law and that charges may be imposed only when copies are requested. Accordingly, the City will make the documents requested by Mr. Elseth available for inspection at a mutually convenient time, free of charge.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above, pursuant to Chapter 13, individuals can inspect government data free of charge. Therefore, the City&apos;s July 12, 2004, response to Mr. Elseth&apos;s request was not appropriate. If the City has not yet arranged for Mr. Elseth to inspect the data, it should so promptly.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Elseth raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Warren did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in assessing a fee when the data requestor asked to review certain data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 13, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266756</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-057</Title><title>Opinion 04 057</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267582&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) for special meetings held on July 8, 2002, July 31, 2002, September 16, 2002 and December 5, 2002?
Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on August 27, 2002?
Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?
Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c), for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?
Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on June 15, 2002?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 31, 2004; Cannon Falls Township Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 14, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated June 23, 2004, from Kenneth Brown and Robert Banks. In their letter, Messrs. Brown and Banks asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the Board of Supervisors in Cannon Falls Township (the Board), had complied with various provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, on several different dates. Messrs. Brown and Banks submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 15, 2004, IPAD wrote to the Chair of the Cannon Falls Township Board. In its letter, IPAD informed the Chair of Messrs. Brown and Bank&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. The Board presented its position in a letter dated July 27, 2004, from its attorney, Michael E. Ojile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts presented by Messrs. Brown and Banks is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Messrs. Brown and Banks own property in Cannon Falls Township. On March 12, 2002, David Hvistendahl, an attorney representing Messrs. Brown and Banks, sent a notice to Harvey Glaess, the Cannon Falls Township Clerk. In that notice, Mr. Hvistendahl requested that Messrs. Brown and Banks be notified of special and regular township meetings that were to address the topics of feedlot permits and set backs from residential properties and feedlot permits issued within a specified geographic area. After this demand for notice was sent to Mr. Glaess, the Board held special meetings on July 8, July 31, September 16, and December 5, 2002, where feedlot permits and set backs were on the agenda. Messrs. Brown and Banks did not receive notice of the special meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A special meeting was also held on either June 15 or June 17, 2002, regarding whether Mr. Ojile&apos;s representation of both the Board and Supervisor Hovel in his role as a feedlot operator was a conflict of interest. There was no notice of the meeting in the newspaper and Messrs. Brown and Banks did not receive notice of the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Board held a special meeting on August 27, 2002, where the posted notice did not contain a date found on the calendar and where a backdated notice for the meeting was posted on the same day as the meeting was held.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board also changed the regular meeting of the Board from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002. The notice of the change in the meeting date appeared in the Cannon Falls &lt;em&gt;Beacon&lt;/em&gt; newspaper on August 8, 2002, the day after the meeting. Messrs. Brown and Banks did not receive notice of this change in the regular meeting date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Glaess, the Town Clerk until October 31, 2002, provided an affidavit that indicates that notice requirements were met for the meetings listed above. Mr. Glaess also states that two notices for meetings on August 27, 2002, were posted and blew off of, or were removed from the Township bulletin board. Mr. Glaess states that the notices were re-posted on August 27, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Messrs. Brown and Banks asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) for special meetings held on July 8, 2002, July 31, 2002, September 16, 2002 and December 5, 2002?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on August 27, 2002?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c), for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on June 15, 2002?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parties have presented a preliminary issue that needs to be resolved in this advisory opinion. Specifically, the Commissioner needs to determine what Mr. Hvistendahl&apos;s March 12, 2002, letter requesting notice of regular and special meetings for Messrs. Brown and Banks covers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter asks that Messrs. Brown and Banks be notified when the following topics are included in a notice of a regular or special meeting of the Board:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Feedlot permits and set backs from residential properties;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Feedlot permits issued within Cannon Falls&apos; urban expansion district or within two miles of the city limits;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Messrs. Brown and Banks believe that they had requested notice of any meeting at which feedlot permits or set backs from residential properties were on the agenda. The Board has taken the position that it is only required to give notice to Messrs. Brown and Banks when feedlot permits are &lt;u&gt;issued&lt;/u&gt; by the Board and not every time the words feedlot, setbacks or distance are part of a discussion in a public meeting. (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Citizens are entitled to receive notice of &lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt; meetings of a public body covered by the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Specifically, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) says that the notice of special meeting shall be posted and mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request. Posting and mailing or delivery must occur at least three days before the date of the special meeting. There is no similar provision for regular meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (d) says that a person who files a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to notification of meetings concerning specific topics and the public body is required to send only those notices of special meeting that refer to the specified topic(s). Messrs. Brown and Banks have chosen to limit their demand for notice of special meetings to the topics listed above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court has found that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law are to be interpreted in favor of the public. The Court said:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public the opportunity to present its views to the [public body].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt; 332 N.W. 2d 1, 4, (Minn. 1983) (citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. [footnote omitted]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W. 2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W. 2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W. 2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Applying the rule that the Open Meeting Law is construed in favor of public access, the Commissioner finds that the Board&apos;s interpretation of the content of the March 12, 2002, letter requesting notice of special meetings is too narrow. Messrs. Brown and Banks requested notice of special meetings where feedlot permits &lt;em&gt;or setbacks&lt;/em&gt; were to be discussed. As is required by section 13D.04, subdivision 2, and described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-004&lt;/a&gt;, the notice of special meeting must include the topics to be discussed at the meeting. Therefore, the Board must provide Messrs. Brown and Banks with notice when a special meeting is to cover feedlot permits or setbacks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) for special meetings held on July 8, 2002, July 31, 2002, September 16, 2002 and December 5, 2002?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The statutory language governing notices for special meetings is found in section 13D.04, subdivision 2. The pertinent part of that subdivision says:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Special meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room.
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting.
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body&apos;s authority. (d) A person filing a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to notification of meetings concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required to send notice to that person only concerning special meetings involving those subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For each of the meetings listed below, the issue is whether Messrs. Brown and Banks received notice of a special meeting as outlined in their demand for notice dated March 12, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;July 8, 2002&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board held a special meeting on July 8, 2002. None of the parties have provided the Commissioner with a copy of the notice of the special meeting. Messrs. Brown and Banks have provided an affidavit from A. Edward Bailey who attended the meeting. Mr. Bailey&apos;s affidavit includes a copy of the agenda to the meeting that refers to the Olson appeal. Messrs. Brown and Banks have provided the Commissioner with copies of the court documents from Mr. Olson&apos;s attorneys to the Goodhue County Board of Commissioners about an appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding a conditional use permit for the expansion of a feedlot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bailey&apos;s affidavit indicates that he did not see a public notice for this meeting and did not receive a written notice. Mr. Glaess&apos; affidavit indicates that he did post notice of the special meeting at least three days prior to the meeting, as was his routine. The Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Its resolution is not needed here, however. What is at issue is whether Messrs. Brown and Banks received notice of the special meeting as was required following their demand of March 12, 2002. The July 8th meeting was held to discuss a court proceeding involving a feedlot. Messrs. Brown and Banks&apos; May 12, 2002, demand requested notice when feedlots were a topic at a special meeting. Messrs. Brown and Banks state that they did not receive a notice for the July 8th meeting. The Board has not complied with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2(b) and (c) because they did not provide notice of the July 8th special meeting when the topic of feedlots was to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;July 31, 2002&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board met with several individuals at the Office of the Goodhue County Attorney on July 31, 2002. Stephen Betcher, the Goodhue County Attorney, convened the meeting at the request of the Goodhue County Commissioners to discuss the Olson appeal. (See July 8, 2002, meeting above.) Messrs. Brown and Banks have provided the Commissioner with a Memorandum written by Mr. Betcher that summarized the meeting and indicates that feedlot setbacks were discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Messrs. Brown and Banks did not receive notice of this special meeting. They also indicate that there are no Board minutes and no notice of the meeting. Mr. Glaess&apos; affidavit indicates that he did post notice of the special meeting at least three days prior to the meeting, as was his routine. The Commissioner cannot resolve this factual dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Its resolution is not needed here, however. What is at issue here is whether Messrs. Brown and Banks received notice of the special meeting as was required following their demand of March 12, 2002. The July 31st meeting was held to discuss the same court proceeding involving a feedlot discussed at the July 8th meeting. Messrs. Brown and Banks&apos; May 12, 2002, demand requested notice when feedlots were on a special meeting agenda. Messrs. Brown and Banks state that they did not receive a notice for the July 31st meeting. The Board has not complied with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) because they did not provide notice of the July 31st special meeting when the topic of feedlots was to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;September 16, 2002&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The minutes of the special meeting held on September 16, 2002, indicate that there were two actions taken. The first related to the Olson appeal which has been previously found to be covered by the demand for notice filed by Messrs. Brown and Banks. The second is to rescind the permit for Mr. Banks to build his house because it was too close to a feedlot and so violated setback requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board has provided the Commissioner with a copy of the notice of special meeting that is dated September 13, 2002. Again, the issue is not whether the Board posted notice, but whether Messrs. Brown and Banks received notice according to their demand. As noted above, the Olson appeal is about a feedlot and so falls within their demand. They should have received notice of the special meeting. In addition, the rescission of Mr. Bank&apos;s building permit involved the distance between Mr. Banks&apos; home site and a feedlot, otherwise known as a setback. This topic also falls with the demand for notice made by Messrs. Brown and Banks. They did not receive notice of the September 16th meeting. Because they did not receive notice according to their demand, the Board has not complied with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;December 5, 2002&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board met on December 5, 2002, with the Township Planning Commission to begin work on updating the township zoning ordinance. Neither party provided the Commissioner with a copy of the notice for this special meeting. The Commissioner assumes that because feedlot permits have been the subject of other special meetings, feedlots and setbacks from feedlots would be discussed at a meeting involving changes to the township zoning ordinance. In addition, the minutes indicate that the Board received information from the Goodhue County feedlot officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Commissioner&apos;s assumption is correct about the topic of the December 5th special meeting, then feedlots and setbacks were discussed. These topics were included in the March 12, 2002, demand for notice of special meetings filed by Messrs. Brown and Banks. They should have received notice of the special meeting on December 5th.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Commissioner&apos;s assumption about the topic of the December 5th special meeting is not correct, then the Board did not have an obligation to give Messrs. Brown and Banks notice of the special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not have enough information to be able to determine if the Board has met the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) for the special meeting held on December 5, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on August 27, 2002?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the Board, two notices of special meeting were posted on August 21, 2002. The first involved the Olson appeal, and the second involved an inspection of Mr. Banks&apos; property and a discussion of his building permit. The notices stated that the date of the meeting was Tuesday, August 29th. In 2002, August 29th fell on a Thursday. The Board argues that these were effective notices of special meetings to be held on Tuesday, August 27th.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is nothing explicit in the Open Meeting Law that addresses this issue. However, as has been noted above, the purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to allow the public to observe elected bodies like the Board as they do their work. See &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. The public cannot observe the Board at work if the posted notice is for a date that does not exist on the calendar. Therefore, the Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 because the notices did not contain a valid date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is an additional issue presented by this meeting. Messrs. Brown and Banks suggest that the meeting notices were not prepared until the day of the meeting. The Board indicates that the notices that had been posted on August 21st were either removed or blew away. Again, there is nothing explicit in the Open Meeting Law that addresses this issue. However, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (a) says that one way to give notice of a special meeting is to post the notice on the principal bulletin board of the public body. If the Board&apos;s principal bulletin board is one where notices can either be removed or blow away, then the Board is unable to meet the requirements of the law. The Commissioner encourages the Board to find a principal bulletin board where the notices are protected, such as by glass and a lock, so that the Board controls what is posted, not the public or Mother Nature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board was scheduled to have a regular meeting on August 14, 2002. The Board determined that it needed to move that regular meeting to August 7, 2002. Section 13D.04, subdivision 1 says, in pertinent part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this section for a special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13D.04, subdivision 2 governs special meetings and appears above. It requires posting of the notice of special meeting, mailing notice to those who have requested notice of special meetings or publication, at least three days before the meeting, of a notice in the official newspaper of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board posted the meeting on the bulletin board according to Mr. Glaess&apos; affidavit. The Commissioner was not, however, provided with any information about what was contained in the posted notice of the meeting. As was found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267471&quot; title=&quot;04-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-004&lt;/a&gt;, when a special meeting is noticed, the public body must list the topics for discussion. Unless this is done, there is no way for the public body to honor the demand for notice of special meeting on certain topics. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (d).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A notice of the meeting was published in the Cannon Falls &lt;em&gt;Beacon&lt;/em&gt; on August 8, 2002. No topics for discussion were listed and so the Board did not comply with the content requirements for the notice of the meeting moved to August 7, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that the Board did comply with the requirement to post the notice of meeting. The Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 1 regarding the content of the meeting notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c), for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As has been discussed above, a notice of special meeting must include the topics that are to be discussed. Based on the published notice, the Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The minutes for the August 7th meeting state that Mr. Ojile made a presentation on setbacks. This suggests that the topic of setbacks should have been included in the meeting notice and the requirement to provide notice to Messrs. Brown and Banks would have been triggered as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The notice published in the newspaper appeared on the day after the meeting, August 8th, according to the copy of the paper provided by Messrs. Brown and Banks. This publication did not meet the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (c) to publish at least three days before the meeting. The publication does not list the topics of to be discussed at the meeting and so does not meet the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2(b) and (c) when it moved its regular meeting from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 5:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the supervisors of Cannon Falls Township comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on June 15, 2002?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The information provided by the parties about this meeting is very confusing. Messrs. Brown and Banks have provided minutes of meetings for June 15, June 16, and June 17, 2002. The content of each set of minutes is different. Each is also stamped COPY Cannon Falls Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board&apos;s submittal indicates that a meeting was held on June 17, 2002, and that it was properly noticed. The Board also argues that the topic covered by the meeting did not require that Messrs. Brown and Banks receive notice. The Board indicated that there was no meeting on June 15, 2002 and made no statement about the June 16, 2002, meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In looking at the minutes dated June 15, 2002, the topic is whether Mr. Ojile has a conflict of interest because he represents the Township and also represents one of its supervisors, Gary Hovel, who runs a feedlot. This topic fits within the demand for notice filed by Messrs. Brown and Banks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looking at the minutes dated June 17, 2002, the topic is whether a building was sited to meet the setback requirements. This topic is also within the demand for notice filed by Messrs. Brown and Banks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No matter when the meeting was held, Messrs. Brown and Banks should have received notice of the special meeting held in June 2002 based on their demand for notice. The Board has not complied with section 13D.04, subdivision 2 for the meeting held in June 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has one final, general comment. The Board provided very few copies of actual meeting notices or postings. The Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires, in pertinent part, that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All officers...of...towns... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notices of special meetings and postings demonstrating that the requirements of the Open Meeting Law have been met clearly are official activities of the Board. The Commissioner encourages the Board to keep all necessary records to document future meeting notices and postings so that it can demonstrate to its citizens that it has complied with the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notices of special meetings and postings demonstrating that the requirements of the Open Meeting Law have been met clearly are official activities of the Board. The Commissioner encourages the Board to keep all necessary records to document future meeting notices and postings so that it can demonstrate to its citizens that it has complied with the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Messrs. Brown and Banks is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The supervisors of Cannon Falls Township did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c) for special meetings held on July 8, 2002, July 31, 2002, and September 16, 2002. The Commissioner cannot determine if the supervisors were in compliance for the meeting held on December 5, 2002.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The supervisors of Cannon Falls Township did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on August 27, 2002.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The supervisors of Cannon Falls Township met the requirement to post a notice as found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002. The Board did not comply with notice requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The supervisors of Cannon Falls Township did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 (b) and (c), for a regular meeting moved from August 14, 2002, to August 7, 2002.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The supervisors of Cannon Falls Township did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, for a special meeting held on June 15, 2002.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 31, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267582</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Posted or request for notice</Title><Id>266593</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special meeting notice</Title><Id>266290</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-12T20:25:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-056</Title><title>Opinion 04 056</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267275&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Todd County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $7 for seven pages (double-sided) of copies of the minutes from three County Board meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 26, 2004; Todd County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 19, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Dave Aeikens of the St. Cloud Times. In his letter, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Todd County&apos;s charge for copies of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Aeikens&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tony Haasser, Todd County Coordinator. The purposes of this letter, dated July 21, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Aeikens&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for County&apos;s position. On August 3, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated August 3, 2004, from Mr. Haasser.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Aeikens provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Aeikens wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 6, I requested copies of minutes from the last three Todd county board meetings. The minutes were 14 pages total. I was charged $7 for seven pages of paper that was copied on the front and back.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This amounts to 50 cents a page for black-and-white copies. This could even be construed as a dollar a page because the county provided me with seven pages of paper, not 14.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The clerk got a book with the minutes and made copies of minutes from meetings Jan. 6, 12 and 20.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Todd County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $7 for seven pages (double-sided) of copies of the minutes from three County Board meetings?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haasser wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Therefore the case that Mr. Aeikens is inquiring about would follow the policy of Todd County. The inquiry came into the County April 6th to the Chief Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, Peggy Anderson, who handled this one with a fairly standard procedure. The documents are retrieved from the Board Minutes Book, copied and the originals are returned to the Book. The receipt was then prepared and paid and Mr. Aeikens was given his copies. The County policy would be a simple $7.00, $1.00 per page, which Ms. Anderson copied to both sides rather than just one side.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the County has to justify the cost of this service, paper and toner would be minimal, past reference is .04 to .05 cents per copy. The rest would be Ms. Anderson&apos;s time. The minimal time spent to retrieve, copy, replace, collect payment and produce a two signature receipt would have been approximately 20 minutes [sic] considering the scale that Ms. Anderson is at the County did incur costs equal to or more than the $7.00 charge for this service.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the way of more information, several years ago the county reviewed how each department was handling copy/fax requests and discovered some inconsistencies. The departments worked together to establish a fee schedule to make it fair and consistent throughout the County. The County Recorders office was already following MN Statute 357.18 rate of $1.00 per page with a $5.00 minimum for certified copies. The district court who is also housed in the same building charges a minimum of $5.00 per document requests being less than 5 pages. The figures the County chose to use were what the various departments felt would cover the cost of providing a service and not as a money making endeavor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As provided in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), when government entities determine a fee for making copies of data, they can charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and for making the copies. In the present case, Mr. Haasser explained that Deputy Chief Auditor/Treasurer Peggy Anderson was the County employee who located the meeting minutes and made the copies, and that she spent approximately 20 minutes in doing so. Mr. Haasser implied that if the County had charged Ms. Anderson&apos;s actual salary, which he did not provide, the charge would have been higher. However, regardless of which employee completes the task, the County apparently will charge $1 per page. The problem is that Mr. Haasser did not explain how the $1 fee represents the actual cost of providing the copies. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the labor cost must reflect an entity&apos;s actual cost:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District&apos;s average labor costs for secretarial and administrative staff are $20.00 per hour and $45.00 per hour respectively. However, the statute requires a government entity to charge its actual, not average, costs associated with producing copies of data. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, a government entity may be guided by a fee schedule of standard copying charges. However, the fee schedule must reflect the entity&apos;s actual and reasonable copying costs. The Commissioner finds that the District&apos;s is neither.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar situation involving Todd County in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267937&quot; title=&quot;04-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-055&lt;/a&gt;. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has issued many advisory opinions regarding copy charges. He consistently has discussed that it is not appropriate for a government entity to charge the labor rate of a highly paid employee unless it is necessary for that particular employee to search for and retrieve the data or to make copies of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267785&quot; title=&quot;04-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Also, the County charged Ms. Scott the Sheriff&apos;s salary and benefit rate of $37.50 per hour for the ten minutes he said he spent searching for the data and typing the invoice. The Commissioner previously has opined that, in situations like this one, it is not appropriate to charge his rate of pay. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present case, Mr. Haasser did not adequately explain why the skills of the Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, whose hourly wage appears to be approximately $30, were required to locate the minutes for three county board meetings, make copies of those minutes, load the eleven pages into the fax machine, enter the local telephone number, and press the start key. The Commissioner suggests this task could have been completed by someone with a lower skill level who receives a lower rate of pay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If, however, no employees at a lower salary level were available to complete the task, the Commissioner does not believe it was appropriate for the County to charge the Deputy Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s hourly rate, even though she made the copies. In Advisory Opinion 04-038, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds his readers that government entities are not required to charge a fee for copies of government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that entities may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs to search for, retrieve, and make copies of data. In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that entities may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data. [Emphasis added.] Thus, if a government entity, in trying to determine how to arrive at a reasonable fee, recognizes that a lower-paid employee would be able to complete the task, it would be appropriate for the entity to charge a fee based on a rate that is lower than the rate of the employee who actually retrieves the data. Here, Ms. Forsland states that the lower-paid of the two employees in the unit i.e., the TPS4, retrieved the data. If Mn/DOT had determined that the skills required to retrieve the data matched someone who is paid less the TPS4, Mn/DOT could have made the decision to charge the rate of that lower paid employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In other words, as government entities determine the actual costs of searching for and retrieving, and making copies of data, they should take into consideration that any charges must be reasonable. Thus, if an entity chooses to use a flat rate for labor costs, it should be no greater than that of the lowest paid staff who could possibly complete the task.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the case of this opinion, based on the language in section 13.03, it appears the labor charge assessed by the County is not allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, the County has not explained why the skills of the Deputy Auditor/Treasurer were required to make the photocopies. Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the County&apos;s labor charge is not allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Haasser noted that in the $1 per page fee, the County includes a four to five cent charge for paper and toner. It is appropriate for government entities to include such costs as long as they are reasonable. Mr. Haasser did not provide any information indicating how four to five cents represents the amount the County spends for paper and toner when it makes copies of data. Thus, the Commissioner cannot determine whether this portion of the $1 per page fee is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. In this case, the fact that the County provided data on two sides of each of the seven pages seems to be irrelevant. In the Commissioner&apos;s thinking, the time required to make photocopies of one-sided pages or two-sided pages, or to make two-sided copies of one-sided pages likely is not different enough to affect the time required of a staff person to use the copy machine to make copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Aeikens raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Todd County did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $7 for seven pages (double-sided) of copies of the minutes from three County Board meetings.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 26, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267275</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee wage/labor cost</Title><Id>267067</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-055</Title><title>Opinion 04 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267937&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-25T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Todd County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $16 for copying and faxing eleven pages of minutes from three County Board meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 25, 2004; Todd County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Mike Knaak, of the St. Cloud Times. In his letter, Mr. Knaak asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Todd County&apos;s charge for copies of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Knaak&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tony Haasser, Todd County Coordinator. The purposes of this letter, dated July 16, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Knaak&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On August 3, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated August 2, 2004, from Mr. Haasser.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Knaak provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Knaak wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 22, I requested that copies of minutes of the last three Todd County Board meetings be faxed to me. I was charged $16 for an 11-page fax from Long Prairie to St. Cloud. That amounted to a $5 fax charge plus $1 a page. This is in accordance with what I understand to be the county&apos;s copy and fax fee policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I&apos;m questioning whether the actual cost of the fax, which is what I understand Chapter 13 of Minnesota law requires governments to charge, can be $16 for an 11-page fax. I understand that charges are uniform throughout the county and were adopted according to a countywide policy that attempted to make the charges uniform.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knaak attached to his opinion request a copy of an email from Mr. Haasser to a Times reporter. As part of that email, Mr. Haasser indicates that the County charges $5 per faxing and $1 per page for copying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knaak asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Todd County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $16 for copying and faxing eleven pages of minutes from three County Board meetings?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haasser wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The case that we are addressing came in the Auditor/Treasurers&apos; [sic] office April 22, 2004 and was handled by Sandi Sneed, Deputy Auditor/Treasurer. The procedure is fairly standard; a request is received, the documents are retrieved from the County Board Minutes Book, copied and the originals are returned to the book. A cover letter/invoice is prepared and the copies are faxed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is a time consuming process as the minutes are kept in binders that must be taken apart, locate the eleven pages (for this request) and make copies of them. The deputy must also observe the faxing of the document. This project, at a minimum required 20-25 minutes with no complications. At times these requests take even longer if there are problems with the copy machines, busy fax lines, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In [a previous Commissioner of Administration advisory opinion] it appeared that the billing and cover letter costs cannot be considered. I would differ in that the State Auditor&apos;s requirements need [sic] for paper trails of each of these transactions. Staff time for billing, receipting and re-billing in some cases and in some cases not receiving reimbursement at all cost the county and must be covered somehow by the public entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued many advisory opinions regarding copy charges. He consistently has discussed that it is not appropriate for a government entity to charge the labor rate of a highly paid employee unless it is necessary for that particular employee to search for and retrieve the data or to make copies of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267785&quot; title=&quot;04-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, the County charged Ms. Scott the Sheriff&apos;s salary and benefit rate of $37.50 per hour for the ten minutes he said he spent searching for the data and typing the invoice. The Commissioner previously has opined that, in situations like this one, it is not appropriate to charge his rate of pay. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, Mr. Haasser did not adequately explain why the skills of the Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, whose hourly wage appears to be approximately $30, were required to locate the minutes for three county board meetings, make copies of those minutes, load the eleven pages into the fax machine, enter the local telephone number, and press the start key. The Commissioner suggests this task could have been completed by someone with a lower skill level who receives a lower rate of pay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, however, no employees at a lower salary level were available to complete the task, the Commissioner does not believe it was appropriate for the County to charge the Deputy Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s hourly rate, even though she made the copies. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-038&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds his readers that government entities are not required to charge a fee for copies of government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that entities may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs to search for, retrieve, and make copies of data. In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that entities may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data. [Emphasis added.] Thus, if a government entity, in trying to determine how to arrive at a reasonable fee, recognizes that a lower-paid employee would be able to complete the task, it would be appropriate for the entity to charge a fee based on a rate that is lower than the rate of the employee who actually retrieves the data. Here, Ms. Forsland states that the lower-paid of the two employees in the unit i.e., the TPS4, retrieved the data. If Mn/DOT had determined that the skills required to retrieve the data matched someone who is paid less the TPS4, Mn/DOT could have made the decision to charge the rate of that lower paid employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In other words, as government entities determine the actual costs of searching for and retrieving, and making copies of data, they should take into consideration that any charges must be reasonable. Thus, if an entity chooses to use a flat rate for labor costs, it should be no greater than that of the lowest paid staff who could complete the task.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, based on the language in section 13.03, it appears the labor charge assessed by the County is not allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the Commissioner previously has addressed the appropriateness of government entities including billing costs in their fees for copies of data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The statute allows a government entity to recover some, but not all, of the cost it incurs to produce copies of government data. The invoice and fax cover sheet were not part of the requested copies of data for which the County may charge. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267785&quot; title=&quot;04-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-042&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is not appropriate for the County to include, as part of its copy charge, any costs related to the creation of cover letters and invoices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges that it may be difficult, administratively, for some government entities to set a unique fee for each request for copies. However, the statute authorizes entities to charge only their actual and reasonable costs, which implies that copy charges must, at least in part, be calculated on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner intends to bring these issues to the Legislature&apos;s attention, as guidance would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Knaak raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Todd County did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $16 for copying and faxing eleven pages of minutes from three County Board meetings.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 25, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267937</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-054</Title><title>Opinion 04 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267939&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-25T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Benton County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $1 for a one-page copy of a computer printout of tax information relating to a specific parcel of property?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 25, 2004; Benton County Auditor/Treasurer</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kelly Scott, of the St. Cloud Times. In her letter, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding charges the Benton County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office assessed for copies of data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Scott&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Neyssen, the Auditor/Treasurer. The purposes of this letter, dated July 16, 2004, were to inform her of Ms. Scott&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the office&apos;s position. The office did not provide comments to the Commissioner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Scott provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Scott wrote that she went to the office to request copies of tax information on a property in Sauk Rapids. She stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                When I went to the Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office, I was first told that I couldn&apos;t have a copy of the actual property tax statement but could have a computer printout of the information. The reason I was given was that I wasn&apos;t the property owner. I asked the office staff to tell me the part of the law that said I couldn&apos;t get a copy of the original and wasn&apos;t given an answer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                They ended up giving me a 1-page copy of the computer printout of the information and I was charged $1 for it. I understand that this is a uniform rate throughout the county as determined by a county-approved fee schedule. I do not have a copy of that fee schedule.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I&apos;m questioning whether a copy&apos;s actual costs, which is what I understand Chapter 13 of Minnesota law requires governments to charge, can be $1 for a one-page document. I especially wonder since most of the staff time involved in the request was spent arguing with me about whether the information was public. Making the print out took less than a minute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Benton County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $1 for a one-page copy of a computer printout of tax information relating to a specific parcel of property?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Scott states that she was charged $1 for a one-page copy of the printout of tax information on a particular parcel of property. The Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office did not provide comments to the Commissioner indicating how it arrived at the $1 fee. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot make a determination regarding whether the Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office complied with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Scott raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine if the Benton County Auditor/Treasurer&apos;s office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $1 for a one-page copy of a computer printout of tax information relating to a specific parcel of property.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 25, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267939</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-053</Title><title>Opinion 04 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267941&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Benton County Recorder&apos;s office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $3.50 for copies of seven pages of data relating to the mortgage on a specific parcel of property?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 25, 2004; Benton County Recorder</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 13, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kelly Scott of the St. Cloud Times. In her letter, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding charges the Benton County Recorder&apos;s office assessed for copies of data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Scott&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marilyn Novak, the Recorder. The purposes of this letter, dated July 16, 2004, were to inform her of Ms. Scott&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the office&apos;s position. The Recorder&apos;s office did not provide comments to the Commissioner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Scott provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Scott states that she went to the County to request copies of all documents related to the mortgage on a particular parcel of property. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I went to the recorder&apos;s office for the information on the mortgage. I was shown how to look up the information. I then searched for the information I was looking for, found the documents&apos; number and typed them into the computer that&apos;s set up for public use. I printed the documents from the machine, and then went next door to the counter to be billed $.50 a page for them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I was charged $3.50 for the seven-pages, something I found bizarre since it was my time and effort that found the information. A staff member generally directed me to the Index and computer system. But, I&apos;d estimate that took less than a minute. Still I was charged what I understand to be the county&apos;s copying rate of $.50 a page.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I&apos;m questioning whether the copies&apos; actual costs, which is what I understand Chapter 13 of Minnesota law required governments to charge, can be $.50 a page when I essentially did all the work myself....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Benton County Recorder&apos;s office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $3.50 for copies of seven pages of data relating to the mortgage on a specific parcel of property?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Scott states that she was charged $3.50 for seven pages of data relating to a mortgage on a particular property. The Recorder&apos;s office did not provide comments to the Commissioner indicating how it arrived at the $3.50 fee. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot make a determination regarding whether the Recorder&apos;s office complied with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner, however, provides the following note. As stated above, in determining fees for copies of data, government entities may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, plus the cost of making the copies. Here, Ms. Scott states that she, not the Recorder&apos;s office, searched for and located the data, and then printed the documents. If the Recorder&apos;s office did not expend any staff time on gathering and making the copies, it is not clear why the Recorder&apos;s office assessed Ms. Scott a charge.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised that Ms. Scott raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine if the Benton County Recorder&apos;s office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $3.50 for seven pages of data relating to the mortgage on a specific property.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 25, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267941</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-052</Title><title>Opinion 04 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266659&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-18T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, did the Hennepin County Children, Family and Adult Services Department violate the Xs&apos; rights because it did not make the required determination about their data challenge?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 18, 2004; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. X, in which they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible violation of their rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Hennepin County Children, Family and Adult Services Department (CFASD.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the Xs&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sue Zuidema, Acting Director of CFASD. The purposes of this letter, dated July 14, 2004, were to inform her of the Xs&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFASD&apos;s position. CFASD did not submit any comments in response. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to the Xs, in a letter dated February 17, 2004, they wrote to Ms. Zuidema to challenge the accuracy and completeness of certain data maintained by CFASD, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4. Ms. Zuidema did not respond. In a letter dated June 16, 2004, the Xs wrote again to Ms. Zuidema, asking for a response to their February data challenge. Ms. Zuidema did not respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, did the Hennepin County Children, Family and Adult Services Department violate the Xs&apos; rights because it did not make the required determination about their data challenge?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual subject of government data has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of the data. According to the procedures set forth at section 13.04, subdivision 4(a):
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In a letter dated February 17, 2004, the Xs wrote to Ms. Zuidema, the responsible authority for CFASD, to challenge the accuracy and completeness of data about them. Pursuant to the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 4, Ms. Zuidema was required, within 30 days of receipt of that letter, either to correct the data or to notify the Xs that she believes the data are accurate and complete. Ms. Zuidema did not respond either to the Xs&apos; data challenge dated February 17, 2004, or to their follow-up letter dated June 16, 2004. Therefore, Ms. Zuidema has not made a determination about the data challenge presented by the Xs, as is required by section 13.04, subdivision 4.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. X is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, the Hennepin County Children, Family and Adult Services Department violated the Xs&apos; rights because it did not make the required determination about their data challenge.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 18, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266659</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-051</Title><title>Opinion 04 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267645&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.315, subdivision 5, when it denied inspection of data because the requestor refused to turn off a tape recorder?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 18, 2004; Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 6, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated June 30, 2004, from Jim Stengrim and Wallace Dietrich. In their letter, Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data that the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Adrian, the Watershed District&apos;s engineer. The purposes of this letter, dated July 9, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Watershed District&apos;s position. On July 30, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Blake Sobolik, an attorney representing the Watershed District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich provided them is as follows. In a letter dated May 17, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Watershed District and asked to schedule an appointment to review certain data relating to the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. Organization document for the Project Work Team.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                2. List of members of the Project Work Team.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. Minutes/notes of the [sic] each Project Work Team meeting.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                4. Agenda of each meeting.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                5. Project consent form completed.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                6. List of all subcommittees formed of the Project Work Team.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                7. Member list of subcommittees.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                8. Minutes/notes of meetings of subcommittees.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                9. All required permits [sic] applications.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                10. All environmental documents prepared.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                11. All funding applications completed.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                12. Itemized receipts for all expenses to date.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                13. Itemized list of all funds received for the project to date.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich arranged to review the data at the Watershed District&apos;s office on May 28, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 31, 2004, Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich wrote to Mr. Adrian regarding the visit. They wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You came to the table with a box full of what appeared to be files. You then asked if a recorder was going to be used. I informed you that one was going to be used for note taking. You then informed us that if we used a recorder you would not allow us to review the data requested. You stated that you had been in contact with the District&apos;s attorney about the recorder issue. We responded that we were only there to review the data requested and not to interview you or anyone else. You were asked if you had the data requested ready for review. Your response was that we would need to look through the box to find it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Since we were firm in our decision to use a recorder you told us the meeting was over and that we should leave. We left the District office without the opportunity to review the requested public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 11, 2004, Mr. Adrian wrote to Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Your account of the meeting is different from mine. When the meeting started I asked if this meeting was being recorded. Mr. Stengrim&apos;s response was that it was. Based on what he said I believed that either Mr. Stengrim or Mr. Dietrich were recording the conversation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I informed both of you that you did not have permission to record conversations with me or any District employee. Your insistence on recording the conversation led to me to conclude that the meeting should be ended. At no time were you denied access to view the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If you still want to view the documents you requested let me know and I will set up a time to do that as soon as possible.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.315, subdivision 5, when it denied inspection of data because the requestor refused to turn off a tape recorder?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.315, subdivision 5, states, in relevant part, The records [of a watershed district] must be open to inspection by the property owners within the watershed district and all other interested parties at all reasonable times.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sobolik wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The letter of Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich to your Department dated June 30, 2004, correctly stated that they had filed a request for data pursuant to the District&apos;s data practices policy and that an appointment to meet with Mr. Adrian was scheduled for May 28, 2004....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      When Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich arrived at the District Office on Friday, May 28, 2004, Mr. Adrian did in fact carry a box full of documents that were intended to be reviewed by Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich. Mr. Adrian had spent several hours prior to the meeting gathering the documents that he hoped would satisfy their request although there was [sic] some questions he had regarding their request. The documents that they requested to inspect are quite voluminous. The actual files Mr. Adrian pulled from the file cabinets to hopefully address their request filled approximately 1.5 file storage boxes. Mr. Adrian knew that some of the requested data required additional clarification and once this was received, he was prepared to get any other additional data the District had or inform them if the District did not have it.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      After Jim Stengrim and Wallace Dietrich arrived at the office, Mr. Adrian entered the meeting room with a box of files....Also present at the meeting was Nick Drees, an employee of the District....Mr. Adrian asked Mr. Stengrim if they were being recorded. Mr. Stengrim responded yes . Mr. Adrian then told Mr. Stengrim that he did not have Mr. Adrian&apos;s permission to record any conversation with him. Mr. Adrian also informed Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich that he would not give any permission to be recorded. Without dealing with the issue of recording, Mr. Stengrim proceeded to ask several questions including (not verbatim) was Mr. Adrian denying him access to the data he requested. Mr. Adrian&apos;s response was, no, he was not denying him access to data, he was simply not allowing him to record his conversation with Mr. Adrian....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      When it became clear to Mr. Adrian that Mr. Stengrim was not going to stop recording, he asked them to leave....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      [Chapter 13] only applies to [government] data....Clearly, recording secretly conversations between Mr. Adrian and Mr. Stengrim is not government data or data of any sort which is covered by [Chapter 13].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...At no time was Mr. Stengrim denied access to review the data that Mr. Adrian brought to the meeting. It is Mr. Stengrim himself that did not want to review the documents when he decided not to turn his recorder off. In fact, Mr. Stengrim was offered to view the data as long as he would not record any conversation of Mr. Adrian. Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich refused to do this....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the present case, there is a dispute over Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich&apos;s use of a tape recorder. Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich contend that the purpose of the recorder was for note taking and that they informed Mr. Adrian they were not interested in having a conversation with him. Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich also assert they were asked to leave without being able to review any of the data they had requested. Conversely, Mr. Sobolik, on behalf of the Watershed District, argues that Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich were simply being denied the ability to record conversations under the guise of [Chapter 13]. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. Furthermore, the issue of whether or not a member of the public is permitted to tape record an employee of a government entity is beyond the Commissioner&apos;s authority as granted in section 13.072.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 provides that Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich, upon request, have the right to inspect data. If they want to bring in tape recorders and take voice notes while inspecting data, that is appropriate, just as it would be appropriate for them to take notes on paper. However, Mr. Stengrim, Mr. Dietrich, and Mr. Adrian will have to resolve, in another forum, the central dispute over the use of the tape recorder.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.315, subdivision 5, when Mr. Stengrim and Mr. Dietrich arrived at the Watershed District to inspect certain data.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 18, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267645</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal electronic device used</Title><Id>266888</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Scope of authority</Title><Id>266889</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-050</Title><title>Opinion 04 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266828&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to inspect certain government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 12, 2004; Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 23, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated July 22, 2004, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Haertel, Water Management Specialist at BWSR. The purposes of this letter, dated July 30, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for BWSR&apos;s position. On August 5, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Haertel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In a July 14, 2004, email, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Mr. Haertel: ...I request to inspect all data that BOWSER [sic] has on the Middle-Snake Rivers Watershed/Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed. When you have located all the documents, please contact me to schedule an appointment to inspect them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Haertel responded on July 14, 2004:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I can arrange to retrieve all the appropriate files from archives and our office, review all the files to remove any protected or confidential data if there is any, and have the files ready for your inspections and any duplication you desire within a week or two. When the files are ready for your inspection I would contact you to set up an appointment. The estimated cost would increase to $300-$500.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to inspect certain government data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a) states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places...If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haertel wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...Mr. Stengrim&apos;s original request was for copies of data related to the establishment of the Middle-Snake River Watershed District. After receipt of my response made under Minnesota Statutes section 13.03, Subd. 3, item c, Mr. Stengrim requested to inspect all data concerning the watershed district. My response to the second request is the subject of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request for an opinion from the Commissioner of the Department of Administration.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      An oversight occurred in my second response to Mr. Stengrim. It is clear under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Subd. 3, item a, that inspection of government data is free and charges can only be incurred for copying. I have contacted Mr. Stengrim (copy enclosed), informed him of the situation, and offered to have the data available for his inspection within a couple of business days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), inspection of government data is free. Although Mr. Haertel acknowledges this in his comments to the Commissioner, BWSR did not respond appropriately to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s data request. The Commissioner hopes BWSR and Mr. Stengrim have agreed upon a time for Mr. Stengrim to inspect, free of charge, the data he requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request to inspect certain government data.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 12, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266828</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-049</Title><title>Opinion 04 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267246&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-08-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Red River Watershed Management Board in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 6, 2004; Red River Watershed Management Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 15, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated June 14, 2004, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, Administrator of the RRWMB. The purposes of this letter, dated June 23, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the RRWMB&apos;s position. On July 7, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Erickson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, On June 1, 2004 I again contacted [the RRWMB] requesting a copy of their adopted policy procedure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Stengrim provided a copy of the RRWMB&apos;s response. Ms. Erickson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The RRWMB is currently is the process of adopting a data policy regarding information requested from the board. At the present time, subject to the advice of legal counsel, all information requested from the RRWMB must be submitted in writing. As per the letter dated May 27, 2004 which was sent to you, please submit a written request, setting forth in detail the documents you are interested in obtaining.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a fax dated June 3, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote, I would like to clarify my request for a copy of the data policy procedure for the RRWMB. The material requested is the written form of the &apos;public access procedures&apos; of the RRWMB. If the requested material is unavailable please provide written confirmation of that fact.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, As of the date of this letter I have not received the requested data. It appears the RRWMB does not presently have a &apos;public access procedures&apos; policy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Red River Watershed Management Board in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...please find enclosed a draft of the Data Practices policy that will be considered at our next board meeting on July 20, 2004.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The RRWMB believes that the attached policy fulfills the requirements of Minnesota law. When the board has formally adopted this policy, I will provide a copy to the citizen who requested the advisory opinion and, of course, to any citizen who makes a similar request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), was adopted during the 1999 Legislative Session and went into effect on January 1, 2001. It states clearly that all government entities must create, and update annually, procedures relating to public access to data. As of the date Mr. Stengrim requested this opinion, it appears the RRWMB had not adopted its public access procedures and, therefore, was not in compliance with Chapter 13. The Commissioner urges the RRWMB to adopt its procedures policy as soon as possible, if it has not done so already.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As a final note, the Commissioner encourages the RRWMB to contact IPAD if it has any questions regarding its policy relating to public access procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Red River Watershed Management Board is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 6, 2004
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267246</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-048</Title><title>Opinion 04 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267792&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-07-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Revenue provide proper notice, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, when it asked an individual to supply his Social Security number in connection with filing his 2003 Minnesota Individual Tax form?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 2004; Minnesota Department of Revenue</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 7, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Howard A. Vomhof, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination by the Minnesota Department of Revenue about a data practices issue. The issue involves the collection of private data from Mr. Vomhof. In his request, he specifically stated that he wished to be identified in this opinion, and gave his consent for same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Vomhof&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Daniel A. Salomone, Commissioner of Revenue. The purposes of this letter, dated June 14, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Vomhof&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On June 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Salomone. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vomhof questions whether the Department provided him with complete proper notice, under state and federal law, in connection with the collection of his Social Security number on the Department&apos;s 2003 Minnesota Individual Income Tax form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Salomone wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. section 289A.08, subd. 11, regarding information required to be included on an income tax return, specifically says that the return &apos;must state the social security number of the taxpayer&apos;. The instruction booklet advises individuals that all information on their return (other than the information listed in the instructions as not being required) is required by Minnesota law in order to determine their correct tax liability. Part of determining their correct tax liability is having enough information from them to properly identify who they are, so that their income tax payment or income tax refund can be credited or sent to the right person. . . . . The instruction booklet has a comprehensive explanation of all the persons or entities authorized by law to share information from an individual&apos;s income tax return with the Department of Revenue. This list is derived from the list that appears in Minn. Stat. section 270B.14. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department of Revenue has always taken great care in preparing the income tax instruction booklet every year, to ensure that the use of information portion is accurate, complete, and up to date with the most current law changes included. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One final point I would like to address. The [opinion notice from IPAD] indicates that the advisory opinion is going to discuss federal law pertaining to the notice to individuals of the need for and use of their social security numbers, as well as state law. The authority under Minn. Stat. section 13.072 to issue advisory opinions appears to be limited to Minnesota law. Therefore, I request that your opinion be limited only to the application of Minnesota law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Vomhof asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Revenue provide proper notice, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, when it asked an individual to supply his Social Security number in connection with filing his 2003 Minnesota Individual Tax form?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the outset, the Commissioner (of Administration) wishes to address Commissioner Salomone&apos;s statement that, under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue advisory opinions appears to be limited to Minnesota law. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, federal laws can and do classify data maintained by Minnesota government entities, as defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7a. Historically, the Commissioner has taken the position that when federal and state laws intersect and affect an individual&apos;s rights as a subject of data or right to gain access to data, he may issue an advisory opinion. The Commissioner continues to take that position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number are subject to requirements of both state and federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355, subdivision 1, Social Security numbers are private data. According to section 13.04, subdivision 2, when a government entity asks an individual to supply private and/or confidential data about him/herself, such as a Social Security number, the entity is required to give the individual a notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen warning, which must contain the following components: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires federal, state, and local government entities requesting Social Security numbers to provide individuals with a notice, as follows: [a]ny Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his Social Security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it. (See Section 7(b) of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of 1974. Public Law 93-579 was codified at 5 U.S.C. section 552a. Section 7 was contained in a note, and not incorporated into the U.S. Code.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, federal law provides that federal, state, and local government agencies cannot deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers unless the disclosure is required or authorized by federal statute, or the disclosure is for use in a record system which required the Social Security number before 1975. Federal law does allow an agency to deny rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers to the extent that Social Security numbers are used in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver&apos;s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction. (See Tax Reform Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iv).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined that, in situations like this one, where both a Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notice are required, it is acceptable for a government entity to provide a combined notice that contains all the elements of both the state and federal requirements. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/266882&quot; title=&quot;04-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-020&lt;/a&gt;.) However, the potential for confusion exists because the notice requirements, while similar, are not identical.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, federal law requires that the notice contain the statutory or other authority that governs the collection of the Social Security number; state law does not. Furthermore, state law requires that an individual be informed of uses of data within the requesting government entity. The rationale for this requirement is that, particularly in those situations where an entity is authorized or required to provide data to other entities, the collecting entity cannot be responsible for knowing all of the uses outside its own organization. By contrast, the language of the federal Privacy Act seems to indicate that government entities are responsible for communicating all uses that will be made of the Social Security number. The Commissioner is of the opinion that a reasonable reading of the state and federal law requirements leads to a conclusion that entities are required to communicate only those uses of the data being collected that are reasonably known to the entity at the time of collection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the specific content of the notice contained in the 2003 Minnesota Individual Income Tax form, the Commissioner has the following comments. Missing from the Tennessen warning requirement is a statement of the possible consequences, known to the Department, of an individual supplying his/her Social Security number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the notice also lacks a component of the federal requirement, namely, the statutory or other authority under which the Department is requesting the Social Security number. According to Commissioner Salomone, that authority is provided at Minnesota Statutes, section 289A.08, subdivision 11. The notice should contain that specific statutory reference. The Commissioner notes that the rules of the Department of Administration provide a methodology to assist government entities in gathering the information and making the determinations that will assist them to provide adequate Tennessen warnings. (See Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Vomhof is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Revenue did not provide proper notice under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, when it asked an individual to supply his Social Security number in connection with filing his 2003 Minnesota Individual Tax form, because the notice does not inform him of any known consequence arising from supplying his Social Security number. The notice also does not meet the requirements of federal law, because it did not specify the statutory or other authority under which the Department was collecting his Social Security number.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 29, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267792</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Federal law</Title><Id>267131</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Scope of authority</Title><Id>266889</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-047</Title><title>Opinion 04 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267431&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-07-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data to the public that X had been suspended without pay?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 22, 2004; Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 27, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated May 26, 2004, from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible violation of his/her rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (Park Board).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mary Page, the Park Board&apos;s Human Resources Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated June 2, 2004, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Park Board&apos;s position. On June 10, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated June 9, 2004, from Karin Peterson, an attorney representing the Park Board.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X provided them is as follows. In X&apos;s opinion request, X wrote that an allegation of misconduct had been made against X (X was employed by the Park Board). X stated that s/he was placed on administrative leave without pay.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X wrote that shortly thereafter, Brad Johnson, Chief of the Park Board Police Department, stated in a story on one of the local television news stations that X had been suspended without pay in response to a criminal charge. X also provided to the Commissioner a copy of an article from a local newspaper, which contained the following quote from Chief Johnson: The Park Board immediately, upon learning of the complaint, suspended [X] with pay and the investigation began. And once [X] was charged with the crimes, [X] was immediately suspended without pay.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X stated that s/he then filed a grievance and the Park Board&apos;s attorney began an internal investigation. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the attorney&apos;s report. The attorney concluded, Therefore, once again, there is no basis for discipline of [X] at this time. The Park Board&apos;s attorney further stated, It is our opinion that we will need to continue [X] as an employee until such time as the criminal case is resolved...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her opinion request, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Disciplinary Action is classified as Private Data until a final disposition has occurred....when the article in the [newspaper] appeared with Brad Johnson&apos;s comments that I was suspended without pay, final disposition had not occurred....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data to the public that X had been suspended without pay?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action. A final disposition occurs when:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...[the government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or courts proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(8), provides that payroll time sheets, or other comparable data used only to account for an employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes, are public except to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee&apos;s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Peterson wrote, ...the fact that [X] was suspended or placed on leave pending an investigation is public data. She also stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Once [X] was charged with these felonies, the Park Board suspended [X] both with and without pay and began its investigation into complaints against [X]. At no time, however, did the Park Board ever release any information that was not already public regarding [X] and [X&apos;s] employment with the Park Board.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Peterson further stated, Chief Johnson&apos;s statement does nothing more than release public data that is used to account for an employee&apos;s absence from work.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. At the point in time Chief Johnson stated that X had been suspended, a final disposition had not occurred. Thus, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), data relating to the existence and status of the complaint/charge were public, but data relating to any disciplinary action taken against X were not public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Although the word status is not defined in section 13.43, or elsewhere in Chapter 13, the Minnesota Supreme Court used the following definition in a recent case: [a] stage of progress or development. (See &lt;i&gt;Navarre v. South Washington County Schools&lt;/i&gt;, 652 N.W.2d, 9, 22 (Minn . 2002) (footnote 4).) In Navarre, the Court cited &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition&lt;/i&gt;, 1309 (2d ed. 1982). Thus, the status of a complaint against an employee means whether the complaint has been filed, is under investigation, is closed, no discipline was imposed, or similar descriptions of the stages in an entity&apos;s investigatory process. By releasing only data explaining the status of a complaint/charge in response to a data request, the government entity is able to inform the public what it is doing or has done in response to a complaint while simultaneously protecting the rights of employees who are the subjects of the complaint.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The Commissioner&apos;s perspective is that it is problematic to use the word suspend in response to a data practices request for information about the existence and status of a complaint/charge against an employee. In common usage, the word suspend means to debar temporarily from a privilege, office, or function (See &lt;i&gt;Merriam Webster&apos;s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition&lt;/i&gt;, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1993). Further, in a progressive form of discipline used by many government employers, suspension is the third of four steps: (1) oral reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension; and (4) termination. If an entity has disciplined an employee and has suspended him/her, the entity cannot disclose that information to the public until there has been a final disposition.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner also wishes to comment on the use of the terms on leave with pay and on leave without pay in connection with a response to a data request about the status of a complaint/charge made against an employee. Because leave with or without pay may be a form of discipline, it should not be released by the entity when the entity is responding to data requests relating to the status of a complaint/charge against an employee.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner acknowledges that a data requestor will be able to determine whether a government entity is or is not paying an employee. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(8), states that ...payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for an employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes are public. In responding to requests for payroll time sheet data, however, the entity would not be disclosing that any paid or unpaid leave an employee takes is related to a complaint or charge. Further, the entity would be disclosing only data relating to an employee&apos;s past or current pay standing, not data about the employee&apos;s future pay standing.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the present situation, in response to a data practices request for information relating to the existence and status of the complaint against X, it would have been appropriate for the Park Board to state that a complaint against X had been made and that the Park Board was in the process of conducting an investigation, or words to that effect. However, the Park Board released more data than Chapter 13 allows by stating that it had suspended [X] with pay and that X later had been suspended without pay.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board released data to the public that X had been suspended without pay, the Park Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it released data in addition to the status of the complaint about X.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 22, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267431</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Suspension with/without pay</Title><Id>266877</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-046</Title><title>Opinion 04 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267901&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-07-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed the identity of a parent and his/her child in a May 7, 2002, letter it sent to all District high school teachers? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 12, 2004; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 19, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated May 11, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated May 21, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 18, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. In February of 2002, X filed a complaint on behalf of X&apos;s minor child with the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning - CFL - (presently named the Minnesota Department of Education). The complaint was related to special education services provided by the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In April of 2002, CFL sent a letter to the District informing the District that X had filed a complaint and providing the District with its Findings of Fact related to the matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 7, 2002, then Superintendent Dennis Rettke sent a response to CFL. The letter, which names X and provides X&apos;s address but does not identify X&apos;s child, informs CFL what action the District is taking in response to CFL&apos;s findings. The copy of the letter that X provided to the Commissioner indicates the letter was copied to the Board of Education; the District&apos;s Director of Special Education; and the Principal, Assistant Principal, Dean of Students, and High School Teachers at the District&apos;s High School.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disclosed the identity of a parent and his/her child in a May 7, 2002, letter it sent to all District high school teachers?
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students and their parents. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      One of the exceptions is that any data a school district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. (See section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Another exception is that private educational data can be released to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400.) The corresponding language in FERPA states that data can be released without consent if, The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(1).) Furthermore, 34 C.F.R. section 99.7(a)(3)(iii) states that if a District has a policy of disclosing records under section 99.31(a)(1), the district must include in its annual notification to parents a specification of criteria for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes a legitimate educational interest.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      First, it should be noted that the letter did not identify the child, but only the child&apos;s parent [X]. Second, the name of a child&apos;s parent is educational data under Minn. Stat. section 13.32 and directory information under the ISD No. 832 data practices policy. As such, there has been no violation of state or federal law and the district complied with its own policy.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Second, even if the data in question, the parent&apos;s name, is somehow determined not to be directory information, the question would then become, whether the high school teachers who were sent a copy of the letter had a legitimate educational interest in receiving the letter. Despite the notation at the bottom of the letter in question, copies of the letter were not sent to all [the high school teachers]. To the extent the letter was distributed at all, it was only sent to special education teachers at the high school. Those teachers most certainly would have a legitimate educational interest in the contents of the letter and the appropriate means to service [X&apos;s child].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      As such, there has been no violation of either state or federal law or the school district&apos;s data practices policy by the manner in which this letter was actually distributed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Kepple&apos;s first argument is that, according to the District&apos;s directory information policy, the name of a child&apos;s parent is public data. The Commissioner was not provided with the District&apos;s directory information policy. However, if it states that a parent&apos;s name is public, it would seem to mean that the name is public in relation to the fact that the parent has a child enrolled in the District. It would not seem to mean that all other information about the parent is public, i.e., the fact that the parent made a complaint related to some of the District&apos;s special education services. Thus, pursuant to section 13.32, the Commissioner assumes the data about X regarding the complaint to CFL are private data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding Ms. Kepple&apos;s second argument, the Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the Superintendent disseminated copies of the May, 2002 letter to any or all high school teachers. Although the letter indicates High School Teachers were to receive copies, Ms. Kepple states, To the extent the letter was distributed at all, it was only to special education teachers at the high school. If the Superintendent disseminated copies of the letter, such disclosures were appropriate only to those teachers who had a legitimate educational interest according to the District&apos;s policy and whose work assignments required that they have access to the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the dissemination of data about a parent in a letter sent to various District personnel. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 12, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267901</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent data</Title><Id>266386</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-045</Title><title>Opinion 04 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266992&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-07-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Winona County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 24, 2003, request for access to data by a crime victim?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 1, 2004; Winona County Attorney</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X, in which s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to data the Winona County Attorney&apos;s Office maintains. X&apos;s request required additional information and clarification with IPAD staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles MacLean, Winona County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated May 18, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On June 8, 2004, IPAD received a response from Mr. MacLean. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. MacLean, Randall Walter Wait was prosecuted in Winona County for Possession of Pictorial Representations of Minors. X was one of his victims. During the police investigation, X was asked to view some of the evidence (photographs made from videotapes), to confirm that s/he was depicted therein. According to X:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Beginning shortly after Wait&apos;s sentencing, I have repeatedly asked Mr. MacLean for copies of the evidence and investigative data collected that involve me. He has refused to comply, indicating initially that he would only give the copies to a lawyer acting on my behalf. I gave him a letter November 24, 2003, formalizing my request for the copies, which I believe Minnesota statute entitles me to as a victim.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. MacLean did give me some video footage to look at in December to see if I was on them, but the victims on the tape were not me, so I returned the videos to him. He has since refused to comply with my request in any way.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The court record shows that Mr. MacLean made a deal as part of the plea bargain with Wait and his attorneys that all evidence collected would be destroyed 90 days after Wait&apos;s sentencing, which is when Wait&apos;s right to appeal expired. Mr. MacLean further agreed that he would not disseminate copies of the information to anyone during that 90 days. Mr. MacLean agreed that if he did not abide by that agreement he would notify Wait&apos;s attorneys and Wait could withdraw his guilty plea.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                When I called him at least two months ago, Mr. MacLean indicated he would give me copies of the evidence but told me he does not have the authority to give me the investigative file and that I would have to get it myself from the police department. Mr. MacLean said he had reached an agreement with Wait&apos;s attorneys to release the evidence from the plea deal but was waiting for a judge&apos;s signature, which he said would take approximately two weeks.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s November 24, 2003, letter to Mr. MacLean, s/he wrote: I know that you have the right to destroy the files about Randy Wait next week, and I want a copy of each of them for myself before you do. As a victim, I know I am entitled to have them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. MacLean stated that he received X&apos;s data request on November 26, 2003. He wrote: [a]fter discussions with [X], I wrote to Wait&apos;s defense attorney on December 2, 2003, the 90th day after sentencing, explaining that a law enforcement agency . . . and a victim [X], had each requested the seized materials before the 91-day period expired, and I had decided to release the requested material to both the agency and to [X.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. MacLean wrote that on December 4, 2003, he gave X three videotapes to review:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The intent was to give [X] an opportunity to view the seized materials to determine whether [X] was depicted in any of the seized videotapes so that copies of those selected portions depicting [X] could be copied and disclosed to [X.] [X] had earlier been shown selected stills from the many seized videotapes and [s/he] had identified stills from those three videotapes (and no other stills from any other videotapes) as possibly depicting [X.] . . . . [X] did not identify him/herself on the tapes, and returned them to Mr. MacLean. . . . . I still have those tapes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On December 30, 2003, I sent an e-mail (Attachment 2) to Chief Frank Pomeroy of the Winona Police Department authorizing release of all reports in the case upon request of any person, but instructed Chief Pomeroy to not release any of the seized videotapes and photographic evidence until further instruction from me. Of course, before release of the documents, juveniles&apos; names and identifying material would have to be expurgated.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. MacLean wrote that Mr. Wait&apos;s attorneys subsequently filed a Motion for Destruction and Return of Seized Property, and that he entered into substantial negotiation with the attorneys that led to a stipulation regarding the disposition of the evidence in the case. According to Mr. MacLean: Wait&apos;s attorneys never returned a signed version of [the stipulation agreement] to me and they later withdrew their Motion for Destruction of the Seized Property. Thus, the matter remains unresolved between the Winona County Attorney&apos;s Office and Wait&apos;s attorneys at this time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. MacLean wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As I have explained to [X] throughout, I do not intend to disclose copies of all of the seized pornography to [X], but [s/he] can have copies of the portions of the videotapes on which [X] verifies [s/he] is depicted along with all documentary contents of the casefile (including all statements, investigative reports, and the like). [X] is still welcome to this part of the evidence, as I have indicated all along. It is not true, as alleged by [X] in [his/her] Request for Advisory Opinion, that I have &apos;since refused to comply with my request in any way.&apos; Rather, I have authorized release of documentary evidence to [X], and provided videotapes and stills to [X] from which [s/he] has been unable to identify [her/himself] as anywhere depicted on those seized materials.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Without (apparently) obtaining copies of the reports from the Winona Police Department (which is the only entity with a complete file since they do not send over all pornography evidence to our office in these types of cases), [X] submitted . . . [the] present request for advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I never have authorized the destruction of the seized evidence, and all of the seized evidence remains in the possession of the Winona Police Department at this time pending stipulation of the parties and pending further order of the Court.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. MacLean stated that X has had access to the full casefile . . . from the beginning, and certainly by December 30, 2003 when I authorized the Winona Police to release all documentary evidence in the case. He also wrote that he had given X an opportunity to view the screen shots and videotapes, and that X did not identify her/himself therein.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Winona County Attorney&apos;s Office comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 24, 2003, request for access to data by a crime victim? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes at the outset that the facts as presented by X and Mr. MacLean are contradictory and confusing. The Commissioner emphasizes that his opinion is based solely upon the written record before him.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 13, provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      On receipt of a written request, the prosecuting authority shall release investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency to the victim of a criminal act or alleged criminal act or to the victim&apos;s legal representative unless the release to the individual subject of the data would be prohibited under section 13.821 or the prosecuting authority reasonably believes:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (a) that the release of that data will interfere with the investigation; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (b) that the request is prompted by a desire on the part of the requester to engage in unlawful activities.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. MacLean wrote that at least up until December 2, 2003, . . . [this matter] remained under active law enforcement investigation. However, he did not assert that he had determined that X was not entitled to access to the data based upon the exceptions listed at section 13.82, subdivision 13. Accordingly, it appears that X was entitled to gain access to the data upon his/her November 24, 2003, request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes that although both X and Mr. MacLean refer to the plea agreement Mr. Wait entered into, neither provided a copy. It appears from their written statements to the Commissioner that, under the plea agreement, all data would be destroyed 90-91 days after Mr. Wait&apos;s sentencing, and that, if a victim and/or a law enforcement agency were to ask for access within that time frame, they would be entitled to have access to the data. The Commissioner cannot determine if the actual terms of the plea agreement in any way excuse Mr. MacLean from his obligation under Chapter 13 to provide X with access to data to which s/he is entitled. There is nothing in the written record before the Commissioner that indicates that Mr. MacLean was obligated, under the terms of the plea, to notify Mr. Wait&apos;s attorneys that a victim or law enforcement agency had asked for the data, and gain their approval before he could release it. If, due to the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. MacLean was not able to release the data to X, he should have communicated that clearly to X at the time he received X&apos;s November 24, 2003, data request. Otherwise, Mr. MacLean should have provided X with access to the data s/he requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, X asked Mr. MacLean for access to all of the files related to Mr. Wait&apos;s case. Apparently, the only data to which Mr. MacLean provided X with access are the still photographs and some videotapes. It is not clear from Mr. MacLean&apos;s written comments to the Commissioner if those are the only data he maintains that are responsive to X&apos;s request. If so, Mr. MacLean should have so informed X at the time he provided X an opportunity to review the videotapes. If not, he should have provided X with access to all the data he maintains upon receipt of X&apos;s request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner also notes that on December 30, 2003, Mr. MacLean sent an e-mail to Winona Police Chief Pomeroy, in which he stated that he was authorizing release of all reports in the case upon request of any person . . . Mr. MacLean informed X that s/he could get access to the complete file directly from the police department; apparently, X has not attempted to do so. Directing X to ask for the data from the Winona Police Department does not end Mr. MacLean&apos;s obligation to either produce the data X requested, or inform X that his Office does not maintain the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As noted above, the facts here are confusing and contradictory. The Commissioner cannot resolve the factual dispute between X and Mr. MacLean. Nonetheless, on November 24, 2003, X asked, as a victim, for copies of all of the files related to this matter. Mr. MacLean was obligated to respond to X&apos;s request, either by providing X with access to all the data he maintains, and making it clear that was the case, or by stating clearly the basis for denying X&apos;s request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Winona County Attorney&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it did not respond to X&apos;s November 24, 2003, request, either by providing X with access to all the data he maintains, and making it clear that was the case, or by stating clearly the basis for denying X&apos;s request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 1, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266992</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Victim access to active investigative data (13.82, subd. 13 / subd. 6)</Title><Id>266500</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-044</Title><title>Opinion 04 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268023&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a March 12, 2004, request for government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2004; Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 14, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated May 15, 2004, from Joel Brand. In the letter, Mr. Brand asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Brand&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mary Page, the Board&apos;s Human Resources Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated May 20, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Brand&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On May 28, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 26, 2004, from Ms. Page.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Brand provided them is as follows. In a letter dated March 12, 2004, he wrote to Ms. Page and asked for the following types of personnel data relating to eight current or former employees: (1) date of first employment, positions held, dates of promotions/appointments, and training, including any specialized training; (2) the existence and status of any complaints or charges, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in any disciplinary action; and (3) final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action, and data documenting the basis of the action.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 16, 2004, Mr. Brand again wrote to Ms. Page. He stated, On March 12, 2004...I sent a letter to you requesting public personnel data on eight employees of the [Board]. As of this date I have not received a response to my request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 1, 2004, Mr. Brand again wrote to Ms. Page. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Thank you for contacting me on Friday April 30, 2004 and advising me of your need for additional time to provide the public data that I have requested....I should not have been expected to wait this long [eight weeks]...However, as we discussed, I am willing to allow an additional week. I will expect to receive the data on Friday May 7, 2004....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In Mr. Brand&apos;s opinion request, he wrote, As of this date [on or about May 15, 2004] I have not received the requested public data. [Chapter 13] required the [Board] to respond to a data request in a timely manner. They have not provided the data nine weeks after the request was made.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In Mr. Brand&apos;s request for an opinion, he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a March 12, 2004, request for government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Here, the types of data Mr. Brand requested are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Page wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The information that Mr. Brand requested from the Park Board was sent to him by mail on May 13, 2004. In the cover letter, I apologized to Mr. Brand for the lateness of the response. Mr. Brand&apos;s request involved gathering data on numerous employees (both current and former), and required coordinating the gathering of the information....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has always been committed to fully complying with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 regarding requests for government data. While I admit that I did not get the information to him in the timeframe that he expected, I believe that we have now complied completely with his request for the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Brand first requested access to data on or about March 12, 2004. Apparently, he did not receive any type of response from the Board until April 30, 2004, when Ms. Page advised Mr. Brand that she needed additional time to provide him with the data. Mr. Brand apparently received the data on or about May 13, 2004. It took the Board approximately seven weeks to acknowledge Mr. Brand&apos;s letter and almost nine weeks to provided him with the data. The Board did not respond to Mr. Brand&apos;s data request within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Brand raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 12, 2004, request for government data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 29, 2004
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268023</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-043</Title><title>Opinion 04 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267129&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-28T15:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an April 28, 2004, request for copies of contracts?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2004; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 2, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data that Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, the District&apos;s superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated June 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 18, 2004, IPAD received a response from Paul Cady, the District&apos;s legal counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 28, 2004, Mr. Pachl requested a copy of certain contracts. Mr. Pachl stated that he faxed and mailed his request to the District. According to Mr. Pachl, the District did not respond. In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl included, without comment, a copy of a fax auto activity report, dated May 12, 2004, that indicates a one-page fax was sent to telephone number 763.506.1003 on April 28, 2004. The Commissioner notes that he is unable to determine, with certainty, whether this document demonstrates that the District received Mr. Pachl&apos;s April 28, 2004, request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                For your information, and notwithstanding Mr. Pachl&apos;s submission verifying that faxes [sic] were delivered to the District, the District does not have the April 28, 2004 request for data which is the subject of this opinion request. Please be advised that on June 11, 2004, following receipt of the request for the instant opinion, the District promptly responded to the data request (enclosure).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an April 28, 2004, request for copies of contracts? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon request for access to public government data, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Cady states that the District does not have the April 28, 2004, data request. Mr. Pachl states that he faxed and mailed the request to the District on April 28, 2004. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. If the District did receive the request either by fax or mail, and did not respond until June 11, 2004, its response was not timely. If the District did not receive the data request, it was not under any obligation to provide the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes, and concurs with, an additional comment from Mr. Cady: . . . as an alternative to the advisory opinion process, to the extent Mr. Pachl believes a request has not received a response, Mr. Pachl would be well served to attempt to resolve these matters directly with the District&apos;s responsible authority designees and/or its Data [Practices] Compliance Official.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because there is a dispute regarding whether the District received the April 28, 2004, data request for copies of data, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 28, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267129</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO)</Title><Id>266566</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-042</Title><title>Opinion 04 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267785&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-28T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Benton County Sheriff&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $8.50 for a seven-page fax in response to a request for government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2004; Benton County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 6, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kelly Ann Scott, of the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of a fee that the Benton County Sheriff&apos;s Office assessed for copies of data. In response to Ms. Scott&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheriff Jim McMahon, in a letter dated May 7, 2004, to inform him of Ms. Scott&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position. On May 18, 2004, IPAD received a response from Robert J. Raupp, Benton County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 15, 2003, Ms. Scott wrote to Sheriff McMahon, and requested copies of the Bias Offense Reports . . . . We&apos;d like copies of all reports filed for 2002. We&apos;d also like a copy of the code sheet that your department uses to fill out such reports. Ms. Scott wrote that she would accept the copies via e-mail, fax or U.S. mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, on November 18, 2003, Sheriff McMahon faxed seven pages to Ms. Scott, consisting of his letter to Ms. Scott, a fax cover sheet, and five pages of data (four bias reports and one code sheet), for which he requested payment of $8.50. According to Sheriff McMahon, [t]his amount corresponds to the allowed amount of $5.00 per fax plus $.50 per page as stated in the Benton County Services and Fee schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Scott provided the Commissioner with a copy of Sheriff McMahon&apos;s fax, minus the fax cover sheet, and a copy of a letter to another Times reporter from Benton County Administrator Montgomery Headley. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Raupp referenced Mr. Headley&apos;s letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Headley wrote that the fax fees charged by Benton County were $5 for the first page faxed, plus 50 cents for each additional page. Mr. Headley also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When considering the fax fee, the County included the cost of employee time, as allowed by statute. Of course, the time required to comply with a public information request can vary substantially by Department (or by request), based on how readily accessible the information is. It is not practical for the County to have a unique fax fee for every Department or for every situation. Instead, we established a fee that we believe adequately addresses average time spent to comply with information requests throughout the County, including equipment and material costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To further illustrate, the current average hourly salary and benefit rate for County employees is approximately $22.60. If an employee spent just 15 minutes locating, compiling and faxing information, the labor cost &lt;u&gt;alone&lt;/u&gt; would be $5.65 ($22.60/60 minutes*15 minutes). Additional costs include paper, toner, &apos;wear and tear&apos; (depreciation) on equipment (printers, fax machines), and expenses to support the equipment used in the process (such as equipment maintenance agreements and computer staff support time).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Raupp referenced previous Advisory Opinions wherein the Commissioner opined that a flat fee schedule for copies of government data is problematic, given the statutory requirement that government entities may not charge a fee in excess of the actual cost to the entity to produce copies. Mr. Raupp continued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Nevertheless, the commissioner has, as noted in several opinions, allowed, and even encouraged, governmental authorities to submit evidence on a case-by-case basis demonstrating actual costs incurred, even when those authorities have charged fees pursuant to a flat fee schedule. Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267345&quot; title=&quot;97-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-012,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268002&quot; title=&quot;03-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-023&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267598&quot; title=&quot;01-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-066&lt;/a&gt;. The county submits that the actual cost expended by it in responding to Ms. Scott&apos;s request exceed the amount she was charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Raupp submitted a copy of an e-mail to him from Sheriff McMahon, in which the Sheriff stated: I estimated it took 10 minutes of my time to locate my documents and physically type the letter in response. In addition, according to Mr. Raupp:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As noted in the attached documentation from [the Sheriff], in collecting the data and responding to Ms. Scott&apos;s request for information, the sheriff&apos;s administrative assistant observed that there appeared to be two drafts of one of the documents, each containing differing information. It was unclear which of the bias crime reports was relayed to the state as the official report. In order to ensure that the information relayed to Ms. Scott was accurate, the sheriff&apos;s administrative assistant located and communicated with the appropriate official of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to ascertain which form was sent to that office. Clearly, both the sheriff and the St. Cloud Times have a paramount interest in ensuring that accurate information is provided to the public. The endeavors of the sheriff&apos;s administrative assistant occupied ten minutes of her time, resulting in a wage and benefit expenditure by the county of $2.63. The sheriff expended another 10 minutes in originally locating the data, and in typing a response letter to accompany the information. This resulted in a wage and benefit expenditure by the county of $6.25, resulting in a total expenditure by the county, for employee time alone, of $8.88. Thus, the time actually expended in responding to Ms. Scott&apos;s request resulted in a county expenditure which exceeded the amount charged to Ms. Scott, even absent any costs incurred in sending the facsimile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Scott asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Benton County Sheriff&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $8.50 for a seven-page fax in response to a request for government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making . . . the copies . . . but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).) In addition, according to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a reasonable fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A related provision requires government entities to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Raupp stated that the $8.50 charge is appropriate because it exceeded the County&apos;s actual costs to fax Ms. Scott the five pages of data she requested. The Commissioner disagrees. First, the charge included the cost to produce the fax cover sheet, and the cost of the Sheriff&apos;s time to type a letter that served, in essence, as an invoice. The statute allows a government entity to recover some, but not all, of the cost it incurs to produce &lt;u&gt;copies of government data&lt;/u&gt;. The invoice and fax cover sheet were not part of the requested copies of data for which the County may charge. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the fax fee included the cost for the Sheriff&apos;s assistant to contact a state agency to verify the accuracy of its data. That charge is not allowable. Implicit in the requirements of Chapter 13, and section 15.17, is that government entities must maintain accurate data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the County charged Ms. Scott the Sheriff&apos;s salary and benefit rate of $37.50 per hour for the ten minutes he said he spent searching for the data and typing the invoice. The Commissioner previously has opined that, in situations like this one, it is not appropriate to charge his rate of pay. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Raupp did not discuss the propriety of the County&apos;s copy fee schedule, but limited his comments to a calculation of the County&apos;s costs to produce the data Ms. Scott requested. However, the Commissioner has the following comments about Mr. Headley&apos;s discussion of the County&apos;s fee schedule in his letter to the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Headley stated that, although the time required to comply with a public information request can vary substantially. . . based on how readily accessible the information is . . . . it is not practical for the County to have a unique fax fee for every Department or for every situation. Instead, we established a fee that we believe adequately addresses average time spent to comply with information requests throughout the County, including equipment and material costs. The County bases its labor charge on the average salary and benefit rate for County employees. The fax charge reflects additional costs includ[ing] paper, toner, &apos;wear and tear&apos; (depreciation) on equipment (printers, fax machines), and expenses to support the equipment used in the process (such as equipment maintenance agreements and computer staff support time).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the labor cost must reflect the entity&apos;s actual cost:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District&apos;s &lt;u&gt;average&lt;/u&gt; labor costs for secretarial and administrative staff are $20.00 per hour and $45.00 per hour respectively. However, the statute requires a government entity to charge its actual, not average, costs associated with producing copies of data. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, a government entity may be guided by a fee schedule of standard copying charges. However, the fee schedule must reflect the entity&apos;s actual and reasonable copying costs. The Commissioner finds that the District&apos;s is neither.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-059&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Burt states that included in the costs considered by the City in its determination of a $.50 per sheet copy charge were the costs of copy machines and maintenance. Neither the statute nor the rule allows inclusion of costs for copy machines and maintenance in the calculation of reasonable copying fees, unless the machine and maintenance costs are directly attributable to the costs of providing the public with copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Presumably Rosemount must operate and maintain copy machines for its internal operations. Rosemount did not submit information to the Commissioner which indicates that it must operate and maintain machines other than those necessary for its internal operations in order to provide members of the public with copies of public data. It is not reasonable for government entities to recover a portion of their normal operating expenses by charging a copying fee which is higher than the actual cost to supply the copy. (See also Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion #94-040&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County&apos;s fee schedule to fax copies of public government data is not allowable, because the labor charges are the average, not the actual, cost, and the charge includes the cost of depreciation and maintenance that the County presumably would incur as a normal operating expense.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the County&apos;s charge of $8.50 to fax five pages of data in not allowable either under its general fee schedule or as explained by Mr. Raupp. The Commissioner suggests the County revise its calculation of copy fees so that the labor charge reflects its actual cost, and that it eliminate charges that are not allowable. Here, the Sheriff retrieved the data, but, as noted above, the Commissioner previously has opined that it is not appropriate to charge his rate of pay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that in general, a flat fee structure works best for the portion of the copy fee that reflects the cost of paper, toner, etc. A flat fee for labor costs is more problematic. As Mr. Headley noted, the cost to search for, retrieve and compile data, and to make the copies, can vary widely depending upon the specific request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges that it may be difficult, administratively, for some government entities to set a unique fee for each request of copies. However, the statute authorizes entities to charge only their actual and reasonable costs, which implies copy charges must, at least in part, be calculated on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner intends to bring these issues to the Legislature&apos;s attention, as guidance would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Scott is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Benton County Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging $8.50 for a seven-page fax in response to a request for government data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 28, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267785</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Verification of data accuracy</Title><Id>266874</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-041</Title><title>Opinion 04 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267493&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-28T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for a one-page property tax statement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2004; Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 5, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated same from Dave Aeikens of the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of a fee that the Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office assessed for copies of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Aeikens&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Randy Schreifels, the Auditor-Treasurer. The purposes of this letter, dated May 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Aeikens&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On May 24, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Marcus Miller, Chief of the Civil Division of the Stearns County Attorney&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Aeikens provided them is as follows. In his opinion request he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I asked for a copy of a property tax statement. I was charged $1 for the one-page document. Auditor/Treasurer Randy Schreifels explained that the tax statement fee includes the cost to produce the computer program that provides the statements. The law says that the county can only recoup costs for data with value on requests of substantial and discrete nature. This was a single copy that took the clerk about a minute to produce....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for a one-page property tax statement?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While at the Treasurer&apos;s Office, Mr. Aeikens was attended to by Mr. William Larson of the Auditor-Treasurer staff....He is therefore the lowest paid and least experienced possible attendant Mr. Aeikens could have encountered in making his request....Mr. Aeikens requested a copy of a property tax statement for a single residential parcel located in Stearns County....Mr. Larson further recalls that he was provided only with the property owner&apos;s name. In any event, in order to process Mr. Aeikens&apos; request for a property tax statement, Mr. Larson would have needed to perform the following steps....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In his request for advisory opinion, Mr. Aeikens alleges that his tax statement request took the clerk about a minute to produce. ...Mr. Aeikens is mistaken....Mr. Larson, recalls that it took roughly three or four minutes to produce the requested tax statement....Even under the best of circumstances (e.g. knowing precisely what you are looking for, having a PID #, property address, property owner and legal description in hand, etc.) it is not possible to generate a paper property tax statement within a minute. Timed trials of randomly selected properties performed in the Treasurer&apos;s Office yielded an average retrieval time of 2 minutes, 58 seconds. The fastest retrieval time was 2 minutes, 11 seconds - more than double the time alleged by Mr. Aeikens....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is important to note that Stearns County utilizes three different formats for property tax statements. These are (1) the official mailed tax statement, (2) an Adobe Acrobat version that is available through Stearns County&apos;s Internet website and (3) the copy produced at the counter, through the Acorde document imaging system, at the request of the public. In addition, the raw data contained in a property tax statement can be accessed through the AS 400 system. Moreover, property tax information is organized in AS 400 for efficient use by staff, but the AS 400 system cannot directly produce property tax statements. The AS 400 program is used in virtually every County in Minnesota and is the primary program used by Stearns County staff in administering the local property tax system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller stated that the Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office outsources the printing and mailing of the official property tax statements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Acorde imaging version is for in-house production of paper property tax statements at public request. The Acorde system does not produce an exact physical copy of the official, mailed statement. Nonetheless, the data contained in the Acorde version are identical to those contained in the official mailed copy. The Acorde imaged version is used exclusively for purposes of providing copies to the public upon request. The Acorde imaging system&apos;s overall use, in addition to property tax statements, is for imaging a variety of types of documents for a variety of County departments. However, in order to produce imaged property tax data, a separate Mylar must be produced annually. The Mylar produced for the web-based application is incompatible with the Acorde system. The Stearns County Auditor&apos;s Office has historically provided approximately 700 property tax statements annually at the front counter per public request. In 2003, the Auditor&apos;s Office supplied 747 property tax statements from the Acorde system at public request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In explaining the $1 fee the County charged Mr. Aeikens, Mr. Miller provided the following information. Mr. Larson&apos;s hourly rate is $20.75. He spent three minutes searching for and retrieving the requested data; therefore, the labor portion of the fee is $1.04. Mr. Miller added that the County charges an additional per page fixed cost of $.03 per page. He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...In order to produce the imaged document, each year a Mylar must be created. The Mylar is created by AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. The 2004 cost incurred by Stearns County for this Mylar is $1,312.50. In 2003 the Treasurer&apos;s Office received 747 requests for property tax statements at its front counter. Therefore, the per page cost of the Mylar in 2003 is approximately $1.76....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, according to Mr. Miller, although the County&apos;s actual cost for providing a copy of the property tax statement to Mr. Aeikens was $2.83 ($1.04 + $.03 + $1.76), the County charged him only $1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Mr. Miller states that Mr. Larson is the lowest paid staff Mr. Aeikens could have encountered in making his request. The Commissioner assumes this to mean there is no lower-paid staff person in the Office possessing the expertise to search for and retrieve a property tax statement. Mr. Miller asserts it took the County three to four minutes to search for and retrieve the data, and that the labor portion of the charge (for three minutes) was $1.04. Thus, of the total fee the County charged, it appears the portion for searching for and retrieving the data is reasonable and allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the three cents per page for material costs, Mr. Miller wrote, This cost includes such things as paper, toner, ink, staples, electricity used to briefly run the copy machine, additional wear and tear on the machine, etc. The Commissioner notes that while government entities may charge for paper, copier ink, and staples, it is not appropriate to charge for electricity and machine wear and tear (see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267598&quot; title=&quot;01-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-066&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the $1.76 per page fee for Mylar creation, the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether it is appropriate for the Office to pass on to customers the annual Mylar cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the Commissioner has questions and concerns about the three cents per page material costs fee and the $1.76 per page Mylar recovery fee, those costs, in this case, appear to be extraneous. The cost for Mr. Larson to search for and retrieve the data exceeds the $1 charge assessed Mr. Aeikens by the Office. Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Office&apos;s fee is allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges that it may be difficult, administratively, for some government entities to set a unique fee for each request of copies. However, the statute authorizes entities to charge only their actual and reasonable costs, which implies copy charges must, at least in part, be calculated on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner intends to bring these issues to the Legislature&apos;s attention, as guidance would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Aeikens raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Stearns County Auditor-Treasurer&apos;s Office is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for a one-page property tax statement.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 28, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267493</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-040</Title><title>Opinion 04 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267403&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Stearns County Recorder&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for an eight page document?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2004; Stearns County Recorder</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 5, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Dave Aeikens of the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of a fee that the Stearns County Recorder&apos;s Office assessed for copies of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Aeikens&apos; request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Diane Grundhoefer, the Recorder. The purposes of this letter, dated May 7, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Aeikens&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On May 24, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Marcus Miller, Chief of the Civil Division of the Stearns County Attorney&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Aeikens provided them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Aeikens wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I requested copies of a mortgage from the Stearns County recorder&apos;s office on March 26. I was charged $1 a page for an eight-page document....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I talked to County Recorder Diane Grundhoefer, who said the fees include overhead costs for lights, copier costs and safe storage. A cost analysis provided by the county specifically says that the copy charges include overhead, something governments are not allowed to include in copying costs....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Recorder&apos;s office charged Mr. Aeikens eight dollars for a copy of a mortgage document totaling eight pages of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Aeikens attached to his request a copy of an email from County staff describing the County&apos;s fees. Staff wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The main element we looked at for these fees for service is costs associated with the labor component. Thereby, if labor costs well exceed the charge/fee for the service, we usually stopped computing all the costs at that point. Now you have to remember, the fee for a fax or copy isn&apos;t just for the use of the machine. The charge usually includes the labor to search for a document and then to make a copy or fax of that document....All of our costs are based on an average time estimate to provide a specific requested service.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;COPIES:
&lt;br /&gt;
Recorder&apos;s Office: $1.00 per page. Total fee of $1.00
&lt;br /&gt;
Costs: Direct labor and benefits: $0.62
&lt;br /&gt;
Overhead: $0.58
&lt;br /&gt;
Total cost: $1.20&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Aeikens asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Stearns County Recorder&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for an eight page document?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Miller wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Mr. Aeikens visited the Recorder&apos;s Office...during which time he requested a copy of the current mortgage for an acquaintance...Mr. Aeikens provided the name of the property owner, as well as the property address, to assist Ms. Grundhoefer in retrieving the proper requested document. Mr. Aeikens did not provide the name of the bank. He did not provide a legal description for the property. He did not provide a document number for the particular mortgage sought. He did not provide the year in which the mortgage was granted. He did not provide the amount secured by the mortgage. He did not bring an abstract for the property. Moreover, he did not state whether the property was abstract or torrens property. Of course, Mr. Aeikens is not required to provide this information. Indeed, he probably did not have it. Nonetheless, the less information available at the start, the longer it will take to locate a requested document in the property records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Mr. Aeikens then left. Ms. Grundhoefer began immediately processing the request. However, she soon delegated the project to Ms. Denise Knoblach, so that she could attend to another matter. Ms. Knoblach is employed with the Recorder&apos;s Office as Technical Assistant IV. Ms. Grundhoefer later returned and assisted Ms. Knoblach in completing the task.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As in every Minnesota County, and indeed throughout the United States, property records in the Stearns County Recorder&apos;s Office are organized, as required by law, around a fundamental system of documenting &lt;u&gt;every&lt;/u&gt; legal transaction that occurs with respect to &lt;u&gt;every&lt;/u&gt;parcel of property in Stearns County. There are presently [the number increases almost daily] 62,943 separate parcels within Stearns County. Although tremendous technological strides have been made in tracking individual property transactions and the attendant documents, the basic system organization has necessarily remained unchanged since the County&apos;s creation in 1866. It is an inherently complex system common to local governments throughout the state and nation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller then described the 17 steps the Recorder&apos;s Office took to process Mr. Aeikens request and retrieve the proper mortgage. He added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This process yielded two unsatisfied mortgages against the subject property. However, because only scant information was provided at the outset, it was impossible to know which unsatisfied mortgage Mr. Aeikens sought. Hence, both mortgages were printed for Mr. Aeikens&apos; review. The first mortgage was 5 pages in length. The second mortgage was 8 pages in length. Mr. Aeikens ultimately retained one, eight-page document for which he incurred a charge of $8.00. However, a total of 13 pages were printed in the process. The process took approximately 20 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing the fee charged to Mr. Aeikens, Mr. Miller provided information indicating that Ms. Knoblach&apos;s labor costs are $23.59/hour. Mr. Miller did not provide wage information about Ms. Grundhoefer but the Commissioner assumes her salary is higher. Mr. Miller stated that the time (including that of both Ms. Knoblach and Ms. Grundhoefer) spent searching for and retrieving the requested mortgage was, at a minimum, 19 or 20 minutes. Twenty minutes of time charged at Ms. Knoblach&apos;s hourly rate is approximately $7.86. Mr. Miller also provided information indicating that employees who are paid at a lower rate are capable of searching for and retrieving mortgage documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Miller stated that the County also charged Mr. Aeikens three cents a page for material costs: This cost includes such things as paper, toner, ink, staples, electricity used to briefly run the copy machine, additional wear and tear on the machine, etc. The Commissioner notes that while government entities may charge for paper, copier ink, and staples, it is not appropriate to charge for electricity and machine wear and tear (see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267598&quot; title=&quot;01-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-066&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that the Recorder&apos;s office may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving copies of the data in the mortgage document, and for making a copy of the mortgage. Regarding the labor portion of the charge to Mr. Aeikens, it is possible the County should be charging a lower hourly rate. However, the Commissioner does not have enough information to make that determination. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267597&quot; title=&quot;04-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-038&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Ms. Forsland has not adequately demonstrated why someone with the skill level of a TPS4 was required to search for and retrieve the data Mr. Browning requested. She notes it was questionable whether the Summer Worker would have been able to perform the task and also states that the retrieval necessitated the evaluation of the prime contractor/subcontractor relationship. But, she did not provide information about why evaluating that relationship requires advanced skills. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether it was appropriate for Mn/DOT to charge a labor fee of $34.85 to retrieve data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner reminds his readers that government entities are not required to charge a fee for copies of government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that entities may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs to search for, retrieve, and make copies of data. In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that entities may charge a &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; fee for providing copies of public data. [Emphasis added.] Thus, if a government entity, in trying to determine how to arrive at a reasonable fee, recognizes that a lower-paid employee would be able to complete the task, it would be appropriate for the entity to charge a fee based on a rate that is lower than the rate of the employee who actually retrieves the data. Here, Ms. Forsland states that the lower-paid of the two employees in the unit i.e., the TPS4, retrieved the data. If Mn/DOT had determined that the skills required to retrieve the data matched someone who is paid less the TPS4, Mn/DOT could have made the decision to charge the rate of that lower paid employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the material costs portion of the copy charge, as the Commissioner stated above, it appears the Recorder&apos;s office has included some items which are not allowable. The Commissioner urges the Recorder&apos;s office to re-calculate its per page material costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because the Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the most significant portion of the eight dollar charge - the labor of searching for and retrieving the data - is appropriate, he cannot determine whether the County&apos;s charge was in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final comment is in order. In his comments, Mr. Miller wrote, We do not advocate an arbitrary $1.00 per page charge for public information. However, in the email County staff sent to Mr. Aeikens, staff stated that, in the Recorder&apos;s office, the cost for copies is $1 per page. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the labor cost must reflect the entity&apos;s actual cost:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District&apos;s &lt;u&gt;average&lt;/u&gt; labor costs for secretarial and administrative staff are $20.00 per hour and $45.00 per hour respectively. However, the statute requires a government entity to charge its actual, not average, costs associated with producing copies of data. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, a government entity may be guided by a fee schedule of standard copying charges. However, the fee schedule must reflect the entity&apos;s actual and reasonable copying costs. The Commissioner finds that the District&apos;s is neither.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that, in general, a flat fee structure works best for the portion of the copy fee that reflects the cost of paper, toner, etc. A flat fee for labor costs is more problematic because the cost to search for, retrieve and compile data, and to make the copies, can vary widely depending upon the specific request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges that it may be difficult, administratively, for some government entities to set a unique fee for each request of copies. However, the statute authorizes entities to charge only their actual and reasonable costs, which implies copy charges must, at least in part, be calculated on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner intends to bring these issues to the Legislature&apos;s attention, as guidance would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Aeikens raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Stearns County Recorder&apos;s Office is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its charge of $1.00 per page for an eight page document.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 28, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267403</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-039</Title><title>Opinion 04 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266650&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Orr complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 29, 2004, request for access to data relating to the termination of an employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 2004; City of Orr</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 4, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated May 3, 2004, from Marshall Helmberger of the &lt;em&gt;Timberjay&lt;/em&gt; newspapers. In his letter, Mr. Helmberger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Orr maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Dill, the city administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated May 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Helmberger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for City&apos;s position. IPAD did not receive a response from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Helmberger provided them is as follows. In a letter dated March 29, 2004, he wrote to the City:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Consider this a formal request for a detailed description of the allegations against [a] recently-terminated [city employee, X], along with all documents relating to the investigation of said allegations. We have an absolute right to this information under MS 13.43, Subd. 2, Para. 5...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 2, 2004, Patrick Spott, an attorney, responded on behalf of the City. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Over a period of time there have been complaints made against [X] concerning [X&apos;s] employment...[X&apos;s] termination is the end result of those complaints. The complaints were made verbally against [X]. The City of Orr has not reduced those complaints to writing, have [sic] not conducted a formal investigation, nor have interviews been conducted. The basis of the complaints are outlined in the reasons for [X&apos;s] termination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Complaints have also been made against [X] to members of the Orr City Council from the public at large. These complaints were made orally to members of the City Council concerning [X]. The complaints have not been reduced to writing and there are no documents describing the complaints against [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There has [sic] also been complaints lodged against [X] at public meetings by the public. The meeting minutes and the video of the meetings are available for inspection upon reasonable request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...On March 29, 2004, a meeting was held, with notice provided to [X], whereby [X&apos;s] employment with the City of Orr was terminated. The reasons for [X&apos;s] termination are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Not adequately performing the duties of the [position]
&lt;br /&gt;
 Attitude Problems
&lt;br /&gt;
 Attendance Problems
&lt;br /&gt;
 Failure to take directions and complete assigned tasks
&lt;br /&gt;
 Failure to adequately perform the administrative and financial duties of the [position].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The reasons listed are the basis for [X&apos;s] termination. The City does not possess documentation other than meeting minutes and the video of meetings which are available for inspection...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Helmberger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...When we asked for the dates of the meetings Mr. Spott referenced, he cited only one meeting, back in February or March, 2003. Our review of that meeting&apos;s minutes did reveal that a council member requested that [X] work longer hours in exchange for a pay increase which accompanied [X&apos;s] assumption of additional duties. There was nothing in the minutes, or at the meeting, that appeared critical of [X]. The council did opt to increase [X&apos;s] hours, and [X] began working the longer day after that point. But there clearly isn&apos;t anything there that would suggest a reason for termination, nor any kind of investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Our concerns about [the City&apos;s] response increased after the April 12 city council meeting, during which one of the council members told local citizens who were questioning him about the reasons for firing [X], that the city hadn&apos;t given people the real reason. ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Helmberger asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Orr complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a March 29, 2004, request for access to data relating to the termination of an employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action. A final disposition occurs when:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[the government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or courts proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, although the City and the City&apos;s attorney publicly have stated that X was terminated and have provided related information, the Commissioner does not know, definitively, if a final disposition has occurred. If so, any data of the type described in section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), are public. If not, only the existence and status of the complaint(s) or charge(s) are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following note. Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, subdivision 1, states, All officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, given the language in section 15.17, when the City decided to terminate X, it needed to document its decision. That documentation constitutes an official record, must be maintained pursuant to the entity&apos;s approved records retention schedule, and is subject to the access provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Helmsberger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It does not appear that the City of Orr complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 22, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266650</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-11-22T20:32:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-038</Title><title>Opinion 04 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267597&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if it includes the cost to retrieve data that the Star Tribune inspected but did not ask to have copied?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if the employee who retrieved the data is Mn/DOT&apos;s Assistant State Traffic Engineer and Intelligent Transportation Systems Manager?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 4, 2004; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 26, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 23, 2004, from Dan Browning of the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the fee the Minnesota Department of Transportation charged him for copies of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Browning&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Molnau, Commissioner. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Browning&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for Mn/DOT&apos;s position. On May 14, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 11, 2004, from Barbara Forsland of the Mn/DOT Data Practices Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Browning provided them is as follows. In a July 23, 2003, email to Mn/DOT he asked :&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...to inspect all contracts between MnDOT and Electronic Design Company (EDC), as well as any subcontracts that EDC has received on MnDOT projects in the past four years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Specifically, I am interested in inspecting all contracts and subcontracts for a project know as Tiger - whether they pertain to EDS or not - as well as all bid letting documents, evaluation sheets, etc., which resulted in those contracts or subcontracts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Browning wrote that upon reviewing the documents, he asked for copies of only 198 pages of data. He stated, &quot;We decided against copying hundreds of other documents that were unrelated to the TIGER contract.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in his opinion request, Mr. Browning wrote, &quot;The bill, dated Oct. 29, 2003, states that copy charges are $81.91. Mr. Browning wrote that Mn/DOT broke down the charge as 198 pages at 3 cents each, 1.5 hours of labor at $47.31/hour, and $5 for postage and supplies.&quot; He noted that on February 10, 2004, Mn/DOT stated that the labor costs of $70.97 were incurred by Daryl Taavola, Mn/DOT&apos;s assistant state traffic engineer and Intelligent Transportation Systems manager. Mr. Browning wrote, &quot;[Mn/DOT staff&apos;s] response indicates that [Mr. Taavola] spent 1.5 hours retrieving &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;all of the materials&lt;/span&gt; we requested. [Staff] does not address the fact that we copied perhaps a tenth of the total documents we inspected.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Browning also questioned the postage charge given that Star Tribune staff had picked up the copies from Mn/DOT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if it includes the cost to retrieve data that the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; inspected but did not ask to have copied?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if the employee who retrieved the data is Mn/DOT&apos;s Assistant State Traffic Engineer and Intelligent Transportation Systems Manager?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes Ms. Forsland&apos;s comments that Mn/DOT recently has experienced a change in personnel responsible for data practices issues. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The Data practices position was vacated and remained vacant from approximately late October, 2003 to February 25, 2004, when the current Data Practices official (DPO) was added to the staff....The DPO is charged with shaping the role data practices compliance will play in Mn/DOT&apos;s planning and resource allocation; creating and providing training to Mn/DOT&apos;s Data Practices Designees; and completing other data practices tasks as assigned....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mn/DOT has made progress in institutionalizing the data practices program and is committed to supporting the development of efficient searching and retrieval methods, promoting agency wide understanding of data practices requirements and providing more efficient and timely responses to requests for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner in encouraged by Mn/DOT&apos;s progress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if it includes the cost to retrieve data that the Star Tribune inspected but did not ask to have copied?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making...the copies...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states, ...the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of the general discussion surrounding appropriate copy charges, the Commissioner reminds his readers of the requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 1, that government entities shall keep all records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Forsland stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The invoice with the labor charge of $70.97 was found to contain errors. Mn/DOT issued a corrected invoice on Friday, May 7, through its regular invoice tracking process....The new invoice contains a labor charge of $34.85 for one hour of labor performed by a Transportation Program Specialist 4, where the original invoice reported 1.5 hours of labor performed by a manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Mn/DOT&apos;s reduction of the labor charge does not have an effect on the first issue Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address. The essence of his question is as follows: if an individual asks to inspect data in 100 documents and then wants copies of data in only ten, may the government entity charge the individual the cost of searching for and retrieving the 100 documents?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Forsland argues that answer is yes. She stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[Chapter 13] is properly interpreted to mean that when a person requests copies of part of the data produced in response to a request, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay for the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the body of government data retrieved in response to that specific request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees. In the current situation, Mr. Browning has engaged in what, technically, is a two-step process. First he asked to inspect certain data. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), inspection is free of charge. Second, upon examining the documents, he determined that he wanted copies of only 198 pages of data. Given the actual cost language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), it does not seem appropriate for Mn/DOT to charge Mr. Browning the cost it incurred searching for and retrieving data in all the documents he initially asked to inspect; the $34.85 charge represents more than the actual cost incurred for searching for and retrieving data in the 198 pages. Further, if another individual were to make a future request for copies of the same 198 pages, the search and retrieval portion of the charge would be limited to the time spent searching for and retrieving those 198 pages. Therefore, the Commissioner recommends that Mn/DOT prorate the search and retrieval portion of the copying charge. In other words, if it took Mn/DOT one hour at $34.85/hour to retrieve the data in all the pages Mr. Browning asked to inspect, Mn/DOT may charge the percentage of the $34.85 that the 198 pages represent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Mn/DOT&apos;s $70.97 ($47.31/hour for 1.5 hours) labor charge allowable if the employee who retrieved the data is Mn/DOT&apos;s Assistant State Traffic Engineer and Intelligent Transportation Systems Manager?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above in Issue 1, Mn/DOT has reduced the labor charge so that it now represents one hour of time spent by a Transportation Program Specialist 4, whose hourly rate is $34.85.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Forsland wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this instance, there were two and variously three employees in the unit that contained the requested data. The Manager of the unit carries the title of Assistant State Traffic Engineer and Intelligent Transportation Systems Manager. The other full time employee is the Transportation Program Specialist 4. At periodic times a Summer Worker was available, although not during the time of this request. In order to retrieve the necessary data, one of the two full time employees had to perform the work. Had the Summer Worker been available, it is questionable if that employee would have been able to complete the task, since the retrieval necessitated the evaluation of the prime contractor/subcontractor relationship. Retrieval of data is not always as simple as reaching for a file and turning it over. Mn/DOT is a dynamic, fast moving work environment. It is necessary to know the flow of documentation to determine if documents are in the pipeline and are due to be received, are late or missing, on someone&apos;s desk or in another department for work, or scheduled to be routed to another site. Requests similar to all documentation , or all communication are particularly difficult because Mn/DOT must ensure that all possible sources of documentation have been tapped. In order to fulfill its obligation to provide the data requested, Mn/DOT&apos;s Transportation Program Specialist 4 performed the work. There simply was no other choice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question Mr. Browning asked is whether it was appropriate for Mn/DOT to charge the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; a labor rate of $47.31/hour for 1.5 hours to retrieve data. When Mn/DOT reviewed its fee, it determined that the other employee in the division, the Transportation Program Specialist 4 (TPS4), performed the work. The charge for this employee&apos;s labor is $34.85/hour, which is approximately $73,000/year. As Ms. Forsland notes, ...the [TPS4] is nevertheless a highly paid State employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Ms. Forsland has not adequately demonstrated why someone with the skill level of a TPS4 was required to search for and retrieve the data Mr. Browning requested. She notes it was questionable whether the Summer Worker would have been able to perform the task and also states that the retrieval necessitated the evaluation of the prime contractor/subcontractor relationship. But, she did not provide information about why evaluating that relationship requires advanced skills. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether it was appropriate for Mn/DOT to charge a labor fee of $34.85 to retrieve data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner reminds his readers that government entities are not required to charge a fee for copies of government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that entities may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs to search for, retrieve, and make copies of data. In addition, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that entities may charge a &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; fee for providing copies of public data. [Emphasis added.] Thus, if a government entity, in trying to determine how to arrive at a reasonable fee, recognizes that a lower-paid employee would be able to complete the task, it would be appropriate for the entity to charge a fee based on a rate that is lower than the rate of the employee who actually retrieves the data. Here, Ms. Forsland states that the lower-paid of the two employees in the unit i.e., the TPS4, retrieved the data. If Mn/DOT had determined that the skills required to retrieve the data matched someone who is paid less the TPS4, Mn/DOT could have made the decision to charge the rate of that lower paid employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner intends to bring these issues to the Legislature&apos;s attention, as further legislative guidance would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Forsland raised is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Mn/DOT&apos;s $34.85 (for one hour) labor charge is not allowable if it includes the cost to retrieve data the Star Tribune inspected but did not ask to have copied.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Mn/DOT&apos;s $34.85 (one hour) labor charge is allowable.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 4, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267597</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy charge is optional for entity</Title><Id>266742</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-037</Title><title>Opinion 04 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267800&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-03T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the employee has not given his/her written consent to release data under 49 C.F.R. §382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. §40.321, what is the classification of the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 382.401?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, is a post-discharge hearing that must be held under Loudermill required to be part of an open meeting?
Assuming the answer to Issue 2 is yes, may the City disclose to the public, during the post-discharge hearing, the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 382.401 without the employee&apos;s written consent required by 49 C.F.R. § 382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. § 40.321?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 3, 2004; City of Winsted</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 18, 2004, the Commissioner received a letter, dated same, from Kelly Dohm, an attorney representing the City of Winsted. In her letter, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification. After a series of revisions, Ms. Dohm submitted her final request on April 21, 2004, in a letter dated same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Given the nature of the data in question, the Commissioner notified the data subject and invited him/her to submit comments. The data subject did not submit comments.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Dohm wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Employee is subject to the Department of Transportation&apos;s Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulations found in 49 CFR Parts 40 and 382. In February of this year, 2004, the Employee was asked to undergo DOT reasonable suspicion testing. The test was administered and was confirmed to be a positive test result. The Employee contests the validity of the test and the positive test result; however, for these purposes, please be advised that the City of Winsted has been told by the DOT that it shall not and cannot disregard the positive test result.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A complicated set of facts arose in this situation due to the Employee contesting the validity of the first February positive drug test. The City of Winsted underwent an investigation into the matter of the facts and circumstances regarding the positive test result. The City of Winsted held closed sessions with the Employee and/or [his/her] legal representative and asked the Employee questions, many answers of which the City of Winsted during its investigation found to be false or misleading....The City moved in an open meeting to terminate the Employee&apos;s employment based on [his/her] dishonesty in both words and actions during the investigation. The employee has now requested a post-discharge hearing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As explained above, data exists regarding this specific employee other than merely the DOT testing result data. Much data exists regarding a dispute as to the validity of the test result itself and regarding the reasonable suspicion to test in the first place. This data the City must keep in its possession in accordance with 49 C.F.R. section 382.401. There are several other types of data that the City must also keep in its possession in accordance with the DOT laws, specifically 49 C.F.R. section 382.401.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the employee has not given his/her written consent to release data under 49 C.F.R. section382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. section40.321, what is the classification of the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                               Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, is a post-discharge hearing that must be held under&lt;i&gt; Loudermill&lt;/i&gt; required to be part of an open meeting?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Assuming the answer to Issue 2 is yes, may the City disclose to the public, during the post-discharge hearing, the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 without the employee&apos;s written consent required by 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. section 40.321?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the employee has not given his/her written consent to release data under 49 C.F.R. section382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. section40.321, what is the classification of the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At first glance, the data in question appear to be private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Statutes, section 181.954, subdivision 2. In relevant part, section 181.954, subdivision 2, provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Test result reports and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing process are...with respect to public sector employees...private data on individuals as that phrase is defined in chapter 13, and may not be disclosed by an employer or laboratory to another employer or to a third-party individual, governmental agency, or private organization without the written consent of the employee...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       However, in the case of this opinion, the City terminated the employee who is the subject of the data. When a government entity takes disciplinary action against an employee and a final disposition has occurred, data previously treated as private become public. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), provides that the following data are public: the final disposition of a disciplinary action together with &lt;i&gt;the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action&lt;/i&gt;. A final disposition occurs when the entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. If the employee has collective bargaining rights, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining unit. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).) Here, the Commissioner assumes a final disposition has occurred, which suggests that the data are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      But, an examination of federal law and rules leads to a different result. 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(a) states, Except as required by law or expressly authorized or required in this section, no employer shall release driver information that is contained in records required to be maintained under Sec. 382.401. 49 C.F.R. section 382.401describes the types of records each employer must maintain relating to the employer&apos;s alcohol misuse and controlled substance use prevention programs, including data relating to an employee&apos;s test results.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The United States Department of Transportation, in documentation on its website, has interpreted 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(a):
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The term as required by law ...means Federal statutes or an order of a competent Federal jurisdiction, such as an administrative subpoena....In addition, the Act preempts inconsistent State or local government laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, or orders that are inconsistent with the regulations issued under the Act [see 49 C.F.R. section382.109].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Although an analysis of Minnesota law suggests that the data are public, the federal rules clearly state that (1) the data are not public regardless of any conflict with Minnesota&apos;s laws and (2) the federal law preempts inconsistent state or local laws. Thus, the data the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 are not public. The Commissioner notes that the data may be released with the employee&apos;s consent. (See 49 C.F.R. section 40.321 and 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(h).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, is a post-discharge hearing that must be held under Loudermill required to be part of an open meeting? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. &lt;em&gt;Loudermill&lt;/em&gt; refers to the United States Supreme Court&apos;s decision in &lt;em&gt;Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill&lt;/em&gt;, 470 U.S. 532, 84 L. Ed 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487 (1985). In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that after a classified civil servant is discharged from employment, the employee is entitled to a full administrative hearing about the termination. Issue 2 of this opinion relates to the administrative hearing that is conducted by a public body subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13D.05, subdivision 2, lists the specific situations in which a public body either may or must close an open meeting. Upon review of section 13D.05, subdivision 2, it appears that the City does not have authority to close the post-discharge hearing. Therefore, it must be open. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 1.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Assuming the answer to Issue 2 is yes, may the City disclose to the public, during the post-discharge hearing, the data relating to the Federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 without the employee&apos;s written consent required by 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. section 40.321?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Data that are not public...may be disclosed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As discussed above in Issue 1, it appears the data the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 are not public. Thus, the City may disclose those data without liability if the conditions of section 13D.05, subdivision 1, are met. However, even if those conditions are not met, based on the federal rules, it appears such a disclosure is allowable.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      49 C.F.R. section 382.405(g) states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      An employer may disclose information required to be maintained under this part pertaining to a driver to the decision maker in a lawsuit, grievance, or administrative proceeding initiated by or on behalf of the individual, and arising from a positive DOT drug or alcohol test or a refusal to test (including, but not limited to, adulterated or substituted test results) of this part (including, but not limited to, a worker&apos;s compensation, unemployment compensation, or other proceeding relating to a benefit sought by the driver). Additionally, an employer may disclose information in criminal or civil actions in accordance with Sec. 40.323 (a)(2) of this title.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Therefore, based on federal law, it appears that during the post-discharge hearing, the City may release data relating to the federal DOT drug test to the decision maker, which, in this case, is the City Council.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes, however, that because the data discussed in the hearing are not public pursuant to federal law (see Issue 1), any of the related printed materials are not available for public inspection or distribution. (See section 13D.01, subdivision 6(b).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Dohm raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The data relating to the federal DOT drug test that the City are required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 are not public pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.405.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                   Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, a post-discharge hearing that must be held under&lt;i&gt; Loudermill &lt;/i&gt;is required to be part of an open meeting.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  As the answer to Issue 2 is yes, the City may disclose to the decision makers, during the post-discharge hearing, the data relating to the federal DOT drug test that the City is required to maintain pursuant to 49 C.F.R. section 382.401 without the employee&apos;s written consent required by 49 C.F.R. section 382.405(h) and 49 C.F.R. section 40.321.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 3, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267800</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug treatment records (42 C.F.R. Part 2)</Title><Id>266686</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug test data</Title><Id>266361</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-036</Title><title>Opinion 04 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267699&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 3, 2004; Le Sueur County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 18, 2004, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheriff David Gliszinski. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On May 11, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 4, 2004, from Carla Mador, the Office&apos;s Administrative Assistance and Compliance Official.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Quiram presented them is as follows. In a letter dated February 26, 2004, Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the following items:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. All data maintained in ICRs, Log entries and Reports generated by Noel Quiram.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                2. All data maintained in ICRs, Log entries and Reports generated by Elaine Quiram.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. Viewing access to correspondence with IAPD [sic], Dept of Admin. who approved your form of &apos;information access&apos; (non-disclosure) that the above two individuals were solicited by your agency to sign.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                4. Origin and source documents that you used to develop the form.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                5. Factors/facts of consideration that you use to assign weighted scores
                &lt;br /&gt;
                6. Methodology used to validate factors/facts used in scoring, e.g. the subject signer presenting truthful statements.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                7. In Aug 2003 I came to your office to make reports of serious violations. Carla took a taped statement, compiled notes and said she we [sic] will get back to you. I called several weeks later to review the progress of the investigation to these matters, several serious gross misdemeanors. I made this request to Carla, I also asked to review (listen), to the taped statement I made over the matter in Sept 2003 and have never heard back from your agency. Please provide me viewing access to the ICR, tape and report documents of these serious offenses.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Quiram stated, As of the time of this writing, no answer has been received from this agency to allow me to view and inspect the requested data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities must respond to data requests in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2). When the requestor is the data subject, the entity must respond within ten working days (see section 13.04). When the requestor is not the data subject, the entity must respond within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Mador wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...[the February 26, 2004, request was] actually in reference to a letter for requested information that was received in our office on December 22, 2003.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      I have enclosed a copy of the information that was sent to [Mr. Quiram] through his attorney...on January 6, 2004. It was sent through [Mr. Quiram&apos;s attorney] to be forwarded to Mr. Quiram as we have been instructed several times by Mr. Quiram that we are to have no direct phone or mail contact with him unless it has a Judge&apos;s signature. To keep in compliance with his wishes, our responses first go to [Mr. Quiram&apos;s attorney].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes that Ms. Mador did not make any comment as to why the Sheriff&apos;s Office did not respond to Mr. Quiram&apos;s February 26, 2004, request. The Commissioner also notes that the request the Sheriff&apos;s Office received on December 22, 2003, is not the subject of this opinion.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Quiram made his request on February 26, 2004. As of the date he wrote his opinion request, April 18, 2004, he apparently had not received a response. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, government entities must respond to requests for government data. Therefore, the Sheriff&apos;s Office did not comply with Chapter 13 and promptly should provide Mr. Quiram with access to the data or explain upon what statutory basis the data are being denied.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes that Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the data. While this probably means he wishes to inspect the data, as opposed to receiving copies, it is not clear. The Commissioner recommends that Mr. Quiram clarify this and future requests by indicating whether he wishes to inspect or receive copies of the data. If Mr. Quiram does not do so, the Commissioner recommends that the Sheriff&apos;s Office seek clarification from Mr. Quiram.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Further, the Commissioner does not have enough information to comment on Ms. Mador&apos;s assertion that Mr. Quiram has requested that all responses go to his attorney. Ms. Mador made her statement in relation to a request the Sheriff&apos;s Office received on December 22, 2003, which is not the subject of this opinion.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final note is in order. The Commissioner questions whether numbers 4, 5, and 6 of Mr. Quiram&apos;s February 26, 2004, letter are data requests covered by Chapter 13. If they are not, the Sheriff&apos;s Office is not required to respond. Mr. Quiram is welcome to seek assistance from IPAD if he has any questions relating to framing data practices requests.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; The Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Office has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 3, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267699</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-035</Title><title>Opinion 04 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267203&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-02T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Prior Lake complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 7, 2004, request for access to &quot;data that documents the actions that the City of Prior Lake has taken to resolve each of the 2002 dated complaints [that have been] resolved?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle> June 2, 2004; City of Prior Lake</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 22, 2004, IPAD received a letter from John and Linda Meyer, in which they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the City of Prior Lake&apos;s determination about a data practices issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. and Mrs. Meyer&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Prior Lake City Manager Frank Boyles. The purposes of this letter, dated April 27, 2004, were to inform him of the Meyers&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On May 3, 2004, IPAD received a response from Suesan Leaacute; Pace, Prior Lake City Attorney. Ms. Pace submitted additional comments on May 26, 2004. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a February 7, 2004, e-mail, the Meyers asked the City for access to data that documents the actions that the City of Prior Lake has taken to resolve each of the 2002 dated complaints [that have been] resolved. The Meyers previously had asked the City for information about how the City resolved its 2002 zoning ordinance complaints. Many of those requests were not deemed by the City to be requests for data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, prior to the Meyers&apos; February 7 request, the City compiled some complaint data in a matrix, which it provided to them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Meyers told the City that the matrix did not respond to their request for details about how zoning ordinance complaints were resolved, to which the City replied, in a February 2, 2004, e-mail, that the matrix contained all the information it had. Subsequently the Meyers made their February 7, 2004 request, to which the City did not respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Pace said that after receiving notice about this opinion, she reviewed the City&apos;s 2002 zoning code complaint files. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As I previously stated, the City did not provide Mr. Meyer with access to the actual files because of the necessity to not disclose the name of the complainant. Instead, the City provided Mr. Meyer with a matrix which summarized the complaints without including the complainant&apos;s name.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Upon reviewing the actual &apos;2002 Complaints&apos; file, it appears that it would have been more appropriate for the City to have made a copy of all of the 2002 complaints, redacted the complainant&apos;s name and then provided Mr. Meyer with access to the file. In the future we will follow this procedure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . . In an effort to accommodate Mr. Meyer&apos;s request, I have advised the City to copy the entire 2002 Complaint file, redact the complainant&apos;s name and address and make the files available to Mr. Meyer to review. Obviously, if requested, copies will be made available to Mr. Meyer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As you review the actual data maintained by the City and the information provided to Mr. Meyer in the matrix, I think you will see that Mr. Meyer was provided with essentially the data that was in the file. Obviously, the file data does have additional notes and comments that were not available from viewing the matrix. I recognize that the matrix was not responsive to Mr. Meyer&apos;s request pursuant to Minnesota [Statutes] Chapter 13. The City intends to work on developing a system whereby it may not need to go through the process of copying the files and redacting complainant&apos;s names [sic]; perhaps some separate legend or numerical numbering system will make it easier for the City to fulfill its responsibilities to the public in a more expedient fashion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Meyer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Prior Lake complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 7, 2004, request for access to data that documents the actions that the City of Prior Lake has taken to resolve each of the 2002 dated complaints [that have been] resolved? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon request for access to public government data, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.44, subdivision 1, the identities of individuals who register complaints with . . . political subdivisions concerning violations of . . . local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Meyers&apos; February 7, 2004, request to the City followed a lengthy correspondence, and came after the City thought it had provided the data the Meyers requested, in the form of the matrix. Nonetheless, the City was obligated to respond to the revised request within a reasonable time. According to Ms. Pace, the City will make the complaint files available for the Meyers to inspect by June 14, 2004, four months after the date of their request. This is not timely.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has some additional comments. Ms. Pace acknowledged that the City&apos;s attempt to respond, while providing essentially the data that was in the file, did not fulfill its obligation under Chapter 13. The Commissioner recognizes that the City tried to comply with its obligation to provide the Meyers with access to the data they asked for, while also protecting the identity of the complainants. Ms. Pace has stated that the City will revise its data management system in order to provide the public with appropriate access, i.e., to maintain the data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use, as it is required to do under section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Meyer is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because the City of Prior Lake&apos;s response to a February 7, 2004, request for access to data was not timely, the City has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 2, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267203</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-034</Title><title>Opinion 04 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267184&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Le Sueur County Attorney&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 2, 2004; Le Sueur County Attorney</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 18, 2004, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Le Sueur County Attorney&apos;s Office maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brent Christian, the County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On May 12, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated May 10, 2004, from Mr. Christian.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Quiram provided them is as follows. In a letter dated February 26, 2004, he wrote to Mr. Christian:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In the mid-morning hours of July 28, 2003 you were out on my property, standing, parking your truck and walking in the road right of way inside of my farm.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You were taking pictures of various features of my property....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You were collecting DATA, during normal work hours and in your official capacity. I request viewing of such data collected.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Once viewing is provided I request a meaningful explanation as to the purpose and intended use of those photos and data....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I request from you the nature of the complaint that brought you out to my residence, name of the complainant, and the violation you and the deputy were collectively looking for.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Quiram stated, At the time of this writing, no answer has been received from this agency to allow me to view and inspect the requested data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Le Sueur County Attorney&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities must respond to data requests in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2). When the requestor is the data subject, the entity must respond within ten working days (see section 13.04). When the requestor is not the data subject, the entity must respond within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Christian wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...I never received the letter dated February 26, 2004, from Mr. Quiram as is attached to your April 29, 2004 letter. However, it appears to be the same as letter dated December 17, 2003, from Wayne Quiram, which I did respond to...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Quiram asserts he sent Mr. Christian a letter on or about February 26, 2004. Mr. Christian states that he did not receive the letter. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. If Mr. Christian did not receive the request, his office was not required to respond and there is no issue involving Chapter 13. If Mr. Christian received the letter and did not respond, his office has not complied with Chapter 13. At this point, if Mr. Quiram still wishes to make a data request, he should re-submit his letter. Pursuant to Chapter 13, Mr. Christian is obligated to respond, with the following possible exception: If Mr. Quiram is the subject of the requested data and the data are classified as private, then section 13.04, subdivision 3, may apply. This subdivision states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual [have] been collected and created.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final note is in order. Mr. Quiram requested viewing of the data. While this probably means he wishes to inspect the data, as opposed to receiving copies, it is not clear. The Commissioner recommends that Mr. Quiram clarify this and future requests by indicating whether he wishes to inspect or receive copies of the data. If Mr. Quiram does not do so, the Commissioner recommends that the County Attorney&apos;s Office seek clarification from Mr. Quiram.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Le Sueur County Attorney&apos;s Office complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a February 26, 2004, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 2, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267184</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-033</Title><title>Opinion 04 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267670&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 13, 2004, request for access to and inspection of the Friday, February 6, 2004, Minneapolis Police Department police report regarding Raymond L. Siegler?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 2004; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 8, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Michelle Gross and Christopher Coen. In their letter, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, Data Practices Compliance Official for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated April 16, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 23, 2004, IPAD received a response from Mr. Steiner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts follows. In a letter dated February 13, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner, ...we write to request access to and inspection of the Friday, February 6th, 2004 Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) police report regarding Raymond L. Siegler. The incident related to the police report involved Mr. Siegler and MPD officers, and occurred at Andrew Residence on the 1200 block of S. 9th Street.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, in a letter dated February 23, 2004, Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, wrote, [t]his incident is being investigated by the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office. We have enclosed the public portion of the CCN 04-028424 at no charge.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen then wrote to Mr. Steiner, in a letter dated March 19, 2004:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We received a response from the City dated February 23, 2004. The response includes two pages of data that are said to contain the public data from the relevant MPD police report . . . . In fact, much of the public data is missing. Please see Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Section 13.82, Subd. 6. The statute clearly makes public the following missing data: place of the incident, any and all personnel who responded, any resistance encountered, and any weapons that were used by the agency or other individuals. The brief factual reconstruction of the events associated with the action also seems to be missing key information. The data the City sent to us indicates that Other #1 was handcuffed, eventually calmed down, and then had difficulty breathing. Please include the data that is missing from this incomplete brief description of events.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen, Mr. Steiner did not respond to this correspondence as of the date of their opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Minneapolis Police Department uses a computer system for its police reports. The system, CAPRS is set up to comply with the mandates of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other statutes applicable to law enforcement data. When a report is created in the CAPRS system, the officer creating the report is required to enter certain data into fields on the form. This data conforms to the data elements that are public under Sections [sic] 13.82, subd. 2 and 3. Officers are trained to enter all public data in this portion of the report. This public data prints out on the &apos;public portion&apos; of a CAPRS incident or arrest report. In addition to the public data screen, officers also complete &apos;supplements&apos; to the report that contain active investigative data. In the instant matter, the case is being investigated by the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Department because the case involved a response from the Minneapolis police that resulted in the death of the subject. Nevertheless, Minneapolis officers who participated in the matter filed supplements in the CAPRS system. In response to the request for data about the incident, case number MP-04028424, the City initially produced the &apos;public data&apos; portion of the CAPRS report. When Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen complained that not all elements of public data were contained in the report, I asked Patrick Marzitelli, the Assistant City Attorney assigned to the Police Department, to review all available documents and provide the missing data elements, if the City maintained them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. Marzitelli reviewed the entire report for MP-04-028424 which involved an independent review of the fourteen supplements made to the report. Mr. Marzitelli discovered additional public data elements and created a separate document detailing the public data. Additional officers were found though in some instances their badge numbers were not listed. Complicating matters further was the fact that most officers were only listed by last name with several officers sharing the same last name. Mr. Marzitelli had to research daily rosters to determine the identities of those officers who were present and mentioned in the reports of other officers, but whose badge numbers were not contained in the existing CAPRS supplements. Furthermore, there were twelve witnesses during the incident, all of which were employed by the Andrews Residence. Mr. Marzitelli contacted Kay Foy, the administrative supervisor of Andrew Residence; she has specifically requested that the staff involved in the incident not be publicly identified.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This review process required a considerable amount of time and the City had not had a chance to send this information to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen prior to receipt of the Commissioner&apos;s letter. I am enclosing the document detailing the public data for MP-04-028424 and, by copy of this letter, I am sending the document to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 13, 2004, request for access to and inspection of the Friday, February 6, 2004, Minneapolis Police Department police report regarding Raymond L. Siegler?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 enumerate the types of data that, as they are created and maintained by a law enforcement agency, are always public, regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation relating to the incident.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen requested access to public law enforcement data in a letter dated February 13, 2004. According to Mr. Steiner, the City provided them with access to all of the data by copy of a letter dated April 22, 2004, approximately ten weeks after they made their request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300). A response time of ten weeks is neither prompt nor reasonable.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following additional comments. The type of data request at issue here, namely for public data related to an incident involving the police department, is routine. According to Mr. Steiner&apos;s description, the CAPRS system is designed to capture some, but not all, public law enforcement data. The arrest or incident reports produced by that system do not contain all of the public data elements enumerated at section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3 and 6. In order to respond fully to this request, an assistant city attorney had to conduct an extensive review and create a separate report. It appears that the City does not maintain its public law enforcement data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use, as it is required to do under section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Furthermore, Mr. Steiner implied that the City withheld the name of witnesses to the incident in question, i.e., Andrews House employees, because their supervisor requested that the staff involved in the incident not be publicly identified. However, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 17(d), the identities of witnesses may be withheld from the public &lt;u&gt;if the witness&lt;/u&gt; specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the law enforcement agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the witness would not threaten her/his personal safety or property. The statute also requires law enforcement agencies to establish procedures to make the decisions necessary to protect the identities of witnesses. Based on the information available, it does not appear that the City has properly withheld the identities of the twelve employees of the residence home who were witnesses to the incident.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner is of the opinion that the City did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 13 in responding to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request, because it failed to respond to the request in a reasonable and timely manner and because it failed to provide all of the public data responsive to their request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a February 13, 2004, request for access to and inspection of the Friday, February 6, 2004, Minneapolis Police Department police report regarding Raymond L. Siegler.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 1, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267670</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Computer design</Title><Id>266488</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-032</Title><title>Opinion 04 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267590&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-06-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 700, Hermantown, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request for a copy of her time sheets?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 2004; School District 700 (Hermantown)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On April 5, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated April 2, 2004, from Susan Youngren. In her letter, Ms. Youngren asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that Independent School District 700, Hermantown, maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification, which Ms. Youngren provided in a letter dated April 8, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Ms. Youngren&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Majeski, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 16, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Youngren&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 27, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kevin Rupp and Mark Girouard, attorneys for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Youngren presented them is as follows. In an email dated December 12, 2003, she wrote to the District noting that she had a legal right to request her 1993 time sheets and employment history records for 1993. She stated, &quot;Please inform me when I may pick up these copies and the price.&quot; (The Commissioner notes that in this opinion he is addressing only the issue of the time sheets.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated December 23, 2003, Ms. Youngren wrote to Superintendent Majeski. She stated, &quot;I have requested that my 1993 time sheets be pulled, copied and forwarded. Under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] I have every legal right to these records, and that my request be granted within a timely fashion.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated December 30, 2003, Superintendent Majeski wrote to Ms. Youngren. He stated, &quot;In [your December 12, 2003, request], you asked for copies of timesheets...Previously, I provided information to you, indicating that the District has no check history or W-2 documentation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated February 23, 2004, Ms. Youngren wrote to Superintendent Majeski. She stated, &quot;...I have made it very clear that what I am requesting is my &lt;u&gt;time sheets&lt;/u&gt;(which are stored separate from wage records) are pulled for my viewing for 1993.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated February 27, 2004, Superintendent Majeski wrote, In response to your letter of February 23, 2004, the District payroll clerk has reviewed all time sheet information in the files of the District. We can not find any time sheets to cover the period 1993 that you indicate exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Youngren asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Did Independent School District 700, Hermantown, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request for a copy of her time sheets?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days. In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2, requests must be complied with in an appropriate manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard stated that in January 2003 the District responded to a similar request by Ms. Youngren. Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard provided a copy of a January 30, 2003, request, which states, &quot;...could I receive a print out of my [end-of-year] payroll record for 1993. The District responded: &quot;[We] went to the basement to find the 1993 calendar year records. We found both the check history and W-2&apos;s. There was no information for you on the check history. There was also no W-2 for you.&quot; Of the District&apos;s response, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The District, interpreting the request broadly, searched for any indication, such as check history and W-2&apos;s, that the District paid Ms. Youngren in 1993....Because there are no timesheets or comparable data for Ms. Youngren for 1993, the District informed Ms. Youngren - on the same day as her request - that the data do not exist.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner takes issue with Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard&apos;s characterization of the January 2003 request and the District&apos;s response. First, it is not clear what specific data Ms. Youngren was seeking when she asked for her end-of-year payroll record. If the District needed clarification, it should have asked Ms. Youngren to clarify her request. If Ms. Youngren wanted access to time sheets, she should have made that explicit in her request. Second, the District&apos;s response indicates that it found no information on Ms. Youngren&apos;s 1993 &quot;check history&quot; and no W-2. Because the Commissioner cannot deduce that &quot;no information on check history&quot; means there were no time sheets, he suspects Ms. Youngren reached the same conclusion, especially since she later made a specific request for her 1993 time sheets. Thus, because it is not clear whether Ms. Youngren asked for time sheets in January of 2003, the Commissioner finds Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard&apos;s discussion not applicable to the outcome of this opinion. Furthermore, with the exception of language in section 13.04, subdivision 3, which does not apply here, Chapter 13 does not limit the number of requests a data subject may submit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Of the District&apos;s reply to Ms. Youngren&apos;s December 12, 2003, request for her 1993 time sheets, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard wrote, &quot;...[the Superintendent]...went on to explain that, as she had been informed before, there was no check history or W-2 documentation. It is clear from the juxtaposition of these two statements in his letter that he understood &apos;check history and W-2 documentation&apos; to include timesheets.&quot; Ms. Youngren asked for time sheets. For the District&apos;s response to be considered appropriate and timely, the District needed, within ten working days, either to allow Ms. Youngren access to her time sheets or to inform her that the data do not exist. The District did not do so in a clear, fully understandable manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her February 23, 2004, letter, Ms. Youngren reiterated her request, &quot;...I have made it very clear that what I am requesting is my &lt;u&gt;time sheets&lt;/u&gt;...are pulled for viewing for 1993.&quot; The Superintendent replied, &quot;We can not find any time sheets to cover the period 1993 that you indicate exist.&quot; This statement is problematic because it is not clear whether the data do or do not exist. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267463&quot; title=&quot;00-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-051&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Willis maintains that the City has been unable to locate the planning files Mr. Cooney requested. It is correct that if the requested data do not exist, the City is not obligated to create data to respond to the request. However, Mr. Willis does not seem to be making a definitive statement that the data do not exist. Rather, he has stated that the City cannot find the information. Pursuant to section 13.03, the City must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Also pursuant to section 13.03, the City must establish procedures...to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. If the City maintains the data, pursuant to Chapter 13, it must be able to locate the information so that it can respond to Mr. Cooney in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. If the City does not possess the data, it should have so informed Mr. Cooney.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267463&quot; title=&quot;00-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-051&lt;/a&gt;, the Superintendent does not seem to be making a definitive statement as to whether the District does or does not maintain the time sheets. If the data do not exist the Superintendent needed to communicate that to Ms. Youngren. He did not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of this opinion, Ms. Youngren requested access to her 1993 time sheets in December of 2003. As of the date she requested this opinion, the District had not replied in an appropriate manner and has not met the ten day response requirement in section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Youngren is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Independent School District 700, Hermantown, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data subject&apos;s request for a copy of her time sheets.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 1, 2004&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267590</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not found</Title><Id>266697</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-11-23T15:34:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-031</Title><title>Opinion 04 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267866&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-05-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by refusing to allow the Shoreview Press to review the forms or documents on which public response or incident data are recorded?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 18, 2004; Ramsey County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On April 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Shoreview Press&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data that the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheriff Bob Fletcher. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s position. On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated April 19, 2004, from Karen Kushner, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Anfinson presented them is as follows. In his opinion request, he wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At issue here...are attempts by my client&apos;s reporters to obtain information from the Ramsey County sheriff&apos;s office, specifically the Patrol Station in Shoreview. I describe this information as ICR data, by which I mean the data listed as public in Minn. Stat. 13.82, subd. 6. As I believe the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s office acknowledges, the practice at the patrol station is to provide oral descriptions of the requested ICR data to reporters. Even though my client&apos;s reporters have asked to review the forms or documents on which the ICR data are recorded by the sheriff&apos;s office, they have not been permitted to do so. Instead, Lt. Mann (or another office) reads the information to reporters.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Minn. Stat. section13.03, subd. 3, of course provides that [u]pon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and defines inspection to include[], but [be] not limited to, the visual inspection of paper and similar types of government data. Given that requirement, we believe that the sheriff&apos;s office is acting contrary to [Chapter 13] in prohibiting reporters from inspecting the documentation containing ICR data....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by refusing to allow the Shoreview Press to review the forms or documents on which public response or incident data are recorded?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Of relevance to this opinion are the types of data listed in subdivision 6, response or incident data. These data, as they are created and maintained by a law enforcement agency, are always public, regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation relating to the incident(s).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, an individual is entitled to inspect government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments, Ms. Kushner wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       At the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Patrol Station, data is made available to the media, including Mr. Afinson&apos;s client, the&lt;i&gt; Shoreview Press&lt;/i&gt;, as follows: Written summary crime incident report data is made available at the receptionist desk on a daily basis. This allows the media representatives to get a quick idea of incidents that involve the communities they are reporting on. The disposition codes are known to the representatives, so they are aware if a report has been generated on a matter...To the extent a member of the media wants additional information regarding a matter on that list, Lt. Mann answers the questions from the media person. The Sheriff&apos;s Office views this as a service to the media, allowing them to have all of the information they ask for that is public, but without having to take the time to review the documents.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...The Sheriff can not, however, respond to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s general claims that his client&apos;s reporters have asked to review the forms or documents on which the ICR data are recorded by the sheriff&apos;s office and that they have not been permitted to do so. The Sheriff would need more specific information about the specific dates on which these other requests were made and the incidents involved. In addition, many incidents may have had no written reports. The Sheriff is unaware of any requests by Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client for access to ICR data or for copies of the reports; such a request is required under Minn. Stat. section13.03, Subd. 3.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      It is Ramsey County&apos;s position that the Sheriff&apos;s Patrol Station is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding public incident data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that individuals shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. This means that when an individual asks to inspect public data, the entity shall provide the requestor with the actual data. This ensures that the requestor will be able to gain an understanding of the context relating to the data s/he is seeking, especially if the entity has redacted (blacked/whited out) surrounding data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In situations where a particular document contains both public and not public data, and an individual has requested access to the public data, the entity might, for example, choose to copy the document, redact the not public data, and make the redacted copy available for the individual to inspect. The Commissioner is aware that some entities might prefer to lift public data from a document and place those data on an otherwise blank document for the individual to inspect (cut-and-paste). This is problematic because (1) the entity is withholding the actual data and (2) the possibility exists that the entity will make an error transferring the data from its original source onto another document.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It is important to note that subdivision 16 of section 13.82 provides an exception to the access standard in subdivision 6. It states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. When investigative data becomes inactive, as described in subdivision 7, the actual physical data associated with that investigation, including the public data, shall be available for public access.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the situation before the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson states that even though his clients have asked to review the forms or documents on which the ICR data are recorded, the Sheriff&apos;s office has not permitted the reporters to inspect the data. Ms. Kushner states, The Sheriff is unaware of any requests by Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client for access to ICR data or for copies of the reports... The Commissioner is unable to resolve this dispute. However, if a newspaper reporter has made a request to inspect/copy data made public under section 13.82, subdivision 6, the Sheriff&apos;s office needs to provide access (inspection and/or copies) to the actual physical data. If a newspaper reporter wishes to inspect the actual data and has not made a corresponding request, the reporter needs to make a request pursuant to section 13.03.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office has refused to allow the &lt;i&gt;Shoreview Press&lt;/i&gt; to review the forms or documents on which public response or incident data are recorded. If a newspaper reporter has made an appropriate request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Sheriff&apos;s office must provide the requestor with access to the actual physical data, unless section 13.82, subdivision 16, applies.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 18, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267866</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual physical data</Title><Id>266983</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)</Title><Id>267153</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-27T22:17:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-030</Title><title>Opinion 04 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267767&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-05-17T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Eagan complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a request for the Mayor&apos;s cellular phone bill?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 17, 2004; City of Eagan</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 26, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Emmett Salberg. In his letter, Mr. Salberg asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Eagan maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Salberg&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Hedges, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated March 31, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Salberg&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 8, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated April 7, 2004, from Mira McGarvey, the City&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Salberg presented them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Salberg wrote, &quot;I submitted a written [Chapter 13] request on the City of Eagan&apos;s own form on February 24, 2004, to [Ms. McGarvey] at the Eagan city hall requesting inspection of the Eagan Mayor&apos;s city-owned cell phone bills. The City provided me a copy of the bill with every call, other than calls to the City offices, blacked out.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Salberg objected to the City&apos;s determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a March 3, 2004, letter, Ms. McGarvey responded, &quot;The copy of the cell phone statement that you viewed at City Hall on Friday, February 27, 2004 contained all the public information that the City is required to provide.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of his opinion request, Mr. Salberg provided the Commissioner with a copy of a March 2 and a March 5 memorandum from Michael Dougherty, City Attorney, relating to the issue Mr. Salberg raised.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Salberg asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Has the City of Eagan complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a request for the Mayor&apos;s cellular phone bill?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. &quot;Data on individuals&quot; is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 is silent on whether elected officials are employees. Therefore, if an entity considers its elected officials to be employees for the purposes of Chapter 13, data about those individuals are classified pursuant to section 13.43. However, if an entity does not consider its elected officials to be employees for the purposes of Chapter 13, data about those individuals are public pursuant to the general presumption. Because the City denied Mr. Salberg access to certain data about the Mayor, such as the telephone number of his cellular phone, based on section 13.43, the Commissioner assumes the City considers the Mayor to be an employee for purposes of Chapter 13. (See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267335&quot; title=&quot;03-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-011&lt;/a&gt; for a more detailed discussion about the treatment of data about elected officials.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. McGarvey wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The decision to consider telephone numbers, other than the City of Eagan numbers, private data was reached in consultation with the City of Eagan&apos;s Attorney, Michael Dougherty. I believe memorandums, dated March 2 and March 5, 2004, outlining the basis for the City Attorney&apos;s recommendation were provided to you by Mr. Salberg, however I have enclosed them again for your convenience. I have also enclosed a copy of Mayor Geagan&apos;s cellular telephone record as it was presented to Mr. Salberg.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his March 2, 2004, memorandum, Mr. Dougherty wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...It is this office&apos;s understanding that Mayor Pat Geagan&apos;s cellular telephone for City use is paid by the City as part of his compensation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is understood that it is the City&apos;s policy not to release a City staff&apos;s or city councilmember&apos;s cellular telephone number to the public; the City hall telephone number, as well as the Mayor&apos;s home phone number is made available to the public....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is our office&apos;s understanding that a Mayor&apos;s cellular telephone records (billing statements) includes [sic] the Mayor&apos;s cellular number, a list of outgoing calls with the telephone number to which the call was made and incoming telephone calls which list the Mayor&apos;s cellular number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Upon review of Minn. Stat. section10.46 and [Chapter 13], it is this office&apos;s opinion that the City should redact from the Mayor&apos;s cellular telephone records the following: (1) Any personnel data that is classified as not public and (2) Evidence of local phone useage. Section 10.46 provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Long distance telephone bills paid for by the state or a political subdivision, including those of representatives, senators, judges, constitutional officers, head of department and agencies, local officials and employees thereof, are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dougherty further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Secondly, as Mayor of the City of Eagan, certain of the City&apos;s data regarding Mr. Geagan would fall under personnel data . Section 13.43, which governs personnel data, specifically enumerates what data is public. A mayor&apos;s cellular telephone bill, or the telephone number or the numbers of those individuals to whom he placed a call or received a call, is not enumerated as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, the City provided to the Commissioner a copy of the phone bill it gave to Mr. Salberg. The data the City did not redact (black/white out) appear to be related to a voice mail number and also to numbers of City offices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Where the City redacted the phone number called, the City also redacted related information, such as number of minutes and &quot;Call Destination.&quot; (&quot;Call Destination&quot; includes items such as voice mail, a city, 411 connect, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City also redacted the telephone number of the Mayor&apos;s cellular phone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine, with certainty, whether the City appropriately redacted certain phone numbers and related information, he makes the following comments. First, any data in the bills relating to long distance telephone calls paid for by the City are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 10.46. Second, some of the data in the phone bills, such as the number of minutes per call, appear to be presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, if the Mayor or another employee is the subject of any of the data in the phone bills, those data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. (This assumes the City considers the Mayor an &quot;employee&quot; for purposes of Chapter 13.) Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. The Mayor&apos;s cellular phone number appropriately is classified as private as long as there is a public work number at which he can be reached. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(7).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dougherty, on behalf of the City, argued that the phone numbers of the individuals &quot;to whom the Mayor placed a call or received a call&quot; are not public data pursuant to section 13.43. Because section 13.43 classifies data on individuals, the City&apos;s position is defensible only if the Mayor or another employee is the subject of the data. The Commissioner finds the City&apos;s argument confusing given that the City did not redact City office phone numbers called by the Mayor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also notes there are situations in which a government entity may be in the possession of data that are beyond the purview of Chapter 13. As he discussed in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt;, if an entity has a policy that allows for personal use of government-owned equipment, related data are not government data, and are &quot;personal&quot; data. The entity&apos;s decision to release or not release those data is not governed by Chapter 13.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Salberg raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the City of Eagan complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a request for the Mayor&apos;s cellular phone bill.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 17, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267767</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Cell phones</Title><Id>267085</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work location/telephone number</Title><Id>266333</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-029</Title><title>Opinion 04 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267999&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-05-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an April 2, 2004, request for copies of data?
Has Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a second April 2, 2004, request for copies of data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 17, 2004; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her access to data that Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, the District&apos;s superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 5, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Paul Cady, the District&apos;s legal counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated March 9, 2004, X asked for copies of certain data relating to his/her child. In a letter dated April 2, 2004, X clarified his/her March 9, 2004, data request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 13, 2004, X requested a brief summary of certain data relating to his/her child. In a letter dated April 2, 2004, X clarified his/her March 13, 2004, request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her opinion request, X stated that in regard to both of the April 2, 2004, requests, s/he had not received any response of any kind.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X attached to his/her opinion request a document X described as a fax confirmation. X indicated the fax confirmation shows that [the District] received [the requests]. The Commissioner notes that he is unable to determine, with certainty, whether this document demonstrates that the District received the April 2, 2004, requests on April 2, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Has Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an April 2, 2004, request for copies of data?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Has Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a second April 2, 2004, request for copies of data?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      For your information, and notwithstanding [X&apos;s] submission verifying that faxes were delivered to the District, the District does not have the April 2, 2004 requests for data which are the subject of this opinion request....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      For your information, please be advised that on May 3, 2004, following receipt of the request for the instant opinion, the District promptly responded to the data requests.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Cady states that the District does not have the April 2, 2004, data requests. X states that s/he faxed the requests to the District on April 2, 2004. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. If the District did receive the requests on April 2, 2004, and did not respond until May 3, 2004, its response was not timely. If the District did not receive the data requests, it was not under any obligation to provide the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following note is in order. Upon examination of the District&apos;s May 3, 2004, letter to X, it is not clear whether the District did respond to the April 2, 2004, data requests. If the District has not, it should do so promptly.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Because there is a dispute regarding whether the District received the April 2, 2004, data request for copies of data, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Because there is a dispute regarding whether the District received the second April 2, 2004, data request for copies of data, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 17, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267999</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-028</Title><title>Opinion 04 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267441&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-05-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a January 20, 2004, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 5, 2004; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 11, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated March 10, 2004, from Michelle Gross and Christopher Coen. In their letter, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, Data Practices Compliance Official for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated March 17, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 9, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated January 20, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner, ...we write to request access to and inspection of the August 8th, 2003 Minneapolis Police Department police report detailing the pursuit of, apprehension of, and death of Anthony M. Williams.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 26, 2004, Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, wrote to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen. He stated, Based on information in your request, this incident occurred on August 8, 2003. A search of CAPRS [the Commissioner does not know what this stands for] revealed no incident occurring on this date involving an Anthony M. Williams. He added, If you have additional information, we can search further to find the data you are looking for....Please check the spelling and date of the incident.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 3, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner. They stated, Perhaps [Mr. Marzitelli] could search under the date of August 28th, 2003 for the report in question, or any other date in August that is necessary in order to turn up the requested documents associated with Anthony M. Williams.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 1, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner. They stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...You called Christopher Coen on February 6th and said you needed to have a birth date for Anthony M. Williams in order to retrieve the police report. Christopher said we did not have a birth date and also pointed out that we never before had to furnish a birth date to receive police report data. You agreed that it did not seem to make sense why a birth date would be needed. You said you would look into this request further and get back to us. To date you have not contacted us again. It should be pointed out that the Anthony M. Williams case was widely covered in the media. David Chanen of the Star Tribune said that he had no problem receiving a copy of the [Minneapolis Police Department] report from the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a January 20, 2004, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data that law enforcement agencies collect, create, and maintain are classified pursuant to section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Of relevance to this opinion are the types of data listed in subdivision 2, arrest data, and subdivision 6, response or incident data. These data, as they are created and maintained by a law enforcement agency, are always public, regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation relating to the incident(s).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...I forwarded [Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s February 3, 2004, letter] to Mr. Marzitelli. Mr. Marzitelli was able to determine that officers of the Minneapolis Police Department had been involved in a vehicle chase that day and that the individual who was apprehended after the chase collapsed and was taken to the hospital where he later died. Because the individual was in the custody of Minneapolis police when he collapsed, then-Police Chief Robert Olson asked the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s office to investigate the incident.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Mr. Marzitelli called the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office to determine if they had the data sought by Mr. Coen. Mr. Marzitelli was told that the County would need the name and date of birth of the individual to ascertain whether they had responsive records. Mr. Marzitelli advised me of this conversation and I called Mr. Coen to explain the situation.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Thereafter, Mr. Marzitelli learned that three Minneapolis Police Officers wrote short statements in the Minneapolis Police Department&apos;s computer system about their involvement at the scene of the incident that was under investigation by the County. These statements were made at a time when Mr. Williams&apos; identity was not known and his name is not contained in the reports. Consequently, the earlier name search of the computer did not reveal the existence of the statements.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Other than the three initial statements described above, the City of Minneapolis did not create any additional police reports on the August 28, 2003 incident. The investigation and the documentation thereof were controlled by the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Department....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Mr. Coen has noted that the Star Tribune was apparently able to obtain access to public data about the Williams case. Mr. Coen claims that the reporter obtained data about the incident from the City. A review of the Star Tribune articles discloses the fact that the investigation was being conducted by the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office and that the Office was the source of the public data about the case....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Steiner added, I am enclosing [the] brief one-page summary [of the short statements that the three Minneapolis Police Officers wrote about their involvement at the scene of the incident] and, by copy of this letter, I am sending the document to Mr. Coen.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. Although Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen made their first data request on January 20, 2004, the City required clarification, which they provided on February 3, 2004. At the time the City received the revised request, the City was obligated to respond, within a reasonable time, to the request for any arrest or response/incident data in the police report from August 28, 2003, detailing the pursuit of, apprehension of, and death of Anthony M. Williams. The City was obligated to respond even though Mr. Williams&apos; name does not appear in the arrest and response/incident data generated by the responding Minneapolis police officers. The point here is that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s data request appears to have been a request for data relating to the incident on August 28, 2003, where officers were involved in responding to a call, following which an individual died. The fact that the individual is Anthony M. Williams appears to be incidental to their request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regardless of the fact that the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office is conducting an investigation, any of the data types described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2 and 6, that the three Minneapolis police officers created and/or collected relating to the incident are public. It took the City at least eight weeks (from on or about February 4, 2004, to on or about April 9, 2004) to provide Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen with public data. This is not timely. Furthermore, if the responding officers created and/or collected any additional data classified as public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 2 and 6, the City promptly should provide those data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner adds he had difficulty understanding the meaning of certain data elements in the document Mr. Steiner provided. If Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen have the same difficulty, they may ask the City to provide them with an explanation of the meaning of the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because the City of Minneapolis&apos; response to a January 20, 2004, request for access to data was not timely, the City has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 5, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267441</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:25:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-027</Title><title>Opinion 04 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267325&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a September 3, 2003, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 28, 2004; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 11, 2004 IPAD received a letter from Michelle Gross and Christopher Coen. In their letter, Ms. Gross and Mr. Cohen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official. The purposes of this letter, dated March 17, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 9, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated April 6, 2004, from Mr. Steiner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 3, 2003, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner and asked to inspect the public portions of City documents from the last ten years that contain public data pertaining to City of Minneapolis police officers. They then stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This data includes: employee identification number, actual gross salary, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration including expense reimbursement in addition to salary, job title and bargaining unit, job description, education and training background, previous work experience, date of first and last employment, the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship including a buyout agreement, work location, work telephone number, badge number, and honors and awards received. Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, subdivision 2, makes this data public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked to inspect the data by September 17, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, responded to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen in a letter dated September 15, 2003. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Because your request includes no fewer than 805 active personnel files, as well as 501 non-active files...it is unlikely we can have this data available for your review by September 17, 2003....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...we would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to coordinate the planning of how and when the above data can be reviewed by you. Hopefully, we can agree on a review schedule consistent with your work hours or other pressing matters either of you may have. Whether or not these review sessions can be conducted on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis is difficult to determine at this stage. But we would value your input and look forward to meeting with both of you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                There followed correspondence between the parties regarding a meeting date. A meeting eventually took place on November 20, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 4, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner. They stated their understanding of what data the City had agreed to provide and the order in which the City would provide those data. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote, To date, Mr. Marzitelli has failed to furnish us with any of the above data. We have waited patiently since the November 20th, 2003 meeting, but to no avail....We again request that you make the data available immediately.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 1, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen again wrote to Mr. Steiner asking why the City had not provided the data they requested on September 3, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their opinion request, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...On November 21st we received an email from [the City] with attachments of generic job descriptions for police officer, police sargent [sic], and police lieutenant. On November 21st we also received an email from [the City] with an attachment of the [Minneapolis Police Department] collective bargaining agreement. To date, however, we have not received any other data...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Minneapolis complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a September 3, 2003, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The meeting with Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen was attended by the following City staff: Mr. Marzitelli, Deputy Chief Sharon Lubinski and Bill Champa, the Human Resources Generalist assigned to the Police Department. In this meeting, the staff for the City described the process and significant time required to prepare large numbers of personnel files for public inspection. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen agreed to prioritize their request to first immediately receive certain data that could be provided electronically. Additionally, City staff agreed to produce other data for inspection by Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen that could be collected in report form. Following the inspection of these reports, the preparation of the individual personnel files was to begin and a regular schedule to review these files was to be established.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Steiner then wrote that on November 21, 2003, Mr. Marzitelli emailed to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen the current collective bargaining agreement with the Police Federation and certain job descriptions. Mr. Steiner added that City staff generated reports of other information and, apparently, were waiting for a phone call from Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen to set up a time to inspect the reports. Mr. Steiner stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Mr. Marzitelli never received a phone call requesting a meeting to inspect the reports. The City&apos;s Responsible Authority did receive a letter from Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen on February 3rd renewing their request. Unfortunately, through miscommunication with staff the letter was not promptly addressed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      [Minneapolis Police Department] staff has been directed to begin the preparation of the department personnel files for sworn officers for inspection by Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen. The preparation and inspection of these files will occur in stages to prevent the need for preparation of all files prior to inspection. [Minneapolis Police Department] staff estimates that approximately forty-five to fifty files can be prepared per week. By copy of this letter, the City is informing Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen that their [Minneapolis Police Department] contact who will be responsible for providing access to the prepared personnel files as well as the previously discuss [sic] reports is Martin Rafferty, Manager of Police Operations....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. Given the voluminousness of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen&apos;s request, it seems reasonable that the City determined it needed to break up the request and respond by providing a continual flow of data for Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen to inspect. However, it seems all action came to a halt shortly after the November 20, 2003, meeting. The Commissioner is unable to determine whether part of the agreement reached at the meeting included Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen calling to set up an appointment for inspection. The Commissioner also is unable to determine whether both parties are clear about what was agreed to at the meeting. For these reasons, the Commissioner thinks it would have been wise for the City to put the agreement in writing.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regardless of what either of the parties believed to be the time frame decided upon at the November 20, 3004, meeting, when Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen sent their February 3, 2004, letter to Mr. Steiner, they communicated clearly that they still wanted access to the remaining data. It appears the City did not communicate again with Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen until April 6, 2004, when Mr. Steiner provided comments to the Commissioner after Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen requested an advisory opinion. This is not appropriate.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, the Commissioner questions whether Mr. Steiner&apos;s assertion that the City will prepare only 45-50 files per week is appropriate and timely. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen requested data from what appears to be at least 1300 personnel files. If the City prepares 50 files a week, it will take the City at least 26 weeks, or six to seven months, to provide the data to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen. This seems excessive, especially given the requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 1, that government entities keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. For all of the reasons stated above, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the City has not complied with the requirements of Chapter 13 in responding to the September 3, 2003, request. Also, the Commissioner urges the City to re-evaluate its response time so that it can get the data to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen in a more timely manner.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis has not complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a September 3, 2003, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 28, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267325</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-026</Title><title>Opinion 04 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267962&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Dakota County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a data subject&apos;s January 15, 2004, request for a &quot;negotiated check&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 27, 2004; Dakota County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 4, 12004, IPAD received a letter dated March 3, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that Dakota County maintains. IPAD sought clarification, which X&apos;s relative provided in a letter dated March 11, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Brandt Richardson, Administrator of the County. The purposes of this letter, dated March 18, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On April 7, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Andrea White, Assistant Dakota County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. In a January 15, 2004, letter to Mr. Richardson, X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On January 13, 2004, I made a data practices request for a copy of my negotiated Check No. 1776, tendered and acknowledged on October 8, 2003 by the Dakota County District Court, Apple Valley Division....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                To date, the Dakota County Finance Department has failed to produce this public record. Nor has the County documented an exception under the Data Practices Act that would permit the County to withhold this public record....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote, The operative facts are that my data request was received by the office of County Administrator Richardson via confirmed facsimile office on January 14, 2004. X also stated that the County had not supplied the requested data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Dakota County comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a data subject&apos;s January 15, 2004, request for a negotiated check ?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests data of which s/he is the subject, a government entity is required to respond within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Brandt Richardson, the Dakota County Administrator, received a request dated January 15, 2004, from [X] for a copy of [X&apos;s] negotiated check number 1776, and asked me to respond to [X&apos;s] request. I immediately contacted Dakota County Financial Services personnel, who told me that the County does not have records of negotiated checks, and that individuals who write checks to the County must obtain these documents from their own records or from their own banks. I also learned that the Clerk of Court&apos;s office does keep copies of receipts of money paid into the court, and that these documents are stored on the TCIS (state court information) system located in that office. It was my understanding after speaking to Financial Services personnel and personnel in the Clerk of Court&apos;s office that [X] had already requested and been given a copy of the receipt for [X&apos;s payment] by [X&apos;s] check number 1776.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. White stated that she then prepared a letter, which she saved on her computer in her email software. She did not mail the letter because she was aware that the address X provided with his/her data request was incorrect. Ms. White wrote, ...I knew from the litigation in which the County is involved with [X] that [X] did not live at the [address] that [X] gave us. Ms. White&apos;s draft letter, dated January 16, 2004, states, in part:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...In response to your request, the County does not have a copy of your cancelled check. Such a document would either be in your possession or in the possession of your bank. It is my understanding, however, that you have already received the TCIS print-out of the information you wanted from the Clerk of Court&apos;s office on January 14, 2004.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White noted that she sent a letter, dated March 18, 2004, to X. She wrote, At that time, [X] was communicating by email and this letter was emailed to [X]. Ms. White provided a copy of the March 18, 2004, letter, in which she stated, in relevant part:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      With regard to your request for a copy of negotiated check no. 1776, the County responded to this request in January 2004. The County does not have copies of negotiated checks from third parties who make payments by check. Either you or your bank would have a copy of your negotiated checks. The County has a TCIS record of your trust deposit...which was copied from the TCIS screen and given to you in January. This is a public document, however, available from the district court TCIS system. It is not a record on file with the County Financial Services Department.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. White concluded her comments to the Commissioner by stating:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...under normal circumstances the County&apos;s response to [X] would have been the contents of my letter dated January 16, 2004, telling [X] that we do not have the document [X] requested, and identifying the document [X] received (TCIS printout) as the only record we have. I did not send the letter, however, because of my good faith belief that we did not have [X&apos;s] current address and that mailing the letter to [the address X gave], would be futile....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. White noted that the property address X used was in foreclosure and in December of 2003, the title was canceled and a new title was issued to a different owner. In the Findings, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Dakota County district court judge found that the premises were vacant and unoccupied.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above, government entities must respond to requests from data subjects within ten working days. The Commissioner appreciates that Ms. White attempted to avoid sending the County&apos;s response to an address at which X no longer resides. However, the United States Postal Service offers a mail forwarding service. Thus, if X filed a mail forwarding notice, and Ms. White sent the County&apos;s response to X&apos;s last known address within ten days, the County&apos;s response would have been timely. If X has not filed a mail forwarding notice, the Commissioner assumes the Post Office would have returned the letter to the County indicating X no longer lived at the address and that it had no forwarding information on file. Although X would not have received the County&apos;s response, the County would have had documentation that it did everything possible, within reason, to answer X&apos;s request in a timely manner. Thus, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the best way for the County to meet its obligation under section 13.04 would have been for Ms. White to send her letter to X at the address X provided. Because she did not, and did not communicate the County&apos;s response to X until X provided his/her email address in mid -March, the Commissioner finds that the County&apos;s response was not timely.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      (The Commissioner adds that IPAD has sent written communications regarding this opinion to the address at which X apparently no longer resides. The Post Office has not returned, as undeliverable, any of those communications.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final note is in order. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. White stated that she was certain X had received, from the Clerk of Court&apos;s office via the TCIS system , a copy of X&apos;s receipt of his/her payment. The judiciary is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 (see section 13.90). Therefore, whether or not X received from the Clerk of Court&apos;s office a copy of the receipt for X&apos;s payment is irrelevant to this opinion. X&apos;s request was a data practices request made pursuant to Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Dakota County did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a data subject&apos;s January 15, 2004, request for a negotiated check. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 27, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267962</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-025</Title><title>Opinion 04 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266483&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Excelsior maintains: a spreadsheet of revenues it received in 2003 from parking violations?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 15, 2004; City of Excelsior</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 12, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Staunton, an attorney representing the City of Excelsior. In his letter, Mr. Staunton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City of Excelsior maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification, which Mr. Staunton provided on March 19, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Staunton wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The City is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the City of Deephaven to obtain dockmaster, park patrol, and parking enforcement services. The potential agreement is the result of a proposal from Deephaven solicited by representatives from Excelsior. To help in the process of soliciting and evaluating the proposal from Deephaven, Excelsior city staff compiled a spreadsheet of revenues it received in 2003 from parking violations. This information is relevant to the solicitation and evaluation of the proposal from Deephaven because it is anticipated that the revenue from parking enforcement will fund at least part of the services being provided. The spreadsheet has not been provided to Deephaven and they have not requested access to it. The request has come, instead, from the Chief of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department, who has suggested that he may also want to submit a proposal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Minn. Stat. section 13.37 classifies internal competitive proposals as nonpublic data....It defines an internal competitive proposal as a proposal to provide government services that is prepared by the staff of a political subdivision in competition with proposals solicited by the political subdivision from the private sector. ...It appears that the purpose of this section is to protect the City&apos;s ability to negotiate the best deal for the City by allowing it to restrict the dissemination of materials in [sic] assembles in preparation for evaluating the financial wisdom of providing services itself or purchasing them from an outside source.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Staunton asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Excelsior maintains: a spreadsheet of revenues it received in 2003 from parking violations?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies as not public internal competitive proposals prior to the time specified by a political subdivision for the receipt of private sector proposals for the services. Section 13.37, subdivision 1(e), defines an internal competitive proposal as a proposal to provide government services that is prepared by the staff of the political subdivision in competition with proposals solicited by the political subdivision &lt;i&gt;from the private sector&lt;/i&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the data Mr. Staunton describes do not fit the definition adopted by the Legislature in section 13.37, subdivision 1(e). Based on Mr. Staunton&apos;s description, the City created the data in question to help in the process of soliciting and evaluating the proposal from Deephaven. Because Deephaven is not a private sector entity, section 13.37 does not apply. Therefore, the spreadsheet data are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner is aware that both the private and public sectors bid competitively for contracts and that, in the future, more political subdivisions may seek bids from both sectors. Thus, the City may wish to seek legislative review of this provision.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Staunton raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, the City of Excelsior&apos;s spreadsheet of revenues it received in 2003 from parking violations is public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 15, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266483</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal competitive proposal (13.37, subd. 1(e))</Title><Id>266482</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T20:59:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-024</Title><title>Opinion 04 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267720&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in publishing certain data about a student in a yearbook?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by responding to a July 2, 2003, request for data by providing its website address?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 14, 2004; School District 77 (Mankato)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 2, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated December 8, 2003. In that letter, X requested an advisory opinion regarding a possible violation by Independent School District 77, Mankato, of X&apos;s child&apos;s rights as a data subject. IPAD staff requested clarification, which X provided on February 20, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ed Waltman, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated February 27, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 9, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Paul Ratwik, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. In X&apos;s letter, s/he wrote that X&apos;s minor child is a student at the District and that the child receives special education. X wrote that his/her child received a copy of the yearbook:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...On the page were about six photos of students identified as special education students. The content on the page described the purpose of special education and was stigmatizing in nature...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...I was especially upset because neither [X&apos;s child] nor I had been approached about granting permission for [X&apos;s child&apos;s] photo to be featured on the special education page....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X also noted that X&apos;s attorney, in a letter dated July 2, 2003, wrote to the Vice Chair of the Mankato School Board, in part, asking for a copy of the District&apos;s FERPA (federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) policy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 12, 2003, the District&apos;s Director of Human Resources wrote to X&apos;s attorney. He stated, ...you asked for a copy of the District&apos;s FERPA policy. That policy is available on the District&apos;s website at...I believe this is the policy you are looking for. If you are unable to access this policy online let me know and I will be glad to send you a copy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in publishing certain data about a student in a yearbook?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by responding to a July 2, 2003, request for data by providing its website address?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in publishing certain data about a student in a yearbook? &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data are private and may not be released without consent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student... (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Mr. Ratwik provided a copy of the District&apos;s policy relating to &lt;i&gt;Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records&lt;/i&gt;. It states that the District has designated the following data as directory information (public data):
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      It includes, but is not limited to: the student&apos;s name, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, photograph, date and place of birth, major field of study, dates of attendance, grade level, enrollment status (i.e., full-time or part-time), participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, degrees, honors and awards received, and the most recent educational agency or institution attended. Directory information does not include personally identifiable data which references religion, race, color, social position or nationality.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The data in question are contained on a page entitled, &lt;i&gt;Cooperative Learning - Working to build strong individuals&lt;/i&gt;. The text on that page reads:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The purpose of the Special Education programs is to provide students with the opportunity to receive an education designed to meet their individual needs and to assist them in overcoming areas of difficulty. Students and parents are part of a team that also includes teachers and the school counselor. This team develops individual goals with appropriate support based on the strengths, interests and abilities of the student.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Transition from the high school to independent living is the primary focus at the secondary level. A transition plan is developed by the student, teachers, counselors, and parents. This plan addresses issues related to independent living, including further education or training, employment, community, participation, recreation/leisure and daily living skills. Students continue to evolve as the program strives to best meet the needs of that particular student.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Also on the page are six photographs, each containing one or more students. Each of the photographs has a caption, five of which identify, by name, the student(s) in the photograph.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwik wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The text of [the page containing the data in question] uses the term special education only once, and then only in the context of a very general discussion [sic] the broad purpose of the special education programs. None of the text that appears on [the page] provides any information about the nature of the program of education that Complainant&apos;s student has received. Nothing in the text of [the page] says that any, or every, student whose photograph appears on the page is a special education student.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Complainant&apos;s complaint is, therefore, based on a presumption as to an inference that a casual reader might draw. This is not a sufficient basis to conclude that educational data has been improperly released.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Before proceeding, the Commissioner states his opinion that based on the text contained on the &lt;i&gt;Cooperative Learning&lt;/i&gt; page, a reasonable person would assume that students identified on that page, by photograph and by name, are receiving special education services from the District.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.32, most student data, with the exception of directory information, are private. In examining the District&apos;s directory information policy, it is clear that a photograph of X&apos;s child is public. However, it is not clear whether a picture of a child, including a picture of X&apos;s child, receiving special education services is public or private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The District&apos;s directory information policy, in relevant part, states that a student&apos;s grade level, participation in officially recognized activities, and other similar information is public. When the federal Department of Education, in the FERPA rules, created a way for public educational institutions to treat certain student information as public, it also enacted a requirement that districts notify parents about the policy and allow parents to opt out. It does not seem reasonable that a district can fulfill its notice requirement unless its list of directory information identifies specific elements of data. Here, the District has used two phrases that are nonspecific: officially recognized activities and includes, but is not limited to. The Commissioner cannot say, with certainty, whether special education classes are included in either of those two categories. It follows that X was not able to determine whether s/he needed to opt out of either one of the categories if X did not want it publicly shared, via yearbook photographs, that his/her child receives special education services.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner is aware that many school districts take, verbatim, the example provided in the federal rules (see 34 C.F.R. section99.3) and use it to describe the data made public by their own directory information policy. While that may be appropriate in some situations, it is important to note that each district is free to create its own policy. In addition, the Commissioner urges any district that includes items such as officially recognized activities in its policy to define clearly the types of activities encompassed by that phrase. If a district does not make clear what types of information it will release to the public, parents are not able to exercise effectively their right to choose whether to opt out.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       In his comments, Mr. Ratwik cited &lt;i&gt;Daniel S. v. Board of Education of York Community High School&lt;/i&gt;, 152 F.Supp.2d 949 (N.D.Ill. 2001). In that case, the court found that a teacher&apos;s disclosure to his cross-country team that he had kicked two students out of his gym class did not violate FERPA simply because the information might appear in school records, where it also was known independently by members of the school community, including two gym classes which had witnessed the incident. The Commissioner believes the facts of the &lt;i&gt;Daniel S.&lt;/i&gt; case are distinguishable from the situation of this opinion and so the outcome of the &lt;i&gt;Daniel S.&lt;/i&gt; case is not applicable here. In &lt;i&gt;Daniel S.&lt;/i&gt;, the teacher released information not derived from school records to other students. In the opinion question before the Commissioner, the District, via the yearbook, disclosed data that were derived from school records to members of the public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The presumption in both federal and state law is that data relating to students are private. To allow school districts to function as part of the community, the federal government created a process whereby districts are allowed to release not public data in certain situations. This process requires districts to designate certain data as directory information and offer parents the opportunity to opt out. The directory information process is incorporated by reference into Chapter 13. In the present situation, the Commissioner is of the opinion that District 77&apos;s directory information policy is not specific enough to allow parents to make an informed choice about whether or not to opt out of allowing the District to release certain not public data. Therefore, the District did not comply with Chapter 13 when it disclosed data about X&apos;s child revealing that s/he received special education services from the District.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 77, Mankato, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by responding to a July 2, 2003, request for data by providing its website address?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), a responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public data upon request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above in the Facts and Procedural History section of this opinion, X&apos;s attorney requested a copy of the District&apos;s FERPA policy in letter July 2, 2003, letter. The District responded in an August 12, 2003, letter by advising X&apos;s attorney that she could access the policy on the District&apos;s website.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwik cited section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), and stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The [District] provided the attorney with access to the data, just as it was required to do under [section 13.03, subdivision 3]. That access allowed the requesting party to inspect and to copy the public data. [Chapter 13] specifically provides for this method of providing access to and copies of public government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), in relevant part, provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      For purposes of this section, inspection includes, but is not limited to, the visual inspection of paper and similar types of government data....In the case of data stored in electronic form and made available in electronic form on a remote access basis to the public by the government entity, inspection includes remote access to the data by the public and the ability to print copies of or download the data on the public&apos;s own computer equipment....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. The Legislature&apos;s intent in enacting section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), was to clarify that if a government entity chooses to post public data on its website, it cannot charge a member of the public a fee for accessing those data and printing or downloading copies on the individual&apos;s own computer equipment. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), clarifies that this type of access fits within the definition of inspection. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), inspection is free.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      X&apos;s attorney requested that the District forward to her a copy of the District&apos;s FERPA policy. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivisions 1 and 3(c), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, the District was required to provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The Commissioner is aware that many government entities post public data on their websites and that many individuals have access to the internet and a printer. However, many individuals have access neither to a computer nor to the internet. Thus, in response to a data request, if a government entity is going to offer the requestor the option of either obtaining data from the internet or having the entity make a copy, the entity needs to make the offer very early in the process of responding to the request. That way, if the requestor prefers to receive a copy directly from the entity, the entity can ensure the requestor will get the copy in a timely manner. This also ensures that the entity meets is statutory obligation to provide the requested copy.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Here, the District took six weeks before informing X&apos;s attorney that the data she sought are available on the District&apos;s website. The District&apos;s response put X&apos;s attorney in a position where, if she was not able or chose not to access the data from the internet, she was forced again to contact the District for the data. In this situation, the District has not met its obligation of providing the requested data within a reasonable time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 77, Mankato, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in publishing certain data about a student in a yearbook.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 77, Mankato, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its response to a July 2, 2003, request for data by providing its website address.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 14, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267720</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photos, videotapes</Title><Id>266317</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA</Title><Id>266318</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Enhanced data</Title><Id>266319</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remote access</Title><Id>266320</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic files, website</Title><Id>266321</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:55Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-023</Title><title>Opinion 04 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267519&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are any &quot;materials associated&quot; with a sexual offender&apos;s end-of-confinement review &quot;public data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes?
Are any &quot;materials associated&quot; with a sexual offender&apos;s review for civil commitment &quot;public data&quot; under Minnesota Statutes?
Did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied Star Tribune&apos;s request for access to data associated with the confinement and release of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 9, 2004; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 14, 2004, IPAD received a letter from John P. Borger, an attorney, on behalf of his client, &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;, publisher of the Star Tribune newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections ( Department ). Mr. Borger&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Borger&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 23, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. In addition, the Commissioner determined that the advisory opinion could affect the data subject&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Therefore, IPAD wrote to David Dusek, attorney for Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., the data subject, inviting him to submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2004, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Fabian.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon receiving a copy of the Department&apos;s response, Mr. Borger submitted additional comments, in a letter dated February 13, 2004, which IPAD received on February 17, 2004. On February 18, 2004, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Commissioner Fabian, in which she commented on Mr. Borger&apos;s February 13, 2004, correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD informed Mr. Borger that in order for the Commissioner of Administration to consider his additional comments, it would be necessary to withdraw his original opinion request and submit a new request, which Mr. Borger did, in a letter dated February 19, 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD wrote again to Commissioner Fabian, in a letter dated February 20, 2004, informing her of the revised issues the Commissioner would address in the opinion. Commissioner Fabian responded with comments in a letter dated February 26, 2004. IPAD also wrote again to Mr. Dusek, seeking comments on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez. Upon review, Mr. Dusek determined that the issues the Commissioner will address do not relate to his representation of Mr. Rodriguez in connection with his criminal case, and asked IPAD to solicit a response directly from Mr. Rodriguez. However, Emily K. Wilson, of Mr. Dusek&apos;s office, did provide additional comments in a letter dated February 27, 2004. Mr. Rodriguez did not respond to IPAD&apos;s February 24, 2004, correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts of this matter follows. Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., a convicted sex offender, is in custody in Grand Forks, North Dakota, on charges of kidnapping, and is under investigation for suspected homicide. Mr. Rodriguez served a prison sentence in Minnesota; he was released in May 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, prior to his May 2003 release, the Department conducted two reviews of Mr. Rodriguez. One was a civil commitment review, as provided under Minnesota Statutes, section 244.05, subdivision 7. The other was an end-of-confinement review to assess the risk level for purposes of the community notification process under Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052. Mr. Borger&apos;s opinion request relates to whether the public has the right to gain access to data related to those two review processes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Borger, in December 2003, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; verbally requested access from the Department to data on the civil commitment process for Mr. Rodriguez. In a December 10, 2003, e-mail, the Department responded that any materials associated with [Mr. Rodriguez&apos;s review for civil commitment] are not public per M.S. 13.85, subd. 2. In that e-mail, the Department also stated that any materials associated with [Mr. Rodriguez&apos;s end-of-confinement review] are not public per M.S. 244.052, subd. 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a December 11, 2003, e-mail, the reporter asked for a redacted copy of the review for civil commitment, and asked that, if his request was denied, the Department provide the specific paragraphs from the law so we can understand your reasoning. In a December 21, 2003, e-mail, the Department responded that, because the [civil commitment review] document . . . relates to a recommendation whether an individual should be referred for commitment as a person with a sexual psychopathic personality, as defined at section 253B.02, subdivision 18b, the data relate to psychological information, which are private under section 13.85, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to the release of a redacted version of the document, it is our position that while the document may contain some public information, because the referral evaluation involves deliberative review and weighing of many factors, including those which may not appear to be &apos;psychological&apos; on their face, the public information is inextricably entwined with the private psychological information so that, after redacting the private data, the resulting document would be of little informational value. &lt;u&gt;See Northwest Publications, Inc. v City of Bloomington 499 N.W. 2d 509 Minn. App. 1993); Prairie island Indian Community v. MN Dept of Public Safety&lt;/u&gt;, 658 NW2d876 (Minn. App 2003).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An analogy can be drawn from a medical doctor&apos;s exam report which might contain references to observations which do not, on their face, have a medical nature. In making a final diagnosis, the physician may very well weigh these observations as well as his or her other findings on exam. Asking the physician to reveal, after this weighing process, which factors were considered significant or not necessarily has the effect of revealing medical information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; disagreed with the Department&apos;s stated position that, after redaction, the document would be of little informational value. Mr. Borger wrote that the Department has released redacted documents to the public that he believes do contain informational value. The reporter wrote to the Department, in a December 23 e-mail:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I disagree with your assertion that a document redacted to exclude non-public information would have little informational value in the context of this particular request. For example, the following information might be useful, if we had the redacted material: the dates of meetings, the names of participants in the meetings, how long each meeting lasted, how many documents were reviewed in the course of the internal discussion, how many pages were within each document, whether votes were taken, whether there were any dissents, who participated in each decision and some . . . description of the documents themselves.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department responded to the reporter in a December 31 e-mail: [i]t remains our position that the release of even expunged documents directly related to psychological or medical evaluation, including that for civil commitment under Minn. Stat. section 253B.185, would be an improper release of private data under Minn. Stat. section 13.85, subd. 2, because the evaluation process itself is private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Borger wrote, in reference to the above: [t]his response appeared to abandon the prior position that some data were public but would be of little informational value with private data redacted. Instead, they now seem to take the broader position that all civil commitment review documents would be withheld &apos;because the evaluation process itself is private.&apos; Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The Department&apos;s] position certainly had no merit in the circumstances of this case. Given the many questions that have emerged about the process leading to Mr. Rodriguez&apos;s release, even details about the identities of participants in the review, the length of time spent and the number of documents reviewed, would be of significant public interest. . . . Similar information was provided in the Unit Case Coordinator Classification Notes, dated February 22, 1983.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger wrote that the Department did not explain how or why release of dates of meetings, participants in meetings, length of meetings, etc. would disclose &apos;medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to [an individual&apos;s] lawful confinement or detainment&apos; in violation of section 13.85, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her February 6, 2004, comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Fabian responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the fact of whether an individual offender is referred for civil commitment is, in the Department&apos;s view, private under Minn. Stat. section 13.85, subd. 2, because it would disclose psychological data. While it is conceded that involvement in the crime of committing sex offenses is public, it is clear from the definitions of &apos;sexual psychopathic personality&apos; and &apos;sexually dangerous person&apos; contained in Minn. Stat. section 253B.02, subds. 18(b) and 18(c), respectively, that in addition to prior criminal behavior, there must be evidence of a mental disorder before civil commitment is pursued. For the sexual psychopathic personality, there must be &apos;conditions of emotional instability, or impulsiveness of behavior, or lack of customary standards of good judgment, or failure to appreciate the consequences of personal acts, or a combination of any of these conditions, which render the person irresponsible for personal conduct with respect to sexual matters.&apos; section 253B.02, subd. 18(b). For the sexually dangerous person, there must be a showing that the person &apos;has manifested a sexual, personality or other mental disorder or function.&apos; section 253B.02, subd. 18(c). . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the criminal nature of the underlying sex offenses, the process for civil commitment of those with sexual psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous persons is a subset of the process for civil commitment of mentally ill and dangerous individuals. Civil commitment procedures, which in many cases &apos;would be of significant public interest&apos; are nevertheless not carried out in the same public arena as criminal prosecutions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Civil commitment hearings for sex offenders are closed, like other commitment hearings. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 253B.185, subd. 1, &apos;[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions of this chapter pertaining to persons who are mentally ill and dangerous to the public apply with like force and effect to persons who are alleged or found to be sexually dangerous persons or persons with a sexual psychopathic personality.&apos; Because that section does not specify whether a civil commitment hearing is open or closed, Minn. Stat. section253B.18, subd. 5(b), which closes commitment hearings for the alleged mentally ill and dangerous, controls. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to Mr. Borger&apos;s comment that the Department had abandoned its prior position on its reasons for withholding the data, Commissioner Fabian stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Rather than &apos;abandoning&apos; the position that documents are inextricably intertwined, it has remained the Department&apos;s position that, given the nature of the civil commitment assessment process, disclosure of factors considered and weighed in the course of determining whether it is appropriate to refer an individual offender necessarily discloses psychological information. The disclosure of redacted documents in this case would be analogous to releasing a doctor&apos;s exam report containing unredacted references to non-medical observations. Whether such observations were considered to be significant or not in making a medical diagnosis necessarily discloses medical information. It is the determination of whether a particular fact supports or does not support an assessment decision and the weight given to it that makes whatever otherwise public data considered during this process inextricably intertwined with private data. Removing all such data, leaving only data like &apos;the time spent and number of documents reviewed,&apos; while possibly of &apos;significant public interest&apos; would leave information with little value other than a basis for conjecture. Further, while this process in one individual case might arguably not pose a significant financial burden, when it is applied to &apos;others like [this individual], for purposes of possible future MGDPA requests,&apos; it very well could.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The department does not take the position that when otherwise public data is considered in the civil commitment assessment process, it becomes private. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Star Tribune&apos;s request, however, was not for arrest or other public data per se, but for civil commitment review materials related to a particular individual. For the reasons noted above, it is the Department&apos;s position that Minn. Stat. section13.85, subd. 2, precludes its release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, the Department believes that the fact that the Star Tribune somehow obtained data believed to be private under Chapter 13 from another source does not change its classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 13, 2004, comments, Mr. Borger stated that the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; believes that section 13.85, subdivision 2, does not classify much of the data associated with the civil commitment process that the Department has withheld, as demonstrated by the full contents of the memoranda that the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; obtained from other sources and has provided to IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In reference to Commissioner Fabian&apos;s statement that, although the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; obtained the memoranda from a source other than the Department, the data contained therein are still classified under Chapter 13, Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To clarify, Star Tribune did not submit that particular data to IPAD for that purpose. Rather, this was an unusual situation in which a data requestor, who had been denied access to particular data, nevertheless had obtained a copy of some but not all of the requested data. By submitting that portion to IPAD, &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; was better able to provide detailed examples of data that should have been disclosed by [the Department] but was not so disclosed. It is clear from any review of the submitted memoranda that it contains substantial amounts of public information, which [the Department] improperly refused to provide. That is the only reason &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; submitted a copy to IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Star Tribune believes that even if there is a legitimate basis for redacting some information within the requested data . . . the rest of the data would be of public interest . . . Commissioner Fabian&apos;s position that information remaining after legitimate redaction would have &apos;little value other than a basis for conjecture&apos; is no basis for failing to provide that information under the second part of the two-part test in the &lt;u&gt;Prairie Island&lt;/u&gt; and &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt; decisions. Those cases state that &apos;when &lt;u&gt;a document&lt;/u&gt; contains both public and nonpublic information, the entire document may &lt;u&gt;only&lt;/u&gt; be withheld if the public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregating the material would [1] impose a significant financial burden &lt;u&gt;and&lt;/u&gt; [2] leave the remaining parts of the document with little informational value.&apos; &lt;u&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety&lt;/u&gt;, 658 N.W.2d 876, 888 (Minn.App. 2003) (emphasis added). Government may not withhold public data simply because it fears the conclusions that the public might draw from that data. Although [redaction] limits the informational value of the documents, it provides public access to basic information.&apos; &lt;u&gt;Id.&lt;/u&gt; Commissioner Fabian also has made no effort to satisfy the first part of the test, which requires &apos;a significant financial burden&apos; from segregating public and nonpublic data within the particular document(s) requested, not as to all documents that the Department has or that someone else might later request. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the issue of the classification of data related to the end-of-confinement review process, Mr. Borger discussed section 244.052, subdivision 3(c), which states that end-of-confinement review committees may gain access to certain private and confidential data. Mr. Borger cited the last paragraph, which provides: [d]ata collected and maintained by the committee under this paragraph may not be disclosed outside the committee . . . . In his original request, Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The paragraph itself grants the committee access to certain data on a predatory offender that is classified by statute as private and confidential data for purposes of its assessment. Thus, the non-disclosure provision is limited by terms of the enabling paragraph to data that is &lt;em&gt;private or confidential&lt;/em&gt;. The committee is not prohibited from disclosing information that it has gathered if the information was public when the committee obtained it. It would be absurd, for example, for the committee to contend that newspaper clippings or broadcast tapes of the circumstances of a sexual offense committed by the offender under review became non-public just because they were collected or maintained by the committee. Absurd constructions of statutory language will not be applied. &lt;u&gt;See&lt;/u&gt; Minn. Stat. section 645.17, (Legislature does not intend &apos;a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable&apos;). Consequently, to the extent that data requested by the Star Tribune is properly classified as public data under section 13.85 . . . it remains public data when it is collected or maintained by the end-of-confinement review committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger also stated that arrest data, as enumerated at section 13.82, subdivision 2, are public under both section 13.82 and section 13.85, subdivision 2. Mr. Borger wrote that some of the specific arrest data elements are some of the same data that the end-of-confinement committee might consider pursuant to section 244.052, subdivision 3(g).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her February 6, 2004, response to the Commissioner, Commissioner Fabian wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This [end-of-confinement review] process is used to determine the risk level of a particular offender for purposes of the community notification process contained in Minn. Stat. section244.052. It is the Department&apos;s position that this data is private under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 244.052 (referenced in Minn. Stat. section13.851, subd. 6) sets out very specific handling for end-of-confinement review data. It allows graduated disclosure, based on the determined level of danger, of data to certain defined segments of the public by the local law enforcement agency in the area where an individual offender resides. Minn. Stat. section244.052, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Star Tribune concedes that under section244.052, subd. 3(c), &apos;[d]ata collected and maintained by the committee under this paragraph may not be disclosed outside the committee, except as provided under section 13.05, subdivision 3 or 4.&apos; They argue, however, that this only refers to private and confidential data gathered by the committee, suggesting that any other construction would be absurd, e.g., making a newspaper clipping private if it is collected by the committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Initially, the Department notes that Minn. Stat. section13.05, subd. 4, already prohibits a state agency from disseminating private or confidential data on individuals, and that under section13.03, subd. 4(c), data &apos;traveling&apos; from one agency to another retains the same classification it had before. Consequently, if the legislature&apos;s sole objective was to assure that the private and confidential data gathered and reviewed by the end-of-confinement review committee remain private or confidential, respectively, they would not have had to specifically say so in section244.052.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Again, contrary to the argument of the Star Tribune, it is not the Department&apos;s position that review by the end-of-confinement committee makes previously public data private, it is simply that data related to the end-of-confinement review process is not to be disclosed. Again, the committee reviews a broad range of data, including public file data such as arrest and conviction data, which have been provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267602&quot; title=&quot;98-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-004&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner reviewed whether data on a risk level notification sheet disseminated to a school district under section 244.052 was public or private. In concluding that it was private, the Commissioner noted that &apos;the data in the [end-of-confinement] committee reports are classified as not public data.&apos; It was these reports that formed the basis for the fact sheet in question. The Commissioner did not specify that only the otherwise private or confidential data in the committee reports was private under section 244.052, subd. 3(c). This, however, is the result that the Star Tribune is urging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 13 comments, Mr. Borger disagreed with Commissioner Fabian&apos;s assertion that the section244.052, subd. 3(c), phrase under this paragraph was not necessary if the Legislature&apos;s intent was to ensure that any private or confidential data collected and maintained by the committee remain so. Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, if the Legislature&apos;s intent had been to require that &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; data collected and maintained by the committee could not be disclosed outside the committee, there would have been no reason to include the phrase &apos;under this paragraph.&apos; Under Minn. Stat. section 645.16, &apos;[e]very law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.&apos; . . . .To give effect to &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; of the provisions of section244.052 subd. 3(c), the prohibition on disclosure must apply only to data collected and maintained pursuant to the special authorization of section244.052 subd. 3(c) (1)-(5) [sic], which grant the committee access to certain private data for specific purposes. The committee necessarily collects additional data, and that data is not prohibited from further disclosure. Thus, the mere fact that the committee creates or collects certain data does not in itself render that data not-public in the possession of the committee, as Commissioner Fabian argues. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his original opinion request, Mr. Borger also referred to public comments made by Minnesota Governor Pawlenty that blamed the failure to refer Rodriguez for civil commitment as a sexual predator on &apos;bad judgment&apos; by staff members at the Department of Corrections. He stated that [d]espite that criticism [from the Governor], the government employees who participated in the earlier decisions have not been publicly identified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In reference to those comments, Commissioner Fabian wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department has responded to at least one specific media request for the names of these employees that they were being held as private under Minn. Stat. section13.37. This provision permits the classification of data as private when the disclosure of such data &apos;would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&apos; As noted by the Star Tribune, the situation related to the allegations against the sex offender at issue here has engendered &apos;significant public controversy.&apos; It is also true that there is a substantial emotional content to this controversy. However understandable these emotions are, they contribute to an atmosphere which the Department believes poses the &apos;substantial jeopardy&apos; to individual employees noted in section13.37. Not surprisingly, the Department has received substantial negative communication from the public on this matter. While only a few of these communications were generally threatening, the Department believes that the criteria in this section are broad enough that specific threats to an employee&apos;s safety are not required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition to the criteria in section13.37, it must also be conceded that the identity of particular employees is personnel data under section13.43. Under subdivision 4 of that section, personnel data not otherwise specified as public is private. While section13.43, subd. 2, lists employee names and job description as public, it does not list the fact that a particular employee was involved in a particular decision as public data. To do so would have the effect of making individual employees very reluctant to make decisions in highly controversial situations. Moreover, to the extent that an employee in [sic] involved in a decision which may ultimately have disciplinary ramifications, disclosure that the employee was involved in this particular decision would have the effect of violating section13.43, subd. 2(5) prior to any final decision on disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 13, 2004, response to Commissioner Fabian, Mr. Borger wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Commissioner Fabian now asserts that the names of the employees who participated in the civil commitment review and end-of-confinement review of Alfonso Rodriguez are private data under Minn. Stat. section 13.37 and/or section 13.43 subd. 2(5). This breathtaking and pernicious interpretation of those statutes would shield public employees from any public criticism or accountability for their actions. Accepting that interpretation would undermine public trust in government and violate the public&apos;s right, recognized in numerous court decisions, &apos;to be informed of all actions and deliberations made in connection with activities ultimately geared to affect the public interest.&apos; &lt;u&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/u&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729, 741 (Minn. 2002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Public employees are not entitled to merge into a faceless mass, accountable to no one except their immediate superiors. When they attach their names to their normal work product, those names are part of the public government records. They are not, in that context, the &apos;subject&apos; of the records, and the records were not collected or created &apos;because&apos; the persons participating in the work were government employees. Of course, it is conceivable that in some contexts, documents created by a particular employee would be collected by a government agency in the course of evaluating or disciplining that employee, and &lt;u&gt;in those contexts&lt;/u&gt; the data would be personnel data. . . . . Star Tribune has asked for the data in connection with Mr. Rodriguez, not in the context of any evaluation or discipline of the state employees. Mr. Rodriguez is the subject of the data. The state employees are not. [emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger and Commissioner Fabian also discussed the applicability of a Minnesota Court of Appeals case, &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul&lt;/u&gt;, 660 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. App. 2003).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger also stated that there is no credible claim that any of the requested data are security data per section 13.37, because [t]he concerns stated by Commissioner Fabian do not rise to the level of &apos;substantial jeopardy to security.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her February 26, 2004, comments, Commissioner Fabian addressed Mr. Borger&apos;s February 13, 2004, statements regarding the applicability of section 13.37 to the names of the public employees involved in this matter:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s recognition that section 13.37 gives a responsible authority substantial discretion to withhold data as non-public when the circumstances outlined in that section apply, the Star Tribune asserts that what the Department is urging is a &apos;blanket classification scheme.&apos; Far from doing so, the Department&apos;s assertion relates to a unique set of circumstances where there has been substantial public concern and emotion related to the disappearance of a young woman and arrest of an individual formerly in the Department&apos;s custody.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 13 comments, Mr. Borger also stated at the outset that, in her February 6 response to Mr. Borger&apos;s original opinion request, Commissioner Fabian raised new legal issues neither anticipated nor addressed in my prior letter. In response to that statement, Commissioner Fabian wrote, [w]hile the Star Tribune&apos;s initial letter did not present specific arguments related to the issue of release of the names of the employees involved in the decision in controversy, it is difficult to see how this can be characterized as a &apos;new issue&apos; in light of Mr. Borger&apos;s reference to the fact that the government employee[s] who participated in the earlier decisions have not been publicly identified, despite criticism from the Governor. Commissioner Fabian also stated, [a]s for the issue of the End-of Confinement Review and review for civil commitment, it is our view that rather than raising new arguments in our response, we clarified positions the Department has maintained throughout this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Fabian summarized the Department&apos;s position as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department concedes that, given the nature of the allegations against [Mr. Rodriguez], there is, understandably, significant public interest and controversy involved in this matter. This, however, does not change the nature of the data involved. The Star Tribune argues that the Department violated Chapter 13 by taking a broad view that materials associated with the end-of-confinement review and civil commitment review of a particular sex offender are private. In partial support, they point to documents they obtained from other sources that contain data they argue is public. The Department&apos;s position is not that either of these processes make data which would otherwise be public into private data. It is that Minn. Stat. section244.052 makes end-of-confinement review data private and that civil assessment data is private psychological data under section13.85, subd. 2, and that to the extent otherwise public data is considered and weighed in the assessment process, disclosure of this data in the specific context of that assessment, by necessity, discloses private psychological data. Finally, the Department believes that the names of the individual employees involved in the decision in this matter are private security data under section13.37 and private personnel data under section13.43, subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Wilson stated that her firm chose to comment on this matter only because of the potential impact it could have on our client&apos;s pending criminal case in North Dakota. Ms. Wilson stated that the firm agrees with the positions taken by the Department, that the data requested are private. She wrote that if there are any data in the reports that are otherwise public, this information would be readily available from other non-private sources. Ms. Wilson stated [t]he decision to release this information could potentially have a serious and immediate impact on this pending criminal matter. We believe it is best for this material NOT to be released at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are any materials associated with a sexual offender&apos;s end-of-confinement review public data under Minnesota Statutes?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are any materials associated with a sexual offender&apos;s review for civil commitment public data under Minnesota Statutes?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied Star Tribune&apos;s request for access to data associated with the confinement and release of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Are any materials associated with a sexual offender&apos;s end-of-confinement review public data under Minnesota Statutes?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052, subdivision 3 (c), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [end-of-confinement review] committee shall have access to the following data on a predatory offender only for the purposes of its assessment and to defend the committee&apos;s risk assessment determination upon administrative review under this section:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) private medical data under section 13.384 or 144.335, or welfare data under section 13.46 that relate to medical treatment of the offender;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) private and confidential court services data under section 13.84;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) private and confidential corrections data under section 13.85; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) private criminal history data under section 13.87.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data collected and maintained by the committee under this paragraph may not be disclosed outside the committee, except as provided under section 13.05, subdivision 3 or 4. The predatory offender has access to data on the offender collected and maintained by the committee, unless the data are confidential data received under this paragraph.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, under this subdivision, in order to conduct its review, an end-of-confinement review committee has the authority to gain access to private or confidential data about an individual offender, as provided under clauses (1)-(4), which constitute most of the data used by the committee in its review. The committee also may gain access to other private or confidential data from within the Department (see section 13.851), per Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0400 and 1205.0600 (permitting access by individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access). Further, this subdivision prohibits the dissemination of any of the data listed under clauses (1)-(4), i.e., private or confidential data, outside the committee, including to others within the Department, except that the offender may gain access to private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its discussion of this issue, the Department takes the position that under the final paragraph of section 244.052, subdivision 3, all materials associated with the end-of-confinement review process are not public. Commissioner Fabian stated that other statutory provisions would suffice to ensure that the private and confidential data gathered and reviewed by the end-of-confinement review committee remain private or confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger&apos;s position is that, because this provision of section 244.052 grants the committee access to certain private and confidential data for purposes of its assessment, the non-disclosure provision is limited by terms of the enabling paragraph to data that is private or confidential. He stated that it would be absurd, for example, for the committee to contend that newspaper clippings or broadcast tapes of the circumstances of a sexual offense committed by the offender under review became non-public just because they were collected or maintained by the committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that section 244.052, subdivision 3(c), applies only to data on the individual offender that the committee obtains under clauses 1- 4 of that subdivision. Those data may not be disclosed outside the committee. Under section 13.03, subdivision 4, other private or confidential data to which the committee has access, such as data classified under section 13.851, retain their classification as not public, but are not subject to the limitation on dissemination outside the committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 244.052, subdivision 3(c) does not classify data that are not about an individual sex offender. Commissioner Fabian referred to Advisory Opinion 98-004 in support of the Department&apos;s position that all of the data related to the end-of-confinement committee review process are not public. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052, subdivision 3 (f), before the offender is released from confinement or accepted for supervision, the end-of-confinement review committee shall prepare a risk assessment report that specifies the risk level to which the offender has been assigned and the reasons underlying the committee&apos;s risk assessment decision. In 98-004 the Commissioner addressed the issue of whether a government entity may disseminate a Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet. The data in a sex offender fact sheet are derived from a committee&apos;s report and disseminated by a local law enforcement agency. The discussion in that Opinion focused on the private and/or confidential data about the offender to which the committee is authorized to gain access, i.e., the data enumerated at section 244.052, subdivision 3 (c), and the Commissioner opined that the data about the offender in the committee reports, i.e., data about the individual offender, are classified as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; asked the Department to redact the data about Mr. Rodriguez from the end-of-confinement review materials, and provide it with access to the remaining public data, e.g., dates of meetings, participants in meetings, length of meetings, etc. The &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; asserts, and the Commissioner agrees, that any such data that are not about the individual offender are not classified under section 244.052, subdivision 3(c). The Commissioner is not aware of any provision that classifies any end-of-confinement review data that are not on individuals as not public. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, classifies data, not documents. Accordingly, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, data not on individuals contained in materials associated with the end-of-confinement review process are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner did not have an opportunity to examine all of the documents in question, and therefore cannot comment on whether the public data contained therein are inextricably intertwined with the not public data, as the Department has asserted. Based on what the Commissioner has reviewed, he is of the opinion that at least some redaction is possible. In light of the discussion above, the Department needs to review the documents in question and redact them if possible in order to provide the public with access to public data contained therein.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the classification of the names of public employees involved in the process, the Department takes the position that those data are private, under both section 13.43, as personnel data, and section 13.37, as security data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. Data not specified as public under subdivision 2 of section 13.43 are classified as private under subdivision 4. Under section 13.43, subdivision 2, employee names and work assignments are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Fabian stated that because the fact that a particular employee was involved in a particular decision is not listed as public data under section 13.43, subdivision 2, those data are private. She said that if those data were public, it would have the effect of making individual employees very reluctant to make decisions in highly controversial situations. Moreover, to the extent that an employee in [sic] involved in a decision which may ultimately have disciplinary ramifications, disclosure that the employee was involved in this particular decision would have the effect of violating section13.43, subd. 2(5) prior to any final decision on disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger stated that the employees involved in the review process are not, in that context, the &apos;subject&apos; of the records . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Of course, it is conceivable that in some contexts, documents created by a particular employee would be collected by a government agency in the course of evaluating or disciplining that employee, and &lt;u&gt;in those contexts&lt;/u&gt; the data would be personnel data. . . . . Star Tribune has asked for the data in connection with Mr. Rodriguez, not in the context of any evaluation or discipline of the state employees. Mr. Rodriguez is the subject of the data. The state employees are not. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Borger that, in the context in which the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; requested access to data related to the end-of-confinement review process for Mr. Rodriguez, the names of any public employees involved are not private personnel data. As Mr. Borger stated, the documents in question were created as part of the process to evaluate Mr. Rodriguez, not for a purpose such as evaluating or disciplining the employees conducting the review. The name of an employee as having, for example, participated in a meeting, is not private data about the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the applicability of section 13.37 to the names of the employees, Commissioner Fabian stated that the Department&apos;s assertion that the names of employees are protected under section 13.37 is not a blanket classification scheme, but instead relates to a unique set of circumstances where there has been substantial public concern and emotion related to the disappearance of a young woman. Commissioner Fabian stated, the Department has received substantial negative communication from the public on this matter. While only a few of these communications were generally threatening, the Department believes that the criteria in this section are broad enough that specific threats to an employee&apos;s safety are not required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that government entities have discretion to classify data as not public under section 13.37, and in general, defers to that discretion. However, there are statutory limits to that discretion. The Department has not provided the Commissioner with information that is specific enough or otherwise sufficient to demonstrate clearly that the release of data such as the name of a Department employee, in the context of this particular work assignment, would be likely to &lt;u&gt;substantially&lt;/u&gt; jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, based on the limited information provided to support the substantial jeopardy argument, it does not appear the Department can protect the names of the public employees involved in this process under section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2: &lt;/strong&gt;Are any materials associated with a sexual offender&apos;s review for civil commitment public data under Minnesota Statutes?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.85, subdivision 1, corrections and detention data are data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities. Pursuant to subdivision 2:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unless the data are summary data or arrest data, or a statute specifically provides a different classification, corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to their lawful confinement or detainment or (b) endanger an individual&apos;s life.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under section 244.05, the Commissioner of Corrections must make a determination whether to refer an offender to the appropriate county attorney, who then decides whether to initiate civil commitment proceedings. Commissioner Fabian stated that even the fact that an individual offender is referred for civil commitment is private under section13.85, subdivision 2, because it entails a clinical psychological determination, and given the nature of the civil commitment assessment process, disclosure of factors considered and weighed in the course of determining whether it is appropriate to refer an individual offender necessarily discloses psychological information. Commissioner Fabian stated that, according to the definitions of sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous person provided at section 253B.02, subdivisions 18(b) and 18(c), respectively, in addition to prior criminal behavior, there must be evidence of a mental disorder before civil commitment is pursued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After the Department&apos;s initial denial of access, the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; requested access to redacted data. The Department responded that the data in the documents are inextricably intertwined, and that, after redaction, the document would be of little informational value. Mr. Borger disagreed, and stated that the Department has released to the public redacted documents that he believes do have informational value. Mr. Borger stated that the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; believes that section 13.85, subdivision 2, does not classify much of the data associated with the civil commitment process that the Department has withheld, as demonstrated by the full contents of the memoranda that Star Tribune obtained from other sources and has provided to IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Fabian also said that the Department does not take the position that when otherwise public data are considered in the civil commitment assessment process, the data become private. The Star Tribune&apos;s request, however, was not for arrest or other public data per se, but for civil commitment review materials related to a particular individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other than the memoranda obtained by the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;, the Commissioner has not examined any of the documents at issue, and therefore cannot evaluate whether the data are inextricably intertwined. The documents provided by Mr. Borger do contain otherwise public data, i.e., criminal history and arrest data. However, unlike the issue in the discussion above, related to the end-of-confinement review process, the issue of whether the data are or are not inextricably intertwined does not need to be resolved here, because, as the Department noted, even to identify an offender as having been referred under the provisions of section 244.05 would disclose psychological data. The statute does not define that term, but according to the &lt;em&gt;American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt; (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1997) definition, psychological means [o]f, relating to, or arising from the mind or emotions. The data as a whole are evaluated in the context of a psychological evaluation, and are therefore private under section 13.85, subdivision 2. Furthermore, as Commissioner Fabian noted, the Star Tribune did not ask for public criminal history or arrest data, but rather asked for data associated with the civil commitment review process for Mr. Rodriguez.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, the Commissioner believes that even the fact that an individual offender has been evaluated for referral for civil commitment is not public. It follows then that all data collected and maintained by the Department &lt;u&gt;for purposes of making that assessment&lt;/u&gt; for Mr. Rodriguez are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3: &lt;/strong&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied Star Tribune&apos;s request for access to data associated with the confinement and release of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department first told the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; reporter that the data on the civil commitment process are not public per section 13.85, subdivision. 2. The reporter then asked for a redacted copy of the review for civil commitment, and asked that, if his request was denied, the Department provide the specific paragraphs from the law so we can understand your reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department responded that, because the civil commitment review document relates to a recommendation whether an individual should be referred for commitment as a person with a sexual psychopathic personality, as defined at section 253B.02, subdivision 18b, the data relate to psychological information, which are private under section 13.85, subdivision 2. The Department also stated its position that while the document may contain some public information, because the referral evaluation involves deliberative review and weighing of many factors, including those which may not appear to be &apos;psychological&apos; on their face, the public information is inextricably entwined with the private psychological information so that, after redacting the private data, the resulting document would be of little informational value.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reporter disagreed, and asked again for access to a redacted copy. The Department responded, in the December 31 e-mail: [i]t remains our position that the release of even expunged documents directly related to psychological or medical evaluation, including that for civil commitment under Minn. Stat. section 253B.185, would be an improper release of private data under Minn. Stat. section 13.85, subd. 2, because the evaluation process itself is private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger wrote to the Commissioner, in reference to the above: [t]his response appeared to abandon the prior position that some data were public but would be of little informational value with private data redacted. Instead, they now seem to take the broader position that all civil commitment review documents would be withheld &apos;because the evaluation process itself is private.&apos; Mr. Borger wrote that the Department did not explain how or why release of dates of meetings, participants in meetings, length of meetings, etc. would violate the section 13.85, subdivision 2, prohibition on disclosure of medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to [an individual&apos;s] lawful confinement or detainment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her February 6, 2004, comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Fabian responded that the fact of whether an individual offender is referred for civil commitment is, in the Department&apos;s view, private under Minn. Stat. section13.85, subd. 2, because it would disclose psychological data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Borger believes that the Department changed its position with respect to its rationale for denying access to the data. Commissioner Fabian stated: it is our view that rather than raising new arguments in our response, we clarified positions the Department has maintained throughout this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Borger&apos;s point of view, but respectfully disagrees. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the Department maintained its basic position regarding the statutory basis for its denial, while elaborating in response to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; requests for more specific explanations. It would have been helpful had the Department, from the beginning, provided a more detailed explanation of how it viewed the application and relationship of the many statutory provisions that apply to the analysis of how the data in question are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that under section 13.05, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1200, subpart 3, government entities must prepare and update, on an annual basis, a public document that sets forth the classifications of the data they maintain. Compliance with those requirements can reduce the confusion that arises in this kind of situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Borger is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Materials associated with an individual sexual offender&apos;s end-of-confinement review contain a mixture of public and not public data. Data contained therein that are about the offender are not public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052, subdivision 3(c). Under section 13.03, subdivision 4, private or confidential data to which the committee has access, such as data classified under section 13.851, retain their classification as not public, but are not subject to the limitation on dissemination outside the committee. Private or confidential data about the offender obtained by the committee under authority other than section 244.052(c) retain their classification. Section 244.052, subdivision 3(c) does not classify data that are not about an individual sex offender; therefore, those data are presumptively public.
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information available, the Commissioner does not agree that the names of employees involved in the end-of-confinement review process may be protected under section 13.37 or section 13.43. The names are public data under section 13.43, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Materials associated with a sexual offender&apos;s review for civil commitment are not public pursuant to section 13.85, subdivision 2, because even the fact that an offender is/has been evaluated for referral to the civil commitment process is private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Corrections responded appropriately under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it denied the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; request for access to data about Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., that are associated with his confinement and release.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 9, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267519</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal/psychological data defined</Title><Id>266817</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sex offender</Title><Id>266818</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T21:48:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-022</Title><title>Opinion 04 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266746&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-02T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an October 6, 2003, request for a copy of all Data Practices policies utilized by the District?
Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for all data which define the District&apos;s policies and procedures related to each of 20 topics?
Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a December 17, 2003, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> April 2, 2004; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 12, 2004, IPAD received a letter from James Rodenhiser. In his letter, Mr. Rodenhiser asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie Schools, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Melissa Krull, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 17, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated March 15, 2004, from Maggie Wallner and Kimberly Hewitt Boyd, attorneys representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Rodenhiser is as follows. In a letter dated October 6, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser requested the following data from the Mary Bollinger, Executive Director of Human Resources, A copy of all Data Practices policies utilized by the [District].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Bollinger responded in a letter dated October 13, 2003, and included a copy of the [District&apos;s] data practices policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 18, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote again to Mr. Rodenhiser stating, in part, The district&apos;s Data Practices Policy was sent to you on October 13, 1003 [the Commissioner assumes this should be 2003]. We have enclosed another copy with this letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 28, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser wrote to the Ms. Bollinger. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have included with this letter a copy of a Compliance Checklist containing 20 rows of topics related to [Chapter 13] responsibilities for which an entity is required to establish various written policies and procedures. For each of the 20 topics I am requesting that you provide to me all data which defines the district&apos;s policies and procedures related to that topic. Please designate for which topic(s) there is no data existent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 8, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote to Mr. Rodenhiser:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am enclosing a copy of Policy 505 and also regulations 505.1 and 505.2 which cover all information regarding student records. In addition, we are enclosing Policy 801 and Regulation 801.2, which deals with community access to student directory information. Regulation 801.2R was put into effect at our June 28, 2000 school board meeting....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 17, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser asked to inspect the resolution by which the current responsible authority was formally appointed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Rodenhiser wrote that the requests in this letter have to date not been responded to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rodenhiser asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an October 6, 2003, request for a copy of all Data Practices policies utilized by the District?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for all data which define the District&apos;s policies and procedures related to each of 20 topics?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a December 17, 2003, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an October 6, 2003, request for a copy of all Data Practices policies utilized by the District?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes he is limiting his discussion in this issue to the timeliness of the District&apos;s response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, a government entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a)) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an October 6, 2003, letter, Mr. Rodenhiser requested copies of all data practices policies utilized by the District. On or about October 13, 2003, the District sent him a policy relating to student records (505.1R). On or about December 8, 2003, after a related request by Mr. Rodenhiser (see Issue 2), the District sent the following documents to Mr. Rodenhiser: Policy 505; what appears to be a more complete copy of a policy relating to student records (505.1R); another policy relating to student records - Reporting to Parent(s)/Guardian(s) (505.2R); a policy relating to community access to student directory information (801.2R); and a communications policy (801).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments, Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Ms. Bollinger responded on December 8, 2003 and provided Mr. Rodenhiser with all relevant district policies related to student records. The school district has one additional policy related to personnel data that it believes was sent to Mr. Rodenhiser in response to a telephone call to Ms. Bollinger&apos;s office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request on October 6, 2003, was for copies of all data practices policies. The District sent him one policy within two weeks, sent additional policies on December 8, 2003, and apparently sent him an additional policy sometime after December 8, 2003. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the District&apos;s response was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for all data which define the District&apos;s policies and procedures related to each of 20 topics?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 28, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser provided the District with a document that lists government entities&apos; obligations under Chapter 13 and its accompanying rules, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. (This list is an information piece prepared by IPAD.) Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request was for all data which defines the district&apos;s policies and procedures related to [each of the 20 topics]. Mr. Rodenhiser seems to be under the impression that for each obligation listed, an entity is required to create a related policy/procedure. The only situation in which an entity is obligated to create a policy/procedure is when the statute or rules so require.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request, Ms. Bollinger sent him copies of several District policies (see Issue 1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response, Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district is required to establish public access procedures in written form on an annual basis. &lt;em&gt;Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 2 and Minn. R. 1205.1200.&lt;/em&gt; The school district&apos;s policies regarding access to student data...[were provided by Ms. Bollinger] to Mr. Rodenhiser on October 13, 2003 and on December 8, 2003....[t]he school district is not required to maintain a separate policy according to every provision of the Act in the Compliance Checklist submitted to you by Mr. Rodenhiser. Ms. Bollinger has sent Mr. Rodenhiser copies of all the District policies related to data privacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd assert that the District has provided to Mr. Rodenhiser all data responsive to his request. In his opinion request, Mr. Rodenhiser appears to assert that he believes the District has not provided him with all of its data practices policies. This is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve. If the District has provided all of its data practices policies to Mr. Rodenhiser, it has complied with his request. If there are additional data practices policies that the District has not provided to Mr. Rodenhiser, it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Has Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a December 17, 2003, request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a December 17, 2003, letter Mr. Rodenhiser asked to inspect the resolution by which the current responsible authority was formally appointed. In his opinion request to the Commissioner, he wrote that the District had not yet responded to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response, Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd did not address the issue of a written order or resolution documenting the District&apos;s appointment of a responsible authority and Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s ability to inspect it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the responsible authority is the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 14, when the government entity in question is a school district, the school board shall appoint, as responsible authority, an individual who is an employee of the school district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a previous opinion, the Commissioner discussed the requirement that cities appoint a responsible authority. As cities and school districts both are governed by a public body, the discussion regarding a city&apos;s appointment process is applicable here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267639&quot; title=&quot;94-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-021&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the case of a city, the actual designation of the responsible authority takes place when a city council, by resolution, appoints the responsible authority for the city. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 16.)...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Rules promulgated by the Department of Administration in 1981 were, among other things, intended to assist government entities in complying with the responsible authority appointment process and public document preparation. In addition to legal rules dealing with those topics, the Department of Administration also provided model advisory forms for resolutions to appoint a responsible authority and to produce the public document required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Chapter 1205 and its Appendix.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The best evidence that Rosemount could offer to Mr. Walsh, as to its compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA regarding the appointment of a responsible authority, would be copies of all appointment resolutions acted upon by the Rosemount City Council and of the public document required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. Although Mr. Miles has identified the city clerk and city administrator as Rosemount&apos;s responsible authorities over the years, copies of appointment resolutions and the public document would demonstrate clearly that Rosemount has actually done what the MGDPA requires it to do in appointing a responsible authority and identifying that responsible authority to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the District has not provided Mr. Rodenhiser with an opportunity to inspect documentation of the appointment of its responsible authority. It should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rodenhiser raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, did not respond in a timely manner to an October 6, 2003, request for a copy of all Data Practices policies utilized by the District.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, has complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for all data which define the District&apos;s policies and procedures related to each of 20 topics. If the District has provided all of its data practices policies to the requestor, it has complied with Chapter 13. If it has not provided all of its data practices policies to the requestor, it should do so promptly.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a December 17, 2003, request for access to data. It immediately should provide access to the documentation showing the appointment of a responsible authority.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 2, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266746</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-021</Title><title>Opinion 04 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267694&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-04-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, if the Minnesota Department of Human Services does not create any data relating to its decision to deny a parent access to data about the parent&apos;s minor child (as per Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500), have the Chapter 13 public access rights been violated?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 2, 2004; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated January 30, 2004, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains. IPAD sought clarification, which X provided in a letter dated February 11, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated February 13, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS&apos; position. On March 8, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated March 4, 2004, from Commissioner Goodno.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. According to Commissioner Goodno, on March 4, 2003, X requested certain data that [DHS] may have about another individual and X. The Commissioner of Administration did not receive a copy of this request and does not know if it was in writing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 17, 2003, Commissioner Goodno wrote to X:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The Department also maintains some data about you or your [minor child] that you may not access. Some of this data constitutes privileged communication, or related work product, between DHS staff and their legal counsel. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minnesota Statutes section 13.393. This includes data generated as a result of staff attorneys acting in their professional capacity and work products generated in response to privileged attorney-client communications. Nonpublic security data is also inaccessible to you. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; section 13.37, subd. 1(a) and 2. In addition, private data on individuals other than you, who have not consented to release the data, is inaccessible to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 In addition, under the Minnesota Rules associated with [Chapter 13], the Department must notify a minor child of a parent&apos;s request to access the child&apos;s private data. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt;, Rule 1205.0500. The Department must also inform the child of the right to deny the parent access to the child&apos;s private data (Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205.0500, Subpart 3.) A minor child was notified of your request and expressed a desire that the Department not release such data to you at this time. Guided by the factors in Rule 1205.0500, subpart 3(B), the Department considered the child&apos;s request and determined that it would not be in the best interests of the child to release data about the child to you at this time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Commissioner Goodno:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On March 20, the Department received correspondence from [X] via fax in which [s/he] made an additional request for the following four categories of data: (1) copies of all communication between the Department and the other individual; (2) all documentation...used [by the Department] to determine not to release the data about this individual to [X]; (3) the final determination itself ; and (4) documentation regarding discussions, if any, between the Department and a third individual.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Commissioner of Administration did not receive a copy of this correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Commissioner Goodno, On March 26, 2003, [X] notified the Department via fax that [X] would review accessible data on March 28. [X] was subsequently provided with copies of certain documents per [his/her] request. The Commissioner (of Administration) did not receive a copy of this correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In an April 2, 2003, letter to X, Commissioner Goodno, in part, responded to X&apos;s March 20, 2003, fax:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 In response to categories 1 and 2, in the March 17 correspondence to you from the Department, the Department informed you that you may not access data about this individual. The reason for this determination was explained to you in detail in that correspondence. For the same reason (&lt;i&gt;see&lt;/i&gt; Minnesota Rule 1205.0500), the data you are now requesting is inaccessible to you. In addition, referring to category 2, data generated as a result of staff attorneys acting in their professional capacity constitutes either to [sic] privileged attorney-client communications or work product generated in response to such communications, and is therefore inaccessible to you. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minnesota Statutes 13.393.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 With regard to the final determination itself (category 3) you were advised of the determination in the March 17 correspondence from the Department. In addition, referring to both categories 3 and 4, for the reasons stated above and in the March 17 correspondence you may not access to [sic] this private data about other individuals. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minnesota Statute 13.46, subdivision 2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Finally, referring to categories 1, 2, and 4, as the Department informed you in the March 17, 2003, correspondence, data that constitutes nonpublic security data is also inaccessible to you. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minnesota Statute 13.37, subdivision 1(a) and 2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated September 26, 2003, X wrote to Commissioner Goodno:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I find a number of documents were not provided to me by your agency pursuant to my recent data request...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The most troubling omission is documentation regarding your agency determination to withhold information you hold on [my child].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Your agency has made a determination to withhold this data from me as you stated, however, Minnesota law compels your agency to provide the report and formal determination generated upon which you based that determination.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If your agency makes a determination to withhold this data from me as you stated, specifically the report and formal determination to withhold data you hold on my [child], please include in your response your authority to support that position.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 13, 2003, Commissioner Goodno wrote to X:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am writing in response to your letter dated September 26, 2003, in which you again ask about the statutory authority to withhold or redact certain information about your [child] from data made available to you pursuant to a request for private data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It appears that you are requesting a document that includes information used to make the determination about what information should be redacted or withheld prior to releasing information to you. There is no such documentation and the Department is not required to produce such a document. The Department is required to explain to you the specific statutes upon which the decision to redact or withhold information is based [see section 13.03 subd. 3(f)].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In responses dated March 17, 2003, and April 2, 2003, you were provided a thorough explanation of the statutes used to determine what data must be withheld or redacted.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, if the Minnesota Department of Human Services does not create any data relating to its decision to deny a parent access to data about the parent&apos;s minor child (as per Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500), have the Chapter 13 public access rights been violated?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, an individual is entitled to gain access to data of which s/he is the subject. For purposes of Chapter 13, when the data subject is a minor child, the term individual includes the minor&apos;s parents. (See section 13.02, subdivision 8.) However, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 3, provides that an entity may withhold data when a minor data subject requests that the responsible authority deny her/his parents access and the responsible authority determines it is in the best interests of the minor to withhold the data from the minor&apos;s parents. Subpart 3 of Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, also provides guidance regarding a government entity&apos;s process in determining whether it is appropriate to withhold data about a minor from the minor&apos;s parents.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, states, All officers and agencies of [government entities]... shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states, Access to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions so that the data in those records will be available pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The question raised by X is whether DHS would violate the Chapter 13 rights of access to government data if it does not create data relating to its decision to deny a parent access to data about his/her child. Given the language in section 15.17, and the legislative policy that, in most cases, parents are entitled to gain access to data about their children, if a government entity has made the decision to withhold certain data from a parent, the entity must document that decision. That documentation then constitutes an official record and must be maintained pursuant to the entity&apos;s records retention schedule. The data contained in that official record would be subject to the access provisions of Chapter 13. Accordingly, it appears DHS should maintain such an official record pursuant to its records retention schedule.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Goodno stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In correspondence dated April 2, 2003, the Department responded to [X&apos;s] March 20 request for additional data. At that time, the Department reminded [X] that, for the reasons that had been previously enunciated in the Department&apos;s March 17 correspondence, [X] was not authorized to access private data about the other individual. As you know, that individual had previously made a request that their private data not be disclosed and the Department determined that this request should be honored. See Minnesota Rule 1205.0500. With regard to the final determination itself (category 3), on April 2, the Department reminded [X] that the determination had already been explained in detail in the Department&apos;s March 17 correspondence.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      However, information used by the Department to determine whether to release private data about this individual to [X], including related records reflecting communications and discussions, if any, between the Department and this individual, itself constitutes private data on that individual. Thus, for the same reason that the original data about the individual was unavailable to [X], data about the individual relating to this determination was likewise unavailable....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      At no point was [X] told that the Department does not maintain or create any data relating to its decision to deny a parent access to data about the parent&apos;s minor child. Rather, the Department clearly articulated that, to the extent that such data exists, [X] was, for the reasons discussed above, not entitled to access that portion that constitutes private data about other individual(s)....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       Nevertheless, in correspondence dated September 26, 2003, [X] again requested the same private data. Without citing any specific provision, [X] stated that Minnesota data practices law compels your agency to provide &lt;i&gt;the report and formal determination generated upon which you based that determination&lt;/i&gt; (italics added). On October 13, 2003, the Department informed [X] no such &lt;i&gt;document&lt;/i&gt; exists in the form that [X] was requesting (a report ), and that, in the Department&apos;s view, the law did not require the Department to produce a separate report memorializing the Department&apos;s actions. Neither [Chapter 13] nor the Official Records Act require the creation of data (other than summary data) in an alternative format merely because that format may be preferable to a person seeking access to the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       As indicated above, however, this is not the same as saying that the Department maintains &lt;i&gt;no&lt;/i&gt; data documenting the basis for it [sic] action. Indeed, in addition to the types of data, discussed above, which [X] is not entitled to access, the Department&apos;s actions and the basis for them were also documented in the numerous correspondence that were sent to [X].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner of Administration has the following comments. In his March 17, 2003, letter, Commissioner Goodno informed X that DHS maintains data about X&apos;s child that X may not access. Based on the documentation provided, the Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether DHS maintains data relating to its determination, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, that X cannot gain access to data about his/her minor child.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ideally, each government entity that collects data about minor data subjects should have in place a process relating to situations similar to the one at issue in this opinion. The first step in the process is to provide the notice required pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 3: The responsible authority shall provide minors from whom the entity collects private or confidential data with a notification that the minor individual has the right to request that parental access to private data be denied.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Rules further state:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       Upon receipt of such a request [from the minor], the responsible authority shall determine if honoring the request to deny parental access would be in the best interest of the minor data subject. In making the determination, the responsible authority shall be guided by at least the following: &lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (1) whether the minor is of sufficient age and maturity to be able to explain the reasons for and to understand the consequences of the request to deny access;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) whether the personal situation of the minor is such that denying parental access may protect the minor data subject from physical or emotional harm;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) whether there is ground for believing that the minor data subject&apos;s reasons for precluding parental access are reasonably accurate;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (4) whether the data in question is of such a nature that disclosure of it to the parent could lead to physical or emotional harm to the minor data subject; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (5) whether the data concerns medical, dental, or other health services provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.341 to 144.347. If so, the data may be released only if failure to inform the parent would seriously jeopardize the health of the minor.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the documentation provided, the Commissioner cannot determine if DHS has such a process in place.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final comment is in order. The Commissioner acknowledges that government entities walk a fine line when a minor data subject requests that data be withheld from his/her parent, and the parent wants information about the circumstances surrounding the child&apos;s request and the entity&apos;s determination to withhold. The language in Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, is meant to guide entities in making an appropriate determination. Once that determination is made, it is important for the parent to understand why the determination was made and for the entity to disclose, to the extent possible, i.e., without revealing data the minor does not want disclosed, the basis for its determination. Absent this, the parent is left with no understanding as to why s/he is being denied access to data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, if the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) did not create any data relating to its decision to deny a parent access to data about the parent&apos;s minor child (as per Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500), it has violated the Chapter 13 rights of access to government data. However, in this case, the Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether DHS does or does not maintain the data relating to it determination. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 2, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267694</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent access to data on child</Title><Id>266761</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minor request to withhold data</Title><Id>266941</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-020</Title><title>Opinion 04 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266882&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-31T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety provide proper notice, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, when it asked an individual to supply his/her Social Security number in connection with an application for a commercial driver&apos;s license?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 31, 2004; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 10, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X. In that letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her rights as a subject of data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety ( Public Safety. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rich Stanek, Commissioner of Public Safety. The purposes of this letter, dated February 18, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On March 5, 2004, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Stanek. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to X:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On the 4th of April 1998 I went to . . . renew my Minnesota Commercial Drivers License. The individual at the counter told me that I was required to provide a social security number on the application too. I told the individual that there were prerequisites that needed to be meet [sic] before they could ask for a social security number pursuant to [the] 1974 Federal Privacy Act and asked for a copy of the warning. I was then told that she would accept my application, &apos;as is&apos;, but that they may not accept my application at the &apos;State&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On or about the 1st of May 1998 I received a letter from The [sic] Department of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle Services Division, Driver Licensing Records that states in part, &apos;We are unable to process your application etc.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided the Commissioner with copies of the first application s/he filled out, and a second application that Public Safety asked X to submit. According to X, the second application form has the cover page that asks for the ssn# etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Commissioner Stanek stated that at the time X first applied for a commercial driver&apos;s license, it was mandatory for all commercial drivers to provide a Social Security number. Commissioner Stanek stated that it was Public Safety&apos;s position that X was given sufficient notice as required under state and federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Stanek provided copies, labeled as Exhibits A-C, of the version of the application form X submitted, the &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Driver&apos;s License/Identification Card Application&lt;/em&gt; (PS 33100-07), which contained the following statements:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exhibit A (front of document)&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&apos;-Social Security Number OPTIONAL for all applicants EXCEPT those applying for a Commercial Driver&apos;s License, MN Statute 171.06, Subd. 3.&apos;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exhibit B, item number one (back of original document) and Exhibit C, item number one:&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&apos;-NOTICE TO DRIVER LICENSE APPLICANTS
&lt;br /&gt;
All data requested on a driver license application is required by law. The social security number is required for commercial drivers only. The information is used to identify your driving record and to determine your eligibility for issuing a permit or license. Failure to provide required information may result in denial of the permit or license. Except for medical data and social security number, all information is public and copies may be issued to anyone. Upon written request your residence address can be classified as private information.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Stanek wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, state agencies are required to notify the individual of the following three items related to collection of their social security number:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;1. Whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;2. By what statutory or other authority the social security number is solicited; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;3. What uses will be made of the number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In accordance with MN Stat. 13.04, Subd. 2, a state agency is required to notify the individual of the following additional items:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;4. The purpose and intended use of the requested data;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;5. Whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;6. Any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;7. The identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We believe the two statements printed on the &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Driver&apos;s License/Identification Card Application&lt;/em&gt; (PS 33100-07) adequately satisfy our obligation to notify the applicant in regards to the collection of his/her social security number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Additionally, the letter dated May 1, 1998, as well as subsequent letters from our agency, provided [X] with additional notification as well as the federal requirement for all commercial driver&apos;s license applicants to provide a social security number. Our agency attempted further clarification of the issue when [X] met with [Public Safety staff.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is also important to note that since [X] originally submitted his/her application, there have been changes to Minnesota statutes related to privacy as well as collection of an individual&apos;s social security number. Effective August 1, 2000, changes to MN stat. 171.12, Subd. 7, letter c, places restrictions on the dissemination of personal information. Personal information is disseminated only for the permissible purpose as outlined in U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2721 or other applicable state statutes. Effective August 1, 2003, MN Stat. 171.06 was amended to require the collection of social security numbers for all applicants. This change was required to comply with the federal Welfare Reform Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety provide proper notice, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and federal law, when it asked an individual to supply his/her Social Security number in connection with an application for a commercial driver&apos;s license?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number are subject to requirements of both state and federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.355, subdivision 1, Social Security numbers are private data. When a government entity asks an individual to supply private data about him/herself, such as a Social Security number, the entity is required to give the individual a notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen warning. (See section 13.04, subdivision 2.) As Commissioner Stanek noted, there are several components to the notice requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, as Commissioner Stanek noted above, the federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires federal, state, and local government entities requesting Social Security numbers to provide individuals with a notice. (See Section 7 (b) of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of 1974. Public Law 93-579 was codified at 5 U.S.C. section 552a. Section 7 was contained in a note, and not incorporated into the U.S. Code.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, federal law provides that federal, state, and local government agencies cannot deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers unless the disclosure is required or authorized by federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the Social Security number before 1975. Federal law does allow a state agency to deny rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers to the extent that Social Security numbers are used in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver&apos;s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction. (See Tax Reform Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iv).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the Tennessen warning requirement under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, the Commissioner is of the opinion that Public Safety did not provide X with proper notice. The notice used by the Department in 1998, the time at which X was asked to provide private data, does not contain the following required components: any known consequence arising from &lt;u&gt;supplying&lt;/u&gt; the private or confidential data; the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data; and, a complete description of the purpose and intended use of the data being requested within the Department of Public Safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that both the Tennessen warning and the federal Privacy Act social security number notice are required to be given at the time government entities ask for the private data and, in this case, the private data which is the social security number. This timing is critical because the overall objective of both notices is to give an individual adequate notice &lt;u&gt;before providing any data&lt;/u&gt; so that the individual can make an informed decision about sharing certain data with the government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In situations where the state Tennessen warning requirement and the federal Privacy Act social security notice requirement intersect, it is possible to produce what amounts to a combined notice in which all the elements of both the state and federal requirements are addressed. Both of the notice requirements assume that direct and straightforward statement will be made to individuals about the data they are being requested to supply. The one area of potential confusion with the two requirements is found in how the two laws deal with the notice of uses. State law only requires that an individual be informed of uses of data within the requesting government entity. The rationale for this limited requirement is that, particularly in those situations where an entity is authorized or required to provide data to other entities, the collecting entity cannot be responsible for knowing &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; of the uses outside its own organization. By contrast, the language of the federal Privacy Act would seem to indicate that government entities are responsible for communicating all uses that will be made of the social security number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both instances, the Commissioner is of the opinion that a reasonable reading of the state and federal law requirements leads to a conclusion that entities are only required to communicate those uses of the data being collected that are reasonably known to the entity at the time the data are being collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In terms of a detailed evaluation of the entire notice given by Public Safety, the Commissioner is not in a position to know: all of the consequences, known to Public Safety, of X&apos;s supplying data; all of the identities of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the private data X was being asked to supply; or, all of the uses to which Public Safety could put the private data within the Department. The rules of the Department of Administration provide a methodology to assist government entities in gathering the information and making the determinations that will assist them to provide adequate Tennessen warnings. (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Section 1205.1300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, examples of statements that could have appeared in the 1998 notice are as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Consequence Statement&lt;/u&gt;: One consequence of supplying these private data is that your driving record will be checked in other states which may lead to a decision not to issue you a license.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Dissemination Statement&lt;/u&gt;: Public Safety is required to disseminate private data related to the location of the debtor to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue or the Minnesota Attorney General, for the purposes of debt collection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Use Statement&lt;/u&gt;: Your social security number will be used within the Department to identify you and to assure that data about you and your driving record are properly maintained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the federal Privacy Act notice requirement, the Commissioner also believes that the notice on X&apos;s application form does not meet the federal Privacy Act notice requirement. As noted above, the form contains the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Social Security Number OPTIONAL for all applicants EXCEPT those applying for a Commercial Driver&apos;s License, MN Statute 171.06, Subd. 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That statement does not comply with the federal requirement that the notice must state the statutory or other authority under which the entity is requesting the Social Security number. Although the notice does refer to section 171.06, subdivision 3, it does not state clearly that it is Minnesota Statutes Section 171.06, subdivision 3 that mandates that an applicant for a commercial driver&apos;s license provide his/her Social Security number. In notices like these, the most direct way to deal with the federal Privacy Act requirement is to present information as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Providing us with your social security number is mandatory. Our authority for requesting the number is, for example, Minnesota Statutes Section 171.06, subdivision 3. The social security number will be used, for example, to identify you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Department of Public Safety did not provide proper notice, pursuant to federal law, when, in 1998, it asked an individual to supply his/her Social Security number in connection with an application for a commercial driver&apos;s license, because it did not clearly specify the statutory or other authority under which it was collecting X&apos;s Social Security number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The notice also does not meet the requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, because the notice does not contain the following required components: any known consequence arising from supplying the private or confidential data; the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data; and the purpose and intended use of the data within the Department of Public Safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 31, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266882</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-019</Title><title>Opinion 04 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267294&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-31T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination to deny access to a December 19, 2003, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 31, 2004; Middle-Snake-Tamarac-Rivers Watershed District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 12, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated February 9, 2004, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Adrian, the Watershed District&apos;s Engineer. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Watershed District&apos;s position. On March 11, 2004, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Blake Sobolik, an attorney representing the Watershed District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated December 19, 2003, Mr. Stengrim clarified a December 16, 2003, request for access to certain data the Watershed District maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 24, 2003, Mr. Adrian wrote to Mr. Stengrim:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In March 2003, we provided for your review the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project file and at your request we provided you in excess of 2000 copies from this file. As of this date we have not received payment for these copies and you have not indicated to us why this has not been paid. Enclosed also is the re-computed bill for copies previously furnished. This must also be paid prior to us providing you with any copies.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Watershed District in a letter dated January 7, 2003 (the Commissioner assumes this should be January 7, 2004):
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...I have researched my files and found nothing to indicate that I personally requested in excess of 2000 copies from [the Watershed District]. The billing statement indicates that it is a revised statement. During my research I did not find any prior billing statement for March 2003, so please send me a copy of the original billing statement including an itemized listing of the documents requested and copied.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In another letter dated January 7, 2003 (the Commissioner assumes this should be January 7, 2004), Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Watershed District and attached a check to cover the copies he requested in his December 19, 2003, letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 16, 2004, Mr. Sobolik wrote to Mr. Stengrim:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...you claim you did not receive a bill for documents requested in March of 2003. You are correct in that statement. Mr. Dwain Fagerlund, your attorney, received that bill. This bill is dated May 2, 2003....I understand that you were present and assisted Mr. Fagerlund in choosing which copies to make. You should contact Mr. Fagerlund to determine if he received the bill, although I believe he did. The bill which Mr. Fagerlund received was revised downward in keeping with the recently enacted Board policy regarding these Data Practices requests. I understand you did receive the revised bill.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Under the present Board policy, this revised bill must be paid in full before any further copies will be provided to you under [Chapter 13], including the one that will be responded to when Mr. Adrian returns....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 19, 2004, Mr. Adrian returned Mr. Stengrim&apos;s check relating to the December 19, 2003, data request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 23, 2004, Mr. Stengrim&apos;s attorney wrote to Mr. Sobolik:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Please be advised that the copies in dispute were made at my request as part of the ongoing litigation. As you are aware, I represent several clients in that matter, not only James Stengrim. The copies made for purposes of the litigation are distinctly separate from any requests that Mr. Stengrim has made pursuant to [Chapter 13]....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The [Watershed District] has denied me copies of requested public documents because they claim I have an outstanding bill for previous requested material. The outstanding bill is for documents that an attorney, who represents myself and several other landowners, requested in March of 2003. The attorney&apos;s request for documents was part of the discovery process for the legal action. The original billing statement was sent to the Attorney. I believe it violates my rights under [Chapter 13] to deny my present request for public data because of what the Watershed District claims is my personal unpaid bill.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination to deny access to a December 19, 2003, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), a responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of data upon request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the case of this opinion, Mr. Stengrim made a request for copies in December of 2003. The Watershed District denied his request because of an outstanding bill for copies to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s attorney. (Mr. Stengrim provided the Commissioner with a copy of the invoice, dated May 2, 2003, from the Watershed District to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s attorney.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Sobolik wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...I believe it is critical the Department of Administration understand that the comment made in Mr. Stengrim&apos;s letter to your office of February 9, 2004, is inaccurate. At no time has the District denied Mr. Stengrim access to public data. This is true with respect to Mr. Stengrim&apos;s December 19, 2003, request for data. The documents he requested have always been and still are available for his inspection. The District has simply stated that we will not provide copies of this data until the bill which his attorney incurred is paid. The issue, in other words, is not whether Mr. Stengrim had access to documents he requested but whether the District can require payment for previous documents before furnishing additional copies.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       I believe the facts of this case are very similar to the unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals in &lt;u&gt;Salminen v. City of Hibbing&lt;/u&gt;, (C6-88-2509). In that case, Salminen made repeated requests of the City of Hibbing to review and copy public documents. The City complied with those requests. Salminen was given a bill by the City for costs incurred by the City&apos;s employees in searching and copying documents pursuant to Salminen&apos;s request. Salminen did not pay the bill and the City refused to allow him to inspect or copy any further documents until the bill was paid. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the City has no duty to research or copy documents for Salminen until the bill is paid but does have a duty to allow Salminen to inspect and copy public documents on his own, even though he had not paid for previous costs incurred by the City.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Sobolik then argued that because Mr. Fagerlund was acting as Mr. Stengrim&apos;s agent, [The District&apos;s position is that] an unpaid bill by an attorney is the same unpaid bill of the attorney&apos;s client. Mr. Sobolik further stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...Therefore, the bill that was forwarded to Mr. Fagerlund was in fact the bill of Mr. Stengrim&apos;s and others.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       In conclusion, I want to reiterate that at no time has Mr. Stengrim been denied access to data. The only thing Mr. Stengrim has been denied is copies of documents that he has requested because of the unpaid bill of his attorney which it certainly appears the &lt;u&gt;Salminen&lt;/u&gt; case allows the district to do....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       It is important to note that the &lt;i&gt;Salminen&lt;/i&gt; case is unpublished and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 480A.08, subdivision 3, carries no precedential value. Thus, it does not control the outcome here.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The Commissioner believes the facts of the &lt;i&gt;Salminen&lt;/i&gt; case are distinguishable from the facts currently before the Commissioner. In Salminen, the Court of Appeals addressed a situation in which a data requestor with an outstanding bill for previously obtained copies of data sought additional copies of data. The Court held that the City had no obligation to prepare additional copies but that the City was required to allow the data requestor to inspect and prepare his/her own copies. The situation before the Commissioner is different in that Mr. Stengrim&apos;s attorney, not Mr. Stengrim, apparently requested the data for which there is an outstanding bill. In addition, it was Mr. Stengrim&apos;s attorney, not Mr. Stengrim, who received a copy of the bill on or about May 6, 2003. The Watershed District did not send Mr. Stengrim a copy of the bill until after he made his data practices request in December of 2003. While the Commissioner believes the Court in &lt;i&gt;Salminen&lt;/i&gt; reached a reasonable conclusion, there is no provision in Chapter 13 limiting an individual&apos;s access to copies of data if someone other than that individual owes a government entity money for unpaid copies of data. Thus, the Watershed District should provide Mr. Stengrim with the copies of data he requested in December 2003 and work with Stengrim&apos;s attorney to resolve the attorney&apos;s unpaid bill.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination to deny access to a December 19, 2003, request for access to data. The Watershed District promptly should provide copies of the requested data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 31, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267294</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Prepayment</Title><Id>266407</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-018</Title><title>Opinion 04 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267347&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 832, Mahtomedi, maintains: personal notes taken by a school board member during a school board meeting, which are later used to prepare preliminary school board minutes?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 31, 2004; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 12, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi. In her letter, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In opinion request, Ms. Kepple wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This letter is a request for an advisory opinion as to whether personal notes taken by a school board member during a school board meeting, which are later used to prepare preliminary school board minutes are exempt from disclosure under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 832, Mahtomedi, maintains: personal notes taken by a school board member during a school board meeting, which are later used to prepare preliminary school board minutes?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are classified as public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation Ms. Kepple describes, at a school board meeting, a school board member takes notes, which later are used to prepare preliminary minutes. Ms. Kepple did not provide the Commissioner with a sample of the data in question. Although Ms. Kepple describes the notes as personal, she did not assert that the notes contain data other than those from which school board minutes are prepared. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes the only data contained in the notes are those from which the minutes are prepared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In analyzing the classification of the data in the notes, it is important to determine whether the school board member is the subject of the notes. If so, and if the board member is an elected official, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43 or are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267335&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;03-011&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-011&lt;/a&gt; for a more detailed discussion about the treatment of data about elected officials.) If the school board member is not the subject of the notes, the data are classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not seen a sample of the type of notes in question. However, it does not appear the school board member would be the subject of the type of notes Ms. Kepple describes. Assuming this to be the case, the notes are public unless otherwise classified. It is possible, however, that a school board member, in the course of taking notes for the minutes, will record his/ her vote on a particular issue or comments that s/he made about a particular matter before the board. Such data, technically, are data about the board member. Given the operation of Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, the Commissioner believes those types of data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, personal notes taken by a school board member during a school board meeting, which are later used to prepare preliminary school board minutes, most likely are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 31, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267347</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minutes, personal notes</Title><Id>266615</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-017</Title><title>Opinion 04 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267538&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Thief River Falls maintains: the dollar value of an employee&apos;s health insurance benefit?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 26, 2004; City of Thief River Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 2, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated January 27, 2004, from Jodie Torkelson, City Administrator for the City of Thief River Falls. In her letter, Ms. Torkelson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Torkelson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At a seminar conducted by a private company, the City was told that the dollar value benefit towards an employee&apos;s health insurance payment would be considered private health information under HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996] law.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If the City releases the dollar value benefit provided to an employee for health insurance coverage, that information would reveal the specific coverage plan that an employee has opted for. (For example, an employee receives a benefit from the City of $600.00 per month for family health insurance that provides 100% coverage. An employee receives a benefit from the City of $25 for single health insurance that provides 100% coverage.) These insurance benefits are outlined in the employment contracts, which are public documents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The City of Thief River Falls provides employee health insurance coverage through the Northwest Service Cooperative Self Insurance Pool . The pool members consist of several northwest Minnesota counties, cities, and other governmental agencies. The City collects a portion of the health insurance premium from each employee and remits it, along with the City&apos;s share, to the Northwest Service Cooperative. Quarterly, the City receives a summary of claims from the Northwest Service Cooperative, which contains no identifiable personal health insurance data. (Data is printed as summary information only). The only personal health information which is collected or received by the City is the employee&apos;s health insurance application, which according to an article (updated 04/04/04) from the League of Minnesota Cities, does not alone make the City a covered entity. The Northwest Service Cooperative has a contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota to provide service for its participant members.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Torkelson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Thief River Falls maintains: the dollar value of an employee&apos;s health insurance benefit?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At issue in this opinion is the classification of the amount the City pays toward an employee&apos;s health insurance coverage. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), provides that the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits are public. Therefore, pursuant to state law, the data at issue are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The remaining question is whether HIPAA treats the data differently, i.e., not public. (The regulations that implement HIPAA are found at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164. These regulations include standards for privacy of health information, security for protection of electronic health information, and general administrative requirements.) For information to be protected by HIPAA, the entity involved must be a covered entity, which is defined as a health plan, a health plan clearinghouse, or a health care provider who transmits any health care information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter. (See 45 C.F.R. section 160.103) In addition, the information must be protected health information, which is defined as individually identifiable health information. Individually identified health information is defined as:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...information that is a subset of health information, including demographic information collected from an individual and:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) Is created or received by [a covered entity]; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (i) That identifies the individual; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      (See 45 C.F.R. section 160.103.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Upon review of HIPAA, the Commissioner is unable to determine, with certainly, whether the City is a covered entity. If it is, under HIPAA the data in question appear to fall within the definition of protected health information. That is because the dollar value (and, in turn, the fact that an employee has single or family coverage) relates to the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of heath care to an individual that identifies the individual. Thus, if the City is a covered entity, the data in question are protected.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In attempting to determine whether the City is or is not a covered entity, IPAD contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has jurisdiction over HIPAA. IPAD submitted a letter to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS posing the question raised by Ms. Torkelson. OCR is charged with interpreting and enforcing the HIPAA regulations. IPAD does not know when or if the OCR will respond.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      IPAD also contacted staff in the HHS General Counsel Office. Staff there pointed IPAD to 45 C.F.R. section 164.512; however, HHS did not take an official position on the issue. The provision cited by HHS General Counsel staff addresses situations in which a covered entity may use and disclose protected health information, without requiring the entity (1) to obtain, from the data subject, an authorization to release or (2) to offer the data subject an opportunity to agree or object. 45 C.F.R. section164.512(a)(1) states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a) Standard: uses and disclosures required by law.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      This provision seems to allow the City, if it is considered to be a covered entity, to release, upon request, the dollar value of an employee&apos;s health insurance benefit. The Legislature, in enacting section 13.43, clearly intended that the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits be public data. Further, pursuant to section 13.03, the disclosure of public data is required. Thus, if the City is a covered entity, and it receives a data request, pursuant to section 13.03, for the data in question, 45 C.F.R. section 164.512 appears to apply and the City should release the data as required by sections 13.03 and 13.43.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If the City is not a covered entity, HIPAA does not apply and the data are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Torkelson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, the dollar value of an employee&apos;s health insurance benefit is public. If the City of Thief River Falls is considered to be a covered entity for the purposes of HIPAA, 45 C.F.R. section164.512(a)(1) appears to allow the release of the dollar value data upon a request pursuant to section 13.03. If the City is not considered to be a covered entity for the purposes of HIPAA, HIPAA does not apply and the data are public pursuant to Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 26, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267538</id><Tag><Description/><Title>HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164)</Title><Id>266996</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Fringe benefits</Title><Id>266859</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-016</Title><title>Opinion 04 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267453&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would a library violate the rights of a minor data subject if the library released to the minor&apos;s parents a list of books borrowed by the minor?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 23, 2004; City of North Mankato</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 2, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated February 27, 2004, from Michael Kennedy, the City Attorney for the City of North Mankato. In his letter, Mr. Kennedy asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification, which Mr. Kennedy provided on March 3, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Kennedy wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The City is the owner of the North Mankato Taylor Library....The fact situation is as follows. The City of North Mankato issues library cards to persons 16 years and under, but only if the parents sign the library card application. This makes the parents liable for any lost or damaged materials. Under such circumstances, can the parent of a child under 16 years of age request a list of their children&apos;s books, as such lists are maintained by the library? Or is the list of books checked out by the under 16-year-old protected by [Chapter 13].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kennedy asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would a library violate the rights of a minor data subject if the library released to the minor&apos;s parents a list of books borrowed by the minor?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.40 classifies data relating to libraries operated by any government entity. Subdivision 2, clause (a) of section 13.40, in relevant part, states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a)...the following data maintained by a library are private data on individuals and may not be disclosed for other than library purposes except pursuant to a court order:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) data that link a library patron&apos;s name with materials requested or borrowed by the patron or that link a patron&apos;s name with a specific subject about which the patron has requested information or materials; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) data in applications for borrower cards, other than the name of the borrower.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Thus, data that reveal the materials a library patron has borrowed are private data on individuals.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 and its implementing rules contain specific provisions relating to data about minors. Section 13.02, subdivision 8, states that the rights conferred upon a minor also are conferred upon the minor&apos;s parents or guardians. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, relates to access to private data on minors. Subpart 2(B) states that parents are presumed to be entitled to gain access to data about their children, unless the responsible authority is provided with evidence of a state law, court order or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. In addition, subpart 3 provides that a responsible authority may deny access to data if the minor data subject requests that the data be withheld and the responsible authority determines that it is in the best interests of the minor to withhold the data from the minor&apos;s parents. Subpart 3 also provides guidance regarding the process in which the entity must engage prior to withholding data about a minor from the minor&apos;s parents.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the situation Mr. Kennedy describes, it is irrelevant that the parent signs the library card application. Pursuant to Chapter 13, the parent has access to the minor&apos;s reading list unless the City, as guided by Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 3, appropriately is withholding the data. Mr. Kennedy did not provide any information indicating that the minor requested data be withheld and that the City made the appropriate determination as described in 1205.0500.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following comments are in order. Mr. Kennedy did not state whether the City has put in place the process described in Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500. If the City has not done so, the Commissioner urges it to review the language in 1205.0500, and put in place procedures to handle a situation in which a minor child wishes to withhold data from his/her parents.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Also, in examining the City&apos;s &lt;i&gt;Library Card Registration Form&lt;/i&gt;, the Commissioner notes that because the City is collecting private data, including the Social Security number, from a data subject, it must provide a Tennessen warning notice (see section 13.04, subdivision 2, and section 13.355, subd. 1). The form does not contain such a notice. In addition, when an individual is asked to supply his/her Social Security number, federal law requires a notice (see the federal Privacy Act of 1974, U.S.C. section 552a note - Disclosure of Social Security Number.) The &lt;i&gt;Library Card Registration Form&lt;/i&gt; does not contain the federal notice.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kennedy raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of North Mankato would not violate the rights of a minor data subject if the library released to the minor&apos;s parents a list of books borrowed by the minor unless the City, as guided by Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, appropriately is withholding the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 23, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267453</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Library data (13.40)</Title><Id>266946</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parental access to private data (13.02, subd. 8); (1205.0500)</Title><Id>266540</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-015</Title><title>Opinion 04 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267076&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the February 5, 2004, letter private or public information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, et seq.?
Can the February 5, 2004, letter be released to Education Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, et seq.?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 17, 2004; School District 97 (Moose Lake)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 26, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated February 25, 2004, from James Knutson, an attorney representing Independent School District 97, Moose Lake. In his letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. To his letter, Mr. Knutson attached a copy of a letter sent to parents of a District student. Mr. Knutson wrote, ...the [District] received a request from Education Minnesota, which represents the teachers of the [District], for a copy of a letter regarding a certain teacher.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Knutson further wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 It should be noted that Minnesota courts have held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. &lt;u&gt;See&lt;/u&gt;&lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/u&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Is the February 5, 2004, letter private or public information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, et seq.?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Can the February 5, 2004, letter be released to Education Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, et seq.?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. The letter in question was sent to parents of a District student. It contains data about the student, the student&apos;s parents and an employee. Mr. Knutson wrote that Education Minnesota, the union representing Minnesota teachers, requested a copy of a letter regarding a certain teacher. The Commissioner assumes the certain teacher is the employee who is the subject of some of the data in the letter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Knutson did not provide any information as to whether Education Minnesota is entitled to private data about the employee. Education Minnesota would be able to gain access to private data about the employee if the employee had given his/her informed consent. Mr. Knutson provided no information leading the Commissioner to believe that the employee has consented to the release of private data. Education Minnesota also would be able to gain access to the data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6, which authorizes dissemination of private data to labor organizations in certain circumstances. Mr. Knutson provided no information to suggest that any of those circumstances exist in the present situation. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes Education Minnesota made its request as a member of the public and is entitled only to public data in the letter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, based on the content of the letter, it appears the parents made a complaint against the employee. Mr. Knutson did not provide any information as to the status of the complaint. Pursuant to section 13.43, certain data may become public if the District takes any disciplinary action and there has been a final disposition (see section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)). For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes no disciplinary action was taken and no final disposition has occurred.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Is the February 5, 2004, letter private or public information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, et seq.?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data about students are governed by both Minnesota and federal law. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student... (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data about parents are private data on individuals but may be public if a District has designated them as directory information. See section 13.32, subdivisions 2(c) and 5.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has examined the letter in question. As stated above, it contains data about a student and the student&apos;s parents. Mr. Knutson provided no information indicating that the District has designated as public directory information any of the data of which the student or the parents are the subject. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes data in the letter about the student and his/her parents are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The letter also contains data about an employee. Most, if not all, of the data about the employee do not appear to be the type of data classified as public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2. Those data, therefore, are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner notes that the last paragraph of the letter, which discusses a School Board meeting, appears to be public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Can the February 5, 2004, letter be released to Education Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, et seq.?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Subject to the conclusions reached in Issue 1 above, and pursuant to Chapter 13, it appears Education Minnesota is entitled to gain access to any public data in the letter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner adds the following note. The Commissioner has not seen the actual data request made by Education Minnesota. Depending upon the request, it is possible that the fact the letter exists is private data. For example, if Education Minnesota made a data request for, a letter relating to [named employee&apos;s] harassment of a student, and there are no public data relating to the fact that the nature of the complaint is harassment, the District, by confirming existence of the letter, would be releasing private data. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine if a confirmation of the existence of the letter is a release of private data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Knutson raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the February 5, 2004, letter appears to contain both private and public data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The answer to the question of whether to release to Education Minnesota all or some of the data in the February 5, 2004, letter, depends upon the data request. The Commissioner has not seen the request.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 17, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267076</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)</Title><Id>266738</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-014</Title><title>Opinion 04 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267622&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the enclosed document contain private personnel data on former or current employees of the District?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District release to the public a copy of the enclosed document after redacting all personal identifiers, or is the identifying information about former or current employees inextricably intertwined with other data in the document?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 2004; School District 821 (Menahga)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subd. 12, subsequent to this opinion, which provides that pleadings filed in court are public data.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 4, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Rupp and Eric Quiring, attorneys representing Independent School District 821, Menahga. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. In a letter dated February 10, 2004, IPAD notified the data subject, X, of the opinion request and invited him/her to submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 9, 2004, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring wrote to IPAD and provided some additional information. In a letter dated February 13, 2004, IPAD wrote to X and provided to him/her the additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X did not submit comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their January 30, 2004, letter, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District has received a request from [a member of the media] that the District provide him with copies of any complaints served on the District, Board or the administration. The enclosed document falls within the request made by [the media]. The enclosed document has not been filed in district court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their February 9, 2004, letter, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring provided some additional information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...After we submitted our request, we learned that the complaint that is the subject of the data request was filed in [district court].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The fact that the complaint has been filed in District Court does not automatically mean that copies of the complaint held by [the District] are public. [Chapter 13] makes it clear that the task of determining the proper classification of data sought under [Chapter 13] is to be made on the basis of the status of the data in the hands of the entity from which the data is being sought....As a result, the fact that the complaint may be public and accessible as held by the District Court is not determinative on the question of the proper classification of the document in the hands of the School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the enclosed document contain private personnel data on former or current employees of the District?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District release to the public a copy of the enclosed document after redacting all personal identifiers, or is the identifying information about former or current employees inextricably intertwined with other data in the document?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. The document in question is a complaint made against the District and its Superintendent. Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring did not provide any information as to the status of the complaint as it concerns the Superintendent. Pursuant to section 13.43, certain data may become public if the District takes any disciplinary action and there has been a final disposition (see section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).) For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes no disciplinary action was taken and no final disposition has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the enclosed document contain private personnel data on former or current employees of the District?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has examined the document in question. In his opinion, it contains data of which current and former employees are the subjects. Such data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. At least some of the data about the current and former employees are not the types of data classified as public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2. Those data, therefore, are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring noted that the document in question was filed in district court. (Data relating to the judiciary are not subject to Chapter 13 but are subject to Minnesota&apos;s Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.) Although the document likely is public in the hands of the court, it is not necessarily public in a government entity in which it also resides. Section 13.43 does not contain a provision stating that any data classified as not public become public if they have been presented as evidence in court or are made part of a court record. Therefore, the data in question do not convert to public data in the hands of the District. (Sections 13.39, civil investigative data, and 13.82, criminal investigative data do contain such a provision but they are not at issue here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District release to the public a copy of the enclosed document after redacting all personal identifiers, or is the identifying information about former or current employees inextricably intertwined with other data in the document?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity is faced with redacting a document containing not public and public data, it is important for the entity to review the document carefully to determine whether the release of any of the data may result in the inappropriate release of not public data. Government entities are in the best position to make such determinations because they have all of the relevant information and are knowledgeable about the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267649&quot; title=&quot;03-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the document, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately. Given the clear presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the District should make every effort to avoid a situation where it must withhold an entire document from the public. The Commissioner adds that the District must disclose any public data in the document, including, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), that a complaint was made against a member of the administration, the status of the complaint, and the name of the employee about whom the complaint was made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rupp and Mr. Quiring is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears that the enclosed document contains private personnel data on former or current employees of the District.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If it is not possible for the District to redact the document without releasing not public data, the District may withhold the document.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 11, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267622</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court records (See also: Judicial branch)</Title><Id>266571</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determines redaction</Title><Id>266543</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-013</Title><title>Opinion 04 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267429&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-10T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 2835, Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request for access to directory information?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2004; School District 2835 (Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 20, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Nancy Plimpton. In her letter, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from Independent School District 2835, Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton. Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tami Sens, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 22, 2004, were to inform her of Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 29, 2004, IPAD received a response from Ms. Sens. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 2003, Ms. Plimpton wrote to Ms. Sens and requested the following data, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: directory information for all of your district&apos;s current four and five-year old children, third grade children and your district policy on directory information. Ms. Plimpton asked Ms. Sens to provide, in writing, the legal basis if she denied her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Plimpton, she called Ms. Sens on December 5, 2003, and she told her that the District was seeking legal advice. I have not heard from her since my call that day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Sens provided to the Commissioner a copy of the District&apos;s policy, Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records. In her comments, Ms. Sens stated that per that policy, the District does not give out parent&apos;s names, addresses, or phone numbers. Ms. Sens also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The district&apos;s respect for privacy of student records is also an issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;JWP does not have educational records on 4 year olds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;JWP district does not believe it is proper for a Charter school to recruit students by using public school resources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has Independent School District 2835, Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request for access to directory information?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student . . . . (See 34 CFR section 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Ms. Sens stated, the District chose not to designate parent&apos;s names, addresses, or phone numbers as directory information. However, Ms. Plimpton did not limit her request to those data elements. She asked for access to the directory information the District maintains on four- and five-year-olds and third grade children. Five-year-olds who are in kindergarten are students, and therefore the District would have directory information about them. Accordingly, the District must provide Ms. Plimpton with access to any directory information it maintains as soon as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Sens stated that the District does not have educational records on 4 year olds. It is not clear from that statement whether the District maintains any data on four- and five-year-olds who are not students, and if so, what those data might be. The Commissioner wishes to note that he addressed the same issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268007&quot; title=&quot;04-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-011&lt;/a&gt;, which dealt with an identical request Ms. Plimpton made of another school district. In that Opinion, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is not clear just what kind of data the District maintains on four- and five-year-olds who are not students. The Commissioner is aware that it is a common practice for school districts, in connection with making their enrollment projections, to collect so-called pupil census data, which likely include data on some four- and five-year-old children. Pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), pupil census data are educational data, which, as noted above, are private. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, pupil census data are not eligible for designation as directory information under FERPA. As noted above, directory information is defined as information contained in an education record of a student. Therefore, if any of the data on four- and five-year-olds the District maintains are pupil census data, then the District properly withheld access to those data. The Commissioner wishes to note that although Ms. Plimpton asked for directory information about four- and five-year-olds, this discussion applies generally to data maintained by the District on children, other than District students, of any age.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that there is some confusion on this issue, and wishes to make the following comments. Directory information is the term used in statute and FERPA to denote public data about students. However, the District may maintain other public data on children. For example, the District may also maintain data on children in connection with programs such as early childhood family education. If the District does not consider children participating in these programs to be students for purposes of section 13.32 and FERPA, and if there are no other federal rules governing data about participants in what may be a federal program, then data about children in these programs are presumptively public, under section 13.03, subdivision 1. Although, strictly speaking, Ms. Plimpton asked for access to directory information, what she was wanting was access to public data about children. Therefore, the Commissioner believes the District should review the data it maintains on four- and five-year-olds to determine whether it maintains any public data responsive to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Plimpton also asked for access to the District&apos;s policy regarding directory information. Ms. Sens provided the Commissioner with a copy, and should provide Ms. Plimpton with access to the policy as soon as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, according to Ms. Plimpton, after Ms. Sens told her that the District was seeking legal advice, the District did not contact her again about her request. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2 (a), the District was required to comply with Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request in an appropriate and prompt manner. The District also was obliged, under section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f), to provide Ms. Plimpton with its written rationale for its denial of her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, regarding Ms. Sens&apos; comment that the District does not believe it is proper for a Charter school to recruit students by using public school resources, the Commissioner reminds his readers that pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 12, [u]nless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to . . . state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Plimpton is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 2835, Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton, erred in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request for access to directory information. The District failed its obligation to provide access to public directory information, and access to its policy on directory information.
&lt;p&gt;The District also was in error by failing to provide the requested written explanation for its denial of access to data it maintains on four- and five-year-old children residing in the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 10, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267429</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Charter schools</Title><Id>266570</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Pupil census data</Title><Id>266910</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Student, defined</Title><Id>267154</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-18T18:03:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-012</Title><title>Opinion 04 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267898&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-10T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 2168, New Richland-Hartland-Ellendale-Geneva, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request for access to directory information?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2004; School District 2168 (New Richland-Hartland-Ellendale-Geneva)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 20, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Nancy Plimpton. In her letter, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from Independent School District 2168, New Richland-Hartland-Ellendale-Geneva. Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Lorenz, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 22, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 29, 2004, IPAD received a response from James E. Knutson, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 2003, Ms. Plimpton wrote to Mr. Lorenz and requested the following data, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: directory information for all of your district&apos;s current four and five-year-old children, third grade children and your district policy on directory information. Ms. Plimpton asked Mr. Lorenz to provide, in writing, the legal basis if he denied her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Plimpton, she called Mr. Lorenz on December 5, 2003, and he told her that &apos;the District does not have a policy on directory information&apos; and that &apos;the District does not have a directory&apos;. Therefore, he was not going to send me any information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson stated that the District has not adopted a policy regarding directory information. Mr. Knutson discussed the relevant provisions of federal law that provide that a district may choose to designate directory information, but is not required to do so. According to Mr. Knutson, because the District did not elect to designate directory information, it therefore cannot disclose any of the information that could have been designated as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has Independent School District 2168, New Richland-Hartland-Ellendale-Geneva, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request for access to directory information?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Knutson discussed, the District is not required to designate directory information, and it has chosen not to do so. Accordingly, it properly denied Ms. Plimpton access to data that have not been designated as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District did not, however, provide to Ms. Plimpton its written rationale for its denial, as it was obligated to do under section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f). The District should have written to Ms. Plimpton that it has not designated any educational data as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that he addressed the same issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268007&quot; title=&quot;04-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-011&lt;/a&gt;, which dealt with an identical request Ms. Plimpton made of another school district. In that Opinion, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is not clear just what kind of data the District maintains on four- and five-year-olds who are not students. The Commissioner is aware that it is a common practice for school districts, in connection with making their enrollment projections, to collect so-called pupil census data, which likely include data on some four- and five-year-old children. Pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), pupil census data are educational data, which, as noted above, are private. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, pupil census data are not eligible for designation as directory information under FERPA. As noted above, directory information is defined as information contained in an education record of a student. Therefore, if any of the data on four- and five-year-olds the District maintains are pupil census data, then the District properly withheld access to those data. The Commissioner wishes to note that although Ms. Plimpton asked for directory information about four- and five-year-olds, this discussion applies generally to data maintained by the District on children, other than District students, of any age.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is aware that there is some confusion on this issue, and wishes to make the following comments. Directory information is the term used in statute and FERPA to denote public data about students. However, the District may maintain other public data on children. For example, the District may also maintain data on children in connection with programs such as early childhood family education. If the District does not consider children participating in these programs to be students for purposes of section 13.32 and FERPA, and if there are no other federal rules governing data about participants in what may be a federal program, then data about children in these programs are presumptively public, under section 13.03, subdivision 1. Although, strictly speaking, Ms. Plimpton asked for access to directory information, what she was wanting was access to public data about children. Therefore, the Commissioner believes the District should review the data it maintains on four- and five-year-olds to determine whether it maintains any public data responsive to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wishes to comment that Mr. Knutson is correct, the District is not obligated to designate any data about students as directory information. However, the practical effect of that decision is that the District is then not allowed, under FERPA and section 13.32, to release to the public individually identifiable data about any of its students without consent. That includes any data about athletes, scholars, award winners, etcetera.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Plimpton is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 2168, New Richland-Hartland-Ellendale-Geneva, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 20, 2003, request because it does not maintain directory information. However, the District was in error by failing to provide the requested written explanation for its denial of access to data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 10, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267898</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Pupil census data</Title><Id>266910</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Student, defined</Title><Id>267154</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-011</Title><title>Opinion 04 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268007&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 2143, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for access to directory information?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2004; School District 2143 (Waterville-Elysian-Morristown)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 20, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Nancy Plimpton. In her letter, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from Independent School District 2143, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown. Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joel Whitehurst, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 22, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 29, 2004, IPAD received a response from Mr. Whitehurst. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated November 28, 2003, Ms. Plimpton wrote to Mr. Whitehurst and requested the following data, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: directory information for all of your district&apos;s current four- and five-year-old children, third grade children and your district policy on directory information. Ms. Plimpton asked Mr. Whitehurst to provide, in writing, the legal basis if he denied her request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Plimpton, she called Mr. Whitehurst on December 5, 2003, to see if he had received her letter, and was told by District staff that Mr. Whitehurst was busy working on their bond election. On December 12, 2003 (the day after their election), Mr. Whitehurst called me to say that they did not have a policy. He stated that he would send out a letter to the affected parents &apos;asking their permission&apos; to release the information to me. I have not heard from Mr. Whitehurst since that day.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Whitehurst stated that the District has a policy entitled Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records, which states:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The following information contained in education records of a student is public information and therefore can be released to the public: Student&apos;s name; address; telephone listing . . . . Parents not wanting the above information released must notify the school district in writing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Whitehurst wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Therefore, we are obviously obligated to provide directory information pertaining to our third grade students who&apos;s [sic] parents have not notified the district that they do not want their child&apos;s directory information released.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                However, four and five year olds residing in our district have yet to enter into our school system so we do not consider them to be our students. Therefore, our policy is not applicable to this age group.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Plimpton asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has Independent School District 2143, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for access to directory information?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     One of the exceptions, under section 13.32, subdivision 5, is that any data a district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a &lt;u&gt;student&lt;/u&gt;. . . . (Emphasis added. See 34 CFR section 99.3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 5:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    When conducting the directory information designation and notice process required by federal law, an educational agency or institution shall give parents and students notice of the right to refuse to let the agency or institution designate any or all data about the student as directory information. This notice may be given by any means reasonably likely to inform the parents and students of the right. [See also 34 CFR section 99.37.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Plimpton said that Mr. Whitehurst told her the District did not have a policy and that he said that he would send out a letter to the affected parents &apos;asking their permission&apos; to release the information to me. Mr. Whitehurst stated to the Commissioner that the District does maintain directory information, and does have a policy, from which he quoted. Mr. Whitehurst did not address the apparent disparity in his responses regarding whether the District has a policy on designating and releasing directory information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District may disclose directory information only if it has fulfilled its obligations regarding proper designation and notification procedures as detailed under section 13.32 and FERPA. If it has complied with the state and federal requirements, the District should provide the requested directory information, and access to the policy, to Ms. Plimpton without delay. If the District has not complied with state and federal requirements, then the District may not disclose any data about students as directory information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    With respect to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request for access to directory information about four- and five-year-olds residing in the District, Mr. Whitehurst said that those children have yet to enter into our school system so we do not consider them to be our students. Therefore, our policy is not applicable to this age group. (Five-year-olds who are in kindergarten are students, and therefore the District would have directory information about them, which it should provide to Ms. Plimpton.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear just what kind of data the District maintains on four- and five-year-olds who are not students. The Commissioner is aware that it is a common practice for school districts, in connection with making their enrollment projections, to collect so-called pupil census data, which likely include data on some four- and five-year-old children. Pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), pupil census data are educational data, which, as noted above, are private. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, pupil census data are not eligible for designation as directory information under FERPA. As noted above, directory information is defined as information contained in an education record of a student. Therefore, if any of the data on four- and five-year-olds the District maintains are pupil census data, then the District properly withheld access to those data. The Commissioner wishes to note that although Ms. Plimpton asked for directory information about four- and five-year-olds, this discussion applies generally to data maintained by the District on children, other than District students, of any age.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is aware that there is some confusion on this issue, and wishes to make the following comments. Directory information is the term used in statute and FERPA to denote public data about students. However, the District may maintain other public data on children. For example, the District may also maintain data on children in connection with programs such as early childhood family education. If the District does not consider children participating in these programs to be students for purposes of section 13.32 and FERPA, and if there are no other federal rules governing data about participants in what may be a federal program, then data about children in these programs are presumptively public, under section 13.03, subdivision 1. Although, strictly speaking, Ms. Plimpton asked for access to directory information, what she was wanting was access to public data about children. Therefore, the Commissioner believes the District should review the data it maintains on four- and five-year-olds to determine whether it maintains any public data responsive to Ms. Plimpton&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Plimpton also asked for access to the District&apos;s policy regarding directory information, but was told that the District did not have one. However, Mr. Whitehurst quoted from the District&apos;s directory information policy in his comments to the Commissioner. Accordingly, the District should provide Ms. Plimpton with access to the policy as soon as possible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the District failed to provide to Ms. Plimpton, in writing, its rationale for denying access to any requested data, which the District was required to do pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Plimpton is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 2143, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown, erred in its determination regarding a November 28, 2003, request for access to directory information. If the District has followed the procedures required under state and federal law, then the District failed its obligation to provide access to public directory information, and access to its policy on directory information.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              If, however, the District has not complied with the proper procedure regarding directory information, it cannot release any data as directory information. The District needs to review its actions regarding the directory information requirements, and either provide Ms. Plimpton with the directory information she requested, or inform her that it does not maintain any directory information.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              The District also was in error by failing to provide the requested written explanation for its denial of access to data it maintains on four- and five-year-old children residing in the District.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 10, 2004
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268007</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-010</Title><title>Opinion 04 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267514&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by asking the subject to sign informed consents following which staff filled in the identification of the organizations asked to provide data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by releasing, on March 24, 2003, data about the subject to Gary Fischler and Associates?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 4, 2004; Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 14, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated January 1, 2004, from X. In X&apos;s letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible violation of his/her rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). X asserts his/her rights were violated by the Vocational Rehabilitation unit of DEED. The Commissioner notes that Vocational Rehabilitation previously was part of the Minnesota Department of Economic Security.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Matt Kramer, Commissioner of DEED. The purposes of this letter, dated January 16, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DEED&apos;s position. On February 10, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated February 11, 2004, from Julie Leppink, Assistant Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. Regarding the first issue X asked the Commissioner to address, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On 6/29/00 I applied, and was accepted for services at VR [Vocational Rehabilitation, a unit within DEED] based on my hearing impairment. After I had been accepted for services, at one of my first meetings, [VR staff] asked me to sign several blank release of information forms for further services. I was under the impression that I was signing forms for VR to share data already in existence in my VR file, with providers for other services, such as peer counseling, or for education on hearing loss. I agreed to do this. On the forms [VR staff] handed me to sign, there were no boxes checked and there was no information written in. The boxes: to obtain/release information from/to... were not filled in. There was no information of any organization that she might ask to provide data or with whom she might share data. [VR staff] asked me to fill in my birthdate and social security number and sign and date it, which I did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I was not told that this [VR staff] would be using these forms to obtain medical records. &lt;strong&gt;I am aware that my medical records contain almost a year&apos;s worth of psychotherapy notes. I do not sign any release forms for medical records due to this fact.&lt;/strong&gt; I told [VR staff] that I would try to bring in records regarding my hand disability, but that I hadn&apos;t been to the doctor for my hand in years. I told her I might be able to get something from my primary care doctor, and I would bring those medical records myself, the way I had brought my audiogram with me. I had already been accepted for services based on my audiogram, and I understood that this further information she was asking for regarding my hand disability was just helpful information to her and was not necessary for services or eligibility. [VR staff] noted, in 2 places in my client notes that I told her I wanted to bring in medical records myself. I had no reason to believe she would use the blank release forms to obtain medical records in violation of my expressed wishes. However, on 9/26/00, she did just that. In violation of my expressed wishes, and &lt;em&gt;the day after&lt;/em&gt; she noted for the second time, that [X] wanted to obtain the records [him/herself] , [staff] filled in the blank forms I had signed, and used them to obtain hundreds of pages of medical records without &lt;em&gt;any limitation or discretion as to the content&lt;/em&gt;, from Mayo Clinic and Fairview Hospital. These records include psychotherapy notes from 5 years prior, and hundreds of pages of other medical records that also did not pertain in any way to my relationship with VR....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second issue X asked the Commissioner to address, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I did not use the offered services, as I got a full time [job]....In 2002, after my hearing deteriorated further, I left my position, returned to VR, and met with [VR staff] on March 19, 2003. At this meeting, [VR staff] told me he would like to send me for vocational interest and abilities testing. In actuality, [VR staff] ordered a psychological assessment from a 3rd party vendor....I was not given any type of Tennessen Warning alerting me to the type of data he was requesting me to provide, other than his verbal statement that he was sending me for vocational interest testing....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[VR staff] did not ask me to sign a release of information form for this vendor at our meeting. Instead, he sent me an email on 3/24/03 at 12:55 pm, saying he was going to mail me some things, and asking me to sign them and return them as soon as possible. He sent me two forms in the US mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I received these forms, signed and returned them to him on 3/26/03. One form was a release of information agreement for peer counseling, that later was not needed. The second form was for release/exchange of information for Gary Fischler and Associates. When he sent me this form, the box for Fischler and Associates was filled in and [VR staff&apos;s] name was printed. It had these boxes checked: Name, Address, Phone Number, Birthdate, Social Security Number, Skills and Work Qualifications, Work History, Reasonable Accommodation Needed, and the box for Coordinate or provide services to me was checked and underlined. There was an X in the Signature box and the printed word Date was circled. I signed and dated this release/exchange agreement on 3/26/03 and put the date 6/30/03 in the line this consent is good for one year or until:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...At 9:38 in the morning, over 3 hours &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; he informed me he was sending me some things in the mail he wanted me to sign, and at least 3 days before he received my consent to release private data information, [VR staff] wrote an email to Gary Fischler containing a good deal of private, including information that would easily identify me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...all without any consent for release of information from me, and days before I even knew the name or existence of this vendor. Gary Fischler wrote back to [VR staff] immediately that day....All of this information (personal and some of it incorrect) was shared without any consent from me, and was damaging to me in many ways.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I received the forms, and signed them and returned them on 3/26/03. [VR staff] could not have received the release of information agreement until at least 3 days after he had already shared this private data. I believe this violated my rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. I believe it also violated the policies the VR has in place prohibiting the sharing of private data when making referrals to 3rd party vendors. Page 11-9 of the VR Policy and Procedure Manual states, A consent for release of information must also be obtained to discuss private data with a potential service provider prior to making a referral ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by asking the subject to sign informed consents following which staff filled in the identification of the organizations asked to provide data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by releasing, on March 24, 2003, data about the subject to Gary Fischler and Associates?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by asking the subject to sign informed consents following which staff filled in the identification of the organizations asked to provide data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data DEED collects and maintains about its clients are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 268A.05.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4(d), private data may be used by and disseminated to any person or agency if the data subject has given his/her informed consent. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4, provide further guidance for complying with this requirement. Pursuant to subpart 3 of Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, informed consent means, ...the data subject possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make a decision which reflects an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subpart 4 of Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, provides that the responsible authority must not coerce a data subject to give informed consent, that an informed consent must be made in writing, that an informed consent must identify the consequences of the giving of informed consent, and that a data subject be given the option of consenting to release some or all of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...X asserts that the Department violated [his/her] rights under Minn. Stat., Ch. 13, by asking [him/her] to sign blank informed consent forms for release of [X&apos;s] medical records and by then filling in the names of the medical providers at a later time. The Department did not ask X to sign blank consent forms. X signed the completed informed consent forms, including the names of the organizations asked to provide data at [his/her] intake meeting. The forms were held in X&apos;s file to allow X time to provide [his/her] own records. When X did not to [sic] provide complete records, the informed consent forms were used to obtain medical records relevant to vocational rehabilitation planning, including mental health records. Because the Department obtained a completed, signed, informed consent form from X, it did not violate [his/her] rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve. X asserts that when s/he signed and dated the two forms entitled, &lt;em&gt;Consent to Release/Obtain Private Information&lt;/em&gt;, DEED had not filled in the identity of the organization from which DEED was obtaining data. Ms. Leppink, on the other hand, asserts that when X signed the consent forms, they were complete and included the names of the two organizations. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that it is not possible for X to have given informed consent if s/he did not have specific information about what data s/he was consenting to have released to DEED, and from which organizations s/he was consenting to have data released to DEED. Thus, if DEED did not fill in the names of the organizations prior to X signing the forms, X&apos;s rights were violated. If, however, as Ms. Leppink asserts, the forms contained the names of organizations when X signed them, X&apos;s rights were not violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to comment briefly on the &lt;em&gt;Consent to Release/Obtain Private Information&lt;/em&gt; form that X submitted to IPAD. It appears the form is designed to function as authorization for DEED both to obtain information from outside organizations and to release information to outside organizations. However, in this case, it is not clear whether X was asked to provide consent for DEED to obtain data from the organizations or for DEED to release information to the organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the form is designed so that the data subject authorizes release of particular types of data by checking boxes that correspond to each data type. The problem with using such a check-off system is that someone easily could alter the form after the subject has completed and signed it. The Commissioner recommends that the data subject authorize the release of specific data or types of data by initializing each box or type of data s/he selects, and crossing out or drawing a line through each box or type of data not selected. Such practice leaves no room for confusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the form X signed includes a space labeled, &lt;em&gt;Known consequences of giving or refusing to give this consent&lt;/em&gt;. This portion of the form is blank. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, subpart 4, DEED is obligated to describe the consequences to the data subject of consenting or not consenting to release the data the subject has specified on the form. Given the nature of the types of data collected, used, and released in providing vocational rehabilitation services, the Commissioner finds it unlikely that there would be no known consequences to X if s/he consents or refuses to consent to the release of the data. As the Commissioner also stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-009&lt;/a&gt;, if there are no known consequences, the form should so state.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the form contains a space for the data subject&apos;s Social Security number. X stated that DEED asked X to provide this information. As the Commissioner has stated in several previous advisory opinions, when an individual is asked to supply his/her Social Security number, state law requires that the entity provide a Tennessen warning notice (see section 13.49) and federal law also requires a notice (see the federal Privacy Act of 1974, U.S.C. section 552a note - Disclosure of Social Security Number.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violate a data subject&apos;s rights by releasing, on March 24, 2003, data about the subject to Gary Fischler and Associates?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;data on individuals&lt;/em&gt; is defined as data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.02, subdivision 12, defines private data on individuals as data that are not public but are accessible to the data subject. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides further guidance: Private data also are available to (1) individuals within the entity whose work assignment reasonably requires access, (2) entities and agencies as determined by the responsible authority who are authorized by statute or federal law to gain access to the specific data, and (3) entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 268A.05, data DEED collects and maintains about its clients are private data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink first argued that the data in the emails DEED staff sent to Gary Fischler and Associates (GFA) are not private because X was not identified in the emails. (GFA is an organization with which DEED contracts. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner examined the contractual elationship between DEED and GFA and determined that pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11, GFA must comply with the requirements of Chapter 13.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. While Ms. Leppink is correct that X&apos;s name does not appear in the emails, the information DEED staff did provide is specific and descriptive enough that X could be identified. For example, in the first email, DEED staff provided GFA with X&apos;s age, gender, specific profession, specific disabilities, age at which one of the disabilities occurred, and that X had been struggling with depression. In the second email, DEED staff provided GFA with details about which post-secondary educational institutions X attended and what degree(s) X earned. The Commissioner is of the opinion that DEED staff released to GFA data from which X could be identified. Therefore, the data that DEED released to GFA are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the set of facts before the Commissioner, DEED may disseminate private data about X to GFA, an outside entity, only in the following situations: (1) if the disclosure is necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the Legislature or local governing body, or mandated by the federal government, and DEED communicated the possibility of such a disclosure to X in a Tennessen warning notice; or (2) if X gave his/her informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Leppink cites two provisions in the federal rules related to DEED being required by federal law to assess applicants to determine whether they are eligible for services because of a physical or mental impairment before providing vocational rehabilitation benefits. (See 34 C.F.R. 361.42(2)(1) and 34 C.F.R. 361.45(b)(1).) These provisions appear to relate to the need for state entities to conduct an assessment to determine whether an individual is eligible for services. However, from the email messages that DEED staff wrote to GFA, it appears DEED already had decided to send X to GFA for testing. As DEED staff stated in his email, he was writing to find out which GFA staff should conduct the test: I am hoping testing with your agency could provide some realistic career alternatives. I thought I would contact you first to see who would be best suited for this type of testing. In Gary Fischler&apos;s response, he recommended a particular staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, even if the disclosure of this type of data was necessary for the administration and management of programs, Ms. Leppink did not provide any documentation that DEED had provided a Tennessen warning notice to X in which DEED indicated that certain data would be disseminated to GFA. In X&apos;s opinion request, X stated that s/he had not received any Tennessen warning notice related to the data, nor had s/he signed an informed consent for their release. (For a more detailed discussion about Tennessen warning notices and informed consents, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Leppink also states that Minnesota Statutes, 268A.05, subdivision 1, authorizes DEED to provide data about X to GFA. The Commissioner does not agree. Further, as the Commissioner discussed above, it does not appear DEED gave X a Tennessen warning notice that discussed dissemination of the data to GFA nor did X sign an informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Ms. Leppink argues that because of the nature of the contract between DEED and GFA, DEED can disseminate the data. Ms. Leppink cited section 13.05, subdivision 6. As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267691&quot; title=&quot;04-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;04-009&lt;/a&gt;, GFA&apos;s contractual relationship with DEED is determined by the language in section 13.05, subdivision 11, not section 13.05, subdivision 6. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11, GFA is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Again, the only way in which private data can be disseminated from DEED to GFA is (1) if it is necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by law, and the possibility of such dissemination was communicated to X in a Tennessen warning notice, or (2) if X gave his/her informed consent to the release. Here, regardless of whether the dissemination of private data to GFA was authorized, X apparently did not receive a related Tennessen warning notice nor did s/he give informed consent. Therefore, DEED inappropriately disseminated data about X to GFA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) violated a data subject&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by asking the subject to sign informed consents, after which staff filled in the identification of the organizations asked to provide data. If DEED asked the data subject to sign an incomplete consent, it violated the data subject&apos;s rights. If the consent form the data subject signed was complete, DEED did not violate the data subject&apos;s rights.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development violated a data subject&apos;s rights by releasing, on March 24, 2003, data about the subject to Gary Fischler and Associates.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 4, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267514</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen distinction</Title><Id>266360</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266835</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Relationship of informed consent to Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266856</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vocational rehabilitation data</Title><Id>266813</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-009</Title><title>Opinion 04 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267691&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-03-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by not providing a Tennessen warning notice prior to collecting data as part of a psychological evaluation?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by having the subject sign an informed consent for data that were not in existence at the time the subject signed the consent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 2, 2004; Gary Fischler and Associates</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 16, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X, dated January 15, 2004. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s Chapter 13 rights by Gary L. Fischler Associates (GFA), an organization that contracts with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Fischler. The purposes of this letter, dated January 21, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for his position. On February 5, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing GFA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X explained that s/he is losing his/her hearing and sought assistance from the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Division (VR) of DEED. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 19, 2003, [VR staff] told me he would like me to have vocational interest and abilities testing. In actuality, instead of vocational interest testing, [the VR staff] ordered a psychological assessment from the 3rd party vendor Gary Fischler and Associates....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I went to the offices of Gary Fischler and Associates thinking I was having vocational interest and abilities testing. I was asked to sign a consent for release of information to VR immediately upon arrival at this vendor&apos;s office, before I learned the nature of the data I would be asked to provide. I was not told what type of data I was being asked to provide, the intended use of the data, nor the consequences for either providing or not providing this data. There was nothing on the consent for release of information form I signed at the vendor&apos;s office detailing the nature of this data, and I had no reason to believe that it was not about my vocational interests and abilities. I had no reservations about sharing information about my vocational interests and abilities with the VR counselor, so I signed the form at the outset of the testing when I was asked. A later email from Gary Fischler to [the VR staff] shows that I was asked to sign a consent for release of information to VR at the outset of the testing, before the data was in existence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When I signed the release of information agreement for VR at the outset of the testing, I had absolutely no idea what data they were going to collect, the intended use of the data, or the consequences for both providing and not providing the data to Gary Fischler and Associates, before they collected the data.&lt;/strong&gt; I was not told this office would be attempting a medical diagnosis, or recommending limitations of my work based on the data they were collecting....I certainly was not told that the consequences for both providing or not providing the data was a possibility that I would be diagnosed and labeled with a mental illness, and that actual limitations would be recommended for my future work based on this diagnosis . I also was not told that the consequences for my choosing not to provide some private data would be insults to my character....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I do not believe I was given a Tennessen Warning before collecting this data from me, and I do not believe the vendor should have asked me to sign a consent for release of information before the data was collected. I do not believe an informed consent for release of data can be, in any way, informed if the data is not already in existence when the release agreement is signed....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by not providing a Tennessen warning notice prior to collecting data as part of a psychological evaluation?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by having the subject sign an informed consent for data that were not in existence at the time the subject signed the consent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To determine the contractual relationship between DEED and GFA, IPAD contacted DEED&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official and requested copies of the contract. IPAD received one contract dated 4/2/03 and one contract dated 4/21/03. Each contract is one page in length. The contract dated 4/2/03 contains the following language: All deliveries hereunder shall comply in every respect with all applicable laws of the Federal Government and/or State of Minnesota... The contract dated 4/21/03 does not contain this language. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote, My client is a vendor to [DEED], and thus would seem to be within the scope of Minn. Stat. section13.05, subd.6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 6, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...in any contract between a governmental unit subject to this chapter and any person, &lt;em&gt;when the contract requires that data on individuals be made available to the contracting parties by the governmental unit&lt;/em&gt;, that data shall be administered consistent with this chapter. A contracting party shall maintain the data on individuals which it received according to the statutory provisions applicable to the data. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that section 13.05, subdivision 6, does not apply in the present case because there is no language in the contract between DEED and GFA requiring that DEED make data on individuals available to GFA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the 1999 Legislative Session, the Legislature enacted a provision intended to augment previous language in Chapter 13 relating to contracts between government entities and other persons. It is section 13.05, subdivision 11, and went into effect on August 1, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11(a):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued several opinions relating to the obligations of contractors when their contract with a government entity is silent in regard to Chapter 13 or does not contain the express language discussed in section 13.05, subdivision 11. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267657&quot; title=&quot;03-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-033&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the case at hand, the District&apos;s contracts with the bus companies do not contain the type of clause required by section 13.05, subdivision 11. Rather, the relevant provisions in the District&apos;s bid specification state that the District will treat personal information on contractor school bus drivers, including names as confidential information to the extent possible under [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has opined, in previous opinions, that if the privatization clause is not contained in a contract, its presence nonetheless should be inferred to give effect to the Legislature&apos;s intent. The Commissioner reached that conclusion based on advice from the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (OAG). In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;...The language in subdivision 11 is mandatory so its omission would pose a problem for both Mounds View and Kennedy Graven for which there are two possible remedies. The first is to infer the term&apos;s presence in the contract. The second is to find the contract void or voidable. The Commissioner finds it preferable to keep the contract in effect and infer the presence of the above provision rather than voiding the contract in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner notes he is aware of a recent District Court Opinion in which the Court disagreed with the analysis in the advisory opinion. (See &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, File No. C4-02-1285 (Third Judicial District Steele County State of Minnesota).) The court in that case was not aware the Commissioner reached his conclusion in, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt; based on the OAG&apos;s advice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 30, 2003, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed part of the District Court&apos;s decision in &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc.&lt;/em&gt; The Appellate Court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Chapter 13] provides that a private party who has contracted with a governmental entity to perform a governmental function has a duty to provide the public with governmental data unless the governmental entity has the data...If a private party fails to comply with [Chapter13], the remedy is against the private party....To accept WDSI&apos;s argument and the district court&apos;s reasoning would be to simply ignore the mandate of the statute. Although that mandate was not expressly reflected in the contract, it applies nevertheless, and neither contracting parties nor courts can simply ignore it....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steel&lt;/em&gt;, 672 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.App. 2003).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although neither of the contracts DEED submitted to IPAD contain the language required by section 13.05, subdivision 11, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, as buttressed by the Appellate Court&apos;s recent decision in &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc., v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, that GFA must comply with the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by not providing a Tennessen warning notice prior to collecting data as part of a psychological evaluation?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Responding to both of the issues raised by X requires an analysis of the relationship between the Tennessen warning notice (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2) and an informed consent (see section 13.05, subdivision 4(d)). The Tennessen warning notice is given to individuals from whom the government entity seeks private or confidential data. If, after having received the notice, an individual provides the requested data, no consent to use or disseminate the data is required as long as any uses and disseminations are consistent with the notice. The rationale underlying the notice is that when the individual provides the data, s/he has turned down the opportunity to protect his/her privacy and accepts the possible uses, consequences, and disseminations described in the notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By contrast, if the entity has collected the data and then wishes or is required to disseminate the data to a person or entity not described in the Tennessen warning notice, the entity must obtain the data subject&apos;s informed consent. An entity subject to Chapter 13 gives a Tennessen warning notice when it collects private or confidential data about an individual from that individual. An entity subject to Chapter 13 obtains an informed consent from a data subject when the entity wishes to use or disseminate private or confidential data in a manner different than that described in the Tennessen warning notice. An entity gives a Tennessen warning notice prior to or at the time of data collection, whereas the entity obtains informed consent after it has collected the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Tennessen warning notice contains four components: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequences arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 268A.05, data DEED collects and maintains about its clients are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I believe that my client did provide a proper and adequate Tennessen warning...Specifically, the Authorization for Release of Information form used by my client for referrals from the [VR] expressly contains most of the elements of the Tennessen warning...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Even if [the Tennessen warning requirement] had not been [complied with], it seems clear from the documentation sent by your office that none of the private or confidential data that might have been collected as part of the assessment process was in any way disseminated by my client until after X had consented to the dissemination....For this reason, it would appear that any issue raised by imperfect compliance with the Tennessen warning requirement was effectively resolved when my client honored the requester&apos;s objection to dissemination until [X] subsequently consented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The form to which Mr. Anfinson refers is entitled &lt;em&gt;Authorization for Release of Information - Rehabilitation Services [VR]&lt;/em&gt;. The top line is meant to be filled in with the name of VR client. The form further states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I authorize [blank space for the name of the Gary Fischler Associates staff ] (The Examiners) to release information to my [VR] counselor...I understand that my counselor will also be providing information to the Examiners that may include psychological testing reports, consultation reports, and other information that is included in my vocational rehabilitation records. I further understand, and agree to the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Examiners have been hired as consultants to [VR] to provide them with information that will be useful in vocational rehabilitation planning and determining what services I may receive from [VR].&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Examiners will be providing oral and written reports of the psychological evaluation to my [VR] counselor.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am under no obligation to provide any information to the Examiners. However, at their discretion, any or all of the information gathered, including any information I may provide after the written report has been issued, may be reported to [VR].&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have certain rights to my records, as provided by Minnesota law. However, in accordance with APA guidelines, an explanation of the results of my examination by the Examiners may be precluded with respect to this evaluation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If I request additional information or explanation about this evaluation directly from the Examiners and without authorization from [VR], and they agree to provide them, they may charge me a reasonable fee for their time and other expenses incurred.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Mr. Anfinson argues that the first, second, and third bullets on the form constitute a valid Tennessen warning notice, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The primary purpose of the notice required by section 13.04, subdivision 2, is to offer the individual asked to supply the data an opportunity to decide whether to provide certain information to the government or, in this case, a contractor to the government. If the individual does not like how the entity will use the data or the possible consequences of supplying the data, and is willing to suffer the consequences of not providing the data, s/he can elect not to provide the information. Obviously, for an individual to be afforded this right, the entity must provide the notice prior to collecting data from the individual. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the first, second, and third bullets on the form do not provide enough information to allow an individual such as X to make an informed decision as to whether or not to provide data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, to comply with the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 2, GFA must clearly explain to X any consequences to X, which are known to GFA, arising from X supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data about her/himself to GFA. Regarding his client&apos;s compliance with this requirement, Mr. Anfinson wrote, The known consequences of supplying the data are described (&apos;at their discretion, any or all of the information gathered, including any information I may provide after the written report has been issued, may be reported to [VR]&apos;). (See the third bullet on the form.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The form identifies a single consequence to X if s/he provides private data about her/himself to GFA: that the data may be reported to VR. The form does not advise X that data s/he supplies may be used to make certain assessments. Further, if there are no known consequences from refusing to supply the data to GFA, the notice should so state.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson also states, The form tells the person that s/he may refuse to supply the data (&apos;I am under no obligation to provide any information to the Examiners&apos;). In the Commissioner&apos;s mind, this is not the same as informing X, clearly and specifically, whether s/he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data. (See the third bullet on the form.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Gary Fischler and Associates violate a data subject&apos;s rights by having the subject sign an informed consent for data that were not in existence at the time the subject signed the consent?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4(d), private data may be used and disseminated to any person or agency if the data subject has given his/her informed consent. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4, provide further guidance for complying with this requirement. Pursuant to subpart 3 of Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, informed consent means, ...the data subject possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make a decision which reflects an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subpart 4 of Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1400, provides that the responsible authority must not coerce a data subject to give informed consent, that informed consents must be in writing, and that informed consents must identify the consequences of the giving of informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson wrote, As an initial matter, I have been unable to locate language in Chapter 13 stating that an informed consent cannot be provided prior to collection of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267606&quot; title=&quot;01-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-035&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has additional comments. First, pursuant to the provisions of the applicable rule quoted above, the County was required to communicate the consequences to X of providing the consent sufficiently to enable X to give her informed consent. The County consent form X signed makes no mention of the consequences of giving the consent. Accordingly, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05 or Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1400.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, the County asked X to provide her consent to release data that were not in existence at the time the consent was executed, i.e., Z&apos;s hospital records before Z was born. X could not provide informed consent to release data when she had no way of knowing which data she was consenting to release. In this respect also, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05 to secure X&apos;s informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, X was asked to sign the informed consent before GFA collected data about him/her. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that GFA violated X&apos;s rights by having him/her give informed consent before X knew what data GFA would be collecting from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. The form used by GFA is entitled, Authorization for Release of Information - Rehabilitation Service [VR], and arguably serves as a data release form as well as a Tennessen warning notice. The Commissioner is of the opinion that a Tennessen warning notice and an informed consent both cannot be adequately clear and straightforward if they are merged. The Tennessen warning notice and an informed consent play different and distinct roles; combining them makes it difficult for a data subject to understand the function of each. As the Commissioner previously stated, an entity subject to Chapter 13 gives a Tennessen warning notice prior to or at the time of data collection, whereas the entity obtains informed consent after it has collected the data. Further, because Tennessen warning notices and informed consents serve as communication tools, they become ineffective if designed in ways such that data subjects are confused. Surely, this is not what the Legislature intended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner believes that for GFA to provide adequate notice to individuals of their rights under section 13.04, subdivision 2, the Tennessen warning notice needs to be separated from the informed consent. The Commissioner offers the services of IPAD if GFA desires assistance preparing Tennessen warning notices and informed consents. In addition, a document entitled, &lt;em&gt;Model Policy: Public Access to Government Data and Rights of Subjects of Data&lt;/em&gt;, is available from IPAD. A portion of this model policy offers guidance in creating Tennessen warning notices and informed consents. Another model policy entitled, &lt;em&gt;Model Informed Consent for Release of Government Data&lt;/em&gt;, also is available from IPAD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Gary Fischler and Associates violated a data subject&apos;s rights by not providing a complete and proper Tennessen warning notice prior to collecting data as part of a psychological evaluation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Gary Fischler and Associates violated a data subject&apos;s rights by having the subject sign an informed consent authorizing release of data that were not in existence at the time the subject signed the consent.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 2, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267691</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent vs. Tennessen</Title><Id>266855</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clause to be inferred</Title><Id>266665</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Relationship of informed consent to Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266856</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vocational rehabilitation data</Title><Id>266813</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-008</Title><title>Opinion 04 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267746&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-02-27T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Transportation complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an October 20, 2003, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2004; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 20, 2004, IPAD received a letter dated January 14, 2004, from Ron Lietz. In his letter, Mr. Lietz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Lietz&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Molnau, Commissioner of Mn/DOT. The purposes of this letter, dated January 22, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Lietz&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for Mn/DOT&apos;s position. On February 6, 2004, Mn/DOT staff forwarded to IPAD a copy of a letter Bob McFarlin, Assistant to Commissioner Molnau, sent to Mr. Lietz on January 22, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Lietz presented them is a follows. In a letter dated October 20, 2003, Mr. Lietz requested the following data from Mn/DOT:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. A list of all the Data Requests that have been made to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/Dot) by Representative Philip Krinkie (Minnesota House District 53A) in the last five (5) years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                2. The itemized costs of all these Data Requests that have been made to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/Dot) in the last five (5) years by Representative Krinkie including the number of man-hours spent by the Commission assembling the data for each and every request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                3. A list of all the Data Requests that have been prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/Dot), but have not been either picked up or forwarded to Representative Krinkie within the last five (5) years. I understand that there is at least one.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Lietz wrote, While, I have talked to &apos;officials&apos; individuals [sic] within the Department, my informal contacts tell me this Agency has done absolutely no work processing my requests.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lietz asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Transportation complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in its determination regarding an October 20, 2003, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requestor who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Lietz requested data in a letter dated October 20, 2003.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. McFarlin, in his January 22, 2004, letter to Mr. Lietz, wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      This is in response to your request under [Chapter 13] which [Mn/DOT staff] received from you via facsimile on November 10, 2003....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      We have the data requests from Representative Krinkie, those data that we assembled in response to the requests, and our responses. However we do not have lists of these data requests nor in most cases is there a record that anyone made any attempt to itemize the cost of assembling the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      [Chapter 13] requires that we make public data available for your inspection and provide copies (there would be a charge for the latter), however, the law does not require us to create data that does not exist. If you want to inspect public data that we have (the requests, the data and the responses), we could assemble and review the data and make it available for your inspection within a period of 2 weeks, possibly less. However, the lists that you request do not exist.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As of the date of Mr. McFarlin&apos;s letter, approximately twelve weeks had passed since the date of Mr. Lietz&apos;s data request. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Mn/DOT&apos;s response was not prompt or made within a reasonable time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. McFarlin is correct in stating that if Mn/DOT does not maintain the data in the format requested by Mr. Lietz, Mn/DOT is not required to create additional data. However, as the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions, no response is not an appropriate response. Mn/DOT needed to communicate to Mr. Lietz that it does not maintain the data in the requested format.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If Mr. Lietz wishes to inspect or obtain copies of the related data that Mn/DOT maintains, he needs to so inform Mr. McFarlin and Mn/DOT promptly should provide the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lietz is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Transportation did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an October 20, 2003, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 27, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267746</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Cost of creating new data</Title><Id>266298</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No response</Title><Id>266300</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Standing requests</Title><Id>266802</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-007</Title><title>Opinion 04 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267377&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-02-27T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, honor a standing request for government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2004; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s right to gain access to data from Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 14, 2004, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 30, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated January 28, 2004, from Paul Cady, District Legal Counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter to the District dated November 16, 2003, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am asking you to maintain a standing request to immediately send me copies of any and all ISD 11&apos;s legal bills concerning [X&apos;s child], on any issue that may arise regarding them that would necessitate the district incurring legal costs...I am asking that the district provide these bills as soon as it obtains them even if they have not been processed for payment yet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 27, 2003, X again wrote to the District: Please note that on 11-16-03 I sent you a &apos;standing request.&apos; It appears that you are out of compliance with [Chapter 13]?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 6, 2004, the District wrote to X:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For your information, neither [Chapter 13] nor District policies and procedures recognize a standing request for data. Accordingly, you need to continue to submit specific requests for data. Enclosed please find the most recent copies of legal bills concerning your [child].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, honor a standing request for government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267805&quot; title=&quot;96-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-047&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question, however, raised by Mr. Anfinson is whether Chapter 13 imposes upon government entities a duty to respond to standing requests for data. While Chapter 13 does not explicitly address the issue of &lt;u&gt;standing &lt;/u&gt;requests for access to data, it does set forth quite clearly the obligations imposed upon a request to a responsible authority. (See Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3.) Based on the broadness of this language, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that a standing request is similar to a singular request, regardless of whether it arrives, for example, in person, by mail, by fax, or by telephone, and regardless of whether a person makes a standing request or chooses to make her/his requests one at a time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, based on the language in Section 13.03, government entities are required to follow the requirements set forth in Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to standing requests for access to government data. However, in the instance of a standing request, it is reasonable for a government entity to require that there be periodic verification that the requestor is still interested in gaining access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady acknowledged the existence of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267805&quot; title=&quot;96-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-047&lt;/a&gt; and suggested it conflicted with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The issue in 03-030 was whether it was appropriate for a school district to deny access to data relating to yearbook transactions on the basis that the person handling such types of data was out of town. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...standing requests encourage government entities to rely on a single individual&apos;s duties and responsibilities to maintain a tickler file for responses. In the event that individual is absent [sic] creates the potential for a response to slip through the cracks. Although additional administrative safeguard procedures may be contemplated to avoid such situations, it is not necessarily a reasonable or realistic expectation....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s position on standing requests has not changed; he still believes the language in sections 13.03 and 13.04 supports the conclusion that entities must respond to such requests. In addition, in situations where an entity generates certain data on a regular basis, if a requestor cannot make a standing request, the entity sets up a situation in which the requestor must guess at when the data might become available. This would seem to frustrate Chapter 13&apos;s spirit of access to and openness of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of X&apos;s request, s/he is requesting data of which X or X&apos;s child is the subject. Therefore, upon either receiving or creating data responsive to the standing request, the District has ten working days to comply. However, the Commissioner reminds his readers that as he discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-030&lt;/a&gt;, if individual A is in charge of handling the standing request, the District needs to have procedures in place for someone else to take over if A is unable to respond to the request, e.g., if A becomes ill or takes an extended vacation. In addition, as the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267805&quot; title=&quot;96-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-047&lt;/a&gt;, it is reasonable for the District to require X to verify periodically that s/he wishes to continue obtaining the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner offers a final comment. It seems a standing request makes the most fiscal sense for both the government entity and the citizen. For the government entity, responding to a standing request means dealing with a single data request communication, maintaining and referencing some kind of tickler file, and providing the data. Not honoring a standing request forces the citizen to generate and the government entity to process multiple requests for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, must honor a standing request for government data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 27, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267377</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Standing requests for data</Title><Id>266805</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-006</Title><title>Opinion 04 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267850&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-02-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy respond appropriately to a December 22, 2003, request for access to the following data: &quot;the name of each entity that was the subject of a complaint in the year 2003 along with the number of complaints filed against them?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2004; Minnesota Board of Pharmacy</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 6, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Patrick Howe. In his letter, Mr. Howe asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data he had requested from the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. Mr. Howe&apos;s request required clarification and additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Howe&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David E. Holmstrom, Executive Director of the Board. The purposes of this letter, dated January 9, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Howe&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On January 27, 2004, IPAD received a response from Mr. Holmstrom. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In connection with his data request, Mr. Howe corresponded with Mr. Holmstrom via e-mail between December 22, 2003, and December 31, 2003. In an e-mail dated December 22, 2003, Mr. Howe asked Mr. Holmstrom for access to and copies of summary data on the number of complaints received by the board, per year, for each of the years 1998-2003, and the name of each entity that was the subject of a complaint in the year 2003 along with the number of complaints filed against them. Mr. Howe also stated, [i]f you are unable to comply with this request in whole or in part, I&apos;d ask that you cite me the section of law that makes the data private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Holmstrom responded with the number of complaints by year, and stated the following: [u]nder the Minnesota Data Practices Act, I am not authorized to identify the subject of a complaint. Minnesota Statutes section 13.41, subdivision 2 makes the nature and content of a complaint non-public information. As a result, I believe that I am not authorized to provide that information to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Howe responded:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I do not believe my request is for the &apos;nature or content of unsubstantiated complaints.&apos; I am seeking the name of the entity complained against, not the nature or content of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To be clear, is it your belief that the name of the complained-against entity is not public because the name is included under the word &apos;content&apos; in the statute?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, Mr. Holmstrom stated: [y]es, that is what we have been advised.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Holmstrom stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In general terms, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy licenses/registers pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, pharmacist interns, controlled substance researchers, and pharmacies. The Board also regulates wholesale drug distributors, medical gas distributors, manufacturers of drugs for medicinal purposes doing business in Minnesota, and professional corporations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question before us must be analyzed under a number of scenarios. The Board has inactive and active investigative data and formal disciplinary orders and corrective action agreements involving the resolution of complaints against pharmacists and pharmacies. For purposes of this discussion, the term &apos;pharmacist&apos; includes individuals licensed by the Board, and the term &apos;pharmacy&apos; includes licensees who are not individuals. Each is discussed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Holmstrom discussed the applicability of section 13.41 to data about pharmacists, i.e., individual data subjects. He cited two Advisory Opinions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589&quot; title=&quot;98-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-045&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267520&quot; title=&quot;02-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-038&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Commissioner opined that section 13.41 applies only to data on individuals. Mr. Holmstrom stated his belief that Mr. Howe sought data about pharmacists as well as pharmacies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Holmstrom also discussed, in general terms, the possible applicability of section 13.39, civil investigative data, to data maintained by the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Holmstrom also made the following statement: [f]inally, nothing in the Data Practices Act requires government entities to create new data or to present existing data in a format prescribed by the data requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Howe asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy respond appropriately to a December 22, 2003, request for access to the following data: the name of each entity that was the subject of a complaint in the year 2003 along with the number of complaints filed against them?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.41 classifies data collected, created, or maintained by any licensing agency of the state which is given the statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses. Subdivisions 2 and 3 classify certain licensing data as private, subdivision 4 classifies certain licensing data as confidential, and subdivision 5 classifies certain licensing data as public. Pursuant to section 13.02, the classifications of private and confidential apply only to data on individuals. (See section 13.02, subdivisions 3, 5, 8 and 12.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Howe asked for data about entities, not individuals. As Mr. Holmstrom noted, section 13.41 classifies only data on individuals. Accordingly, section 13.41 is not a proper basis to deny access to the kind of data Mr. Howe requested, i.e., data about entities, such as pharmacies. In general, any data the Board maintains on entities are presumptively public, pursuant to section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A possible exception here would be if, pursuant to section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the Board had determined that data requested by Mr. Howe were data collected by the Board as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. (See section 13.39, subdivisions 1 and 2.) In that case the data would be classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, until the provisions of section 13.39, subdivision 3, applied. However, Mr. Holmstrom did not state that the chief attorney for the Board has made any such determination about any of the data Mr. Howe requested; he discussed the possible application of section 13.39 in general terms only. Accordingly, the Commissioner cannot conclude that section 13.39 applies to Mr. Howe&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Howe requested access to and copies of the name of each entity that was the subject of a complaint in the year 2003 along with the number of complaints filed against them. Technically, Mr. Howe did not make a request that is governed by Chapter 13, because it was a request for information, not a request for access to existing data that contained the information he wanted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Holmstrom correctly stated that Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create new data or to present existing data in a format prescribed by the data requestor. However, Mr. Holmstrom did not explain how that relates to Mr. Howe&apos;s request. He did not state to either Mr. Howe or the Commissioner that the Board would have to create data in order to respond to Mr. Howe&apos;s request. At no time did Mr. Holmstrom tell Mr. Howe that he considered Mr. Howe&apos;s request outside the purview of Chapter 13. As the basis upon which he refused Mr. Howe&apos;s request, Mr. Holmstrom told him only that the data were not public under section 13.41, which, as noted above, is not correct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner noted the following in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267827&quot; title=&quot;04-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 04-003&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In Chapter 13, the rights of individuals and the duties of government entities exist only as they relate to government data. Thus, an entity is not required to respond to questions in which the individual does not seem to be asking to either inspect or get copies of government data as those data exist in some format. Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s questions border on not being requests for access to data. The District, however, appears to have considered them to be requests for data. The Commissioner encourages his readers to make sure that data requests are framed in ways such that there is no room for question. An example of Mr. Rodenhiser making a data request as opposed to asking a question is the following: I would like to inspect (or get copies of) all data relating to the computation of or rationale for the charge being assessed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Howe technically should have requested access to and copies of data that contained the name of each entity that was the subject of a complaint in the year 2003 along with the number of complaints filed against them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Howe is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy incorrectly denied a December 22, 2003, request, on the basis that the data are not public under section 13.41. If the Board maintains data responsive to the request, those data are public pursuant to sections 13.03 and 13.41.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 27, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267850</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Only regulates data on individuals</Title><Id>267029</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-005</Title><title>Opinion 04 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267259&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-02-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Transportation respond appropriately and in a timely manner to an August 27, 2003, request for all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was the Minnesota Department of Transportation&apos;s November 20, 2003, response to a request to inspect all public data relating to five right of way acquisitions appropriate?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 5, 2004; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 8, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Dan Browning of the Star Tribune. In his letter, Mr. Browning requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) maintains. Upon request by IPAD staff, Mr. Browning submitted clarifying information in a letter IPAD received on December 18, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Browning&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Molnau, Commissioner of Mn/DOT. The purposes of this letter, dated December 23, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Browning&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for Mn/DOT&apos;s position. Lucy Kender, Director of Mn/DOT&apos;s Office of Communications, provided comments on behalf of Mn/DOT in an email dated January 22, 2004.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Browning submitted them is as follows. In an August 27, 2003, email, Mr. Browning asked to inspect all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester, as well as the rest of the file. I understand he&apos;s been notified that the commissioners hearing is scheduled for the middle of next month. The 20-day threshold of the new law may already has passed. (The Commissioner notes that Mr. Browning asked for data relating to Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester. In Mn/DOT&apos;s response to Mr. Browning, Mn/DOT staff referred to the property as the Asmussen Highway 52 property. In the comments Ms. Kender submitted to the Commissioner, she referred to the property as Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester. The Commissioner assumes Mr. Browning and Mn/DOT staff are all referring to the same parcel of property.) Mr. Browning sent a follow-up email on October 7, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mn/DOT staff responded in an October 20, 2003, email:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The first appraisal on the Asmussen Highway 52 property was not used at the Commissioners Hearing on September 17, 2003. It is not considered public information. The second and third appraisals were shared at the hearing and are considered public. (You reviewed them this morning).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a November 7, 2003, email, Mr. Browning asked to inspect all public documents pertaining to certain right of way acquisitions.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a November 17, 2003, email, Mn/DOT discussed the five right of way acquisition files at issue in this opinion. Staff wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...the files you requested are not closed (i.e. still in condemnation) and are considered non-public. We are citing Minnesota Statutes 13.44 subd.3. The files contain references to the appraisals that have not been shared or exchanged with the owners. They contain information such as the documentation that includes the certified appraisal amount or offer based on the certified amount. We believe that this information cannot be made public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In a November 20, 2003, email, staff wrote, Mn/DOT top staff has made a decision on the five open files...you requested. Any appraisal data or values offered or paid or deposited based on the appraised value will be removed from the files. In addition, any attorney-client privileged data will be removed from the files...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Transportation respond appropriately and in a timely manner to an August 27, 2003, request for all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was the Minnesota Department of Transportation&apos;s November 20, 2003, response to a request to inspect all public data relating to five right of way acquisitions appropriate?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Transportation respond appropriately and in a timely manner to an August 27, 2003, request for all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.44, subdivision 3, classifies certain appraisal data. Clause (a) of section 13.44 states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Estimated or appraised values of individual parcels of real property which are made by personnel of the state, its agencies and departments, or a political subdivision or by independent appraisers acting for the state, its agencies and departments, or a political subdivision for the purpose of selling or acquiring land through purchase or condemnation are classified as confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Clause (b) of section 13.44 states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The data made confidential or protected nonpublic by the provisions of paragraph (a) shall become public upon the occurrence of any of the following:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) the negotiating parties exchange appraisals;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) the data are submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (4) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (5) the data are submitted to the owner under section 117.036.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      On August 27, 2003, Mr. Browning asked to inspect all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property. On October 7, 2003, he sent another email seeking to resolve his outstanding Data Practices Act requests. Based on an October 20, 2003, email from Mn/DOT staff, it appears Mn/DOT responded on that date by providing Mr. Browning with the second and third appraisals. However, it appears Mn/DOT withheld the first appraisal.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Of the data Mn/DOT did not release, staff stated, The first appraisal on the Asmussen Highway 52 property was not used at the Commissioners hearing on September 17, 2003. It is not considered public information. Regarding the appropriateness of Mn/DOT&apos;s response, Ms. Kender wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...the [property] in question [was] in the condemnation process when Mr. Browning made his request and before the law was amended. Mn/DOT believes that because [this case] was in the condemnation process before the law was amended, that the appraisals mentioned in [the case] should remain non-public, confidential. We believe our opinion meets the intent of the law regarding sharing appraisals. The goal in sharing appraisals is to come to a mutual agreement and settlement. As the [case was] already in the condemnation process, we were well beyond the mutual agreement and settlement phase. We felt it was our obligation to protect the rights of property owners by maintaining the non-public status of the data in question.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It is important first to point out that section 13.44 classifies only estimated or appraised values of individual parcels of real property. It does not classify other data relating to the appraisal process. That said, the Commissioner has the following comments. One of the situations in which estimated or appraised values must be made public is when the data are submitted to the owner under Minnesota Statutes, section 117.036. The Legislature enacted section 117.036 during the Special Session of 2003; it took effect on June 9, 2003. (See Minnesota Session Laws 2003, 1st Special Session, Chapter 19.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 117.036 provides that at least 20 days before presenting an eminent domain petition, the acquiring authority must provide the owner with a copy of the appraisal and inform the owner of the owner&apos;s right to obtain an appraisal. It appears Mn/DOT may be arguing that because the Asmussen property went to condemnation prior to June 9, 2003, Mn/DOT did not submit estimated or appraised values to Mr. Asmussen under section 117.036. The issue of Mr. Asmussen&apos;s access to appraisal value data is not before the Commissioner.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.44, subdivision 3(b), when any of the following five events has occurred, Mn/DOT must release estimated or appraised values on the Asmussen Highway 52 property: (1) the negotiating parties exchange appraisals; (2) the data are submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner; (3) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings; (4) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property; or (5) the data are submitted to the owner under section 117.036.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his opinion request, Mr. Browning wrote, We read [section 13.44, subdivision 3] to mean that any appraisals become public once one has been shared with the owner or introduced into court. Several legislators have told us that they read it the same way. The Commissioner is inclined to agree with Mr. Browning. Ms. Kender states that the Asmussen property was in the condemnation process when Mr. Browning made his request. Thus, if data were submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner or presented in court in condemnation proceedings, or if any of the other events listed in section 13.44, subdivision 3(b), has occurred, all estimated or appraised values of the Asmussen property are public. That said, the Commissioner acknowledges that the plain language of section 13.44, subdivision 3, leaves room for a different interpretation. Therefore, he encourages the Legislature to clarify its intent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding the timeliness of Mn/DOT&apos;s response, the Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requestor who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Based on the information Mr. Browning submitted (Ms. Kender did not comment on the timeliness of Mn/DOT&apos;s response), it took Mn/DOT nearly two months to provide data responsive to the request. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this is not timely.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was the Minnesota Department of Transportation&apos;s November 20, 2003, response to a request to inspect all public data relating to five right of way acquisitions appropriate?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In its response to Mr. Browning&apos;s November 7, 2003, data request, Mn/DOT staff wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Any appraisal data or values offered or paid or deposited based on the appraised value will be removed from the files. In addition, any attorney-client privileged data will be removed from the files.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Kender&apos;s comments to the Commissioner are the same as those referenced in the discussion regarding Issue 1.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.44, subdivision 3, Mr. Browning, as a member of the public, is entitled to estimated or appraised values if any of the following events has occurred: (1) the negotiating parties exchange appraisals; (2) the data are submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner; (3) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings; (4) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property; or (5) the data are submitted to the owner under section 117.036. Again, as the Commissioner is interpreting section 13.44, subdivision 3, for each right of way acquisition, if any of the 5 events has occurred, Mr. Browning gets access to all the estimated or appraised values for that parcel of land.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, in its response to Mr. Browning, Mn/DOT noted that it was withholding certain attorney-client privileged data. Section 13.393 governs certain types of data generated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity, and permits those data to be withheld from disclosure because they are not regulated by Chapter 13. In this case, the Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether it is appropriate for Mn/DOT to invoke section 13.393.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Browning raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) did not respond in a timely manner to an August 27, 2003, request for all appraisals on Jerry Asmussen&apos;s property on Hwy 63 in Rochester. In addition, pursuant to section 13.44, it is not appropriate for Mn/DOT to withhold the first appraisal if any of the following situations has occurred: (1) the negotiating parties exchange appraisals; (2) the data are submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner; (3) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings; (4) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property; or (5) the data are submitted to the owner under section 117.036.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, if any of the following events has occurred, the Minnesota Department of Transportation cannot withhold estimated or appraised values of individual parcels of real property: (1) the negotiating parties exchange appraisals; (2) the data are submitted to a court appointed condemnation commissioner; (3) the data are presented in court in condemnation proceedings; (4) the negotiating parties enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of the property; or (5) the data are submitted to the owner under section 117.036.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 5, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267259</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appraisals (13.44)</Title><Id>266507</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Meeting notice</Title><Id>266283</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-004</Title><title>Opinion 04 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267471&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-02-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Chapter 13D, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, give proper notice that the ArtsCenter reorganization would be acted on at the September 11, 2003, special meeting of the board?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 3, 2004; Board of School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 1, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated November 21, 2003, from William J. Slowter. In his letter, Mr. Slowter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether the School Board in Independent School District 276, Minnetonka (the Board), had provided proper notice that the reorganization of the ArtsCenter would be acted on at the September 11, 2003, special meeting of the Board. At the request of IPAD staff, Mr. Slowter provided clarification via an email dated December 16, 2003. Mr. Slowter submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 19, 2003, IPAD wrote to Ms. Peggy Stefan in her role as chair of the Board. In its letter, IPAD informed Ms. Stefan of Mr. Slowter&apos;s request and gave the Board, or any of its members, an opportunity to explain the Board&apos;s position. The Board presented its position via a letter dated January 14, 2004, from its attorneys, Joseph Flynn and Jennifer K. Earley. A summary of the facts is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At a regular meeting held on September 4, 2003, the Board had the reorganization of the ArtsCenter on its consent agenda. The meeting minutes show that one Board member asked that the reorganization be taken off of the consent agenda so that it could be discussed. The minutes also show that the reorganization was discussed and, following an appropriate motion and second, the reorganization was tabled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board noticed a special meeting for September 11, 2003, by posting a notice on the Board&apos;s principal bulletin board. The notice was in the form of a tentative agenda and the only item listed was approval of architects and call for bids on the MHS Dome Project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board held the special meeting on September 11th. At that meeting, one of the Board members asked to have the ArtsCenter reorganization added to the agenda. With a motion and second, the Board decided to remove the reorganization from the table. Following a discussion, the Board approved the reorganization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Slower asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13D, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, give proper notice that the ArtsCenter reorganization would be acted on at the September 11, 2003, special meeting of the board?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order to resolve this issue, the Commissioner will begin with a discussion of the purposes of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML). Although the Legislature has not stated a purpose for the law, Minnesota courts have noted the following.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its historical review of the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in &lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American v. Mader&lt;/em&gt;, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies&apos;] decisions or to detect improper influences ; (2) to assure the public&apos;s right to be informed ; and (3) to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]. &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs.&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. &lt;em&gt;State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin&lt;/em&gt;, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); &lt;em&gt;see St. Cloud Newspapers&lt;/em&gt;, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law will be liberally construed in order to protect the public&apos;s right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Prior Lake American&lt;/em&gt; at 735. An essential part of the OML is its notice provisions. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. A democracy can only be representative if elected officials receive input from their constituents. Constituents can only provide input if they receive notice that a meeting will occur and the topics to be discussed and acted on. In other words, the notice provisions of the OML promote communication between the public and the officials they have elected to act in their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With this context for and description of the spirit of the OML, the Commissioner now turns to the specific issue that has been presented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The OML requires that the public body, in this case the Board, give notice that it will be holding a special meeting. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, states, with respect to special meetings, the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 2. &lt;strong&gt;Special meetings.&lt;/strong&gt; (a) For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body&apos;s authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(d) A person filing a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to notification of meetings concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required to send notice to that person only concerning special meetings involving those subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(e) A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for notices of special meetings pursuant to this subdivision and require refiling of the request once each year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(f) Not more than 60 days before the expiration date of a request for notice, the public body shall send notice of the refiling requirement to each person who filed during the preceding year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the notice of the September 11, 2003, special meeting said that the purpose of the meeting, as required by Paragraph (a), was to act on a Dome Project at MHS which is Minnetonka High School.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board argues that the notice of the special meeting was sufficient because (1) any topic can be discussed at an emergency meeting and so it does not make sense that there is a limit on what can be discussed at a special meeting; (2) there is no limitation on the topics so long as the public has notice of the special meeting; and (3) if the Board had not acted on the ArtsCenter reorganization at the September 11, 2003, meeting, their ability to act would have ended due to &lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order&lt;/em&gt;. Each argument will be taken in turn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, the notice provision for emergency meetings is found at Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 3. That provision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 3. &lt;strong&gt;Emergency meetings.&lt;/strong&gt; (a) For an emergency meeting, the public body shall make good faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium that has filed a written request for notice if the request includes the news medium&apos;s telephone number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) Notice of the emergency meeting shall be given by telephone or by any other method used to notify the members of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) Notice shall be provided to each news medium which has filed a written request for notice as soon as reasonably practicable after notice has been given to the members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(d) Notice shall include the subject of the meeting. Posted or published notice of an emergency meeting is not required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(e) An emergency meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(f) If matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted upon at an emergency meeting, the minutes of the meeting shall include a specific description of the matters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(g) The notice requirement of this subdivision supersedes any other statutory notice requirement for a special meeting that is an emergency meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Paragraph (e) indicates that an emergency meeting is one where circumstances will not permit the public body to wait the three days to give notice of a special meeting. The circumstances suggested by this language include dealing with the aftermath of a natural disaster such as a tornado, flood or blizzard or the results of a disaster caused by humans such as a train derailment, explosion or other similar disaster. Paragraph (d) of subdivision 3 requires that the notice include the subject of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board is correct that Paragraph (f) indicates that if matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted upon at an emergency meeting, those discussions and/or actions must be specifically described in the minutes. There are no cases that deal with this provision of the OML. The Commissioner is of the opinion that Paragraph (f) was included to allow a public body to take care of items of public business to permit the public body to focus on the emergency confronting it. For example, a matter not directly related to the emergency might be to postpone the next regularly scheduled meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is also the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the notice requirement of Paragraph (d) gives the public the type of notice, via the media, that conforms with the spirit and intent of the OML. The additional authority in Paragraph (f) that permits action on other issues is meant to allow the public body to effectively manage the emergency it faces and is not meant as a tool for the public body to avoid the public scrutiny the OML affords.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In other words, the Legislature has recognized in the emergency meeting provisions that the circumstances surrounding an emergency require the public body to have the greatest flexibility possible while still providing notice to the public of its intent to act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the meeting at issue here was not an emergency meeting. It was a special meeting to discuss a dome project at the Minnetonka High School. Therefore, contrary to the first argument offered by the Board, the special meeting provisions (subdivision 2 above) do not give the Board similar permission to act on any matter. If the Legislature had intended to give the Board that type of power, it would have stated that in subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board&apos;s second argument is that there is no limitation on what can be discussed at a special meeting, so long as notice of the meeting is provided to the public. The Board argues that its policy regarding the operation of the Board gives it the power to discuss any topic at any meeting. As noted at the beginning of this discussion, one of the purposes of the OML is to afford the public the opportunity to present its views to the public body. How can the public express its views if the public is not given notice that the topic is to be discussed?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board&apos;s second argument also fails because the provisions governing special meetings also provide that an individual may request to be notified of special meetings only when one or more specific topics will be discussed. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Section 13D.04, subdivision 2(d). This provision assists those members of the public with very busy lives to participate only in those meetings where a topic of interest or concern will be addressed. If the Board is not limited to the topic(s) stated in the notice of the special meeting, how can the Board provide notice to those members of the public who wish to have notice of specific topics? Finally, as to this second argument, Board policy cannot be used to contravene state law. The OML requires that the public must be given notice of a special meeting, including the purpose of the meeting, and so the Board cannot, by policy, adopt and follow a different rule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Board&apos;s third argument is also not persuasive. The Board uses &lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order&lt;/em&gt; to conduct its meetings. The Board&apos;s policy does not indicate which version of &lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order&lt;/em&gt; will be used; most organizations use the most current version. The Board cites to a 1967 version of the Rules for the position that if a matter is laid on the table, it must be acted on at the meeting at which it was laid on the table or at the very next meeting. If action does not occur within these time lines, the Board asserts that the matter at issue is dead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most current version of &lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order&lt;/em&gt; is the Tenth Edition published in 2000. In this version, the rule concerning a motion to lay on the table is stated as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In cases in which the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see p. 88), a question laid on the table remains there until taken from the table or until the close of the next regular session; if not taken up by that time, the question dies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order Newly Revised&lt;/em&gt; (Perseus Books 2000) at page 206. There is a very important difference between what the Board asserts and the rule as published - the issue dies if it is not acted on at the next &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;regular&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; meeting of the body. In this case, the September 11, 2003, meeting of the Board was a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; meeting and so, contrary to the Board&apos;s argument, the ArtsCenter reorganization matter would not have died if it had not been acted on at the September 11th meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules&lt;/em&gt; also provides that A question can only be taken from the table at a &lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt; meeting only if it has been laid on the table at that meeting or if previous notice of such intention has been stated in the call of the meeting. (emphasis in the original) &lt;em&gt;Robert&apos;s Rules of Order Newly Revised&lt;/em&gt; at page 205. As the Board is bound by the OML and follows &lt;em&gt;Roberts Rules&lt;/em&gt;, it should not have acted on the ArtsCenter reorganization as it had not provided notice of its intent to do so at the September 11th special meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Having found none of the Board&apos;s arguments persuasive, the Commissioner returns to the issue of whether the Board&apos;s actions at the September 11th special meeting were limited to those items about which notice has been given. As there is no statutory definition of notice, it is reasonable to turn to the dictionary. The &lt;em&gt;American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/em&gt; (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1997) defines notice &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt; as a written or printed announcement; a formal announcement, notification or warning; or the condition of being formally warned or notified. To further understand this definition, we look at the definition of notify which means to give notice to, inform; or to give notice of; make known.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Applying these definitions according to the rules of statutory construction found in Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Board&apos;s actions are limited to those topics included in the notice of special meeting. This conclusion is further supported by the purpose and spirit of the OML, which is to allow the public the opportunity to participate in the government that represents it. The public cannot receive effective notice unless the Board is limited to acting on only those items for which notice was provided when the special meeting was scheduled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Slowter is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13D, Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not give proper notice that the ArtsCenter reorganization would be acted on at the September 11, 2003 special meeting of the board.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 3, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267471</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Emergency meetings</Title><Id>266658</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice</Title><Id>266289</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special vs. emergency meeting</Title><Id>267051</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-003</Title><title>Opinion 04 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267827&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-01-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond in a timely manner to an October 6, 2003, request for data regarding a breakdown of costs associated with other data requested October 6, 2003?
Is Independent School District 272&apos;s (Eden Prairie) charge of $75 per &quot;data file&quot; allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 23, 2004; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 20, 2003, IPAD received a letter from James Rodenhiser. In his letter, Mr. Rodenhiser asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data School District 272, Eden Prairie, maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Rodenhiser provided on December 1, 2003. IPAD again requested clarification, which Mr. Rodenhiser provided on December 4, 2003. IPAD requested still further clarification, which Mr. Rodenhiser provided also on December 4, 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Melissa Krull, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 8, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 17, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Maggie Wallner and Charles Long.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 6, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser requested the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and any other readily available directory information for all parents with children in the Eden Prairie School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The names, addresses, grade level, age, date of birth, and any other readily available directory information for all children in the Eden Prairie School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He wrote, For requests 2 and 3 I am requesting the data be provided on electronic media (cd-rom preferred) in a text format, if available. Mr. Rodenhiser also wrote, Please provide...all itemized costs related to the above requests for my approval before incurring any costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 13, 2002, Mary Bollinger, Executive Director of Human Resources, wrote, We&apos;re working on gathering the other information which you requested and will get back to you shortly. For your information, the cost of each individual data file is $75.00. It appears from your letter that you have requested two different data files, which would cost $150.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 3, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser wrote to Ms. Bollinger. He wrote, Would you please provide me with a detailed component breakdown of how you calculated the costs of the lists?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 10, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote to Mr. Rodenhiser. She wrote, School districts must establish a fee for providing individuals with student directory information. The fee for each list is established at $75 per list per district policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 17, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser wrote to Ms. Bollinger. He wrote, In your letter of 11/10/03 you ignored my questions regarding...the breakdown of the costs associated with providing the lists. I will be requesting an advisory opinion on this matter from the Commissioner of Administration under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 18, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote to Mr. Rodenhiser. She wrote, You will be provided with the public data you have requested upon receipt of your payment of $150.00 at $75.00 per list. I do not have a breakdown of costs, but would be happy to expedite your request for data in an electronic format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rodenheiser asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond in a timely manner to an October 6, 2003, request for data regarding a breakdown of costs associated with other data requested October 6, 2003?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Independent School District 272&apos;s (Eden Prairie) charge of $75 per data file allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond in a timely manner to an October 6, 2003, request for data regarding a breakdown of costs associated with other data requested October 6, 2003?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities must respond to requests for data in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, provides additional guidance and states that entities must respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, in a letter dated October 6, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser asked for all itemized costs related to the above [data] requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 13, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote, ...each individual file is $75.00. It appears from your letter that you have requested two different data files, which would cost $150.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 3, 2003, Mr. Rodenhiser wrote and asked the District to provide him with a detailed breakdown of how you calculated the costs of the lists. Mr. Rodenhiser renewed his request in a letter dated November 17, 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 18, 2003, Ms. Bollinger wrote, I do not have a breakdown of costs...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response, Ms. Wallner and Mr. Long stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The foregoing facts show that the School District met its obligations under [Chapter 13] to respond to Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s request in an appropriate and prompt manner. It responded to each of Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s letters, including information regarding the costs with his data practices requests, within ten calendar days. Thus, the School District&apos;s responses were timely and in compliance with Minnesota Statute Section 13.03, Subdivision 2(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the District did respond in a timely manner to Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s requests. In the October 6, 2003, letter, he asked for all itemized costs related to the data he requested. The District responded within a reasonable time by advising Mr. Rodenhiser that the charge for each data file is $75. In the November 23, 2003, letter, Mr. Rodenhiser asked what the Commissioner considers to be a slightly different question - to be provided with a detailed breakdown of the assessed charge. The District responded within a reasonable time by advising Mr. Rodenhiser that it does not have a breakdown of the cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. In Chapter 13, the rights of individuals and the duties of government entities exist only as they relate to government data. Thus, an entity is not required to respond to questions in which the individual does not seem to be asking to either inspect or acquire copies of government data as those data exist in a particular format. Mr. Rodenhiser&apos;s questions border on not being requests for access to data. The District, however, appears to have considered them to be requests for data. The Commissioner encourages his readers to make sure that data requests are framed in ways such that there is no room for question. An example of Mr. Rodenhiser making a data request as opposed to asking a question is the following: I would like to inspect (or get copies of) all data relating to the computation of or rationale for the charge being assessed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is Independent School District 272&apos;s (Eden Prairie) charge of $75 per data file allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data and making the copies. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Wallner and Mr. Long wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the District has established a policy regarding community access to student directory information....The policy allows members of the public to request a list with directory information from the District&apos;s Information Systems Specialist and notifies the public that the costs for this service include $75 per request for generating the lists...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The $75.00 fee per directory file request became effective upon enactment by the School Board on June 28, 2000....The District&apos;s technology department based the rate on a determination of time and materials necessary to process such requests....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District&apos;s Information Systems Specialist is responsible for processing requests for directory information or parts thereof. The IS Specialist costs the District $34.22 per hour (salary plus benefits and taxes)....It takes the IS Specialist two hours to retrieve and process directory information on the District&apos;s 10,400 students. Thus, the IS Specialist&apos;s time required to process the request is $68.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data is then forwarded to the secretarial and accounting clerk who compiles it, sends the data, invoices it, and credits it to accounts receivable. This takes approximately 30 minutes and costs the District between $8.32 and $10.86 (salary plus benefits and taxes) depending on the particular employee....Finally, the cost of the supplies, in this case the cd-rom and mailing, adds an additional $1.62.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The sum total of these costs is a minimum of $78.38 and a maximum of $80.92. Therefore, the School District&apos;s fee of $75.00 per file does not exceed the actual costs. Moreover, the fee is reasonable. The Eden Prairie School District is one of the largest in the state. It has an enrollment of more than 10,400 students. Retrieving specific directory information on each of these students is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Each of the components of the fee established by the School District is consistent with those recognized in Minnesota Rules 1205.0300.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner and Mr. Long state that it takes the Information Systems Specialist, whose hourly rate is $34.22, two hours to retrieve and process directory information on the District&apos;s students. As discussed above, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), provides that government entities may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data as well as the costs of making the copies. The Commissioner is of the opinion that the District has not sufficiently demonstrated how the $68.44 ($34.22 x 2) portion of the $75 fee represents either searching for and retrieving the data, or the costs of copying. The Commissioner reminds his readers that entities may not charge for separating private and public data and that pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them accessible for convenient use. In the instance of directory information, the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requires the District to go through a process of designating student data as directory (public) information. Once the District knows which data are directory information, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 (the Official Records Act) require that the data be made easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wallner and Mr. Long wrote that the Information Systems Specialist requires two hours to retrieve and process directory information on the District&apos;s students. Although the District did not say, the Commissioner assumes the System Specialist works with some type of database to pull together data to respond to a data request. In that context, it is not clear what the Systems Specialist is doing when s/he is retrieving and processing directory information and how his/her actions represent the actual cost of providing a copy. It would have been helpful it the District had provided more information along those lines. Without these specifics, the Commissioner is left to opine that that part of the charge appears not to be appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the additional $6.56 ($75 - 68.44), the Commissioner has the following comments. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267827&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-013&lt;/a&gt;, the Secretary of State&apos;s Office argued in support of various components of the fee it assessed for making copies. Of relevance to this opinion, the Deputy Secretary wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Administrative charges on VR [voter registration] orders are averaged at one hour at $18.50....This includes a Clerk Typist 2 in Fiscal Services who opens and receives the order; the Management Analyst 2 who assists the customer by providing information on products, fees, procedures for obtaining an order and mails the order out; and the Computer Services employee who actually produces the specific VR lists ordered....The time spent by each employee is allocated as 20 minutes each per order, which totals $18.63 per hour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The relevant language in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides that a government entity may charge the cost of labor required to &lt;u&gt;prepare&lt;/u&gt; the copies. It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that preparing the copies means just that, the actual act of preparing the copies. Therefore, of the cost-of-labor information provided by the Secretary of State&apos;s office, it appears the only appropriate charge would be that of the computer services employee who actually produces the specific VR lists ordered. According to Ms. Voss&apos; letter, that person&apos;s salary and benefits total $13.52 per hour. Thus, if it takes that employee 20 minutes to produce the order, the cost would be approximately $4.51 (20 minutes of time at $13.52 per hour).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267827&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt;, he does not believe it is appropriate for the District to assess a fee for sending the data, invoicing the data, or crediting it to accounts receivable. Ms. Wallner and Mr. Long also stated that the secretarial/accounting clerk compiles the data; it is not clear what that means. Thus, of the $6.56 portion of the $75 fee, the Commissioner can determine only that the $1.62 for a cd-rom and mailing is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two additional notes are in order. One relates to the way Mr. Rodenhiser phrased his directory information requests. In his request for information about both parents and students, he asked for specific directory information and then asked also for any other readily available directory information. In making his data request, Mr. Rodenhiser, to the extent possible, needed to be specific about what data he was seeking. In the Commissioner&apos;s mind, the final phrase of his request is not clear. For the District&apos;s part, if it did not understand his request, it should have asked for clarification. The point is that both parties in data practices matters have certain obligations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the District&apos;s Regulation 801 entitled, Community Access to Student Directory Information (801.2R), states, The requestor will need to specify the intended use and will need to sign a statement that the information will only be used for the designated purpose and not shared with others. The Commissioner reminds his readers that pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 12, Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to...state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues Mr. Rodenhiser raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, responded in a timely manner to both an October 6, 2003, request and a November 3, 2003, request for information for costs relating to directory information files.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 272&apos;s (Eden Prairie) charge of $75 per data file does not appear to be allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because the District did not meet the burden of establishing how the fee represents that which is statutorily permitted.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 23, 2004&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267827</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Searching and retrieving</Title><Id>266273</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-002</Title><title>Opinion 04 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267318&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-01-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Duluth maintains: data relating to a disciplinary proceeding, including the arbitration decision, involving an employee who initially was served with a notice of termination but who grieved the action and later was reinstated?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 21, 2004; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 12, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated December 9, 2003, from Bryan Brown, City Attorney of the City of Duluth. In his letter, Mr. Brown asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. Upon request from IPAD staff, Mr. Brown provided clarification in a letter dated December 15, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 17, 2003, IPAD invited the subject of the data in question, X, to submit comments. On December 24, 2003, IPAD received comments from X&apos;s attorney. Further, on December 26, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated December 24, 2003, from James Barnum, Deputy General Counsel for Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. Mr. Barnum requested an opportunity to provide comments. IPAD received Mr. Barnum&apos;s comments on December 31, 2003, in a letter dated same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Brown wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have an employee who we charged with misconduct and served with a notice of termination from employment. It is a civil service, unionized job in the Police department. Pursuant to the applicable union contract, the employee filed a grievance. It proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator issued a decision that sustained the grievance and reinstated the employee with full back pay and benefits. The employee received no disciplinary penalty that was imposed through the employer&apos;s efforts.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Local media have requested all data related to the disciplinary proceeding, including the arbitration decision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                My question relates to [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43]. What, if any, data relating to the attempted termination of the employee is public? If any data is public, when did it become public?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Brown asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Duluth maintains: data relating to a disciplinary proceeding, including the arbitration decision, involving an employee who initially was served with a notice of termination but who grieved the action and later was reinstated? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Government data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action. A final disposition occurs when:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...[the government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or courts proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, X&apos;s attorney wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...since the final disposition of the disciplinary action against [X] was that no disciplinary action was taken against [X], only the limited data regarding the existence of the complaint and its now concluded status that no action has been taken against [X], is public. All other data relating to the disciplinary proceeding, including the arbitration decision, should remain private and no further data regarding the incident should be disclosed. Our position is based on the fact that pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 2(5), personnel data becomes public data when disciplinary action is imposed. Since the arbitrator has found that [X shall be reinstated], no disciplinary action was imposed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Barnum, in his comments to the Commissioner, asserted that the data in question are public because a final disposition has occurred.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As the Commissioner has discussed in previous advisory opinions, a final disposition cannot have occurred unless the government entity takes disciplinary action against an employee (see Advisory Opinions 96-001 and 96-010.) In the situation at hand, the City took disciplinary action against X. X, whose employment is covered under a collective bargaining agreement, grieved the discipline and an arbitrator heard the case. The arbitrator sustained the grievance and reinstated the employee with full back pay and benefits. Because the outcome of the grievance process is that the discipline was reversed, the employee, in essence, has not been disciplined.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In situations such as this, where the final disposition of a matter is no disciplinary action, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), dictates that an entity can release only data regarding the existence and status of the complaint or charge. Obviously, in responding to questions about status, an entity&apos;s answer depends upon where it is in the process of responding to the complaint or charge. Here, the matter is now closed. Thus, the following data are public: the employee&apos;s name, the fact that a complaint or charge exists, and that the matter is closed (the city investigated and there was no disciplinary action).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Brown raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data that the City of Duluth maintains are private: data relating to a disciplinary proceeding, including the arbitration decision, involving an employee who initially was served with a notice of termination but who grieved the action and later was reinstated. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 21, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267318</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grievance sustained</Title><Id>266960</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 04-001</Title><title>Opinion 04 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267449&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2004-01-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota FAIR Plan Board subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 9, 2004; Minnesota FAIR Plan Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 26, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated December 23, 2003, from Bert J. McKasy on behalf of the Minnesota FAIR Plan (the Plan). In his letter, Mr. McKasy asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether the Plan was subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. The Plan&apos;s Board of Directors has a Claims Committee that reviews and makes insurance coverage decisions for claims in two areas. The first is when the applicant has been denied coverage based on misrepresentation or arson. The second is for losses over the authority of the Plan Manager. To make decisions on the claims, the Claims Committee uses information about individuals that are not accessible to the public according to the Plan&apos;s Privacy Policy. The Privacy Policy is based on the requirements of the federal Gramm Leach Bliley Act and the state Minnesota Insurance Fair Information Reporting Act. If the Plan&apos;s Board and its committee were subject to the Open Meeting Law, the data protected by the Privacy Policy would have to be discussed in an open meeting. If the discussion occurs in an open meeting, the Plan&apos;s Board or its committee could violate the provisions of federal and state law.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. McKasy asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota FAIR Plan Board subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, governs the operation of state executive branch entities as well as the governing bodies of public bodies such as school districts, counties, cities, towns or an unorganized territory. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01. The question to be resolved in this advisory opinion is whether the board of the Plan is an entity that must conform to the requirements of Chapter 13D.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A description of the operation of the Plan is helpful in understanding the outcome of this opinion. The Plan is a reinsurance arrangement among property and casualty insurance companies to insure property for which property and liability insurance cannot be obtained through regular means. Minnesota Statutes, section 65A.32 (6). It is an organization formed by insurers to assist applicants for insurance and to administer the Plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 65A.33, subdivision 4. Any insurer who writes property or liability insurance policies in Minnesota must belong to the Plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 65A.35, subdivision 1. Insurance company participants elect five members of the nine member board of directors. The remaining four members of the board are appointed by the Commissioner of Commerce. Minnesota Statutes, section 65A.35, subdivision 5 (1).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The statute creating the Plan is silent on the applicability of the Open Meeting Law to the Plan&apos;s board. Chapter 13D does not contain a definition of public body that could assist with the analysis. There is one case from the Minnesota Supreme Court that appears to provide guidance in this analysis. The case is &lt;i&gt;Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne&lt;/i&gt;, 578 N.W. 2d 362 (Minn. 1998) (referred to as &lt;i&gt;SMMPA&lt;/i&gt;). The SMMPA case involves municipal power agencies and whether they must meet the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner will describe the case and then compare the Plan and its Board to the principles from the case.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       In &lt;i&gt;SMMPA&lt;/i&gt;, the Supreme Court found that municipal power agencies were formed by cities who agreed to produce power cooperatively for the benefit of the member cities and their customers. The enabling legislation says that the municipal power agency is a municipal corporation, a political subdivision, and is to operate as a business. Specifically, the enabling legislation used the phrase private corporation and the Supreme Court found that &lt;i&gt;SMMPA&lt;/i&gt; had behaved like a private corporation, its bylaws provided that some meetings and records could be closed and it was not covered by the Open Meeting Law. In 2000, the Legislature required that corporations formed by political subdivisions follow the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. See Minnesota Statutes, section 465.719. Municipal power agencies were specifically excluded from this new provision. Minnesota Statutes, section 465.719, subdivisions 1(b)(1).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the case before the Commissioner, the Plan&apos;s enabling legislation does not use the same terminology as is used for municipal power agencies. However, section 65A.33, subdivision 4 says that the Plan is formed by insurers to assist applicants in getting property or liability insurance. All property and liability insurers who want to sell property, liability or multiperil insurance in Minnesota must participate in the plan. The Plan members fund a reinsurance arrangement where property that cannot otherwise be insured in the normal property/liability market can be insured. In other words, except for the appointment of a minority of the members of the Board by the Commissioner of Commerce, no government body participates in the funding or operation of the Plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 65A.35, subdivision 6.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When the municipal power agency and Plan situations are compared, it is a reasonable conclusion that if the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency was not subject to the Open Meeting Law, then the Plan is not either. The Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency was formed by public bodies for the benefit of the public who purchased electric power. The Plan, in contrast, is formed by private parties (insurers) and administered by representatives of these private parties for the benefit of private parties.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As a final point, the Open Meeting Law was enacted so that citizens could watch their government at work. As the public bodies covered by the Open Meeting Law are spending citizen tax dollars and making decisions that affect citizens, it is essential in our system of representative democracy that those decisions be made in the open, where all citizens can monitor what is done. The Plan is a privately funded and operated organization that provides a very specific service to individuals and businesses in need of property and liability insurance. The Plan makes decisions on a case-by-case basis for specific insurance needs.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       While the &lt;i&gt;SMMPA&lt;/i&gt; case does not provide direct guidance for the Plan&apos;s board, the fact that the Plan operates more like a private corporation and the language that is in place in the enabling legislation does not give an indication that the Open Meeting Law should apply, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plan is not subject to the Open Meeting Law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. McKasy is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota FAIR Plan Board is not subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 9, 2004
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267449</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities subject to</Title><Id>266572</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:24:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-050</Title><title>Opinion 03 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267789&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-12-31T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of cell phone records of a current or former employee that the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs maintains?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 2003; Minnesota Department of Military Affairs</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 8, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Colonel Mary V. Johnson, Staff Judge Advocate of the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs (MDMA.) In her letter, Colonel Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by MDMA. Colonel Johnson&apos;s request required clarification and additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.072, subdivision 1 (a), the Commissioner chose to seek comments from the subject of the data in question. In a letter dated October 17, 2003, the Commissioner asked Major General Eugene Andreotti, former head of MDMA, for his comments, which General Andreotti submitted. Upon review of the information submitted by General Andreotti (see below), and additional clarification and discussion with IPAD, MDMA staff withdrew the opinion request, on the belief that federal law controlled the classification of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, Colonel Johnson, in consultation with IPAD, renewed her opinion request, and provided additional information in support of her belief that the Commissioner had authority to address the issue under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072. The Commissioner agreed, provided General Andreotti with the additional information, and sought additional comments from him, in a letter dated November 25, 2003. General Andreotti reiterated his earlier position. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Due to the dual state-federal status of its function, it is necessary to this discussion to examine the organization and structure of the Minnesota National Guard. Upon IPAD&apos;s request, Colonel Johnson provided information about same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following are excerpts from Colonel Johnson&apos;s comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The National Guard exists in each state and territory by virtue of the US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8, Clauses 14 and 15. The Constitutional basis for the National Guard is separate and distinct from that of the active duty forces of the United States. The National Guard is a State military organization, whereas the US Army AF, Navy and Coast Guard are federal entities. The Minnesota National Guard and its members do not become part of the federal military unless and until they are called to federal active duty service under Title 10 of the US Code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota National Guard is comprised of the Minnesota Air National Guard and Minnesota Army National Guard. It is comprised of full-time National Guard members (under Title 32 of the US Code), federal civil servants (who must also be Guard members), state employees, and &apos;traditionals&apos; (people who are civilians . . . but drill as Guard members . . . ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The role of the National Guard is two-fold: to be prepared and responsive to the Governor in the event of a state emergency requiring the protection of persons or property; and to train members of the Minnesota National Guard to federal standards so they are ready if called to federal active duty in the event of national emergency or war. Unless and until called to service with the federal active duty military under Title 10, members of the National Guard remain part of an organization that is exclusively a state organization, accountable through the Adjutant General to the Governor, who is the Commander-in-Chief. Today, many of our National Guard members have been called to federal active duty and are deployed to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. These members have lost their affiliation with the Minnesota National Guard (a State military organization) and are now members of the US Air Force or US Army (federal Title 10 active duty organizations) for the duration of their active duty tours. They have a chain of command that ends with the President and does not include the Minnesota National Guard. When they are released from federal active duty, these members revert automatically to their status as members of the Minnesota National Guard, a state organization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota National Guard is headed by the Adjutant General. The Adjutant General is the administrative head of the Department of Military Affairs. He is an employee of the State of Minnesota and is paid by the State with the same status as the other Commissioners. This is so even though he wears a federal military uniform and participates during drill weekends for federal pay. The only time the Adjutant General is not accountable to the Governor is when he is on federal active duty with the US Army (or Air Force where the Adjutant General is an Air Force Officer). This federal duty arises when the Adjutant General travels overseas or if he were to be called to federal Title 10 active duty in response to some federal call-up. At present federal duty is rare, limited to a few weeks per year. When on Title 10 duty, the Adjutant General is accountable to the federal US Army and President just like the rest of the Guard members who are called to federal active duty. When he returns from active duty, he reverts seamlessly to his State status in charge of the National Guard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Even though it is a State organization, the Department of Military Affairs is funded in large part by federal funds. There is a tradeoff for the federal funding. That is, the Department of Military Affairs must train the National Guard members to be ready for their federal mission according to Title 32 of the US Code, federal standards and regulations. Even though individual members wear a US Army or US Air Force uniform, receive federal pay, accrue federal retirement benefits, and train to federal standards, the Guard remains a state organization until called to federal Title 10 duty.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Records are regularly collected, maintained and stored by the Minnesota National Guard in the course of its State and federal duties. Among these records are cell phone records for the Guard leadership. The cell phones are issued by the Guard for the conduct of Guard business. I am told that these phones are paid for with federal funds, much the same as federal funds pay for the majority of the operating and maintenance costs of the Minnesota National Guard. Nonetheless, the phone bills are collected, maintained and stored by the National Guard as a State organization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;General Andreotti, in his comments, asserted that the classification of the data was governed under federal law, namely the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. General Andreotti provided a copy of a United States Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, document, dated June 12, 1998, on the following subject: Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Information Memorandum - State v. Federal Records. In his comments to the Commissioner, General Andreotti stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have no objection to processing the request [for his cell phone records] as provided for under applicable law. However I believe the applicable law is federal law (FOIA and Privacy Act), not the state Data Practices Act. This is because (1) the telephone service was paid with federal funds; and (2) records relating to the telephone service are kept pursuant to federal (Army) regulations; and (3) National Guard Bureau has a policy letter dated 12 June 1998 that states records pertaining to an individual, maintained in a system of records on behalf of a federal agency to accomplish a federal agency function, which are retrievable by the individual&apos;s name or other personal identifier, are covered by the Privacy Act and are federal records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, federal law should apply and this request should be processed under applicable federal regulation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion,Colonel Johnson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of cell phone records of a current or former employee that the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs maintains?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the issue of whether state or federal law applies here, the Commissioner has the following comments. According to Colonel Johnson, MDMA, while funded largely by the federal government, is a state agency for purposes of Chapter 13. She stated that the phone bills are collected, maintained and stored by the National Guard as a state organization. Major Andreotti was an employee of the State of Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, unless there is a federal law that specifically classifies data maintained by a Minnesota government entity, such as MDMA, the data are classified under state statute. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state government entity. The Commissioner is not aware of any provision of federal law that preempts the applicability of Chapter 13 to the classification of these records. The definition of government data does not include an exception for data related to an activity paid for with federal funds. Furthermore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the National Guard Bureau policy letter does not carry the force and effect of law. Accordingly, the cell phone records are subject to classification under Chapter 13, not the federal FOIA or Privacy Act. However, according to Colonel Johnson, General Andreotti periodically was on active duty status, during which time he was a federal employee. If any of the phone bill data relate to his federal service, the Commissioner believes that those data may be subject to classification under federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals are all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06). The treatment of personnel data, however, runs contrary to the general presumption. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), sets forth the types of personnel data that are public, and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has considered the classification of data related to public employees numerous times. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267768&quot; title=&quot;00-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-002&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner concluded that because local telephone numbers that an employee calls are not included in the list of public personnel data enumerated at subdivision 2 of section 13.43, they are private. (Section 10.46 provides that long-distance telephone bills &lt;u&gt;paid for by the state&lt;/u&gt; or a political subdivision are public. Colonel Johnson stated that she was advised that General Andreotti&apos;s cell phone was paid for from federal funds. As noted above, the source of the funds does not dictate whether state or federal law governs the classification of the data. However, if the cell phone bills had been paid for by the state, the long-distance portion would be public, under section 10.46.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267768&quot; title=&quot;00-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-002&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner did not have an opportunity to examine the actual telephone bills, and did not address whether the employee was the subject of all of the data contained in the phone bills. As noted above, section 13.43 (personnel data) classifies data on individuals, i.e., all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.) Here, it appears that neither General Andreotti nor another public employee is the subject of at least some of the data contained in the cell phone records. For example, the bills contain the dollar amount of the monthly charge. Therefore, those data in the bills that are not on individuals cannot be personnel data. They are public pursuant to the general presumption.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner expanded his consideration of the classification of data related to public employees in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;. In that opinion, the Commissioner was asked about the classification of data maintained on a city&apos;s computers, in a case in which the government entity had a policy in force that allowed employees to make limited use of city-owned computers for personal matters. The Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, while the vast majority of data that exist on a City employee&apos;s PC or laptop are government data, there also may be data on the employee&apos;s computer that are personal. What constitutes these personal data depends on what the City has authorized for personal use. Any such personal data are not government data because, although they have been created and/or maintained on a government-owned PC or laptop, the employee did not create them in her/his capacity as a government employee, and the purpose of the data is not related to the operation of government. Personal data, therefore, do not fall under the purview of Chapter 13 and the Commissioner does not have authority to address the classification of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-049&lt;/a&gt;, data on an employee&apos;s computer that, under the logic employed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt; would otherwise have been personal data, were government personnel data under section 13.43, because the Department relied on those data as part of the basis for disciplinary action taken against the employee. The Commissioner opined: [t]he Department is maintaining the images (regardless of the context under which X collected them) to document action it took against X. Therefore, it does not seem reasonable for either X&apos;s attorney or the Department to argue that the data are personal (as the Commissioner discussed that term in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;), rather than government data. The Commissioner concluded that because those data formed part of the basis for final disciplinary action taken against the employee, the data were public personnel data. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this situation, the cell phone billing records contain public and private government data, and data that are not classified under Chapter 13. In order to determine which data are subject to classification under Chapter 13, MDMA must determine first, if and when General Andreotti was on active duty status during the time period for which the cell phone records are sought. If any data relate to a time when General Andreotti was on federal duty, those data may be classified under the federal FOIA/Privacy Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, MDMA must determine if there is an employee who is the individual subject of personnel data, i.e., data on the employee that were collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. It appears, from the copies of the cell phone bills provided, that some of the data in the bills are not data on individuals, and are, therefore, presumptively public. If MDMA determines that General Andreotti, or any other public employee, is the subject of personnel data in the phone bills, then those data are private under section 13.43, unless any of the data ever constitute the specific reasons for or document the basis of any final disciplinary action. As discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-049&lt;/a&gt;, data that are used as the basis for final disciplinary action are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, MDMA must determine whether any of the data are personal as discussed above. If MDMA has a policy that allows some use of cell phones for personal communications, then per &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt;, those data are personal not government personnel data and are not classified under Chapter 13; the Commissioner does not have the authority to address their classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MDMA must examine the individual data elements in the cell phone records, in light of the discussion above, to determine the classification of each.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Colonel Johnson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the cell phone records of a current or former employee, maintained by the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs, contain public and private government data, and data that are not classified under Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 31, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267789</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</Title><Id>266663</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Military Affairs Department (MDMA)</Title><Id>267084</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>National Guard, Minnesota</Title><Id>266439</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Cell phones</Title><Id>267085</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Phone records</Title><Id>267007</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-049</Title><title>Opinion 03 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267105&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-12-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a June 6, 2003, request for the following data: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against a particular employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 2003; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 12, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Rodger D. Robb. In his letter, Mr. Robb asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Robb&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated November 13, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Robb&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 9, 2003, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Goodno. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a June 6, 2003, letter to the Human Resources Department of the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program, Mr. Robb requested access to public data about a Department employee, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The Department provided some of the requested data. Subsequently, Mr. Robb wrote to Commissioner Goodno, in a letter dated September 8, 2003, and asked for access to the public personnel data that the Department had not provided in response to his earlier request. Commissioner Goodno wrote to Mr. Robb on September 23, 2003, and provided him with additional data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Robb stated that Commissioner Goodno had provided him with much of the missing information but still missing was information regarding the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The &apos;cover sheet,&apos; completely contrary to the statutory language [at section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4)] includes a blank line to indicate &apos;Final Disposition of any disciplinary action,&apos; as outlined in Mn. Stat. section13.43, Subd. 2(a)(5). This then would not provide any information concerning the existence of complaints . . . regardless of whether the complaint . . . resulted in a disciplinary action. According to the &apos;cover sheet&apos; provided me, the only thing I might know for sure (if this &apos;cover sheet&apos; is accurate) is that [the employee] has had no &apos;final dispositions&apos; for any &apos;disciplinary action.&apos; A far cry from the &lt;u&gt;existence&lt;/u&gt; of a complaint or charge.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments, Commissioner Goodno stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Department believes that it has complied with Chapter 13 and responded appropriately to Mr. Robb&apos;s request. The Department believes that its responses to Mr. Robb made it clear that there have been no complaints or disciplinary actions involving the particular employee in question, and, therefore, that there is no related data that can be provided for inspection.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                By way of background, because of the volume of requests of a similar nature received by the Department from participants in the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program and from others seeking data about program staff, the Department has, over time, developed templates used in providing public data in response to such requests. The use of templates is intended and necessary to provide a prompt and efficient response to inquiries while at the same time allowing for efficient allocation of staff and other Department resources. The use of templates also allows the Department to readily track requests and responses.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 On September 23, 2003, in the second of two responses, the Department used a revised template to respond to Mr. Robb. In a field titled, &apos;Final Disposition of &lt;u&gt;&lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/u&gt; disciplinary action&apos; (emphasis added) the Department indicated &apos;None.&apos; The intent of this response was to convey (1) that there have been no complaints or charges, no investigations, no disciplinary actions, no related final dispositions or settlements of disputes arising out of the employment relation [sic] involving the particular employee about whom Mr. Robb sought data, and no such activities are pending, and (2) therefore no data exists nor could be produced for inspection by Mr. Robb.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department&apos;s communication to Mr. Robb could have been more precise, but the meaning of the Department&apos;s response is nevertheless clear when it is considered within the context of the entire template document.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Robb asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a June 6, 2003, request for the following data: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against a particular employee?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivision 2, certain personnel data are public; under subdivision 4, most other personnel data are private. In particular here, Mr. Robb requested access to the following public data, if any, related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [See subdivision 2(a)(4)).]
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [See subdivision 2(a)(5).]
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Robb asked for access to most of the data elements that are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a). The template the Department provided lists the data elements on the left, followed by the specific data on the employee. In four cases, the specific data portion reads none. For example, it did contain Final disposition of any disciplinary action: None. However, the template does not have any reference to the existence and/or status of any complaints or charges against the employee.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       In his comments, Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department believes that its responses to Mr. Robb made it clear that there have been no complaints or disciplinary actions involving the particular employee in question. (Commissioner Goodno did not address whether there have been any &lt;u&gt;charges&lt;/u&gt; against the employee.) The Commissioner of Administration respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Goodno&apos;s position. The only data element that Mr. Robb asked for that is not on the template is the status of a complaint or charge, which is listed in section 13.43 as a separate data element from data that document the basis of final disciplinary action.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department does not maintain any data concerning a complaint or charge against the employee. However, the statute contemplates circumstances in which a complaint or charge has been made against an employee, but there is no related final disciplinary action. In order to be clear, and consistent, the template should have included a statement like Status of complaint or charge: None, as is the case with other data elements that don&apos;t apply to this employee.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has a final comment. The Department has decided that it can best meet its obligations to provide prompt access to public personnel data by using a template. The statute neither requires nor forbids the use of templates. However, the Department needs to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the templates contain all of the requested public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Robb is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Human Services did not respond clearly and therefore not appropriately to a June 6, 2003, request for the following data: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against a particular employee.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 31, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267105</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-04-25T18:36:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-048</Title><title>Opinion 03 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267137&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-12-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Saint Paul maintains: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor&apos;s office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2003; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 3, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated October 30, 2003, from Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor of the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Flaherty wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On August 6, 2003 David Schecter of WCCO-TV requested certain interview notes concerning an allegation of sexual harassment....These notes had been the subject of a previous request by the Pioneer Press. In order to respond to the Pioneer Press request, the City obtained a Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 03-035. In compliance with that opinion, the City has released the interview notes, having first redacted the personal identifying information, upon several media requests including the request from WCCO-TV....You will note that one of the city employees, identified in Advisory Opinion 03-035 as the co-worker whose identifying information was redacted, worked in the Mayor&apos;s office and that person&apos;s job ended because the grant paying for it ended. In the redacted notes that the City released, the letter B was used in place of information that would identify the co-worker.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Thereafter, on October 20, 2003, Mr. Schecter made an additional data request for a list of people who&apos;ve worked in the Mayor&apos;s office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. ...Only one employee fits the parameters given by Mr. Schecter, so a response to the October 20, 2003, request will identify this employee as the co-worker discussed in the redacted notes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The October 20, 2003 request for the name of a public employee asks for what is usually public data. In this context however, releasing the name will also release private personnel data because it will specifically identify the co-worker as the person whose information initiated the investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Saint Paul maintains: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor&apos;s office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The question before the Commissioner is whether the City may release the names of any individuals who have worked in the Mayor&apos;s office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether data about the individual in question, hereinafter referred to as X, are classified pursuant to section 13.43 or classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. The key is whether the data about X fit within the definition of section 13.43. If so, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, the fact that an individual is or was employed by a government entity is public. That information, coupled with the fact that an employee&apos;s first and last date of employment are public, would suggest that X&apos;s name connected to his/her first/last dates of employment are public. The additional fact that grant money paid for X&apos;s employment is also obtainable pursuant to either section 13.43 or section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If data about X are not classified pursuant to section 13.43, they are presumed public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Thus, it appears the data Mr. Schecter requested are public regardless of the Chapter 13 provision that classifies the data about X.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The following note is in order. The Commissioner acknowledges that, according to Mr. Flaherty, a release of the data will provide X&apos;s identity to Mr. Schecter. However, based on the information the City provided, the reason Mr. Schecter will learn X&apos;s identity is because Mr. Flaherty divulged that fact in his opinion request and sent a copy to Mr. Schecter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Flaherty raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data maintained by the City of Saint Paul are public: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor&apos;s office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 22, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267137</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee name</Title><Id>266371</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-047</Title><title>Opinion 03 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267893&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-11-24T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City of Thief River Falls to release electric utility customer data about the tenant of a rental property to the building&apos;s owner?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is the City of Thief River Falls required to obtain consent before releasing electric utility customer data to a government fuel assistance agency?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City to publicly release addresses of new electric utility customers from the City&apos;s Utilities Billing Office? The customers are not identified as utility customers but the information originates from the Billing Office.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of electric utility customer data when the customer is a city, county, state, or federal agency?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 24, 2003; City of Thief River Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 10, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated October 7, 2003, from Barry Froiland, Director of the Management of Information Systems Department of the City of Thief River Falls. Mr. Froiland asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Froiland provided in a revised opinion request dated October 29, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Froiland wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City of Thief River Falls provides electric, water, sewer, and sanitation services to our customers. We understand that electric customer data is considered private, which also makes the water and sewer data for that customer private.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Mr. Froiland asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City of Thief River Falls to release electric utility customer data about the tenant of a rental property to the building&apos;s owner?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is the City of Thief River Falls required to obtain consent before releasing electric utility customer data to a government fuel assistance agency?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City to publicly release addresses of new electric utility customers from the City&apos;s Utilities Billing Office? The customers are not identified as utility customers but the information originates from the Billing Office.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of electric utility customer data when the customer is a city, county, state, or federal agency?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City of Thief River Falls to release electric utility customer data about the tenant of a rental property to the building&apos;s owner?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, data on customers of municipal electric utilities are private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals). Section 13.685 does provide that the data may be released to:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (1) a law enforcement agency that requests access to the data in connection with an investigation;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) a school for purposes of compiling pupil census data;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) the metropolitan council for uses in studies or analyses required by law;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (4) a public child support authority for purposes of establishing or enforcing child support; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (5) a person where use of the data directly advances the general welfare, health, or safety of the public; the commissioner of administration may issue advisory opinions construing this clause pursuant to section 13.072.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition&lt;/i&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, defines customer as, A person who buys goods or services, esp. on a regular basis. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that in the case of a rental property, the tenant of the rental unit, not the owner of the building, is the customer for purposes of Chapter 13. Thus, because electric utility data about a tenant are private, those data cannot be released to the building owner without the tenant&apos;s consent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is the City of Thief River Falls required to obtain consent before releasing electric utility customer data to a government fuel assistance agency? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 3, the dissemination of private data shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. Thus, for the City to disclose private electric utility data about a customer without first obtaining consent, there should be specific authority in federal, state, or local law for the government fuel assistance agency to obtain the data and for the City to release the data. In addition, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, the City, in its Tennessen Warning notice to the customer, should have included the fact that the data would be would disclosed to the fuel assistance agency. The Commissioner does not know if these conditions have been met. It appears, though, that section 13.865 does not give the City authority to disclose data to the fuel assistance agency.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 3:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, is it appropriate for the City to publicly release addresses of new electric utility customers from the City&apos;s Utilities Billing Office? The customers are not identified as utility customers but the information originates from the Billing Office.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In presenting his question to the Commissioner, Mr. Froiland stated that although the data in question are not identified as relating to utility customers, the data originate from the City&apos;s Utility Billing Office. Pursuant to section 13.685, customer data about electric utility customers are private. Therefore, the City may not release to the public the addresses of any of its electric utility customers, new or old.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 4:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of electric utility customer data when the customer is a city, county, state, or federal agency? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his final question, Mr. Froiland presented a situation in which the customer is a government entity. As provided in section 13.685, electric utility customer data are private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals). Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the customer data the City collects and maintains about government entities are nonpublic.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As a final note, the Commissioner adds the following. Only certain municipalities in Minnesota operate electric utilities. Thus, the practical result of the Legislature having classified electric utility customer data as private/nonpublic is that certain customer utility data in some cities are not public while all customer utility data in other cities are public. The Commissioner urges the Legislature to revisit its decision and create a policy whereby all utility data are classified in the same manner.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Froiland raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, it is not appropriate for the City of Thief River Falls to release electric utility customer data about the tenant of a rental property to the building&apos;s owner without first obtaining consent.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 3, and section 13.04, subdivision 2, the City cannot release electric utility customer data to a government fuel assistance agency without first obtaining consent, unless there is specific local, state, or federal authority for the agency to collect the data and for the City to release the data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, it is not appropriate for the City to publicly release addresses of new (or old) electric utility customers, without first obtaining consent.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, electric utility customer data about city, county, state, or federal agency customers are nonpublic.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 24, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267893</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266835</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities authorized to receive data</Title><Id>266881</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Standing requests</Title><Id>266802</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-046</Title><title>Opinion 03 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267500&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, required to respond to multiple requests for data from an individual who is requesting data of which the individual or his/her child is the subject and public data of which neither the individual nor his/her child is the subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated September 17, 2003, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi. In her letter Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the District&apos;s obligation to respond to multiple data requests from an individual. In a letter dated September 26, 2003, IPAD sought comments from the data requestor (X). IPAD received comments from X on October 15, 2003, dated same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Kepple included a summary of data requests the District received from X since January 2003: two in January, four in February, three in March, two in April, one in May, three in June, seven in July, eleven in August, and two in September as of the date of her opinion request. Ms. Kepple also noted that X has requested four advisory opinions from the Commissioner (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-030&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267227&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-031&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267406&quot; title=&quot;03-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-038&lt;/a&gt;) and also has submitted an appeal pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 4, regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The harassing nature of [X&apos;s] pattern of data requests is evidenced by a number of facts...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department of Administration recognized in its &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267689&quot; title=&quot;01-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion, 01-034&lt;/a&gt;, that in rare and unusual circumstances a data request may be found to be harassing in nature. This is one of those rare and unusual circumstances. [X] did not begin these frequent, burdensome and harassing data requests until [X] was embroiled in legal disputes with the [District] and challenges to the Department of Education. [X&apos;s] requests have increased exponentially as these disputes have escalated, where [X&apos;s] appeal is now pending before a federal district judge. Surely, this was not the intent of the legislature in ensuring the public has access to government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The District] respectfully requests the Department of Administration to decline to entertain [X&apos;s] seemingly endless complaints regarding [X&apos;s] requests for the same data and [X&apos;s] challenges to the method and substance of the response of the [District] to those requests. The scope of [X&apos;s] data requests should be limited to those matters as to which [X] has a demonstrated genuine interest and intent to inspect or review. The frequency of [X&apos;s] data requests should be limited such that multiple requests are not made for the same data within short periods of time. The ability of [X] to pay for copies is certainly no less than the school district&apos;s inability to expend the considerable resources to respond to [X&apos;s] endless requests; [X] should be required to provide evidence of [X&apos;s] inability to pay for the costs [X] forces the [District] to assume. Finally, each time [X] is dissatisfied with a response to a data request, [X] should refrain from generating more correspondence or advisory opinions until [X] has made a good faith effort to attempt to resolve [X&apos;s] dissatisfaction with the [District].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her response, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I respectfully disagree with Ms. Kepple&apos;s and subsequently [the District&apos;s] assertions that I have engaged in a pattern of data and Advisory Opinion requests that are harassing. First, in regards to the data correspondences I have had with the District, attached tables...clearly indicate that the number of data requests I have had to make are a direct result of the District&apos;s own actions. In affect [sic], they have created the situations that have caused me to have to make data requests in order to resolve the issues....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Almost all of the data requests/correspondences I have sent are the result of actions the District has taken and center around 4 major issues the District is responsible for creating: lack of [Chapter 13] compliance, Denial of a Profile of Learning, Denial of a Yearbook, Legal bills related to my [child]....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Many of the requests were the result of the District responding inappropriately to an initial data request. This required that I send additional data requests, delaying access to the requested data beyond [Chapter 13] timelines. In several instances...the District has provided so many confusing and inappropriate responses to my data requests that it is difficult to tell what the current status of the requests is....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both Ms. Kepple and X provided the Commissioner with copies of X&apos;s requests and responses from the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, required to respond to multiple requests for data from an individual who is requesting data of which the individual or his/her child is the subject and public data of which neither the individual nor his/her child is the subject?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to data. Section 13.03 regulates requests in situations where the requestor is not the data subject. Section 13.04 regulates requests in situations where the requestor is the data subject or the parent of a minor data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As both Ms. Kepple and X noted, the Commissioner previously issued two advisory opinions in which the Commissioner opined that because of some very unique and specific facts, none of the involved entities were required to respond to a request for all public data about all past and present employees. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-031&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267689&quot; title=&quot;01-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-034&lt;/a&gt;). In both opinions, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wishes to make clear that the conclusion he reached in this opinion is based on a unique and very specific set of facts. The outcome is in no way intended to suggest that a government entity does not have to respond to a data request merely because responding will be costly or time-consuming.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, Ms. Kepple made several arguments in support of her assertion that X&apos;s requests rise to a level of harassment. She stated that many of X&apos;s requests were made at a time when X knew the District was on break or the superintendent was on vacation. She also noted that on several occasions, X made requests late on a Friday afternoon. While the District may prefer that data requests come in at other times, Chapter 13 does not provide such restrictions on individuals making requests. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated that if the District shuts down at times other than Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays, it needs to have a process in place such that data requests can be received and processed as required by statute. The Commissioner also opined about responding to requests received when the superintendent is on vacation. In both &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-030&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267227&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-031&lt;/a&gt; he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the District receives a data request from a data subject on a Friday afternoon, the government entity has ten working days to respond. In other words, the District has not lost two days because the request came in on a Friday. If the request is not from a data subject, the entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and in a reasonable time. The Commissioner does not agree that a Friday afternoon request would, in any way, hinder the District&apos;s ability to respond in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple also argued that in virtually all the data requests X claimed that charging him/her a fee for copies would impair [X&apos;s] &apos;ability to inspect the data&apos; and &apos;would cause financial hardship due to the fact that I would need to reschedule numerous medical and therapy appointments for my [child] as well as work and graduate course studies for myself.&apos; Section 13.04, subdivision 5, provides that an entity receiving a request for copies of educational data of a child with a disability may charge a fee that reflects the costs of reproducing the records except when to do so would impair the ability of the child&apos;s parent...to exercise their right to inspect and review those records. This language also is located in both FERPA, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and IDEA, the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. X asserts that on 11 occasions X requested free copies based on the special education exception. If the District has questions as to whether it is required to provide free copies, the District is welcome to request an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple also asserted, Instead of utilizing accepted discovery methods in the pending United States District Court litigation between these parties...[X] has apparently chosen to utilize the data practices act as a free discovery tool, which places the financial burden solely on the [District] and not on [X], and subjects the [District], but not [X] or [X&apos;s] attorney, to the time constraints of the act. No provision in Chapter 13 prevents a person from requesting and gaining access to data just because that person is involved in litigation with the government entity maintaining the requested data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-005&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple then provided examples of three data requests that create a theatre of the absurd. Her first example is an elaboration on a data request X made when the superintendent was on vacation. Ms. Kepple wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[X&apos;s data requests] necessitated the school district response be provided by a designee. [X] then objected that a designee responded to the data request and [X] sought an advisory opinion that the designee was inappropriate. Had the designee not responded, [X] would have complained that the response was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267406&quot; title=&quot;03-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-038&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the fact that government entities are required to have written appointment orders for designees. The District did not have any such written orders. The existence of written appointment orders would have helped X understand that X was dealing with an appropriate person in the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another example Ms. Kepple provided is [X&apos;s] handling of the Profile of Learning graduation standard transcript entry. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] has ignored the [District&apos;s] repeated invitations to meet with the teacher to discuss the reasons for [X&apos;s child&apos;s] assessment results, and instead, sent a flurry of correspondence and data requests to the [District], which eventually ended up as a request for an advisory opinion from the [Commissioner] by [X]...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Advisory Opinion to which Ms. Kepple refers is &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267853&quot; title=&quot;03-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-026&lt;/a&gt;; the Commissioner opined that the District did not respond appropriately to X&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple also noted a situation relating to whether or not the [District] mistakenly stated in correspondence that another student picked up a yearbook for [X&apos;s child]. She referred to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-030&lt;/a&gt;. In this opinion, the Commissioner addressed whether the school district responded appropriately to X&apos;s requests for data relating to an issue surrounding X&apos;s child&apos;s yearbook. The Commissioner opined that the District did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kepple included a final example of what she characterizes as X&apos;s harassing pattern of data requests. She wrote,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, [X] has indicated a lack of genuine desire to view or inspect certain documents, since the [District] has made numerous requested documents available for [X&apos;s] inspection, and yet, [X] has failed to follow through on some of [X&apos;s] requests to review or inspect the requested data, such as the request to review all legal bills. This request alone took several employees several days to prepare, and for what? [X] has a continual supply of data relating to school district legal fees and expenses incurred relating to [X&apos;s child]. There is no reason for also obtaining data relating to legal fees and expenses for the past 10 years on any matter, other than, to inflict upon the district the cost and burden of separating public from private data to be found in files, matters as to which [X] otherwise would have no legal right to access. Given [X&apos;s] failure to inspect these data, it would appear that [X&apos;s] request is harassing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner reviewed the correspondence between the District and X on this matter. On July 25, 2003, X wrote to the District&apos;s superintendent and asked to review all District legal bills for the last ten years. On August 6, 2003, the superintendent responded stating that the District would notify X when the records were ready for review. On August 15, 2003, the District wrote again, ...[your request] requires the district to retrieve records from archives, redact any private data and copy the legal bills for your viewing. The actual costs of staff time and copying are anticipated to be approximately $441. On August 21, 2003, X wrote back and argued that inspection is free. The District responded in a letter dated August 29, 2003:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Your request requires the [District] to make copies, which you are then able to view or inspect, since portions of the data requested contain private data to which you have no right of access. Although you have not been asked to pay for the considerable costs incurred in separating private from public data, you have been asked to reimburse the district for the cost of compiling the data and making copies, necessitated by your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District then stated it would postpone its request for payment pending a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion. The District also stated the data had been available for X&apos;s review since August 15, 2003. In a letter dated October 2, 2003, the District wrote again to X apparently in response to X&apos;s letter of September 24, 2003 (the Commissioner apparently does not have a copy of this letter). The District re-asserted its position on the charge and stated it was permissible under section 13.03. The District also clarified that it had not yet requested an advisory opinion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If and when it does [request an opinion], I will send you a copy of the request. In the meantime, the data is available for your review at [the District&apos;s] Office during regular business hours, assuming you are willing to reimburse the District for its costs of $342.61 for compiling the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, inspection of data is free. Therefore, the District cannot charge X for reviewing the legal invoices. If X requests copies of some of the data s/he inspected, the District may pass on some of the searching for and retrieving costs but may not charge for separating private and public data. Given the circumstances, it is understandable why X has not yet reviewed the legal bills.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner wishes to point out that his authority in this situation is limited to determining whether X&apos;s rights to gain access to data would be impeded if the District did not respond to X&apos;s requests. At issue is whether X is using Chapter 13 provisions as a tool for harassment. The Commissioner does not, however, have the authority to determine whether X&apos;s behavior, in general, is harassing. In a few of the examples that Ms. Kepple cited, it appears she may be objecting more to his/her general behavior, i.e., refusing to meet with a teacher, and the dispute over X&apos;s child&apos;s yearbook.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that during the past several months, X has made numerous data requests to the District. However, that is X&apos;s right under Chapter 13. What would not be appropriate, and considered to be harassing, would be a situation where X made requests for data and repeatedly never arranged for a time to inspect them. Another example would be a situation where the District made copies for X and X never picked up the copies or refused to pay an appropriately assessed fee. Ms. Kepple did cite a situation in which the District gathered data and X did not make an appointment to inspect. But, the District apparently was requiring X to pay for the inspection and as the Commissioner noted, such a policy is inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the examples Ms. Kepple cited, there is only one that possibly might border on using Chapter 13 as a harassment tool. When X requested data and the superintendent was on vacation, a designee responded but the District had not issued a written order appointing this individual as a designee. Upon receiving the data from the designee, X asked for the written order. Upon receiving none, X asked for an advisory opinion. It is possible that X wanted to catch the District in a mistake. That said, however, the Commissioner does not believe the number or type of requests from X, and X&apos;s behavior related to those requests, rises to a level such that the District is no longer required to respond to X&apos;s requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following additional comments. It appears that some of the District&apos;s data practices issues with X stem from the fact that the District is not complying with certain requirements of Chapter 13 or does not understand the requirements. The Commissioner urges it to take steps to rectify that situation. If IPAD can be of assistance, the Commissioner urges the District to ask for help. For example, it appears that seven of X&apos;s requests are very similar in that they ask for copies of any legal bills concerning any of X&apos;s family. In a letter dated August 12, 2003, X made a standing request for any such data. In a letter dated August 29, 2003, the District refused, stating it is not obligated to honor standing requests. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267805&quot; title=&quot;96-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-047&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that government entities must respond to standing requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, given the acrimonious communications between the two parties, the fact that the disputes have occurred over a long period of time, and the amount of money spent on legal fees, the Commissioner urges the parties to attempt to reach some sort of resolution. This suggestion, however, is not meant to excuse the District from improving its compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, is required to respond to multiple requests for data from an individual who is requesting data of which the individual or his/her child is the subject and public data of which neither the individual nor his/her child is the subject.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267500</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy inspection hybrid</Title><Id>266803</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data involved in litigation</Title><Id>266591</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Burdensome or harassing</Title><Id>266804</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Standing requests for data</Title><Id>266805</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-045</Title><title>Opinion 03 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267256&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-11-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 271, Bloomington, respond appropriately to a request for public data related to a complaint made against a District employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 10, 2003; School District 271 (Bloomington)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 10, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Johnny Villareal, Contract Organizer for Service Employees International Union, Local 284. In his letter, Mr. Villareal asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 271, Bloomington. Mr. Villareal&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Villareal&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Prest, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated September 23, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Villareal&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 8, 2003, IPAD received a response from James K. Martin, Executive Director of Human Resources for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Villareal, in February 2003, Local 284 made a complaint against a District employee. Subsequently, Mr. Villareal asked for access to public data concerning disciplinary action taken against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 30, 2003, Mr. Martin responded to Mr. Villareal: [t]here is no public information, as it is defined by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, that is responsive to your request. The District took appropriate action in regard to the situation that you cite in your letter of June 24, 2003. When Mr. Villareal sought clarification, Mr. Martin wrote, on August 4, 2003:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;From the request in your letter, your position appears to be that because an investigation occurred, the results, regardless of whether discipline occurred or not, are public information. I disagree.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A complaint was filed against [the employee] by one of the District&apos;s mechanics. The matter was investigated and appropriate action taken against [the employee.] As I informed you in my July 21 letter, the appropriate action taken against [him/her] is private data as defined by the Data Practices Act. I therefore, cannot provide you with details of said action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Once again, the reason the appropriate action taken against [the employee] is not public is because it does not meet the definition of &apos;public information&apos; set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Martin stated that the complaint against the employee was investigated, and, at the conclusion, the employee was given a non-disciplinary warning letter. Mr. Martin provided the Commissioner with a copy of that letter. Mr. Martin stated that because the letter did not constitute disciplinary action, the contents of the letter are private data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Villareal asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 271, Bloomington, respond appropriately to a request for public data related to a complaint made against a District employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivision 2, certain personnel data are public; under subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private. The following data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [see subdivision 2(a)(4)]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [See subdivision 2(a)(5).]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The essence of these provisions is that more data become public when and if a final disposition of a disciplinary action occurs. If no final disposition occurs, very limited data are public. Thus, if no disciplinary action is taken, there cannot be a final disposition of disciplinary action, and therefore only those data relating to the existence and status of any complaints or charges are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267711&quot; title=&quot;01-072&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-072&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a government entity takes disciplinary action against an employee, certain data become public when the disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The classification of the letter depends, therefore, on whether the letter constitutes disciplinary action and, if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action. Because Chapter 13 does not specifically define the term disciplinary action it is appropriate to seek further guidance. &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, in relevant part defines discipline as, to punish or penalize. Action, also in relevant part, is defined as, an act or thing done. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of disciplinary action is an &lt;u&gt;act&lt;/u&gt; that either punishes or penalizes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The letter to the Superintendent refers to the Goals and states that if all of the Goals are not met, he is subject to negative consequences. Mr. Knutson stated that the letter constituted final disciplinary action. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears the purpose of this document is to serve as a threat of punishment or penalty to the employee; not to set forth discipline. There is no mention of punishment; instead the document describes what could happen if the Superintendent does not meet all of the Goals. Therefore, because it appears no disciplinary action was taken, the letter does not constitute final disciplinary action, and is private personnel data, under section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the District asserts that it did not take disciplinary action against the employee, and the Commissioner has no information that contradicts that position. Accordingly, there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action, and therefore only limited data regarding the complaint are public, i.e., whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of any such complaint or charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner does not believe that the District properly responded to Mr. Villareal regarding the status of the complaint against the employee. All the District told Mr. Villareal was that it had taken appropriate action in response to the complaint against the employee. That statement does not respond to a request for the status of a specific complaint about a specific employee. The District ought to have informed Mr. Villareal of the status of the complaint, i.e., that no disciplinary action was taken.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Villareal is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 271, Bloomington, properly withheld access to data related to a complaint made against a District employee, but it should have informed the requestor that no disciplinary action was taken.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 10, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267256</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-044</Title><title>Opinion 03 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267276&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-11-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Little Falls&apos; charge of $272.50 for copies of data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 4, 2003; City of Little Falls</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 10, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Jerry Gumphrey, Business Representative for Iron Workers Local Union No. 512. In his letter, Mr. Gumphrey asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a copying charge assessed by the City of Little Falls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Gumphrey&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Carlson, Administrator for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Gumphrey&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 15, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated October 3, 2003, from Mr. Carlson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated May 13, 2003, Mr. Gumphrey wrote to Art Cherry, the City&apos;s Water and Waste Plant Superintendent. Mr. Gumphrey asked to review the following data for the time period March 10, 2003, to April 11, 2003:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Certified Payrolls for all contractors of subcontractors who have performed work at the above reference site during the time period requested.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. All Inspectors Reports and/or Daily Logs of Construction of [sic] other documents which identifies [sic] work performed on the reference project during the time period requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gumphrey wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is understood and acknowledged, some information may be redacted relating to individual employee personal information, such as names, address, social security numbers and proprietary personal tax deductions. All other information required for reporting under the Davis-Bacon Act is necessary for review....Iron Workers Local 512 is aware of any reasonable fees incurred for time and reproduction of these documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Gumphrey stated, On July 30, 2003, I received an invoice for $272.50 from an Environmental Engineer, for copies I still have not received. My feeling is that this is not in line with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, as it relates to copying fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gumphrey provided the Commissioner with copies of two invoices. One is dated July 18, 2003, and is addressed to the City from McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MRFA). Its invoice number is 44522 and the heading states, 20-City of Little Falls-Iron Worker Request for Copies. The amount is $272.50 for 2 hours of an environmental engineer&apos;s time. The engineer&apos;s hourly rate is $109.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second invoice, number 003333, is dated July 29, 2003, and is from the City to Mr. Gumphrey. The charge is $272.50 and the reference is Copies Little Falls WWT Addn.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 15, 2003, Mr. Gumphrey again wrote to Mr. Cherry:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Insofar as your invoice dated July 29, 2003 and in the amount of $272.50, for information retrieval services by MFRA Associates, Inc., an environmental engineering firm, invoiced amount to be excessive and not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03, as it relates to copying fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information requested in our May 13, 2003 letter under...Minnesota Statutes, should already be in your possession and available for copying. For your office to hire MFRA Associates, Inc. to retrieve this information is, we believe, not in line with applicable statutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Local Union No. 512 is aware of the fact that &apos;reasonable&apos; data copying costs will be incurred as the result of its request and will pay those reasonable costs, once you have established guidelines...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Gumphrey asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Little Falls&apos; charge of $272.50 for copies of data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data and making the copies. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Carlson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The charge of $272.50 is for two and one-half hours of retrieving and compiling the data and no costs for making copies. The data is held by the City&apos;s engineering firm, McCombs Frank Roos and Associates, who are the project managers for this [improvement to the Little Falls Wastewater Treatment facility]. When the project is completed, the records will be transferred to the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner assumes the City has a contract with MFRA. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 11, if a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the entity shall include terms making it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The language in section 13.05, subdivision 11, became effective August 1, 1999. The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of any contract language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Carlson appears to be saying that the payroll information and inspector reports currently are in the possession of MFRA. Assuming that is correct and assuming the contract between MFRA and the City states that (1) the data MFRA creates and collects are subject to Chapter 13 and (2) MFRA must comply with requests as if it were a government entity, neither the City nor MFRA has demonstrated why it was necessary for an environmental engineer to retrieve and compile the data Mr. Gumphrey requested. Therefore, as the Commissioner has opined in related situations, he cannot agree that the $272.50 charge for copies of data is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wishes to remind both the City and MFRA of the following. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the responsible authority of a government entity is required to keep records containing government data is such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. One of the reasons for this requirement is to reduce the possibility that a highly paid staff person is the only individual capable of retrieving data responsive to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Gumphrey raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Little Falls&apos; charge of $272.50 for copies of data is not allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 4, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267276</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data held by private contractor</Title><Id>266614</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-043</Title><title>Opinion 03 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267182&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-10-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do the following data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation collects and maintains meet the definition of &quot;security information&quot; as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a):
• Information on physical addresses of hazmat shipper and carrier facilities; 
• Specific information on classes or divisions of hazmat shipped, carried, or stored; 
• Terminals owned and/or operated by the applicant; 
• Information on numbers and sizes of cargo tanks operated; and 
• Specific information on routes of movement, volumes and frequency of movement, and origins/destinations of hazmat shipments?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 29, 2003; Minnesota State Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 14, 2003, the Commissioner received a letter, dated October 13, 2003, from Cecil Selness, Director of the Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations (OFCVO) at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). In his letter, Mr. Selness asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding certain data Mn/DOT collects and maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Selness wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section221.0355, OFCVO has the responsibility to administer the Uniform Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste Registration and Permit Requirements Program (UHMRP). This program requires persons who transport or ship hazardous material or hazardous waste (hazmat) by motor vehicle on the public highways or by railroad or waterway, in inter- and intrastate commerce to register with this office. Through the registration application...OFCVO collects a significant amount of information regarding the applicant&apos;s hazmat business. The information that OFCVO collects that is relevant to this inquiry includes: name and address of applicant company, classes or divisions of hazmat shipped or carried, and terminals owned and/or operated by the applicant. Minn. Stat. section221.0355 classifies some of the application data as private or nonpublic....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The data classified in section 221.0355] refers to financial data that should be private or nonpublic due to competitive business reasons. The remainder of the application data, particularly the data described above that is relevant to this request, are presumed to be public because the data are not otherwise specifically classified in state or federal statute. In addition to administering the UHMRP, OFCVO also administers a variety of programs and activities to support the safe, efficient movement of goods in Minnesota as well as being responsible for a variety of planning activities such as the development of rail and waterway plans and freight movement studies. Pertinent to this request is a proposed study for this fiscal year to obtain data relating to hazmat commodity flows within Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Through the study, OFCVO would collect hazmat information from shippers, carriers, and receivers to develop a database that would demonstrate hazmat multi-modal freight flows on the state&apos;s transportation system. Specific data to be collected in the proposed study are hazmat shipping locations within Minnesota by commodity and mode of shipment, hazmat receiving locations, and specific routes that hazmat are transported by commodity and mode of shipment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Selness asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do the following data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation collects and maintains meet the definition of security information as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Information on physical addresses of hazmat shipper and carrier facilities;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Specific information on classes or divisions of hazmat shipped, carried, or stored;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Terminals owned and/or operated by the applicant;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Information on numbers and sizes of cargo tanks operated; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Specific information on routes of movement, volumes and frequency of movement, and origins/destinations of hazmat shipments?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as private (data on individuals) and nonpublic (data not on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), defines security information as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Selness wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As previously noted...the hazmat data OFCVO currently collects, with the exception of a limited amount of application data not applicable here, and proposes to collect, appears to be public. However, this office believes that the data could be classified as security information as that term is defined at Minn. Stat. section13.37, subd. 1(a). OFCVO&apos;s rationale for this belief is that hazmat transportation data, in the wrong hands, can pose a significant security threat, particularly if the hazmat can be used to make weapons of mass destruction. As you know, weapons of mass destruction are a special concern following the events of September 11, 2001, both at the state and national level. Shortly after September 11, the USDOT removed information on the classes and divisions of hazardous materials carried by transporters from its public information web site. This removal was done to make it more difficult to identify which hazardous materials a specific carrier transported. This information is now only available through a secure website that can be accessed only by motor carrier enforcement officers and other persons with a legitimate need to know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the previously described hazmat information were considered public data, a potential terrorist or criminal could use this information to develop targets of opportunity for hazardous materials thefts, hijacking of hazmat trucks, or attacking the hazmat facility itself. Hazmat data would allow a person or organization to locate the specific materials they may want for an attack.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267835&quot; title=&quot;02-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-014&lt;/a&gt;. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2, may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme, but instead applies to otherwise public data in those specific situations in which an entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property. (See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 98-046&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, in certain circumstances, the Commissioner has deferred to the expertise of another government entity in exercising the broad discretion provided under section 13.37 to protect data. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;01-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor&apos;s security detail, and for protecting the Governor&apos;s person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See &lt;em&gt;Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership&lt;/em&gt;, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); &lt;em&gt;In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T.&lt;/em&gt;, 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267465&quot; title=&quot;01-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-048&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A similar analysis holds here. Government personnel charged with assessing the vulnerability of public utility delivery systems must be granted the authority to protect the integrity of those systems. Accordingly, if those responsible persons within a government entity determine that the disclosure of any of the data detailed above would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury, then those data may properly be classified as not public security information, pursuant to section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner wants to emphasize that, in the exercise of this discretion, a government entity must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would likely lead to substantial jeopardy. The entity cannot simply protect data from disclosure under section 13.37 on an arbitrary basis, but must base the determination on reasoned analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, Mn/DOT is responsible for monitoring the transportation of hazardous material and waste. Mn/DOT also administers a variety of programs and activities to support the safe and efficient movements of goods in Minnesota. Mn/DOT, therefore, possesses the expertise, experience, and training to determine whether release of the data in question likely will substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. Mr. Selness&apos; reasonable argument is that the hazmat transportation data, in the wrong hands, could pose a significant threat. Thus, the data in question may properly be classified as not public security information pursuant to section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Selness raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation collects and maintains meet the definition of security information as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(a):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Information on physical addresses of hazmat shipper and carrier facilities;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Specific information on classes or divisions of hazmat shipped, carried, or stored;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Terminals owned and/or operated by the applicant;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Information on numbers and sizes of cargo tanks operated; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Specific information on routes of movement, volumes and frequency of movement, and origins/destinations of hazmat shipments.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 29, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267182</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-042</Title><title>Opinion 03 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267614&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-10-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Koochiching County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request for the name of an alleged victim of a certain incident under investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 13 2003; Koochiching County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On August 28, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of his client, &lt;i&gt;The Daily Journal&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper published at International Falls, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Koochiching County Sheriff&apos;s Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to County Sheriff Duane Nelson. The purposes of this letter, dated August 29, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. In a letter to Mr. Anfinson (and copied to IPAD), dated September 5, 2003, Jennifer J. Hasbargen, County Attorney provided the data requested, and stated that it was her understanding that the matter was now resolved. In a letter dated September 10, 2003, Mr. Anfinson wrote that he still wanted the Commissioner to issue this opinion. IPAD received Ms. Hasbargen&apos;s response on September 29, 2003. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Recently the home of a prominent local business executive was the target of a prank by local youths, who threw toilet paper on trees in his yard. According to law enforcement officials, the executive witnessed some of the perpetrators in action. He then allegedly grabbed a golf club, jumped on a bicycle, chased one of them down, and assaulted him with the golf club. An investigation is pending with Koochiching County authorities.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 When &lt;i&gt;The Daily Journal&lt;/i&gt; learned of this incident, it contacted the sheriff&apos;s department seeking additional information, including the name of the alleged victim of the assault, who is apparently a juvenile. The sheriff&apos;s department declined to provide the identity, and we were unable to convince the county attorney that the name was public pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.82, subd. 6(h) ( names and addresses of any victims or casualties are public unless the identities . . . qualify for protection under subdivision 17 ).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Based on my conversation with the county attorney, it appears quite clear that none of the exceptions found in section13.82, subd. 17 applies in this case.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Hasbargen stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I received a call from Mr. Anfinson verbally requesting the disclosure of the information . . . . Prior to my ability to do so, the Daily Journal printed the juvenile&apos;s name . . . . [On the same day in May of 2003] I phoned Mr. Anfinson and left a message informing him that since the journal printed the juvenile&apos;s name (essentially informing them they were correct as to his identity - and thereby confirming it), I saw the issue as moot unless I heard otherwise from him.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If The Daily Journal had informed my office, or the Sheriff thereafter that, despite having printed the name, it still requested formal disclosure of the name by the Sheriff&apos;s Office, the County would have addressed the issue in May of 2003. However, no further communication or request came from either the Daily Journal or Mr. Anfinson after my message of May 28, 2003, until this advisory opinion was initiated. The Sheriff&apos;s office never had the opportunity to formally respond to the request, as the Journal never made it clear that they still wanted formal disclosure of the information after my phone call on May 28, 2003 stating that I thought the issue was moot unless I heard otherwise.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Hasbargen stated that the data were withheld initially under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 17(d) and (g); section 13.82, subdivision 7; section 260B.171, subdivision 5; section 13.82, subdivision 14; and section 13.82, subdivision 16. The applicability of each statutory section is discussed below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Koochiching County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request for the name of an alleged victim of a certain incident under investigation?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At the outset, the Commissioner wishes to note the following. In his comments, Mr. Anfinson stated: these are complex issues, derived from statutes that can be difficult to apply. The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s assessment. Here, there is a juvenile who is a witness as well as an alleged victim, and who also may be charged with delinquent acts. In order to determine the classification of the juvenile&apos;s name, various provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, and section 260B.171, must be harmonized.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       In addition, &lt;i&gt;The Daily Journal&lt;/i&gt; published the name of the juvenile before the matter of the data request was formally resolved between Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Hasbargen, which led to confusion as to the status of the request. This kind of confusion may be avoided if the parties communicate clearly with one another, preferably in writing. According to section 13.03, subdivision 3, at the time a government entity denies access to data a requestor believes are public, the entity is obligated to state its reasons for the denial, and, upon request, to provide a written statement as to those reasons. The Commissioner encourages both parties in cases like these respectively to comply with their responsibilities and to exercise their rights under Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As to the substance of the issue under discussion, data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. According to section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7, which classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Under section 13.82, subdivision 6(g) and (h), names and addresses of any witnesses or victims are public unless the identities of those individuals qualify for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17. Subdivision 17, clauses (d) and (g), provide that otherwise public data may be withheld:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (d) when access to the data would reveal the identity of a victim of or witness to a crime if the victim or witness specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the victim or witness would not threaten the personal safety or property of the individual;
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (g) when access to the data would reveal the identity of a juvenile witness and the agency reasonably determines that the subject matter of the investigation justifies protecting the identity of the witness.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Ms. Hasbargen,
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      It was felt by the Sheriff&apos;s office and the County Attorney&apos;s Office that releasing the name would increase the pressures in the situation to the detriment of the juvenile&apos;s (and his family&apos;s) health and welfare. Also, under Minn. Stat. section 13.82 subd. 17 (g) it was reasonable to determine that the subject matter of the investigation justified protecting the juveniles [sic] identity given Minn. Stat. section260B.171 . . . with the possibility of criminal charges against the juvenile.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       In this situation, the juvenile&apos;s parent requested that the County withhold the child&apos;s identity, and Ms. Hasbargen stated that the County determined that it was appropriate to do so under section 13.82, subdivision 17 (d) and (g). It is not clear if the parent&apos;s request preceded the request from &lt;i&gt;The Daily Journal&lt;/i&gt;, and it is also not clear that the County has established the process necessary to evaluate that kind of request, as it is obligated to do under section 13.82, subdivision 17, which states: [l]aw enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make the decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in clauses (c), (d), (f), and (g). The Legislature specifically required law enforcement agencies to establish procedures to ensure not only the protection of the identity of certain individuals, including victims or witnesses, but also to assure the public that those agencies were following straightforward procedures in making those determinations.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, it was Mr. Anfinson&apos;s understanding, based upon his conversation with Ms. Hasbargen, that none of the exceptions under subdivision 17 were applicable here. In his September 10, 2003, letter, Mr. Anfinson stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Neither the sheriff&apos;s department nor the county attorney&apos;s office ever indicated to us that the reason the victim&apos;s name could not be disclosed was that his mother (or the victim himself) has requested this. Indeed, the first we heard of that basis for withholding the name was in the county attorney&apos;s September 5 letter. In addition, no other specific legal grounds for withholding the name were ever provided.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Anfinson questioned whether the circumstances of the incident warrant protection of the juvenile&apos;s identity. The Commissioner acknowledges the reasonableness of his position. However, the County ultimately is in the best position to make that judgement. Therefore, the Commissioner accepts the County&apos;s position that it properly relied upon section 13.82, subdivision 17 (d) and (g), as its basis for withholding the identity of the juvenile, but wishes to emphasize the following: in order properly to protect a witness/victim identity, two things must happen. First, the victim/witness (or, in the case of a juvenile, the parent) must request that his/her identity be protected. Second, the law enforcement agency must make a determination, as set forth in subdivision 17, that the circumstances warrant honoring that request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The County&apos;s position would have been stronger had it provided the Commissioner with a copy of its section 13.82, subdivision 17, procedures. If it has not established those procedures, it should do so promptly.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Hasbargen also stated that the data were properly withheld under section 260B.171, subdivision 5:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      During the investigation, the issue of whether there were criminal acts on the part of all the juveniles involved in the incident was raised, from trespass to criminal damage to property. Under [section 260B.171] juvenile delinquency information is private data and shall not be disseminated. Because this matter was still under investigation, without a determination of who - if anyone - would be charged; and because there was the possibility of a delinquency action against the juvenile, the information was appropriately not disclosed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At the time of the data request, the County was not sure if the juvenile would be charged with a crime, and therefore the County was obligated to withhold the juvenile&apos;s identity, pursuant to section 260B.171, subdivision 5(a), which provides that peace officers&apos; records of children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts are private data. (The Commissioner wishes to note that, in general, if no charges are considered against a juvenile who is a witness/victim, the juvenile&apos;s identity would be public under both section 13.82 and 260B.171, except as section 13.82, subdivision 17, applies. As noted earlier, this analysis is complicated by the fact that in this situation, the juvenile is apparently a witness/victim as well as a possible perpetrator.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Hasbargen also stated that section 13.82, subdivision 7, was applicable because the matter was under investigation at the time the request was initially made. Subdivision 7 classifies as not public data related to an active criminal investigation, except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, which, as noted above, are always public. (The name of a juvenile witness is included in those exceptions, unless the identity qualifies for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17.) Accordingly, the County may not rely upon section 13.82, subdivision 7, as a basis for its denial of access to the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Hasbargen also cited section 13.82, subdivision 14, as a basis for withholding otherwise public data. She stated that not all juveniles involved in the incident were identified and talked to by law enforcement at the time the request was made; and if knowledge of potential charges to all involved juveniles was known, the names of the all [sic] may not have been forthcoming.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      That subdivision provides: [a] law enforcement agency may temporarily withhold response or incident data from public access if the agency reasonably believes that public access would be likely to endanger the physical safety of an individual or cause a perpetrator to flee, evade detection or destroy evidence. In such instances, the agency shall, upon the request of any person, provide a statement which explains the necessity for its action. The County is in the best position to determine whether this provision applies to the circumstances here. However, upon request, government entities must provide an explanation for their actions.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Finally, Ms. Hasbargen stated that section 13.82, subdivision 16, is applicable, as the issue between public and confidential data could not be separated, with law enforcement appropriately withholding the juvenile&apos;s name. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Subdivision 16 states that actual physical data does not have to be made available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. The name of an individual is not physical data as contemplated by this provision, and in any case, this provision is not a basis to deny access to public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, the Koochiching County Sheriff appropriately withheld the name of an alleged juvenile victim of a certain incident under investigation, because the County was considering charging the juvenile with criminal acts at the time of the request. However, the County was obligated, at the time of the request, to provide the statutory basis for denying access to the juvenile&apos;s identity. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 13, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267614</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)</Title><Id>267153</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary withholding of data (13.82, subd. 14)</Title><Id>266725</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-041</Title><title>Opinion 03 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267826&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-10-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: booking data that previously were accessible to the public as part of the &quot;Detention Information System&quot; database?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 1, 2003; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 19, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated June 16, 2003, from Paul Hannah, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Minnesota Department of Corrections&apos; response to a data request from the newspaper. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Hannah provided in a letter dated August 11, 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Mr. Hannah&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 14, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Hannah&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On September 2, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Fabian.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 23, 2002, Janet Roberts of the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; wrote to Dan O&apos;Brien, Assistant to the Department&apos;s Commissioner. In her letter, Ms. Roberts wrote, The Pioneer Press annually acquires an electronic copy of your DIS [Detention Information System] booking data, and I am writing to request an update. The last time we received the data, in April 2001, it covered bookings in all counties except Hennepin and Ramsey through the end of 2000. This time, we would like bookings through June 30, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department denied Ms. Roberts&apos; request. In a letter dated April 21, 2003, Randolph Hartnett, Policy and Legal Services, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Please be aware that it remains the position of the department that we are precluded from releasing this data under Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 and Minn. Stat. sections 299C.147 and 241.065.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Minn. Stat. sections 299C. 147 and 241.065 (which contain identical language) specifically state that the data in the SSS [Statewide Supervision System] is private data as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12 , but is accessible to criminal justice agencies, the courts and public defenders....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You are correct that the data in the DIS system was previously regarded as public and was provided to the Pioneer Press. Currently, however, the sole source of this data to the department is through SSS. Consequently, we must regard it as private. According to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 4(a), [t]he classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with . . . a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As we have noted previously, the data contained in the SSS is available at the local agencies that create it and may well be, in some cases, public...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Consequently, it is the department&apos;s position that while the booking data may well have been considered public previously and may well be public at its source in the local law enforcement agencies, when this data is collected together in the SSS, it is the intent of the legislature that it be private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his August 11, 2003, letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Hannah identified the specific booking data that the newspaper requested: name, date of birth, gender, race, reporting facility, register number, controlling agency, adult-juvenile code, Minnesota offense code, detention date, detention time in, reason being held, sentence start date, date of release, detention time out, reason being released, work release code, transaction type, and unusual prison behavior.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: booking data that previously were accessible to the public as part of the Detention Information System database?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding the Commissioner offers this distinction between data relating to conditional release and data relating to detention/booking. Data relating to conditional release are data that describe the conditions of a criminal offender&apos;s probation or parole, e.g., the fact that an offender can&apos;t drink alcohol, the fact that an offender has a curfew of 8 p.m., or the fact that an offender can leave his/her home only to go to work. Data relating to detention/booking have nothing to do with the conditions of an offender&apos;s release, but are data that identify an individual who has been booked and detained in a city or county jail. The name of the facility when the offender was detained, and when the offender was released also would be detention/booking data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.147, classifies as private certain data the Department maintains. Subdivision 1 of section 299C.147 defines conditional release as probation, conditional release, and supervised release. Subdivision 2 of section 299C.147 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The department of corrections shall administer and maintain a computerized data system for the purpose of assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders by a sentencing court or the commissioner of corrections. The adult data and juvenile data as defined in section 260B.171 in the statewide supervision system are private data as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12, but are accessible to criminal justice agencies as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 3a, to public defenders as provided in section 611.272, to all trial courts and appellate courts, and to criminal justice agencies in other states in the conduct of their official duties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3 of section 299C.147 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Only criminal justice agencies may submit data to the statewide supervision system and only persons who are authorized users under subdivision 2 may obtain data from the system. The commissioner of corrections may require that any or all information be submitted to the statewide supervision system. A consent to the release of data in the statewide supervision system from the individual who is the subject of the data is not effective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand the legislative history of section 299C.147. The Legislature adopted the original language in 1998. At that time, the computerized data system was referred to as the conditional release data system and was administered by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The system was described as having a purpose of assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders by a sentencing court or the commissioner of corrections. The data in the system were classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The majority of the current language in section 299C. 147 reflects changes made by the 2002 Legislature. Responsibility for administering and maintaining the data in the conditional release system went from the BCA to the Department and the system&apos;s name was changed to the Statewide Supervision System (SSS). The other change relevant to this opinion is that the language designating the classification of the data went from ...data in the system are private data... to ...adult data and juvenile data...in the statewide supervision system are private data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Fabian argues that section 299C.147 classifies the booking and detention data contained in the SSS as private. The Commissioner cannot agree with her assessment. The reason is that 299C.147 does not contain an explanation of the data that comprise the SSS and are classified as private. The stated purpose of the system is the same as it was in 1998, i.e., assisting criminal justice agencies in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of conditional release imposed on criminal offenders. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of section 299C.147 is that the 2002 language classifying adult and juvenile data as private relates only to conditional release data and not to the detention and booking data that previously were contained in the Detention Information System (DIS).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, the Commissioner acknowledges the Department&apos;s need to upgrade the antiquated DIS as well its attempt to conserve resources by combining the DIS system with the conditional release system. They are laudable goals. However, because the Department changed both the content of and the name of the data system, the 2002 amendments to section 299C.147 should have included language making it clear what data the Department intended to classify as private. In doing so, the Legislature would have been clear as to what data it was classifying as private in section 299C.147. The Commissioner notes he is concerned especially in cases such as this where a government entity, by moving data from one database to another, effectively changes the classification of the data from public to private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not believe section 299C.147 classifies the detention/booking data as private. The detention/booking data are submitted to the Department from the originating law enforcement agencies, where the data are classified as public. Section 13.03, subdivision 4(c), states that data disseminated from one government entity to another have the same classification in the receiving entity as in the providing entity. The Commissioner opines, therefore, that the detention/booking data in the SSS are public and that the Department did not respond appropriately to the newspaper&apos;s request for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hannah raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not respond appropriately to a request for access to booking data that previously were accessible to the public as part of the Detention Information System database. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4(c), booking and detention data contained in the Statewide Supervision System database are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 1, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267826</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Corrections (299C.147)</Title><Id>267136</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No change in classification (13.03, subd. 4(c))</Title><Id>266554</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-040</Title><title>Opinion 03 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267358&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-10-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are data in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension&apos;s Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos database classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, subdivision 1(a), as criminal history data and therefore private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 1, 2003; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 4, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, General Counsel for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. In her letter, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a division of the Department. IPAD staff requested additional information, which Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske provided on September 23, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her September 23, 2003, letter, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As I mentioned in my September 4th letter, MRAP [the Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos] was developed by the BCA to assist Minnesota law enforcement agencies in their efforts to comply with Minn. Stat. 299C.10, 299C.11 and 299C.145. In the past, law enforcements agency [sic] complied with these statutory provisions by making two hard copies of the arrest photo and booking data. One set of the paper photo and information was retained at the local originating agency and the other set was mailed to the [BCA]. With the advancement of technology, the originating agency [sic] are now able to take, store and send digital photographs and electronic copies of the same information that was previously submitted by in [sic] paper format. The new technology provides law enforcement with the ability to query the database based on any of the data elements in an attempt to locate persons matching a certain suspect&apos;s description. Under the paper system, a law enforcement agency would have to already know the name of the person whose photo they sought to retrieve from the BCA. The paper system did not provide the ability for an agency to conduct a general search for persons with similar descriptions.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is the position of the BCA and the [Department] that data contained in MRAP continues to be classified as private data under Minn. Stat. 13.87 Subd. 1(a). The transmission and storage of the data in an electronic versus paper format should not alter the classification of the data in the possession of the BCA . When MN Stat. 13.87 Subd. 1(a) was drafted, it was based on the former paper system which included a photograph along with arrest and identification data needed to tie a photograph to the arrest and booking of a specific person on a specific date for a certain criminal offense. As I mentioned above, the advancement of technology allows new identification data such as facial recognition to be created. MRAP merely represents a different medium for transmission and storage of data classified under MN stat. 13.87....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her September 23, 2003, letter, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske provided a list of the types of data contained in the MRAP. It includes the following: name; address; date of birth; gender; race; height; weight; eye color; hair color; facial hair; state identification number; driver&apos;s license number; social security number; FBI identification number; glasses; crime; originating agency incident number; control number assigned to originating agency; date of booking; booking number; any identification number assigned by local agency; image of face, scar, mark or tattoo; description of scar, mark or tattoo; code to designate a scar, mark, or tattoo, internal code number; agency; region; date photo taken; facial recognition information; record sealed by court order; exclude from line-up; image type; view number; pose; offset number; photo description; and computer code path information needed to connect photo file to identification data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Under the old paper system, originating agencies would send as much information as they had on a suspect being booked, such as the suspect&apos;s address, aliases, etc. Similarly, MRAP allows an agency to enter as much data as they have on the suspect. Accordingly, the number of data elements contained in a MRAP file will vary. Due to the electronic nature of MRAP and advancement of technology, some additional data are created/collected such as facial recognition data, image type and numerical value of how well the subject&apos;s face is centered in the photographic image.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are data in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension&apos;s Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos database classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, subdivision 1(a), as criminal history data and therefore private data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.87, subdivision 1(b), states, Criminal history data maintained by agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems are classified as private, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12... Subdivision 1(a) of section 13.87 defines criminal history data as all data maintained in criminal history records compiled by the [BCA] and disseminated through the criminal justice information system, including, but not limited to fingerprints, photographs, identification data, arrest data, prosecution data, criminal court data, custody and supervision data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner agrees with the Department&apos;s position as stated by Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske. By enacting section 13.87, the Legislature classified photographs and other identifying data in criminal history records compiled by the BCA as private data. The fact that the photographs and other identifying data now are being transmitted electronically rather than by paper, and that the data exist in a database rather than in file cabinets, does not change the classification of the data. Therefore, the data in the MRAP are private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension&apos;s Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos database appear to be criminal history data as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.87, subdivision 1(a). Therefore, the data are private.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 1, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267358</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal history/justice data (13.87)</Title><Id>266457</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266884</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-039</Title><title>Opinion 03 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267207&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, to charge an individual to inspect government data in a situation where the District&apos;s architect is in possession of the data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 24, 2003; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt; In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 30, 2003, IPAD received an email from J. Stephen Fitzgerald. In his email, Mr. Fitzgerald asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, maintains. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Fitzgerald provided on August 7, 2003.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Fitzgerald&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 13, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Fitzgerald&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 4, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Joseph Flynn and Jennifer Anderson, attorneys representing the District.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts is as follows. On May 28, 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald sent an email to Mr. Peterson. In the email, Mr. Fitzgerald requested ...any and all government data as that term is defined in MN Statutes 13 related to Minnetonka HS Turf and Dome project, including, but not limited to... Mr. Fitzgerald asked that the District provide a specific time and place for inspection of the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a July 8, 2003, email to Michael Lovett, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Mr. Fitzgerald requested additional specific items of data related to the dome project. He wrote, Please consider this amplification part of, and in addition to, [the] original request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In an email dated July 10, 2003, Mr. Lovett wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald, confirming a conversation of that day. Regarding Mr. Fitzgerald&apos;s May 28, 2003, request, Mr. Lovett wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Please make arrangements with Tom Berge for a time early next week to view our compilation of materials responding to your May 28 request for data...Because of the very general nature of that request, we hope that you will view what we provide as a good faith effort to provide the requested data. However, we want to acknowledge the challenges of trying to provide detailed email and phone records.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Regarding Mr. Fitzgerald&apos;s July 8, 2003, request, Mr. Lovett wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              ...we view these items as public data, and will endeavor to provide it to you by July 23, as we discussed in our phone conversation today. You said this was acceptable given your timelines.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I did explain that these reports are not in our possession, and that if the provision of these data will require expenditures on the part of the district, our legal counsel advises us that we can require the requesting party to pay these costs. Once the costs are known to us we will let you know the costs prior to our commitment of district funds.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a July 24, 2003, email to Mr. Lovett, Mr. Fitzgerald wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Thank you for the status information that you provided during our phone call yesterday...we have been viewing data from the other requests and receiving copies when we have requested them.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              You have indicated that some of the information in the cited requests that we have asked to view is not in the District&apos;s possession, and that it is physically located at the offices of the Cuningham Group, School District&apos;s architect. You have also indicated that the Cunningham [sic] Group would charge a gathering and processing charge to view the materials, plus additional charges for copies and delivery to the [District] if we desired copies. All of these charges would be passed on to us....
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I stated that we believe that under [Chapter 13], we have the right to view this public data without charge...
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I indicated that we could view the data either at the School District or the Cuningham offices....
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              In order to expedite things, I proposed that we pay the charges that you are asking for, and that you schedule the viewing of these documents at the earliest opportunity, subject to the stipulation that the [District] would refund the gathering and processing charge to us if is subsequently determined that this charge is not appropriate. You agreed....
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Fitzgerald, as well as Mr. Flynn and Ms. Anderson, provided a copy of an email that staff from the Cuningham Group sent to Mr. Berge. The email breaks down the $196 charge as follows: gathering and processing the materials - $150; copies - $13; large format drawings - $23; and delivery to the District - $10.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Fitzgerald asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, to charge an individual to inspect government data in a situation where the District&apos;s architect is in possession of the data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), an individual has the right to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places. The government entity may not charge a fee if the individual wishes only to inspect data. If the individual wants copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, in addition to the actual costs of making the copies. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their response, Mr. Flynn and Ms. Anderson asserted that it was reasonable and allowable under Chapter 13 for the District to charge Mr. Fitzgerald for costs incurred in copying the documents he requested. They stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    a. The [District] is required only to provide access at a reasonable place, which was the Cunningham [sic] offices.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    b. Fitzgerald&apos;s request to review the documents at a location other than the Cunningham [sic] offices was beyond the reasonableness standard, which negates the [District&apos;s] obligation to provide an inspection free of charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    c. Because the [District] could not transfer the original working files of its architect, it was reasonable for the School District to have copies made in providing Fitzgerald access to this data at the School District offices.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    d. In any event, Fitzgerald requested that copies of these documents be made, regardless of the location where the documents were to be viewed, which makes the charges for searching for and retrieving the documents, as well as copying and compiling the documents, permissible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue before the Commissioner is whether the District may charge Mr. Fitzgerald if he wishes to inspect government data that are in the possession of the District&apos;s architect. Chapter 13 provides individuals with the right to inspect government data free of charge. In this case, apparently, some of the requested data are in the possession of the Cuningham Group, an organization with which the District has a contract.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Flynn and Ms. Anderson noted District policy provides that the District shall require a private sector contractor to comply with Chapter 13 as if it were a government entity when such a contractor performs functions that involve collecting, creating, receiving, maintaining, or disseminating data. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.) Thus, a request for government data in the possession of the Cuningham Group must be handled as if the Cuningham Group were a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The charges the District assessed appear to stem from the District&apos;s notion that Mr. Fitzgerald refused to inspect data at the Cuningham Group offices and asked that the data be transferred to the District offices. Mr. Flynn and Ms. Anderson wrote, Fitzgerald could have reviewed the documents at the Cunningham&apos;s [sic] offices....However, Fitzgerald, instead, opted to have copies of the documents made for him and to view the documents at the School District. The Commissioner, however, can find nothing to support that position in the email documentation both sides provided. In fact, in his July 24, 2003, email to Mr. Lovett, Mr. Fitzgerald wrote, I indicated that we could view the data at either the School District or the Cuningham offices.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), an individual has the right to inspect government data free of charge. In this case, certain government data are currently in the possession of the District&apos;s architect and it appears Mr. Fitzgerald is willing to go to the offices of the Cuningham Group to inspect the data. Neither the District nor the Cuningham Group, as an organization under contract to the District, may charge Mr. Fitzgerald to inspect the data. The Commissioner notes, however, that if Mr. Fitzgerald wishes to obtain copies of the data, the District, or the Cuningham Group, may charge a reasonable fee consistent with the statutory language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Fitzgerald raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), the District must provide, at reasonable times and places, inspection of government data free of charge. Here, some of the requested data are in the possession of the District&apos;s architect. The requestor is willing to go to the architect&apos;s office to inspect the data. Therefore, the District may not charge an inspection fee. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 24, 2003
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267207</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-038</Title><title>Opinion 03 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267406&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request for access to the following government data: appointment order(s) for responsible authority designee(s); and data that document any data practices training of the responsible authority or designee(s)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 19, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 11, 2003, IPAD received a letter from John Wachlarowicz. In his letter, Mr. Wachlarowicz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi. Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated August 20, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 8, 2003, IPAD received a response from Karen Kepple, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 30, 2003, Mr. Wachlarowicz wrote to Dr. Wolak and requested access to the following data: Appointment Order of Responsible Authority Designees for Mahtomedi ISD # 832 [and] data which would document the instruction of the Responsible Authority and Designees, distribution to designees of written materials, attendance of designees at any MGDPA training programs held within or outside of Mahtomedi ISD # 832.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 6, 2003, Dr. Wolak responded: [t]here are no available written materials to provide you regarding designees, instructional materials, or attendance at training programs.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Dr. Wolak&apos;s response [to Mr. Wachlarowicz] was accurate insofar as there is no written order of appointment from the school board. However, Dr. Wolak can and will provide to Mr. Wachlarowicz the following information as an additional response to his data request: 1. Agendas from meetings of the superintendent and principals in which principals were verbally informed that they would be designees for purposes of responding to data practices requests as those requests pertained to their respective school sites; and 2. Copies of training materials attended by Mahtomedi High School Principal Kevin Mackin. The agendas comprise written evidence of appointment of the principals as the superintendent&apos;s designees under the Data Practices Act. Since Mr. Wachlarowicz&apos; request related to his challenge to Mr. Mackin&apos;s authority to respond to a data request, Mr. Mackin&apos;s training materials are enclosed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wachlarowicz asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request for access to the following government data: appointment order(s) for responsible authority designee(s); and data that document any data practices training of the responsible authority or designee(s)?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 6, &apos;designee&apos; means any person designated by a responsible authority to be in charge of individual files or systems containing government data and to receive and comply with requests for government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 1, the responsible authority has authority to appoint designees, who shall be members of the staff of the entity. Pursuant to subpart 2, [t]he appointment order shall be in writing and copies of the order constitute public data on individuals . . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 3, provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The responsible authority shall instruct any designees in the requirement of [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] and of this chapter. If the responsible authority deems it necessary, such instruction shall include:
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      A. distribution to designees of written materials describing the requirements of the act and of this chapter;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      B. preparation of training programs whose objective is to familiarize agency personnel with the requirements of the act and of this chapter; and
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      C. requiring attendance of designees and other entity personnel at training programs held within or outside the entity.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Wachlarowicz asked for the written appointment orders for designees, and evidence that they have received instruction, as required under Minnesota Rules part 1205.1100. He also asked for data that document that the responsible authority for the District has received data practices training. The District did not provide copies of written appointment orders, because there are none. Ms. Kepple provided the Commissioner with copies of agendas from meetings of the superintendent and principals in which principals were verbally informed that they would be designees. She stated that the school board agendas she provided the Commissioner comprise written evidence of appointment of the principals as the superintendent&apos;s designees.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      After receiving notice that Mr. Wachlarowicz requested this opinion, the District stated that it would provide Mr. Wachlarowicz with copies of the aforementioned agendas and copies of training materials attended by Mr. Mackin.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. First, under the Rules, the responsible authority has the authority to appoint designees, and appointment orders for designees must be in writing. The Rules require government entities to issue written appointment orders so that individuals know to whom they should direct data requests. In order to be in compliance, the District, i.e., either the school board or the responsible authority, should take official action on the creation of appointment orders and do so promptly.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, Mr. Wachlarowicz asked for data that document that the responsible authority and all of his designees have received data practices instruction or training. The District told him there were no written materials regarding data practices instruction or training, but in her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple stated that the District would be providing Mr. Wachlarowicz with copies of Mr. Mackin&apos;s training materials. It may be the case that Mr. Wachlarowicz would be satisfied just with evidence of the training Mr. Mackin has received, but the District should not make that assumption.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wachlarowicz is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request, because it has no written appointment order(s) for responsible authority designee(s), as is required under Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, and because it did not provide access to data that document any data practices training of the responsible authority or designee(s) in response to the request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 19, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267406</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee appointed by Responsible Authority</Title><Id>266421</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Training required</Title><Id>266451</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-037</Title><title>Opinion 03 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266622&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-15T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request by a data subject for the City to explain the meaning of certain data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 15, 2003; City of Brainerd</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 1, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Richard Olmstead. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights with respect to certain data about him that are maintained by the City of Brainerd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Vogt, City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated August 5, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 25, 2003, IPAD received a response from Thomas Fitzpatrick, City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 30, 2003, Mr. Olmstead wrote to Mr. Vogt:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This letter [supersedes] previous request re meanings . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide me in writing an explanation as to the meaning of the following word [and] words as required per the Minnesota [Government] Data Practices Act [emphasis omitted]:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;p. 29 hits used 3 times
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 40 hits hit
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 84 hits Line #6
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 84 hit Line #12
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 84 hit Line #19
&lt;br /&gt;
[illegible] page # Line 15 hit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 31, 2003, Mr. Vogt responded: I assume that you are making this request pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.03, Subd. 3 (a). It is not my responsibility under that Statute to explain the meaning of the word you have identified. Therefore, I am declining your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Fitzpatrick discussed the background of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request, and provided copies of an earlier related data request from Mr. Olmstead, dated May 26, 2003. Mr. Fitzpatrick also referred to an April 24, 2003, data request from Mr. Olmstead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner believes that in this situation, in order to evaluate the City&apos;s response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s July 30, 2003, data request, which is the issue of this opinion, it is necessary to review Mr. Olmstead&apos;s earlier requests and the City&apos;s responses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his May 26, 2003, data request, Mr. Olmstead asked the City to provide the specific meaning of some 95 words and/or phrases, including the words hit and hits, contained in documents in which he is a data subject. Mr. Olmstead asked, for example, that the City explain the meaning of 10,000 pages, appendix, voluntary, with, date and when.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fitzpatrick described actions taken by the City to respond to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s initial request, including searching for Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions that could shed light on the subject. Finding none, Mr. Fitzpatrick contacted IPAD director Donald Gemberling for assistance. According to Mr. Fitzpatrick:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On April 24, 2003, I spoke to [Mr. Gemberling] by telephone regarding Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request. During that conversation we discussed the circumstances in which a Responsible Authority has an obligation to explain the meaning of data. I understood, and my notes reflect, that your opinion was that this duty is limited and does not extend to providing the meaning of all words.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My understanding at the end of our conversation on April 24th was that the duty to provide the meaning of data was limited to acronyms or very specialized data. It was also my understanding that the duty did not extend to providing the meaning of common or ordinary words. Based upon our discussion, I advised Mr. Vogt that he did not have a responsibility to explain the meaning of the words requested. Mr. Vogt responded to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon receiving Mr. Olmstead&apos;s May 26, 2003, request, Mr. Fitzpatrick again contacted Mr. Gemberling to discuss the City&apos;s obligation to respond to explain the meaning of words contained in data. Mr. Fitzpatrick provided a copy of his notes of that conversation: [a]s you can see, the notes reflect my continued understanding that [Mr. Gemberling&apos;s] interpretation of M.S. 13.04, Subd. 3 did not obligate the Responsible Authority to explain or interpret the meaning of commonly used words. Rather, the statutory duty extends only to clarifying the meaning of acronyms or other specialized terms. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he spoke again with Mr. Vogt and discussed his understanding of the City&apos;s obligation, based upon his conversations with Mr. Gemberling.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon receipt of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s July 30, 2003, request, Mr. Vogt consulted Mr. Fitzpatrick, and they discussed again Mr. Fitzpatrick&apos;s understanding based on his discussions with Mr. Gemberling. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he did not contact Mr. Gemberling a third time, as they had recently discussed this topic at length.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With no advisory opinions for guidance, I had twice contacted [Mr. Gemberling] and discussed this subject before the response now being challenged was issued. In reliance upon our conversations, I advised Mr. Vogt and he responded accordingly. The May 26th Olmstead request for meanings . . . had been faxed to and reviewed by [Mr. Gemberling.] It included a request for the meaning of &apos;a hit&apos; and &apos;hits.&apos; Since Mr. Vogt had no obligation to provide the meaning of these particular words in response to the May 26th request, there was no reason to believe that he had a duty to define them in response to the July 30th request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This will be the first advisory opinion to address this issue. Because the City relied upon [Mr. Gemberling&apos;s] explanations given on two separate occasions on the same topic shortly before it made its response on July 31, 2003, it must be concluded that the City responded appropriately under the circumstances as they then existed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request by a data subject for the City to explain the meaning of certain data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, &lt;u&gt;shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that Mr. Fitzpatrick made efforts to respond appropriately to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s requests, and relied upon his understanding of his conversations with Mr. Gemberling. In general, government entities do not have to explain the meaning of words in the sense of supplying dictionary definitions. However, the Commissioner is of the opinion that government entities do have to provide the meaning of common words if the meaning is not readily apparent in the context.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Olmstead asked the City to explain the meaning of the words hit or hits contained in data the City maintains. For example:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The question of whether or not the people who were the subject of these &apos;hits&apos; should be picked up with or without probable cause was, according to [redacted] &apos;left open.&apos; [redacted] We have not been able to find any occasions where any of the subjects of the &apos;hits&apos; were ever stopped or arrested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Do you recall any other incidents of these &apos;hits&apos; that you have first-hand knowledge of?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;And do you have first-hand knowledge of all these individuals, in other words, were you told by your [redacted] to put a hit on those people?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Those individuals were the subjects of the hit, as you understood it?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, Mr. Fitzpatrick took efforts to respond appropriately to Mr. Olmstead, including consulting with Mr. Gemberling. Given what the City understood of its obligations at the time, its response to Mr. Olmstead was appropriate. However, government entities are obligated to make &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; efforts to explain words and phrases whose meanings may not be apparent without more explanation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this situation, it is the Commissioner&apos;s view that it is not reasonable to expect that a data subject could understand the meaning of the words hit and hits as used in the context. Accordingly, the City is obligated to explain to Mr. Olmstead what those words mean in the context of the data it maintains about him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Olmstead raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, based on its understanding at the time, the City of Brainerd responded appropriately. However, the City should explain the meaning of certain common words to the data subject, because, given the context, the data subject can not reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of those words.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 15, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266622</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Explanation of data</Title><Id>266621</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-036</Title><title>Opinion 03 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267717&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of La Crescent respond appropriately to a request for access to all public data about an employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 15, 2003; City of La Crescent</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On August 21, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated August 19, 2003, from Thomas van der Linden, editor of the &lt;i&gt;Houston County News&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. van der Linden asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of La Crescent maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bill Waller, the City&apos;s Administrator, in response to Mr. van der Linden&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 26, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. van der Linden&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 8, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Waller.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. van der Linden wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In May of this year, the city signed a memo of understanding with [an employee] as the [employee] was leaving [his/her] job with the [City]. I asked for a copy of the memo of understanding, and also asked to look at documents in the [employee&apos;s] personnel file that are made public under the [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], specifically the status of any complaints against the [employee] as per Minnesota Statute section 13.43, subdivision 2(a).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The city administrator, Bill Waller, refused to let me examine those documents because he is unsure if they are public. He supported asking [the Commissioner] for an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. van der Linden asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of La Crescent respond appropriately to a request for access to all public data about an employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes he is limiting the discussion in this advisory opinion to the City&apos;s response to Mr. van der Linden&apos;s request for a copy of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the status of any complaints or charges against the [employee].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data about current and former employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Subdivision 2(a)(4) of section 13.43 states that the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee are public. Subdivision 2(a)(6) states that the following is public:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waller wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Section 13.43, Subd. 2, describes Public Data. Since the Memorandum of Understanding, does not fall within any of the classes of data described as Public Data, it is the position of the City that not being Public Data under Section 13.42 [sic], Subd. 2 it is private data under, and regulated by Section 13.43, Subd. 4.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In this situation, the Commissioner has not seen the MOU and does not know why the employee left his/her job with the City. However, the existence of an MOU indicates there was an issue that needed to be resolved. If the MOU contains data constituting the terms of an agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employee&apos;s employment relationship with the City, those data are public. If, however, the MOU does not contain those data, the Commissioner is not in a position to comment as to how the data in the MOU might be classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. van der Linden also asked to look at the status of any complaints or charges against the employee. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the existence and status of any complaints or charges are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final note is in order. In his response, Mr. Waller stated that because MOUs are not listed in section 13.43, subdivision 2, as one of the types of data that are public, the City cannot release the document Mr. van der Linden requested. The Commissioner reminds his readers that Chapter 13 operates at the level of individual data elements, not at the document level. Here, if the data in the MOU constitute the terms of an agreement settling a dispute arising out of an employment relationship, they are public regardless of the title of the document.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. van der Linden raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the City of La Crescent responded appropriately to the request for a copy of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the status of any complaints against the employee. However, if the MOU contains data constituting the terms of an agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship between the City and the employee, those data are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(6). If the MOU does not contain those data, the Commissioner is unable to comment on the classification of the data in the MOU.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                In addition, the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the officer are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(4).
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 15, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267717</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-035</Title><title>Opinion 03 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267375&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of St. Paul maintains: interview notes collected from or about a volunteer concerning a complaint about a member of the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 9, 2003; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor for the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. The Commissioner sought comments from the data requestor, Tim Nelson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. On August 8, 2003, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Paul Hannah, an attorney representing the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In an email dated July 21, 2003, Mr. Nelson wrote to Angie Nalezny, the City&apos;s Director of Human Resources. He stated that he believed the City had conducted an investigation into a complaint made about a particular individual, X. Mr. Nelson requested any related paperwork or electronic records, voice mail, or other documentation related to any complaints regarding X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flaherty responded in an email dated July 23, 2003. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Ms. Nalezny did investigate a report of possible harassment by [X] by interviewing the person who was alleged to be the victim. We are not permitted by law to identify or confirm the identity of the alleged victim, who worked for the City. Based on Ms. Nalezny&apos;s interview with the alleged victim, she determined that there was no harassment and no need to make further investigation or documentation. Therefore the file on this matter consists entirely of Ms. Nalezny&apos;s interview notes. Because those notes are data on the alleged victim who was volunteer of the City, it is the alleged victim&apos;s private data. Thus, it is personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 1, and private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 4....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...you state that information about [X] is not protected under the personnel provisions of [Chapter 13]. I agree with you that [X] is neither an employee nor a volunteer of the [City]. Therefore any data the City might have on [X] with respect to this or similar allegations is not personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. However, as noted above, all of the data collected on this matter is private data on the alleged victim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Nelson wrote back in an email dated July 21, 2003. He argued, That the interview notes taken by Ms. Nalezny include identifying information on [X] does not mean that the notes in their &lt;em&gt;entirety&lt;/em&gt; are [not public]....According to Minn. Statutes, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, you are obligated to separate the public from the non public data in this record and make it available for inspection. (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Flaherty wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Ms. Nalezny had received an allegation concerning [X] from a City employee...who worked with the volunteer. The co-worker had no first hand information. Ms. Nalezny interviewed a senior staff person to whom the co-worker had also made the allegation and she also interviewed the volunteer on the phone and later in person. Based on the volunteer&apos;s statements, Ms. Nalezny concluded that the complaint was unfounded and without merit. The only documentation of this are the handwritten notes Ms. Nalezny took contemporaneously with her interviews.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flaherty provided to the Commissioner a copy of the notes with identifying data redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of St. Paul maintains: interview notes collected from or about a volunteer concerning a complaint about a member of the public?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hannah wrote about the notes created by Ms. Nalezny:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [City] takes the position that all these data are private because all of the data was obtained from the volunteer or was about the volunteer, and is about private matters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, even a cursory review of the facts contained in Mr. Flaherty&apos;s letter establishes that this position is untenable. Personnel data is first defined as data on individuals. Data on individuals means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data. Almost all the data which document the investigation undertaken by the [City], and which document the actions allegedly taken by the non-employee are not data on individuals, and are therefore not personnel data at all....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Second, these data exist because of allegations of harassing conduct by a person who is neither an employee nor a volunteer in the Mayor&apos;s office. As such...[the data] is not personnel data at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the data concern multiple data subjects, some redacting of data identifying actual employees or volunteers may be necessary, but should not affect the bulk of the data dealing with the allegations concerning the conduct of the interloper and the investigation undertaken by the City....If necessary, those data identifying actual employees or volunteers can be redacted by the City, at its expense....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has reviewed the notes Ms. Nalezny created. They consist of what appear to be incomplete sentences. Further, the City has redacted some of the data. Because of what the City submitted, it is very difficult for the Commissioner to determine, with any certainty, how the data are classified. Therefore, the Commissioner will provide only general guidance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals of which the volunteer or other employees are the subject are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, the City is restricted from releasing to the public any private data about the volunteer or other employees. However, the City must release any data about the volunteer or other employees that are public. Although it depends upon the specific context, in most cases, names of employees and volunteers are public. In addition, the City needs to be mindful that any data of which the volunteer or other employees are not the subject are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data of which X is the subject, including his/her name, are not classified pursuant to section 13.43 but are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. The Commissioner also points readers to &lt;em&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/em&gt;, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991). In this case, the Court held that identifying information about complainants on non-pending, non-current police departmental internal affairs complaint forms is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, any data not on individuals (see section 13.02, subdivisions 4 and 5) in the notes are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Flaherty raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, the classification of data in the interview notes collected from or about a volunteer concerning a complaint about a member of the public. Data of which the volunteer or other employees are the subject are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Data of which X is the subject are classified as public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. Data not on individuals are classified as public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 9, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267375</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee name</Title><Id>266371</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-034</Title><title>Opinion 03 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267466&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is public data that must be disclosed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03?
Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is private or nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.65 that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is otherwise private or nonpublic data that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 5, 2003; Office of the Minnesota Attorney General</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 5, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Michael Brodkorb on behalf of the Republican Party of Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Brodkorb asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his request to gain access to certain data from the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (OAG).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mike Hatch, Attorney General, in response to Mr. Brodkorb&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 8, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Brodkorb&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the OAG&apos;s position. On August 25, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Kristine Eiden, Chief Deputy Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a memorandum dated July 25, 2003, Mr. Brodkorb wrote to Attorney General Hatch. Mr. Brodkorb wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Please consider this fax transmission my formal request of public data under [Chapter 13]....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am requesting all public materials related to the following task forces coordinated by the Attorney General&apos;s Office. This is including, but not limited to complete rosters of members; dates, times, and minutes of meetings; conclusions and reports of the task forces; and official internal and external correspondence to and from the Attorney General&apos;s Office, including electronic and paper communications of task force members; and the official filings of all the following task forces with the Office of the Secretary of State.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Task Forces&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. Attorney General&apos;s Force on Consumer Rights and Health Care
                &lt;br /&gt;
                2. Attorney General Mike Hatch&apos;s Commission on Consumers in Health Care
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. Attorney General&apos;s Task Force on Consumer Fraud
                &lt;br /&gt;
                4. Attorney General Mike Hatch&apos;s Health Care and Personal Privacy Task Forces
                &lt;br /&gt;
                5. Attorney General Mike Hatch&apos;s Task Force on Consumers in Health Care
                &lt;br /&gt;
                6. Attorney General&apos;s Task Force on Pharmaceuticals, Medicare and Family Health and
                &lt;br /&gt;
                7. The Attorney General&apos;s Task Force on Information Technology.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (In the issue statements below, Mr. Brodkorb referred to this data request as Exhibit B.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Attorney General Hatch responded in a letter dated July 30, 2003. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I thank you for your letter dated July 25, 2003 (Exhibit A). The only document this Office could find which is responsive to your request is a letter to Representative Phil Krinkie dated September 13, 2002 (Exhibit B). Representative Krinkie made the inquiry to this Office after Tom Kelly, the Republican nominee for Attorney General, held a news conference on September 9, 2002 over the same issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The document you sent to me is an exact copy of the document prepared by Mr. Kelly and used by him at his press conference. A copy of the MPR version of the news conference is attached as Exhibit C....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                It appears Attorney General Hatch&apos;s letter and the three attachments (Exhibits A - C) were mailed to Mr. Brodkorb in an envelope that is postmarked August 1, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Brodkorb wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...rather than providing this public information as required by the Act, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch held a press conference in which he apparently publicly denied the Information Request. This press conference was held prior to delivery or receipt to the undersigned of any written communication from the Attorney General denying the Information Request. Additionally, in his written denial of the Information Request, the Attorney General has provided no statutory or regulatory authority or basis for refusing to comply with the Act&apos;s requirements.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Brodkorb asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is public data that must be disclosed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is private or nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.65 that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is otherwise private or nonpublic data that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 1:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is public data that must be disclosed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Eiden wrote:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                  On or about July 25, 2003, the Republican Party faxed a data practices request to the OAG. The Republican Party requested a copy of all public materials related to a number of task forces ...
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                  On or about July 30, 2003, the OAG responded to the Republican Party&apos;s request. In response to that request, the OAG provided a copy of a letter dated September 13, 2002 to Representative Philip Krinkie. The OAG advised the Republican Party that the letter was the only data in the possession of the OAG which was responsive to the Republican Party&apos;s request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Ms. Eiden continued:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                  The OAG does not dispute that the information requested by the Republican Party, if it existed, would be public data. Other than the letter provided, the OAG has no data responsive to the data request. As you know, [Chapter 13] does not require government agencies to create data to respond to a request....Because the OAG would have to create data in order to respond to the Republican Party&apos;s request, the request is not subject to the requirements of chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Brodkorb asked the Commissioner whether the information he requested is public data. Ms. Eiden provided the OAG&apos;s response, Other than the letter provided, the OAG has no data responsive to the data request....Because the OAG would have to create data in order to respond to the Republican Party&apos;s request, the request is not subject to the requirements of chapter 13. Thus, if no data exist, the Commissioner is unable to determine their classification. The Commissioner adds that according to Ms. Eiden, The OAG does not dispute that the information requested by the Republican Party, if it existed, would be public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Brodkorb made his data request in a memorandum dated July 25, 2003. The OAG&apos;s response apparently was postmarked on August 1, 2003, and Mr. Brodkorb stated he received the response on August 4, 2003. The Attorney General&apos;s response was that the only data the OAG could find was a September 13, 2002, letter from Representative Krinkie. The Commissioner reminds his readers of the importance of clear communication in requesting data and responding to requests for data. Here, the Attorney General&apos;s response could be interpreted as ambiguous. Either the data exist or they do not. Since, in this case, the OAG&apos;s position as stated by Ms. Eiden is that the data do not exist, it would have been more clear if the Attorney General simply had made that statement in his initial response.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The position of the OAG is that detailed data about the composition and activities of the task forces do not exist. It should be noted that Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires all public officers to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. Section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions, so that those records will be available for public inspection. Thus, to the extent these task forces carried on official activities within the meaning of section 15.17, data about them constitute official records and should be recorded and accessible.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 2:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is private or nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.65 that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  See analysis related to Issue 1.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 3:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Whether the information sought in the information request attached hereto as Exhibit B is otherwise private or nonpublic data that must not be disclosed to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  See analysis related to Issue 1.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Brodkorb raised is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Other than a letter that was provided to the data requestor, the data requested apparently do not exist. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine their Chapter 13 classification.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Other than a letter that was provided to the data requestor, the data requested apparently do not exist. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine their Chapter 13 classification.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Other than a letter that was provided to the data requestor, the data requested apparently do not exist. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine their Chapter 13 classification.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Signed:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Brian J. Lamb
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    Commissioner
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                    Dated: September 5, 2003
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267466</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data does not exist</Title><Id>266383</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records Management Act statute (138.17) (See also: Official Records Act)</Title><Id>266521</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-033</Title><title>Opinion 03 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267657&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-09-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Independent School District 625, Saint Paul, maintains: the names of school bus drivers provided by the bus companies?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 2, 2003; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 7, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated July 2, 2003, from Nancy Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for Independent School District 625, Saint Paul. In her letter, Ms. Cameron asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains relating to contract bus drivers. IPAD staff requested additional information, which Ms. Cameron provided with a letter dated July 22, 2003. IPAD staff required further information, which the District provided on July 28, 2003. Also, on July 22, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated July 21, 2003, from Brendan Cummins, an attorney representing Service Employees International Union, Local 284 (Local 284). Mr. Cummins is the individual who made a data request relating to the data in question. In his letter, Mr. Cummins provided comments to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated July 30, 2003, IPAD invited the four bus companies with which the District contracts to submit comments. The Commissioner also extended the same invitation to Mr. Cummins, who submitted his first set of comments before the Commissioner technically had accepted the District&apos;s opinion request. On August 7, 2003, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Mr. Cummins. On August 11, 2003, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Thomas Traschel, an attorney representing First Student, Inc. and Monarch Bus Service, Inc. The Commissioner did not receive comments from Safe-Way Bus Company or Comfort Bus Company.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Pursuant to the bid specifications, the District performs driver license checks on all drivers operating under contract at least three times during the school year. Each contractor provides the District, three times during the school year, with a complete listing of all drivers operating under the contract. In her opinion request, Ms. Cameron wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Local 284, through its attorney, Brendan D. Cummins, has requested information about drivers for bus companies under contract with the School District....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Initially I denied the request for access to data for several reasons....My primary concern was that the data sought-name, address, and telephone numbers-could not be disclosed...under the Driver&apos;s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 ( DPPA )....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cummin&apos;s second letter clarifies that he is requesting information on bus drivers provided by the bus companies to the School District, not information obtained by the School District from a motor vehicle record....Mr. Cummins indicated he wanted the drivers&apos; names, even if the other information could not be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The essential question, therefore, is whether the bus drivers&apos; names, which are provided by the bus companies, are public data or whether they are private data or information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Cameron asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Independent School District 625, Saint Paul, maintains: the names of school bus drivers provided by the bus companies?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cummins, in his comments to the Commissioner, argued that the names of the bus drivers are public. He stated, The District has failed to cite to any statutory provision that would defeat the strong presumption that data pertaining to bus drivers in the possession of the District is public...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conversely, Mr. Trachsel, in his comments, argued that the names of the school bus drivers are not subject to disclosure under Chapter 13. One reason, he asserts, is that the federal Drivers&apos; Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) precludes dissemination. Mr. Trachsel stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District has refused to disclose &lt;em&gt;the addresses and telephone numbers&lt;/em&gt; of the bus drivers on the basis that the information could not be disclosed under the DPPA, and the Union concedes that it is not entitled to this data, insofar as the School District obtains this information from the Driver and Vehicle Services Division ( DVS ) of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and not from the bus companies. The Union attempts to distinguish the &lt;em&gt;names&lt;/em&gt; of the bus drivers from their addresses and telephone numbers on the basis that the School District collects the names &lt;em&gt;from the bus companies&lt;/em&gt;, not just from the DVS. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By claiming that it is entitled to the names of the drivers because the School District collects this information directly from the bus companies, the Union is attempting to perform an end-around the DPPA....&lt;em&gt;Obviously the School District needs to collect the names of the bus drivers in order for it to be able to perform the tri-annual license record checks&lt;/em&gt;. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Trachsel also asserted that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prevents the District from disclosing the names of the bus drivers. He wrote, The NLRA is the principal piece of legislation regulating the relationship between private sector employers, labor unions, and affected employees. He further noted that under the National Labor Relations Board&apos;s (NLRB) rules, a union is not entitled to obtain a list of employees&apos; names until complying with a series of rules governing the circumstances (and timing) under which a labor union engaged in organizing activity is entitled to obtain the names of the employees that it seeks to represent. Mr. Trachsel wrote, Under the scheme established by the NLRB, the Union is not entitled to the list of names that it has requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with both of Mr. Trachsel&apos;s arguments. Mr. Trachsel is correct that, pursuant to the DPPA, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) prohibits release, except under certain circumstances, of most of the motor vehicle and driver license information it collects and maintains. Further, the Commissioner agrees that any data the District obtains from DPS are not public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4(c). However, the District does not obtain the names of the bus drivers from DPS; the names are acquired from the bus companies. Therefore, the District cannot use the DPPA as a basis upon which to prohibit release of the names.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the NLRA, although it may regulate the relationship between employers, labor unions, and affected employees, it does not, for the purposes of Chapter 13, classify data in the possession of the District as not public. Therefore, it is not a basis upon which the District can withhold the names of the bus drivers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that all government data are public unless otherwise classified. Because there is no statutory provision or federal law classifying the bus driver names as anything other than public, they are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner adds the following comments. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, when a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of the entity&apos;s functions, it must include terms in the contract making it clear that all of the data created, collected received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. This provision went into effect on August 1, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, the District&apos;s contracts with the bus companies do not contain the type of clause required by section 13.05, subdivision 11. Rather, the relevant provisions in the District&apos;s bid specification state that the District will treat personal information on contractor school bus drivers, including names as confidential information to the extent possible under [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has opined, in previous opinions, that if the privatization clause is not contained in a contract, its presence nonetheless should be inferred to give effect to the Legislature&apos;s intent. The Commissioner reached that conclusion based on advice from the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (OAG). In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The language in subdivision 11 is mandatory so its omission would pose a problem for both Mounds View and Kennedy Graven for which there are two possible remedies. The first is to infer the term&apos;s presence in the contract. The second is to find the contract void or voidable. The Commissioner finds it preferable to keep the contract in effect and infer the presence of the above provision rather than voiding the contract in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes he is aware of a recent District Court Opinion in which the Court disagreed with the analysis in the advisory opinion. (See &lt;em&gt;WDSI, Inc. v. The County of Steele&lt;/em&gt;, File No. C4-02-1285 (Third Judicial District Steele County State of Minnesota).) The court in that case was not aware the Commissioner reached his conclusion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt; based on the OAG&apos;s advice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The point of raising the issue of the privatization clause is that if the clause either existed or was inferred to exist in the contracts between the District and the bus companies, certain bus driver names in the possession of the bus companies would be public pursuant to section 13.43. (Section 13.43 classifies as public the names of employees of government entities.) To clarify further, only the names of drivers who provide service to the District under the circumstances contemplated in section 13.05, subdivision 11, would be public. Section 13.05, subdivision 11, applies only to contractual situations involving government entities. It would not apply, for instance, in situations where a bus company is providing service to a non-public school. The Commissioner reminds private persons entering into certain contracts with government entities that data related to those contracts likely are subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Cameron raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the names of school bus drivers provided to Independent School District 625, Saint Paul, by the bus companies are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 2, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267657</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)</Title><Id>266368</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)</Title><Id>266608</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clause to be inferred</Title><Id>266665</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-032</Title><title>Opinion 03 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267836&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>The City of Minneapolis requires certain individuals to provide the name of the source of a loan as part of a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the following:
(a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council; 
(b) elected officials (as defined); 
(c) appointed local officials (as defined); 
(d) employees (as defined); and 
(e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)?

The City of Minneapolis requires the spouses or domestic partners of certain individuals to provide a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the spouses or domestic partners of the following:
(a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council; 
(b) elected officials (as defined); 
(c) appointed local officials (as defined); 
(d) employees (as defined) and 
(e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 18, 2003; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 2, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated May 27, 2003, from Jay Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney. In his letter, Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD staff contacted Carol Lansing, Assistant City Attorney, for clarification. On July 14, 2003, IPAD received Ms. Lansing&apos;s revised request, dated same. IPAD requested further clarification and the two issues the Commissioner would address were agreed upon. On July 18, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated July 16, 2003, containing the City&apos;s revision of the issue statements.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his May 27, 2003, letter, Mr. Heffern wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The questions for which an advisory opinion is requested relate to personal financial data that certain officials and employees must submit to the City pursuant to its recently enacted Ethics Code. The City&apos;s Ethics Code, codified as Chapter 15 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances ( MCO ), requires that the City&apos;s elected officials and persons appointed or employed in certain other City positions file statements of economic interest [SEI]. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; MCO section15.80...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                MCO section15.80 is modeled after, and intended to incorporate, the requirements found in Minn. Stat. section10A.09 of the State&apos;s campaign finance and public disclosure provisions. Minnesota Statutes section10A.09 requires that local officials in metropolitan governmental units file statements of economic interest....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 We believe that it is clear that, to the extent that the City&apos;s Ethics Code requires its officials and employees to file statements of economic interest containing the information delineated in Minn. Stat. section10A.09, the information is public data. However, the City&apos;s Ethics Code requires the following additional disclosures: (1) local officials and employees subject to the filing requirement must also disclose any &lt;u&gt;loans&lt;/u&gt;they have received unless the loan is from a financial lending institution, negotiated by unrelated parties each acting in his or her own self interest, with an interest rate of at least a market rate; and (2) the City&apos;s Ethics Code requires that the statement shall include the economic interests of the person filing the statement &lt;u&gt;and his or her spouse or domestic partner, if any&lt;/u&gt;....[Emphasis provided.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her July 14, 2003, letter, Ms. Lansing discussed the loan information. She stated, Although the form for collecting this information has not yet been developed, I anticipate that the only information about loans that the City will request...is the name of the source of the loan. In addition, she wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                One of the purposes of the City&apos;s Ethics Code provision regarding SEI&apos;s is to identify which City officials and employees are local officials for purposes of the SEI filing requirement in Minn. Stat. section10A.09. For purposes of that statute, a local official is defined as a person who holds elective office in a political subdivision in which the person has authority to make, to recommend, or to vote on as a member of the governing body, major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public money.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Lansing further wrote, Section 15.80 of the City&apos;s Ethics Code lists the positions for which statements of economic interest must be filed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, Ms. Lansing and Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              The City of Minneapolis requires certain individuals to provide the name of the source of a loan as part of a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the following:
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              (a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (b) elected officials (as defined);
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (d) employees (as defined); and
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)?
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              The City of Minneapolis requires the spouses or domestic partners of certain individuals to provide a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the spouses or domestic partners of the following:
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              (a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (b) elected officials (as defined);
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (d) employees (as defined) and
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)?
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Lansing stated in her July 14, 2003, letter, that one of the purposes of the City&apos;s Ethics Code, Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (MCO) section 15.80, is to identify which individuals are required by Minnesota Statutes, section 10A, to file statements of economic interest. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 10A, relates to Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure. Subdivision 6a of section 10A.09 states, A local official required to file a statement under this section must file it with the governing body of the official&apos;s political subdivision. The governing body must maintain statements filed with it under this subdivision as public data. Although the Commissioner does not know the precise number of individuals affected, it includes candidates for mayor or city council, elected officials, certain appointed officials, approximately ten civil service employees, and certain individuals appointed or designated to serve on six different commissions.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The City requested this opinion because under MCO section 15.80, the City must collect additional information beyond that which Chapter 10A, the campaign finance and public disclosure law, requires. The additional data include (1) the loan source name and (2) an economic interest statement from spouses or domestic partners.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Because of the nature of the data and the purposes for which they will be used, the Commissioner has some concerns about the City&apos;s decision to collect the additional data. He is concerned that it may provide a disincentive for individuals to work in the public sector, or be married to or the domestic partner of individuals who work in the public sector. He also emphasizes the need for the City to consider the time sensitive nature of these data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Despite these concerns, the Commissioner acknowledges that local governments may collect and store data on individuals when it is necessary for the administration of programs specifically authorized by, among others, the local governing body. (See section 13.05, subdivision 3.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Finally, the Commissioner reminds the City of its obligations under section 13.05, subdivision 5, to establish procedures ensuring that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which they were collected. The Commissioner is encouraged to see that the City incorporated into MCO section 15.80, three provisions from Chapter 10A and its accompanying rules related to supplemental filings. MCO section 15.80(b), further requires each individual filing an economic interest statement to file a supplemental statement on April 15 of each year that s/he remains a local official if information on the most recently filed statement has changed. (See section 10A.09, subdivision 6.) MCO section 15.80(b), requires the individual to file a supplemental statement within ten days after becoming aware of an inaccuracy in any previously filed statement. (See section 10A.025, subdivision 4.) MCO section 15.80(c), provides that within 30 days after leaving office, the individual must file a statement of economic interest covering the period from the end date of the most recent statement through the last day of service if information on the most recently filed statement has changed. (See Minnesota Rules, Part 4505.0900, subpart 4.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; The City of Minneapolis requires certain individuals to provide the name of the source of a loan as part of a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the following: &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;(a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (b) elected officials (as defined);
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (d) employees (as defined); and
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                         (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.43, personnel data, classifies data collected because an individual is or was an employee. Section 13.601 classifies data about elected and appointed officials. Subdivision 1 of section 13.601 states, Financial disclosure statements of elected or appointed officials which, by requirement of the political subdivision, are filed with the political subdivision, are public data on individuals.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her July 14, 2003, letter, Ms. Lansing described the individuals from whom the City will be collecting the loan and spouse/domestic partner economic interest statement data:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      1. A candidate for the office of mayor or city council. MCO section15.80(a)(1) and section 15.280(b).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      2. The following elected officials : city council members; the mayor; and elected members of the board of estimate and taxation. MCO section15.80(a)(2) and section15.280(m)(1).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      3. Appointed local officials who have the requisite authority for decisions relating to the investment or expenditure of public money. MCO section15.80(a)(3). Appointed local officials are further defined for purposes of the City&apos;s Ethics Code as persons employed by the City in appointed positions, or holding the title of an appointed position. MCO section15.280(m)(2). Persons employed in appointed positions are non-civil service employees of the City. Persons holding the title of an appointed position are typically people who are appointed to fill a position on an interim basis and who are employed in another City position to which they will return after the interim appointment is completed. Please note that some of the City&apos;s appointed positions do not have authority for major decisions related to the use of public money and will not be required to file SEI&apos;s.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      4. Employees who have the requisite authority for decisions relating to the investment or expenditure of public money. MCO section15.80(a)(3). An employee is further defined as a person who holds a civil service title or position in the city. MCO section15.280(g). It is anticipated that approximately ten civil service employee positions will be identified as have [sic] the authority related to the use of public money that will require filing of an SEI.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      5. Individuals appointed or designated by the mayor or city council to six commissions that have been determined to have the requisite authority related to the use of public money to trigger the SEI filing requirement. MCO section15.80(a)(4) and section15.280(m)(3). These individuals are not employees of the City, although they may receive some small amount of compensation for attending commission meetings to defray expenses (e.g., $50 per meeting). Some of these commissions, such as the Planning Commission, are instrumentalities of the City and all commissioners [sic] those commissions are appointed by the City. Others, such as the watershed commissions, are not instrumentalities of the City, but the City is entitled to appoint one or more of the commissioners.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The first category consists of individuals who are candidates for the office of mayor or city council. The Commissioner is unaware of any statutory provision that classifies as anything other than public the source name of loans provided to the City by individuals who are candidates.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The second category consists of individuals who are elected officials. Section 13.601 classifies financial disclosure statements of both elected and appointed officials as public. Thus, the source names of loans provided to the City by individuals who are elected officials are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The third category consists of individuals who are appointed local officials. Ms. Lansing stated that MCO section15.280(m)(2) defines these individuals as persons employed by the City in appointed positions, or holding the title of an appointed position. She also noted that persons employed in appointed positions are non-civil service employees of the City. Ms. Lansing further stated that such individuals typically are people appointed to fill a position on an interim basis and who are employed in another City position to which they will return after the interim appointment is completed. Section 13.601 classifies financial disclosure statements of elected or appointed officials. Therefore, the source names of loans provided to the City by individuals who are appointed local officials are public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The fourth category consists of individuals who are employees having the requisite authority for decisions relating to the investment or expenditure of public money. Ms. Lansing stated that MCO section15.280(g) defines an employee as someone who holds a civil service title or position in the City.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At first glance, it appears the source name of a loan collected from these individuals is the type of data classified pursuant to section 13.43. Because the loan source data are not listed as public per subdivision 2 of section 13.43, the data are private. However, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the loan data also could be classified by section 13.601. Although section 13.601 does not specifically state that it classifies financial disclosure statements about employees, the Commissioner believes the Legislature intended such a result. As Mr. Heffern wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City&apos;s Ethics Code codified as Chapter 15 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances ( MCO ), requires that the City&apos;s elected officials and persons appointed or employed in certain other City positions file statements of economic interest. See MCO section15.80...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      MCO section15.80 is modeled after, and intended to incorporate, the requirements found in Minn. Stat. section10A.09 of the State&apos;s campaign finance and public disclosure provisions. Minnesota Statutes section10A.09 requires that local officials in metropolitan governmental units file statements of economic interest....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Heffern also noted that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.09, subdivision 6a, the economic interest statements are public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Legislature clearly wanted financial statements about certain individuals to be available to the public. The City has determined that the type of individuals listed in category 4 are required to file economic interest statements for purposes of section 10A. Because these individuals, as civil service employees, technically are appointed to their positions by the City, the Commissioner believes they are appointed officials for the purposes of section 13.601.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Thus, there appears to be a conflict (or overlap) regarding the classification of financial disclosure statements; pursuant to section 13.43 the data are private and pursuant to section 13.601 the data are public. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.26 discusses irreconcilable provisions. Section 645.26, subdivision 1, provides that if two provisions are irreconcilable, ...the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision... Here, section 13.601 is the more specific provision. In addition, section 645.26, subdivision 4, states, When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail. The Legislature enacted section 13.601 after 13.43. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that the loan source data about category 4 individuals are classified as public pursuant to section 13.601.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The fifth category consists of individuals who are appointed or designated by the mayor or city council to six commissions that have been determined to have the requisite authority related to the use of public money to trigger the SEI filing requirement. Ms. Lansing noted that these people are not employees of the City, although they may receive some small amount of compensation for attending commission meetings. Because these individuals are appointed, the Commissioner believes the loan source names they provide to the City are public pursuant to section 13.601.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; The City of Minneapolis requires the spouses or domestic partners of certain individuals to provide a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the data classified for the spouses or domestic partners of the following:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;(a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (b) elected officials (as defined);
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        (d) employees (as defined) and
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                         (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined)? &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. The Commissioner is not aware of any provision classifying as anything other than public the economic interest statements provided to the City by the spouses or domestic partners of the individuals listed in categories (a) - (e). A possible exception is a situation where a spouse or domestic partner is an employee of the City. However, section 13.43 classifies data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. In the case at hand, the City is not collecting the economic interest statements because the spouse or domestic partner is an employee. The City is collecting the data because these individuals are the spouses or domestic partners of the types of individuals listed above.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      There is another provision of section 13.43 that could classify as not public the economic interest statements of the spouses or domestic partners. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 states, Data pertaining to an employee&apos;s dependents are private data on individuals. Thus, if any of the spouses or domestic partners are dependents of employees, data in the economic interest statements would not be public. However, as the Commissioner discussed in his analysis of Issue 1, he does not believe that any of the individuals listed in categories (a) - (e) are employees for purposes of submitting economic interest statements pursuant to the City&apos;s ordinance. Thus, it would be an absurd result if the City were to protect the economic interest statements of the spouses or domestic partners of the individuals listed in categories (a) - (e) if the City is not protecting the economic interest statements of the individuals listed in categories (a) - (e). Section 645.17 discusses presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent. Clause (1) of section 645.17 states the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd. Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the economic interest statements of the spouses or domestic partners of the individuals listed in categories (a) - (e) are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. As a final note, the Commissioner reminds readers that any Social Security numbers appearing in the economic interest statements are private pursuant to section 13.49.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Lansing and Mr. Heffern is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The City of Minneapolis requires certain individuals to provide the name of the source of a loan as part of a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the loan source names for the following are classified as public:
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                  (a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (b) elected officials (as defined);
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (d) employees (as defined); and
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined).
                                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The City of Minneapolis requires the spouses or domestic partners of certain individuals to provide a statement of economic interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the statements of economic interest for the spouses or domestic partners of the following are public:
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                  (a) a candidate for the office of mayor or city council;
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (b) elected officials (as defined);
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (c) appointed local officials (as defined);
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (d) employees (as defined) and
                                  &lt;br /&gt;
                                  (e) individuals appointed or designated (as defined).
                                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 18, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267836</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Campaign finance and public disclosure (Chapter 10A)</Title><Id>266669</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Financial disclosure</Title><Id>266670</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Financial disclosure statements</Title><Id>266671</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-031</Title><title>Opinion 03 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267227&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-07T15:18:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a June 27, 2003, request to inspect private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 18, 2003, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to private data maintained by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 2003, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 29, 2003, IPAD received a response from Karen P. Kepple, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X is the parent of a former District student, Y. In an e-mail, fax and letter to Mr. Wolak dated June 27, 2003, X requested the opportunity to review all of the school records the district currently maintains on [Y.] Please provide me with a list of possible dates, times and location(s) that I may come in and review [Y&apos;s] records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to X, the District responded via U.S. mail on July 15, 2003. X stated: [t]he envelope was metered and postmarked July 14, 2003 but the letter was dated July 11, 2003. . . . X also stated: Mahtomedi&apos;s responsible authority did not provide a time for me to review [Y&apos;s] records within the [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] timelines, 10 days, of my requesting such access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Superintendent Mark Wolak responded to the parent&apos;s letter on July 11, 2003. The parent&apos;s request for data inspection was sent by email transmission late in the afternoon on Friday, June 27, 2003. Dr. Wolak was out of the office from June 30, 2003 through July 3, 2003 and the office was, of course, closed for the national Fourth of July holiday until Monday, July 7, 2003. Dr. Wolak responded to the request with a letter written within 4 days upon his return to the office after a brief vacation and national holiday.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There is nothing in the statute which requires, nor does the parent allege, that data inspection and review must occur within 10 days of a request, but rather, only that the school district must respond to the request within 10 days. Given Dr. Wolak&apos;s vacation and the intervening Fourth of July, Dr. Wolak responded in a reasonably timely fashion, within 4 days after he received the parent&apos;s letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a June 27, 2003, request to inspect private data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to provide access to the data immediately, if possible, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under both state and federal law, parents are generally entitled to gain access to the educational data of their minor children. (See FERPA, section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4, for more information and some exceptions.) The Commissioner has no information to suggest that X is precluded from gaining access to data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asked to inspect educational data about Y, and asked the District to provide possible dates, times and location(s) for that inspection. The District mailed its response to X on July 14, 2003, which s/he received on July 15, 2003. Excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the District was required to provide X with access to data about Y immediately, if possible, or by July 14, 2003. Ms. Kepple stated that the District&apos;s response was timely because the Superintendent was out of the office on vacation. The Commissioner understands the compelling rationale presented by the District, but respectfully disagrees that it is compliant with the requirements of the statute. As he opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268014&quot; title=&quot;03-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-030&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved X and the District:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X&apos;s request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the District was obligated to provide X with access to data about Y immediately or at least by July 14, 2003, not simply mail its response by that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not respond appropriately to a June 27, 2003, request to inspect private data, because it did not provide access to the data requested within ten working days.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 7, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267227</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days</Title><Id>266515</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-030</Title><title>Opinion 03 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268014&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-07T15:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a June 5, 2003, request for copies of the following data about a student&apos;s order and payment for a high school yearbook: documents, invoices, check-off lists, payment receipts, etc?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 27, 2003, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 30, 2003, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 18, 2003, IPAD received a response from Karen Kepple, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X&apos;s child, Y, was a student in the District. In a letter dated June 5, 2003, X wrote to Dr. Wolak and requested the following data about Y: copies of any and all documents, invoices, check-off lists, payment receipts, etc. pertaining to [Y&apos;s] ordering and paying for a High School Yearbook.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 13, 2003, Dr. Wolak responded to X. Dr. Wolak referred to X&apos;s June 5 e-mail. (As noted above, X provided the Commissioner with a copy of a letter dated June 5, 2003. The Commissioner assumes that the June 5 e-mail and letter have the same content.) In his response to X, Dr. Wolak stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The records which you requested regarding the transaction of a yearbook order for [Y] are not available at this time. The teacher advisor who manages the yearbook is out of the country and cannot be reached. However, with the help of Principal Kevin Mackin, we were able to gather information that may be helpful to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A yearbook with the imprinted name of [Y] is available at Mahtomedi High School. You can pick that copy up by contacting Mr. Mackin . . . . It is my understanding that, with the help of a student, . . . you received a yearbook for [Y] but it was a duplicate and did not have [Y&apos;s] name imprinted on it. You may return the duplicate if you wish to receive the imprinted copy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The initial data request was dated June 5, 2003 and the school district responded in writing on June 13, 2003, through Superintendent Mark Wolak, well within the ten days required by Minn. Stat. section 13.04, Subd. 3. Given this request was made during the week of graduation and the second to last day of school for the 2002-2003 year, and that the yearbook advisor was out of the country for several weeks within days after the request was made, an immediate response was not possible, and Dr. Wolak&apos;s initial response to the request was timely and most appropriate.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a June 5, 2003, request for copies of the following data about a student&apos;s order and payment for a high school yearbook: documents, invoices, check-off lists, payment receipts, etc?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to provide access to the data within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Under both state and federal law, parents are generally entitled to gain access to educational data of their minor children. (See FERPA, section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4, for more information and some exceptions.) The Commissioner has no information to suggest that X is precluded from gaining access to data about Y.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X&apos;s request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Also, the District&apos;s initial response to X was misleading. According to Ms. Kepple:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Regarding the parent&apos;s claim that the school district did not release the requested data supporting the purchase of the yearbook, as indicated earlier, the yearbook advisor was out of the country shortly after the data request was made, and the district responded as soon as possible upon her return with a search for these records. As it turns out, there is no such data available to release and the District is not obligated to create non-existing data to satisfy a data practices request.. . . . The students of Mahtomedi High School or their parents place orders for yearbooks directly with the publisher and remit payment directly to the publisher. The school then distributes the yearbooks based upon the purchasing list provided by the publisher.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Apparently, most or all of the data X asked for is not maintained by the District, but rather by the yearbook publisher. Nothing the Commissioner has reviewed indicates that the publisher is obligated to provide X with access to data it maintains about Y, but the Commissioner cannot make that determination.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The District ought to have been able to tell X at the time of his/her request that the District does not maintain any data responsive to that request. It appears that the first time the District communicated that it has no data is in its response to the Commissioner. The District should have told X that it had no data in its June 13, 2003, response to X&apos;s request. However, the Commissioner is not certain that the District is correct. X asked for a copy of a check-off list and Ms. Kepple said that the publisher provided the District with a purchasing list, which, in the possession of the District, is government data. Those descriptions sound similar. If data about Y are on the purchasing list provided to the District by the publisher, the District should make the portion of that list that contains data about Y available to X immediately.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      With respect to the Superintendent having identified Y&apos;s friend as the possible recipient/conveyor of a duplicate yearbook (the parties dispute the facts, which the Commissioner cannot resolve), any dissemination of data to X about another student does not affect X or Y&apos;s rights as data subjects. The other student or his/her parents may request an opinion from the Commissioner if they believe his/her rights were violated.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not respond appropriately to a June 5, 2003, request for copies of the following data about a student&apos;s order and payment for a high school yearbook: documents, invoices, check-off lists, payment receipts, etcetera.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 7, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268014</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-029</Title><title>Opinion 03 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267445&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-07T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and related federal law, would Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School District 916 violate the rights of a student if, after reporting a crime committed by the student, the District released special education and disciplinary records to external law enforcement and prosecuting authorities?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2003; School District 916 (Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 22, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated July 18, 2003, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School District 916. In her letter, Ms. Kepple asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether is it appropriate for the District to release certain data. IPAD staff requested clarification. On July 25, 2003, IPAD received Ms. Kepple&apos;s revised request, dated same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her July 25, 2003, letter, Ms. Kepple wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School District 916 has had occasions during the 2002-2003 school year and before to report the alleged commission of a crime at the school by its students....In so doing, questions have arisen regarding the responsibility or right to release education data to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Kepple cited provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), the relevant accompanying rules, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (See 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (k)(9), 34 C.F.R. section 300.529, 20 U.S.C. section 1232g , and 34 C.F.R. Part 99.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and related federal law, would Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School District 916 violate the rights of a student if, after reporting a crime committed by the student, the District released special education and disciplinary records to external law enforcement and prosecuting authorities?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The issue before the Commissioner is whether a school district, after reporting a crime committed by a special education student, can release certain private data about that student to external law enforcement and prosecuting authorities without violating the student&apos;s rights.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects a parent&apos;s privacy interest in his or her child&apos;s educational records. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, the educational data section of Chapter 13, incorporates many of FERPA&apos;s provisions. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal law that, among other things, provides additional privacy protections for students who are receiving special education and related services.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Of relevance to this opinion is the provision in IDEA that provides for the Referral to and action by law enforcement and judicial authorities :
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a) Nothing in this part prohibits an agency from reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability to appropriate authorities or to prevent State law enforcement and judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities with regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a child with a disability.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (b)(1) An agency reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability shall ensure that copies of the special education and disciplinary records of the child are transmitted for consideration by the appropriate authorities to whom it reports the crime.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) An agency reporting a crime under this section may transmit copies of the child&apos;s special education and disciplinary records only to the extent that the transmission is permitted by [FERPA].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      (See 34 C.F.R. section 300.529.) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (k)(9).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Kepple notes that FERPA does not:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...specifically permit the transmission of such special education and disciplinary records without either prior written consent of the eligible student or parent or guardian of a student, or a properly issued subpoena and prior notice to the eligible student or the parent or guardian of a student with an opportunity to seek protective action... (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.31, 9(i) and (ii).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner believes, however, that a separate provision in FERPA may allow a school district to disseminate certain educational data without consent if the student is under 18 years of age. 34 C.F.R. section 99.38 states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a) If reporting or disclosure allowed by State statute concerns the juvenile justice system and the system&apos;s ability to effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose records are released, an educational agency or institution may disclose education records under section99.31(a)(5)(i)(B).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (b) The officials and authorities to whom the records are disclosed shall certify in writing to the educational agency or institution that the information will not be disclosed to any other party, except as provided under State law, without the prior consent of the parent or student.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner contacted the Federal Department of Education regarding the applicability of 34 C.F.R. section 99.38 and received a response from staff of the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). The FPCO is responsible for investigating potential violations of FERPA and providing technical assistance to schools, including providing verbal and written interpretations of FERPA. FPCO staff wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Section 99.38 of the FERPA regulations implements a statutory provision in FERPA that is very narrowly tailored. That is, we have interpreted that provision to mean that [Minnesota] must have established a juvenile justice system for the sharing of information on unadjudicated children at risk. We jointly wrote with the Department of Justice a publication explaining this provision...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The provision is not intended to permit a school to disclose information to a local law enforcement authority or juvenile authority without the consent of the parents or benefit of a subpoena or court order.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In 2002, the Legislature made changes to section 13.32 regarding dissemination of certain educational data by school districts to the juvenile justice system. In amending section 13.32, the Legislature relied on the report FPCO referenced above. The language in section 13.32 relating to access by the juvenile justice system is at subdivision 8:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (a) Upon request, the following education data shall be disclosed under subdivision 3, clause (i), to the juvenile justice system: a student&apos;s full name, home address, telephone number, date of birth; a student&apos;s school schedule, attendance record, and photographs, if any; and parents&apos; names, home addresses, and telephone numbers.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (b) In addition, the existence of the following data about a student may be disclosed under subdivision 3, clause (i):
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (1) use of a controlled substance, alcohol, or tobacco;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) assaultive or threatening conduct that could result in dismissal from school under section 121A.45, subdivision 2, clause (b) or (c);
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) possession or use of weapons or look-alike weapons;
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (4) theft; or
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (5) vandalism or other damage to property.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Any request for access to data under this paragraph must contain an explanation of why access to the data is necessary to serve the student.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (c) A principal or chief administrative officer of a school who receives a request to disclose information about a student to the juvenile justice system under paragraph (b) shall, to the extent permitted by federal law, notify the student&apos;s parent or guardian by certified mail of the request to disclose information before disclosing the information. If the student&apos;s parent or guardian notifies the principal or chief administrative officer within ten days of receiving the certified notice that the parent or guardian objects to the disclosure, the principal or chief administrative officer must not disclose the information. The principal or chief administrative officer must inform the requesting member of the juvenile justice system of the objection.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (d) A principal or chief administrative officer is not required to create data under this subdivision. Information provided in response to a data request under paragraph (b) shall indicate only whether the data described in paragraph (b) exist. The principal or chief administrative officer is not authorized under paragraph (b) to disclose the actual data or other information contained in the student&apos;s education record. A principal or chief administrative officer is not required to provide data that are protected by court order. A principal or chief administrative officer must respond to a data request within 14 days if no objection is received from the parent or guardian.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (e) Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the disclosure of educational data pursuant to court order.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (f) A school district, its agents, and employees who provide data in good faith under this subdivision are not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or an award of attorney fees in an action under section 13.08, or other law, or for a penalty under section 13.09.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (g) Section 13.03, subdivision 4, applies to data that are shared under this subdivision with a government entity. If data are shared with a member of the juvenile justice system who is not a government entity, the person receiving the shared data must treat the data consistent with the requirements of this chapter applicable to a government entity.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (h) A member of the juvenile justice system who falsely certifies a request for data under this section is subject to the penalties under section 13.09.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Thus, if the student is under 18 years of age, it appears that the District, after reporting a crime committed by the student, can release, pursuant to the juvenile justice provision, certain private data about that student to external law enforcement and prosecuting authorities. However, in doing so, the District must follow the steps cited above. The Commissioner notes that pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 8(a) and (b), only limited data can be disclosed.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If, however, the student is 18 years of age or older, the juvenile justice provision does not apply. Therefore, the District must get consent from the student, or a court order or subpoena, to release the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and related federal law, Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate School District 916 would violate the rights of a student if, after reporting a crime committed by the student, the District released special education and disciplinary records to external law enforcement and prosecuting authorities. However, if the student is under 18 years old, the District may release limited educational data about the student if the District follows the process outlined in section 13.32, subdivision 8, Access by juvenile justice system. If the student is 18 years or older, the juvenile justice provision does not apply and the District cannot release the data without consent from the student, or a court order or subpoena.
                              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 7, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267445</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement/juvenile justice system</Title><Id>267114</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA</Title><Id>266318</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-028</Title><title>Opinion 03 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267531&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Farmington in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, with regard to the appointment of a responsible authority?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for a copy of the City&apos;s City Council-resident complaint resolution process?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for the public document that provides information about the City&apos;s responsible authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2003; City of Farmington</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 1, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated June 27, 2003, from Larry Walsh. In his letter, Mr. Walsh asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data the City of Farmington maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification. Mr. Walsh submitted his revised opinion request on July 9, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Walsh&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ed Shukle, whom the Commissioner believed to be Administrator of the City. (IPAD subsequently learned that Dan Siebenhaler is the Interim City Administrator.) The purposes of this letter, dated July 14, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Walsh&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 25, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated July 24, 2003, from Joel Jamnik, an attorney representing the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts as Mr. Walsh presented them is as follows. On June 11, 2003, Mr. Walsh sent an email to the City&apos;s Mayor. In the email, Mr. Walsh asked the Mayor to identify the City&apos;s responsible authority. Mr. Walsh also asked for a copy of the annual Responsible Authority identification document required by Chapter 13 and for a copy of the complaint policy referred to in [an article in the &lt;i&gt;This Week&lt;/i&gt; newspaper]. Mr. Walsh provided to the Commissioner a copy of the article. The first paragraph states, Because the handling and resolution of resident complaints is a high service priority of the Farmington City Council and staff, a policy was enacted in 1997 establishing a City Council-resident complaint resolution process.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Kevin Carroll, the City&apos;s Community Development Director, responded to Mr. Walsh&apos;s email on June 17, 2003. He wrote, [Mr. Walsh&apos;s data request has] been directed to the City Attorney, and he will be providing you with a separate response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                As of the date of Mr. Walsh&apos;s opinion request, he has not received a response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Walsh asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Is the City of Farmington in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, with regard to the appointment of a responsible authority?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for a copy of the City&apos;s City Council-resident complaint resolution process?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for the public document that provides information about the City&apos;s responsible authority?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Is the City of Farmington in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, with regard to the appointment of a responsible authority? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 1, provides, The responsible authority shall prepare a public document containing the authority&apos;s name, title and address...Beginning August 1, 1977 and annually thereafter, the responsible authority shall update the public document and make any changes necessary to maintain the accuracy of the document. Minnesota Rules, Parts 1205.1000 - 1200, provide additional guidance regarding the public document and the responsible authority&apos;s appointment of any designees.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Jamnik provided a copy of Resolution No. R16-84 Appointing a Responsible Authority and Assigning Duties. The resolution was signed on March 19, 1984. The document names the responsible authority at that time. Another document Mr. Jamnik provided to the Commissioner is entitled, Administrative Policy - 07, Data Practices Procedures. It does not appear to be dated. Section II of this document states, The person who is the responsible authority for compliance with [Chapter 13] is the City Administrator. The responsible authority has designated the Human Resources Director as the Data Practices Compliance Official to assist in complying with [Chapter 13].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It appears the City&apos;s Administrative Policy - 07, Data Practices Procedures document is the public document described in section 13.05, subdivision 1. (Mr. Walsh referred to this document in his data request as the annual Responsible Authority identification document. ) If so, it should be updated annually. Mr. Jamnik did not provide any information as to whether this is the case. In addition, the City&apos;s document should state the name, job title, and address of the individual serving as the responsible authority. The Administrative Policy - 07, Data Practices Procedures document states only the job title. Thus, it appears the City technically is not in compliance with certain requirements of Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205 regarding the public document.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for a copy of the City&apos;s City Council-resident complaint resolution process? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When a government entity receives a data request from a requestor who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Jamnik wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Unfortunately, no estimated timeline for completion of the search compilation and response was provided....If the City&apos;s initial response had provided an expected timeline for completion, perhaps Mr. Walsh would have not thought it necessary to seek an Advisory Opinion, but nonetheless, the City did immediately begin the process to search for and collect data responsive to the request....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The data requested by Mr. Walsh has been compiled and forwarded to him by letter dated July 21, 2003. That data includes information on the matters identified in your letter to the City regarding the appointment of the Responsible Authority, Data Practices Compliance Official, citizen guide, and the complaint process...
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Jamnik attached to his comments a copy of the materials the City forwarded to Mr. Walsh. They include the identities of the responsible authority and data practices compliance official, and, in addition to those discussed in regard to Issue 1, copies of the following: Council Policy - 01, Council-Resident Complaint Resolution Process ; and Administrative Policy - 06, Public Communications.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Walsh made his request on June 11, 2003, and the City did not provide him with the copies he requested until sometime shortly after July 21, 2003. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, such a response time is outside the scope of what is appropriate, prompt or reasonable.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 3:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for the public document that provides information about the City&apos;s responsible authority? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      See discussion regarding Issue 2.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Walsh raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The City of Farmington does not appear to be in compliance with specific provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, relating to the appointment of a responsible authority. Assuming the City&apos;s Administrative Policy - 07, Data Practices Procedures is the document required pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 1, it should contain the name, address, and job title of the responsible authority. In addition, it should be updated annually.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Farmington did not respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for a copy of the City&apos;s City Council-resident complaint resolution process.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Farmington did not respond appropriately to a June 11, 2003, request for the public document that provides information about the City&apos;s responsible authority.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 7, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267531</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Name, title, and address</Title><Id>266627</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-027</Title><title>Opinion 03 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267672&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Grant respond appropriately to a May 16, 2003, request for access to government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2003; City of Grant</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt; In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 20, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Richard F. Rosow, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc. In this letter, Mr. Rosow asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data he believed are maintained by the City of Grant. Mr. Rosow and the City continued to correspond, and Mr. Rosow asked the Commissioner to consider the additional information in rendering this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Rosow&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Barb Bartholdi, City Clerk, several times, as Mr. Rosow submitted additional information. These letters, the last of which was dated July 8, 2003, informed her of Mr. Rosow&apos;s request and asked her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 18, 2003, IPAD received a response from Kevin K. Shoeberg, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated May 16, 2003, Mr. Rosow requested access to data related to recycling contracts, including [e]xecuted copies of the contract agreement between the City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation Inc. and/or TMP Recycling from 1998 to the present and a copy of the unsigned contract agreement between the City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation Inc. for curb recycling, for the year 2003, which unsigned document is in the possession of the City Attorney. According to Mr. Rosow, on May 29, 2003, he spoke with both Ms. Bartholdi and Mr. Shoeberg and was assured that the documents would be sent out within the next several days. Mr. Rosow wrote to Mr. Shoeberg on June 5, 2003, reiterating his request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated June 18, 2003, Mr. Shoeberg wrote to Mr. Rosow, and stated he had enclosed a copy of the unsigned contract for the period of May 1, 2001 to May 1, 2002. He further stated:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The City is not currently in possession of any signed contracts between the City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s. We are continuing to check the City file given the fact that the City has had two different clerks since 1999. If they are able to locate a copy, I will provide a copy to you.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I have reviewed your claim that a contract exists for the year 2003 and I do not believe that this position is supported by the documents or the record. Since, there was no written contract, the motion in January of 2003 would have continued the contract on a month to month basis. At the last meeting your client indicated that he thought they had a contract through 2003.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated June 24, 2003, Mr. Rosow wrote to the Commissioner that yesterday I received from the City Attorney some but not all of the documents I requested. In his response to Mr. Shoeberg, Mr. Rosow wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I am in receipt of your letter of June 18, 2003. Your letter states that there is no contract in the City&apos;s possession that was provided to the City for the year 2003. This is contrary to my conversation with the City Clerk and with you. When I first called the City Clerk and requested a copy of the unsigned contract that Mike Maroney had submitted to the City Clerk, she informed me that she had delivered all the documents to you. When I called and spoke with you, you told me that you had that unsigned contract. I asked if you would fax it to me and you said you would. Now you tell me that no such contract exists. Perhaps there is confusion of whether I am looking for a signed contract or a copy of the unsigned contract that Maroney&apos;s submitted to the City for execution after the January 8 meeting. My request is for the unsigned contract that was submitted to the City of Grant following the January 8 meeting.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter to Mr. Rosow dated June 23, 2003, Ms. Bartholdi stated: [a]s I told you in our telephone conversation I gave our City Attorney the only copy of the recycling contract I had in my possession. The contract needed to be revised and updated and I could not advise my Mayor to sign it until it had been brought up to date.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Rosow wrote to the Commissioner: [t]his is confirmation by the City Clerk that the document I requested on behalf of my client, Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc., was in possession of the City and was given to the City Attorney. This document has not been provided to Maroney&apos;s Sanitation pursuant to our request under the Data Practices Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Shoeberg stated:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              On behalf of the City, I respectfully submit that your office does not have jurisdiction in this matter, as the City turned over all data requested by Mr. Rosow and made no determinations regarding data or data practices which were adverse to Mr. Rosow. Since, Mr. Rosow is not a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision he is not allowed to request an opinion under these circumstances. See M.S. section13.072. However, in response to your request, the City appropriately responded to Mr. Rosow&apos;s response [sic] as all data in the possession of the City, even data that had not been distributed to members of the City Council and Mayor was provided to Mr. Rosow.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              A discussion of the facts in this matter is appropriate in order to fully understand the events. On January 8, 2003 the City of Grant held its first meeting of the year. Mr. Rosow&apos;s client Maroney&apos;s believed that they had been approved for a contract with the City at the January 8, 2003 City Council meeting. During our investigation we could find no evidence that the City of Grant approved a contract or appointment with Maroney&apos;s on January 8, 2003. The City does not dispute that Maroney&apos;s has provided service in the past and continues to provide recycling services to the City of Grant. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the appointment list. Maroney&apos;s is not on that list and the minutes from the City Council meeting verifies [sic] that Maroney&apos;s was never appointed or a contract approved at the January 8, 2003 meeting. During our investigation, I could not find any evidence that a contract with Maroney&apos;s was ever included in the City Council packet or reviewed by the City Council, nor could I find a contract for the year 2002.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Because of issues raised concerning the need to make sure that the City had valid contracts with all contractors, the City Clerk checked her file and could not find a contract for Maroney&apos;s. The City Clerk contacted Maroney&apos;s and asked whether they had a copy of the contract for the city files. Maroney&apos;s indicated that they did not have a copy of the contract. About the same time, the City of Grant lost approximately $36,000 in LGA funds and one of the recommendations from the City Treasurer was to charge residents for recycling. At the same time the City received information that another recycling company wanted to make a proposal to provide recycling at a cost less than Maroney&apos;s. The City Council directed the City Attorney to put together a request for proposals to provide recycling services to the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Maroney&apos;s appeared before the City Council and indicated that they believed they had a contract for the year 2003. The City Council directed the attorney to review the contract and report back to the City Council.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              On May 16, 2003, the City of Grant received the letter from Mr. Rosow requesting certain documents from the City. I spoke with Mr. Mr. [sic] Rosow and he requested that I fax to him a copy of the contract which I received from the clerk. I did not fax the copy because the copy I received from the clerk was dated May 2001 to May 2002. I thought the clerk gave me the wrong copy. As it turned out this was the copy that the City Clerk had received and is why she advised Mr. Rosow that the contract could not be signed because it needed to be &apos;revised and updated.&apos;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The City of Grant has limited resources and employs a City Clerk who works on a part time basis. At the time the City also had a treasurer who worked part time. The City had also started its audit and certain records were turned over to the Auditor whose office is located in Redwood Falls, Minnesota. The City Clerk and I checked various locations for the documents requested. This included a review of the request with the Treasurer and a search of her files, a review of the files in the City office on Recycling, and review of the records which were sent to the Auditor. We also contacted the person who took minutes for the Clerk as she was not present at the meeting on January 8, 2003. All of this was done in order to ensure that we turned over all documents related to the request. On June 18, 2003, I provided Mr. Rosow with the documents which were relevant to his request. . . . .
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Shoeberg enclosed copies of correspondence to the City from Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc., dated June 17 and 25, 2003. The June 17 letter contains the following statement:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              On January 8, 2003 the City Council approved a contract with Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc. Following the meeting I delivered an original of the contract to the City Clerk for signature. Although we have continued to provide service the City contracted for, we have not received back a signed copy of the contract. Enclosed is the contract you agreed to in your January 8th council meeting. It is the same contract we have used in the past. As in the past, I have changed the dates to reflect the contract term. We have executed both copies. Please sign and return one copy for our records.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The document enclosed with that letter, entitled Contract Agreement Between City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc. for Full Service Curbside Recycling, refers to the effective time period as May 1, 2003 through May 1, 2004.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The June 25, 2003, letter contains the following:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              We have amended the effective dates for the contract between the City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation Inc. Although the prior year contract ran from May 2001 to May 2002, your attorney indicated he would recommend the request for proposal be sent out for January 2004. As per your attorneys [sic] suggestion, we have amended the contract to run through December 31 of 2003. We have included 2 executed copies of the contract between the City and Maroney&apos;s. Please sign both retain one for your files and send back a copy for our files.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The document enclosed with that letter, entitled Contract Agreement Between City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc. for Full Service Curbside Recycling, refers to the effective time period as May 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Both documents contain the following statement : [t]his agreement is made this 8th day of January, 2003. . . .
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Shoeberg stated:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              I received a letter from Mr. Rosow on June 23, 2003 indicating that he believed that I had a contract dated 2003. . . . . The City Clerk and I both checked our files and the only contract, which the City had in our possession was the one dated May 1, 2001. It appears that the contract delivered by Mr. Rosow&apos;s client allegedly for 2003 was dated May 1, 2001. This is the same copy that I delivered to Mr. Rosow on June 18, 2003. I sent a letter to Mr. Rosow dated July 17, 2003 verifying this information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              Mr. Rosow&apos;s client must also believe this to be the case as they have now forwarded [sic] to the City on two separate occasions. First, on June 17, 2003, the City received a contract which was dated January 8, 2003 for the period of May 1, 2003 to May 1, 2004. . . . . The second contract was forwarded to the City on June 25, 2003 which is dated January 8, 2003 and covers the period of May 31, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
              The City of Grant turned over all documents requested by Mr. Rosow as soon as practical. The City did not classify any of the documents as private or non-public. The only unsigned contract which was provided to the City is the one dated May 1, 2001. There were no contracts dated for 2003 until the letters received on June 17 and June 25 from Mr. Rosow&apos;s client.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rosow asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Grant respond appropriately to a May 16, 2003, request for access to government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, [u]pon request of any person who disagrees with a determination [of a government entity] regarding data practices that person may request an opinion from the Commissioner. Mr. Shoeberg claims that the Commissioner may not issue an opinion here because the City has not made a determination adverse to Mr. Rosow. However, based in part on statements made to him by the City, Mr. Rosow believes that he has been denied access to public government data. That belief is sufficient for the Commissioner to issue an opinion per Mr. Rosow&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly there is dispute between the City of Grant and Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc., regarding the terms of a contractual agreement, or even whether there is a contractual agreement between them. The Commissioner has no comment on that issue. The issue the Commissioner will address is whether the City appropriately responded to Mr. Rosow&apos;s request for access to a copy of a contract or contracts between the City and Maroney&apos;s. (In his May 16, 2003, request, Mr. Rosow requested access to various data. It appears that access to the contract(s) is the only thing still at issue.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner also notes that the facts as presented to him are difficult to sort out. In the correspondence between Mr. Rosow and the City, both refer to the existence or not of contracts, either signed or unsigned, but do not in each instance refer to those contracts with specificity. For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner will consider Mr. Rosow&apos;s right to gain access to any and all contracts between the City and Maroney&apos;s, whether signed or unsigned, from the time period 1998 to the present, that the City maintains. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the contracts are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Rosow believes, based on statements made by his client and the City, that the City maintained a copy of the contract that Maroney&apos;s submitted for the City to sign at some point after the January 8, 2003, City Council meeting. Given the confusion in the communication between the City and Mr. Rosow, it is understandable that he made that assumption.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the City reasonably ought to maintain data that document any kind of contractual agreement that the City enters into. However, according to Mr. Shoeberg, the only contract with Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, Inc., that the City maintains is for the time period of May 2001 to May 2002. Mr. Shoeberg offered no explanation why the City does not maintain a copy of the contract it suggests was in force in 2002. It is not clear if the City had any other contractual agreement with Maroney&apos;s or TMP Recycling during the time period of 1998 to present, but if it did, it needs to explain why it does not maintain any copies of those contracts.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Presumably contracts are official records for purposes of section 15.17 and section 138.17, and as such, the City is required to maintain those data for a certain period of time. The City could justify its position that it does not maintain copies of any of the contracts that Mr. Rosow requested, i.e., for the time period of 1998 to the present, other than for the time period of May 2001 to May 2002, by providing him with a copy of the approved records retention schedule(s) showing the retention period for contracts, and by further providing copies of the records destruction reports showing that any contracts were, in fact, destroyed in compliance with the approved retention schedule.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Several provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, govern access to public government data. A fundamental requirement is that government entities must establish procedures, consistent with [Chapter 13], to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 3 (c) states that if a government entity cannot provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be provided as soon as reasonably possible. In addition, according to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data must be maintained in such manner as to be easily accessible for convenient use by the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Maroney&apos;s Sanitation, they provided the City with a copy of the contract agreement sometime following the January 8, 2003 meeting. Mr. Shoeberg stated that the City had no contract for 2003 until Maroney&apos;s sent them to the City on June 17 and 25, 2003, as noted above. The Commissioner cannot resolve whether Maroney&apos;s did in fact, send the contracts to the City prior to Mr. Rosow&apos;s request for copies, or if so, why the City did not maintain them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The nature of communications between the City and Mr. Rosow has, in the Commissioner&apos;s view, contributed to the confusion here. Mr. Shoeberg and Ms. Bartholdi both told Mr. Rosow, at various times, that they had copies of a contract that they would send to him. Subsequently, Mr. Shoeberg assumed that the copy he had was not the right one. It appears that Mr. Shoeberg did not communicate that to Mr. Rosow in a timely fashion, but it is not clear.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City does appear to have made a thorough search to find the data requested. However, such an extensive search presumably would not be necessary if the City maintained its data such that they are easily accessible for convenient use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Shoeberg provided Mr. Rosow with a copy of the contract for the time period of May 2001 to May 2002, with his letter dated June 18, 2003, some four and one-half weeks after Mr. Rosow&apos;s May 16, 2003, request. The Commissioner acknowledges that the City of Grant has part-time employees. Nonetheless, it is obligated to provide prompt access to public government data, per section 13.03. The City was obligated to tell Mr. Rosow clearly whether it had data responsive to his request, and provide him with prompt access to those data. It appears the City did neither.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Rosow is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Grant did not respond appropriately to a May 16, 2003, request for access to government data, because it did not respond promptly. In addition, the City may be obligated, per sections 15.17 and 138.17, to maintain copies of contracts that were in force for the time period of 1998 to the present.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 7, 2003
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267672</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts are public</Title><Id>266806</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official Records Act (15.17) See also: Records management</Title><Id>266369</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records retention schedule</Title><Id>266534</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:48:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-026</Title><title>Opinion 03 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267853&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-08-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a March 7, 2003, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 2003; School Disrict 832 (Mahtomedi)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 15, 2003, IPAD received a letter from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to data that Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, maintains about X&apos;s child, Y.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 15, 2003, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 24, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Karen Kepple, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. In a letter dated March 7, 2003, X wrote to Mr. Wolak and requested copies of the following data about Y: All documentation related to [Y&apos;s] recorder of history profile;...copies of all documentation that the district has complied with its own policies and procedures in this situation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 27, 2003, a District principal responded, and provided some data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote, I did not receive a response until March 27, 2003...The only private educational data the district provided in their response was a copy of [Y&apos;s] completed recorders of history profile...The response was not made within the timelines [sic] of [Chapter 13].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, respond appropriately to a March 7, 2003, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when a data subject requests access to government data about him/herself, the entity must respond within ten working days. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent is entitled, with limited exceptions which apparently do not apply here, to gain access to data about his/her minor child.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...Mr. Mackin responded to [X&apos;s] March 7, 2003 data request within three days after he received the request. Between the time the request was actually first received by Superintendent Mark Wolak and the time Mr. Mackin was able to respond to the request, there was a 9-day period from March 15-23, 2003 while the school district&apos;s spring break occurred. If you exclude the period of time during which spring break occurred, when employees were not reporting to work, 10-11 days elapsed from the date of the request to the date of Mr. Mackin&apos;s response. This is certainly a reasonable and timely response under the circumstances.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...As is clear from Mr. Mackin&apos;s March 27, 2003 letter, there are no ...copies of all documentation that the district has complied with its own policies and procedures in this situation. The only data requested which actually exists is the documentation relating to [Y&apos;s] recorder of history profile, and that data has already been provided to the parent....As the Commissioner is aware, the school district is not obligated to create data to satisfy a data request....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In summary, ISD #832 responded to the parent&apos;s data request in a timely manner, given the circumstances of spring break occurring shortly after the data request was received by the school district, and all data requested, which actually exists, was provided to the parent with the district&apos;s March 27, 2003 response.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As stated above, section 13.04 requires that government entities respond to requests from data subjects within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Here, Ms. Kepple argues that because the District&apos;s spring break occurred shortly after X made his/her request, the District had extra time within which to respond. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Kepple. Section 13.04 is clear in its statement of the ten day response time and no exceptions are noted. Thus, the District did not respond in a timely manner to X&apos;s data request. The Commissioner notes that if government entities shut down at times other than Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays, they need to have a process in place such that data requests can be received and processed as required by statute.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding the completeness of the District&apos;s response, Ms. Kepple stated that the District provided all data responsive to X&apos;s request and informed X that no other data exist. X asked for all documentation related to [Y&apos;s] recorder of history profile and copies of all documentation that the district has complied with its own policies and procedures in this situation. In reviewing Mr. Mackin&apos;s March 27, 2003, response, it appears he provided to X a copy of Y&apos;s submission of work to fulfill the Recorders of History Graduation Standard and the general assignment. Mr. Mackin also stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      We do not have anything in our district policies or building procedures that would specifically address the communication responsibilities of the teacher regarding an incomplete graduation standard. Our report card includes any graduation standards earned that term and we annually give our [students] a mid-year update of their graduation standards transcript. That would be what you received in February....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      I have included a copy of the expectations we give to teachers regarding the communication of incomplete grades or failure grades. While it does not explicitly state graduation standards, I would expect teachers to communicate those in similar fashion.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When a government entity responds to a data request, it should make every effort to address the specifics of the request as clearly as possible. In other words, if an individual has requested two different types of data, the entity should list each item and discuss (1) that it is providing the data, (2) the statutory basis on which it is denying access to the data, or (3) that the data do not exist. Obviously, if an entity does not understand an individual&apos;s request, the entity needs to seek clarification prior to expiration of the statutory response time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Here, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that in his March 27, 2003, letter to X, Mr. Mackin could have been more clear in discussing the District&apos;s response to X&apos;s data request. On March 7, 2003, X requested access to data. Regarding X&apos;s request for all documentation related to [Y&apos;s] recorder of history profile, Mr. Mackin provided some related data but did not inform X that no other data exist. Regarding X&apos;s request for copies of all documentation that the district has complied with its own policies and procedures in this situation, Mr. Mackin responded, We do not have anything in our district policies or building procedures that would specifically address the communication responsibilities of the teacher regarding an incomplete graduation standard. He also provided to X a copy of the expectations we give to teachers regarding the communication of incomplete grades or failure grades. It does not appear to the Commissioner that Mr. Mackin specifically addressed whether the District does or does not have the data X requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi, did not respond appropriately to a March 7, 2003, request for access to data.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 1, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267853</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-025</Title><title>Opinion 03 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267501&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following components of the Nobles County policy regarding public access to the &quot;feedlot inventory&quot; allowable: a) Requestor must submit a written application; b) There is a five-day waiting period; c) The cost is $250; d) Requestor must pick up copy in person; and e) Copy is available in printed format only?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 31, 2003; Nobles County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 26, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Patricia Wolff. In this letter, Ms. Wolff asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Nobles County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Wolff&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Melvin J. Ruppert, Nobles County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated June 30, 2003, were to inform him of Ms. Wolff&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On July 10, 2003, IPAD received a response from Gordon L. Moore, III, Nobles County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Wolff wrote that a new policy in Nobles County, which she characterized as restricting access to information on feedlots, appeared to be in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The new policy, approved by the Nobles County Board of Commissioners on June 24, 2003, contains the following provisions regarding public access to the feedlot inventory: the requestor must submit a written application; there is a five-day waiting period; the cost for a copy is $250; the copy must be picked up in person; and a copy is available in printed format only.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Moore provided some background regarding the feedlot inventory. He stated that the County had considered classifying the inventory as security information as that term is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a). According to Mr. Moore, the reason was the County&apos;s great interest in the value added to the local economy by animal agriculture and the concern regarding potential acts of bio-terrorism and the devastating potential of such acts on Nobles County. Instead, the County sought recommendations from its Planning Advisory Commission and its Environmental Advisory Committee. Those recommendations were adopted by the Board as the new policy at issue here.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In 1994, Nobles County passed a feedlot-licensing ordinance. Under this ordinance, Nobles County received a delegation of feedlot permitting from the State allowable under Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07. Counties that assume responsibility for the feedlot permitting process must complete a Level II Feedlot Inventory, which, according to Mr. Moore, was an extensive and expensive process. (The Inventory is a requirement under rules promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. See Minnesota Rules, section 7020.0350.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Moore stated the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Nobles County received a grant from the Board of Water and Soil Resources for $35,000 to assist with the costs of developing the Feedlot Inventory. However, this grant covered only a part of the over $100,000 cost to the County for the completion of the inventory.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On July 7, 2003, the [inventory] consisted of 104 separate 11 by 17 printed pages of data. The [Excel] spreadsheet does not print out the data in an immediately reviewable manner; the pages are not sequentially numbered but it has to be assembled by staff and is eight pages across and 13 pages down when placed together. The spreadsheet also requires explanation by staff as to what it means.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Unfortunately, due to the limitations of the present computer equipment in the Public Works Office, printing off the entire Feedlot Inventory is a laborious and time-consuming process for Office staff. The large paper size necessitated [sic] for the Inventory and the large amount of data printed typically results in computer crashes and/or paper jams in the printer, and requires a staff member to monitor printing status. Additionally, the assembly of the inventory into a meaningful document requires staff time as well. It is typical for the printing and assembly of the entire inventory to take up to two hours. The full-time benefited [sic] secretary who is handling this printing makes $13.96 per hour excluding benefits, which typically can add an additional 35% to total County cost.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The $250.00 fee for a copy of the entire Inventory is based upon staff time for printing the inventory, paper cost, and ink cost ($75.00), in addition to the commercial value of the inventory ($175.00). The commercial value is based on a prior history of feed and livestock building salespersons who have contacted Wayne Smith [Director of Environmental Services for the County] regarding the Inventory for assistance with their sales routes. For those persons, the Feedlot Inventory constitutes a targeted mailing list for such persons in one of the largest livestock producing Counties in the State. The County spent in excess of $100,000 on development costs for the inventory and the County believed that recouping a small amount of this fee would be appropriate if the entire Inventory was requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If an individual wishes to see a specific part of the inventory or get specific information about feedlots in a particular part of the County, County staff will provide that information for inspection at no cost. The County policy regarding the waiting period was included to let people know that the Inventory would not necessarily be available immediately and to give staff a reasonable chance to copy the inventory off without interrupting other County business. Mr. Smith explains that if his staff could complete the copying prior to the expiration of five days he would certainly provide the data at that time. Because the inventory changes sometimes on a weekly basis, a copy made last month would not necessarily reflect the status of the Inventory, necessitating a new printout.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Inventory has never been made available by the County in an electronic format on the County&apos;s website or on any remote access location.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Moore discussed each component of the County&apos;s policy, which the Commissioner will consider below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Wolff asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following components of the Nobles County policy regarding public access to the feedlot inventory allowable: a) Requestor must submit a written application; b) There is a five-day waiting period; c) The cost is $250; d) Requestor must pick up copy in person; and e) Copy is available in printed format only?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner does wish to note, at the outset of this discussion, that the County&apos;s policy arose from a discussion about potential County targets for terrorism. The County contemplated, but chose not to assert that the inventory is security information within the meaning of section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a). Accordingly, there is no dispute here that the inventory is classified as public. (If the County continues to have reasonable concerns for security, it may ask the Commissioner to address in a separate opinion whether it may invoke section 13.37 to deny public access to the inventory.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Several provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, govern access to public government data. A fundamental requirement is that government entities must establish procedures, consistent with [Chapter 13], to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. The County did not address how the policy at issue here conforms to the County&apos;s general data access procedures. It would seem, that if the County has established those procedures, it would not have needed to enact a policy that applies to a particular document. The Commissioner has opined that government entities must apply such procedures consistently to all data they maintain.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      With respect to the County&apos;s requirement that anyone seeking a copy of the inventory apply in writing, Mr. Moore stated that section 13.03 does not require data requests to be made in writing, [and] it does not prohibit such requirements either. Mr. Moore said the County&apos;s requirement is communicated clearly to the public, and is intended to avoid disputes. Mr. Moore also stated: . . . requiring someone to request a copy of [the inventory] in writing provides a record of whom it has been distributed to . . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Moore is correct that section 13.03 is silent with respect to any requirement that a data request be made in writing. He cited Advisory Opinion 95-030, in which the Commissioner opined that a government entity may chose to require written requests for data. Government entities are free to establish that requirement as part of their public access policies and procedures. As noted above, it is not clear to the Commissioner if that requirement is consistently applied to requests for other government data the County maintains.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner finds Mr. Moore&apos;s statement about the County maintaining a record of individuals who have requested a copy of the inventory problematic. According to section 13.05, subdivision 12, [u]nless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. The Opinion Mr. Moore cited predates the section 13.05 prohibition on requiring persons to identify themselves in order to gain access to data. The County may ask for identification only for the purpose of facilitating access to the data, not in order to create a record of those seeking copies of the inventory.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his discussion of the County&apos;s five-day waiting period for a copy of the inventory, Mr. Moore discussed the laborious process involved in creating a copy. He stated: . . . the Inventory typically takes . . . up to two hours to copy and assemble. Depending on the press of business, this could be an extreme inconvenience to the County if the requirement was that the copy be immediately available for pickup. Mr. Moore noted that the Commissioner has previously opined that government entities do not need to provide immediate access to public government data, but must respond promptly.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.03, subdivision 3 (c) provides that if a government entity cannot provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be provided as soon as reasonably possible. In addition, according to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data must be maintained in such manner as to be easily accessible for convenient use by the public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Moore stated that the County included the five-day waiting period in its policy as a means to communicate clearly with the public, and that if a copy can be produced sooner, it will be. On its face, that seems reasonable. However, the reasons Mr. Moore cited to explain the waiting period are problematic.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Moore, the County maintains the feedlot inventory data in a manner that is clearly not easily accessible for convenient use. The large-size paper jams the copier, the computer containing the data often crashes during printing, the pages must be assembled and explained in order to make sense, etcetera. Apparently the County opted to assume responsibility for the feedlot permitting process, at which time it should have taken whatever steps it needed to ensure that it could provide the public with related data as required by Chapter 13. Furthermore, Mr. Moore suggested that the County&apos;s need to provide copies of the inventory can interfere with other County business. Although Chapter 13 does not require government to drop everything to respond to data requests, providing the public with appropriate access to public government data, as required by Chapter 13 and other statutes, is County business. The County should examine its current process and amend it in order to be in compliance with Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      With respect to the $250.00 copy fee, Mr. Moore stated that $75.00 of that total represents the County&apos;s actual cost to search for and retrieve the approximately 104 pages of data, as well as the cost of ink, paper and employee time to make the copies. Those charges are allowable under section 13.03, subdivision 3 (d), if they are the County&apos;s actual costs.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The County collects the remaining $175.00 of the copy fee because it asserts, per section 13.03, subdivision 3 (d), that the inventory has commercial value and was developed with significant expenditure of public funds. Subdivision 3 (d) provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      From the information the County provided, it appears that the $175.00 add-on fee is appropriate, because the inventory is an entire compilation that was developed with a significant expenditure of public funds, assuming the County can provide sufficient documentation as to how the fee relates to recovery of a portion of the $100,000 development cost of the inventory. However, the County did not explain why, if the fee is new, it did not charge it in the past, and how it relates to the County&apos;s public data access policies and procedures. Government entities must apply their data access policies and procedures consistently; it is particularly helpful to the entity when dealing with data that have high public interest. In addition, the County&apos;s justification for charging an add-on fee because of the commercial value of the inventory underscores the need to maintain those data in a manner as to be reasonably accessible for convenient use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 does not directly address the County&apos;s requirement that copies of the inventory must be retrieved in person. Mr. Moore did not discuss the County&apos;s rationale, and he did not discuss whether the County requires in-person retrieval of all copies of any County data. As long as the County complies with the statutory requirement that it cannot require a requestor to supply her/his identity, the County may impose this requirement. The Commissioner wishes to note that this requirement likely means that some persons who desire access to County data will be unable to gain access, because they are unable to travel to Nobles County. That result violates the spirit, if not strictly the letter, of laws governing the rights of the public to have access to data about their government. Furthermore, strict application of this provision may cause both the County and the public practical problems and unnecessary expense. For example, in some circumstances, it may be more cost effective for the County to provide copies of government data via fax, e-mail or U.S. mail.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      With respect to the County&apos;s policy that the inventory will not be made available in electronic format, Mr. Moore stated that the inventory has never been available on the County&apos;s website, via the internet, or on any of the County&apos;s remote computer terminals. Mr. Moore stated that a government entity is not required to provide data in an electronic format that is different from the format in which the entity maintains the data. He wrote: [t]he County&apos;s policy means that the inventory is unavailable over the internet. Accuracy of the data requires that it not be subject to manipulation or change via computer programs. It is currently unknown whether or not the County has the ability to provide the data on a computer disc or CD-ROM with appropriate security devices to prohibit alteration of the data . . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Section 13.03, subdivision 3 (e) provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The responsible authority of a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. This does not require a government entity to provide the data in an electronic format or program that is different from the format or program in which the data are maintained by the government entity. The entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of providing the copy.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The issue here is not whether or not the inventory has been available electronically in the past. The inventory is maintained in an Excel spreadsheet. Mr. Moore stated that it is unknown whether the County is reasonably able to produce or have produced an electronic copy of the spreadsheet. The County must, per the requirements of section 13.03, subdivision 3 (e), make available an electronic copy of the inventory.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      An additional comment is in order. Mr. Moore said portions of the inventory may be inspected free of charge, but did not say whether the County makes the entire inventory available for free inspection. If it does not, it must, per the requirements of section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Wolff is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following components of the Nobles County policy regarding public access to the feedlot inventory are allowable, if the policy is consistent with the County&apos;s general data access policies and procedures:
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                a. The County may require the requestor to make a written request, but may not require identification, except to facilitate responding to the request.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                b. The County may reasonably take five days to fulfill a request, but must provide a copy as soon as reasonably possible. The county must meet its obligation to maintain the data so that they are reasonably accessible for convenient use.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                c. The County may, with adequate documentation, charge $75.00 for the copy of the inventory, plus an add-on fee of $175.00 to recover a portion of its development costs, because the inventory has commercial value, is an entire compilation, and was produced with a significant expenditure of public funds.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                d. The County may require a requestor to retrieve the copy in person. The Commissioner questions this requirement as potentially frustrating the rights of the public to gain access to government data. Strict adherence may cause both the County and the public practical problems and unnecessary expense.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                e. The County must provide a copy of the inventory in electronic format if it is reasonably able to do so, per the requirements of section 13.03, subdivision 3 (e).
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 31, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267501</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Written requests, procedures may require</Title><Id>266416</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-024</Title><title>Opinion 03 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267965&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-29T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to a March 12, 1997, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 2003; City of Brainerd</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 19, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Richard Olmstead. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights as a subject of data that the City of Brainerd maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Vogt, Administrator of the City of Brainerd, in response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 24, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 10, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Mr. Vogt.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Olmstead presented them is as follows. In a letter dated March 12, 1997, Mr. Olmstead wrote to Mr. Vogt, ...I am requesting that I see all data about me or my likeness that the city or any of its entitys [sic] have on file about me this [sic] request is free of charge per sec 13.04 sub 3.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Olmstead wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...the City of Brainerd&apos;s Respon [sic] Authority willfully withheld data of the Hoff + Allen Report + its [sic] clear such data was in possession of the City in 1997 to this date + in a recent disclosure such data was provided but was withheld in 1997.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to a March 12, 1997, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for access to government data of which s/he is the subject, the entity must respond within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In his response, Mr. Vogt noted that he was the one who responded to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s 1997 data request. He described his efforts to locate data about Mr. Olmstead. Mr. Vogt stated he first sought advice from IPAD staff. He described his next steps:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      (1) I sent a memo to City department heads asking them to promptly forward any data in their department files requested by Mr. Olmstead.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (2) My staff and I reviewed files in my department.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (3) I collected the data from my department and the data received from other departments in response to my directive to department heads described above.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      (4) I notified Mr. Olmstead by certified mail on March 19, 1997, that the data was being compiled and could be inspected at my office in a few days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Vogt stated that Mr. Olmstead reviewed the assembled data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Mr. Vogt continued:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Over six years later, on April 17, 2003, Mr. Olmstead requested to see the entire so-called Hoff and Allen Report....The Hoff and Allen Report was the result of an investigation conducted in late 1990 and early 1991 into allegations of misconduct within the Brainerd Police Department. The independent investigation was conducted by the law firm of Hoff and Allen, hence the name of the report.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      ...The law firm which conducted the investigation warned that the report and the supporting material contained considerable nonpublic material....As a result, the material was segregated from other City files in a locked storeroom in the basement of City Hall.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      When Mr. Olmstead requested the opportunity to see the Hoff and Allen Report this spring, I found it in the basement where it had been secured twelve years before. I reviewed the report and its backup material to separate the data Mr. Olmstead was legally entitled to see under [Chapter 13].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      During this process I found that Mr. Olmstead&apos;s name was mentioned one time in the 47 page final report. If I had ever known this, I had forgotten it by the time other department heads and I searched City files in response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s 1997 request....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Upon a detailed review of all the backup data assembled by Hoff and Allen, I found Mr. Olmstead&apos;s name was mentioned a total of six or seven more times. It turns out that he was not a prominent part of the investigation....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Now, after providing Mr. Olmstead with the data he requested from the Hoff and Allen Report in 2003, he alleges that the City willfully withheld this material in 1997. The simple fact is that the Hoff and Allen Report never occurred to me while searching City files for Mr. Olmstead&apos;s name back in 1997....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The City has acted in good faith in its efforts to respond to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s data requests. Although a challenge, the sweeping 1997 request was answered within the 10 day statutory limit. I regret that the references to Mr. Olmstead within the Hoff and Allen Report were not discovered and provided in 1997. However, the City has acted responsibly, and certainly didn&apos;t willfully withhold any data in 1997 to which he was legally entitled.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on Mr. Vogt&apos;s description of the process used in 1997 to locate data about Mr. Olmstead, it appears the City conducted a thorough and diligent search. Mr. Vogt was able to complete a fairly exhaustive search of the City&apos;s files by reviewing data from his own department as well as asking other City department heads to locate related data. The Commissioner applauds such an effort.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      However, as Mr. Vogt acknowledged, the City did not discover the references to Mr. Olmstead in the Hoff and Allen Report. This, in large part, appears to be because of the circumstances associated with the storage of the Report. As stated above, government entities are required to respond to requests from data subjects within ten working days. Technically, therefore, the City did not respond appropriately to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s 1997 request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As a final note, the Commissioner reminds government entities of the following requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 1: The responsible authority in every [government entity] shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Olmstead raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the City of Brainerd did not respond appropriately to a March 12, 1997, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 29, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267965</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-023</Title><title>Opinion 03 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268002&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Education&apos;s inclusion of a $30.00 per hour charge for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 2003; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 18, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about his rights regarding access to certain public government data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cheri Pierson Yecke, Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of this letter, dated June 19, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On July 3, 2003, IPAD received a response from Chas Anderson, Assistant Commissioner for MDE. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Pachl asked MDE for copies of any correspondence over the last two years between MDE and Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) regarding the issue of special education, excluding any complaint matters. In its response to Mr. Pachl, MDE provided a detailed invoice of the copying costs. Mr. Pachl questioned the charge of $30.00 for one hour of a supervisor&apos;s time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . The one-hour charge for a supervisor to search for and retrieve government data is authorized by law. [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).] The Department of Administration&apos;s Opinions holding that it is improper to charge an administrator&apos;s rate for making photocopies do not apply to this request because MDE charged the clerical rate for making photocopies. Due to the broad, expansive data practices request, it was necessary for the supervisor to identify and search the sources and locations of the requested data in order to comply with the request. The clerical staff then retrieved the requested data and made the photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . The Commissioner of Administration has opined that it is improper for a governmental entity to calculate the labor cost to make photocopies at an administrator&apos;s salary rate. &lt;em&gt;Advisory Opinions&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-27&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-33&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-47&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267465&quot; title=&quot;01-48&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-48&lt;/a&gt; [and] &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267230&quot; title=&quot;01-067&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-67&lt;/a&gt;. Here, however, the supervisor did not make and compile the photocopies. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Here, . . . Mr. Pachl requested copies of public data for which he. . . is not the subject. Accordingly, MDE is authorized, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3(c), to charge the time for &apos;searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this matter, it was necessary for the supervisor to search sources and locations for correspondence that address special education and the Anoka-Hennepin School District. Due to the extremely broad request, MDE was required to search the entire state agency&apos;s data base and correspondence files going back two years. This task involved inquiring and identifying where the documents might be located, ascertaining sources of the documents, and ascertaining which data would qualify for this broad request. These tasks were a part of searching for and retrieving the data. The clerical staff would not know which files need to be checked, which staff needs to be consulted, which sources to check, or make the decisions which correspondence qualified for the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated in MDE&apos;s May 29, 2003 invoice to Mr. Pachl, MDE charged for five hours of clerical time for searching, retrieving, making and compiling the photocopies. The one-hour charge for the supervisor&apos;s time was not for making or compiling any of the photocopies (the clerical staff performed those tasks). . . . . Rather, MDE is charging the [salary] rate of the actual employee who searched and located the extensive correspondence so that the clerical staff could retrieve and photocopy the documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, as MDE&apos;s letter to Mr. Pachl dated May 29, 2003 noted, Mr. Pachl may inspect the data at MDE without cost upon making prior arrangements with MDE.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Education&apos;s inclusion of a $30.00 per hour charge for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner accepts Ms. Anderson&apos;s statements that under these circumstances, an MDE supervisor needed to spend an hour determining which correspondence needed to be photocopied in order for MDE to respond properly to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to reiterate that, according to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government entities must manage the government data they maintain such that they are easily accessible for convenient use to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances described, the Minnesota Department of Education&apos;s inclusion of a $30.00 per hour charge for an hour of a supervisor&apos;s time to identify the data responsive to a request for copies of public government data is allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 29, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268002</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-022</Title><title>Opinion 03 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267407&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-10T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If a law enforcement agency responds to a request by the public for law enforcement services or takes action on its own initiative, and the request or action relates to a property-damage-only accident where the apparent extent of damage is $1000 or more, have the Chapter 13 public access rights been violated if the agency has not created or collected any data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 10, 2003; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 30, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Daniel M. Lieber. In this letter, Mr. Lieber asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of St. Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Lieber&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Luna, St. Paul City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated May 30, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Lieber&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 9, 2003, IPAD received a response from Reyne M. Rofuth, Senior Assistant City Attorney. In addition, IPAD invited the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to submit comments; the Department declined to do so. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 8, 2003, to the St. Paul Police Department, Mr. Lieber requested the names and addresses of those who have been involved in property damage only automobile accidents, where the apparent extent of damage is $1000.00 or more.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 1, 2003, the City responded to Mr. Lieber: the department does not write reports on traffic accidents unless there is a personal injury to any party or unless the officer responding to the scene discovers a driver&apos;s license or other violation of law. Therefore, we do not collect or maintain the data you requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in response to several questions posed by Mr. Lieber, the City responded that it does not collect or create the data he requested; that it does not believe it is obliged to do so under section 169.09, subdivision 8; and that it may collect, under section 13.82, certain data in response to a request for service in connection with an automobile accident.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Lieber stated: [o]bviously, one of my concerns is that the Saint Paul Police Department is responding to service requests from the public, or on their own initiative, and absolutely no data is being collected. It would seem that the department is purposely circumventing the Chapter 13 rights of the public by &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt; collecting data. (Emphasis his.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rofuth referred to various correspondence between Mr. Lieber and the City, in which he has cited Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.09, Subdivisions 8, 9, and 10 (2003) and Section 13.82 (2003), as authority that the Department is mandated to collect certain accident information, and to not do so, is a violation of either of those statutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rofuth continued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department&apos;s information is that for a period of time, unless there was a personal injury to a party in an accident or unless the Department subsequently discovers a driver&apos;s license or other violation of law, the Department officers did not investigate accidents, did not collect data to fill out accident report forms, nor did it fill out the accident report forms. When Department officers were dispatched to accident scenes, routine request for service and response data was created and maintained pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 3 and 6. But not all subpart data from these two subdivisions were created on every dispatch. If accidents involved the Department perquisite criteria of personal injury or violations of law, Department officers did investigate the accident, did collect accident report data and did fill out accident report forms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department&apos;s legal comment is that there is no statutory mandate that the Department investigate, collect accident report data and fill out accident reports pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.09 or Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The Department has the legal discretion as to what it investigates and due to budgetary concerns, investigative practices vary from year to year. If Department officers investigated an accident, accident report data was collected and the accident report form was filled out and processed pursuant to Minn. Stat section 169.09.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rofuth further stated that under section 169.09, subdivision 8, a police officer is obliged to file an accident report form only if the officer investigates the accident. Being dispatched to an accident scene and talking to parties of an accident is not an investigation. If there is no investigation, the police officer has no statutory responsibility to collect accident report data nor to collect data to be forward [sic] to the commission [sic] on an accident report form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rofuth also discussed the applicability of section 169.09, subdivisions 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10, and stated that none of these statutory provisions mandates that police officers investigate accidents or collect or create accident report data. In addition, Ms. Rofuth stated that section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6 do not mandate the collection of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lieber asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If a law enforcement agency responds to a request by the public for law enforcement services or takes action on its own initiative, and the request or action relates to a property-damage-only accident where the apparent extent of damage is $1000 or more, have the Chapter 13 public access rights been violated if the agency has not created or collected any data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 169.09, subdivision 7, provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in bodily injury to or death of any person or total property damage to an apparent extent of $1,000 or more, shall forward a written report of the accident to the commissioner of public safety within ten days thereof.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 169.09, subdivision 8, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A law enforcement officer who, in the regular course of duty, investigates a motor vehicle accident that must be reported under this section shall, within ten days after the date of the accident, forward an electronic or written report of the accident to the commissioner of public safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Rofuth, for a period of time the City did not investigate traffic accidents, or collect the data required on accident report forms, unless there was a personal injury to a party in an accident or unless the Department subsequently discovers a driver&apos;s license or other violation of law. The City may have created routine request for service and response data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Rofuth also stated that under section 169.09, subdivision 8, a police officer must file an accident report form only if the officer investigates the accident. Being dispatched to an accident scene and talking to parties of an accident is not an investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Rofuth suggested that when an officer reaches the scene of an accident, s/he, at the least, determines: 1) whether there was an injury to a person; 2) whether there is apparent property damage of at least $1000.00; and 3) whether the driver(s) has a license or other outstanding violation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the City&apos;s position that Chapter 13 does not mandate the collection of specific data in this circumstance. By way of contrast, section 169.09 does require the collection or creation of specific data under certain conditions. Nonetheless, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires that [a]ll officers and agencies of [government entities] shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, subdivision 4, states: [a]ccess to records containing government data is governed by sections 13.03 and 138.17. Accordingly, section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03, imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions, so that those records will be available for public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner said the following in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267782&quot; title=&quot;01-064&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-064&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s position, as articulated by Mr. Steiner, is that the Police Department has met its obligation under section 15.17. Mr. Erickson argues there is a specific set of facts that the Police Department did not record, as well as the general lack of an official report. While Mr. Steiner is correct that the City has certain discretion regarding what data it records and maintains, it must meet the threshold provided in section 15.17; that is, the City must make and preserve &lt;em&gt;all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities&lt;/em&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Apparently, the only data created about the first of the two police responses to Mr. Erickson&apos;s residence (Case #MP99400432) are those contained in the Emergency Communication Records. This document appears to be a log sheet documenting radio communications with the officers. Given Mr. Erickson&apos;s accounting of the events that occurred in relation to #MP99400432, it is not clear why the officers involved did not create a more detailed report of the incident. What little record the Department did create, does not enable the public to gain any understanding of the officers&apos; official activities in relation to their response to Mr. Erickson&apos;s request for assistance. There appears to be no record of what the officers did while in and around Mr. Erickson&apos;s home and why they did what they did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, therefore, based on the information provided, that the City did not sufficiently demonstrate why it did not, in this case, produce a record that would fully and accurately document the activities conducted by the police officers dispatched to Mr. Erickson&apos;s home.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same reasoning holds here. Under section 15.17, the City is obliged to document the actions its officers take as they perform their official duties at an accident scene. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rofuth stated that, at least for some period of time, City officers did not collect data to fill out accident report forms, but that officers dispatched to accident scenes did create routine request for service and response data, per section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, but that not all subpart data from these two subdivisions were created on every dispatch. Further, the City told Mr. Lieber that it does not collect or maintain the data he requested, i.e., the names and addresses of those who have been involved in property-damage-only automobile accidents, where the apparent extent of damage is $1000.00 or more. It&apos;s not clear what data the City does create or collect when it responds to accidents. However, section 15.17 does mandate that the City somehow document the official actions of its officers. To the extent that documentation corresponds to the public data provisions of section 13.82, or are otherwise public under section 13.03, those data are public. The Commissioner acknowledges that it is up to the City to determine the specific data it is obligated to collect, create and maintain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lieber is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If a law enforcement agency responds to a request by the public for law enforcement services or takes action on its own initiative, and the request or action relates to a property-damage-only accident where the apparent extent of damage is $1000 or more, the Chapter 13 public access rights have been violated if the agency does not collect, create or maintain any data, because the agency has failed to document its actions as required under section 15.17.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brain J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 10, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267407</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigation, defined</Title><Id>266847</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reports</Title><Id>245973</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-021</Title><title>Opinion 03 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267616&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-10T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains: a list of each Conservation Officer&apos;s annual citation numbers for the past two years?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 10, 2003; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 24, 2003, IPAD received a memorandum from Mary O&apos;Neill, Human Resources Administrator for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In her memorandum, Ms. O&apos;Neill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Department maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her memorandum, Ms. O&apos;Neill stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As background information, the DNR has had the ability to compare individual [Conservation Officer] CO law enforcement activity with statewide averages (M.S. 84.0285) since 1986. This ability did not create nor impose a quota system, but rather has been a tool in measuring individual CO work performance activity along with other tools such as timesheets, log reports and monthly Daily Unit Diaries. The 2001 legislative session amended the language and removed all references regarding comparing individual law enforcement activity with statewide averages....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who creates the data? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Standardized hard copy forms are completed by Conservation Officers in the Division of Enforcement, by a few other DNR employees with limited law enforcement responsibilities, and by public and Indian band law enforcement officials outside the DNR when each is involved in a Minnesota natural resource law enforcement incident. The forms are sent for data entry to DNR&apos;s Central Office in St. Paul....Since narrative information is not placed in the database, the original hard copy forms are retained and stored for future law enforcement review as needed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What information is recorded an where is it stored? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Division of Enforcement maintains a separate database titled Arrests and Confiscation on one of our mainframe systems. Information placed into the database includes arrests, confiscations, trespass violations, summons and complaints, warnings of violations, custody seizure tags and reports, and officer assists in any of the above areas. Since the data being input [sic] into the data base comes from the hard copy record completed by the law enforcement individual involved in the incident, it is recorded by that individual&apos;s name; however, once the information is in the database, information can be generated in a number of ways (e.g. by individual who violated natural resource laws, by location in Minnesota, by specific statewide natural resource law enforcement project).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is the data generated? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The primary purpose for maintaining the data is to provide information for others, including the courts, county and state attorneys and law enforcement officers to take appropriate action (e.g. when a citizen has multiple hunting or fishing violations that call for revocation of license/payment of a fine; reviewing BWI and DWI information with another jurisdiction).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Closely coupled with the above purpose is the ability to track Conservation Officer activities with complaints. Sometimes individuals may file false complaints. The Division of Enforcement must sort out and deal with valid and invalid complaints. When an individual files a complaint on alleged misconduct by one or more of the DNR&apos;s 160+ Conservation Officers, which occurs about ten to twenty times per year, one of the first actions taken by the Division of Enforcement is to determine if there is any record of the situation in the Arrests and Confiscation database. If there is a record, the Division could then pull the hard copy form sent in for data entry to review any pertinent narrative information on the original form.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                While certainly not a primary purpose, the database can and has provided summary reports for legislative committees, user groups, etc., on natural resource law enforcement activity. None of these reports have been about individual officer activity.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. O&apos;Neill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains: a list of each Conservation Officer&apos;s annual citation numbers for the past two years?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Upon examination of the facts Ms. O&apos;Neill presented, it appears there are two provisions in Chapter 13 that could classify the data in question. One possibility is that the data are personnel data classified pursuant to section 13.43. Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee. A reasonable argument could be made that the number of citations a particular officer issues on a yearly basis are data of which the officer is the subject and were collected because the officer is an employee of the Department. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Because the number of citations an employee issues is not listed as one of the types of data listed as public in section 13.43, the data are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The other provision which could classify the data is section 13.82. Section 13.82 applies to agencies carrying on a law enforcement function. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Of relevance to this opinion, subdivisions 3 (request for service data) and 6 (response or incident data) specify certain law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 6(b) classifies the following data as always public when an agency responds to a request for service or takes action on its own initiative: agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action unless the identities of agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 17. Thus, the data requestor would be able to determine how many citations a particular officer issued by culling through various daily reports.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.17 discusses presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent. In relevant part, it provides that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. Section 645.26 discusses irreconcilable provisions. Subdivision 1 of section 645.26 states, in part, When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. Section 645.26, subdivision 1, further provides that if two provisions are irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner acknowledges the care with which the Legislature has adopted policy concerning the classification of personnel data. It is also clear, based on the language in section 13.82, that the Legislature intended certain data about law enforcement employees to be public. If the Department were to withhold the number of citations for a given officer, the result would be absurd because a member of the public could obtain the same data by perusing the daily officer reports. Furthermore, while section 13.43 is specific in its classification of personnel data, section 13.82 is more specific in that it classifies personnel data maintained by law enforcement agencies in particular. In addition, because the Legislature adopted section 13.82 after adopting section 13.43, it clearly understood that certain information about personnel carrying out law enforcement functions would be public. Another indication the Legislature was aware that certain law enforcement personnel data would be public is that the Legislature specifically excluded undercover law enforcement officers from having to make data about themselves public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(b). Thus, the Commissioner opines that the data at issue are public pursuant to section 13.82.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       A final point is in order. The Commissioner is aware of a case recently decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals involving the classification of certain data St. Paul police officers collected during traffic stops in eight months of 2000. (See &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul&lt;/i&gt;, 660 N.W.2nd 821.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Court held, We conclude the police officers are the subjects of the data in question and that the data [were] collected because the police officers were employees of a government entity. As such, the data [are] classified as personnel data and [are] not publicly accessible under [Chapter 13].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Both the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; case and this opinion involve data relating to law enforcement personnel. However, the Commissioner believes the facts and analysis of the case are such that the two situations are distinguishable. The Commissioner notes that the Court&apos;s reasoning in the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; case appears based on a view that the police officers collected the traffic stop data so the City could evaluate their performance. In the case of this opinion, it appears the Department&apos;s officers collected the data in question primarily as documentation of the officers&apos; interaction with the public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. O&apos;Neill raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, the following data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains are public: a list of each Conservation Officer&apos;s annual citation numbers for the past two years.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 10, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267616</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Natural Resources</Title><Id>266562</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-020</Title><title>Opinion 03 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267702&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-07-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Where a public body closes a meeting in reliance on Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), for &quot;consideration of allegations or charges,&quot; do the provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), require the government entity to identify the individual who is being discussed and the status of the allegations or charges against the individual?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 10, 2003; City of Pequot Lakes</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 29, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing a newspaper, the &lt;em&gt;Lake County Echo&lt;/em&gt;. In his request, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City of Pequot Lakes maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marty Peisch, Clerk of the City of Pequot Lakes, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 3, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 30, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated June 26, 2003, from Tom Fitzpatrick, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At issue is access to certain information requested by &lt;em&gt;Echo&lt;/em&gt; editor Peter Frank after the Pequot Lakes city council closed a meeting on May 1. The council announced that in closing the meeting, it was relying on the exception found in Minn. Stat. section13D.05, subd. 2(b), which requires a public body to close a meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. Mr. Frank subsequently sought the identity of the individual who was the subject of the closed meeting, as well as the status of the matter. The city refused to provide this information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Where a public body closes a meeting in reliance on Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), for consideration of allegations or charges, do the provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), require the government entity to identify the individual who is being discussed and the status of the allegations or charges against the individual?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), a governing body subject to the Open Meeting Law must close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. However, a meeting must be open if the individual so requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), an employee&apos;s name is public. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the following data about an employee are public: the existence and status of complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action. If and when the government entity takes disciplinary action and there is a final disposition, more data become public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), and subdivision 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Closing a meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations which may be utterly unfounded provides protection to the reputation of the wrongly accused. Likewise, delaying release of information until final disposition of disciplinary action is intended to prevent harm caused by premature release of information in cases where an employer&apos;s decision to discipline is unjustified and is ultimately overturned upon independent review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that the City is a small rural community with a population of 1,826.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Had the name been disclosed and subsequently published in this small town weekly, irreparable damage may have been done to the reputation of the individual, even though no discipline whatsoever may ultimately have been imposed and upheld if challenged....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s Council held a closed meeting after announcing the meeting was closed for the purpose of considering charges against a City employee. At the end of the closed portion of its meeting, the City then held an open portion of its meeting. At the open portion of the meeting the City Council voted to discipline an employee. After that action, a reporter for the Hibbing Daily Tribune asked for the name of the employee who was disciplined and the nature of the discipline. The City denied this request...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this instance, the City, acting through its Council, decided to discipline an employee. At the time that decision was announced, the City did not provide to the public, even when asked to do so, either the employee&apos;s name or what disciplinary action was being proposed....As there is not yet a final disposition of this disciplinary action, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 specifies that the following data about this employee and the City&apos;s handling of the complaints or charges against this employee are public: the employee&apos;s name; the status of the City&apos;s handling of the complaints or charges against the employee...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The language of Section 13.43 is very clear that, with the exception of undercover law enforcement officers, the names of public employees are always public. It seems equally clear that the name of an employee can also be associated with other public data about that employee. In this instance, that means that the City should provide to the newspaper the name of the employee and the fact that there have been complaints or charges against that named employee. Section 13.43 also directs that the status of complaints or charges about a named employee...also be treated as public...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the facts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-042&lt;/a&gt; are slightly different than those presently before the Commissioner, the outcome is the same. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1) and subdivision 2(a)(4), the name of an employee is public together with the existence and status of any complaints or charges that have been made against that employee. Chapter 13D does not contain a provision requiring public bodies to reveal the name of an employee who is the subject of a meeting that is closed pursuant to section 13D, subdivision 2(b). However, that fact does not vitiate a government entity&apos;s obligation to provide public data upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Fitzpatrick&apos;s comments, the Commissioner notes the Legislature, in considering the possibility that an employee&apos;s reputation would be damaged, enacted language providing that the details of a complaint or charge against an employee become public only if the employee is disciplined and a final disposition has occurred. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) and 2(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Where a public body closes a meeting in reliance on Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), for consideration of allegations or charges, the provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), require the government entity to identify the individual who is being discussed and the status of the processing of the complaints or charges against the individual.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 10, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267702</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual performance</Title><Id>266629</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Names of employees</Title><Id>266917</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee name</Title><Id>266371</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:45:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-019</Title><title>Opinion 03 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267310&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-06-25T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond appropriately to a request for access the following data: &quot;the public portions of all non-pending, non-current police department internal affairs complaint forms received since January 1, 1990 by the Minneapolis Police Department, Division of Internal Affairs?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 25, 2003; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 14, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Christopher Coen, on behalf of Communities United Against Police Brutality. In his letter, Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Coen&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the Data Practices Compliance Official of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated May 19, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Coen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 2, 2003, IPAD received a response from Mr. Steiner. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 11, 2003, Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner and asked to inspect the following data: the public portions of all non-pending, non-current police department internal affairs complaint forms received since January 1, 1990 by the Minneapolis Police Department, Division of Internal Affairs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Coen, on May 12, 2003, he was&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . told by Valerie Wurster, the director of the DIA, that we could only view complaint records against police officers in which a guilty determination has been made. We were shown only 52 complaint records in total, supposedly from the last six years. Yet, we had requested to see the public portions of ALL non-pending and non-current DIA complaint forms. We did not request only the subset of records that have a guilty status determination. Ms. Wurster told us that she would not take the time to show us more records, and that she would not show us any other records other than these that had been litigated. We had already waited for one month for the DIA to simply show us the 52 records that they are willing to share.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I asked Ms. Wurster what part of Chapter 13 (of the Minnesota Data Practices law) allowed her to withhold the complaint records we had requested to view, she told us that she would not answer that question, and that we should talk to the Minneapolis City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner stated the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the City received the initial data practices request, it was assigned to the Assistant City Attorney assigned to the Police Department, Patrick Marzitelli. Mr. Marzitelli initially misinterpreted Mr. Coen&apos;s request and instructed the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) to produce the public data related to cases where final disposition of disciplinary action had occurred. Obviously, this interpretation was not consistent with Mr. Coen&apos;s request, and the City apologizes for the mistake. However, based on direction provided by the City Attorney&apos;s Office, Lieutenant Wurster, the commander of IAD, instructed the clerk/typist assigned to IAD to compile the data for Mr. Coen. Because IAD has only one clerical staff person, the compilation of the data took some time. Mr. Coen was then invited in to inspect the data and he made copies using his own copying machine. During Mr. Coen&apos;s visit to IAD, Mr. Marzitelli made a point of stopping by to introduce himself and told Mr. Coen that if there were any problems, he should call Mr. Marzitelli. When Mr. Coen complained to Lt. Wurster that he was not provided access to everything that had been requested, she directed him back to Mr. Marzitelli. Unfortunately, Mr. Coen did not contact Mr. Marzitelli and Mr. Marzitelli was unaware of any problem until the City received Mr. Coen&apos;s request for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Steiner stated that the City has sent additional data related to non-sustained complaints to Mr. Coen, and is in the process of compiling complainant data, which it will forward to Mr. Coen as soon as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond appropriately to a request for access the following data: the public portions of all nonpending, noncurrent police department internal affairs complaint forms received since January 1, 1990 by the Minneapolis Police Department, Division of Internal Affairs?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities are required to respond to a request for access to public government data in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this situation, the City and Mr. Coen agree that the data he requested are public government data, and Mr. Steiner acknowledged that the City erred in its initial response to Mr. Coen. The Commissioner recognizes that forthright acknowledgment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that the type of data Mr. Coen requested have been the subject of two appellate court decisions involving the City of Minneapolis. (See &lt;em&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/em&gt;, 468 N.W.2d (Minn. 1991), and &lt;em&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/em&gt;, 486 N.W.2d (Minn. App. 1992).) These cases clearly state that the data at issue here are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner further notes that in the circumstances as described by Mr. Coen and Mr. Steiner, there may have been some confusion about the process that the City expected Mr. Coen to follow in order to gain access to the data he requested. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2 (a), the City is required to establish procedures that explain how an individual may gain access to public data. Clearly, such procedures must apply equally to all individuals seeking access to public data. The Commissioner does not know if the City has created any such procedures and Mr. Steiner did not provide them as part of his comments. If the City has not created those procedures, the Commissioner urges it to do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Coen is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: the public portions of all non-pending, non-current police department internal affairs complaint forms received since January 1, 1990 by the Minneapolis Police Department, Division of Internal Affairs.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 25, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267310</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-018</Title><title>Opinion 03 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267649&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-06-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392?
Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain private personnel data or any other data that are not public or non-public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
If the Wreath and Fee Report contains data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, do the private personnel data on employees in the report or other not public or nonpublic data become public once the final audit report is published?
If the private personnel data or other not public or non-public data in the Wreath and Fee Report do not become public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, once the final audit report is published, is the private personnel data in the report so intertwined with any public information that the report cannot be redacted and released?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 25, 2003; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 14, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Rupp and Margaret Skelton, attorneys for Independent School District 709, Duluth. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On May 14, 2003 the School District&apos;s internal auditor published the final internal audit of East High School&apos;s Boy&apos;s Hockey Student Activity Sub Account (hereinafter internal audit )....A separate report which outlines the circumstances which led to the formal internal audit report was also completed by the internal auditor on May 14, 2003. This report is entitled Review of the East Boy&apos;s Hockey Wreath Sale and Additional Fee Assessment (hereinafter Wreath and Fee Report ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The internal auditor conducted interviews of District employees to obtain information for her reports. Other than the identity of the complainant(s), the private personnel data at issue were not provided to the auditor with the assurance that the identity of the person providing the data would remain private. Minn. Stat. section13.392, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to [Chapter 13], a newspaper has requested information regarding the East Boy&apos;s Hockey wreath sale and fee assessment. This information is encompassed in the Wreath and Fee report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain private personnel data or any other data that are not public or non-public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the Wreath and Fee Report contains data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, do the private personnel data on employees in the report or other not public or nonpublic data become public once the final audit report is published?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the private personnel data or other not public or non-public data in the Wreath and Fee Report do not become public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, once the final audit report is published, is the private personnel data in the report so intertwined with any public information that the report cannot be redacted and released?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.392 classifies internal auditing data. Subdivision 1 of section 13.392 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained by the internal audit offices of state agencies and political subdivisions, or persons performing audits for state agencies and political subdivisions, and relating to an audit or investigation are confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data until the final report has been published or the audit or investigation is no longer being pursued actively...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are also of the opinion that the Wreath and Fee Report is data &lt;u&gt;relating to an internal audit&lt;/u&gt; under Minn. Stat. section13.392, Subd. 1. The data in the report was collected and maintained by the District&apos;s internal auditor. The report documents the circumstances which resulted in the internal audit and thus the data relates to the audit and investigation....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton that data in the Report relate to an internal audit. As stated above, section 13.392 classifies data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained by persons performing audits for political subdivisions, as well as data relating to an audit or investigation. Here, the District&apos;s Internal Auditor received a complaint about the East Boy&apos;s Hockey Wreath Sale. She then received a complaint about both the wreath sale and the program&apos;s participation fees. The District administration directed her to review the wreath sale procedures and participation fees, and to audit the East Boy&apos;s Hockey account. While the audit is not limited to data about the wreath sales, at least some of the sections in the Audit specifically refer to the Report. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, therefore, that the data in the Report relate to the audit and are classified by section 13.392.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does the Wreath and Fee Report contain private personnel data or any other data that are not public or non-public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, classifies data relating to an internal audit. Because the Report contains data that relate to an internal audit, the Commissioner is of the opinion that section 13.392 classifies the data in the Report. Pursuant to subdivision 1, the data are not public until the final report has been published, or the audit or investigation is no longer being pursued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes, however, that the situation here is complicated because the Report appears to contain data about District employees. Data about employees typically are classified pursuant to section 13.43 (personnel data). Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Thus, if section 13.43 classifies the personnel data in the Report and some of those data are private, there exists a conflict or an overlap of data classifications. Section 13.392 provides that the data in the Report become public and section 13.43 provides that any private personnel data in the Report remain not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.26, discusses irreconcilable provisions. Subdivision 1 states, in part, When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. Section 645.16 discusses legislative intent. In relevant part it provides, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Chapter 645 provides, it is important to try to give effect to both section 13.392 and section 13.43. By enacting section 13.392, the Legislature clearly determined there is a need to protect internal audit data prior to an entity&apos;s publication of the final report or until the entity is no longer pursuing the audit or investigation. However, the Legislature also determined that after either of those two actions have occurred, the data should become public. The Legislature&apos;s intent regarding section 13.43, the more specific of the two provisions, is that only certain personnel data are public, and that all other types are private. The kinds of personnel data that are public are stated clearly in section 13.43. The Commissioner is of the opinion that because the Legislature has dictated so specifically the types of personnel data that are public, it (the Legislature) did not intend for personnel data classified as private under section 13.43 to become public if they are contained in an audit or if they are other data treated as public under section 13.392.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concludes, therefore, that if the Report contains personnel data classified as private under section 13.43 - and the District is in the best position to make that determination - those data remain private after the final audit/report is published.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In determining the classification of personnel data in the Report, the District should be mindful of the fact that data related to employee complaints/charges and related disciplinary action are classified by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (4) and (5). Subdivision 2(a)(4) provides that the existence and status of any complaints or charges are public. Subdivision 2(a)(5) provides that the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. Thus, if data in the Report relate to a complaint made against an employee, the name of the employee in connection with the fact that a complaint was made and the status of that complaint would be public. If, in relation to that complaint, disciplinary action is taken and a final disposition occurs (see section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)), additional data would become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton asked about the possibility of other data in the Report being classified as not public. As the Commissioner discussed above, in this situation, the District is in the best position to determine the classifications of the data in the Report. Therefore, without knowing the specific provision(s) Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton believe classify the data, the Commissioner is unable to comment as to whether any other types of data would remain not public after the final audit/report is published.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the Wreath and Fee Report contains data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, do the private personnel data on employees in the report or other not public or nonpublic data become public once the final audit report is published?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner answered this question in his discussion of Issue 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the private personnel data or other not public or non-public data in the Wreath and Fee Report do not become public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392, once the final audit report is published, is the private personnel data in the report so intertwined with any public information that the report cannot be redacted and released?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a government entity is faced with redacting a document containing not public and public data, it is important for the entity to review the document carefully to determine whether the release of any of the data may result in the inappropriate release of not public data. Government entities are in the best position to make such determinations because they have all of the data available and are knowledgeable about the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/em&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the issue Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton raised. The Court held that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in other advisory opinions. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267878&quot; title=&quot;03-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if it is not possible for the District to appropriately redact the Report, it may withhold the entire document. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;em&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data should occur only in situations where it is impossible to separate or redact the data appropriately. Given the clear presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the District should make every effort to avoid a situation where it must withhold an entire document from the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Wreath and Fee Report contains data that relate to an internal audit within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.392.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The District must determine whether the Wreath and Fee Report contains private personnel data or any other data that are not public or non-public under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. If the District determines that the Report contains data classified as private pursuant to section 13.43, those data remain private once the final audit report is published. The Commissioner is unable to comment about the classification of other not public data in the Report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;See answer to Issue 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If it is not possible for the District to redact the Report without releasing not public data, the District may withhold the Report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 25, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267649</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal audit</Title><Id>266795</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determines redaction</Title><Id>266543</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-017</Title><title>Opinion 03 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267811&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-06-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC) maintains: pricing information contained in ZRC&apos;s contracts with subcontractors?
If the data described in Issue 1 are public, and Zumbro River Constructors won&apos;t release the data to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), what is Mn/DOT&apos;s responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 18, 2003; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 11, 2003, the Commissioner received a letter dated April 9, 2003, from Dick Stehr, Director of the Engineering Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. After consultation with IPAD staff, two issues were agreed upon and on May 2, 2003, IPAD received Mr. Stehr&apos;s revised opinion request. IPAD invited Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC) and the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; to provide comments. On May 16, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated same from John Borger, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. On May 21, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated May 20, 2003, from Herbert Morgan, ZRC Project Manager.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his April 9, 2003, letter, Mr. Stehr wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In 2002, Mn/DOT and Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC), a private consortium, entered into a contract for the Trunk Highway 52 Design-Build Reconstruction Project....In turn, ZRC has entered into subcontracts for some of the work on this project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As part of its contract with ZRC, Mn/DOT has retained the rights to receive a copy of each ZRC subcontract. [Specification 1801] also states that subcontract prices may be omitted on the (State&apos;s) copy of the agreements. ...The contract between Mn/DOT and ZRC... and Minn. Stat. section 13.05 subd. 11 (2002), also expressly provide [sic] that the Act is applicable to ZRC. However, MnDOT does not routinely request copies of subcontracts. In addition, Mn/DOT has honored specification 1801 in the past and has not asked for or received subcontract price information from its contractors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A reporter for a Twin Cities&apos; newspaper...requested that Mn/DOT provide it access to copies of all ZRC&apos;s subcontracts related to this project....The newspaper also requested copies of the prime contract and all related contract documents that Mn/DOT maintains for this project....The requested documents have been provided to Mn/DOT, including copies of Request to Sublet forms which identify the subcontractors and provide information about them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;ZRC sent Mn/DOT copies of three subcontracts. However, certain information was redacted by ZRC from these copies....Mn/DOT, in turn, provided the redacted copies to the newspaper. Mn/DOT does not have possession of the redacted material nor has Mn/DOT personnel seen such information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Stehre asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC) maintains: pricing information contained in ZRC&apos;s contracts with subcontractors?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the data described in Issue 1 are public, and Zumbro River Constructors won&apos;t release the data to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), what is Mn/DOT&apos;s responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC) maintains: pricing information contained in ZRC&apos;s contracts with subcontractors?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Government entity is defined as a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7a.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ZRC is not a government entity. However, because of its contractual relationship with Mn/DOT, certain data it collects and/or maintains are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Section 13.05, subdivision 11, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The provisions relating to Chapter 13 in the contract between Mn/DOT and ZRC are in Section 6 of Part II - Instructions to Proposers. Section 6.4.1., Government Data Practices, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Design-Builder and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided by the Department under this Contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Design-Builder under this Contract. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 apply to release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Design-Builder or the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the Design-Builder receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause, the Contractor must immediately notify the Department. The Department will give the Design-Builder instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data are released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Section 6.4.3., Relinquishment of Originals, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The originals of reports, drawings, work sheets, plans, field notes, computations, and other project data must be relinquished to the Department:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon written notice of completion or termination of the Contract, or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon written notification by the Department, or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon final payment for the Contract by the Department to the Design-Builder.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the contract between ZRC and Mn/DOT provides, all data ZRC creates under the contract are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Thus, any contracts between ZRC and its subcontractors are subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Morgan argues that the pricing information is not public pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), trade secret. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[the data] would be exempt from disclosure under Section 13.37 subsection 1(b), as trade secret information. This exemption extends to data that the private sector participant attempts to keep confidential to avoid competitive disadvantage. Virtually every state and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have similar provisions. Such exceptions are universally construed to protect pricing data. As stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit The deleted information, if released, would likely cause substantial harm to [the contractor&apos;s] competitive position in that it would allow competitors to estimate, and undercut, its bids. &lt;u&gt;Gulf Western Industries v. U.S.&lt;/u&gt;, 615 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir 1979). That is precisely the situation here, and is why the trade secret exception to the Data Practices Act exists....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[the data] would be exempt from disclosure under the Act because such trade secret information would cause competitive disadvantage to ZRC if released to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued a number of advisory opinions that discuss the appropriateness of government entities using the trade secret provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data. In each case, s/he consistently has interpreted the trade secret definition narrowly. In the most recent of these, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 03-009,&lt;/a&gt; the Commissioner noted that the Ramsey County District Court overturned two advisory opinions in which the Commissioner opined that the involved entities inappropriately denied access to data on the basis of the trade secret provision. Also in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner noted that one of those cases was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community&lt;/em&gt; case was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the District Court&apos;s decision. (&lt;em&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety&lt;/em&gt;, C9-02-1012, C0-02-1013, C7-02-1025, C2-02-1028 (Minn.Ct.App. April 1, 2003).) While the Court of Appeals decision is somewhat instructive to general matters of government trade secret claims, the bulk of its analysis is geared to the specific issues raised in that particular case. The data in question were financial audit data, whereas the issue currently before the Commissioner relates to data that, in essence, are terms of a contract between two parties. In addition, the Court of Appeals&apos; ability to make a clear determination on the trade secret issue was hindered by the lack of record; thus, one of the actions the Court took was to remand for consideration of what, if any, specific data constitute trade secrets and for the redaction of that data. In writing future opinions, the Commissioner will continue to monitor the courts&apos; handling of issues relating to trade secrets.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner still seeks guidance from the courts in interpreting the trade secret provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267690&quot; title=&quot;03-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;03-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner made it very clear that a government entity claiming trade secret protection bears the burden of establishing that the data in question satisfy the requirements set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). The Commissioner previously has described the required elements as follows: (1) a collection of information; (2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; (3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and (4) that, a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, Mr. Morgan did not clearly demonstrate how the data satisfy the requirements set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). Mr. Morgan&apos;s only argument is that the data are proprietary. This, in and of itself, does not mean ZRC can protect the data based on a claim of trade secret. State law does not protect proprietary information in the same manner as does the federal Freedom of Information Act. Thus, because Mr. Morgan did not provide sufficient information to support his assertion that the data in question are trade secret, the Commissioner concludes that the pricing data are public and available to the public upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the data described in Issue 1 are public, and Zumbro River Constructors won&apos;t release the data to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), what is Mn/DOT&apos;s responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267464&quot; title=&quot;94-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-035&lt;/a&gt;. In that opinion, Anoka County refused to provide a copy of a report prepared by a paid consultant, claiming the County no longer retained the data. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In making his request for an opinion, Mr. Biernat cited the case of &lt;u&gt;Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University&lt;/u&gt;, 461 N.W. 2d 726 (Minn. App. 1990) and argued that his dispute with the County was controlled by the result in that case. In the Pathmanathan case, an individual who was applying for a position at St. Cloud State sought access to a report done by a private investigator that was not in the possession of St. Cloud State but was retained by the private investigator. In reaching its result in the Pathmanathan case, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the fact that the St. Cloud State&apos;s contract with the investigator included a term in which St. Cloud State retained ownership rights to reports and information generated by the investigator in doing the background checks on prospective employees. The contract between the County and the consultant does not contain a comparable contract term. However, Term XVI of the contract does state the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;In collecting, storing, using and disseminating data on individuals in the course of providing services hereunder, the Consultant agrees to abide by all pertinent state and federal statutes, rules and regulations covering data privacy, &lt;u&gt;including but not limited to the Minnesota Data Practices Act&lt;/u&gt; and all rules promulgated pursuant thereto by the Commissioner of the Department of Administration. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This contractual provision can certainly be read to mean that the consultant has obligated itself to comply with the entire Minnesota Data Practices Act (sic). Abiding by all of the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, means that the consultant obligated itself to make copies of data that are public under the Act available to a member of the public, such as Mr. Biernat, free of charge for purposes of inspection and for a reasonable cost of providing copies if copies are requested. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Another route presents itself for access to a copy of the consultant&apos;s report. Part of the concern raised by Mr. Biernat in his request for an opinion goes to what he sees in this situation of the County&apos;s ability to evade certain obligations under the Data Practices Act. In Mr. Biernat&apos;s view, the County contracted with this consultant, the consultant was paid public funds to do a study, the study was presented in the form of a written report to the governing body of the County and County representatives acknowledge that the report was used by the County to make decisions concerning the County&apos;s system of compensating employees. After the County&apos;s obvious reliance on the report in making decisions, it did not retain a copy of the report. When Mr. Biernat sought access to the report, the County told him it did not have the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Chapter 13 does not contain any specific language imposing obligations on government agencies to retain government data. After broadly defining government data, the Act states that all government data are public unless classified otherwise. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 7 and 13.03, subdivision 1.) The definition of government data and the presumption that government data are public are clear statements of intent by the legislature, in this age of information, to give the public access to data the public wants to examine to determine what its government is doing and why. Although not specifically providing for retention of government data for purposes of accountability in Chapter 13, the legislature has long required public officers of this state acting for any governmental entity to . . . make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. (Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, subdivision 1.) When the legislature amended the predecessor language to what now appears in Chapter 13, establishing the presumption of public data and providing for maximum access to public data, the legislature also amended Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17. This amendment provided that access to records required to be kept under Section 15.17 is governed by Chapter 13. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1979, Chapter 328.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When read together, Section 15.17 and Section 13.03, impose an obligation on the County to preserve records that it uses to conduct public business so that those records will be available for public inspection. In this situation, it is quite clear that the County used and relied on the consultant&apos;s report to make decisions about its compensation system. It is also clear that the County failed in its obligation to preserve the report that it used and on which it relied in making decisions concerning the public&apos;s business. To fulfill its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, the County should re-acquire a copy of the report and make it available to the public under the conditions provided in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments regarding the case at hand. Mr. Stehr noted that Standard Specification 1801 provides, The subcontract prices may be omitted on the Engineer&apos;s copy of the agreement. The fact that the contract contains this particular specification does not vitiate the language in Chapter 13 and section 15.17 requiring the Department to maintain complete records. Thus, to comply with its obligations under Chapter 13 and section 15.17, the Department should request that ZRC provide to the Department the data in question. If ZRC refuses to release the pricing information, an option available to the Department is for it to bring an action against ZRC for a violation of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that options available to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; in seeking access to the pricing information include requesting the data from the Department and requesting the data directly from ZRC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Strehr raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC) did not demonstrate that the pricing data satisfy the requirements for trade secret set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). Therefore, the data are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the Minnesota Department of Transportation should maintain a copy of the unredacted contracts ZRC has with its subcontractors.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 18, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267811</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary not sufficient</Title><Id>266971</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-016</Title><title>Opinion 03 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267993&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-06-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) respond appropriately to a February 12, 2003, request for copies of all correspondence for the last two years between Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) and MDE regarding any special education issue or question?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 3, 2003; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 6, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In his letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE.) (The 2003 Minnesota Legislature changed the name of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning to the Department of Education. See Minnesota Laws 2003, First Special Session, Chapter 9.) Mr. Pachl enclosed copies of his correspondence with MDE.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cheri Pierson Yecke, Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of this letter, dated May 7, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 29, 2003, IPAD received a response from Chas Anderson, Assistant Commissioner for MDE. Ms. Anderson provided the Commissioner with copies of additional correspondence between MDE and Mr. Pachl. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to MDE dated February 12, 2003, Mr. Pachl requested copies of the following data: [a]ll correspondence and documentation of all phone calls to and from Anoka-Hennepin ISD 11 regarding any special education issue/questions for the last two years, which involved any/all, [MDE] staff member/s. I do not need any copies of any special education complaints that you have previously sent me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An exchange of letters followed, as MDE informed Mr. Pachl of its efforts to fulfill his request. This discussion focuses on correspondence relevant to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request for copies of correspondence. MDE eventually provided Mr. Pachl with the documentation he requested concerning telephone calls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 12, 2003, MDE wrote to Mr. Pachl: [p]lease provide written clarification to the Department as far as your request for correspondence. The Department has processed numerous requests for data from you over the last two years and it is not clear what information you are seeking at this time. Mr. Pachl responded to this request in a letter to MDE dated March 31, 2003: I am requesting all correspondence between [MDE] and Anoka Hennepin ISD 11 regarding special education.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Letters from MDE to Mr. Pachl, dated March 12, 14 and 21, 2003, contain the following statement or similar language:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Per your request, please find enclosed the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Copies of some of the documentation of telephone calls to and from Anoka Hennepin ISD 11 regarding any special education issue/questions for the last two years, which involved any/all, [MDE] staff members. The Department is continuing to work on this request and will send you additional data, as we are able to compile it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an April 8, 2003, letter to Mr. Pachl, MDE wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 14, 2003, you were sent copies of documentation requested. The letter accompanying the information indicated that the Department was continuing to work on the request and would send you additional data as we compile it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I apologize for any confusion the March 14 letter may have caused, which seems to indicate there would be additional information provided. The purpose of that letter was to indicate that all documentation that was available was being sent to you under the cover of the March 14 letter, but that the Department would continue to check to see if any further documentation was available. After completely reviewing our records, we find that all documentation we have available regarding your request has been provided to you and your request is fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Pachl, as of the date of his opinion request, I have not received any data regarding correspondence to and from ISD 11 regarding special education issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson [a]fter reviewing the communications and documents in this matter, it appears that a portion of Mr. Pachl&apos;s Data Practices request was overlooked by MDE staff. MDE staff has now compiled the documents as Mr. Pachl requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Anderson further commented:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Pachl never responded to MDE about the April 8, 2003 letter advising him that MDE staff had understood that they fulfilled all of Mr. Pachl&apos;s February 12, 2003 Data Practices request. ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon receipt of the Administration opinion request, MDE staff checked the records and reviewed the matter. As indicated in the April 8, 2003 letter to Mr. Pachl, MDE staff thought all of his requests had been completed. Upon review of this matter, it appears that Mr. Pachl&apos;s broad request for &apos;all correspondence&apos; was overlooked in MDE&apos;S staff&apos;s extensive efforts to comply with his broad request for &apos;documentation of all phone calls.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) respond appropriately to a February 12, 2003, request for copies of all correspondence for the last two years between Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) and MDE regarding any special education issue or question?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests access to public government data, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MDE did not provide some of the data Mr. Pachl requested on February 12, 2003, until after it received notice of his opinion request. The Department sought clarification about the correspondence Mr. Pachl was requesting, but did not acknowledge receiving that clarification. Given that the Department did respond to part of the request, i.e., the telephone call documentation, and thought it had communicated to Mr. Pachl that it believed his request was fulfilled, the kind of oversight that occurred here is understandable. The Commissioner concludes that MDE did not respond fully to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, but acknowledges that the Department did exert considerable effort in an attempt to make a full response. Nonetheless, MDE has an obligation to respond promptly and reasonably to all requests for access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Pachl raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) did not respond appropriately to a February 12, 2003, request for copies of all correspondence for the last two years between Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) and MDE regarding any special education issue or question.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 3, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267993</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-015</Title><title>Opinion 03 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267948&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-06-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for a copy of a videotape of a March 28, 2002, pursuit which resulted in an arrest?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 2, 2003; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 5, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Trish Van Pilsum, a reporter for Fox 9 News/KMSP-TV. In her letter, Ms. Van Pilsum asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data the Minnesota Department of Public Safety maintains. Upon IPAD&apos;s request, Ms. Van Pilsum sent additional information which IPAD received on May 9, 2003.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rich Stanek, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 12, 2003, were to inform him of Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s request and to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 19, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, the Department&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated March 18, 2003, Ms. Van Pilsum wrote to Mr. Stanek:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Following our verbal request of February 25, 2003, Fox 9 News/KMSP-TV is now making a formal written request of a videotape of a pursuit by the Minneapolis police department and the Minnesota state patrol on March 28th 2002 resulting in the arrest of Geralyn Mornson. We believe this is public data under Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subdivision 2 (c) and Subdivision 6 (d) as data, documenting pursuit...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 21, 2003, Deputy Commissioner Sara Schlauderaff responded to Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s request. She stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...As you are aware, Judge Catherine L. Anderson issued a protective order on March 20, 2003, which directs the Minnesota Department of Public Safety-State Patrol not to release the videotape until further order of the court...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 1, 2003, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske wrote to Ms. Pilsum. She stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Judge Catherine L. Anderson lifted her protective order yesterday, which directed the Minnesota Department of Public Safety-State Patrol not to release the videotape.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As you know, the Department initially refused your oral request for a copy of the videotape under MN Stat. 13.82 Subd. 7 - active criminal investigative data. The Department&apos;s position is that the data are not response/incident data under MN Stat. 13.82 Subd. 6(d) for two reasons. First, subdivision 6(d) makes the existence of a pursuit public data and not data that represents/details the actual pursuit. Additionally, the Minnesota State Patrol was not responding to a request for service from the public nor did they initiate action on their own initiative, which are elements of response/incident data. The State Patrol&apos;s involvement was for assistance from a local law enforcement agency.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Active criminal investigative data under MN Stat. 13.82 Subd. 7(c), becomes inactive when all appeals have been exhausted. Ms. Mornson has 90 days during which to withdraw her guilty plea....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Van Pilsum asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for a copy of a videotape of a March 28, 2002, pursuit which resulted in an arrest? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In analyzing Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s question, it is helpful to review some of the basic principles behind the operation of section 13.82: (1) the general presumption that all data are public unless otherwise classified applies to data that law enforcement agencies collect and maintain; (2) the Legislature made it expressly clear that active criminal investigative data are to be classified as confidential or protected nonpublic - however, once an investigation is inactive, most data the agency was withholding are public pursuant to the general presumption; and (3) even if an agency is withholding certain data because they are active criminal investigative data, the agency must release the data elements listed in subdivisions 2 (arrest data), 3 (request for service data), and 6 (response or incident data).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske reiterated the Department&apos;s position:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      The Department has continued to deny Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s request for the videotape as active criminal investigative data. Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s [sic] argues in her request for an advisory opinion that the plain meaning of MN Stat 13.82 Subd. 6(d) makes all data related to a pursuit public. The Department disagrees. Specifically, it is the Department&apos;s position that subdivision 6(d) makes the existence of a pursuit public data, and not data that represents/details the entire pursuit. In responding to any request under this subdivision, the Department should release whether or not a pursuit occurred. Additionally, the Department believes that subdivision 6(d) covers data that results from requests for service from the public or actions initiated by an agency&apos;s own initiative. The State Patrol&apos;s involvement in this pursuit was at the request of a local law enforcement agency for assistance.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      As our correspondence with Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s [sic] reflects, the Department continues to maintain the videotape as active criminal investigative data under MN Stat 13.82 Subd. 7(c). Unless the defendant, Ms. Mornson withdraws her guilty plea, the videotape will become inactive investigative data (public) 90 days after her plea was entered. Since Ms. Mornson entered her plea on March 31, 2003, the Department will be able to release the videotape after June 29, 2003.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner first would like to address Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske&apos;s assertion that the videotape is not public because it is not response or incident data as that term is defined in section 13.82, subdivision 6. Response or incident data are collected and/or created in response to a request for service. Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske notes that section 13.82, subdivision 3, defines request for service data as data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents requests by the public for law enforcement services. She argues that a local law enforcement agency requested the State Patrol&apos;s assistance, not a member of the public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske&apos;s assertion. Section 13.82, subdivision 3, states that data so classified are created and/or collected when a member of the public requests law enforcement services. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Legislature&apos;s choice of the term public is meant to be all-inclusive rather than restrictive. Thus, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske cannot argue that the videotape is not response or incident data because the request for service came from a local law enforcement agency.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      However, the fact that the Commissioner disagrees with this assertion does not mean he agrees with Ms. Van Pilsum&apos;s position. The Department&apos;s main argument is that the videotape of the pursuit was created as part of the criminal investigation against Ms. Mornson. Ordinarily, such data would be treated as confidential or protected nonpublic until the one of the following three events occurred: (1) the agency or prosecutorial authority decided not to pursue the case; (2) the applicable statute of limitations expired; or (3) the person convicted exhausted all rights of appeal or those rights expired. The situation here is complicated by the fact that one of the data types listed as public in subdivision 6 of section 13.82 is any pursuit engaged in by the agency. Ms. Van Pilsum argues the videotape constitutes the pursuit the Legislature contemplated when it enacted section 13.82, subdivision 6.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      When the Legislature adopted the language in subdivision 6 of section 13.82, the Commissioner is confident that few, if any, law enforcement agencies were creating data by using videocameras in squad cars. Thus, it seems highly unlikely the Legislature knowingly intended for a videotape of a pursuit to fit the definition of any pursuit engaged in by the agency. Furthermore, while the tape presumably contains data stemming from the pursuit, it also may contain data that do not necessarily relate to the pursuit. For these reasons, the Commissioner is inclined to agree with the Department and opines that it may protect the videotape until Ms. Mornson&apos;s opportunity to appeal has expired. To conclude otherwise would be unreasonable. The Commissioner notes, however, that he intends to raise this issue with Legislature.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Van Pilsum raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for a copy of a videotape of a March 28, 2002, pursuit which resulted in an arrest. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 2, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267948</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Business Data</Title><Id>513982</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-014</Title><title>Opinion 03 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267714&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-05-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for a government entity to release responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) with the informed consent of businesses responding to the RFP?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 23, 2003; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 28, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Jay Heffern, City Attorney for Minneapolis. In his letter, Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to write an opinion regarding public access to certain data the City maintains. IPAD sought clarification. On May 12, 2003, Mr. Heffern and IPAD agreed upon the issue the Commissioner would address. On May 16, 2003, Mr. Heffern and IPAD agreed upon a slight change to the revised issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Heffern wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                From time-to-time the City of Minneapolis issues requests for proposals (RFP&apos;s) from businesses for various public projects. Sometimes, the project is controversial or otherwise a matter of great public interest. On some occasions, the City may conclude that the public interest is best served if the RFP process is conducted publicly. In such cases, the City may wish to make information available about the process that might otherwise not be available under Minnesota Statutes section 13.591. Toward that end, the City may ask the businesses submitting the proposals for their informed consent to release all non-trade secret data prior to the completion of the evaluation process. In the event that the businesses grant their informed consent to such release, can the City legally release the data?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The foregoing question arises because Minnesota Statute section 13.591 appears to evince a legislative policy determination that the RFP process should be subject only to limited disclosure to the public of the details of the process until the process is completed. Can a local unit of government override this legislative judgment by obtaining informed consent from the participants in the process to release the data or does the legislative intent control the analysis?....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for a government entity to release responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) with the informed consent of businesses responding to the RFP? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes he is aware that state and/or municipal contracting laws may regulate certain parts of the contracting process. This opinion deals only with data classification issues as they are governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data that businesses submit to government entities in response to a request for proposal are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.591, business data. Subdivision 3(b) of section 13.591 states:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal, as defined in section 16C.02, subdivision 12, are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name of the responder is read and becomes public. All other data in a responder&apos;s response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. For purposes of this section, completion of the evaluation process means that the government entity has completed negotiating the contract with the selected vendor. After a government entity has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a responder that submitted data are copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the data contained in the response.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      If responses to a request for proposal are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than that made public at the response opening, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the requests for proposal results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the purchase. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on individuals are data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of those data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Private data are data that are (1) not accessible to the public and (2) accessible to the individual subject of the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data not on individuals are data the subjects of which are not individuals. (See section 13.02, subdivision 4.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Nonpublic data are data not on individuals that are (1) not accessible to the public and (2) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 9.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to section 13.591, RFP response data are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Upon opening, the name of the responder becomes public and all other data remain private or nonpublic. Once the evaluation process is complete, all data become public except for any trade secret data. The question Mr. Heffern posed is whether businesses submitting responses to City RFP&apos;s may authorize release of any data that section 13.591 classifies as private or nonpublic.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 classifies many different types of data as not public. While the Legislature purposely enacted those classifications, it also created a mechanism whereby data subjects who are individuals can authorize a government entity to release private data. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2, states that entities or individuals may be given access to private data by the express written direction of the data subject.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chapter 13 confers rights primarily on individuals. However, pursuant to the definition of nonpublic data in section 13.02, subdivision 9, an organization that is the subject of data can gain access to those data. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that if an organization can gain access to data of which it is the subject, the organization also should be able to give its consent to have those data released. To determine otherwise would be unreasonable.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the situation Mr. Heffern presented, an organization submitting a response to the City&apos;s RFP would be the subject of any data not on individuals contained in the response. Therefore, the representative of the organization may consent to release of the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Heffern raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is appropriate for a government entity to release responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) with the informed consent of businesses responding to the RFP. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 23, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267714</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Organizations</Title><Id>266905</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:54:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-013</Title><title>Opinion 03 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267362&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-05-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is McLeod County&apos;s charge of $113.00 for copies of 113 pages of private data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 13, 2003; McLeod County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Simcha Plisner, an attorney, on behalf of his clients, Mr. And Mrs. X. In his letter, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his clients&apos; rights to gain access to certain data maintained by McLeod County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nan Crary, McLeod County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 29, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On May 6, 2003, IPAD received a response from Michael Junge, McLeod County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Plisner, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of data about them maintained by McLeod County Human Services. The data relate to a child protection matter. Mr. Plisner stated that they received 113 pages, for which they were charged $113.00. According to Mr. Junge, the County provided 108 pages at a charge of $1.00 per page, plus an audiotape at a charge of $5.00, for a total copy charge of $113.00.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Junge provided to the Commissioner a copy of the McLeod County Fee Schedule. According to that schedule, the County charges $5.00 for a copy of an audiotape of child protection assessments and interviews, and $1.00 per page for a copy of Typed Reports of same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Junge described the procedure the County follows to provide copies of child protection data to individuals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The original must first be copied. The employee must then read the entire document and delete any information which would identify the reporter, and then the item must be copied a second time, which is then provided to the person making the request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The $1.00 charge has been approved by the McLeod County Board of Commissioners to allow for the two copies of each page, plus the time of the employee for editing the document to delete nondisclosable information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is McLeod County&apos;s charge of $113.00 for copies of 113 pages of private data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of government data, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 5, which governs access to private data, [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the criteria set out in part 1205.0300 concerning access to public data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      According to Mr. Junge, the County includes in its copy cost a charge for employee time to redact confidential data, or other data not accessible to Mr. and Mrs. X. However, according to section 13.04, the County may charge only its actual cost to produce the copies. Chapter 13 does not contain any provision allowing an entity to recover the cost of separating data about the requestor from private or confidential data about other data subjects. Therefore, to the extent that the County&apos;s copy charge includes costs for anything beyond the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, its charges are not allowable. Government entities may charge their actual costs to produce copies of data on individuals, if they are able to document that those charges are permitted under Chapter 13.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Furthermore, the County has not otherwise accounted for its charges and how they relate to the language in section 13.04. The fact that the County Board of Commissioners approved the fee schedule is not, in itself, sufficient to justify that the fees charged are allowable under section 13.04. The County ought to be able to make available specific, accurate data that document the basis of its photocopy charges. The County produced no data that support its copy fee, and thus, did not meet the burden here of establishing its actual and reasonable cost to produce copies of government data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has an additional comment. The fee schedule refers to copies of Typed Reports of child protection assessments and interviews. It is not clear if the County also maintains handwritten notes, or other data about the Xs, and if so, what it charges for copies of such data. According to the information provided, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of all data the County maintains about them, not limited to typed reports. If the County maintains additional data about the Xs, it should make those data available to them without delay.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;McLeod County is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, with respect to its charges of $1.00 per page for photocopies, and $5.00 for an audiotape, because (1) it includes in its fee the cost to redact data, and (2) it did not meet the burden of justifying its charges by establishing those are its actual and reasonable costs to provide copies of data to a data subject.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 13, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267362</id><Tag><Description/><Title>No charge to search/retrieve/redact</Title><Id>266485</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:10:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-012</Title><title>Opinion 03 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267532&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-05-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did Hennepin County respond in a timely manner to a January 27, 2003, request to review government data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for Hennepin County to require a data requestor to sign the County&apos;s &quot;Data Practices Request&quot; form regardless of whether the requestor wants data released to another party?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 2003; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 20, 2003, the Commissioner received a letter from X and Y, a married couple. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data from Hennepin County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Sanders, whom IPAD believed to be the Director of the County&apos;s Children and Family Services Department, in response to X and Y&apos;s request. (IPAD later learned that Sue Zuidema is the interim Director.) The purposes of this letter, dated March 26, 2003, were to inform him of X and Y&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On April 11, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Vicki Vial-Taylor, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X and Y presented them is as follows. In a letter dated January 27, 2003, they wrote to Mr. Sanders:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We are writing to you to formally request to review all public and private data maintained about us by Hennepin County. This will include case notes and personal memos. It is our right to make this request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We wish to make as [sic] appointment to inspect those data, which we may do so free of charge (Section 13.04, subdivision 3).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This matter is time sensitive, so we also request that you respond with in 10 days of the date of this letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their opinion request, X and Y wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On February 10th X called Mr. Sander [sic] to ask about viewing the data. Mr. Sander [sic] had given our request to the filing department. The contact person for records management is Jessica Webb. On February 11th we made a call to her. Ms. Webb informed us that we needed to sign a release form before we could view the file....According to her, her department would have 10 days to respond to our signed release form. Ms. Webb faxed us the form, we signed it and faxed it back to her on February 13th....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X and Y wrote that on February 25 their attorney received a call from Ms. Webb stating, there is no file on [X and Y].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X and Y further wrote, On March 5th we left a phone message with Ms. Webb wondering what was happening with our request, we have received no response from her. As of the date of this letter to you, there has been no contact from either Ms. Webb or Mr. Sander [sic].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issues:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did Hennepin County respond in a timely manner to a January 27, 2003, request to review government data?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for Hennepin County to require a data requestor to sign the County&apos;s Data Practices Request form regardless of whether the requestor wants data released to another party?
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 1:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did Hennepin County respond in a timely manner to a January 27, 2003, request to review government data? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments, Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote that the County received X and Y&apos;s letter on January 30, 2003, and, therefore, was required to respond no later than February 13, 2003. She further wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       Prior to the deadline, on either February 10 or February 11, 2003, the county staff responsible for implementing data practices requests contacted [Y] by telephone. The records staff member informed [Y] that the request was received. The staff member also sought clarification from [Y] regarding the request. During that telephone conversation, [Y] clarified that she and her husband wanted the information to be disclosed to their attorney...Upon hearing that the data request had changed, and now involved disclosure to a third party, the records staff member immediately faxed a Data Practices Request to [Y]. The form was faxed to ensure a valid, informed consent from &lt;u&gt;both&lt;/u&gt; [X and Y], authorizing release of private data to [their attorney].
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      In summary, prior to the February 13, 2003 deadline, [Y] changed the data request. [Y] effectively withdrew the January 27, 2003 request on behalf of herself and [X] when she verbally told the records staff member that the data should be disclosed to [their attorney.] Consistent with the telephone call, [X and Y] responded by completing the form and requesting that the private data be released to their attorney...Upon receipt of the completed form, the county agency began implementing the new data request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Vial-Taylor stated that the County responded in a timely manner to the January 27, 2003, request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. There does not seem to be any disagreement over whether X and Y wanted the County to provide a copy of the data to their attorney. If any of the data are private, which the Commissioner believes to be the case, X and Y were required to sign an informed consent before the County could provide the data to the attorney. (See section 13.05, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      What does appear to be in dispute, however, is whether X and Y also wanted to inspect the data. According to Ms. Vial-Taylor, when Y spoke to Ms. Webb, Y changed the request so that it involved disclosure to a third party. However, according to X and Y, Ms. Webb advised that X and Y needed to sign the release form before they could view the data.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regardless of whether X and Y wanted a copy of the data to be sent to their attorney, if X and Y wanted to inspect the data, the County was required to provide them with the data within ten working days. Here, according to X and Y, the County has not yet responded to their request to inspect the data. If, on the other hand, when Ms. Webb and Y spoke on the telephone, Y stated that she and X no longer wished to inspect the data and wanted the County to send a copy to their attorney, the County was not obligated to provide the data for inspection. Because there is a factual dispute, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the County responded in a timely manner to X and Y&apos;s January 27, 2003, data request.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A final note is appropriate. Although the Commissioner cannot sort out the disagreement over what was said in the telephone conversation between Ms. Webb and Y, the written documentation, i.e., X and Y&apos;s January 27, 2003, letter, clearly indicates they wanted to inspect the data. In addition, because X and Y requested this opinion, it seems reasonable to assume they still want access to the data. Therefore, the County promptly should arrange a time for inspection.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Issue 2:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for Hennepin County to require a data requestor to sign the County&apos;s Data Practices Request form regardless of whether the requestor wants data released to another party? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote, I respectfully request that you do not address this issue in your forthcoming advisory opinion. The issue is inapplicable to the facts of this case since the request included disclosing the information to a third party.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner has the following comments. The question X and Y raised is whether their rights as data subjects would be violated if the County required them to fill out the County&apos;s Data Practices Request form. To respond to a data request from a data subject, a government entity must know the identity of the individual, which data the individual wishes to inspect or obtain copies of, and, as is the case here, how to reach the requestor to arrange an appointment for inspection. If the data requestor wants data released to a third party, the requestor must sign an informed consent to release.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      If X and Y wanted only to inspect data and did not want a copy released to their attorney, it is not clear why they would have needed to fill out the Data Practices Request form in addition to sending the January 27, 2003, letter. As long as X and Y provided all necessary information in their letter, the County should have responded within ten working days of receiving it. Because Ms. Vial-Taylor provided no information regarding the County&apos;s practices, the Commissioner does not know if the County requires everyone requesting data to fill out the form. Regardless, it would not be appropriate for the County to delay its response time by requiring X and Y to provide on the Data Practices Request form the information they provided in their letter.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Because it appears X and Y did want a copy of the data they requested to go to their attorney, the County was required to obtain their written informed consent before releasing any private data about them. Thus, in this case, for the purposes of consenting to a release of private data, the County appropriately required X and Y to sign the form.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X and Y raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Because there is a factual dispute, the Commissioner is unable to determine if Hennepin County responded in a timely manner, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, to a January 27, 2003, request to review government data. However, assuming the requestors still wish to inspect the data, the County promptly should arrange a time for them to do so.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the data requestors want Hennepin County to release private data about them to a third party, the County is required to obtain a signed consent. It does not appear, however, that the data requestors would be required to fill out the County&apos;s Data Practices Request form if they wanted only to inspect the data and previously made a proper request in the January 27, 2003, letter.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 7, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267532</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-011</Title><title>Opinion 03 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267335&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-05-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are members of the Minneapolis City Council employees for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 2003; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 15, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated April 11, 2003, from Jay Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney. In his letter, Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. IPAD staff requested and received clarification from Carol Lansing, Assistant City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Heffern wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Minneapolis City Council has adopted, by ordinance, a new Ethics Code. As part of this Code, the City established the position of Ethics Officer whose responsibilities include receiving complaints about alleged violations of the ethics ordinance by City officials and employees and giving advisory opinions to officials and employees as to the application of the ethics ordinance. The Ethics Code also creates an independent Ethical Practices Board to review ethics complaints against certain defined elected officials and public officials of the City of Minneapolis and its affiliated boards and agencies.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A question has arisen whether ethics complaints about City Council members that may be filed with the Ethics Officer or the Ethical Practices Board would be treated as personnel data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, the City Council would like to know whether Council members would be entitled to the protections of Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4)(5) or whether data about complaints about City Council members filed with the Ethical Practices Board would be public information at all times?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Heffern asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are members of the Minneapolis City Council employees for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Personnel data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies most remaining personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Chapter 13 does not contain a specific classification for data about elected officials. However, in previously-issued advisory opinions, the Commissioner consistently has opined that the classification of data about elected officials depends upon whether the entity considers the elected official to be an employee. If so, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If not, the data are presumed public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Here, the City apparently has not taken a position regarding whether its City Council members are employees for purposes of Chapter 13. Mr. Heffern wrote that the Council is a full-time elected body, and that members receive a salary and benefits. He also stated an argument could be made that Council Members are not employees. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the City is in the best position to make this determination. If the City considers the Council Members to be employees for purposes of Chapter 13, data about them are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If the City does not consider the Council Members to be employees for purposes of Chapter 13, data about them are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Heffern raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If Minneapolis considers members of the City Council employees for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data about them are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If the City does not consider the Council Members to be employees for purposes of Chapter 13, the data about them are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Brian J. Lamb
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 7, 2003
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267335</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status as employees (13.601, 13.43)</Title><Id>266326</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:27:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-010</Title><title>Opinion 03 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267834&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-04-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are videotapes of School District extracurricular athletic contests and/or school hallways government data, where they are created and maintained by agents of the District?
Assuming the answer to Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, if the videotapes contain images of students enrolled in the School District and/or employees of the District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, do they contain private data on individuals? Is the answer the same when the videotaping occurs at a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the School District release a videotape that contains data on multiple students and/or employees where it is not feasible to redact the tape to exclude data on students or employees who have not provided their consent to release private data?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 2003; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 18, 2003, the Commissioner received a letter dated March 17, 2003, from Paul Beilfuss, Superintendent of Independent School District 284, Wayzata. In his letter, Superintendent Beilfuss asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, Superintendent Beilfuss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;School District officials regularly videotape athletic events that occur in conjunction with the School District&apos;s extracurricular programs. These athletic events are typically held in the School District&apos;s athletic facilities and are open to the public. The primary purpose of videotaping is to be able to review the game with participating athletes, as a means of instructing and improving performance. Videotapes contain images of numerous student athletes from the School District and from visiting teams, as well as images of spectators and coaching personnel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District has received a request for a copy of the School District&apos;s videotape of [sic] particular game from a visiting team member. The School District is concerned that the videotape contains private educational data and private personnel data that are not feasibly separated from public data, and that the release of the videotape would be an unauthorized dissemination of private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, the School District occasionally receives a parental request for the School District to provide a copy of a videotape of an athletic event to a college or university, in connection with a student&apos;s application to that institution. Again, the School District is concerned that releasing such a tape may violate [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Additionally, the School District regularly videotapes certain locations within its schools and maintains videotapes in accordance with its policies. The purpose of such videotaping is to discourage misbehavior by students, thereby increasing school safety. A parent of a student involved in [sic] altercation with a school employee requested a copy of [sic] videotape that contained a record of the dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Superintendent Beilfuss asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are videotapes of School District extracurricular athletic contests and/or school hallways government data, where they are created and maintained by agents of the District?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming the answer to Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, if the videotapes contain images of students enrolled in the School District and/or employees of the District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, do they contain private data on individuals? Is the answer the same when the videotaping occurs at a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the School District release a videotape that contains data on multiple students and/or employees where it is not feasible to redact the tape to exclude data on students or employees who have not provided their consent to release private data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are videotapes of School District extracurricular athletic contests and/or school hallways government data, where they are created and maintained by agents of the District?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The videotapes are data that the District, or its agents, collect and maintain. They clearly, therefore, are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Assuming the answer to Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, if the videotapes contain images of students enrolled in the School District and/or employees of the District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, do they contain private data on individuals? Is the answer the same when the videotaping occurs at a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the exceptions is that any data a district designates as directory information are public. Federal regulations require that data designated as directory information be of the type that generally would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy. 34 CFR section99.3 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Directory information means information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student&apos;s name, address, telephone listing, electronic mail address, photograph, date and place of birth, major field of study, dates of attendance, grade level, enrollment status (e.g., undergraduate or graduate; full-time or part-time), &lt;u&gt;participation in officially recognized activities and sports&lt;/u&gt;, weight and height of members of athletic teams, degrees, honors and awards received, and the most recent educational agency or institution attended. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also section 13.32, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know which data the District has designated as directory information. However, it seems likely the District would designate participation in sports as directory information; to not do so would mean that such data are private and not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43 (personnel data). Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the types of data about employees and students that are private, it seems a videotape made of a school hallway likely would contain private data. For example, as the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267511&quot; title=&quot;98-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-027&lt;/a&gt;, photographs of employees are private data. Also, photographs of students are private unless the District has designated them as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answer to the second part of Issue 2, i.e., a videotape the District made at a public event, such as an athletic contest that is open to the public, is more complicated. If the District has designated photographs and other types of information about athletes as directory information, it seems fairly clear the data on the videotape are public. However, if that is not the case and some of the data on the videotape are private, the District&apos;s refusal to release the tape may create an absurd result. By agreeing to participate in an event held at a public place, the students and any employee coaches have, in effect, given consent for data about them to be released. The fact that the District videotaped the athletic contest does not change the practical effect of the students and coaches agreeing to participate, i.e., who participated, how they participated, and what happened is all public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the School District release a videotape that contains data on multiple students and/or employees where it is not feasible to redact the tape to exclude data on students or employees who have not provided their consent to release private data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion Number 94-034&lt;/a&gt;, it is her opinion that if documents, etc., contain data about one or more data subjects, it may be necessary for a government entity to withhold, from one or more of the data subjects, access to some or all of the content of those documents. The Commissioner&apos;s position is buttressed by the holding in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt; which states that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data to the data subject should occur only in situations where it is &lt;u&gt;impossible&lt;/u&gt; to appropriately separate or redact the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, in situations where the District determines it is impossible to redact a videotape without inappropriately releasing private data about a student or employee, the District may withhold the entire videotape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Superintendent Beilfuss raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, videotapes of school district extracurricular athletic contests and/or school hallways created and maintained by agents of the district are government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is likely that videotapes of school hallways contain private data. Although videotapes of a public event, such as athletic contests that are open to the public, may contain private data, practically speaking, the data subjects have given consent to release those data by participating in the events.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the District may withhold an entire videotape if it is impossible for the District to redact the videotape without inappropriately releasing private data about students or employees.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 23, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267834</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Photos, videotapes</Title><Id>266317</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Implied vs. written</Title><Id>266400</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Videotape of public event</Title><Id>266401</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Videotapes</Title><Id>266402</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-009</Title><title>Opinion 03 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267690&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-04-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Health respond appropriately to an October 22, 2002, request for access to the following sections in the Operating Agreement of Minneapolis PET Center, LLC and Minnesota Oncology Hematology, P.A.: Articles I through V; Article VI, Sections 6.1 through 6.2(c) and Section 6.3; and Article VII, Section 7.5?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 15, 2003; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 18, 2003, the Commissioner received a letter dated February 20, 2003, from Todd Freeman, an attorney representing Minneapolis Radiation Oncology (MRO). In his letter Mr. Freeman asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Minnesota Department of Health&apos;s response to a data request. Upon request from IPAD staff, James McGreevy, also representing MRO, provided clarification regarding the opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Diane Mandernach, Commissioner of the Department of Health, in response to Mr. Freeman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 27, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Freeman&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. In addition, IPAD invited Minnesota Oncology Hematology, P.A. (MOHPA), to submit comments. MOHPA is the entity that submitted to the Department the data MRO requested. On March 11, 2003, IPAD received a response dated March 6, 2003, from David Giese on behalf of the Department. On March 7, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Christopher Sandberg, an attorney representing MOHPA.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 27, 2003, IPAD notified MRO, MOHPA, and the Department that after review and consultation with all three parties, IPAD determined the data MRO seeks are fewer than originally thought. IPAD modified the issue statement accordingly.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 62J.17, the Minnesota Department of Health collects data relating to the purchase of costly new medical equipment, major capital expenditures, and the addition of new specialized services. It was pursuant to section 62J.17 that MOHPA submitted certain information to the Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to the Department, dated October 22, 2002, Mr. McGreevy asked to review certain data MOHPA had submitted to the Department. His request included the data at issue in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 4, 2002, Mr. Giese responded:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], Minn. Stat. Sec.13.01, data submitted to a government agency is presumed public unless there is some data classification in either state or federal law that would classify it as not public. A trade secret claim was made by MOHPA in their letter dated October 4, 2002 regarding information requested by MDH, including, draft management arrangements...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                He further stated, After review, MDH has determined that the filing made by MOHPA meets [the criteria in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b)] and therefore we have determined the information to be trade secret.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The data in question are contained in the Management Services Agreement between MOHPA and the PET Center, LLC. Article I of this Agreement is entitled Definitions. Article II is entitled Appointment and Authority of Business Manager. Article III is entitled, Covenants and Responsibilities of Business Manager. Article IV is entitled, Covenants and Responsibilities of MOHPA. Article V is entitled Financial Arrangement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Article VI is entitled, Term and Termination. Specifically, Section 6.1 is entitled, Initial and Renewal Term, Section 6.2 is entitled, Termination, and Section 6.3 is entitled, Effects of Termination.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Article VII is entitled, Miscellaneous. Specifically, Section 7.5 is entitled, Assignment.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Freeman asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Health respond appropriately to an October 22, 2002, request for access to the following sections in the Operating Agreement of Minneapolis PET Center, LLC and Minnesota Oncology Hematology, P.A.: Articles I through V; Article VI, Sections 6.1 through 6.2(c) and Section 6.3; and Article VII, Section 7.5?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumptively public.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The Commissioner has issued approximately 12 advisory opinions that discuss the appropriateness of government entities using the trade secret provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data. In each case, s/he consistently has interpreted the trade secret definition narrowly. Given the presumption of openness in Chapter 13, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Legislature intended that government entities employ section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), in a limited manner. However, the Ramsey County District Court overturned two recent advisory opinions in which the Commissioner opined that the involved entities inappropriately denied access to data on the basis of the trade secret provision. (See &lt;i&gt;Supervalue, Inc. v. Matthew F. Smith, as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue&lt;/i&gt;, File No. C9-99-10390 (Second Judicial District Ramsey County State of Minnesota) and &lt;i&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety&lt;/i&gt;, File No. C5-01-8766 (Second Judicial District Ramsey County State of Minnesota).)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       The &lt;i&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community&lt;/i&gt; case was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the District Court&apos;s decision. (&lt;i&gt;Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety&lt;/i&gt;, C9-02-1012, C0-02-1013, C7-02-1025, C2-02-1028 (Minn.Ct.App. April 1, 2003).) While the Court of Appeals decision is somewhat instructive to general matters of government trade secret claims, the bulk of its analysis is geared to the specific issues raised in that particular case. The data in question were financial audit data, whereas the issue currently before the Commissioner relates to data that, in essence, are terms of a contract between two parties. In addition, the Court of Appeals&apos; ability to make a clear determination on the trade secret issue was hindered by the lack of record; thus, one of the actions the Court took was to remand for consideration of what, if any, specific data constitute trade secrets and for the redaction of that data. In writing future opinions, the Commissioner will continue to monitor the courts&apos; handling of issues relating to trade secrets.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner points out that some trade secret disputes are particularly difficult for him to resolve because his authority under section 13.072 is limited. He cannot conduct investigations, take depositions, or subpoena data. Often times, this lack of being a fact finder is not critical to the outcome of an advisory opinion. However, in cases such as this, it is very difficult for the Commissioner to make a determination without being able to obtain more information or become an expert in matters involving trade secrets.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In addition, the government entity maintaining the data often has more knowledge about the topics to which the data relate than does the Commissioner. This is because of the nature of the entity&apos;s work and because of its involvement in various business and professional activities. In such cases, the Commissioner greatly benefits from knowing how the entity reached its determination that the data are trade secret. Here, the Department provided no analysis as to why it concluded the data in question are trade secret. In his December 4, 2002, letter to Mr. McGreevy, Mr. Giese wrote that MOHPA had made a claim of trade secret regarding some of the data. Mr. Giese then cited section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), and stated the Department had determined that the filing made by MOHPA meets the criteria. In his letter he provided no supporting detail. The Department&apos;s comments to the Commissioner regarding Mr. Freeman&apos;s opinion request provide nothing further.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Given all of the above, the Commissioner is inclined, in this case, to agree with the Department that MOHPA has made a compelling argument that the data satisfy the elements set forth in section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). The Commissioner previously has described the required elements as follows: 1) a collection of information; 2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; 3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and 4) that, a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      As to the first and second requirement of section 13.37, the data in the agreement clearly are a collection of information that MOHPA supplied to the Department. It also appears to the Commissioner that MOHPA has made reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the data. To this point, Mr. Sandberg provided copies of affidavits from Thomas Flynn (MOHPA President), Robert Baumgartner (Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.), and Scott Aitken (attorney for U.S. Oncology). Each of the affidavits indicates that a limited number of people in the involved organizations have seen the agreement and that efforts have been made to keep copies of the document in secure locations.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding the final requirement, Mr. Sandberg argued that MOHPA derives economic value by virtue of the data not being generally known because the data reveal the key elements of the structure of the parties&apos; relationship. Mr. Sandberg stated:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                       Mr. Freeman suggests that the Agreements are readily ascertainable by others , and again refers to statements made by USO regarding other transactions it has been involved in elsewhere in the country. While those statements may prevent &lt;u&gt;USO&lt;/u&gt; from claiming trade secret status on those particular transactions, they do not in any way limit the trade secret qualification of the portions of the particular Agreement set out in the Data. The Data fundamentally comprise the method of &lt;u&gt;MOHPA and [Minneapolis PET Center, LLC] &lt;/u&gt;for the development and operation of a PET facility in Minnesota. The parties believe that their proposed arrangement, intertwining an oncology and medical imaging practice and a practice management group in a specific manner, is innovative and not generally known in the medical community....
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner finds Mr. Sandberg&apos;s argument persuasive.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Although the Commissioner acknowledges he is not entirely comfortable with the result in this opinion, he is hopeful that further review by the courts will pave a clearer path on issues of trade secret. He also urges government entities to reach their own conclusions regarding trade secret classifications - especially in situations where the entities have expertise regarding the involved data. Finally, to deal more directly with the issue, the Department may wish to go to the Legislature and request a specific classification for data it collects pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 62J.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Freeman raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Health responded appropriately to an October 22, 2002, request for access to the following sections in the Operating Agreement of Minneapolis PET Center, LLC and Minnesota Oncology Hematology, P.A.: Articles I through V; Article VI, Sections 6.1 through 6.2(c) and Section 6.3; and Article VII, Section 7.5.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 15, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267690</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner&apos;s limited authority</Title><Id>266474</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-008</Title><title>Opinion 03 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267791&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-04-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities maintains: the identities of professors affected by the career steps provision in the Inter Faculty Organization contract (IFO/MnSCU Agreement 2001-2003)?
Given the language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), what compensation data about public employees are public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 2003; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 14, 2003, IPAD received an email from Gail Olson, General Counsel for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU). In her email, Ms. Olson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that MnSCU maintains. After discussion with IPAD staff, Ms. Olson revised her request in an email dated February 18, 2003. Then, after further discussion with IPAD staff, Ms. Olson, in an email dated March 6, 2003, requested that the Commissioner address another issue in the opinion. IPAD withdrew Ms. Olson&apos;s original request and incorporated both issues into a new request. Gary Hill of KSTP-TV contacted IPAD and asked to submit comments, which Paul Hannah, an attorney, provided in a letter dated March 20, 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Olson submitted them is as follows. In her February 18, 2003, email, Ms. Olson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...A media source has requested data from MnSCU about professors at St. Cloud State University and Metropolitan State University affected by the Inter Faculty Organization contract (IFO/MNSCU Agreement 2001-2003. [The IFO is the Inter Faculty Organization, the bargaining group for state university faculty. The IFO/MNSCU Agreement referred to is the collective bargaining agreement.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The requester states they are seeking information about those professors affected by the &apos;career steps&apos; provision...in that contract agreement. I&apos;d like to know their names, what department they work in, what their education degrees are, their date of employment, their 2002 base salary, and their 2003 base salary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a February 25, 2003, email, in regard to Issue 2, Ms. Olson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There are frequent requests for salary data, and we would like to have clarification as to how that term should be applied, and whether the various components of an employee&apos;s salary (such as base pay, merit increases, COLI increases, overtime pay) are separately identifiable, public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The relevant language in the IFO/MnSCU agreement states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All faculty members who have completed ten (10) years of service shall receive two (2) additional steps on the salary schedule at the beginning of their eleventh (11) year of service. Faculty members who have completed twenty (20) years of service shall receive an additional two (2) steps on the salary schedule at the beginning of their twenty-first year of service. Faculty members who have completed thirty (30) years of service shall receive an additional two (2) steps on the salary schedule at the beginning of their thirty-first year of service.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Olson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities maintains: the identities of professors affected by the career steps provision in the Inter Faculty Organization contract (IFO/MnSCU Agreement 2001-2003)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Given the language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), what compensation data about public employees are public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities maintains: the identity of professors affected by the career steps provision in the Inter Faculty Organization contract (IFO/MnSCU Agreement 2001-2003)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 (personnel data). Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2(a)(2), an employee&apos;s bargaining unit is public data. Pursuant to subdivision 2(a)(3), an employee&apos;s date of first and last employment is public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the IFO/MnSCU 2001-2003 agreement is public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the IFO/MnSCU agreement provides, those MnSCU faculty whose bargaining unit is IFO and who recently have completed ten and twenty years of service receive additional steps on the salary schedule. In essence, KSTP-TV is asking MnSCU for the names of faculty whom MnSCU has employed for ten years and the names of faculty whom MnSCU has employed for twenty years. These data clearly are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The remaining question, however, is whether MnSCU maintains the data in the way in which KSTP-TV requested them. As the Commissioner previously has stated, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create new data or create data in a particular format specified by a requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-005&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If Carver County does not have the requested data sorted or formatted according to the specific years that employees worked for the County, then it may be necessary for Mr. Michels to inspect data relating to all current and former employees and make the employment-date determination himself. Mr. Michels should be granted access to such information because the date of first and last employment are public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(3). Further, if Carver County does not format or sort its personnel data according to the specific departments in which the various employees have worked, it may again be necessary for Mr. Michels to sort through data about all employees. Presumably, Mr. Michels would be able to determine which employees worked at the Sheriff&apos;s department because the job title and job description of all public employees are public data pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(2). In conclusion, most of the data requested by Mr. Michels are public. If those data exist, then Carver County must find a way to make them available for Mr. Michels&apos; inspection, free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If MnSCU does not maintain data in such a way that it can provide a list of all faculty covered under the IFO bargaining unit who recently have completed either ten or twenty years of service, it is not obligated to provide such a list. However, because all the data elements are public, MnSCU is required to provide the names of all faculty, their bargaining units, and their dates of first employment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Given the language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), what compensation data about public employees are public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), states that the following data are public: actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursements, in addition to salary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Legislature intended to make public all of the various types of compensation afforded to public employees and to make public the basis for that compensation. A practical application suggests that each component of an employee&apos;s compensation fits into one of the categories the Legislature included in subdivision 2(a)(1). For purposes of this opinion, the commissioner will limit his remarks to a discussion of two categories: actual gross salary and added remuneration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears to the Commissioner that actual gross salary describes that portion of an employee&apos;s compensation which is fixed and paid on a regular basis. It follows that the basis for a change in an employee&apos;s actual gross salary also is public because the underlying reasons for any such change are public, e.g., a change in the contract of the employee&apos;s bargaining unit, a change in the employee&apos;s length of service, a change in the employee&apos;s job title.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about any remuneration an employee receives in addition to his/her actual gross salary also are public. Added remunerations, as opposed to actual gross salary, are not necessarily fixed or regular, e.g., merit increases, overtime pay. In addition to the dollar amount of any added remuneration, a description of the type of remuneration also is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Olson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the identities of professors affected by the career steps provision in the Inter Faculty Organization contract (IFO/MnSCU Agreement 2001-2003) are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Given the language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(1), all compensation data about public employees are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 3, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267791</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual gross salary or compensation</Title><Id>266588</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remuneration</Title><Id>266589</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:05:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-007</Title><title>Opinion 03 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267071&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-03-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 12, 2003; School District 146 (Barnesville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 4, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated February 3, 2003, from Gloria Hartmann. In her letter, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a response from Independent School District 146, Barnesville, concerning her request for information. Following discussion with IPAD staff, Ms. Hartmann clarified her request and submitted another letter dated February 3, 2003, which IPAD received on February 6, 2003.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Todd Cameron, whom IPAD believed to be the Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Hartmann&apos;s request. (The Commissioner subsequently learned that Warren Schmidt is the District&apos;s interim superintendent.) The purposes of this letter, dated February 7, 2003, were to inform him of Ms. Hartmann&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 26, 2003, IPAD received a response from Patricia Maloney, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Hartmann provided them is as follows. Apparently, the District&apos;s Board of Education closed a portion of its August 19, 2002, meeting and identified it on the agenda as a meet and confer session. It later was determined that the closed session was, in fact, a personnel review and performance evaluation of the Superintendent, as the Chair apparently stated before entering into the closed session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to an email Ms. Hartmann sent to a Board member, the Board member, after the meeting, read a motion stating the reason for not renewing the Superintendent&apos;s contract. The reason was a desire for new leadership.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Hartmann wrote, The statement addresses the reason for non-renewal of the contract. I do not feel that it meets the requirements of &lt;strong&gt;Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subd 3(b)&lt;/strong&gt; ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hartmann further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Previous opinions of the Commissioner indicate that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that they [sic] public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad or indifferent - of the public employee. I do not feel the board has done that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have made several attempts to obtain the information from the School Board. The most recent response from the Board chairwoman, dated October 24, 2002 was Your inquiry has been taken under advisement and a response will be forthcoming. No response has been forthcoming.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Barnesville Board of Education is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law. Generally, all meetings must be open to the public; however, there are certain situations in which a public body either may or must close a meeting. One such situation is when a public body is considering, preliminarily, allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b).) Another is when a public body is evaluating the performance of an individual subject to its authority. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Maloney provided background on the August 19, 2002, meeting. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the request of the former Superintendent Todd Cameron and his legal counsel, the [Board] met in a closed session on August 19, 2002, to evaluate Mr. Cameron&apos;s performance. At prior meetings the [Board] has passed resolutions resulting in the nonrenewal of Superintendent Cameron&apos;s employment contract effective June 30, 2003. Superintendent Cameron was concerned that members of the community inferred that the Board&apos;s decision to not renew his contract was based on misconduct or inappropriate behavior. He wanted the Board to take some action that would result in quelling these rumors and clearing his name and professional reputation. Prior to the meeting, Superintendent Cameron&apos;s attorney had drafted two resolutions for the School Board&apos;s consideration and approval. The first proposed resolution declared that the decision to not renew Superintendent&apos;s contract was not based in any way on any alleged misconduct or inappropriate behavior or upon any disciplinary investigation of Superintendent Cameron and the Board did not know of any such allegations which would warrant investigation. The second proposed resolution simply thanked Superintendent Cameron for his services to the [District] and wished him well in his future endeavors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Maloney further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School Board met in closed session on August 19, 2002, to evaluate Superintendent Cameron&apos;s performance for the sole purpose of determining whether he had been guilty of any misconduct or inappropriate behavior or whether there were any allegations which would warrant a disciplinary investigation. After conducting the evaluation, the School Board returned to open session and adopted the following motion to summarize the results of the motion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The initial and any final decision to not renew Superintendent Cameron&apos;s contract was based solely on the desire by a majority of the School Board for a new leadership and administration and not based in any way on any alleged misconduct or inappropriate behavior or upon any disciplinary investigation of Superintendent Cameron and the Board does not know of any such allegations which would warrant an investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the Barnesville School Board approached the evaluation with a very narrow focus. Superintendent Cameron&apos;s employment contract had already been non-renewed so there was no need or reason to conduct an overall evaluation of his performance. Rather, the evaluation was limited to reviewing whether or not Superintendent Cameron had been guilty of misconduct or inappropriate behavior or whether any of the Board members knew of any allegations that would warrant a disciplinary investigation. The Board met and evaluated Superintendent Cameron solely on these points. Upon returning to open session the Board adopted the resolution cited above. Since the motion summarized each salient point of the evaluation, the School Board&apos;s summary complied with the Open Meeting Law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, pursuant to section 13D.01, subdivision 3, before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. According to an email between the then-Board Chair and Mr. Cameron (Ms. Hartmann provided a copy of this email to the Commissioner), the closed session was identified on the agenda as a meet and confer, but later was determined to be a personnel review and performance evaluation. The Commissioner notes that public bodies do not have authority to close public meetings to meet and confer, except to the extent that a meet and confer is a labor negotiation pursuant to section 13D.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, upon reviewing all the facts, the Commissioner is not at all convinced the Board had authority to close the meeting. It does not appear the purpose was to consider, preliminarily, allegations or charges against Mr. Cameron, nor does it appear the Board was conducting a performance evaluation. Rather, the meeting was closed at the request of Mr. Cameron&apos;s attorney for the purpose of clearing his [Mr. Cameron&apos;s] name and professional reputation. Chapter 13D sets forth the specific situations in which a public body may or must close a meeting. If none of the those applied to the situation on August 19, 2002, the Board should not have closed the meeting. The Commissioner, therefore, finds it inappropriate to comment on the issue Ms. Hartmann originally posed because the Board&apos;s comments are not a summary of its conclusions regarding Mr. Cameron&apos;s performance evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is appropriate. Possibly, part of the reason Mr. Cameron and his attorney requested the two resolutions is the result of action taken at a May 2002 meeting of the Board. At that meeting, part of which was closed to evaluate then-Superintendent Cameron&apos;s performance, the Board summarized the conclusions of the evaluation in this way: At the May 6, 2002 meeting, Supt. Cameron&apos;s annual evaluation was reviewed. Chair Szweduik disclosed the results of the evaluation to state that areas of growth were identified and Supt. Cameron&apos;s evaluation is an ongoing process. The Commissioner is aware of these facts because he issued an advisory opinion on the matter, opining that the Board&apos;s statement, as reflected in the meeting minutes, did not constitute a summary as required per 13D.05, subdivision 3(a). (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267659&quot; title=&quot;02-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-035&lt;/a&gt;.) Apparently, at a meeting held on February 18, 2003, the Board adopted a motion containing a more detailed summary of Superintendent Cameron&apos;s May 2002 performance evaluation. (Ms. Maloney provided this information to the Commissioner as part of her comments regarding the opinion at hand.) The point here is that if the Board initially had provided the public with an adequate summary of the Superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation, the Board&apos;s reasons for not renewing his contract would have been clear, and further Board action to quell rumors in the community might not have been necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hartmann raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, it does not appear Independent School District 146, Barnesville, had authority to close part of its Board meeting on August 19, 2002. Therefore, the statement that the Board released is not a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 12, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267071</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:04:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-006</Title><title>Opinion 03 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267546&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-03-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the memorandum contain private personnel data on employees of Independent School District 709, Duluth?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the District required to provide a copy of the memorandum from which the identifying information about X and Y have not been redacted?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 12, 2003; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 27, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated same from Kevin Rupp and Mark Girouard, attorneys representing Independent School District 709, Duluth. In their letter, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also on January 27, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated January 22, 2003, from Peter Nickitas, an attorney who made the data request which prompted the District to request this opinion. Mr. Nickitas represents Z. In his letter, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on the same matter the District presented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner moved forward with the District&apos;s request and invited Mr. Nickitas to submit comments in addition to those he provided with his opinion request. Mr. Nickitas did not present further comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their request, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In [2002], [one of the District&apos;s Directors] received a one-page memorandum....This memorandum was written by [X - a District employee]. A copy of the memorandum is enclosed for your review and analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The memorandum addresses incidents observed by X when [s/he] was [working]..in the classroom of another District employee, referred to herein as Y ...The memorandum describes [action] by another District employee, referred to herein as Z , who [also was working in the classroom].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Z&apos;s attorney...has requested a copy of the memorandum. Our office provided Mr. Nickitas with a copy of the memorandum, from which the names of X and Y were redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the memorandum contain private personnel data on employees of Independent School District 709, Duluth?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the District required to provide a copy of the memorandum from which the identifying information about X and Y have not been redacted?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the memorandum contain private personnel data on employees of Independent School District 709, Duluth?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, data subjects have the right to gain access to public and private data about themselves. Private data are accessible to the data subject, but not to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals are all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Often times, a single document contains data about multiple data subjects. In such cases, when one of the data subjects makes a request for the document, the government entity must take care not to release private data about the other subjects. It is important for the entity to review each document on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriateness of any release. Government entities are in the best position to make those determinations because they have all of the data related to the matter and are familiar with the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In support of redacting the names of X and Y, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to X, in addition to [his/her] name, the memorandum includes references to [his/her] observations of Z&apos;s [action], statements that X made to Z regarding the same, X&apos;s subsequent supervision of a student...and X&apos;s attempts to engage students in classroom activities. These are all data on X that the district would not have if [s/he] were not an employee....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With regard to Y, in addition to [his/her] name, the memorandum includes the statement that Z&apos;s [action] represented the way things were done in Y&apos;s classroom. This is data on Y...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Upon review, it appears the memorandum contains data about X, Y, and Z. All are either current or former employees of the District; therefore, data about them are classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner first will address the data about X. X made a complaint about Z. Mr. Nickitas, in his letter, stated that the District had discharged Z. Depending upon where the District is in the complaint process, the fact that X made a complaint about Z may be private data. The Commissioner also wishes to note that if the allegation against Z involves harassment, section 13.43, subdivision 8, may apply. Subdivision 8 provides that if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated, data on a complainant or witness shall be available to the complained-about employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming X&apos;s identity is private, it is not clear why the District redacted only X&apos;s name. As the Commissioner has discussed in previous opinions, identifying data about an individual often include more than the individual&apos;s name. For example, the District did not redact the specific week X observed the behavior that led X to complain about Z. By not redacting the date, it is possible Z could identify X. In addition, the District did not redact the fact that X had worked in Y&apos;s classroom for a certain number of consecutive days. The inclusion of this information also might lead Z to be able to identify X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even if X has been identified as the complainant, there may be some remaining data in the memorandum that are private data about X. These are the types of data Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard described as X&apos;s observations, and so on, of Z. The District, however, must determine whether these are data about X or whether X&apos;s name is only incidental to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the data about Y, if X is not known as the complainant, it may have been necessary for the District to redact the fact that the observations leading to the complaint occurred while X worked in Y&apos;s classroom. However, if X&apos;s identity is known, the additional data referenced by Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard could be data about Y, or it could be that Y&apos;s name in relation to the data is only incidental. Again, the District is in the best position to make these determinations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Documents often contain data about multiple data subjects, as is the case here. In such situations, it is important for the government entity carefully to exercise care in reviewing the documents in terms of the factual context. The Commissioner encourages the District to review the memorandum in the context of the existing dispute to determine which of the data are private data about which employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the District required to provide a copy of the memorandum from which the identifying information about X and Y have not been redacted?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private data about an individual are accessible only to that individual and to certain persons within the government entity maintaining the data. Private data about an individual are not accessible to members of the public. Thus, Z is entitled to gain access to any public and private data about him/her in the memorandum, as well as any other public data that exist. Z, however, is not entitled to gain access to any private data about X or Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rupp and Mr. Girouard raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the memorandum appears to contain private personnel data on employees of Independent School District 709, Duluth. The District is in the best position to make that determination.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the District is required to redact private data about X and Y before providing a copy of the memorandum to Z.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 12, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267546</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Determine data subject case by case</Title><Id>266579</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determines redaction</Title><Id>266543</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-005</Title><title>Opinion 03 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267757&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-02-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map representing the location of an employer?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map indicating the number of employees or a range of employment for an employer described in Issue 1?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: data in a map indicating employment by industry type?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: grids on a map representing employment density? Does the size of the grid change the classification of the data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 2, 2003; Minnesota Department of Economic Security</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 7, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Steven Hine, of the Research and Statistics Office at the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. In his letter, Mr. Hine asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Department maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification and four issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Hine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Covered Wage and Employment Program , also known as the ES-202 Program, exists to serve two functions. First, it serves as the repository of information collected from employers covered under state unemployment insurance [UI] law as mandated by MN Statute 268.051 and MN Rule 3315.1051. As such, MN Statute 268.19 classifies the information contained in the ES-202 database as non-public data not on individuals and thus is not accessible to the public. This information is used for various UI administrative purposes, for example determining employer tax rates and setting the maximum level of weekly UI benefits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Secondly, the ES-202 database serves as a primary source of industry and area employment information, and thus is used extensively as a source of labor market statistics as mandated by the Workforce Information Act&apos;s [WIA] Section 309.15. In order to meet the requirements of WIA, the [Department&apos;s] Research and Statistics Office cooperates with the US Department of Labor&apos;s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to compile, edit, and process the information reported by employers in their quarterly UI tax reports. These records are then used to, among other things, produce valuable labor market information in accordance with MN Statute 13.05, which allows the public release of summary data derived from private or non-public sources. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the identity and characteristics of individual employers, [the Department] and BLS have established strict criteria that summary data based on the ES-202 data must pass before it is disseminated publicly as labor market information. For the purposes of presenting numeric information, that is labor market information as statistical data, these confidentiality suppression criteria have a proven record and will be maintained and adhered to in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As part of ongoing efforts to improve the quality and usefulness of labor market information in general, and the ES-202 data in particular, BLS has funded the [Department] Research and Statistics Office to participate in a geo-coding pilot project. This project requires that our office perform the following activities:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) refine the physical location information contained in the database,
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) use the physical location information to attach a geographic location (i.e. a latitutnal [sic] and longitutnal [sic] coordinate, or geo-code ) to each employer&apos;s record, and
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) develop procedures for presenting employment distributions in the form of geo-spatial mappings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This third step, and the deliverables of the pilot project being conducted by [the Department], requires that we identify and document our abilities and limitations for such presentation within the constraints of our state&apos;s data privacy laws.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hine asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map representing the location of an employer?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map indicating the number of employees or a range of employment for an employer described in Issue 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: data in a map indicating employment by industry type?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: grids on a map representing employment density? Does the size of the grid change the classification of the data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map representing the location of an employer?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 268.19, subdivision 1, states: ...data gathered from any employer or individual pursuant to the administration of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program Law are private data on individuals or nonpublic data not on individuals...and may not be disclosed except pursuant to a court order or section 13.05. Subdivision 1 goes on to list some specific cases in which the Department may lawfully disseminate the private/nonpublic data without obtaining consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Private data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 12, as data that are not public and are accessible to the subject of the data. The term private data applies to data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonpublic data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 9, as data that are not public and are accessible to the subject, if any, of the data. The term nonpublic data applies to data not on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Exhibit 1 is a map representing each employer as a dot...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The specificity with which the employment is located allows the viewer to identify the precise geographic location of an employer. Someone with knowledge of an area&apos;s layout could then easily identify a particular dot as representing Firm X ....The contents of the ES-202 database that are received from employers include the street address of their physical location, and this address is then the basis for the geo-code that MDES adds to the file. We believe it can be argued that providing a dot on a map does not reveal the firm&apos;s address (the maps that we would produce would not include any such address information)...On the other hand, it may be possible to use such a map to reconvert the dots back to a geo-code, and then back out a street address from the coding software files...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine asked the Commissioner to address whether it is appropriate for the Department to release to the public a map with dots representing the location of employers who have provided data to the Department pursuant to Chapter 268. Clearly, pursuant to section 268.19, the names of employers and their addresses are either private or nonpublic data. Although the map does not include street address information, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that a member of the public who inspected the map would, without much effort, be able to identify either the name or the exact street address of the employer. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Department to release to the public a map including dots indicating the locations of employers who have provided data to the Department pursuant to Chapter 268.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: a dot on a map indicating the number of employees or a range of employment for an employer described in Issue 1?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine described the maps indicating the level of employment. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...a map where the dots would be sized proportionately to the level of employment reported by a firm...Here, rather than a limited set of dots of fixed size with each dot size representing employment within a range of values, the dots are of various sizes scaled to reflect their employment (e.g. the dot representing an employer with 1,000 employees is ten times larger in area than that representing an employer with 100 employees). Despite this proportional representation, the scale of these maps is such that identifying the precise level of employment at a particular firm would be impossible....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner stated in relation to Issue 1, he believes the release of a map with dots indicating the location of employers who have provided data to the Department pursuant to Chapter 268 is a release of private/nonpublic data. Therefore, it follows that if a dot represents the location of the employer as well as the employer&apos;s number of employees, or a range of employees, releasing to the public a copy of such a map would be a release of private/nonpublic data. Pursuant to section 268.19, data the employer provides to the Department, e.g., its address and the number of employees, are not public. Although neither the number of employees nor the range of employees would necessarily identify the employer, the fact that such data are linked to a particular employer at a particular location prohibits their release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: data in a map indicating employment by industry type?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine wrote, For example, we would like to present the geographic distribution of employment in manufacturing, health services, etc., across various areas. A potential problem here is that if a viewer of the map can identify a dot with an employer, they would then have knowledge of the industry code, or portion thereof, that is part of the employer&apos;s ES-202 record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine explained in conversation with IPAD staff that the Department might, for example, create a map featuring manufacturing firms, whereby each dot represents an employer whose business is manufacturing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the Department collects the industry-type data pursuant to Chapter 268, those data are classified as private/nonpublic. As discussed in Issue 1, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that a dot which represents the location of an employer is a release of not public data. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in Issue 2, a dot on a map that represents both the employer&apos;s industry type and its location is private/nonpublic data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains: grids on a map representing employment density? Does the size of the grid change the classification of the data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If it is determined that maps of the type [described above] do violate data privacy restrictions, an alternative presentation is in the form of density maps...In these cases, rather than the presentation being directly derived from the physical address information in the ES-202 file, geo-mapping software defines a grid or raster , and for each rectangle defined by this grid, a level of employment is calculated by aggregating across firms within the rectangle. Then each rectangle is assigned a density, e.g. the employment level per square mile, and a color-coded mapping of all such density values provides the presentation of employment across the area of interest. It is the case, then, that these types of maps are not derived directly from the individual firms&apos; confidential data; rather they are built upon a grid of aggregated data, and firm&apos;s [sic] geo-codes are used only to identify to which rectangle on the grid their employment numbers should be added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Despite the fact that neither the precise location of a firm nor its level of employment is identifiable from these maps, it is possible to alter the size of the grids so as to further obscure the information derived from the database should confidentiality laws require it....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Employers provide employment number data to the Department pursuant to Chapter 268. Those data, therefore, are private/nonpublic and cannot be publicly released. In Issue 4, Mr. Hine has presented a situation in which rectangular grids on a map represent employment density. The answer to his question as to whether the grids would, in effect, release data about an employer depends upon the size of the grid and how many employers are located within that grid. For example, if the grid size is such that a specific company easily can be identified as the only employer within that grid, then the Department would be releasing private/nonpublic data. The Commissioner can offer only general guidance here; the Department will have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular grid contains not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Hine raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, the following Minnesota Department of Economic Security data are private/nonpublic: a dot on a map representing the location of an employer is private/nonpublic.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, the following Minnesota Department of Economic Security data are private/nonpublic: a dot on a map indicating the number of employees or a range of employment for an employer described in Issue 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, the following data that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains are private/nonpublic: data in a map indicating employment by industry type (whereby a dot indicates the location of an employer and the industry type).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 268, the classification of grids on a map representing employment density (data the Minnesota Department of Economic Security maintains) depends upon the size of the grid and how many employers are located within that grid.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 2, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267757</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Economic Security Department</Title><Id>266574</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Geo-spatial mappings</Title><Id>266990</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-07-13T15:04:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-004</Title><title>Opinion 03 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267848&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-01-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Board of Accountancy maintains: data about an accounting firm relating to a complaint that the Board dismissed?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 29, 2003; Minnesota Board of Accountancy</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 14, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated January 13. 2003, from Michele Owen, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General, on behalf of the Minnesota Board of Accountancy. In her letter, Ms. Owen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Board maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Owen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the past few months, the Complaint Committee of the Board conducted an investigation of a written complaint alleging that an accounting firm, which is organized as a limited liability corporation, mishandled an engagement. The Complaint Committee dismissed the complaint because it could not find any specific violations of the statutes and rules the Board is authorized to enforce. The Complaint Committee notified the firm of its findings in an October 2002 letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information collected by the Board during its investigation of the complaint indicates that the firm may have violated a separate provision of Minnesota law by engaging in the practice of public accounting before the firm became licensed by the Board, as required by Minn. Stat. section 326A.05 (2002). Either the executive secretary or a member of the Complaint Committee would like to initiate a new complaint against the firm for unlicensed practice, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 214.10, subd. 2 (2002). However, the Board is unsure whether its Complaint Committee can utilize the data collected in its investigation of the dismissed complaint as a basis for initiating a different complaint against the same firm....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Owen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Board of Accountancy maintains: data about an accounting firm relating to a complaint that the Board dismissed?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data collected, created, or maintained by any licensing agency of the state which is given the statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41. Subdivisions 2 and 3 classify certain licensing data as private, subdivision 4 classifies certain licensing data as confidential, and subdivision 5 classifies certain licensing data as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that although subdivision 5 of section 13.41 describes types of data that are public, there is no subdivision classifying all other licensing data as private. Thus, the data listed in subdivision 5 are not the only public data collected, created, and maintained by licensing agencies. The general presumption that government data are public applies to licensing data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267520&quot; title=&quot;02-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-038&lt;/a&gt;.) In other words, the only data that a government entity can treat as not public are the types listed in subdivisions 2, 3, and 4. All other data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.41 classifies as not public, i.e., private and confidential, only those data that are about individuals. Thus, any licensing data that are data not on individuals are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has not seen the data in question. In her opinion request, Ms. Owen wrote that the Board investigated an allegation that the accounting firm had mishandled an engagement. She noted the Board dismissed the complaint because it could not find any specific violations of the statutes and rules the Board is authorized to enforce. Upon review of section 13.41, it appears to the Commissioner that some of the data in question might be private pursuant to subdivision 2(a) of section 13.41: (1) the identity of complainants who have made reports concerning licensees or applicants which appear in inactive complaint data unless the complainant consents to the disclosure; and (2) the nature or content of unsubstantiated complaints when the information is not maintained in anticipation of legal action. However, as discussed above, a classification of private applies only to data on individuals. Thus, if any of the data in question are data not on individuals, they are public. As for other data on individuals, they are private only if are they are among the types described in subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, it does not appear to the Commissioner that any of the data relating to the Board&apos;s investigation are classified as confidential (applies only to data on individuals ) pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.41. Licensing data are confidential only if they relate to an active investigation. Here, the investigation is no longer active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in certain instances, a government entity may determine that some data are protected pursuant to section 13.39, civil investigative data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.39 states that data collected by government entities as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are confidential/protected nonpublic. For data to be classified properly under section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the entity must determine that a civil legal action is pending. When the investigation becomes inactive, as defined in subdivision 3 of section 13.39, the data become public. Here Ms. Owen, whom the Commissioner assumes to be the Board&apos;s chief attorney, has indicated that the investigation is closed. Therefore, it does not appear that any of the data in question can be protected pursuant to section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Owen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If any of the data in question are data on individuals and are the type listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, subdivision 2, those data are private. If any of the data in question are data not on individuals, those data are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. In addition, if any of the data previously were classified as civil investigative data pursuant to section 13.39, those data are now public because the investigation is no longer active.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 29, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267848</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Only regulates data on individuals</Title><Id>267029</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-003</Title><title>Opinion 03 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266767&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-01-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Airports Commission respond appropriately to an October 1, 2002, request to inspect items 2 through 5?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 2003; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 26, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated November 25, 2002, from Guy Heide, on behalf of the Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee. In his letter, Mr. Heide asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of the Metropolitan Airports Commission&apos;s (MAC) response to a data practices request under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wendy Bartlett, Legal Administrator for the MAC, in response to Mr. Heide&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 3, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Heide&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On December 19, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Andrew Voss, an attorney representing the MAC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Heide presented them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Heide wrote, On January 5, 2002 our Committee petitioned the FAA to investigate alleged misconduct by the [MAC]...in their administration of the Federal Part 150 airport noise residential home insulation program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 1, 2002, Mr. Heide wrote to Ms. Bartlett and requested access to certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 31, 2002, Ms. Bartlett responded to Mr. Heide. She wrote, Please be advised that all communications between MAC staff and Mr. Lightfoot are attorney-client privileged....However, three (3) pages have been found that are responsive to your request and are available for your review at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Heide wrote, MAC made a limited response to item #1 of our government data request &lt;u&gt;but MAC denied items #2 through #5 asserting attorney-client privilege&lt;/u&gt;... He further wrote, We appeal to the Commissioner to issue an opinion that the government data, requested as Items #2 through #5...of our October 1, 2002 MAC letter, be made available for inspection to our Committee as provided by [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Items 2 through 5 of Mr. Heide&apos;s October 1, 2002, letter are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The letter (or whatever contemporaneous document was generated at the time) from MAC to Mr. Lightfoot setting forth the terms of his employment and MAC&apos;s instructions to Mr. Lightfoot on how he was to carry out his investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. All communications (in either written or electronic form) from MAC staff to Mr. Lightfoot (along with their attachments) generated by Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s investigation --such individuals would include (without limitation) Jeffrey Hamiel, Thomas W. Anderson, Wendy Bartlett (yourself), Nigel Finney, Roy Fuhrmann and Chad Leqve.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. Copies of any and all drafts of the Lightfoot Report created or edited by MAC prior to the final report dated March 26, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. The unredacted contents of Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s File 051-05 which should include (without limitation):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;all communications between Mr. Lightfoot and MAC (in either written or electronic form);&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;all drafts of the Lightfoot Report;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;all notes made by Mr. Lightfoot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s detailed record on how the following billed hours were spent:
&lt;br /&gt;
51.2 hours on his Invoice #10559 of 2/4/2002;
&lt;br /&gt;
55.6 hours on his Invoice #10598 of 3/6/2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Heide asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Airports Commission respond appropriately to an October 1, 2002, request to inspect items 2 through 5?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 (formerly section 13.30), attorneys, allows certain data to be protected from disclosure under Chapter 13:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Voss stated, The requested data consist of communications between MAC and its outside counsel, Thaddeus R. Lightfoot, an attorney associated with The Environmental Law Group, Ltd. MAC declined to produce this data on the grounds that all communications between MAC staff and Mr. Lightfoot are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. See Minn. Stat. section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Voss referenced two documents discussing the MAC&apos;s characterization of the Committee&apos;s allegations against MAC. In a letter dated January 29, 2002, MAC&apos;s Executive Director, Jeffrey Hamiel, wrote to Mr. Heide: Given the seriousness of the allegations being made, and the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration is being asked to conduct an investigation into these allegations, I must request that all further contact with MAC staff by you or members of your Committee be directed through our General Counsel, Mr. Thomas W. Anderson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other document is the minutes of the January 22, 2002, MAC meeting. Under the Announcements section, it states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Hamiel reported that the Commission has retained outside counsel to deal with the [Committee] because of the sensitivity and nature of the serious allegations made by the Committee against staff. Thad Lightfoot has been retained by the MAC, and Mr. Hamiel requested that all correspondence and comments received from the [Committee] be directed to Mr. Lightfoot through MAC&apos;s Legal Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Voss further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s investigation, analysis of the relevant issues, and confidential communications with MAC staff relate to MAC&apos;s legal defense in the administrative proceedings initiated by the [Committee] before the FAA. The Committee&apos;s November 25 Appeal emphasizes repeatedly that MAC retained Mr. Lightfoot to prepare a report that was submitted to the FAA, and therefore, Mr. Lightfoot was not engaged for the purpose of providing legal advice. The fact that MAC&apos;s counsel responded to the FAA with a report on his findings and interpretations of governing legal standards is irrelevant to an analysis of the purpose for which Mr. Lightfoot was retained. When a party&apos;s attorney files legal memoranda with a court, his legal advice to his client relating to the matter at issue does not become discoverable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The confidential nature of MAC&apos;s communications with its counsel is plain from the circumstances that prompted Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s retention. The Committee has presented no evidence or argument that MAC transferred a function, responsibility or data to Mr. Lightfoot in order to avoid MAC&apos;s obligations under [Chapter 13]....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, to the extent the [Committee] is requesting data that cannot be characterized as communications between MAC and its counsel, such data qualifies as attorney work product, and is therefore not to be disclosed absent a showing of substantial need, and that the Committee cannot obtain such information from other sources absent undue hardship....The Committee&apos;s threat of litigation is apparent on the face of its correspondence with local, state and federal government representatives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Section 13.393 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, the data falling under the section 13.393 exemption are data relating to information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267759&quot; title=&quot;97-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The limiting language related to not relieving responsible authorities of their duties under Chapters 13 and 15 was added to Section 13.30 by the legislature in an attempt to ensure that responsible authorities could not evade certain statutory duties by either having those duties performed by attorneys or transferring data associated with the duties to the custody and control of attorneys.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, in order for the University to protect the data pursuant to Section 13.30, two conditions must hold. One, the law firm Hogan Hartson had to generate the data in the course of acting in its professional capacity for the University, and two, Hogan Hartson was not performing duties that are required to be performed by the University&apos;s responsible authority and therefore not relieving the responsible authority of her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 and Section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether those two conditions apply in the instance of the data created, collected and maintained by Hogan Hartson. In order to make that determination, it would be necessary for the Commissioner to examine the contractual and other relationships between the University and Hogan Hartson and to actually examine the data generated and held by Hogan Hartson. In order to perform those examinations, the University would have to provide all of the relevant data to the Commissioner which it has not chosen to do. Without that examination, it is not possible to make a final determination that would overcome the University&apos;s claim that these data are exempt from disclosure under Section 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether the MAC appropriately denied access to data based on section 13.393. Although Mr. Voss argues, The confidential nature of MAC&apos;s communications with its counsel is plain from the circumstances that prompted Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s retention, the Commissioner does not know whether Mr. Lightfoot was, indeed, acting in a legal counselor role when he investigated and reported on the Committee&apos;s allegations. The information the Commissioner has demonstrates only that Mr. Lightfoot was hired because of the sensitivity and nature of the allegations and that he was hired to investigate and provide an in-depth analysis of the allegations. (At the January 22, 2002, Commission meeting, Mr. Hamiel reported that Mr. Lightfoot had been retained to deal with the [Committee] because of the sensitivity and nature of the serious allegations made by the Committee against staff. In an April 5, 2002, letter to Mr. Heide, Mr. Hamiel wrote, As a result of [the Committee&apos;s allegations], I directed...to retain the services of outside counsel to investigate this matter. Mr. Lightfoot...conducted an in-depth analysis of all allegations made by the [Committee]. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has opined previously, without more information, such as the terms of Mr. Lightfoot&apos;s employment with MAC, the Commissioner is not in a position to make a determination that overcomes the MAC&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, however, the Commissioner adds the following note. It seems unlikely that part of the second item Mr. Heide requested - The letter...from MAC to Mr. Lightfoot setting forth the terms of his employment - could fall under the purview of section 13.393. Contracts between government entities and the parties with which they do business are public. The Commissioner encourages the MAC to review any such document to determine whether it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Heide raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Metropolitan Airports Commission responded appropriately to an October 1, 2002, request to inspect items 2 through 5.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 27, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266767</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-002</Title><title>Opinion 03 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267082&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-01-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Houston County maintains: a Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income, and a Release of the Levy, both from the IRS?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 21, 2003; Houston County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 3, 2003, IPAD received a memorandum, dated January 2, 2003, from Tim Comstock, Director of Personnel and Central Services for Houston County. In his letter, Mr. Comstock asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the County maintains. Then, on January 15, 2003, IPAD received a memorandum, dated same, from Mr. Comstock. In this memorandum, Mr. Comstock asked the Commissioner to amend his original request to include the classification of additional data the County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. The County has received a Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income from the IRS. In addition, the County has received a Release of the Levy. Mr. Comstock asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of the Notice and the Release.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his request for an opinion, Mr. Comstock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that Houston County maintains: a Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income, and a Release of the Levy, both from the IRS? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Data on an individual collected because s/he is or was an employee of, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 provides a list of most of the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies remaining personnel data as private.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the case of this opinion, according to Mr. Comstock, the Notice and the Release are about an individual who is or was an employee or an independent contractor for the County. Therefore, the data in the Notice and the Release are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Further, because those data are not the types treated as public pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.43, the data in the documents are private and cannot be released.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Comstock raised is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income and the Release of the Levy are private data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Brian J. Lamb
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 21, 2003
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267082</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266798</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 03-001</Title><title>Opinion 03 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267878&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2003-01-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in documents, labeled Exhibits &quot;A - Y,&quot; that relate to investigations of allegations of misconduct against an Independent School District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan) employee?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2003; School District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Jill E. Coyle, attorney for Independent School District 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan. In this letter, Ms. Coyle asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. Ms. Coyle&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the his/her employment with the District, a now former employee was the subject of three separate investigations. The employee resigned following the third investigation. According to Ms. Coyle, each investigation included interviews of students and staff members. The District has denied the former employee&apos;s request to review some investigative materials, because the District believes the data contained therein are protected under Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32 and 13.43. Ms. Coyle stated: [t]he School District felt that redaction would be futile because information regarding the former employee was inextricably intertwined with data about or supplied by students and staff members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Coyle characterized the data in question as primarily summaries of interviews with various witnesses and alleged victims, who were District students and staff, that appear to contain private educational and/or personnel data about two or more individuals. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Redaction does not appear to be possible in this case with regard to many, if not all of the documents. Although ISD 196 can easily redact the names contained in the documents, the identity of those supplying the data and discussed in the data will easily be traceable based upon the former employee&apos;s experiences. This analysis suggests that ISD 196 may not release the enclosed documents to the former employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Coyle asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in documents, labeled Exhibits A - Y, that relate to investigations of allegations of misconduct against an Independent School District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan) employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, data subjects have the right to gain access to public and private data about themselves. Private data are accessible to the data subject, but not to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals are all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about public employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both state and federal law govern access to data generated by school districts about students. Section 13.32, incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is possible for private data about more than one person to be contained in the same document. In such cases, when one of the data subjects makes a request for access to data about him/herself, the government entity must attempt to separate the data and provide the requestor with data about him/her without releasing private data about the other data subject(s). Entire documents may not be withheld if redaction will adequately prevent disclosure of private data on other individuals. However, under some circumstances, it may be necessary for the entity to withhold an entire document that contains data on multiple subjects in order to protect private data about subjects other than the requestor. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When government entities are faced with redacting documents containing data about multiple data subjects, it is important for the entity to review each document on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether the release of any of the data may result in the inappropriate release of private data on an individual. Government entities are in the best position to make those determinations, because they have all of the data available and are knowledgeable about the circumstances. Therefore, the Commissioner will offer general rather than detailed guidance with respect to the classification of each data element contained in the documents Exhibits A - Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, in Exhibit E, there are statements from a couple of named staff members who apparently were some distance from the scene of one incident. The statements include the room number where they were standing, and comments about what they witnessed. It may be the case that, if those employee&apos;s names were redacted, their comments alone would not identify either of them as the subjects of private data. It is also possible that the room numbers would need to be redacted, in case the employees could be identified by the room they were standing beside. However, it is not possible for the Commissioner to make that determination without knowing the full context. The District is in the best position to make that judgement. Furthermore, the document contains the initials of a student involved in the incident, who the former employee would be able to identify. As noted above, identifying data about students are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other documents, such as Exhibits N-S, contain statements of students who witnessed an incident that occurred partially in a classroom and partially outside the classroom, and who may be identified by the context, even if their names and initials are redacted. Based on the data available, it is not possible to determine if, for example, the release of any data in the documents would reveal private data to the former employee because of circumstances unknown to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Coyle is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32 and 13.43, data on individuals contained in documents, labeled Exhibits A - Y, that relate to investigations of allegations of misconduct against an Independent School District 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan) former employee are classified as private. If it is not possible for the District to redact the interview summaries, then it is appropriate for the District to withhold entire documents from the data subject who requested access. The District is in the best position to make that determination.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brian J. Lamb
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 16, 2003&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267878</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Indirect identification of individuals</Title><Id>266348</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determine data subject case by case</Title><Id>266579</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject determined case-by-case</Title><Id>266580</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:26:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-054</Title><title>Opinion 02 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267793&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 30, 2002; Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services, Inc.</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 2, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Sharon Hobbs, an attorney representing Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services, Inc. (CMJTS). In her letter, Ms. Hobbs asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether CMJTS is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Hobbs wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;CMJTS is incorporated as a non-profit corporation under Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes and qualified as a tax exempt corporation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;CMJTS operates under an agreement...with the Joint Powers Board created by the Counties of Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Pine, Renville, Sherburne, and Wright. Its responsibilities as grant recipients and administrative entity for the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA Pub.L. 105-220)( WIA ) and the Welfare to Work Program for Workforce Service Area No. 5; program operator for Workforce Services Area No. 5; and local plan development, oversight, budget, negotiation of local program performance measures, employment statistic systems, employer linkages, connecting, brokering, and coaching responsibilities are described in its agreement with the Joint Powers Board and the corporation&apos;s Bylaws.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;CMJTS is certified by the Governor and serves as the local workforce council for Workforce Service Area No. 5 serving the counties of Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Pine, Renville, Sherburne, and Wright. WIA requires local workforce investment boards, but allows States to use pre-existing entities organized under State law. In Minnesota, local workforce councils are used in all workforce service areas as alternative entities allowed by WIA Section 117(I). Local workforce councils are created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 268.666.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As described in its Bylaws, the Council performs the functions described in Section 117(d) of WIA, Minnesota Statutes Section 268.666, and employment and training agreements which complement these provisions. These functions include initiation, review, and evaluation of the strategic planning activities of Minnesota Workforce Service Area No. 5; nominating individuals to the Governor for membership on the Governor&apos;s Workforce Development Council; and other responsibilities required by its agreement with the Joint Powers Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hobbs asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1, All state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems shall be governed by this chapter. Although Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services (CMJTS) is not a state agency (see section 13.02, subdivision 17), political subdivision (see section 13.02, subdivision 11), or statewide system (see section 13.02, subdivision 18), certain data it collects and maintains appear to be classified pursuant to section 13.47, employment and training data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 1(a) of section 13.47 defines employment and training data as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated because an individual applies for, is currently enrolled in, or has been enrolled in employment and training programs funded with federal, state, or local resources, including those provided under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, United States Code, title 29, section 2801.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 1(b) of section 13.47 defines employment and training service provider as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...an entity certified, or seeking to be certified, by the commissioner of economic security to deliver employment and training services under section 268.1022, subdivision 3, or an organization that contracts with a certified entity or the department of economic security to deliver employment and training services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 1(c) of section 13.47 defines provider of training services as an organization or entity that provides training under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, United States Code, title 29, section 2801.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 of section 13.47 classifies employment and training data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 3 of section 13.47 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Employment and training data maybe disseminated by employment and training service providers:
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) to other employment and training service providers to coordinate the employment and training services for the data subject or to determine eligibility or suitability for services from other programs;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) to local and state welfare agencies for monitoring the eligibility of the participant for assistance programs, or for any employment or training program administered by those agencies; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) to the commissioner of economic security.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information Ms. Hobbs provided to the Commissioner, it appears CMJTS is a service and training service provider and some of the data it maintains are employment training data as those terms are defined in Chapter 13. Thus, any data on individuals CMJTS collects, maintains, uses, or disseminates because an individual applies for, is currently enrolled in, or has been enrolled in employment and training programs funded with federal, state, or local resources, including those provided under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, United States Code, title 29, section 280 are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly, CMJTS maintains data other than those defined as employment training data. As stated above, CMJTS is not a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system. However, it is possible that some of the other types of data CMJTS collects and maintains may be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 as a result of CMJTS&apos; contractual relationship with the Joint Powers Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, applies when a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions. This section went into effect on August 1, 1999. Clause (a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13] and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (b) of section 13.05, subdivision 11, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hobbs stated that CMJTS operates under an agreement with the Joint Powers Board created by the counties of Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Pine, Renville, Sherburne, and Wright. For purposes of Chapter 13, a Joint Powers Board is a statewide system. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-040&lt;/a&gt;.) Ms. Hobbs provided to the Commissioner a copy of the agreement. There is no provision relating to Chapter 13 in the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also relevant to the issue at hand is the Commissioner&apos;s statement in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the provision required by section 13.05, subdivision 11, is not contained in the contract, and the contract went into effect after August 1, 1999, its presence nonetheless should be inferred to give effect to the Legislature&apos;s intent. The language in subdivision 11 is mandatory so its omission would pose a problem for both Mounds View and Kennedy Graven for which there are two possible remedies. The first is to infer the term&apos;s presence in the contract. The second is to find the contract void or voidable. The Commissioner finds it preferable to keep the contract in effect and infer the presence of the above provision rather than voiding the contract in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The Commissioner does not know what functions the Joint Powers Board performs. However, if, as part of CMJTS&apos; contractual relationship with the Joint Powers Board, CMJTS is performing functions on behalf of the Board, data relating to those functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-075&lt;/a&gt;, the fact that the agreement does not contain a provision relating to Chapter 13 is irrelevant.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hobbs raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.47, it appears that employment and training data Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services (CMJTS) collects and maintains are private. In addition, any data that CMJTS creates, collects, receives, stores, uses, maintains, or disseminates in performing any of the Joint Powers Board&apos;s functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 30, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267793</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment and training data (13.47)</Title><Id>267191</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Joint powers agreements/entities (471.59)</Title><Id>266827</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-053</Title><title>Opinion 02 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267686&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-26T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, what is the classification of data documenting the basis of disciplinary action taken against a Clay County employee who resigned before the disciplinary action was final?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 26, 2002; Clay County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/9575.0020/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules part 9575.0200&lt;/a&gt; provides more information about the County Merit System referenced in this opinion.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 18, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Michael T. Rengel, an attorney for Clay County. In this letter, Mr. Rengel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Clay County. Mr. Rengel&apos;s request required clarification and additional information. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Rengel, Clay County took disciplinary action against an employee. The employee appealed the discipline to the County Merit System, but resigned prior to any decision. The employee resigned unconditionally and without any settlement offer or input on behalf of Clay County. The County maintains the following data related to the discipline: letters of reprimand, letters notifying the employee of suspension, internal investigation notes, and independent investigator notes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rengel asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, what is the classification of data documenting the basis of disciplinary action taken against a Clay County employee who resigned before the disciplinary action was final?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (4) and (5), the following personnel data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. &lt;u&gt;Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the [government entity] or arbitrator&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Here, the employee resigned before the Merit System made its final decision, so there is no final disposition of the disciplinary action. If no final disposition regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, then the only data that are public are the name of the employee, and the existence and status of the complaint or charge. Details of the nature and type of the complaint or charge, and other detailed data relating to the investigation, do not become public in this type of situation, because there is no final disposition of the disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Rengel is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, data documenting the basis of disciplinary action taken against a Clay County employee who resigned before the disciplinary action was final are not public, because there was no final disposition of the disciplinary action. The only data that are public are the name of the employee, and the existence and status of the complaint or charge.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated:December 26, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267686</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-10-25T13:31:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-052</Title><title>Opinion 02 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267603&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-26T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Kandiyohi County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 26, 2002; Kandiyohi County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 15, 2002, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Kandiyohi County Sheriff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Don Kujawa, Kandiyohi County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated December 3, 2002, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County Sheriff&apos;s position. On December 16, 2002, IPAD received a response from Kevin Kleinschmidt, Kandiyohi County Assistant Jail Administrator. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I was serving a sentence for a probation violation. The Judge granted me Huber Release. Therefore, as required I wrote him directly asking that my extra hours of employment be approved and if I could attend my aftercare sessions and go to my regular AA meetings. Two weeks prior to starting my sentence my probation officer, Judy Tebeest, called and informed me that the Judge had faxed her a [sic] approval of my request, she then stated that she would fax it over to the jail Programs Directors, whom I have know [sic] by first names, Jon and Linda.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I asked to view my file while at the jail, because they denied me AA meetings and caused some problems with my employer. I specifically asked to see the letter from the Judge. I was denied access and no reason was given.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                After X&apos;s release, X met with the Sheriff and the jail administrator in August of 2002, and again requested access to the letter. According to X, the jail administrator stated that he would contact X within the week. To date, I have received no response . . . . X also stated that the letter is missing from his/her file at the County Court Administration Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Kleinschmidt stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                There was no written request to have a formal viewing of [X&apos;s] file. In one instance our Program Director does recall [X] verbally requesting to see a specific letter stating from the Judge that [X] has been approved for additional work hours at [X&apos;s] employment. The reason this request was not fulfilled is that there was no letter from the Judge approving [X] for additional work hours.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [X] was informed that there was no such letter signed by the Judge, this is the reason why it was not provided to [X].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Mr. Kleinschmidt stated that the fact that the letter was missing from the court file would explain why we do not have a copy of this letter. Access cannot be denied to information we do not have.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Kandiyohi County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.85, corrections and detention data are defined as data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons, and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities. Section 13.85 classifies various data as public, private or confidential. X is entitled to gain access to any public or private data the County maintains about him/her. The Commissioner does not know the specific content of letter. However, it isn&apos;t likely that there would be any confidential data, as defined in subdivision 3, in a letter written by X to a judge, or the judge&apos;s written comments on that letter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the County maintained the letter in question, X would be entitled to gain access to it, assuming it does not contain confidential data. However, according to Mr. Kleinschmidt, the Sheriff does not have the letter, or a copy of it. X stated that his/her probation officer told X that she had received a copy from the judge, and planned to fax it to County jail staff. In general, under the rules governing public access to court records, X should be able to get a copy of the letter from the court. However, according to X, the letter is missing from the court file. Therefore, the Commissioner suggests that X contact the probation officer or the judge to request another copy.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner cannot resolve the factual disagreement between X and the County Sheriff regarding whether X was told that the Sheriff did not have a copy of the letter. It is helpful in situations like these if the government entity relies on its written data access policies and procedures, per section 13.05, subdivision 8, and documents its actions, as it is required to do under section 15.17. If the County had made a written record of its response to X, it might be possible to sort out what occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff responded appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject, by denying access, because the Sheriff does not maintain the data in question.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 26, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267603</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Corrections and detention data (13.85)</Title><Id>266453</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Court records (See also: Judicial branch)</Title><Id>266571</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T21:01:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-051</Title><title>Opinion 02 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267437&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is an oral reprimand &quot;disciplinary action&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)? If so, what is the classification of the written documentation of said reprimand?
What is the classification of the following data related to disciplinary action taken against Clay County employees:
A. Letters of reprimand. 
B. Letters notifying employees of suspension. 
C. Internal investigation notes related to computer usage. 
D. Independent investigator reports related to investigation and interviews of employees subject to discipline. 
E. Notes solely in the possession of the independent investigator. 
F. Notes solely in the possession of an internal investigator.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 26, 2002; Clay County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 4, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Lisa N. Borgen, the Clay County Attorney. In this letter, Ms. Borgen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Clay County. Ms. Borgen&apos;s request required clarification and additional information. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Borgen: [d]iscipline has been taken against a number of Clay County employees, however, at this juncture there is no final discipline as each of the employees has appeal/grievance rights under either merit system, a collective bargaining agreement, or county personnel policy. These appeals are at different stages, and once appeals are complete, the discipline will be final.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Borgen&apos;s office provided a copy of the County personnel policy, which contains the County&apos;s only written policy on discipline.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Borgen asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is an oral reprimand disciplinary action for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)? If so, what is the classification of the written documentation of said reprimand?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What is the classification of the following data related to disciplinary action taken against Clay County employees:
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              A. Letters of reprimand.
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              B. Letters notifying employees of suspension.
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              C. Internal investigation notes related to computer usage.
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              D. Independent investigator reports related to investigation and interviews of employees subject to discipline.
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              E. Notes solely in the possession of the independent investigator.
                              &lt;br /&gt;
                              F. Notes solely in the possession of an internal investigator.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is an oral reprimand disciplinary action for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5)? If so, what is the classification of the written documentation of said reprimand? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (4) and (5), the following personnel data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the [government entity] or arbitrator.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The data at issue here are data that document an oral reprimand. According to the County&apos;s personnel policy regarding discipline, Section 20, clause A, provides: [d]iscipline will be in the form of one or more of the following: oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, demotion or discharge. Discipline will not necessarily follow any specific order. Under clause C of Section 20, [a]ctions taken per this section shall be subject to the provisions of Section 21, Grievances.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, under the County&apos;s policy, an oral reprimand is a form of discipline. Accordingly, any data contained in the written documentation of an oral reprimand that constitute the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action are public when the discipline becomes final. According to Ms. Borgen, at the time she requested this opinion the disciplinary action was not yet final for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5). Until the discipline is final, the only data that are public are the fact that there is a complaint or charge against the employee, and the status of the complaint or charge. Details of the nature and type of complaint or charge are not public until the discipline is final.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the classification of the following data related to disciplinary action taken against Clay County employees:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;A. Letters of reprimand.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      B. Letters notifying employees of suspension.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      C. Internal investigation notes related to computer usage.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      D. Independent investigator reports related to investigation and interviews of employees subject to discipline.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      E. Notes solely in the possession of the independent investigator.
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                       F. Notes solely in the possession of an internal investigator.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The analysis here is the same as that for Issue 1. Regardless where the data reside, or in what form, any data contained in the letters, investigation notes and/or reports described above that constitute the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, are public if and when the discipline becomes final.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Borgen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                According to the Clay County personnel policy regarding discipline, an oral reprimand is disciplinary action for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5). Any data in the written documentation of the oral reprimand that constitute the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action data are public if and when the discipline becomes final. Until the discipline is final, the only data that are public are the fact that there is a complaint or charge against the employee, and the status of the complaint or charge.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Regardless where the data reside, or in what form, any data contained in the letters, investigation notes and/or reports described above that constitute the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, are public if and when the discipline becomes final. Until the discipline is final, the only data that are public are the fact that there is a complaint or charge against the employee, and the status of the complaint or charge.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 26, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267437</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Oral reprimand</Title><Id>266908</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-050</Title><title>Opinion 02 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267350&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-17T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If the Minnesota Department of Public Safety waived attorney-client privilege as to the legal memorandum from the Attorney General&apos;s Office, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the memorandum, in whole or in part, be public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 17, 2002; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 14, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, Data Practices Compliance Official, and General Counsel and Special Projects, for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. In her letter, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding certain data that the Department maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification and Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske resubmitted her opinion request in a letter dated October 29, 2002. IPAD invited the subject (X) of the data in question to submit comments. X&apos;s attorney did so in a letter dated November 29, 2002.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her initial opinion request, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The [Department] received a request...to release an attorney-client privileged memorandum from the Attorney General&apos;s Office to the [Department] on [X]. The Department denied the request. On behalf of the Department, the Commissioner of Public Safety could expressly waive attorney-client privilege and has considered doing so in this case. In addition to legal advice, the memorandum contains non-public data...and summarizes active criminal investigative data received by the Department from...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her October 29, 2002, letter, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 I am writing in response to your office&apos;s request for a copy of the attorney-client privileged memorandum from the Attorney General&apos;s Office to the [Department] on [X]. Attached is a copy of the privileged memorandum. To waive attorney/client privilege, Commissioner Charlie Weaver must waive it expressly. &lt;u&gt;Please note that Commissioner Weaver had not waived attorney-client privilege of this memorandum.&lt;/u&gt; The Department is providing the memorandum to your office for the purposes of receiving an advisory opinion under MN Stat. 13.072. Should your office receive a request for this memorandum, we would expect you to deny the request based on MN Stat. 13.072 Subd. 4 and current caselaw.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the Minnesota Department of Public Safety waived attorney-client privilege as to the legal memorandum from the Attorney General&apos;s Office, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the memorandum, in whole or in part, be public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes the following. To issue a useful opinion, the Commissioner determined it would be best to review the memorandum in question. The Department then decided to release to the Commissioner a copy of the memorandum. As Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske stated, it is the Department&apos;s assertion that doing so does not waive the attorney-client privilege. The Commissioner has not taken a position on that issue. The Commissioner&apos;s task here is to determine the classification of the data in the memorandum if the Department were to waive the attorney-client privilege.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, X&apos;s attorney wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    At this time, we have determined not to take a position regarding the Data Practice implications of the proposed waiving of the Commissioner&apos;s attorney-client privelige [sic], and release of this memorandum to members of the media. We will abide by the determination made by this department regarding the Data Practice classification of this memorandum. Accordingly, we will not release this memorandum for any purpose pending the determination of your office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of the data in the memorandum. If the Department waives the attorney-client privilege, because of the operation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the data in the memorandum are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.) The answer to Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske&apos;s question, therefore, depends upon the type of data in the memorandum. If the Department chooses to waive attorney-client privilege, it may withhold only those data in the memorandum that are classified as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the memorandum, the Commissioner&apos;s comments are as follows. Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske, in her October 14, 2002, letter, stated that the memorandum summarizes active criminal investigative data that the Department received from a law enforcement agency. This type of data in the possession of the law enforcement agency are classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4, data that travel from one government entity to another generally do not change their classification. Thus, any active criminal investigative data contained in the memorandum are confidential and not public. However, when the investigation becomes inactive, such data, with a few exceptions, are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is possible the memorandum also contains arrest (section 13.82, subdivision 2), request for service (section 13.82, subdivision 3), or response or incident data (section 13.82, subdivision 6), that traveled from a law enforcement agency to the Department. If so, such data are public, including the name of any person(s) arrested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the memorandum may contain data the Department maintains about the functions it performs relating to drivers and vehicles. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2721, the Department treats some driver and vehicle data as restricted information, i.e., not public. Therefore, any such restricted information contained in the memorandum would not be public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the Minnesota Department of Public Safety waived attorney-client privilege as to the legal memorandum from the Attorney General&apos;s Office, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the classification depends upon the types of data in the memorandum. If the data are classified in Chapter 13 or in another statute as not public, the data are not public. However, any remaining data in the memorandum are public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 17, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267350</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No change in classification (13.03, subd. 4(c))</Title><Id>266554</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-049</Title><title>Opinion 02 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267650&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following data government data: numerous images (including films and photographs) that are sexually explicit and/or pornographic in nature that are stored and maintained on the hard drives of laptop computers that were used by a Mn/DOT employee?
If these images are government data, how are they classified pursuant to Chapter 13?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the descriptions of the images that are contained in the internal Mn/DOT investigative report?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 17, 2002; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 11, 2002, the Commissioner received a memo, dated October 10, 2002, from Linda Bjornberg, Mn/DOT&apos;s Director of the Management Operations Group and Data Practices Compliance Official. In her memo, Ms. Bjornberg asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Department maintains. IPAD staff requested clarification, which IPAD received on October 18, 2002. IPAD staff requested additional clarification, which IPAD received on October 21, 2002. IPAD notified the data subject (X) and invited him/her to submit comments. X&apos;s attorney did so on November 8, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Bjornberg presented them is as follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Recently Mn/DOT investigated [X&apos;s] use of Mn/DOT laptop computers. At issue in the investigation were numerous images (including films and photographs) stored and maintained on the hard-drives on these computers that were sexually explicit and/or pornographic in nature. The investigation has now been completed and follow up action was taken. That action has reached a final disposition pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.43, Subd.2(5). The fact that the images were stored and/or maintained on [X&apos;s] hard drives, does constitute, in part, the basis for the disciplinary action taken against the employee....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mn/DOT has a concern about making these types of images available to the public, since we are charged in statewide, as well as, Mn/DOT Telecommunications, Ethics and Harassment policies with creating and fostering a respectful, ethical and harassment-free work environment. It would seem an absurd result if a public agency would be required to copy and/or allow images to be made available as public data, that we have deemed highly inappropriate in our work environment. These images were not created, maintained and/or stored as a result of an individual&apos;s employment with Mn/DOT, but outside the scope of the individual&apos;s employment. Therefore they seem to be more in the nature of personal (rather than personnel) data on an individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Bjornberg asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following data government data: numerous images (including films and photographs) that are sexually explicit and/or pornographic in nature that are stored and maintained on the hard drives of laptop computers that were used by a Mn/DOT employee?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If these images are government data, how are they classified pursuant to Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the descriptions of the images that are contained in the internal Mn/DOT investigative report?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following data government data: numerous images (including films and photographs) that are sexually explicit and/or pornographic in nature that are stored and maintained on the hard drives of laptop computers that were used by a Mn/DOT employee?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, [X&apos;s] attorney argued that the images are not government data, but rather are personal data. He noted the Commissioner&apos;s position in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;. The attorney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When an employee uses a government issued computer for personal reasons pursuant to [an entity policy that may authorize limited personal use of computers by its employees], that information never becomes government data. It remains personal data, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and beyond the scope of the [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Presumably, the data was not generated during the course and scope of [X&apos;s] employment. Presumably, [X&apos;s] job duties did not include accessing such images with his/her computer. Presumably, [X] generated the data for personal reasons outside of the regular time and duties of his/her employment....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, assuming the images are not of [X] and they contain no reference to [X] or other identifying data, the data is not personnel data and section 13.43 does not apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Here, the Department investigated and disciplined X regarding his/her use of Department laptop computers. Of specific relevance were the sexually explicit and/or pornographic images stored and maintained on the hard-drives of the computers. Ms. Bjornberg wrote, The fact that the images were stored and/or maintained on [X&apos;s] hard drives, does constitute, in part, the basis for the disciplinary action taken against [X]. In the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, this fact is a clear indication that the images are government data. The Department is maintaining the images (regardless of the context under which X collected them) to document action it took against X. Therefore, it does not seem reasonable for either X&apos;s attorney or the Department to argue that the data are personal (as the Commissioner discussed that term in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;), rather than government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If these images are government data, how are they classified pursuant to Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists most of the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The images properly are classified pursuant to section 13.43: the Department maintains the images because X is an employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(5), the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. Ms. Bjornberg wrote, The investigation has now been completed and follow up action was taken. That action has reached a final disposition pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.43, Subd.2(5). Because, according to the Department, a final disposition has occurred, any data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action are public. Ms. Bjornberg stated, The fact that the images were stored and/or maintained on [X&apos;s] hard drives, does constitute, in part, the basis for the disciplinary action taken against [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267450&quot; title=&quot;93-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 93-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed an issue similar to the one the Department raised here. The University of Minnesota terminated two employees. The terminations resulted, in part, because one of the employees distributed a sexually explicit video tape to students. In the opinion, the Commissioner concluded that the videotapes were classified pursuant to section 13.43:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the University makes a strong case that certain decision makers involved in the disciplinary action taken against X and Y never saw the contents of these tapes, it is clear from the record presented that even though some decision makers at the University may not have viewed the tapes, the contents were the primary reason for beginning the investigation of X and Y that ultimately lead to their dismissal...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Taken that record as a whole, it would defy common sense for the Commissioner to conclude that these videotapes and their contents, based on a reading of Section 13.43 of the Act, were not among the reasons for or data documenting the basis for the disciplinary actions taken against X and Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner went on to conclude that the tapes were private because treating them as public would create an absurd result. Shortly thereafter, the &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily&lt;/em&gt; sued the University in Hennepin County District Court for a copy of the tapes. In June of 1994, Judge Lucy Wieland found that the videotapes constituted public data within the meaning of Chapter 13 and directed the University to furnish copies of the videotapes to the &lt;em&gt;Daily&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, File No. MC 94-2324 (Fourth Judicial District Hennepin County State of Minnesota, June 14, 1994). Judge Wieland wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although some of the decision makers...did not actually view the contents of the videotapes, it is clear from the record as a whole that the sexual nature of the videotapes was the primary reason for the institution of the investigation which led to the Delis&apos; termination...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This Court finds that the Commissioner erred...The clear and unambiguous language of Section 13.43 of the Act provides that any data which forms a basis of a decision to discipline an employee is public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current case, Ms. Bjornberg stated that the fact that the images were stored and/or maintained on X&apos;s hard drives constitutes, in part, the basis for the disciplinary action taken against X. However, it seems clear that both &lt;em&gt;the fact that the images exist&lt;/em&gt; as well as &lt;em&gt;the images, themselves&lt;/em&gt;, are data that document the basis of the disciplinary action. Thus, based on the finding in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267450&quot; title=&quot;93-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;93-003&lt;/a&gt; and in the &lt;em&gt;Daily&lt;/em&gt; case, they are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s attorney did raise an additional issue in his comments to the Commissioner. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Assuming these images are government data, and assuming further that there is a pending civil legal action relating to the data pursuant to section 13.39, the data should be classified as confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that [X] who is accused of accessing the data has filed an appeal with the Office of Administrative Hearings, which is his/her right under Minn. Stat. section 43A.33. A &apos;pending civil legal action&apos; includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. ...Clearly, the employee&apos;s administrative appeal constitutes a pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), describes the situations when a final disposition occurs:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about a disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner is aware that X was a senior official at the Department, presumably without collective bargaining rights. In addition, Ms. Bjornberg stated that the Department has reached a final disposition. Therefore, data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action are public &lt;em&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266673&quot; title=&quot;96-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-050&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court case...referred to is &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989). The Legislature amended Section 13.43 in 1990, following &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;. That case, in relevant part, dealt with the meaning of the terms final decision and final disposition of disciplinary actions as these terms were used in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, the Court found that a final &lt;u&gt;decision&lt;/u&gt; of the City was not the final &lt;u&gt;disposition&lt;/u&gt; of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt; at 29.) Subsequently, in 1990, the Legislature amended Section 13.43, subdivision 2, by adding clause (b), which provides the definition of final disposition of disciplinary action, and includes the language regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, according to the requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting disciplinary action taken against a public employee become public when there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceeding or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. The City has made its final decision; therefore there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, and, regardless of any later proceeding, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act, the data sought by &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; about J are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the data in question are public regardless of whether X has filed an administrative appeal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the descriptions of the images that are contained in the internal Mn/DOT investigative report?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that the images are data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action, the descriptions of those images also are data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action. Therefore, based on the analysis regarding Issue 2, the descriptions are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Bjornberg raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data are government data: numerous images (including films and photographs) that are sexually explicit and/or pornographic in nature that are stored and maintained on the hard drives of laptop computers that were used by a Mn/DOT employee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, the images are public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, the descriptions of the images that are contained in the internal Mn/DOT investigative report are public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kirsten Cecil
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 17, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267650</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data</Title><Id>267165</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-048</Title><title>Opinion 02 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267569&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains: &quot;all housing inspections reports for a particular apartment complex over the past five years?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 16, 2002; Dakota County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 18, 2002, IPAD received correspondence from Janet Shefchik, of the Dakota County Community Development Agency. In her memo, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Shefchik explained that when an individual or family is interested in participating in the Section 8 rental assistance program, the Community Development Agency conducts an inspection to determine if the housing unit meets certain requirements. Ms. Shefchik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The housing inspections are only completed by us when a person or family is interested in participating in the Section 8 rental assistance program. Therefore, housing inspection information tied to a specific unit may identify program participants, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. if the claimant knows the unit #, and happens to know the residents who live or have lived there, he could reasonable [sic] surmise who is a participant).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains: all housing inspections reports for a particular apartment complex over the past five years?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Benefit data are classified at section 13.462 and are defined as data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership...programs administered by [government entities]. (See subdivision 1 of section 13.462.) Pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 13.462, benefit data are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267565&quot; title=&quot;94-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-009&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of the MGDPA, the term data on individuals is defined, in relevant part, as follows: &apos;Data on individuals&apos; means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, . . . . The part of the definition that talks about government data being able to identify an individual as the subject of certain data reflects an understanding by the legislature that in some instances, while government data in and of itself does not directly identify a specific individual by using the individual&apos;s name or other unique personal identifier, the very nature of the data can still identify an individual and associate that individual with data that is required to be maintained as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An example, relative to this particular situation, illustrates the issue. If a member of the public went to the MPHA and asked to receive the names and addresses of tenants in housing owned by the MPHA, Section 13.31 would operate to prevent lawful disclosure of that data by the MPHA. This request would clearly be a request for private government data that identifies an individual. If that same member of the public returned to the MPHA a week later and made a request to receive the addresses of properties owned by the MPHA and used for public housing, no data is being requested that directly identifies public housing tenants. However, upon the receipt of the addresses, the requestor would be provided with data from which individual identities, names and so forth of public housing tenants, could be established. In such an instance, the legislature&apos;s intent to classify benefit data as private data would become meaningless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Given the definitions of benefit data and data on individuals as discussed above, it is appropriate for the MPHA to consider addresses of scattered site house owned by the agency as data that can identify recipients of housing benefits and therefore private data under the MGDPA. For the MPHA to do otherwise could subject it to potential liability under the MGDPA. If data on scattered site housing addresses were released to the public by MPHA, housing benefit recipients identified through that release of data could assert a cause of action against the MPHA. The threat of a possible lawsuit is designed into the MGDPA as part of its overall framework of requiring agency compliance. In this instance, the MPHA is attempting to avoid that risk by a reasonable judgement that the scattered site housing address in the possession of the MPHA are private data that cannot be made available to the public....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, according to Ms. Shefchik, the County&apos;s Community Development Agency creates and maintains inspection data only because the County has inspected a housing unit for possible residency by a Section 8 participant. Thus, if the County releases data relating to the inspection of a particular housing unit, it is possible the requestor could determine the identity of a Section 8 participant. As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267565&quot; title=&quot;94-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-009&lt;/a&gt;, such an instance would render meaningless the Legislature&apos;s intent to classify benefit data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes the following. Ms. Shefchik inquired about the classification of all housing inspection reports for a particular apartment complex. As long as a particular housing unit is identified as the subject of a housing inspection report, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the data are private. If, however, the County redacts data from the report that identify the particular housing unit, the data presumptively are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, all housing inspections reports for a particular apartment complex over the past five years that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains are private data. If, however, the County redacts data from the report that identify the particular housing unit, the data presumptively are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 16, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267569</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Indirect identification of individuals</Title><Id>266348</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.462 or 13.31</Title><Id>266890</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-047</Title><title>Opinion 02 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267421&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-12-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Ramsey Action Programs (RAP) a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation?
If RAP is subject to Chapter 13, did it respond appropriately to a request for access to public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 2002; Ramsey Action Programs</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 23, 2002, IPAD received a letter from G. James Skalicky. In this letter, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey Action Programs (RAP.) Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request required additional information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kirk Hayes, Executive Director of RAP. The purposes of this letter, dated November 7, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for RAP&apos;s position. On November 13, 2002, IPAD received a response from Larry Reed, attorney for RAP. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to RAP dated September 9, 2002, Mr. Skalicky asked for all public data about all finalists that were interviewed for the position of Energy Auditor at RAP. These candidates where [sic] interviewed for this position during August 2002.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated September 17, 2002, Mr. Reed responded to Mr. Skalicky: [p]lease be advised that it is my opinion that [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43] is not applicable to this situation and client. Thus, we will be unable to provide you with the requested information. . . . . All further inquiries on this matter should be directed to the undersigned and not to RAP personnel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, Mr. Skalicky wrote to Mr. Reed on September 24, 2002, and asked him to cite the specific provision of law that your determination is based upon . . . . Mr. Reed did not respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Reed stated: . . . please be advised that RAP has been operating since 1976 pursuant to the advice of an Attorney General&apos;s opinion as it relates specifically to Ramsey Action Programs. Mr. Reed cited the language in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, which states that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, applies to all state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems. Mr. Reed wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is because of this provision, that Ramsey Action Programs is not covered by the Data Practices Act. By his [sic] terms, Chapter 13 is applicable only to state agencies, political subdivisions and state wide systems. Ramsey Action Programs is neither. Ramsey Action Programs is a nonprofit corporation which acts as a Community Action Agency. It is not a political subdivision or public employer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In 1976, the Attorney General was asked to provide an opinion as to whether or not was [sic] Ramsey Action Programs was a public employer. The opinion was that Ramsey Action Programs was not.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Ramsey Action Programs (RAP) a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If RAP is subject to Chapter 13, did it respond appropriately to a request for access to public government data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is Ramsey Action Programs (RAP) a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General to which Mr. Reed refers was dated August 12, 1976, and addresses the following question:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Is the Ramsey Action Program, Inc. a public employer within the meaning of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act [PELRA] so that the conduct of the employer and employees is regulated by the terms of the Act?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Attorney General concluded that RAP is not a public employer within the meaning of PELRA, which addresses labor relations issues. However, the Attorney General&apos;s opinion is silent with respect to Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11, provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     &apos;Political subdivision&apos; means any county, statutory or home rule charter city, school district, special district, any town exercising powers under chapter 368 and located in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision. &lt;u&gt;It includes any nonprofit corporation which is a community action agency organized pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law Number 88-452) as amended,&lt;/u&gt; to qualify for public funds, or any nonprofit social service agency which performs services under contract to any political subdivision, statewide system or state agency, to the extent that the nonprofit social service agency or nonprofit corporation collects, stores, disseminates, and uses data on individuals because of a contractual relationship with state agencies, political subdivisions or statewide systems. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature specifically included community action agencies such as RAP in the definition of a political subdivision. Accordingly, RAP is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; If RAP is subject to Chapter 13, did it respond appropriately to a request for access to public government data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Skalicky requested access to public data about finalists for a position at RAP. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3, the following personnel data on finalists for the RAP position are public: name; veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. RAP inappropriately denied Mr. Skalicky access to the public data he requested. RAP should provide him with access promptly.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Skalicky is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 11, Ramsey Action Programs (RAP) is a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Because RAP is subject to Chapter 13, it did not respond appropriately to a request for access to public government data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 11, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267421</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Community Action Agencies</Title><Id>267098</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-046</Title><title>Opinion 02 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267891&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a request for the following data: &quot;Individual parking records for all full time parking and transportation employees including: managerial, supervisory, staff, full time senior parking attendants, utility workers, maintenance and operations mechanics from January 1, 1993 to present?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 19, 2002; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 23, 2002, the Commissioner received a letter dated October 22, 2002, from Paula Johnston, General Counsel for Minnesota Teamsters Public Law Enforcement Employees&apos; Union, Local No. 320. In her letter, Ms. Johnston asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the University of Minnesota&apos;s response to a data request. IPAD staff requested clarification. In a letter dated October 29, 2002, IPAD wrote to Ms. Johnston confirming that she had withdrawn her request for an advisory opinion. On November 1, 2002, IPAD received a second letter from Ms. Johnston in which she re-submitted her previous opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Ms. Johnston&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 5, 2002, were to inform her of Ms. Johnston&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On November 14, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Susan McKinney, the University&apos;s Responsible Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated August 2, 2001, Ronald Enger, a business agent for the Teamsters, wrote to Shelly Carthen-Watson, Associate General Counsel. He asked for the following data: Individual parking records for all full time parking and transportation employees including: managerial, supervisory, staff, full time senior parking attendants, utility workers, maintenance and operations mechanics from January 1, 1993 to present?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 7, 2001, Ms. Watson responded to Mr. Enger. She wrote, Susan McKinney...is the individual responsible for responding to Data Practices Requests. Accordingly, I have forwarded your request to her for processing. Feel free to contact her...if you have any questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 13, 2002, Ms. Johnston wrote to Ms. Watson. Ms. Johnston noted that the Teamsters had not yet received data from the University. She asked Ms. Watson to inquire as to the status of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 22, 2002, Ms. McKinney wrote to Mr. Enger. She stated, This is in response to your request for information on individual parking and transportation employees. The information you are requesting is private data on employees as per M.S. 13.43 and will not be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Johnston then asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the requested information is public or private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Johnston asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a request for the following data: Individual parking records for all full time parking and transportation employees including: managerial, supervisory, staff, full time senior parking attendants, utility workers, maintenance and operations mechanics from January 1, 1993 to present?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists most of the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. McKinney wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Teamsters Public Law Enforcement Employee&apos;s Union requested parking records that would detail what personally identifiable parking and transportation employees paid to park in University lots and garages over a nine-year period. The University denied the request, and instead gave the Teamsters a list of University parking facilities (consisting of garages, ramps and surface lots) and the rates charged for parking in each. While the rates vary depending on the types of parking, the set rate for each type of parking does not vary among employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data sought by the Teamsters is private under Minn. Stat. section 13.43. Since the University has the information because the individual is or was an employee , the data is personnel data under Minn.Stat. section13.43, subd. 1. Because it is personnel data, it is public only if it falls within the categories of public data identified by that statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The list of public data on employees does not include what each employee pays for a University service that they choose to buy. Employees do not have to buy parking contracts, the University does not pay the employees&apos; parking contracts, and the University does not reimburse employees for parking contracts. While the public has a right under Minn. Stat. section 13.43 to know the amount of each employee&apos;s &lt;em&gt;employer-paid&lt;/em&gt; fringe benefits...the public does not have a right to know the amount that personally identifiable &lt;em&gt;employees&lt;/em&gt; paid for University benefits or services. Thus, the particular parking contract bought by an employee is private personnel data and may not be disclosed by the University.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with the University&apos;s position. The data the Teamsters requested are about employees and therefore are properly classified under section 13.43. Further, because the data are not the types listed as public in subdivision 2 of section 13.43, the data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Johnston raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, the University of Minnesota appropriately denied access to the following data: Individual parking records for all full time parking and transportation employees including: managerial, supervisory, staff, full time senior parking attendants, utility workers, maintenance and operations mechanics from January 1, 1993 to present. The data are not public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 19, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267891</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fringe benefits</Title><Id>266859</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parking records</Title><Id>267068</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-045</Title><title>Opinion 02 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267715&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee &quot;X&quot; to a County attorney?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee &quot;X&quot; to X&apos;s immediate supervisor?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 2002; Itasca County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 30, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Joe Pershern, staff representative for the American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Minnesota Council Number 65, on behalf of his client, X. In this letter, Mr. Pershern asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Itasca County&apos;s determination about a data practices issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pershern&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lester Kachinske, Director of Itasca County Health and Human Services. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Pershern&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On November 4, 2002, IPAD received a response from Michael Haig, Assistant Itasca County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X, a County employee, applied for another position within the County. X was also involved in a discrimination lawsuit against the County. According to Mr. Pershern, Louise Koglin Fideldy, County Director of Administrative Services, informed Dyan Ebert, the attorney who represented the County in the lawsuit, that X had applied for the position before X was &apos;certified as an eligible finalist for the position. Mr. Pershern also stated that Ms. Fideldy also relayed that information to Peggy Clayton, a County employee whom Ms. Fideldy supervised, who in turn told Robert Bennett, X&apos;s supervisor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an affidavit provided by Mr. Pershern, X stated: . . . on June 13, 2001, I was approached by my immediate supervisor, Robert Bennett, stating that he was disappointed in me for considering leaving [X&apos;s current position.] When I asked how he knew that I had applied for the position, he said he had been told by Peg Clayton that I was the lone applicant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another affidavit provided by Mr. Pershern, Mitchell J. Brunfelt, the attorney who represented X in the lawsuit against the County, stated: [d]uring the discovery portion of the lawsuit, Dyan Ebert, during a phone conversation with me, stated that she had learned from Ms. Fideldy . . . that [X] had applied [for another County position.] At the time that this information was provided to me by Dyan Ebert (who had learned of it from Ms. Fideldy), it was my understanding that [X] was not a finalist for the . . .position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Haig stated that Ms. Clayton did not tell Mr. Bennett that X had applied for another position, before X was a finalist for the position. Mr. Haig provided affidavits from both Ms. Clayton and Mr. Bennett, in which both of them disputed X&apos;s version of events. Mr. Bennett stated that Ms. Clayton did not tell him that X had applied for the position, and that when he tried to confirm that information with Ms. Clayton, she informed me that she could not tell since she did not have a certified list of finalists completed at that time. Ms. Clayton stated the same version of events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Pershern&apos;s allegation that Ms. Fideldy improperly disclosed private data about X to attorney Ebert, Mr. Haig stated the disclosure was appropriate under Minnesota Rule 1205.0400, as well as statutes governing the attorney-client relationship (Mr. Haig cited Minnesota Statutes, sections 595.02, subdivision 1 (b), and 481.06(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her affidavit, Ms. Fideldy stated that at the time she disclosed to Ms. Ebert that X had applied for the position, the discrimination lawsuit referred to above was active, and [m]y decision to disclose this information to Ms. Ebert was made out of specific concerns relating to the litigation. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Fideldy stated that she made this disclosure to Ms. Ebert in confidence pursuant to the attorney/client privilege provided by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pershern asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee X to a County attorney?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee X to X&apos;s immediate supervisor?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee X to a County attorney?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about applicants for public employment are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Certain data on applicants are public throughout the process. However, under subdivision 3 of section 13.43, names of applicants are private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, &apos;finalist&apos; means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data are accessible only to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access, and entities and agencies so authorized by statute or federal law. Subpart 3 requires that a government entity establish procedures to ensure that private data are accessible only to these parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that it is appropriate for a government entity to disclose private data to its attorney as it deems necessary. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554&quot; title=&quot;99-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-019&lt;/a&gt;, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if the responsible authority for the City has made the determination that Council members&apos; work assignments reasonably require access to the data, the City Council members may gain access to private data about the reasons for the employee&apos;s leave, and details about the complaint or charge made against her/him. (See Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.) The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the written procedures required by Rule, or details about the Council&apos;s relationship with the Commission. Thus, it is difficult for the Commissioner to make that determination. The Commissioner can envision circumstances under which the Council members&apos; work assignments in providing direction to City operations would require them to have access to the kind of data described by Mr. Foy. However, that requires a specific determination by the responsible authority for the City. The Commissioner has not been provided any information that states that the responsible authority has made that determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, Ms. Ebert was entitled to gain access to the private data at issue here (i.e., that X had applied for the position before being certified as a finalist), only if the responsible authority for the County, following the procedures required under the Rule, determined that her work assignment reasonably required access. In her affidavit, Ms. Fideldy stated her reasons for making the disclosure to Ms. Ebert, but did not refer to the required procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner analyzed the issue of dissemination of data to an attorney for a government entity as an issue of the attorney acting as an agent of the entity. Therefore, any issues of use and dissemination are governed by the work assignment requiring access rule, thereby obviating any need to analyze the issue by looking elsewhere for statutory authority to disseminate the data to the attorney. The County&apos;s argument that Chapters 595 and 481 provide authority to disseminate data is not correct. Neither of those statutes authorizes the dissemination of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County inappropriately release private data about employee X to X&apos;s immediate supervisor?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X and the other County employees disagree about whether the County improperly disclosed the data as X alleges, a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. However, as discussed above, Mr. Bennett was entitled to gain access to the private data at issue here only if the responsible authority for the County, following the procedures required under the Rule, determined that his work assignment reasonably required access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. As mentioned above, Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 3, requires that government entities create written procedures that identify persons who may gain access to private data. The Commissioner does not know if the County has created any such procedures and Mr. Haig did not provide them as part of his comments. If the County has not created the procedures, the Commissioner urges it to do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as part of his analysis, the Commissioner considered whether the County should have provided X with a Tennessen warning notice. Government entities are required to give this notice when they ask an individual to provide private or confidential data about him/herself. Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, the notice must explain: (1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. When an entity provides the notice, the data subject is made aware of how the entity will use and disseminate the data the subject has been asked to supply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County did not comment on whether the County provided X with a Tennessen warning in connection to his/her application for the other position, or its content. A proper notice should have included that the possibility that the County would disseminate the data to its attorney. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4, private data shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by a government entity for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, with certain exceptions that don&apos;t appear to apply here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the provisions of sections 13.04 and 13.05 are read together, it is clear that a government entity may use and disseminate private data only as stated to an individual at the time of collection, unless one of the exceptions applies. If the entity fails to give a Tennessen warning, then the data may not be used for &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Pershern is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Itasca County properly released private data about employee X to a County attorney, if the responsible authority for the County, following the procedures required under the Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 3, determined that the attorney&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access, and if X was told in a proper Tennessen Warning that the data were subject to dissemination to an attorney for the County.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is not able to determine whether Itasca County inappropriately released private data about employee X to X&apos;s immediate supervisor, because the facts are in dispute.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 18, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267715</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment requires access</Title><Id>266518</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-044</Title><title>Opinion 02 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267624&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) inappropriately release to a Board member the identity of an individual who complained about possible violations of LMCD regulations by two property owners?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 2002; Lake Minnetonka Conservation District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 1, 2002, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s rights in relation to data the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director of the District in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 3, 2002, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 10, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Corrine Thomson, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated April 29, 2002, X wrote to Mr. Nybeck and asked him to investigate (and take appropriate action) two violations of LMCD regulations [on property under the LMCD&apos;s jurisdiction].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Mr. Nybeck responded in a letter dated May 3, 2002. He copied this letter to the District board member (Y) who was appointed by the city in which the violations were alleged to have occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 13, 2002, X wrote to one of the District board members and discussed the fact that Mr. Nybeck had released X&apos;s identity to Y. X wrote, This is a clear violation of [Chapter 13], which is intended to protect the identification of individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 8, 2002, Charles LeFevere, an attorney representing the District, wrote to X. Mr. LeFevere stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I assume you are referring to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.44, subd. 1, which makes the identities of individuals who register complaints with political subdivisions concerning violations of local ordinances concerning the use of real property as confidential data....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, [Y] is a member of the Board of Directors of the agency to which your letter was sent. Although [Y] is appointed by [a city], [Y] exercises independent judgment and authority as a Board member of the LMCD. Therefore, any data of the LMCD would be available to [Y] as it is available to other Board members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In correspondence to the Commissioner dated August 19, 2002, X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The LMCD (through one of the members of their Board of Directors) released the information that I had brought a complaint against individuals whom I felt were in violation of the LMCD Codes. This is of particular significance as the individuals named in the complaint are members of [the city that appointed Y]. Since this information (that I was the complainant) was released by a LMCD Board Member, I have indeed been subject to retaliation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District is a special purpose governmental body organized under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.601, et seq. Pursuant to section 103B.611, subdivision 1, The district is governed by a board composed of members appointed by the governing bodies of the municipalities included in the district. Each municipality may appoint one member.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) inappropriately release to a Board member the identity of an individual who complained about possible violations of LMCD regulations by two property owners?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.44, subdivision 1, The identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0600, subpart 2, confidential data can be accessed only by individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access, and entities and agencies so authorized by statute or federal law. Subpart 3 requires that a government entity establish procedures to ensure that confidential data can be accessed only by these parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Thomson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The LMCD acknowledges that the identity of X is classified as confidential data under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The executive director, who is also the responsible authority for the LMCD, responded to X in writing on May 3, 2002. The executive director also copied the letter to the board member who was appointed by the city in which the violations were alleged to have occurred, member Y. The executive director determined that the release of the information to Y was necessary, because the property in question was located within the geographic area that member Y represents. The LMCD&apos;s practice and policy has been to inform board members of complaints or issues that arise in their respective geographic areas. If further complaints regarding the same situation would arise, and if further investigation was deemed appropriate, the board member from that area typically would assist in the investigation or mediation of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Specifically, X was concerned that the release of the data to the board member appointed by a particular city was in effect a release of data to that city. The LMCD&apos;s attorney wrote to X to assure X that the board member acts as a member of the LMCD and not as an agent or arm of the appointing city...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...None of the LMCD board members or employees has released the identity of X to anyone outside the LMCD. If in fact members of the city council are aware of X&apos;s identity, the information came to the city council from a source other than the LMCD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, Ms. Thomson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The LMCD did not violate [Chapter 13] by providing the identity of X to one of its board members. The release of not public data to a governing body (in this case, the board of directors) complies with the Act if the responsible authority has determined that the board members&apos; work assignments reasonably require access....The LMCD&apos;s responsible authority made that determination in this instance, based upon past practice and policy of the LMCD board. The board members have been advised that the identity of complainants under section 13.44 is not public, and the LMCD does fulfill its responsibility to train its board members and employees regarding data practices compliance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. There is no dispute that X&apos;s identity is classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.44. The issue is whether it was appropriate for Mr. Nybeck to disclose X&apos;s identity to board member Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267554&quot; title=&quot;99-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-019&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, if the responsible authority for the City has made the determination that Council members&apos; work assignments reasonably require access to the data, the City Council members may gain access to private data about the reasons for the employee&apos;s leave, and details about the complaint or charge made against her/him. (See Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.) The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the written procedures required by Rule, or details about the Council&apos;s relationship with the Commission. Thus, it is difficult for the Commissioner to make that determination. The Commissioner can envision circumstances under which the Council members&apos; work assignments in providing direction to City operations would require them to have access to the kind of data described by Mr. Foy. However, that requires a specific determination by the responsible authority for the City. The Commissioner has not been provided any information that states that the responsible authority has made that determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, Ms. Thomson asserted that Mr. Nybeck, the District&apos;s responsible authority, determined that disclosing X&apos;s identity to board member Y was appropriate. This dissemination was necessary, she stated, because the property in question was located within the geographic area that Y represents. Ms. Thomson stated it is the District&apos;s policy and practice to notify a particular board member when complaints or issues arise in the geographic area that the member represents. As the Commissioner stated in 99-019, he is of the opinion that a government entity&apos;s responsible authority is in the best position to determine which individuals within the entity need to have access to certain information to perform their jobs. Here, Mr. Nybeck made such a determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. As mentioned above, section 1205.0600, subpart 3, of Minnesota Rules requires that government entities create written procedures that identify persons who may gain access to confidential data. The Commissioner does not know if the District has created any such procedures and Ms. Thomson did not provide them as part of her comments. If the District has not created the procedures, the Commissioner urges it to do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, as part of his analysis, the Commissioner considered whether the District should have provided X with a Tennessen warning notice. Government entities are required to give this notice when they ask an individual to provide private or confidential data about him/herself. Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, the notice must explain: (1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. When an entity provides the notice, the data subject is made aware of how the entity will use and disseminate the data the subject has been asked to supply. In the case at hand, it appears the District did not ask X to supply his/her identity; X provided the information to the District on his/her own initiative, as part of the complaint letter. Therefore, the District was not required to provide a Tennessen warning notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) appropriately released to a Board member the identity of an individual who complained about possible violations of LMCD regulations by two property owners.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267624</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Volunteering data vs. request to supply data</Title><Id>266619</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-043</Title><title>Opinion 02 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266833&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data that McLeod County maintains are public: digital photographs of homes in McLeod County.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 14, 2002; McLeod County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 4, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated same from Christian Christensen, the McLeod County GIS Director. In his letter, Mr. Christensen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Christensen wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                McLeod County is assembling a digital catalog of photos of the homes in McLeod County. The photos have been taken from the public roadway as to not create a physical trespass issue. I am requesting an advisory opinion regarding the release of these photos to offices of McLeod County, the general public, and possibly making them accessible through the internet.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Christensen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that McLeod County maintains: digital photographs of homes in McLeod County?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case at hand as Mr. Christensen presented it, the Commissioner is not aware of any provision in Chapter 13 or another statute classifying the data in question. Therefore, the photographs are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Christensen raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data that McLeod County maintains are public: digital photographs of homes in McLeod County. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 14, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266833</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T14:26:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-042</Title><title>Opinion 02 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267447&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-12T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Rice County respond appropriately to a July 22, 2002, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 2002; Rice County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 23, 2002, IPA received a letter dated September 16, 2002, from X. In X&apos;s letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data about Y, X&apos;s minor child, that Rice County may or may not maintain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Weiers, Administrator of the County, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 23, 2002, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On October 3, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated October 3, 2002, from Meredith Erickson, Senior Rice County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 22, 2002, X wrote to Rice County. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I understand [Y&apos;s other parent] may be in the process of applying for benefits for [Y] in Rice County....I am joint legal custodian of [Y] (see attached order for your reference)....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MN Data Practices law demands that you provide me copies of any and all documentation associated with [Y] as a matter of right, both as [Y&apos;s] joint legal custodian and also as an individual subject of data, and that you refrain from any action without my consent....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 21, 2002, Mr. Weiers wrote to X:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As per your request, I am responding to your July 22, 2002 letter in which you requested information from Rice County Social Services. It is the position of Rice County that we cannot honor your request. Furthermore, the department cannot confirm or deny the existence of any information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Rice County respond appropriately to a July 22, 2002, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, X is entitled to gain access to data about him/herself. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 2, X also is entitled to gain access to data about Y. (Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 3, a minor can request that data be withheld from a parent. Here, neither X nor the County suggested that Y has objected to the release of any data.) Generally speaking, private data about Y&apos;s other parent are not accessible to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 2, and generally speaking, most data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Rice County received [X&apos;s] July 22, 2002 correspondence on July 23. On July 24, 2002, [X] telephoned Rice County Social Services requesting information regarding whether [Y&apos;s other parent] had applied for welfare benefits....When [County staff] returned [X&apos;s] call she advised [X] that we do not release information relating to applications for services unless the requesting party is the data subject or if there is a signed release in the file from the applicant. In addition, [staff] advised that we couldn&apos;t even disclose whether an application has been made unless release of such information has been authorized by the data subject....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On either August 20 or 21, 2002, [X] telephoned Gary Weiers...requesting a written response to [X&apos;s] letter of July 22, 2002. Mr. Weiers responded to that request by faxing a response on August 21, 2002 to [X] indicating that the information [X] had requested would not be provided...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Rice County recognizes that pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.02, Subd. 8, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0500, a parent generally has access to data maintained on his/her child. In this case, however, the data [X] is requesting is for information in an application that is made by someone other than [X] or the child. If the child was making the application, [X] may have a right as a parent to see such an application. That is not the situation in the instant case and accordingly any information or even the existence of an application could not be disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Erickson then cited &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267814&quot; title=&quot;94-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-055&lt;/a&gt; in which the Commissioner opined that private data about a husband is not accessible to his spouse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The Legislature, by enacting section 13.02, subdivision 8, made it clear that, in most situations, parents should be able to gain access to data about their minor children. The Department of Administration, in its rules implementing Chapter 13, has given detailed instructions as to how to carry out that legislative policy. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500.) Neither the statute nor the implementing rules address the issue that Rice County raised in its response to X&apos;s opinion request, i.e., what should a government entity do when a parent requests access to data about his/her minor child and release of the data about the minor may inadvertently or directly reveal data about the other parent?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In many situations where government entities maintain data about a minor child, particularly when the parents were never married or currently are divorced, one can argue that release of any data about the child in response to a data request by one of the parents will inadvertently or directly release data about the other parent. This is true especially in the human services arena. For example, in the case of a very young child, contacts with an obligor by a government entity seeking to enforce a child support order on behalf of an obligee will reveal the fact that the obligee has sought assistance in enforcing a child support order. This kind of dissemination is necessary in order for the government entity to carry out its responsibilities relating to a variety of state and federal laws involving parents and their minor children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as stated above, the Legislature has placed great import on the policy that parents are entitled, in most cases, to gain access to data about their children. Therefore, a government entity should not be precluded from providing data to one parent simply because doing so may mean the entity inadvertently or directly releases data about the other parent. To accept the contrary view would, in many instances, effectively and absolutely thwart the legislative policy set forth in section 13.02, subdivision 8.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, the Commissioner does not know if the County maintains data about either Y or Y&apos;s other parent. If the County does not maintain data about Y, X should be so informed. However, if the County does maintain data about Y, given the language in 13.02, subdivision 8, the presumption clearly is that X is entitled to gain access to those data. The Commissioner does not agree with the County&apos;s position that it cannot release data about Y to X because such a release also may disclose data about Y&apos;s other parent. In a situation such as this, it is incumbent on the County to accommodate both the legislative policy giving parents access to data about their children, and the private classification afforded welfare data pursuant to section 13.46. The County best can do so by releasing to X any data it maintains about Y, while, at the same time, limiting the release of data about Y&apos;s other parent to only those data which are incidental to the release of data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Rice County did not respond appropriately to a July 22, 2002, request for access to data. If the County maintains data about X&apos;s child, it should provide any data immediately. If the County does not maintain data about X&apos;s child, it should so advise X.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267447</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data incidental to the data subject</Title><Id>266325</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Spouse access to other spouse’s data</Title><Id>266687</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent access to data on child</Title><Id>266761</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Social services/welfare data</Title><Id>266688</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent access to data on other parent</Title><Id>266542</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Access by data subject or parent</Title><Id>266762</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-041</Title><title>Opinion 02 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267287&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data contained in written materials and a video file that the Minnesota State Lottery maintains?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 2002; Minnesota State Lottery</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 27, 2002, IPA received a letter dated August 22, 2002, from Dale McDonnell, Legal Counsel for the Minnesota State Lottery. In his letter, Mr. McDonnell asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Lottery maintains. The data in question were submitted to the Lottery by the GTECH Corporation. Automated Wagering International, Inc. (AWI) has requested the data. IPA staff requested clarification, which the Lottery provided. Mr. McDonnell resubmitted his opinion request in a letter dated September 19, 2002, which IPA received on September 24, 2002. IPA then contacted GTECH and AWI and invited them to submit comments. GTECH did not provide comments. AWI provided comments in a letter dated September 4, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. McDonnell described them is as follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the Lottery issued a Request for Proposal ( RFP ) for a new Online Gaming System and Related Services in October 2001. A provision in the RFP stated that upon execution of an agreement with the successful vendor, all information submitted in response to the RFP would be considered public information unless the vendor designated information as nonpublic and provided a sufficient explanation to justify that the information was nonpublic under Minnesota law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[GTECH] submitted a proposal to the Lottery in response to the RFP. Their proposal provided a detailed explanation that responded to the technical and operational requirements set forth in the RFP that was in excess of 400 pages. Included in the material submitted by GTECH were ten (10) pages and a CD Rom that GTECH claimed to contain Trade Secret Information and, therefore, nonpublic under Minnesota law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After the Lottery selected GTECH as the winning vendor and executed a contract with GTECH, a competing company that also submitted a proposal, [AWI], requested that the Lottery supply them with a copy of all the information submitted by GTECH in response to the Lottery&apos;s RFP. In response to AWI&apos;s request, the Lottery provided AWI a copy of all information submitted by GTECH in response to the RFP with the exception of the information in GTECH&apos;s proposal that they claimed was nonpublic by virtue of it being trade secret information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After AWI had received the information supplied to them by the Lottery, AWI made a further request on August 6, 2002, that the Lottery provide them with all of the information submitted by GTECH that they claimed to be Trade Secret Information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. McDonnell asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of certain data contained in written materials and a video file that the Minnesota State Lottery maintains?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumptively public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has issued numerous opinions relating to claims of trade secret. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267876&quot; title=&quot;99-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-035&lt;/a&gt;, he stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;SUPERVALU&apos;s position is that the data in question are a compilation within the meaning of section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). To be considered trade secret under section 13.37, government data must satisfy four elements that comprise the statutory definition: 1) it must be a collection of information; 2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; 3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and 4) that, a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order for a compilation to be a trade secret within the meaning of section 13.37, the data must be a compilation that, in and of itself, is information that derives independent economic value from not being known to others. A compilation of information which is compiled by the affected organization in its normal course of carrying on its operations, such as a list of employees and their salaries, is not the type of compilation that should qualify for trade secret protection under section 13.37. To be consistent with other items listed in the first element of the trade secret definition, a compilation that qualifies for trade secret protection ought to be a unique kind of compilation, the preparation of which results in some kind in some kind of direct economic gain to the compiler.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue before the Commissioner is whether a portion of the documentation GTECH submitted in response to the Lottery&apos;s RFP is trade secret and therefore protected from public disclosure. As stated above, GTECH did not provide comments to the Commissioner as to why the data are trade secret and how they fit the criteria set forth in section 13.37. Further, as far as the Commissioner is aware, the only assertion GTECH made for protecting the data is contained in the beginning of the alleged trade secret section and essentially is a reiteration of the language in section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In examining the remainder of the written documentation and the video file, the Commissioner has found the data primarily to be general in nature. Both the written documents and the video file contain general characteristics of GTECH&apos;s solution/strategy for providing lottery services. There is a list of common terms and their definitions. There also is a discussion of the elements of GTECH&apos;s solution and a brief explanation of each of those elements. However, the discussion does not include specifics about how the elements of the GTECH solution will accomplish goals. For example, what are the details about how GTECH will ensure that technology is secure? In previous opinions, the Commissioner consistently has stated that for data to be protected under the trade secret provision, those data must derive independent, i.e., on their own, economic value, (1) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, (2) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Here, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the data GTECH wants the Lottery to protect do not meet the final criterion of section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). The data simply are too non-specific for the Commissioner to see how GTECH could derive independent economic value from them not being released to members of the public, including AWI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. McDonnell raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Certain data contained in written materials and a video file that the Minnesota State Lottery maintains do not meet the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1, trade secret. Therefore, the data are presumptively public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267287</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Independent economic value from not being generally known (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266951</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-040</Title><title>Opinion 02 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267747&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-11-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Bird Island respond appropriately to a request for government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 5, 2002; City of Bird Island</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On September 12, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, on behalf of his client, the &lt;i&gt;Olivia Times-Journal&lt;/i&gt; newspaper. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Bird Island Police Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Deb Lingl, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 16, 2002, IPAD received a response from Jon C. Saunders, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for the &lt;i&gt;Times-Journal&lt;/i&gt; was told by Bird Island Police Chief Dale Kennedy that he had received complaints about certain thefts and identified the person accused of these crimes. He also stated that someone from the police department had investigated these accusations. The City initially told the reporter that she could not have a copy of the incident report because a minor&apos;s name was in the report. When she asked for a redacted copy of the incident report, Chief Kennedy responded that he would not provide her with any information because the incident was still under investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to the reporter, dated July 31, 2002, Mr. Saunders stated that the data the reporter was seeking were related to an ongoing open investigation file and were therefore not public. Mr. Saunders stated: I do not believe that your description of the documents you are seeking fit into any of [the exceptions that would make the data public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 2, 2002, Mr. Anfinson wrote to Mr. Saunders: [i]t is difficult for me to believe that the police department did not collect any of the information referred to in [section 13.82,] subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (for example, the time, date, and place of the action, or the identities of individual officers involved).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Saunders replied to Mr. Anfinson on August 2, 2002:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 I have talked to Chief Kennedy concerning what information he has. After describing what information he has in his file, it is my opinion that he never took any actions to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty. In addition, it is my opinion after talking with Chief Kennedy, that he was never requested to provide law enforcement services to the public. Finally, it is my opinion, after talking with Dale Kennedy, that he was never asked to respond to a request for service by a member of the public. Therefore, it would appear that my original letter was correct when I indicated the information the Olivia Times Journal was requesting was investigative data created by a law enforcement agency in &lt;i&gt;order to perform its duties, and therefore was not public data.&lt;/i&gt; [Emphasis his.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson stated that it was his position that under the circumstances of this case, particularly in light of Mr. Saunders&apos; acknowledgment that some information was collected, at least a portion of it must have constituted public law enforcement data pursuant to the subdivisions cited. In other words, not all of the data gathered by the police department could be purely investigative data, given the express provisions of subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 in section13.82.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Saunders stated: [t]he City of Bird Island has no desire to violate Minn. Stat. section13.82 by disclosing investigative data in violation of that Act or failing to disclose non-protected information. I simply made a decision on behalf of the City, which indicated that the information held by the City was investigative in nature and there was no information that was public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Bird Island respond appropriately to a request for government data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of section 13.82 contain descriptions of types of data and associated data elements that are always public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, classify as public so-called request for service and response or incident data respectively. Request for service data are defined as data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document requests by the public for law enforcement services. Response or incident data are data which document the agency&apos;s response to a request for service, or which describe actions taken by the agency on its own initiative. (Section 13.82, subdivision 2, classifies data which document any actions taken to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty. Mr. Saunders stated that the police department took no such actions.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Some examples of response or incident data specified at subdivision 6 are: date, time and place of the action; agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action unless the identities of agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 17; and a brief factual reconstruction of events associated with the action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.82, subdivision 7, provides, in pertinent part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data is public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Saunders stated that section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, are not applicable to this situation, and that only subdivision 7 applies to the data in question. Mr. Saunders stated that the police department was never requested to provide law enforcement services to the public or asked to respond to a request for service by a member of the public. However, the Chief told the reporter that he had received complaints about certain thefts and that someone from the police department had investigated those accusations. Furthermore, subdivision 6 applies to actions taken by a law enforcement agency on its own initiative.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In accordance with section 13.82, subdivision 7, investigative data collected or created by the police department in order to prepare a case for the commission of a crime or offense are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active, and such data also are nonpublic if their release would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or reveal protected identities. Otherwise, under section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6, request for service data and response or incident data are public and must be made available upon request. The City should review the data in light of the provisions of subdivisions 3 and 6, to determine the specific data elements that are public under those provisions, and provide the &lt;i&gt;Times-Journal&lt;/i&gt; with same.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Bird Island did not respond appropriately to a request for government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 5, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267747</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-039</Title><title>Opinion 02 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267608&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-10-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office appropriately deny a request for access to the name of an individual who was reported by the County to have paid $167,000 in back child-support?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 30, 2002; Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 13, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Michael Seeber. In this letter, Mr. Seeber asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Office of the Ramsey County Attorney. Mr. Seeber&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Seeber&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary A. Davis, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated June 28, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Seeber&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office&apos;s position. On July 12, 2002, IPAD received a response from Mr. Davis. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Seeber wrote to Mr. Davis and requested the following: I would like the name of the man from North Oaks who was reported last week in the St. Paul Pioneer Press as having paid $167,000 in back child support on November 1st.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Seeber enclosed a copy of a newspaper article, presumably that mentioned above, that contains the following statements about a news release from the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office concerning the individual in question:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The man, whose name was not released to protect the privacy of his children, refused to pay child support since remarrying in 1989. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In June 2000, a court referee found that the man had manipulated his financial accounts so that his current wife received income from his business dealings, which generated millions of dollars, according to the release. The man was ordered to pay all his delinquent child support, as well as several fees. After exhausting his appeals, the man was ordered to pay in full or serve jail time starting Nov. 2. He delivered a check for the full amount Nov. 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Mr. Seeber dated January 8, 2002, Mr. Davis wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to your recent request for the name of an individual from North Oaks who was reported as having paid $167,000 in back child support on November 1, you may be advised that any data of that nature in the possession of the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office, Child Enforcement Division, is not subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a result, it is necessary to deny your request for this particular information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Davis made the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office provides legal services necessary to the operation of the Child Support Enforcement Program under Title IV-D of the Social security Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To that end, the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office has entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Child Support Enforcement Division and other entities for carrying out the Child Support Enforcement Program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The State Department of Human Services is part of the welfare system as described in Minn. Stat. section 13.46, subd. 1 (c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Davis stated that, under section 13.46, subdivision 2(a), welfare data are generally private, and, under section 13.03, subdivision 4, data exchanged between the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office and the State Department of Human Services retains the same private classification in the hands of either party to the agreement. Accordingly, the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office has no authority to release individually identifiable private Child Support Enforcement Data to a third party such as Mr. Seeber.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Davis also cited section 13.393, and stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the possession of the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office, the data comes within the scope of the provisions of 13.393, which exempts the data from the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 and states that the dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a state, state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, the production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, Mr. Davis stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office is unable to release the name of the obligor who paid $167,000 in back child support due to the provisions of Minn. Stat. section 13.46. In the alternative, this information would be exempt from the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 to the extent provided for in Minn. Stat. section13.393. The statutory attorney-client privilege and the Rules of Professional Conduct also prevent the release of the obligor&apos;s name. Therefore, the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office was correct in not releasing the name of the child support obligor from North Oaks to Mr. Seeber.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Seber asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office appropriately deny a request for access to the name of an individual who was reported by the County to have paid $167,000 in back child-support?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Seeber asked the County for the name of the man who owed back child support. Strictly speaking, his request was not a data practices request under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Technically, Mr. Seeber should have asked for the public data maintained by the County that include the obligor&apos;s name. Rather, he posed a question, which is not a request for access to data under Chapter 13. Government entities are not obliged to respond to questions such as Mr. Seeber posed. However, the County responded both to Mr. Seeber and the Commissioner in a manner that suggests that it considered his request to be a proper data practices request under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Davis stated that the data in question, i.e., the identity of a child support obligor, are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, which governs data collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system, or, in the alternative, are exempt from disclosure under section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.46, subdivision 1 (c), welfare system includes the department of human services, &lt;u&gt;the public authority responsible for child support enforcement&lt;/u&gt;, and other entities under contract to any of the above agencies to the extent specified in the contract. Under subdivision 1 (b), program includes all programs for which authority is vested in a component of the welfare system according to statute or federal law, &lt;u&gt;including child support collections&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided a copy of the cooperative agreement between the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office and DHS, but it appears that the Child Enforcement Division of the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office is, by statute, a component of the welfare system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in a previous opinion, namely &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267298&quot; title=&quot;94-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-017&lt;/a&gt;, the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office stated that data collected and maintained by the Child Support and Collections division (CSC), which at that time was also operating under contracts with DHS, are welfare data regulated by section 13.46, because CSC is part of the welfare system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The applicability of section 13.393 to data held by a government entity has previously been discussed in a number of Advisory Opinions, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267583&quot; title=&quot;99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-003&lt;/a&gt;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt; for an in-depth discussion. (Prior to 2000, the language now found at section 13.393 was codified at section 13.30.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.393 governs certain types of data generated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity, and permits those data to be withheld from disclosure because they are not regulated by Chapter 13. As noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;, given that a section 13.393 claim has such an extreme result, the Legislature provided some limiting language in the final clause. This provision states clearly that section 13.393 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to section 13.393 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is aware that in all other Minnesota counties, the child support enforcement function is performed by the county&apos;s human services or welfare department. In the case of Ramsey County, the application of section 13.393 to the data in question would relieve the responsible authority of the County&apos;s human services department of his/her obligations under Chapter 13. In addition, it appears from Mr. Davis&apos;s comments that the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office entered into a contract to become part of the welfare system with respect to the County&apos;s child support enforcement program. Therefore, the Attorney&apos;s Office is functioning as part of the welfare system and the data collected, maintained, etc., as part of that function are classified under section 13.46.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of the above, and absent any other information, the Commissioner cannot agree with Mr. Davis that simply because the County&apos;s child support enforcement function is housed in the County Attorney&apos;s Office, all the data generated by that function are protected under section 13.393. If another government entity operated the same function outside its attorney&apos;s office, the same data would clearly be classified under section 13.46. Accordingly, it appears that section 13.393 is not applicable to the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the information contained in the news release, a court referee had made a ruling regarding the child support obligor, who was said to have subsequently exhausted his appeals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 3:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data on persons, . . . that is collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system in an investigation, authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law, is confidential . . . and shall not be disclosed except: . . . . The data referred to in this subdivision &lt;u&gt;shall be classified as public data upon its submission to an administrative law judge or court in an administrative or judicial proceeding&lt;/u&gt;. Inactive welfare investigative data shall be treated as provided in section 13.39, subdivision 3. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although it is not clear exactly what data may have been submitted to an administrative law judge or court in this case, it appears that the matter was presented in an administrative or judicial proceeding, because the matter was before a court referee. Accordingly, under section 13.46, subdivision 3, the name of the obligor is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Seeber is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office inappropriately denied a request for access to documents indicating the name of an individual who was reported by the County to have paid $167,000 in back child-support.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 30, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267608</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority duties</Title><Id>266438</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigative data</Title><Id>267143</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Welfare system</Title><Id>267208</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-038</Title><title>Opinion 02 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267520&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, did the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity respond appropriately to an August 15, 2002, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 2002; Minnesota Board of Electricity</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 29, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated August 28, 2002, from Harvey Thompson. In his letter, Mr. Thompson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Schultz, Executive Secretary of the Board, in response to Mr. Thompson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 30, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Thompson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On September 9, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Schultz.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On August 15, 2002, Mr. Thompson wrote to Mr. Schultz and asked for a copy of a letter the Board issued regarding a possible violation by company X. Mr. Thompson identified the approximate date the letter was written. Mr. Thompson stated he was making his request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 20, 2002, Mr. Schultz wrote to Mr. Thompson, In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.41, the data you are requesting is classified as private and cannot be provided to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Thompson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, did the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity respond appropriately to an August 15, 2002, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data collected, created, or maintained by any licensing agency of the state which is given the statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41. Subdivisions 2 and 3 classify certain licensing data as private, subdivision 4 classifies certain licensing data as confidential, and subdivision 5 classifies certain licensing data as public. (Subdivision 3 is not relevant here because it classifies data maintained by the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Schultz wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Board is a licensing agency under section 1 of Minnesota Statutes section 13.41. As part of its everyday work, the Board may come to possess information about licensed or unlicensed individuals or businesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The wording of section 13.41 is different from the general approach of Chapter 13. Section 13.41 presumes that licensing agency data is not public, and makes public only the types of data listed in subdivision 5. The Board&apos;s position is that the letter requested by Mr. Thompson does not fall into any of the categories of public data under subsection 5 of Minnesota Statutes section 13.41. For example, the Board is not able to verify for the public the existence or nonexistence of a complaint filed with the Board. The Board also cannot make public information about a disciplinary matter unless a case hearing is held and a subsequent Board order is issued or a settlement of a disciplinary matter is reached and approved by the Board.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition, subdivisions 2 and 4 of section 13.41 make certain data nonpublic. Whether or not the alleged violator is a licensee, subdivision 2 classifies inactive investigative data relating to violations of Board statutes or rules, as private data. Under subdivision 4, if an investigation of a complaint is ongoing, data related to the complaint and the investigation would not be public.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Schultz&apos;s overall analysis of section 13.41. Mr. Schultz stated, &quot;The wording of section 13.41 is different...Section 13.41 presumes that licensing agency data is not public, and makes public only the types of data listed in subdivision 5.&quot; Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumptively public unless otherwise classified. There are some exceptions to this general rule, notably data classified pursuant to section 13.43 and section 13.46, subdivision 4. In both of these provisions, there is a clause or subdivision listing the specific kinds of data that are public and a related provision stating that all other data are classified as private. However, although subdivision 5 of section 13.41 describes types of data that are public, there is no subdivision classifying all other licensing data as private. Thus, the data listed in subdivision 5 are not the only public data collected, created, and maintained by licensing agencies. The general presumption that government data are public applies to licensing data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Board may withhold access to the letter in question only if it contains the type of data listed as private under subdivision 2 of section 13.41, or if it constitutes active criminal investigative data relating to the investigation of complaints against a licensee (subdivision 4). Because the Commissioner neither has seen a copy of the letter nor has detailed knowledge of the situation involving the issuance of the letter, he cannot determine whether it is classified as not public pursuant to either of the two referenced subdivisions. The Commissioner notes that Mr. Thompson, in his opinion request, asserts that the addressee of the letter probably is not licensed by the Board. If this is correct, the Board cannot withhold the letter pursuant to subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, as the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267589&quot; title=&quot;98-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-045&lt;/a&gt;, section 13.41 classifies as not public only those data that are about individuals:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In this case, although HESO meets the criterion the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267505&quot; title=&quot;95-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-050&lt;/a&gt; (it is an agency of the state of Minnesota), Section 13.41 does not classify the data HESO collects in licensing private business, trade, and correspondence schools. The reason Section 13.41 does not apply is that it classifies only data about individuals. Although the Commissioner has not seen the data at issue in this opinion, she reasonably assumes they are not about individuals, they are data about whether a proposed program meets the standards set forth in statute. Therefore, HESO cannot employ Section 13.41 to deny access to the requested data. (For more information regarding the distinction between data on individuals and data not on individuals, see Section 13.02, subdivisions 4 and 5. Note that Section 13.41 classifies data as private and confidential. These terms categorize data on individuals, not data not on individuals. )&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if any data in the letter in dispute are data not on individuals the Board cannot use section 13.41 as a basis upon which to deny Mr. Thompson access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Thompson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity responded appropriately to an August 15, 2002, request for access to data. However, the Commissioner does not agree with the Board&apos;s overall analysis of section 13.41. In addition, the Board cannot use section 13.41 as a basis upon which to deny access to any data that are data not on individuals.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 23, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267520</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Only regulates data on individuals</Title><Id>267029</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-037</Title><title>Opinion 02 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267372&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-10-07T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 245, may Independent School District 761, Owatonna, as part of a grant application for funds related to implementation of a children&apos;s mental health collaborative, provide certain private data, without parental consent, to the Minnesota Department of Human Services?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 2002; School District 761 (Owatonna)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 23, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Gloria Blaine Olsen and Kimberly Hewitt Boyd, on behalf of their client, Independent School District 761, Owatonna. In this letter, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the District&apos;s authority to disseminate certain data to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 30, 2002, the Commissioner wrote to Linda Anderson, Acting Commissioner of DHS, seeking comments. IPAD received Ms. Anderson&apos;s comments on September 16, 2002. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd asked whether the District can release private educational data to DHS, without parental consent, as part of a grant application for funds related to the implementation of a children&apos;s mental health collaborative. Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd stated that, in order to be entitled to greater levels of funding from DHS for the collaborative, the District would need to release to DHS the Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System (MARSS) numbers for all students receiving services through the collaborative. According to Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd, [a]ccess to the MARSS number connects to a student&apos;s name, age, school, ethnicity, disability and primary language. The Commissioner understands that the MARSS number is a combination of the individual student&apos;s Social Security number and an additional number that identifies the school district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd stated that under Minnesota Statutes, section 245.493, subdivision 3, members of a local children&apos;s mental health collaborative may share private data on individuals served by the collaborative if they have written consent and the data sharing is necessary. However, there is no specific statutory language regarding a member of the collaborative sharing data on individuals with a state agency such as [DHS].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson stated: [a] review of both [Minnesota Statutes] chapters 13 and 245, as well as the federal regulations referenced therein, lead me to the conclusion that the requested private data cannot be released to DHS without parental consent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Anderson also stated that a copy of her comments was being forwarded to DHS program staff who are responsible for administration of the children&apos;s mental health collaboratives.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 245, may Independent School District 761, Owatonna, as part of a grant application for funds related to implementation of a children&apos;s mental health collaborative, provide certain private data, without parental consent, to the Minnesota Department of Human Services?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, sections 245.491 to 245.495, provide for the establishment of children&apos;s mental health collaboratives. Section 245.493, subdivision 3, permits members of such collaboratives to share private data with other collaborative members if they have the consent of the individual data subject. (According to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor.) State agencies, such as DHS, are not included in the definition of the members of a local children&apos;s mental health collaborative provided at section 245.492, subdivision 12.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Provisions of both state and federal law govern access to data generated by school districts about students. Section 13.32 incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Under FERPA, education records may not be disclosed to third parties without written consent, with certain exceptions that do not apply here. Ms. Anderson stated: [i]n the case of the Owatonna School District, the MARSS records are being requested by [DHS] in order to assist Owatonna in applying for grants to establish a children&apos;s mental health collaborative. While this is certainly a goal consistent with the state and federal mandate to promote children&apos;s mental health, it does not fall under any of the exceptions that permit the non-consensual disclosure of education records.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Anderson provided a detailed analysis of the interplay among the various provisions of state and federal law that are applicable here, and concluded the disclosure of the MARSS data by the [District] without parental consent is not permitted under either Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 or Chapter 245.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner concurs with Ms. Anderson&apos;s analysis. The District may not release the private data on students contained in the MARSS database to DHS without written consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 245, Independent School District 761, Owatonna, as part of a grant application for funds related to implementation of a children&apos;s mental health collaborative, may not provide the following private data to the Minnesota Department of Human Services without parental consent: the Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System numbers of students receiving services from the collaborative. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 7, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267372</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Children&apos;s mental health collaborative</Title><Id>267073</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Children mental health collaborative</Title><Id>266927</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>MARSS (MN Automated Reporting Student System)</Title><Id>266823</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-036</Title><title>Opinion 02 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267840&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-10-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Secretary of State Office (OSS) responded appropriately to a request to inspect - via downloading - the following data: all UCCs, tax liens, and many other public records? The requestor wishes to download the data from the OSS using his own equipment and staff.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 2002; Minnesota Secretary of State</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 20, 2002, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Tony Magnotta. In his letter, Mr. Magnotta asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that the Minnesota Secretary of State Office (OSS) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mary Kiffmeyer, the Minnesota Secretary of State, in response to Mr. Magnotta&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 26, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Magnotta&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Secretary&apos;s position. On September 4, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Bert Black, Legal Analyst for OSS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Magnotta presented them is as follows. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the inception of our business in 1990 the Minnesota Secretary of State has allowed us by law to come into their office on a daily basis with our equipment and personnel to make copies of all UCC&apos;s, Tax Liens and many other public records. All information copied was on paper. We performed this inspection process in their office with our own equipment and using Capitol Lien&apos;s staff at no charge. Since May 15th of 2001 they no longer would let us inspect these documents because the State was scanning all of these pieces of paper and could not provide us with the paper copies as in the past. Nothing has really changed except where they store these pieces of paper. In the past it was on paper; now it is in a computer. The technology exists that allows us to inspect these public records electronically and put them on CD-ROMS like the Secretary of State is doing for a fee. We have asked the Secretary of State if we can inspect and download these CD-ROMS and related databases at our expense at their location with our equipment and staff at no charge to the State of Minnesota. If the Secretary of State can copy all of this information and paper copies on to CD-ROMS then why can&apos;t we do the same thing with our own equipment and personnel at no cost to the State? This request has been denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Mr. Magnotta asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Secretary of State Office (OSS) responded appropriately to a request to inspect - via downloading - the following data: all UCCs, tax liens, and many other public records? The requestor wishes to download the data from the OSS using his own equipment and staff.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), an individual has the right to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places. Further, a government entity may not require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Magnotta explained that, in the past, he and/or his staff took his scanner to the OSS office and scanned images of paper documents into his computer system. The Commissioner, in a previous opinion, described such an act as akin to an inspection of data. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267086&quot; title=&quot;01-086&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-086&lt;/a&gt;, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, an individual is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of government data. There is no provision, however, in Chapter 13 that provides guidance on how to handle a case in which the requestor uses his/her own scanner to make copies of the data. Therefore, the Commissioner urges a common sense solution. He finds this situation akin to the requestor inspecting the documents. The government entity is not required to provide paper or labor for staff to make the copies. Thus, it does not seem reasonable for the entity to assess any charge. The Commissioner adds, though, that if an individual were to scan an unusually large number of documents, e.g., for days at a time, it seems reasonable for the government entity to recoup some cost for electricity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation currently before the Commissioner, however, is somewhat different; Mr. Magnotta wishes to go to the OSS office, hook up his computer equipment to that of OSS, and make his own copy(s) of certain data free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Black made several arguments as to why Mr. Magnotta should not be allowed to gain direct access to the OSS system. It appears Mr. Black&apos;s arguments revolve around (1) OSS has authority to charge a fee for the type of access Mr. Magnotta seeks and (2) the type of access Mr. Magnotta seeks will threaten the security of the OSS system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black asserted that Minnesota Statutes, section 336.9-531, subdivision 1, gives OSS the authority to charge Mr. Magnotta a fee. This provision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The secretary of state may allow private parties to have electronic access to the central filing system and to other computerized records maintained by the secretary of state on a fee basis, except that: (1) visual access to electronic display terminals at the public counters at the secretary of state&apos;s office must be without charge and must be available during public counters hours; and (2) access by law enforcement personnel, acting in an official capacity, must be without charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black wrote, Under this provision, electronic access is discretionary and it [sic] not an absolute public access right. This fee authority, originally adopted in 1987 and readopted in 2001, is in addition to, and is both recognized by and supersedes certain provisions of [section 13.03]. Upon review, the Commissioner learned that in 1999, the Legislature amended this provision so that the first clause was changed from electronic-view-only access to electronic access. However, Mr. Black provided no information as to whether the language change has any significance, or what OSS intended electronic access to encompass when OSS sought the language change. The Commissioner, therefore, cannot conclude that this provision is meant to cover requests such as Mr. Magnotta has made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black also argued that section 13.03, subdivision 3(b), permits the OSS to charge Mr. Magnotta for gaining accessing to the data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(b) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this section, inspection includes, but is not limited to, the visual inspection of paper and similar types of government data. Inspection does not include printing copies by the government entity, unless printing a copy is the only method to provide for inspection of the data. In the case of data stored in electronic form and made available in electronic form on a remote access basis to the public by the government entity, inspection includes remote access to the data by the public and the ability to print copies of or download the data on the public&apos;s own computer equipment. Nothing in this section prohibits a government entity from charging a reasonable fee for remote access to data under a specific statutory grant of authority. A government entity may charge a fee for remote access to data where either the data or the access is enhanced at the request of the person seeking access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black argued that because OSS has specific statutory authority, it is not prohibited (as per the last sentence in section 13.03, subdivision 3(b)), from charging a reasonable fee for remote access to data. The Commissioner, however, concludes that the sentence to which Mr. Black refers does not seem to be relevant. Mr. Magnotta is not seeking remote access to data. The term remote access suggests that an individual is working from a computer device or system situated at some distance from but communicating with a central computer. It implies that the individual does not come in direct, physical contact with the central computer. Here, Mr. Magnotta wants to access the data directly from the OSS computers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black also argued that if Mr. Magnotta were to directly connect into the UCC system, the security and integrity of the data would be at risk. Mr. Black wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The UCC system application and database is designed for use by authorized state and satellite office staff. Security and navigation is authorized for staff cleared and trained in the use of the system. For public access, the Direct Access component is designed as a subscription service that permits subscribers to view certain OSS data. This operation is not permitted to penetrate the system&apos;s firewall security systems. Mr. Magnotta proposes to be permitted to achieve this system&apos;s firewall breach.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Certain data functions are not conducted directly in the database in order to maintain high performance standards. The UCC subscription system is an on-line system. Significant data retrieval operations like the one requested by Mr. Magnotta can have a major negative impact on on-line response time. Our customers demand quick response times. Therefore various data products that must be extracted from the database are produced as batch jobs on off-peak hours. The data Mr. Magnotta is requesting falls into that category and cannot be provided on an on-demand basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Multiple outside parties attaching their own equipment to the UCC computer system presents a variety of serious security and performance issues. The equipment could contain viruses that could contaminate the OSS network. Applications that their machines could be running could compromise the OSS network and could disrupt computers [sic] operations or render the system inoperable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Uncontrolled links by multiple parties presents significant security and performance issues, subjects the data to manipulation and severely undermines the ability of this office to present these documents to the financial world as accurate and valid.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. It is clear, pursuant to Chapter 13, that individuals have the right to inspect government data free of charge. However, it is not clear whether the Legislature intended this right to extend to requests such as Mr. Magnotta has made. In other words, does Mr. Magnotta&apos;s request constitute an inspection, or is it a type of hybrid between an inspection of data and obtaining copies of data? The Legislature recently has updated a couple of public access provisions so they are meaningful in light of technological advances; however, given Mr. Magnotta&apos;s request, it appears other provisions need to be discussed and clarified/revised.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Black wrote that OSS is meeting its obligations under Chapter 13 because it provides Mr. Magnotta with free inspection of the data and the ability to purchase copies of the data (the copying fee that OSS charges is not the subject of this opinion). Based on this fact, combined with the comments above, the Commissioner is not prepared to conclude, without direction from the Legislature, that Mr. Magnotta&apos;s request is a type of inspection to which he is entitled. Another reason for the Commissioner&apos;s position is related to the language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(d). When the Legislature adopted this provision, it gave clear direction that, in certain specific cases, when an entity has expended significant funds in developing a database, program, and so forth, involving data that have commercial value, the entity may recoup some or all of the development cost by adding an additional charge to the fee for providing copies of the data. Although the Commissioner is not of the opinion that Mr. Magnotta technically has asked for a copy of data, and doubts, therefore, that this provision applies, the Commissioner believes it is the Legislature&apos;s place to determine whether a commercial value charge might apply in a case such as this. (Mr. Black asserted that (1) the data Mr. Magnotta requested have commercial value and (2) the total cost of developing the UCC filing system has been in excess of $2.8 million.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner is sensitive to Mr. Black&apos;s arguments about data and system security. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 5, OSS is required to establish (1) procedures to ensure that data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current and (2) appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. The UCC system is comprised of vast amounts of data about individuals. With a request such as Mr. Magnotta&apos;s, there is a chance that both the data and the system will be compromised. If the Legislature deems that individuals have the right to make their own copies by means of downloading data from a government computer, Chapter 13 will need to be amended so that both parties - the public and the government - are aware of this right/obligation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Magnotta raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Secretary of State Office (OSS) responded appropriately to a request to inspect - via downloading - the following data: all UCCs, tax liens, and many other public records. It appears OSS has met its obligations under Chapter 13 by enabling the public to (1) inspect data free of charge and (2) obtain copies.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267840</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copies made by requestor</Title><Id>266253</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Enhanced data</Title><Id>266319</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Subscription fees</Title><Id>266745</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspection vs. copying, in general</Title><Id>266356</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal electronic device used</Title><Id>266888</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic files, website</Title><Id>266321</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remote access</Title><Id>266320</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:07:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-035</Title><title>Opinion 02 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267659&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-10-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the District respond appropriately to a request to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority for the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 2002; School District 146 (Barnesville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 7, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Gloria Hartmann. In this letter, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 146, Barnesville. Ms. Hartmann&apos;s request required additional information/clarification with IPAD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Hartmann&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Todd Cameron, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated August 14, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Hartmann&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 5, 2002, IPAD received a response from Patricia A. Maloney, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail to Loretta Szweduik, the District School Board Chair, dated August 2, 2002, Ms. Hartmann stated the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You closed the May 20, 2002 School Board meeting from 8:10 pm until 11:20 pm in order to conduct the performance evaluation for Superintendent Cameron.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;During the June 3rd meeting you reported that during the performance evaluation &apos;areas of growth were defined and Superintendent Cameron&apos;s evaluation is an ongoing process.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While the statement describes what took place at the evaluation, I do not feel it follows the requirement of Minnesota Statute 13D.05 . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I do not believe that your statement (&apos;areas of growth were defined&apos;) constitutes a summary of your conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please provide the required summary of your conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail dated August 4, 2002, Ms. Szweduik responded: [t]he Minnesota School Board Association provided the summary of the performance review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hartmann provided a copy of the minutes of the June 3, 2002, District School Board meeting, which contain the following: [a]t the May 6, 2002 meeting, Supt. Cameron&apos;s annual evaluation was reviewed. Chair Szweduik disclosed the results of the evaluation to state that areas of growth were identified and Supt. Cameron&apos;s evaluation is an ongoing process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another e-mail to Ms. Szweduik, dated August 1, 2002, Ms Hartmann wrote: I would like to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority for our district. Ms. Szweduik responded, in an e-mail dated August 4, 2002: [p]lease contact the District office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hartmann stated that she had contacted the District Office, two weeks earlier, with the same request. In a letter to Ms. Hartmann dated August 7, 2002, Mr. Cameron stated: [t]o my knowledge the district has not formally named a responsible authority for handling data privacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Maloney stated first that the Commissioner does not have the authority to interpret the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. According to Ms. Maloney, Ms. Hartmann&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 have been fulfilled, because she was provided access to the School Board&apos;s summary of the performance evaluation of the Superintendent in two ways: she had the right to attend the open meeting at which the summary was given, and upon her request, the District provided her with a copy of the meeting minutes. Ms. Maloney stated that the summary was not recorded in any format other than the School Board minutes. (She also stated that the minutes inadvertently omitted the Chair&apos;s statement that &apos;two&apos; areas of growth were identified, but otherwise accurately reflect the summary. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Maloney also commented:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is important to note that Ms. Hartmann is objecting to the content of the summary of the Superintendent&apos;s evaluation, and not access to the summary. Thus, her rights as a requester of data under [Chapter 13] have been fulfilled. Under [Chapter 13], a requester does not have the right to compel a political subdivision to create data. What Ms. Hartmann apparently wants is a more detailed summary of the Superintendent&apos;s evaluation than that provided by the Chair. Whether or not the summary actually provided by the Chair fulfills the School Board&apos;s obligations under the Open Meeting Law, involves an interpretation of that statute and not [Chapter 13]. As a result, the Commissioner does not have the authority to issue an opinion interpreting the Open Meeting Law and should decline to issue an opinion on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Maloney further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, even if the Commissioner determines that he has the authority to interpret the Open Meeting Law and finds that the School Board&apos;s summary of the evaluation was not adequate, the Commissioner should find that the School District made a good faith attempt to comply with the statute. The Board Chair sought the advice on what to say in the evaluation summary from the consultant from the Minnesota School Boards Association who had facilitated the evaluation process. The Board Chair reasonably relied on advice she received from the representative from the Minnesota School Boards Association.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the resolution and appointing order for the District&apos;s responsible authority, Ms. Maloney stated that the District has complied with its obligation under section 13.02 because, on November 14, 1995, the District adopted a policy entitled Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records, which, under Article III, Definitions, Section H, designated the Superintendent as the responsible authority. Ms. Maloney stated: Superintendent Cameron is now aware of his designation as the responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the District respond appropriately to a request to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority for the District?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3 (a), [a] public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. . . . . At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments regarding Ms. Maloney&apos;s contention that the Commissioner does not have the authority, under section 13.072, to address this issue. Section 13.072 provides that the Commissioner may issue an opinion regarding a person&apos;s right to have access to government data. Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a), directs government entities to provide a summary of a performance evaluation, i.e., it requires government entities to create certain data. Whether or not a government entity has discharged its duty under that provision has a direct impact on a person&apos;s right to gain access to government data. Accordingly, the Commissioner will address the issue in this opinion, as he has addressed similar issues before.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a part of those amendments, the Legislature addressed the high public interest in the performance of certain public employees, and, in particular, employees about whom personnel decisions are made by governing bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Legislature authorized governing bodies to close meetings to discuss personnel data about public employees, including performance evaluations, subject to certain limitations. However, the Legislature also clearly required that once a public body completed its closed-meeting evaluation of an employee subject to its authority, the body must, at its next public meeting, summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. (See section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d), and Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.) . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the District was required to provide a summary of its conclusions regarding the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation at its next meeting open to the public. The Commissioner does not agree that the statement made by the Board chair, and reflected in the meeting minutes, that the Board discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses, constitutes a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most recently, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266799&quot; title=&quot;02-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-021&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Government entities seeking guidance on what to summarize can look to the language of the Open Meeting Law. Specifically, Chapter 13D directs a governing body to summarize its conclusions regarding a personnel evaluation. How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s position on this issue has not changed. The Board&apos;s statement, as reflected in the meeting minutes, areas of growth were identified and Supt. Cameron&apos;s evaluation is an ongoing process does not constitute a summary for purposes of section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the District respond appropriately to a request to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority for the District?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the responsible authority in a school district is the individual designated by the governing body of that district who is responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 14, (C), the the school board shall appoint an individual who is an employee of the school district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Maloney stated that the Barnesville School Board had met its obligations with respect to appointing a responsible authority under Chapter 13 because a 1995 policy entitled Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records contains the following statement: [r]esponsible authority is the superintendent of schools or his designee who is charged with the responsibility for and overall management of the school district records system. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under statute and rule, the School Board was required to appoint an &lt;u&gt;individual&lt;/u&gt; as responsible authority. The statement in a school policy that the superintendent is the responsible authority does not constitute a School Board appointment of an individual. Mr. Cameron himself was unaware that he was the District&apos;s responsible authority. The District may wish to review the advisory form provided at Minnesota Rules, part 1205.2000, subpart 3, for a model resolution to assist it in appointing a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Hartmann is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and 13D, Independent School District 146, Barnesville, did not respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the District did not respond appropriately to a request to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority for the District.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267659</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Name, title, and address</Title><Id>266627</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:05:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-034</Title><title>Opinion 02 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266529&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-09-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 14, 2002, request to review the following data: &quot;the employment contract of Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School?&quot;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 17, 2002, request to review the following data: &quot;any board minutes associated with Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School?&quot;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 18, 2002, request to review the following data: &quot;the district wide average teachers&apos; salary range for the last three years?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 12, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 16, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Karen Lang. In her letter, Ms. Lang requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data Minnetonka Public School District 276 maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Lang&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Lang&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On August 2, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated July 31, 2002, from Mark Wolak, the District&apos;s Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Accountability.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Ms. Lang is as follows. In a letter dated June 14, 2002, Ms. Lang asked to inspect any and all data pertaining to the employment contract of Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 17, 2002, Ms. Lang asked to inspect any and all data pertaining to any board minutes associated with Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 18, 2002, Ms. Lang asked to inspect any and all data pertaining to the district wide average teachers salary and range for the last three years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Lang wrote that, as of that date (July 16, 2002), she had not received any response from the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Lang asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 14, 2002, request to review the following data: the employment contract of Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 17, 2002, request to review the following data: any board minutes associated with Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a June 18, 2002, request to review the following data: the district wide average teachers&apos; salary range for the last three years?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance, stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak provided no explanation as to why the District had not responded to Ms. Lang as of the date she submitted her opinion request. He stated only that he was attaching (to the Commissioner) a copy of the materials Ms. Lang requested. He also attached a copy of the District&apos;s letter to Ms. Lang, dated July 15, 2002. In this letter Mr. Wolak wrote, Enclosed are responses to three data practices requests we received in our office on June 17, 2002. Attached were a copy of (1) the minutes of the June 6, 2002, Minnetonka Board of Education regular meeting and a copy of a document entitled Recommended Personnel Changes ; (2) a document entitled 1999-2000 Salary Schedule, a document entitled 2000-2001 Salary Schedule, and a document entitled 2002-2003 Salary Schedule ; and (3) a document that appears to be the contract between Dave Nelson and the District.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Apparently, the District received Ms. Lang&apos;s three data requests on June 17. It did not respond until July 15 - four weeks from the date of Ms. Lang&apos;s requests. Given the substance of Ms. Lang&apos;s requests, it does not seem the District&apos;s response was prompt, appropriate, or reasonable. This is especially the case given that Mr. Wolak offered no explanation as to why it took four weeks to make photocopies of several different documents. Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the District did not respond appropriately to Ms. Lang&apos;s requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Lang raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately, i.e. in a timely manner, to a June 14, 2002, request to review the following data: ...the employment contract of Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately, i.e., in a timely manner, to a June 17, 2002, request to review the following data: ...any board minutes associated with Head football coach Dave Nelson an employee of Minnetonka High School.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately, i.e., in a timely manner, to a June 18, 2002, request to review the following data: ...the district wide average teachers&apos; salary range for the last three years.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 12, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266529</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-033</Title><title>Opinion 02 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267486&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-09-11T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, was Independent School District 333, Ogilvie, required to provide a Tennessen Warning to X and Y when it asked them to submit a complaint in writing?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants, who are parents of District students, to various District staff?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants to District students?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants in a public meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 11, 2002; School District 333 (Ogilvie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 8, 2002, IPAD received a letter from X and Y. In this letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights with respect to certain data maintained by Independent School District 333, Ogilvie. X and Y&apos;s request required clarification with IPAD staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X and Y&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated July 17, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. (That letter was addressed to the former Superintendent; the letter was faxed to Jon Knopik, current Superintendent, on August 2, 2002.) On, August 5, 2002, IPAD received a response from Mr. Knopik. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X and Y are parents of District students. According to X and Y, they made a complaint about what they believed to be a violation of the District&apos;s policy regarding sexual harassment. They stated to the Commissioner:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As we understood, according to the Ogilvie [Student] Handbook, a verbal complaint would be acceptable. Although, when we met with Human Rights Officer Nancy Jahnke, . . . she called Principal Furman and Assistant Principal Stejskal into her office with us. They all continued to insist we put everything in writing although we were hesitant. At this time, it was Principal Furman and Ms. Jahnke who assured us about Data Privacy and we were convinced by all three administrators [sic] comments, our complaint was in complete confidence . . . . Ms. Jahnke then found an obsolete form that she said we could complete to get our complaint in writing. Which we did upon their insistent request and continued assurance that this was for our protection according to data privacy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X and Y, the District formed a committee to investigate their complaint. They stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Realizing that the administration and school board had no intentions of taking our concerns seriously . . . [Y] wrote a letter to the editor expressing concern for this districts [sic] lack of effectiveness in dealing with students and their families. We decided it was in our children&apos;s best interest, for their peace of mind and anonymity, to use [Y&apos;s] maiden name on this letter. Absolutely no one in this community knew this private information . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The school board called a special meeting to discuss X and Y&apos;s complaint, to which they were invited by the board chair. A member of the local media also attended. X and Y stated to the Commissioner:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                When [the board chair informed them of the meeting], she never advised us they intended to share our names to anyone, we still believed we were assured of our privacy due to the fact we still had . . . children attending school in this district. And as we understand, the privacy of parents of students is also protected information. We were not given the names of the committee members chosen to research the material, just as they were not given ours, per our original understanding as stated by the school administrators. We never received a phone call, written advisement or any type of warning that our families [sic] name was going to be released to the public. We understand now that a Tennessen warning would be required in a case such as this. We absolutely never received any such warning.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Principal Furman opened the meeting . . . and intentionally and willfully gave out our name. As we understand it, the only statement that needed to be released was that a parent or community member had made a complaint, as Ms. Furman had done at two earlier board meetings when this subject was brought up.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X and Y also stated [i]t was brought to our attention that on Thursday afternoon and Friday of March 21 and 22, that private information was being spread by administrators, staff and others at the school, to the effect that it was [Y] who had written a letter to the editor using her maiden name and it was we, who made a complaint . . . . They stated that a District student told Y that a teacher discussed the complaint and identified Y as the complainant with her entire first hour class. [Y] later discovered it was Principal Furman who confirmed our identities to this teacher and other staff members.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The complaint form X and Y refer to is entitled Addendum #1, Independent School District #333, Request for Reconsideration of Instruction/media Materials. The form asks for name, address and telephone number of the person(s) who initiate the request for reconsideration. The form includes the following questions:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. To what in the materials do you object? (Please be specific)
                &lt;br /&gt;
                2. Why do you object to this material and what do you feel might be the result of exposure to the material?
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. In your opinion, is there anything good about this material?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                There is no statement on the form regarding the classification of the data requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Knopik stated that because X and Y spoke at Open Forum in a school board meeting and wrote several articles in the local newspaper, they were the ones who made this a &apos;public&apos; issue, not the school district. Any accusation that the school violated their right to privacy seems misdirected considering it was their action that drove this into the public arena. Mr. Knopik further stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In response to specific issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;
                #2 - There is no evidence that their identities were released regarding any complaint. My understanding is that the (public) newspaper articles were discussed.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                #3 - Again, when someone writes a letter to the editor they are making their identity public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, was Independent School District 333, Ogilvie, required to provide a Tennessen Warning to X and Y when it asked them to submit a complaint in writing?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants, who are parents of District students, to various District staff?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants to District students?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants in a public meeting?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, was Independent School District 333, Ogilvie, required to provide a Tennessen Warning to X and Y when it asked them to submit a complaint in writing? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on parents are private, pursuant to section13.32, subdivision 2 (c). When a government entity asks an individual to supply private data about him/herself, the entity is required to give the individual a notice. (This notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen Warning, must advise the data subject of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; 2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; 3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply the private or confidential data; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. See section 13.04, subdivision 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District asked X and Y to submit their complaint in writing, i.e., the District asked X and Y to provide private data about themselves (their names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and their opinions about materials they find offensive), thus triggering the Tennessen Warning requirement. The purpose of the Tennessen Warning is to insure that individuals are able to make informed choices about supplying data concerning themselves to the government. If an individual is not notified that certain data s/he is asked to supply may become public, the person cannot make an informed choice. From the information provided, it appears that the District did not provide X and Y with a Tennessen Warning, as it was required to do.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants, who are parents of District students, to various District staff?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are not available to the public. Further, Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, provides that private data are available to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require that they gain access to the data. In the case of this opinion, the data at issue are classified as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X and Y stated that it was brought to our attention that . . . private information was being spread by administrators, staff and others at the school. Mr. Knopik stated there is no evidence that their identities were released regarding any complaint. My understanding is that the (public) newspaper articles were discussed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X and Y and Mr. Knopik disagree about whether the District inappropriately identified X and Y to District staff, a factual disagreement which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. If the District identified X and Y as the complainants to District staff whose work assignments did not reasonably require access to such data, it was not appropriate for them to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 3
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants to District students?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, data the District maintains about X and Y&apos;s complaint are private. If District staff identified X and Y as the complainants to District students, or otherwise disseminated private data about X and Y to District students, it was not appropriate for them to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 4:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, was it appropriate for the District to identify the complainants in a public meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, the District was required to provide X and Y with a Tennessen Warning when it asked them to provide the data on the complaint form. The District apparently failed to do so. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4, private data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated for any purposes other than those stated to the individual in the Tennessen Warning, with certain exceptions. Accordingly, in general, the District is precluded from using or disseminating anything contained in X and Y&apos;s complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, one exception to that general rule is provided at section 13.05, subdivision 4 (e): [p]rivate or confidential data on an individual may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 13D.05. Therefore, to the extent it may be applicable, a Tennessen Warning should include a statement that the data at some point may be subject to disclosure in a public meeting.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 1 (b), not public data may be discussed at an open meeting if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to section 13D,05, subdivision 2, a meeting must be closed if educational data (per section 13.32), are discussed. Prior to 1999, data on parents were defined as educational data under section 13.32, subdivision 2. That year, the Legislature amended section 13.32, subdivision 2 , by deleting the language in clause (b) that stated that data concerning parents are educational data, and adding clause (c): [d]ata concerning parents are private data on individuals . . . . (See Session Laws for 1999, Chapter 227.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District claims that X and Y themselves publically disclosed the data involved, thus freeing the District to do the same. However, even if that were the case (which the Commissioner cannot determine), it would not excuse the District&apos;s obligation to protect the data it holds about X and Y, which are private data on individuals under section 13.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District could disclose private data on X and Y at a public meeting if the disclosure related to a matter within the scope of the District&apos;s authority and if it was reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the District. The Commissioner has the following comments. It is clearly within the scope of the District&apos;s authority for it to consider a complaint made against the District. It is not as clear, however, if, in order to consider that complaint, it was reasonably necessary for the District to identify the complainants. According to X and Y, when the subject was raised at earlier public board meetings a statement was made that a parent or community member had made a complaint. In the Commissioner&apos;s view, the District could reasonably have discussed the substance and merit of the complaint without publicly identifying the complainants.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final note is in order. Mr. Knopik, in his response to the Commissioner, included some private data about X and Y that the Commissioner did not need to render his opinion. The Commissioner encourages the District and all other responding government entities to limit their comments to that information which is relevant and necessary to the opinion issue(s).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y are as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, Independent School District 333, Ogilvie, was required to provide a Tennessen Warning to X and Y when it asked them to submit a complaint in writing.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commissioner cannot determine if the District identified the complainants, who are parents of District students, to various District staff. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the District identified X and Y as the complainants to District staff whose work assignments did not reasonably require access to such data, it was not appropriate for them to do so.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commissioner cannot determine if the District identified the complainants to District students. If District staff identified X and Y as the complainants to District students, it was not appropriate for them to do so, because data about X and Y are private.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and 13D, it was not reasonably necessary for the District to identify the complainants in a public meeting.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 11, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267486</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose of notice - informed choice</Title><Id>266773</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T15:38:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-032</Title><title>Opinion 02 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266681&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-09-11T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Minnetonka Public Schools District 276 respond appropriately to a July 3, 2002, request to review the following data: &quot;any further policy and procedure on what action/steps should be taken when a player is injured or has a potential injury during [a Minnetonka Community Education Services] program or specifically a game (basketball, football, ...)?&quot;
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 11, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 29, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Mike Herbst. In his letter, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that Minnetonka Public School District 276 maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 2, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On August 23, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated August 21, 2002, from Michael Lovett, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Herbst presented them is as follows. In an email to the District dated July 3, 2002, Mr. Herbst referred to data the District had provided to him in response to previous data requests. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                After fully reviewing all documents and comments supplied by your office on June 27th and April 8th I can only find ART 5 section 8, and section 7 from the NFHS Basketball Handbook, and 3.1.2 from Minnetonka Public Schools Administrative Rules and Procedures July 16th 2002, concerning procedure and policy on participant injury during an MCES program or specifically a game (basketball, football,...).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am summarily re-requesting an acknowledgment whether District 276 has any further policy and procedure on what action/steps should be taken when a player is injured or has a potential injury during an MCES game, if so I would like to request to review that data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, dated July 29, 2002, Mr. Herbst wrote, To date there has been no contact concerning this request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Minnetonka Public Schools District 276 respond appropriately to a July 3, 2002, request to review the following data: any further policy and procedure on what action/steps should be taken when a player is injured or has a potential injury during [a Minnetonka Community Education Services] program or specifically a game (basketball, football, ...)? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Herbst made the data request that is the subject of this advisory opinion in an email on July 3, 2002. He addressed the email to Mark Wolak (the District&apos;s previous data practices compliance official), Superintendent Peterson, and two other persons. At the time Mr. Herbst submitted his opinion request, he stated that he had not received a response from the District.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Lovett, along with his comments to the Commissioner, attached a copy of a letter he sent to Mr. Herbst dated August 21, 2002. Mr. Lovett also attached a copy of a letter he sent to Mr. Herbst dated August 13, 2002.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his August 13 letter to Mr. Herbst, Mr. Lovett wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Effective August 1, the Minnetonka School Board appointed me to the role of the Data [Practices] Compliance [Official]...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I want to acknowledge that I have just today had an opportunity to review your request...and would like an opportunity to visit with you so that we might be in position to furnish you the data which you are requesting.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    At this point, without further investigation of our practices at a supervisory level, I am not aware of whether we have any informal administrative procedures beyond that which is outlined and [sic] administrative rules and procedures S-3, a copy of which Dr. Wolak apparently provided to you on June 27, 2002.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If you wish to be in contact with me to provide greater detail about your request, I would request that you do so by August 20. If I have not heard from you by that time, I will respond in writing based [sic] your email of July 3, 2002.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his August 21 letter to Mr. Herbst, Mr. Lovett wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I met with [District staff] regarding your request...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    According to [staff], no other written procedures or policies exist to his knowledge other than that information that was sent to you by Dr. Mark Wolak on June 27, 2002.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In regard to the delay in the response of your email of July 3, I do not know why you did not receive a response from Dr. Mark Wolak prior to his last day of work in July. My understanding was that Dr. Mark Wolak certainly made an effort to respond to anything that was still current so that he could close all matters regarding data practices prior to his departure....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I would request that any requests you do make be made in writing, and signed by you. You should feel free to telephone or email to confirm that I have received items.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In addition, I would welcome an opportunity to visit with you on any requests that you have.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Lovett wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Again, as I understand the facts, Mr. Herbst sent an email to Dr. Wolak, then the responsible authority on July 3, 2002, and had not heard back from Dr. Wolak prior to his departure from the school district at the end of July.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In that Dr. Wolak is no longer employed by the Minnetonka Public Schools, it is difficult to explain conclusively what may have happened, but I believe that Dr. Wolak had responded to all matters about which he was aware prior to his departure. It may be possible that while Mr. Herbst has a record of the email being sent and received by the school district, for some reason the school district&apos;s email system was not functioning or for one reason or another Dr. Wolak did not receive the email. I do not know whether there were other attempts to check with Dr. Wolak by other means to ascertain whether he had indeed received the email and was planning on responding.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In my August 21 letter to Mr. Herbst, I suggested a protocol for future requests which should include the initial request to be in writing and signed by the requesting party, with telephone contact or email contact a reasonable and acceptable way to check to assure that we have received the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In summary, insofar as I can see from the record, this school district was in compliance with the request which Mr. Herbst made through Dr. Wolak&apos;s response of June 27, 2002. I do not know whether Dr. Wolak was aware of the July 3 request. In any event, when the Board appointed me the responsible authority, I have endeavored to respond on a reasonable timeline, as reflected in the attached documents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. Mr. Herbst made his data request on July 3 and did not receive a response from the District until August 13, approximately six weeks later. A determination of whether such a response is appropriate, prompt, or reasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Here, given the nature of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request, six weeks is not appropriate, prompt, or reasonable. Although Mr. Lovett pointed out that Mr. Wolak left the District in July and the District appointed Mr. Lovett to be the Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO) on August 1, Mr. Herbst and other members of the public should not bear the burden of the District reassigning positions. Superintendent Peterson also was sent and apparently received a copy of Mr. Herbst&apos;s email. The District has a statutory obligation to respond to data requests regardless of which staff person performs the role of DPCO.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A final note is in order. Mr. Lovett suggested to Mr. Herbst that he (Mr. Herbst) make future requests in writing and sign them. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2, the District is required to establish policies/procedures that explain how an individual may gain access to public data. Clearly, any procedures relating to accessing public data must apply equally to all individuals seeking access to public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Herbst raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Minnetonka Public Schools District 276 did not respond appropriately to a July 3, 2002, request to review the following data: any further policy and procedure on what action/steps should be taken when a player is injured or has a potential injury during [a Minnetonka Community Education Services] program or specifically a game (basketball, football, ...). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Minnetonka Public Schools District 276 did not respond appropriately to a July 3, 2002, request to review the following data: any further policy and procedure on what action/steps should be taken when a player is injured or has a potential injury during [a Minnetonka Community Education Services] program or specifically a game (basketball, football, ...). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 11, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266681</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-031</Title><title>Opinion 02 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267787&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-09-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of New Prague maintains: the names and addresses of utility customers to whom the City provides electric, water, and sewer services?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 10, 2002; City of New Prague</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 22, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated July 17, 2002, from Patty Solheid, Administrative Services Coordinator for the City of New Prague. In her letter, Ms. Solheid asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Solheid wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...We provide electric, water and sewer services to our customers in the New Prague area. While we do have strictly electric customers and water/sewer customers, the majority of our customers have all 3 services provided to them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Statue [sic] 13.685 states that electric customer data is considered to be private. Therefore, I&apos;m questioning if I can send out the information on the customers that have all 3 services provided to them. Also, periodically, we have phone calls from other realtors inquiring what the water bill is for a particular customer so it can be included in their closing costs. We have been giving them their entire bill (electric included)....Or if a potential buyer or realtor calls and wants to know what the utilities are running for a specific house, is this also information that should not be given out?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Solheid asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of New Prague maintains: the names and addresses of utility customers to whom the City provides electric, water, and sewer services?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes section 13.685 classifies data on customers of municipal electric utilities as private (data on individuals) or nonpublic (data not on individuals). Although section 13.685 lists five situations in which these data can be released, none apply in the present case. Data about customers to whom a municipality provides water and sewer services are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. If someone requested the names and addresses of all people to whom the City provides electric utility services, those data would not be accessible because they are private. Following this logic, if someone requested the names and addresses of all people to whom the City provides electric, water, and sewer services (as is the case before the Commissioner), the names and addresses of the people receiving electric services would not be accessible, even if those customers also receive water and sewer services. In other words, if customer X receives all three services, one of them being electric, her name and address are private. However, the names and addresses of customers receiving only water and sewer services are public. It is important to note that if the City maintains Social Security numbers, those data always are private pursuant to section 13.49.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner notes that although the result flowing from this analysis may seem somewhat absurd, the Legislature, in 1999, classified only data about municipal electric customers as not public. As introduced, the bill dealing with utility customer data would have classified all such data as not public. Legislative committees discussed classifying all data about municipal utility customers as not public but, in the end, the Legislature enacted the language in section 13.685, classifying only electric utility customer data as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Ms. Solheid also inquired about situations in which someone asks for information about the amount of a particular utility bill for a particular customer. She wrote, ...we have phone calls from other realtors inquiring what the water bill is for a particular customer so it can be included in their closing costs. In such cases, if that person is receiving utility services other than electric, the customer data about him are public. However, if he is receiving electric utility services (with or without the addition of other utility services), the customer data about him are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Solheid further asked about situations in which someone is looking for information about utilities for a particular house. Again, the same analysis applies. If the City is supplying electric utility services, all such customer data about that property are private. If the City is supplying only water and sewer utility services, the customer data about that property are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Solheid raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685, the names and addresses of utility customers to whom the City of New Prague provides electric, water, and sewer services are private. However, if the City provides only water and sewer services to a particular customer, those data are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 10, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267787</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data</Title><Id>266594</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-22T17:47:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-030</Title><title>Opinion 02 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267688&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-08-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, did the City of Delavan respond appropriately to requests for access to the following data: 1) the actual gross salaries, fringe benefits, expense reimbursements, and extra meeting reimbursements for eight named City employees/city council members for 2001, and for January through May 2002; and 2) all bills the City paid during 2001, and during January through May 2002?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 30, 2002; City of Delavan</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 5, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated July 1, 2002, from Carol Arias. In her letter, Ms. Arias asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Trudy Anderson, Clerk of the City of Delavan, in response to Ms. Arias&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 8, 2002, were to inform her of Ms. Arias&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 18, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from David Frundt, Assistant City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Arias presented them is as follows. On February 12, 2002, Ms. Arias wrote to Ms. Anderson and asked for copies of all named City Council employees and their wages for the second half of the year ending December of 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 13, 2002, Ms. Anderson wrote to Ms. Arias, Enclosed you will find a copy of Ordinance #108, establishing the wages for elected officials. Pursuant to the Data Privacy Act, I can not give you any more information. If this does not satisfy you, please contact our city attorney, David Frundt, with your request along with your reason for said request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 19, 2002, Ms. Arias again wrote to Ms. Anderson, and copied Mr. Frundt. Ms. Arias stated that she was making her request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. She asked for public information on the wages of all named city employees, staff, and council members including special meetings, their gross income for the year 2001. Ms. Arias asked also for all bills paid by the City for year 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 15, 2002, Ms. Arias wrote to the Mayor of Delavan. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I have asked three times, written two letters to the city clerk for the following public information of which I will enclose copies of these letters and their responses. In case they have not been clear enough I am writing you to please have this public information sent to me or to quote to me in writing that statute that gives you the right to deny me this information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                According to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13.43 subd. 2 Public data, I have the right to ask for the actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and the basis for the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am requesting copies of all bills paid in the months of October, November, and December of 2001, also of the months February, March, April, and May of 2002. I am also requesting the actual gross salaries of the following council members and maintenance personal [sic]: and any fringe benefits, expense reimbursement and any extra meetings reimbursement each one may have received; for the year 2001, and January 2002 to present date May 2002. [Ms. Arias then named certain City elected officials/employees.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (The Commissioner notes that although Ms. Arias&apos; February and March data requests are related to the May 15 request, they are not the subject of this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 16, 2002, Ms. Anderson wrote to Ms. Arias. (It is not clear whether this letter was in response to Ms. Arias&apos; previous requests which are not the subject of this opinion.) Ms. Anderson wrote, I have received all of the 2001 records from the auditor. A copy of the audit report is available for your inspection in the council room. You may buy a copy of the report for yourself at $22.50 per copy. That is the auditor&apos;s charge. To this letter, Ms. Anderson attached a copy of the 2002 base wages for all city employees.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 4, 2002, the Mayor wrote to Ms. Arias. He stated, These are the 2 salaries that I have W-2&apos;s for the year 2001 [he then listed his salary and the salary of another person]. The Mayor added, I do not have access to the other city employees [sic] wage statements. I believe you have received the auditors [sic] report and you can figure the information from that.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Arias wrote that at a Council meeting in June, one of the council members gave her a copy of his W-2 for the year 2001. Ms. Arias noted, however, in my opinion, there has been no effort by the city clerk to provide proper information or response why they deny sending me the information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Arias asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, did the City of Delavan respond appropriately to requests for access to the following data: 1) the actual gross salaries, fringe benefits, expense reimbursements, and extra meeting reimbursements for eight named City employees/city council members for 2001, and for January through May 2002; and 2) all bills the City paid during 2001, and during January through May 2002?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, pursuant to section 13.43, the following data about employees are public: actual gross salary, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits, and the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary. The Commissioner notes that some of the data Ms. Arias requested are about elected officials. As the Commissioner previously has opined, data about elected officials are classified either pursuant to section 13.43, or fall under the general presumption at section 13.03, subdivision 1, and are public. In this case, the nature of the requested data dictates that they are public regardless of whether the City treats its elected officials as employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Frundt provided some history about the communications between the City and Ms. Arias over the past six or so months. Of relevance to this opinion, Mr. Frundt wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The auditor&apos;s report was not delivered to the City until May of this year. Ms. Arias was told of the availability of the report as soon as it was available, as it was believed that this information would satisfy her request....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Arias then again indicated that the auditor&apos;s report would not satisfy her request in June of this year. The City now realizes that she requires more than the auditor&apos;s report and is in the process of getting that information for her. However, you should note that the City Clerk is the only employee of the City who has the capability of compiling the information requested. Furthermore, the Clerk is restricted to working 15 hours a week...Obviously, only so much work can be performed within the 15 hour time period. Therefore, Ms. Arias&apos; request has become a back burner project out of necessity. Again, it is the intent of the City to provide that information to Ms. Arias as requested as soon as possible. As the statute indicates that the information should be provided as soon as reasonably possible, it is our position that the City is doing the best it can given its small staff and limited resources.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...I have informed the Clerk that she needs to provide this information to Ms. Arias as soon as she possibly can and to indicate [sic] that she should have the information ready within a period of 60 days if at all possible. She has assured me that this will be done and that the information will be updated through the date the information is provided.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, pursuant to section 13.03, when an individual requests access to public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity must respond promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. Here, on May 15, 2002, Ms. Arias requested copies of the actual gross salaries, fringe benefits of, and any expense reimbursements made to, eight specific city employees and elected officials. Ms. Arias also asked for copies of city bills paid in certain months.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated May 16, 2002, the City responded by providing Ms. Arias with a copy of a list of the 2002 base wages for all employee job types, e.g., City Clerk - $9,000 per year - $375 for bi-monthly pay period. Expected work week is 15 hours. Additional $25 per special meeting. The City also advised Ms. Arias that the 2001 audit report was available for her inspection. Ms. Arias described the auditor&apos;s report as lumping everything together in their respective categories---does not give individual amounts as I have requested. As stated above, it is not clear whether the City&apos;s response was a follow-up to a previous request or a response to the May 15 request. If it was the former, upon receiving the May 15 request, the City should have realized it needed to respond differently. If it was the latter, the response was not appropriate for the following reasons. Ms. Arias&apos; May 15, 2002, request was clear. She wanted specific salary and wage information about specific employees/elected officials and also copies of bills the City paid. Ms. Arias did not ask for general information about employee wages. Salary and wage information about specific employees/elected officials is public pursuant to section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, it appears the City did not respond at all regarding the expenditure data. Such information is presumptively public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although the Commissioner understands that the City Clerk works only 15 hours a week and that she has many job duties, public entities nevertheless have a statutory obligation to respond properly to data practices requests. Ms. Arias requested specific data on May 15, 2002, and in response received only general data. She appears to have renewed her request in June. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Frundt suggested that the City Clerk might have the data to Ms. Arias within 60 days; four months after Ms. Arias&apos; initial request. A determination of whether such a response is appropriate, prompt, or reasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Here, however, given the nature and specificity of Ms. Arias&apos; request, four months is not appropriate, prompt, or reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City should provide Ms. Arias with the data immediately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Arias raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.43, the City of Delavan did not respond appropriately to requests for access to the following data: 1) the actual gross salaries, fringe benefits, expense reimbursements, and extra meeting reimbursements for eight named City employees/city council members for 2001, and for January through May 2002; and 2) all bills the City paid during 2001, and during January through May 2002. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 30, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267688</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual gross salary or compensation</Title><Id>266588</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Fringe benefits</Title><Id>266859</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-029</Title><title>Opinion 02 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267456&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-08-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is School District 284&apos;s, Wayzata, charge of $403.26 for copies of the following data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: &quot;...a complete and detailed accounting of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2002; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 25, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated June 21, 2002, from Dick Cargill. In his letter, Mr. Cargill asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that Independent School District 284, Wayzata, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Beilfuss, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Cargill&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 3, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Cargill&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 11, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated July 10, 2002, from Superintendent Beilfuss.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Cargill presented them is as follows. In a letter dated March 18, 2002, Mr. Cargill wrote to Alan Hopeman, the District&apos;s Executive Director of Finance and Business, and requested that the District send the following data: ...a complete and detailed accounting of all of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 12, 2002, Mr. Hopeman responded, asking for clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 26, 2002, Mr. Cargill wrote back. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Special education proceedings would include legal costs, courts costs, filing fees, parent attorney fees (paid by the district), District attorney fees associated with due process hearings, appeals, District Court proceedings, appeals, 8th Circuit Court proceedings, costs associated with decisions to remand to the lower courts, etc. Consultation would include such things as attendance at IEP meetings by district attorneys and/or consultant fees associated with the IEP process. This would include review of records, meeting with district staff outside of the designated IEP meeting times. All costs include legal, paralegal fees paid by the district for representation and consultation services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 10, 2002, Mr. Hopeman wrote back. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to provide you with the five years of invoices that you request, the District will have to retrieve the invoices from our archives. A staff person will have to review all invoices from law firms to determine whether the invoice is for legal services related to special education. Then an administrator will have to review those invoices to remove any private data, such as the name or initials of a student, or other confidential information from the invoice. At that point a copy of each invoice can be made and forwarded to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the District does not maintain the data you request in the manner you require, you will have to pay for the cost of preparing the data. The cost will be $403.26.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Mr. Cargill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is School District 284&apos;s, Wayzata, charge of $403.26 for copies of the following data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: ...a complete and detailed accounting of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may require the requestor to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling...the copies of the data...but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Superintendent Beilfuss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District&apos;s records of expenditures for legal services are not separated by subject area. Thus, records of legal fees arising out of special education matters are not separated from legal fees arising out of other matters. The request for legal consultation fees associated with District special education services was a request for the School District to create new data, by organizing and reconfiguring data into a different format. In previous opinions, the Commissioner has advised that, in situations where the entity has been asked to create new data, the request is not a true data practices request and the amount of any charge levied by a government entity to respond to the request is not regulated by state law...the Commissioner has advised that in such instances, the entity and the requesting party work out an agreement as to an appropriate charge. Minnesota Department of Administration &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267651&quot; title=&quot;97-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-046&lt;/a&gt; (11/3/97).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Superintendent Beilfuss further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...In fact, the Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting System (UFARS, which Minnesota school districts are required to use pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 123B.77, Subdivision 1) does not specify that expenditures for legal services be separated by program. Quite the opposite...which specifies that purchase of legal services be coded to program 110, Business Support Services. To do otherwise and code these expenses to other programs, such as special education, would actually be a violation of state UFARS guidelines. Because special education legal fees are typically intermixed with other legal fees on the same invoice, and the School District has never separated out these special education legal fees, the only way to obtain the data that Dr. Cargill requests for the last five years is to retrieve paper copies of original invoices from archival storage, manually review those invoices, and create the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Superintendent Beilfuss noted that the $403.26 fee included the time estimated to retrieve and replace all legal billing information for the past five years from its storage location; the time required to search through three law firms&apos; invoices to separate out entries relating to special education matters (special education legal fees are not billed separately, but are included in undifferentiated billings that contain descriptions of any legal services performed for the school district during the time in question); and the employee time associated with copying the invoice information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner recently addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267361&quot; title=&quot;02-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 02-028&lt;/a&gt;. In that opinion, two individuals requested the same special education billing data from Independent School District 284. However, the request was to inspect the data, rather than to obtain copies. The District, in its comments to the Commissioner regarding &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267361&quot; title=&quot;02-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-028&lt;/a&gt;, presented the same arguments that Superintendent Beilfuss made here. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267361&quot; title=&quot;02-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-028&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the District did not need to create data to respond to the request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg asked to inspect data documenting the time District attorneys have spent working on special education issues during the past five years. Ms. Ruff noted that special education legal fees are not billed separately, but are included in undifferentiated billings that contain descriptions of any legal services performed for the school district during the time in question. The Commissioner assumes, therefore, that someone who looks at the descriptions of the legal services will be able to discern special education from other services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Ruff is correct that Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create new data to respond to data requests. Here, however, the Commissioner does not agree with Ms. Ruff that the District is unable to respond to Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg without creating new data. The data exist; the real issue appears to be that the invoices are not categorized, organized, or separated according to any topic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, an appropriate response from the District is to allow Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg to inspect all legal invoices for the past five years and let them total up what the District has spent on special education. However, as stated above, inspection of government data is free and the District cannot charge a fee, including any cost it incurs separating the public from not public data contained in the invoices. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, Mr. Cargill has asked for copies of the District&apos;s special education billings. Thus, in the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the District should provide Mr. Cargill with two options in response to his request. One is that the District will make copies of all the District&apos;s legal billing invoices. In such a scenario, the District can charge only for the actual cost of searching for and retrieving the data, and for making the copies. The District may not charge for separating public from not public data. Mr. Cargill will then be able to cull through the invoices and determine how much the District spent on special education legal services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second option is for the District to allow Mr. Cargill to come to the District and inspect those same invoices. As in the first scenario, Mr. Cargill will then have an opportunity to look over the invoices and tally up what the District has spent on special education services. However, as the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267361&quot; title=&quot;02-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-028&lt;/a&gt;, inspection of government data is free and the District cannot charge a fee, including any cost it incurs separating the public from not public data contained in the invoices. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Cargill raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 284&apos;s, Wayzata, charge of $403.26 for copies of the following data is not allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: ...a complete and detailed accounting of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years. It appears the District does not need to create new data to respond to the request.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267456</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-028</Title><title>Opinion 02 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267361&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-08-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 284, Wayzata, respond appropriately to an April 5, 2002, request to review data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 7, 2002; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 25, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated June 21, 2002, from Marcy Pohlman and Susan Freeberg. In their letter, Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding their access to certain data that Independent School District 284, Wayzata, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Beilfuss, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Pohlman&apos;s and Ms. Freeberg&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 27, 2002, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 9, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated July 2, 2002, from Sara Ruff, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg presented them is as follows. On April 5, 2002, they wrote to Alan Hopeman, the District&apos;s Executive Director of Finance and Business: This is a request to review the [sic] all expenditure information associated with legal proceedings and consultation services including all attorney and legal fees related to Special Education Services in ISD #284 for the last five years. This includes but is not limited to the recent 8th circuit case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 16, 2002, Mr. Hopeman responded. He asked Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg to clarify their request and asked some specific questions. Then he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District&apos;s practice is to charge for requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The charge will include copying costs, and will also include costs for staff time to research and retrieve the data. However, before I can provide you with an estimate of the costs to fill your request, I need to have a much clearer idea of what you want. If you can provide that clarification, I will gladly tell you what it will cost to provide the information you request so that you can review it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg wrote back to Mr. Hopeman in a letter dated April 25, 2002, in an attempt to clarify their request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hopeman wrote back in a letter dated May 10, 2002. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to provide you with the five years of invoices that you request, the District will have to retrieve the invoices from our archives. A staff person will have to review all invoices from law firms to determine whether the invoice is for legal services related to special education. Then an administrator will have to review those invoices to remove any private data, such as the name or initials of a student, or other confidential information from the invoice. At that point, a copy of each invoice can be made available to you to inspect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the District does not maintain the data you request in the manner you require, you will have to pay for the cost of preparing the data. The cost will be $403.26. I would prefer that this be paid upfront before my staff and I perform this work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did School District 284, Wayzata, respond appropriately to an April 5, 2002, request to review data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), when an individual asks to inspect government data, the government entity cannot charge a fee.
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Ruff wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District&apos;s records of expenditures for legal services are not separated by subject area. Thus, records of legal fees arising out of special education matters are not separated from legal fees arising out of other matters. The request for legal consultation fees associated with the District special education services was a request for the School District to create new data, by organizing and reconfiguring data into a different format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Ruff noted that the Commissioner previously has opined that government entities are not required to create new data in response to a data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, stated Ms. Ruff, the $403.26 charge is the result of Mr. Hopeman&apos;s analysis of the cost of responding to the request. She stated, Mr. Hopeman prepared an estimate of the costs of searching for, retrieving and re-organizing government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making and compiling copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, Ms. Ruff wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District recognizes that the requestor&apos;s written request was to inspect public data and that a public entity may not require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data....However, as noted above, this is not merely a request for inspection of public data, where the requestor can simply be shown the data he or she is requesting. Rather, the request is actually a request for creation of new data, requiring a multistep process. The School District must first separate special education billing information from other billing information, and then must create redacted copies of the requested data to provide it for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg asked to inspect data documenting the time District attorneys have spent working on special education issues during the past five years. Ms. Ruff noted that special education legal fees are not billed separately, but are included in undifferentiated billings that contain descriptions of any legal services performed for the school district during the time in question. The Commissioner assumes, therefore, that someone who looks at the descriptions of the legal services will be able to discern special education from other services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Ruff is correct that Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create new data to respond to data requests. Here, however, the Commissioner does not agree with Ms. Ruff that the District is unable to respond to Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg without creating new data. The data exist; the real issue appears to be that the invoices are not categorized, organized, or separated according to any topic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, an appropriate response from the District is to allow Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg to inspect all legal invoices for the past five years and let them total up what the District has spent on special education. However, as stated above, inspection of government data is free and the District cannot charge a fee, including any cost it incurs separating the public from not public data contained in the invoices. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg would like the District to create a document that contains only those data representing what the District has spent on special education fees, which the District apparently does not maintain, its creation is outside the purview of Chapter 13. In such a case, it is up to the parties to negotiate an arrangement whereby the District would create the document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. Chapter 13 exists, in large part, to facilitate public access to government data. Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg&apos;s request was to inspect data; inspection is always free. Given that the District apparently does not maintain data as Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg requested them, i.e., a periodic listing of what it spends on legal fees for special education, the District first should have considered whether any data exist that the requestors could examine to make their own list. The Commissioner has addressed similar issues in previous opinions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267700&quot; title=&quot;97-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-005&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote, If Carver County does not have the requested data sorted or formatted according to the specific years that employees worked for the County, then it may be necessary for Mr. Michels to inspect the data relating to all current and former employees and make the employment-date determination himself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267507&quot; title=&quot;01-02&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-012&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The Commissioner would like to add, however, that before the District agreed to create for Mr. Bradt a report made up of public data, it probably should have advised him that he could have inspected and received copies of the public data in the format in which the District maintains those data. If Mr. Bradt had requested the raw data, the request would have been subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Pohlman and Ms. Freeberg raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, School District 284, Wayzata, did not respond appropriately to an April 5, 2002, request to review data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267361</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspect before creating new format</Title><Id>266623</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-027</Title><title>Opinion 02 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268024&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-07-29T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Independent School District 284, Wayzata, respond appropriately to a request for copies for the following data: &quot;a complete and detailed accounting of all of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 2002; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 25, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Jean Gaudette. In her letter, Ms. Gaudette, asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that Independent School District 284, Wayzata, maintains. IPAD moved forward with Ms. Gaudette&apos;s request after receiving clarification.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Beilfuss, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Gaudette&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 3, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Gaudette&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 11, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated July 10, 2002, from Superintendent Beilfuss.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Gaudette is as follows. In a letter dated March 18, 2002, addressed to Alan Hopeman, the District&apos;s Finance and Business Director, Ms. Gaudette asked to gain access to certain data. Specifically, she wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am requesting that you send a complete and detailed accounting of all of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years. If you intend to charge me for providing these documents please provide me with a break down of the charges that are being requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Although this letter was dated March 18, 2002, Ms. Gaudette, in her opinion request, added, Resent in April 2002 - as original address (to district) was incomplete and letter was returned.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Gaudette wrote to the Commissioner that she had yet to receive a response from the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Gaudette asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Independent School District 284, Wayzata, respond appropriately to a request for copies for the following data: a complete and detailed accounting of all of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Superintendent Beilfuss wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Ms. Gaudette&apos;s letter was never received by Mr. Hopeman. Mr. Hopeman&apos;s first inkling that any such request had been made by Ms. Gaudette was when he received a copy of your July 3, 2002, letter to me, along with copies of the letter that Ms. Gaudette claims to have sent. Therefore, no response was prepared.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Obviously, it is impossible for this school district, or any political subdivision, to respond to data information requests that are not received, whatever the reason for non-receipt....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I certainly do believe that the School District&apos;s response was appropriate, given that I believe that no such request was received by the School District. Mr. Hopeman is a responsible employee who answers his correspondence in a timely fashion. He responded by phone and in writing to two other requests for identical or similar information that he received during the same time period in which Ms. Gaudette believes that her request was received. (Both requesting parties for the other requests have also requested the Commissioner to issue Advisory opinions.) The only reasonable explanation I can offer for Mr. Hopeman not responding to Ms. Gaudette&apos;s request is that her request was never received.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In terms of responding to Ms. Gaudette, Mr. Beilfuss wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I will await the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on this matter before proceeding further with Ms. Gaudette&apos;s data information request. I suspect that the Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the other two other requests for similar/identical information will have a bearing on how the School District would respond to Ms. Gaudette&apos;s request. When we receive copies of the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, a representative from our School District will contact Ms. Gaudette to clarify and respond to her information request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. A factual dispute exists which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Gaudette states that she re-sent her data request sometime in April 2002. Superintendent Beilfuss states that the District did not receive her request. Now that the District has received a copy of Ms. Gaudette&apos;s data request, it should respond promptly. However, given that the Commissioner soon will be issuing two additional opinions regarding similar data requests made to the District, it is reasonable for the District to hold its response until it receives the benefit of the Commissioner&apos;s comments in those opinions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Gaudette raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because of a factual dispute, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, Independent School District 284, Wayzata, responded appropriately to a request for copies for the following data: a complete and detailed accounting of all of the cost and fees associated with the special education proceedings and consultations including the attorneys&apos; fees that were billed to and paid by the District for the last five years. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 29, 2002
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268024</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-026</Title><title>Opinion 02 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267671&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-07-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond in an appropriate manner to a May 9, 2002, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 2002; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 20, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated June 25, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On July 11, 2002, IPAD received a response from Tammy L. Pust, Assistant Commissioner CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 8, 2002, which was faxed to CFL on May 9, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested the following data: the State Eligibility Document for IDEA which was given conditional approval on July 1, 2001 pending six technical amendments to our statutes. CFL did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Pachl, he called CFL on June 18, 2002, to inquire about the status of his request. He stated that JoAnne Lawonn, CFL&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official, returned his call on June 19, 2002, and told him that CFL is short staffed and working on [his] request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Pust stated: [a]t the time CFL received Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, the requested document was not yet in final version. CFL had anticipated that the document would be final towards the end of May. Unfortunately, CFL did not timely advise Mr. Pachl of the status or reason for the delay in responding to his request. (After receiving payment from Mr. Pachl, CFL sent the data to him on July 9, 2002.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust also stated the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to avoid this problem in the future, CFL has taken the following action:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;CFL will be coordinating any requests pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act through the Data Practices Compliance Official.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;CFL will notify the requestor of the status of his/her request in a reasonable timeframe.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond in an appropriate manner to a May 9, 2002, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Pust stated that the document Mr. Pachl requested was not in final form at the time of his request. However, draft versions of public data are public. The most appropriate response would have been for CFL, upon receiving Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, to inform him that the data he requested were not in final form. If this had occurred, Mr. Pachl then could have decided if he wanted a copy of the draft, or preferred to wait until the document was in final form. Instead, CFL did not respond at all to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request until it received a telephone call from Mr. Pachl, some six weeks later. Such a response is neither prompt nor made within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL acknowledges that it did not respond appropriately to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, and that it has taken steps to ensure that such a situation will not recur. The Commissioner notes that he has addressed issues of CFL&apos;s failure to respond at all to other data requests from Mr. Pachl in three earlier Advisory Opinions, namely &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267938&quot; title=&quot;01-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-054&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267949&quot; title=&quot;01-071&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-071&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267989&quot; title=&quot;02-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-025&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1204.0300, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond in an appropriate and timely manner to a May 9, 2002, request for access to data, because it did not respond at all for six weeks.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 29, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267671</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Draft documents</Title><Id>266609</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-025</Title><title>Opinion 02 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267989&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-07-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1204.0300, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond in an appropriate and timely manner to an April 16, 2002, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 1, 2002; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 20, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning ( CFL ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated May 23, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On June 11, 2002, IPAD received a response from Kenneth W. Hasledalen, Assistant Commissioner and CIO of CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Commissioner Jax dated April 16, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested the following: copies of any and all data on all special education complaints filed against Anoka that would document the actual date that CFL received the complaints on and the date that CFL issued their decision on. (Emphasis omitted.) As of the date of his opinion request, CFL had not responded to Mr. Pachl.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Hasledalen stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A check of the records confirms that CFL did receive Mr. Pachl&apos;s letter via facsimile on April 16, 2002. Mr. Pachl&apos;s letter was forwarded to CFL&apos;s Data Privacy [sic] Compliance Official who in turn was working with the Department responsible for this information in order to process Mr. Pachl&apos;s request. During the same period of time, CFL was working on numerous MN Government Data Practices Requests, which included multiple requests from Mr. Pachl. Because of internal miscommunication about the various requests unfortunately, CFL failed to notify Mr. Pachl that his request was ready for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, at the same time, CFL was responding to a request by the Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division to provide information related to a request by Mr. Pachl that an advisory opinion be issued on another matter. Because of this pending ruling, counsel was consulted to determine how the issue (unpaid data request) related to the new document request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;CFL was in the process of providing Mr. Pachl notification on this request when it received your letter on May 29, 2002. Upon receiving your letter on May 29, 2002, CFL finished the processing of this request for information. Enclosed please find the letter [dated June 7, 2002] we have sent to Mr. Pachl in response to his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to avoid this problem in the future, CFL has taken the following action:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;CFL will be coordinating any requests pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act through the Data Practices Compliance Official.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;CFL will notify the requestor of the status of his/her request in a reasonable timeframe.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1204.0300, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond in an appropriate and timely manner to an April 16, 2002, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL did not respond at all to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request until it received notice that the Commissioner intended to issue this Opinion, some seven weeks later. Such a response is neither prompt nor made within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL acknowledges that it did not respond appropriately to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, and that it has taken steps to ensure that such a situation will not recur. The Commissioner notes that he has addressed issues of CFL&apos;s failure to respond at all to other data requests from Mr. Pachl in two earlier Advisory Opinions, namely &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267938&quot; title=&quot;01-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-054&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267949&quot; title=&quot;01-071&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-071&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1204.0300, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond in an appropriate and timely manner to an April 16, 2002, request for access to data, because it did not respond at all for seven weeks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 1, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267989</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-024</Title><title>Opinion 02 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267422&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-06-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a February 8, 2002, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 26, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 7, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated June 5, 2002, from X, a student enrolled in School District 276, Minnetonka. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the District maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 12, 2002, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 21, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated June 14, 2002, from Mark Wolak, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Accountability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts that X presented is as follows. In a letter dated February 8, 2002, X asked to review the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All data about me, relating to an incident between...an employee of District 276 and myself dated 11/15/2001....Pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.04 and 13.43]. In addition I am also requesting any public data regarding the incident pursuant to 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her opinion request, X stated, To date there has been no contact concerning this request. I am therefore requesting an opinion from your office on the aforementioned districts [sic] lack of action concerning the above request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a February 8, 2002, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is the subject, the entity must respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A June 5 letter from [X] states that the school district has made no contact with [X] regarding this request. This is not accurate. [X&apos;s] request of February 8 was responded to on February 25 and a copy of that letter is enclosed with this letter of response to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Wolak provided a copy of the February 25, 2002, letter to the Commissioner. (Mr. Wolak wrote this letter to X.) In the letter, Mr. Wolak wrote, Please be advised that no public data/documentation exists relating to an incident on November 15, 2001, between an employee... and you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her data request, X asked for any public data about an incident involving him/her and an employee at one of the District&apos;s schools. According to Mr. Wolak&apos;s February 25, 2002, letter, no such data exist. Since the District has no data responsive to this part of X&apos;s request, it was appropriate for Mr. Wolak to respond in the way he did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, X also asked for any data about him/her relating to the incident. Such data most likely would be private and the District should have responded within ten working days. The District has not responded to this part of X&apos;s data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, School District 276, Minnetonka, responded appropriately to part of a February 8, 2002, request for access to data, but did not respond appropriately to the remainder of the request.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 26, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267422</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data does not exist</Title><Id>266383</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-023</Title><title>Opinion 02 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267887&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-05-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families &amp; Learning respond appropriately to a March 28, 2002, request for public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 31, 2002; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 29, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated April 27, 2002, from Kevin Pachl. In his letter Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the fee he was charged for copies of data that he requested from the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL, in response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 2, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On May 17, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Tammy Pust, Assistant Commissioner for CFL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On March 28, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested the following data from CFL, Photocopies of the log (with any identifying data redacted) that is kept when a Hearing Officer is appointed for a due process hearing for all school districts in the state.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust stated that CFL staff telephoned Mr. Pachl to clarify the period of time for which he wanted the logs. (Apparently, he wanted them for calendar years 2000 and 2001.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 2, 2002, CFL sent a redacted copy of the hearing logs for the year 2001. In the accompanying letter, staff wrote, Please note that these logs are not always accurate due to the antiquated software they run on and data entry errors. Thus, when CFL uses these logs they are often crosschecked with the actual case files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 12, 2002, CFL sent a redacted copy of the hearing logs for the year 2000. In the accompanying letter, staff wrote, The hearing logs provided are maintained for internal use. Because errors occur during data input on the logs we felt it important to advise you of that fact. We crosscheck and update our data logs periodically when necessary. We will not do so for this request. Staff also informed Mr. Pachl that the charge for data thus far provided is $39.95.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl wrote, I do not believe I should have to pay for inaccurate data. What would be the purpose of having [Chapter 13] if institutions provide &apos;inaccurate&apos; data and are able to charge for that data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning respond appropriately to a March 28, 2002, request for public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual makes a request for access to public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate manner. The issue in this opinion is not whether CFL&apos;s response was timely or whether the copying fee was allowable. Rather, the issue Mr. Pachl raised is whether he should be required to pay for copies of data that are not necessarily accurate, i.e., updated or double-checked for accuracy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Pust described the hearing logs:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...When there are disputes over special education services in schools, parents or school districts have the right to request an impartial due process hearing....CFL receives these requests for a hearing, assigns a case number, and inputs various information into a computer database established for each request. This computer database is called the hearing log. The hearing log is similar to a court docket sheet - it identifies the names, addresses and phone numbers of the parties, attorneys and hearing officers....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The purpose of the hearing log is for CFL&apos;s internal purpose to quickly reference certain information for each hearing. CFL staff use this log to locate the case file number to find the hearing file. CFL staff also use the log to quickly locate names or numbers of key personnel of the hearing or to check dates. In the past, CFL used the database to generate boilerplate letters to the addresses in the hearing log, however, due to poor performance of the database software, CFL no longer uses it for that purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All the information listed in the log is also in the hearing file. Indeed, the hearing file or the hearing officer&apos;s decision will contain the more accurate information. Because of the limited purpose of the hearing logs, they are not always updated or double-checked for accuracy since the original information is in the file. In previous requests, Mr. Pachl has requested to see numerous due process hearing decisions, which are also on the CFL Public Web page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust further wrote, Mr. Pachl was provided an accurate copy of the documents that he requested....He...objects to paying for copies of documents that might contain errors. She noted that section 13.05, subdivision 5, requires a government entity to establish procedures to ensure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which they were collected. Ms. Pust argued:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the purpose for the logs is for CFL staff&apos;s internal need for a quick reference to certain information regarding a hearing request. The more updated and accurate information will be contained in the hearing files...Accordingly, due to the limited purpose of the logs and the availability of the same information from the other public sources, the logs are reasonably accurate and complete for the purposes for which they were collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Ms. Pust stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In sum, a state agency is not prohibited by [Chapter 13] for charging for copies of documents that might contain errors in the information contained therein. Mr. Pachl received an accurate copy of the public documents he requested. CFL is authorized to charge him for the copies of the documents in accordance with [Chapter 13] and the CFL copy procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires government entities to respond to data requests in an appropriate manner. In addition, it is important that government entities maintain data that are as accurate, complete, and current as possible under the circumstances, for the purposes for which such data are collected and maintained. (See section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Here, it seems that the most appropriate response would have been for CFL, upon receiving Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, to inform him that the data he requested are not necessarily accurate, and that the most accurate/updated data are located in the actual hearing files. If this had occurred, Mr. Pachl then could have made an informed decision as to whether he wished to obtain copies of the logs, inspect the logs, or withdraw his request. It appears, however, that the first notice Mr. Pachl had of the status of the data was when CFL sent him the first batch of copies on April 2, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Pachl raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the most appropriate response from the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL) to a March 28, 2002, request for public data would have been for CFL to inform the requestor that the data might not be accurate. If the requestor then indicated he still wanted copies, it would have been appropriate, pursuant to section 13.03, for CFL to charge a fee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 31, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267887</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complete and current 13.05</Title><Id>266530</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-022</Title><title>Opinion 02 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267097&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-05-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a March 8, 2002, request to inspect public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 30, 2002; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 3, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated April 29, 2002, from Jan Simon. In her letter, Ms. Simon asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data that School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Simon&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 6, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Simon&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 16, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Paul Cady, the District&apos;s Legal Counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. On March 8, 2002, Ms. Simon made two separate written requests for access to data. (One of the requests is at issue in this opinion, the other is not.) Both letters were addressed to staff in one of the District&apos;s departments. In the letter which is at issue in this opinion, Ms. Simon wrote, I am requesting that I be able to immediately inspect the following data: All itemized bills, itemized receipts and itemized invoices from any and all manuals and materials that were purchased from the Crisis Prevention Institute Inc. in Brookfield, WI for the last three years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 18, 2002, the Department to which Ms. Simon sent her letters responded to the March 8, 2002, data request which is not the subject of this opinion. According to Mr. Cady, the Department whose staff responded on March 18, 2002, also initiated a communication with the District&apos;s business department to obtain the bills, receipts and invoices from the Crisis Prevention Institute. Mr. Cady wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The business department provided the data to the Superintendent&apos;s secretary, rather than the [Department that had responded on March 18, 2002] for follow-up with Ms. Simon. It was the Superintendent&apos;s Secretary&apos;s understanding that Ms. Simon wanted copies and followed up by telephone with Ms. Simon to inform her that they were available. Ms. Simon did not inform the Superintendent&apos;s Secretary that she was requesting to inspect the data free of charge rather than receive copies for a charge. Ms. Simon requested a written letter which the Superintendent&apos;s Secretary drafted for Ms. Olson&apos;s (Superintendent responsible authority designee) signature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The April 11, 2002, letter from Ms. Olson to Ms. Simon states:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You requested all itemized bills, itemized receipts and itemized invoices from any and all manuals and materials that were purchased from the Crisis Prevention Institute in Brookfield, Wisconsin for the last three years. The cost for collecting this material is $24.20.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Simon wrote, Mr. Giroux&apos;s secretary has called me twice asking that I make payment in order to inspect the data. I mentioned that I should not be charged to inspect the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Simon asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a March 8, 2002, request to inspect public government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), if an individual makes a request to inspect government data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, in her March 8, 2002, data request (the one at issue in this opinion), Ms. Simon clearly asked to inspect data, not for the District to provide her with copies. However, for some reason, the Superintendent&apos;s secretary did not understand that Ms. Simon wanted only to inspect. The Commissioner does not understand why this is the case. It would seem that when the secretary telephoned Ms. Simon to advise her that the data were available and that there would be a fee, Ms. Simon&apos;s wish to inspect would have surfaced. Unfortunately, this apparently did not happen and there is a dispute over what was discussed. Ms. Simon says she mentioned that she should not be charged to inspect data and, according to Mr. Cady, the secretary says Ms. Simon did not inform her (the secretary) that she (Ms. Simon) wanted only to inspect.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regardless, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), the District is responsible for establishing procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. In this case, Ms. Simon asked to inspect data. The District&apos;s response should have been to advise her how the District could comply with that request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Cady wrote, The [Department that received the request], the Superintendent&apos;s Secretary, and responsible designees have all been trained and understand that individuals may inspect data free of charge. This is an appropriate response. Hopefully, continued training in how to deal with data practices requests will help to avoid future problems. If the District needs further assistance, training materials are available from IPAD.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Simon raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a March 8, 2002, request to inspect public government data.
                            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 30, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267097</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-021</Title><title>Opinion 02 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266799&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-05-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 299, Caledonia, properly respond to a public request for data regarding its evaluation of the performance of the District superintendent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 15, 2002; School District 299 (Caledonia)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 30, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Caledonia Argus&lt;/em&gt; and its managing editor, Jane Palen. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data that School District 299, Caledonia, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Percy Lingen, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 30, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 6, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated May 3, 2002, from Superintendent Lingen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On April 2, 2002, the District&apos;s School Board conducted a closed meeting to evaluate the performance of Superintendent Lingen. On April 8, 2002, the Board released a statement, dated April 2, 2002, regarding the evaluation. The statement reads:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The board met in closed session from 10:15 p.m. to 12:20 a.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, to review the performance evaluation of Superintendent Lingen. As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 10, 2002, Ms. Palen wrote to the Board chair, Cheryl Whitesitt. Ms. Palen stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...While the statement describes what took place at the evaluation, we do not feel it follows the requirement of Minnesota Statues [sic] 13D.05 (The open meeting law) subd. 3(b) [sic] which reads: A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority... &lt;strong&gt;At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 12, 2002, Ms. Whitesitt wrote, The board believes that its statement concerning the closed session regarding the evaluation of Superintendent Lingen is appropriate and in keeping with the statutory requirements to &apos;summarize&apos; it&apos;s [sic] personnel evaluation with the superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did School District 299, Caledonia, properly respond to a public request for data regarding its evaluation of the performance of the District superintendent?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, most public bodies must hold their meetings open to the public. However, there are some exceptions to this general rule. One is in the case of a public body evaluating the performance of an individual subject to its authority. Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3, if a public body has closed a meeting to evaluate an individual&apos;s performance, at its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Superintendent Lingen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The school board&apos;s summary statement indicates that its performance evaluation of the superintendent identified both strengths and weaknesses. A reasonable person should be able to surmise, from such a statement, that the school board is not completely satisfied with the superintendent&apos;s performance. To more specifically address the areas of weak employee performance that the school board identified would have placed it in jeopardy of violating Minnesota Statutes 13.43, Subd. 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Superintendent Lingen also stated that if the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the District did not properly respond to the newspaper&apos;s request, he (Superintendent Lingen) would appreciate the Commissioner discussing what constitutes a summary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed an issue similar to the one at hand. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a part of those amendments, the Legislature addressed the high public interest in the performance of certain public employees, and, in particular, employees about whom personnel decisions are made by governing bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Legislature authorized governing bodies to close meetings to discuss personnel data about public employees, including performance evaluations, subject to certain limitations. However, the Legislature also clearly required that once a public body completed its closed-meeting evaluation of an employee subject to its authority, the body must, at its next public meeting, summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. (See section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d), and Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.)....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the District was required to provide a summary of its conclusions regarding the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation at its next meeting open to the public. The Commissioner does not agree that the statement made by the Board chair, and reflected in the meeting minutes, that the Board discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses, constitutes a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267635&quot; title=&quot;99-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner also noted that not public data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 13D.05. (See section 13.03, subdivision 11.) Further, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s position on the issue at hand has not changed. The Board&apos;s statement does not constitute a summary for purposes of section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government entities seeking guidance on what to summarize can look to the language of the Open Meeting Law. Specifically, Chapter 13D directs a governing body to summarize its conclusions regarding a personnel evaluation. How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School District 299, Caledonia, did not properly respond to a public request for data regarding its evaluation of the performance of the District superintendent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 15, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266799</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:10:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-020</Title><title>Opinion 02 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266715&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-05-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a February 11, 2002, request for access to public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 13, 2002; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 15, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated April 17, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 1, 2002, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 11, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Any and all district documentation regarding the writing of Conditional Behavior Plans and Behavior Intervention Plans for the last three years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The District did not respond. In a letter dated March 30, 2002, Mr. Pachl again submitted his request, noting that he had received no response to the first one.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The District responded to Mr. Pachl in a letter dated April 8, 2002:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have received your second request, dated March 30, 2002, to you [sic] letter of February 11, 2002. In double checking our records we found that we received two requests from you with that date that were very similar. I answered one of these requests but not the second. I do apologize for the misunderstanding and have included the information you have requested at no charge due to that error.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated that the District received two letters from Mr. Pachl, dated February 11, 2002, in which he requested access to data. In the request that is not the subject of this opinion, Mr. Pachl asked for:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Anoka-Hennepin&apos;s Training Plan for Behavioral Techniques that&apos;s been used for the last three years.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                Anoka-Hennepin&apos;s Crisis Prevention Institute Manual that&apos;s been used for the last three years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Cady commented: [d]ue to the similarity of the requests, in two separate letters with the same date, the district inadvertently believed it had responded to the February 11, 2002 data request. Upon Mr. Pachl&apos;s clarification to the district that he had not received a response to the second letter dated February 11, 2002, the district responded promptly within a reasonable time.
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a February 11, 2002, request for access to public government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Here, the District did not respond at all to Mr. Pachl&apos;s first request. When he repeated his request some six weeks later, and noted that he had not received a response to his first request, the District responded one week later by providing the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Cady, the District&apos;s oversight was due to the similarity of the data requested in two letters bearing the same date. Given those two factors, this kind of oversight is understandable. Nonetheless, the District has an obligation to respond promptly and reasonably to all requests for access to public government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a February 11, 2002, request for access to public government data, because it did not respond at all for six weeks, and responded only after the requestor repeated his request. However, given that two separate requests for similar data were dated the same day, the resulting confusion was understandable.
                            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 13, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266715</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-019</Title><title>Opinion 02 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267875&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-05-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the letter dated January 21, 2002, contain either private personnel data on any employee of Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska, or private educational data on any District student or parent?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District provide a copy of the January 21, 2002, letter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 6, 2002; School District 2149 (Minnewaska)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 19, 2002, IPA received a letter from Kevin J. Rupp and Michael J. Waldspurger, attorneys for Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska. In this letter, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. On March 22, 2002, the issues to be addressed were clarified. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger, the District was copied on a letter sent to a third party by X, a parent of two District students ( Y and Z. ) Y is a minor; Z is over eighteen. The letter references maltreatment of minor reports that were allegedly made against [X], and it contains unfounded complaints and allegations against District employees. The letter also contains data on [Y and Z] . . . . The letter also contains data on X&apos;s former spouse, A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District received a request for a copy of the letter from A&apos;s attorney. According to Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger, [t]he District has not received any documentation from [A] providing informed consent authorizing the District to release educational data on [Y], nor has the District received any documentation from [Z], who was is [sic] eighteen . . . , authorizing the District to release information on [him/her.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger provided a copy of the letter in question to the Commissioner. They stated their belief that the letter contains private educational data and private personnel data. They further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[a]lthough most of the allegations in the letter are against unnamed teachers, [A] is presumably aware of the names of [her/his] children&apos;s teachers. It is not a far leap to suggest that [A] could readily identify the unnamed teachers who are the subject of [X&apos;s] complaints. In addition, in the letter X makes allegations against a District principal, who is also readily identifiable. Therefore, in Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger&apos;s opinion, the letter reveals the nature of a complaint against a specific employee, which constitutes private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the letter dated January 21, 2002, contain either private personnel data on any employee of Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska, or private educational data on any District student or parent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District provide a copy of the January 21, 2002, letter?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does the letter dated January 21, 2002, contain either private personnel data on any employee of Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska, or private educational data on any District student or parent?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about public employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provisions of both state and federal law govern access to data generated by school districts about students. Section 13.32, incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon review of the letter in question, the Commissioner agrees with Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger, that it contains both private personnel data on District employees, and private educational data on X, Y, Z and A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The private personnel data are in the nature of complaints against two specific District employees (a principal and a special education teacher), that apparently have not resulted in final disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivisions 2 (a) (5) and 2 (b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter also contains references to Starbuck and Minnewaska teachers in which an individual teacher is not identified. Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger stated their belief that A presumably knows the names of her/his children&apos;s teachers, and that it is not a far leap to suggest that [A] could readily identify the unnamed teachers who are the subject of [X&apos;s] complaints. However, it is not clear to the Commissioner from the context of the letter that the references to unnamed teachers are in fact, references to Y or Z&apos;s teachers. Therefore, it may be that those references are public, if those statements don&apos;t provide sufficient data in which an individual is or may be identified. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.) However, the District, knowing the whole context, is in the best position to make that judgement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The educational data about X, Y, Z and A are in the nature of X&apos;s characterizations of statements made by District teachers about X, Y, Z and A, as well as X&apos;s own views of same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the District provide a copy of the January 21, 2002, letter?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under both state and federal law, parents are generally entitled to gain access to the education records of their minor children. (See FERPA, section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4, for more information and some exceptions.) Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger did not assert that A is precluded from gaining access to data about the minor child, Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This issue concerns the specific data in the letter to which A&apos;s attorney is entitled access. As noted above, the letter contains a mixture of private personnel and educational data, pursuant to section 13.43 and 13.32. The letter also contains limited public data not classified under either of those sections (i.e., the following statement: [t]he Starbuck Elementary School asks parents to save sales slips from the local grocery store for financial redemption. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Absent any evidence to the contrary, A has the right to gain access to the private data about him/herself and Y, the minor child, and the public data contained in the report. However, absent a proper consent to release the private data to A&apos;s attorney, the District may not do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the private personnel data, and data about X, cannot be released to the public, including A and A&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question of A&apos;s right to gain access to private educational data about Z, who is over eighteen, remains. At the age of eighteen, all rights under section 13.32 and FERPA transfer from parent to child, including the right to give one&apos;s consent to release educational data to a third party. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266429&quot; title=&quot;96-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 1232g (d) of FERPA states: whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education the permission or consent required of and the rights accorded to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be required of and accorded to the student. Section 99.3 of the federal rules defines students who fall under this provision as eligible students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In general then, as private data, educational data may not be disclosed except to parents and eligible students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3, provides certain exceptions to that general rule. One of those exceptions, contained in subdivision 3(e), incorporates a provision of the federal law that is central to this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 13.32, subdivision 3(e) provides for the disclosure of educational data: [p]ursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, sections 1232g(b)(1), (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B), (b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, sections 99.31, 99.32, 99.33, 99.34, and 99.35 which are in effect on July 1, 1993.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section 1232g(b)(1) provides that, with the exception of directory information, education records may not be disclosed without the written consent of the parent(s) or eligible student, except as otherwise provided in that Section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;One of the other exceptions, found in Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), states that consent is not required for the disclosure of education records to parents of a &lt;u&gt;dependent student&lt;/u&gt; of such parents, as defined in section 152 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Service Code.) (Emphasis added.) (See also 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(8).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided information to determine whether Z qualifies as a dependent student under the IRS definition. If Z is a dependent student, then pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), A is entitled to gain access to the data in the letter about Z, without Z&apos;s consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, among the rights that pass at the age of eighteen from parent to child under section 13.32 and FERPA is the right to give one&apos;s consent to the release of educational data to a third party. Notwithstanding the parents&apos; rights to gain access to the educational data of an adult child who is a dependent student, as discussed above, the child retains the right to consent to release data to a third party. Accordingly, A cannot give his/her attorney A&apos;s consent regarding data about Z. The District may not release to A&apos;s attorney data about Z without Z&apos;s informed consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rupp and Mr. Waldspurger is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the letter dated January 21, 2002, contains private personnel data on employees of Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska, and private educational data on two District students and their parents.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the District may not provide a copy of the January 21, 2002, letter to A&apos;s attorney. If A gives his/her attorney proper consent, the District should provide A&apos;s attorney access to the data about A and Y. In addition, there are limited public data in the letter that may be released to A&apos;s attorney without consent.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 6, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267875</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination made by entity</Title><Id>266435</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent of dependent adult student</Title><Id>266428</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data included (See also: Personnel data - educational data)</Title><Id>266436</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-018</Title><title>Opinion 02 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267780&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-04-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the rights of a data subject be violated if Washington County contacted and disclosed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service private data about the data subject concerning his/her illegal alien status without having obtained prior consent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 29, 2002; Washington County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 13, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated February 25, 2002, from Meredeth Magers, Assistant Washington County Attorney. In her letter, Ms. Magers asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Magers wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This office has received numerous requests from the local community services agency for a legal opinion on whether the agency is obligated or not obligated to report the illegal citizenship status of aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The agency has situations where clients, including mental health clients, report that they are in this country illegally. Department file reviews indicate these clients are not receiving any services through the local agency which require citizenship or lawful alien status. The illegal alien clients are not on medical assistance or only receive medical assistance when hospitalized pursuant to MINN. STAT. section256B.056, subd. 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This office believes that governmental employees may contact and provide private client data concerning illegal alien status information without client authorization to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, if the employee so chooses and that this disclosure does not violate a client&apos;s rights.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Magers asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would the rights of a data subject be violated if Washington County contacted and disclosed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service private data about the data subject concerning his/her illegal alien status without having obtained prior consent? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Washington County has collected certain data about individuals who may be in the United States illegally. As Ms. Magers described, the data are not necessarily collected because the immigrants are receiving any services through the local agency which require citizenship or lawful immigrant status. She stated that some clients report they are in this country illegally. This information, which might include similar information about family members, is the type of data in question. These data are private welfare data classified pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.02, subdivision 12, defines private data as data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. When data are classified as private, the entity is prevented from disclosing them to the public. In addition, if the entity wishes to share those data with another government entity, it must determine whether authority exists to do so under section 13.05, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, if the County is collecting private data from the data subjects themselves, the County is required to give a Tennessen warning notice. One of the requirements of the notice is that the County inform the individual as to the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. Once notice is given, the County, with certain exceptions, is limited in how it uses and disseminates the data collected from the subject. (See section 13.05, subdivision 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The special complication in this situation is that an existing federal law affects the way in which the County must treat the data in question. Although this law does not give express consent for state and local entities to disclose data to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), it nevertheless provides that neither federal, state, nor local entities may restrict, in any way, an entity and/or its employees from reporting citizenship or immigration status to the INS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    8 U.S.C. section 1373 states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) In general
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Not withstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Services information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (b) Additional authority of government entities
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    (2) Maintaining such information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (c) obligation to respond to inquiries
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The Immigration and Naturalization Services shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This law, in summation, states that no federal, state, or local law may prohibit or restrict any government entity and/or employee from disclosing information about the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Post-1996, the Minnesota Legislature enacted statutory provisions that relate to the reporting of undocumented persons to the INS. Minnesota Statutes, section 256.01, subdivision 18, provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) Notwithstanding any waiver of this requirement by the secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, effective July 1, 2001, the commissioner [of DHS] shall utilize the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) program to conduct immigration status verifications...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (b) The commissioner shall comply with the reporting requirements under United States Code, title 42, section 611a, and any federal regulation or guidance adopted under that law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The referenced federal law, 42 U.S.C. section 611a, provides, Each State to which a grant is made under section 603 of this title shall, at least 4 times annually and upon request of the [INS], furnish the [INS] with the name and address of, and other identifying information on, any individual who the State knows is unlawfully in the United States.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Another related Minnesota statute is section 256J.32, subdivision 7a: The commissioner [of DHS] shall comply with the reporting requirements under United States Code, title 42, section 611a, and any federal reporting regulation or guidance adopted under that law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Yet another related Minnesota statute is section 256J.32, subdivision 7:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    County agencies, in consultation with the Department of Human Services (DHS) shall provide notification to undocumented persons regarding the release of personal data to the [INS] and develop protocol regarding the release or sharing of data about undocumented persons with the [INS] as required under sections 404, 434, and 411A of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This statutory language appears to impose a duty on county agencies to provide notification to undocumented persons and also to develop some type of protocol. Washington County did not provide any information about having developed a protocol or a notification process. Upon review of the cross references to federal law, specifically section 404 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, it appears that the County cannot be restricted by Chapter 13 or other law from sending to the INS information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The cited sections of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 are as follows. Section 404 (8 U.S.C. section 1614):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Each Federal agency that administers a program to which section 1611, 1612, or 1613 of this title applies shall, directly or through the States, post information and provide general notification to the public and to program recipients of the changes regarding eligibility for any such program pursuant to this subchapter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 434 (8 U.S.C. section 1644):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the [INS] information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 411A (42 U.S.C. section 611a):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Each State to which a grant is made under section 603 of this title shall, at least 4 times annually and upon request of the [INS], furnish the [INS] with the name and address of, and any other identifying information on, any individual who the State knows is unlawfully in the United States.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    DHS did create a document entitled, Protocols for Reporting Undocumented People, identified as 0011.03.27.03 in the DHS Combined Manual. However, the protocol seems primarily to describe situations in which county agencies contact INS for the purpose of verifying immigration status. Further, as per the protocol, county agencies are not to contact the INS to verify immigration status unless the county has determined that the applicant meets all other program requirements, and the client would be eligible for benefits if the immigration status requirement is met. The protocol states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    County agencies must report to DHS, information on any person known to be unlawfully present in the United States. This means you will know that a non-citizen is not lawfully present in the Unites States ONLY when the unlawful presence is a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is made as part of a formal determination, subject to administrative review, on a non-citizen&apos;s claim for benefits under this program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The protocol goes on to state that a finding of unlawful presence must be supported by a determination by INS or the Executive Office of Immigration Review, such as a Final Order of Deportation. It further provides, Do not consider a non-citizen to be &apos;known&apos; to be unlawfully present in the United States under any other circumstances.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the protocol states that, in certain cases, the client must provide a written authorization to contact INS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to the policy embodied in Minnesota law, the immigration status data about individuals are private. In normal circumstances, those data, therefore, should not be disseminated to the INS unless state or federal law authorizes access. Furthermore, in compliance with the Tennessen warning requirement, the data about immigrant status could be disseminated to the INS only if the data subjects received notice of that dissemination before they provided any data to the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, there is a federal law (8 U.S.C. section 1373) and a state law containing a cross-reference to a similar federal law (8 U.S.C. section 1644) that provides that no federal, state, or local law may prohibit or restrict any government entity and/or employee from disclosing information about the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. The practical effect is that the federal law, in the case of data concerning illegal immigrant status, supersedes the normal privacy protections of Chapter 13. Therefore, the County may choose to disclose to the INS information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County should continue to give Tennessen warnings to the individuals who contact it and provide data. The requirement to give a Tennessen warning does not, in itself, restrict the County from providing citizenship or immigration status information to the INS. However, it alerts clients and potential clients that if they provide data, the County may disseminate it to the INS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     A final comment is in order. It is possible that some immigration status data may come to County employees as data that are not recorded in physical form. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in 1992 that data must be recorded in physical form in order to be considered government data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See &lt;i&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/i&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.) In &lt;i&gt;Keezer&lt;/i&gt;, the Court wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [Chapter 13] is intended to regulate every aspect of how the government manages the information it collects and records. It is nearly impossible to regulate any function related to data until a record is created somewhere outside the human brain. To give effect to [Chapter 13], we conclude that information is not government data&apos; until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Any data not recorded in physical form are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In conclusion, counties and county employees may disclose to a government entity, including the INS, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual, in conformance with federal law without violation of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, any government entity or government employee choosing to make a representation that the citizenship or immigration status of any individual is illegal should first investigate and verify that the status is, in fact, illegal. This is especially important because allegations of unlawful status can affect an individual&apos;s rights and, if incorrect, could be very detrimental. If the individual is applying for services requiring citizenship or lawful alien status, a reasonable way to determine illegal status is a finding in a DHS benefits determination. If, as in the situation that Washington County described, the individual is not receiving services requiring citizenship or lawful alien status, a reasonable way to determine illegal status is by using the SAVE verification program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Ms. Magers is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because of the requirements of federal law, the rights of a data subject would not be violated if Washington County contacted and disclosed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service private data about the data subject concerning his/her illegal alien status without having obtained prior consent. However, the County should continue to provide notice in its Tennessen warnings that it will release immigration status data to the INS. In addition, the County should investigate and verify any information that an individual&apos;s status is illegal before disclosing such data to the INS. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 29, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267780</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Immigration</Title><Id>267340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Immigration status</Title><Id>266848</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-017</Title><title>Opinion 02 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267983&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-04-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a January 24, 2002, request for access to data when it stated certain data are &quot;not applicable?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 17, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 26, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated March 25, 2002, from Ryan Nelson. In his letter, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 276, Minnetonka, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Nelson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 26, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Nelson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 11, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated April 10, 2002, from Mark Wolak, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Accountability.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Nelson provided them is as follows. On January 24, 2002, Mr. Nelson asked to review all public data about a particular staff person in the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 11, 2002, the District provided certain data to Mr. Nelson. In its response to Mr. Nelson, the District also stated, in regard to other types of public personnel data, that those data were not applicable. In his opinion request, Mr. Nelson wrote, This term [not applicable] has many meanings.... It is due to this lack of clarity that I am submitting this request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a January 24, 2002, request for access to data when it stated certain data are not applicable? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), when an individual makes a request for access to data and the government entity denies access, the entity is required to cite the specific statutory section upon which it based its determination. Further, as the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, if particular requested data do not exist, the entity should so inform the requestor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak explained that on March 26, 2002, Mr. Nelson wrote to him (Mr. Wolak) and asked for clarification regarding the term not applicable. Mr. Wolak wrote back to Mr. Nelson on April 2, 2002, and stated, in part, The term &apos;not applicable,&apos; for our use, means &apos;none.&apos;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Also in his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak wrote, In the future, similar responses from our office will use the term &apos;none&apos; when we are responding to requests for public information from a personnel file and no public information exists.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is encouraged by the District&apos;s decision. The language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), exists so that an entity provides a data requestor with as much information as possible about why certain data may not be accessible. The data requestor then can determine if s/he has a basis upon which to contest the entity&apos;s determination. As Mr. Nelson stated in his opinion request, the term not applicable has many meanings. The District needed to provide clarification, which it did, and to use a different term to explain why Mr. Nelson could not gain access to the data. Finally, although using the word none suggests that no data exist, it would be clearer to the public if the District simply were to say it maintains no data of that particular type or it maintains no data responsive to the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Nelson raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately to a January 24, 2002, request for access to data when it stated certain data are not applicable. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 17, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267983</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-016</Title><title>Opinion 02 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267533&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-04-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, did Lake of the Woods County respond appropriately to a February 4 and 7, 2002, request for access to a statement that the County Coordinator read aloud during a meeting on February 4, 2002? Specifically, was it appropriate for the County to destroy the statement and is the County&apos;s explanation that some of the data are redacted pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, sufficient?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 8, 2002; Lake of the Woods County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 13, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated March 6, 2002, from Laurie Levasseur. In her letter, Ms. Levasseur asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that Lake of the Woods County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alan Christensen, Coordinator of the County, in response to Ms. Levasseur&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 15, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Levasseur&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On March 25, 2002, IPAD received two responses on behalf of the County. One, dated March 22, 2002, from Philip Miller, the County Attorney, and the other, dated March 22, 2002, from Mr. Christensen, County Coordinator/Human Resources Director.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Levasseur presented them is as follows. In January 2002, the County promoted an employee. Several employees were upset by the County&apos;s action. Mr. Christensen then conducted interviews with each employee in the Social Services Department. During a staff meeting on February 4, 2002, he read verbatim a typed statement he had prepared after conducting the interviews with each employee. Ms. Levasseur verbally requested a copy of the statement. After consulting with Mr. Miller, Mr. Christensen refused to release the document stating that it was work product.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 7, 2002, Ms. Levasseur made a written request for the statement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 22, 2002, Mr. Miller responded. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Enclosed with this memo you will find the reconstructed notes that the Coordinator used during his meeting with the Social Services Department on February 4, 2002. I will first address the issue that these are &apos;reconstructed notes&apos; due to the fact that the original notes were prepared by the Coordinator at home, on his home computer, the night before the meeting. After printing the notes, the file was deleted from his computer. Therefore, it was necessary for the Coordinator to reconstruct his notes to the best of his ability, based upon his recollection, so that I could make a more precise determination of which category of data these notes represented.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Miller also stated that he had redacted some of the reconstructed notes, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Levassuer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, did Lake of the Woods County respond appropriately to a February 4 and 7, 2002, request for access to a statement that the County Coordinator read aloud during a meeting on February 4, 2002? Specifically, was it appropriate for the County to destroy the statement and is the County&apos;s explanation that some of the data are redacted pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, sufficient? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, an individual has the right to request and gain access to government data. Government data are defined as, all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; section 13.02, subdivision 7. Further, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; section 13.03, subdivision 1. If an entity denies an individual access to data, the entity must cite the specific statutory section upon which it denied access. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County&apos;s response, in essence, is as follows. Mr. Christensen apparently created notes on his home computer to present at the February 4 staff meeting. He did not save a copy of the notes. At the staff meeting, he basically followed my typed notes, though it was not a verbatim speech.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    After the meeting, Ms. Levasseur asked for a copy of the notes and Mr. Christensen referred her request to Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller wrote, ...I likened his notes as a type of &apos;work product&apos; which is deemed non-discoverable in litigation matters. I also questioned whether notes, used in giving a speech or presentation constitute &apos;data&apos; under the statute. Mr. Christensen wrote, I relayed to Mrs. Levasseur the opinion of the County attorney that the notes were work product and as such I did not give her a copy of my notes....I considered the issue concluded and in cleaning off my desk at the end of the day for the evening threw away my typed notes I had used as a guide at the staff meeting.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Levasseur then made a written request, on February 7, 2002, for the notes. Mr. Christensen reconstructed from memory the types of issues I had spoken about. Mr. Christensen provided Ms. Levasseur with a copy of the reconstructed notes, some of which had been redacted. Mr. Christensen also noted that Mr. Miller had advised him to destroy any handwritten or computer generated information he had created during the investigation (of the matter he reported on at the staff meeting). Mr. Christensen wrote, I had notes of my individual meetings with the Social Service employees, some of which were handwritten and some which were stored in the computer, all of which I then destroyed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In explaining the redactions to the reconstructed notes, Mr. Miller wrote, Although I did not go into great detail, nor do I believe it&apos;s required, I did briefly explain why redactions were made and provided the statutory basis.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, the notes Mr. Christensen created to discuss at the February 4, 2002, staff meeting were government data. Therefore, the data in the notes were public unless otherwise classified. Although the Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Miller&apos;s assertion that the notes were work product and protected from public access, the point is moot given that Mr. Christensen destroyed the notes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the issue of the notes&apos; destruction raises a potential problem. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of the state, counties, cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. Although it is not entirely clear whether Mr. Christensen&apos;s notes constituted an official record, because he, as a top County official, used the notes to explain certain actions by the County, it is more than likely they were a form of official record. If so, the County could destroy them only as Chapter 138 dictates. If the notes were not an official record, then their destruction is not prescribed by law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the redaction of the reconstructed notes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), states that government entities must cite the specific statutory section upon which they are denying access to data. Here, Mr. Miller advised Ms. Levasseur that data had been redacted pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12. This subdivision contains the definition of private data; it does not classify particular data as not public. The Commissioner assumes some of the data were redacted pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Again, the County was required to cite the specific statutory section(s) classifying the redacted data as not public. Mr. Miller did not do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, in his comments, Mr. Miller wrote, In hindsight, I would acknowledge that Lake of the Woods County should have handled this matter differently. The Commissioner concurs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Levasseur raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, if the notes the County Coordinator prepared for and discussed at a February 4, 2002, meeting were an official record, it was not appropriate for the County to destroy them. If the notes were not an official record, their destruction is not prescribed by statute. Further, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), the County&apos;s explanation regarding the redaction of the reconstructed notes was not sufficient. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 8, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267533</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-015</Title><title>Opinion 02 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267365&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-04-05T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does School District 1, Minneapolis, have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the Tennessen warning notice detailed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?
Does the District have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the notice requirement stated in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a, note) concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 5, 2002; School District 1 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 14, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated January 8, 2002, from Joe Musich, a teacher in School District 1, Minneapolis. In his letter, Mr. Musich asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion about a possible violation of his rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Musich&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 20, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Musich&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 8, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Margaret Westin, Assistant District General Counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Musich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Starting with quarter two web based attendance began...Access to on-line attendance was to be done with an assigned username and password. Usernames assigned to teachers were their personal Social Security numbers. Furthermore, the data gathered for this attendance system is not kept on site within a Minneapolis Public Schools server and therefore the management of the system is not under the direct supervision and observation of district personnel....I was not given a Tennessen warning informing me that my social security number was being used in such a manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As I understand it, the beginning access to identity theft occurs through having access to Social Security numbers. I am very concerned about having my Social Security numbers so available on line....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Prior to the introduction to this new attendance system, teachers were expected to mark attendance bubble sheets to be scanned at the building central attendance office....I am still using the old bubble sheet system....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Westin discussed the attendance taking system. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The current system for keeping attendance requires teachers to log on to the attendance system using their assigned user name and password. Each teacher&apos;s initial password is assigned. Teachers are instructed to change the assigned default password to one that will be unique to that teacher. The user name is the teacher&apos;s social security number. The system matches the user name and password to the courses taught by that individual by allowing the teacher access to the rosters for his or her classes so that attendance can be recorded. The attendance data for the students is then forwarded through the District&apos;s intranet system to a central office where student attendance information is compiled. The teacher&apos;s user name and password are not forwarded with the attendance information. The teacher&apos;s user name and password do not leave the District&apos;s network. The teacher&apos;s user name and password are used only to establish a match with the course files so that the correct classroom roster of student names will be brought up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musich asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does School District 1, Minneapolis, have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the Tennessen warning notice detailed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the District have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the notice requirement stated in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a, note) concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does School District 1, Minneapolis, have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the Tennessen warning notice detailed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number is subject to requirements of both state and federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.43 and 13.49, Social Security numbers of public employees are private data. When a government entity asks an individual to supply private data about him/herself, such as a Social Security number, the entity is required to give the individual a notice. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13.04, subdivision 2. This notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen warning, must advise the data subject of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; 2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; 3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply the private or confidential data; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To evaluate the District&apos;s obligations regarding its use and dissemination of Social Security numbers for taking attendance, it is also necessary to review provisions of section 13.05, which provide how a government entity may obtain authority to use private data in a manner which was not included in a Tennessen warning, and which place further restrictions upon the collection and use of private data. Subdivision 4 states that [p]rivate or confidential data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated...for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The exceptions to the requirement that private data may be used and disseminated only as stated to an individual at the time of collection are: (1) the data were collected prior to August 1, 1975 and are used for the originally-stated purpose, or a purpose specifically authorized by the Commissioner; (2) subsequent to the data collection, a state, local or federal law specifically authorizes the use or dissemination; (3) the Commissioner specifically authorizes the use; (4) the individual gives her/his informed consent; or (5) the data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in Chapter 13D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 3, further limits a government entity&apos;s collection of all data, and the use of private and confidential data, to ...that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. If the collection or use is necessary, and the data are private or confidential, then the entity must give the individual a Tennessen warning. When the provisions of sections 13.04 and 13.05 are read together, it is clear that a government entity may use and disseminate private data only as stated to an individual at the time of collection, unless one of the exceptions noted above applies. If the entity fails to give a Tennessen warning, then the data may not be used for &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, in order for the District to have implemented an attendance-taking system which relies upon the use of private data, i.e. teacher Social Security numbers, it was obligated first to determine that it had authority to do so, and then to assure it established procedures to exercise that authority properly, in accordance with the requirements contained in Sections 13.04 and 13.05.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Westin argued that the District is not required to give Mr. Musich a Tennessen warning notice because the District is not asking him to supply his social security number. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District is not asking Mr. Musich to supply his social security number when Mr. Musich logs on to the attendance system. The attendance system is part of the District&apos;s computerized records management system that uses Mr. Musich&apos;s user name to match him to the student rosters for the courses he teaches. His user name has been in the system since it was introduced in 1990. Beginning in 1990, employees who use the system are informed about the function of their user name as a way for the system to match the user to the data to which the user may have access. Mr. Musich&apos;s user name does not appear on any reports and is not transmitted to any place outside of the District&apos;s network.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees with Ms. Westin&apos;s assertion that Mr. Musich was not asked to supply his Social Security number. Although Chapter 13 does not contain a definition of supply, the &lt;em&gt;American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, defines supply as to make available for use; provide. Each time Mr. Musich has to log onto the computer system, he is required to provide the system with his Social Security number, which is private data. Thus, the District is required to provide Mr. Musich with a Tennessen warning notice. This notice requirement has been in effect since 1974. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267637&quot; title=&quot;97-032&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-032&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the practical operation of the notice:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.04, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the entity is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. Does this mean that each time the same data are collected from an individual, the entity must provide a Tennessen notice? On this question, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that if an entity is collecting the same data from time to time, it is appropriate for the entity to administer one Tennessen Warning notice that, for instance, might cover all similar collections of data for a stated time period. Thus, if a Tennessen Warning notice was previously given, a second Tennessen Warning might not be necessary if the data being collected were not new and there were no changes relating to the other elements of the Tennessen Warning notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Mr. Musich became an employee after 1974, the District was required to give him a Tennessen warning notice when it initially collected his Social Security number. In that notice, the District was required to inform Mr. Musich of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of his Social Security number within the District; 2) whether he could refuse or was legally required to supply his Social Security number; 3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply his Social Security number; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive his Social Security number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know for certain if or what kind of Tennessen warning notice the District provided to Mr. Musich. Mr. Musich wrote, I was not given a Tennessen warning informing me that my social security number was being used in such a manner. Ms. Westin stated that beginning in 1990, employees who use the system are informed about the function of their user name as a way for the system to match the user to the data to which the user may have access. Ms. Westin, however, did not describe this notification as a Tennessen warning, nor did she provide any details that describe what, when, and how the District has been advising its employees. Presumably, if the District had given Mr. Musich a Tennessen warning notice, Ms. Westin would have so stated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that School District 1, Minneapolis, does have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the Tennessen warning notice concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance. The District was required to give Mr. Musich a notice when it initially collected his number and was required to obtain consent if, at any time thereafter, circumstances changed how the District was using the number or to whom it was disseminating the number.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is obligated to note that in recent years, three court cases have called into question the Chapter 13 requirement that government entities give Tennessen warning notices to employees. In the first case, &lt;em&gt;Edina Education Association v. Board of Education of Independent SchooI District 273,&lt;/em&gt; 562 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. App. 1997), the court held:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A public employee&apos;s description of an incident that occurred during the course and scope of her employment is not private data concerning the employee as an individual under [Chapter 13], and a public employer attempting to determine the facts of an incident is not required to give a &apos;Tennessen&apos; warning before requesting the employee&apos;s description of the incident.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the very specific facts of this case, the Commissioner can understand how the court arrived at its conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner is particularly troubled by the other two decisions and believes the Court may have misread the &lt;em&gt;Edina Education Association&lt;/em&gt; case. In &lt;em&gt;Washington v.Independent School District No. 625&lt;/em&gt;, 590 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. App. 1999), the court stated that because the employee was not asked to supply private or confidential information, s/he was not entitled to a Tennessen Warning. In &lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 613 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. App. 2000), the Court, relying on &lt;em&gt;Edina&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Washington&lt;/em&gt;, broadened the holding to say that Chapter 13 does not require an employer to give an employee a Tennessen warning before obtaining information from the employee about incidents that occur within the course and scope of employment. Other than references to the &lt;em&gt;Edina&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Washington&lt;/em&gt; cases, the Court presented little logic to explain why the collection of private or confidential data from employees should be exempt from the provisions of section 13.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the Commissioner acknowledges these decisions, he cannot ignore the plain words of Chapter 13 that clearly require a government entity to give Tennessen warning notices when the entity collects private and/or confidential data. As a matter of fact, legislation that would have exempted public employers from giving Tennessen warnings was introduced in the 1999/2000 legislative session; it was not adopted. The Commissioner intends to raise these issues during the next legislative session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does the District have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the notice requirement stated in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a, note) concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above in regard to Issue 1, when a government entity collects Social Security numbers, there are also federal law implications. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires federal, state, and local government entities requesting Social Security numbers to provide the following information: 1) whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; 2) how the entity will use the number; and 3) under what statutory or other authority the entity is requesting the number. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 7 (b) (found at 5 U.S.C. section 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security number)).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, federal law provides that federal, state, and local government agencies cannot deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers unless the disclosure is required or authorized by federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the Social Security number before 1975. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 7 of the Privacy Act. In addition, federal law expressly exempts state agencies from this restriction to the extent that Social Security numbers are used in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver&apos;s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Tax Reform Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i), (iv) (1994 Supp. III 1997).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed the issue of Social Security numbers being used as part of a registration system in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267344&quot; title=&quot;95-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-007&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that BSU has implemented a student registration system which is dependent upon faculty and student Social Security numbers for its operation. It appears that BSU&apos;s practice amounts to a mandatory requirement that faculty and students provide their Social Security numbers for this purpose. There does not appear to be authority within the language of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the 1976 amendment to the Social Security Act noted above, for BSU to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, Public Law 93-579, Section 7 (b) clearly imposes upon state and local government agencies an affirmative obligation to apprise individuals who have been asked to supply their Social Security numbers of certain information. In particular, individuals must be informed of the uses to which the number will be put, and whether the disclosure is voluntary or mandatory. This notice must be given whenever the government entity requests that an individual provide her/his Social Security number; the obligation contained in this Section is not qualified in any way. As a state government entity, BSU has an affirmative obligation, pursuant to state and federal law, to provide proper notice to individuals from whom it requests Social Security numbers, and has had this obligation for more than twenty years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Westin again argued that when Mr. Musich must enter his Social Security number he is not disclosing it because the number is and has been in the system. The Commissioner disagrees with this analysis. Each time Mr. Musich must type in his Social Security number, the District is, in essence, asking him to disclose the number. Therefore, the District is required to provide Mr. Musich with the federal notice. In his opinion request, Mr. Musich makes no mention of having received a federal notice. Ms. Westin, in her comments, makes no mention of the District having ever provided Mr. Musich with a notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears the District has implemented an attendance-taking system which is dependent upon teachers providing their Social Security numbers. However, there does not appear to be federal authority to do so. Thus, the District cannot deny Mr. Musich any right, benefit, or privilege if he refuses to supply his Social Security number. Arguably, the District is denying Mr. Musich a privilege because he now must:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...run to the attendance office three times and back to my classroom unlike those who are using the system. I do not have immediate access to information others who are using the system do like examining a particular student&apos;s attendance for a pattern of problems, and I cannot print out attendance records like teachers using the new system can.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner would like to make a few comments about why the use of the Social Security number as an identifier and password is of concern.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Westin acknowledged that District employees have raised concerns about identity theft. She stated, [The District] was taking steps to assign new, random numbers to the system&apos;s users and reprogram the system to accommodate the new numbers, but the District no longer has the resources to move ahead with that project at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267344&quot; title=&quot;95-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-007&lt;/a&gt; was issued in 1995:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The impetus for government entities to employ the Social Security number as a universal identifier is increasing. Both the Minnesota Legislature and the U.S. Congress have addressed in statute and law their concerns in this regard, and their intention that individuals be able to make informed decisions when asked to disclose their Social Security numbers to agents of government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon any Minnesota government entity, when contemplating the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier, as a security access code, or for other purposes, to address the requirements of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, and the Legislature&apos;s classification of Social Security numbers as private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is now 2002 and the crime of identity theft is rapidly increasing. Every story and article published about preventing this crime urges its reader to keep very close tabs on his/her Social Security number. Further, most articles advise readers not to use their Social Security numbers as passwords. Given this, the Commissioner reiterates that it is incumbent upon any government entity, when contemplating the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier, as a security access code, or for other purposes, to adhere to the requirements set forth in state and federal law. The Commissioner goes further in urging government entities to migrate existing systems from a reliance on Social Security numbers to random identification numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Musich raised is follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;School District 1, Minneapolis, does have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the Tennessen warning notice detailed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The District does have an obligation to provide teaching staff with the notice requirement stated in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a, note) concerning the collection and use of teachers&apos; Social Security numbers for purposes of taking student attendance.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 5, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267365</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Passwords</Title><Id>266975</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Consent needed for new use of data if notice was not given</Title><Id>266792</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Frequency in giving notice</Title><Id>266976</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Volunteering data vs. request to supply data</Title><Id>266619</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:00:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-014</Title><title>Opinion 02 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267835&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-04-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following types of data relating to the City of Rochester&apos;s electric and water utility services:
design, operation of, or methods of access to any equipment, building or other facility,
hardware or software that is used in providing public utility services,
data describing the design, maintenance, or operation of hydro electric and dam structure facilities; water towers; water well sites; electric generation facilities; electric substations and transmission lines,
computer software and hardware that control electric generation, water flow, water pumping, and water services provided to residential, commercial and government customers</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 5, 2002; City of Rochester</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 14, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Terry L. Adkins, Attorney for the City of Rochester. In this letter, Mr. Adkins asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data relating to Rochester&apos;s electric and water utility services. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Adkins detailed the data in question (see below) and provided the following comments:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data that describes, addresses or relates to a public utility&apos;s computer system could, if it falls into the wrong hands, do significant damage to the public&apos;s health, safety and welfare.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;There may be other examples of sensitive public utility data the disclosure of which could compromise or undermine the safe and reliable operation of a public utility. However, the above examples are those that readily come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Obviously, it is the heightened sense of national security that has swept the nation since September 11th that gives rise to these concerns. Someone wanting to perform great harm to a large number of people or to key government facilities may use our public utility systems as the most efficient and direct method to do their work. Those of us who work with and provide legal advice to public utilities need to know the scope and extent of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when faced with a request for data concerning the operation of those utilities. We need to have a good understanding of the scope and extent of the &apos;security information&apos; exemption found in Minn. Stat. Section 13.37 as it applies to public utilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Adkins asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following types of data relating to the City of Rochester&apos;s electric and water utility services:
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;design, operation of, or methods of access to any equipment, building or other facility&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;hardware or software that is used in providing public utility services&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;data describing the design, maintenance, or operation of hydro electric and dam structure facilities; water towers; water well sites; electric generation facilities; electric substations and transmission lines&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;computer software and hardware that control electric generation, water flow, water pumping, and water services provided to residential, commercial and government customers&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Security information is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2, may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme, but instead applies to otherwise public data in those specific situations in which an entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-046&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in certain circumstances, the Commissioner has deferred to the expertise of another government entity in exercising the broad discretion provided under section 13.37 to protect data. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;01-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor&apos;s security detail, and for protecting the Governor&apos;s person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See &lt;em&gt;Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership&lt;/em&gt;, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); &lt;em&gt;In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T.&lt;/em&gt;, 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267465&quot; title=&quot;01-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-048&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A similar analysis holds here. Government personnel charged with assessing the vulnerability of public utility delivery systems must be granted the authority to protect the integrity of those systems. Accordingly, if those responsible persons within a government entity determine that the disclosure of any of the data detailed above would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury, then those data may properly be classified as not public security information, pursuant to section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wants to emphasize that, in the exercise of this discretion, a government entity must have reason to believe that public disclosure of such data would likely lead to substantial jeopardy. The entity cannot simply protect data from disclosure under section 13.37 on an arbitrary basis, but must base the determination on reasoned analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Adkins noted that Rochester operates electric and water utility services, but other Minnesota publicly-owned utilities operate natural gas, district heating and telecommunications services. A similar analysis with respect to the same kinds of data about the operation of those other public utilities is applicable. The Commissioner believes that government entities other than the City of Rochester may rely upon this opinion to protect as security information the kind of data described above that relate to any public utility. (See Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.072, subdivision 2, and 13.08, subdivision 4 (b)(5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Atkins is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, the following types of data relating to the City of Rochester&apos;s electric and water utility services are classified as not public security information:
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;design, operation of, or methods of access to any equipment, building or other facility&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;hardware or software that is used in providing public utility services&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;data describing the design, maintenance, or operation of hydro electric and dam structure facilities; water towers; water well sites; electric generation facilities; electric substations and transmission lines&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;computer software and hardware that control electric generation, water flow, water pumping, and water services provided to residential, commercial and government customers&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 5, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267835</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity reliance on opinion</Title><Id>266879</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-013</Title><title>Opinion 02 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267742&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-27T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a school board member an &quot;employee&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, are the two names and one job title in paragraph 2(B) of the letter private personnel data, given that the names and job title are linked to unspecified &quot;issues&quot;?
Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence between elected officials private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2?
Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence public data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 27, 2002; School District 2689 (Pipestone-Jasper)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 7, 2002, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from John Roszak and Michael Waldspurger. In their letter, Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data in a letter that School District 2689, Pipestone-Jasper, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the Commissioner may choose to give notice to the subject of the data concerning the dispute regarding the data. Here, in a letter dated March 13, 2002, the Commissioner notified the subject of the District letter. S/he provided comments to the Commissioner in two e-mails, one dated March 18 and one dated March 20, 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. The Chair and Vice-Chair of the District&apos;s School Board sent a letter to a third member of the Board. Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger wrote, The letter expresses concern about certain actions taken by the recipient of the letter and advises [him/her] to review a particular section of a manual produced by the Minnesota School Boards Association... One part of the letter, paragraph 2(B), states, We&apos;re referring to the issues of [the name of a District employee], [the name of a specific job position in the District] and [the name of a District employee].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is a school board member an employee for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, are the two names and one job title in paragraph 2(B) of the letter private personnel data, given that the names and job title are linked to unspecified issues ?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence between elected officials private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence public data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is a school board member an employee for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Personnel data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies most remaining personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 does not contain a specific classification for data about elected officials. However, in several previously-issued advisory opinions, the Commissioner consistently has opined that the classification of data about elected officials depends upon whether the entity considers the elected official to be an employee. If so, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If not, the data are presumed public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the District apparently has not taken a position regarding its Board members. Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger state, ...the School Board has not formally determined whether Board members are &apos;employees&apos; for purposes of [Chapter 13]. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the District is in the best position to make this determination. If the District considers the Board members to be employees, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. If the District does not consider the Board members to be employees, the data are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, are the two names and one job title in paragraph 2(B) of the letter private personnel data, given that the names and job title are linked to unspecified issues ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in the Facts section of this opinion, a part of the letter at issue states, We&apos;re referring to the issues of [the name of a District employee], [the name of a specific job position in the District] and [the name of a District employee].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, the name of an employee is public. The issue here is whether the addition of the words, We&apos;re referring to the issues of... releases any not public data about the two named employees. The Commissioner is of the opinion that, in this instance, the word issues is so nebulous that it does not appear to reveal any private data about either of the employees. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner does not understand the nuances of the dispute within the District. Thus, although unlikely, it is possible that the data about the employees, together with the word issues, might reveal private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, a job title, in and of itself, is public data. Further, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, a job title connected to the name of an employee is public data. As the Commissioner stated above, it is remotely possible that somehow adding the word issues releases not public data. However, this does not appear to be the case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears, therefore, that the two names and one job title in paragraph 2(B) of the letter are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence between elected officials private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.601, subdivision 2, states, Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed this issue in several previous advisory opinions. He consistently has opined that section 13.601 applies only if the correspondence in question is between members of the public and elected officials. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267991&quot; title=&quot;97-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/268026&quot; title=&quot;97-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-014&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267360&quot; title=&quot;98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-052&lt;/a&gt;. In this case, two elected officials, acting in their capacities as elected officials, wrote a letter to another elected official, in his/her capacity as an elected official. Because all of the parties are acting in their official capacities, doing their required work, section 13.601 does not apply and the District cannot use it as a basis upon which to classify the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the February 12, 2002, correspondence public data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above in the discussion related to Issue 1, the classification of data about an elected official depends upon whether or not the government entity considers, for the purposes of Chapter 13, the elected official to be an employee. Here, the District has not made such a determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the District considers the Board member who is the subject of the letter to be an employee, data in the letter are classified pursuant to section 13.43. For example, the letter contains an address. Pursuant to section 13.43, a work address is public (section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(7)) but a home address is not (section 13.43, subdivision 4). Also, for example, if a complaint has been made against the board member, the existence and status of the complaint is public. See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conversely, if the District does not consider its Board members to be employees, then all data in the letter appear to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner has the following comments on the remarks that the subject of the letter submitted on his/her behalf. S/he wrote, I handed the letter out to each board member at the public board meeting...I was informed that if information is distributed at a board meeting it is public information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;S/he further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The typical agenda at the Pipestone-Jasper school board meeting consists of three line items at the end of the agenda. These items are the following 1. Student School Board Member Report 2. School Board Members 3. Superintendent&apos;s Report. I distributed the letter during the School Board Members portion of the agenda. The purpose of distributing this letter was to defend accusations that had been made against me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public bodies, such as school boards, are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the open meeting law. Chapter 13D requires most meetings of public bodies to be open; however, under very specific circumstances, some meetings can be closed. In this case, the data subject states s/he handed out a copy of the letter at a public meeting. The Commissioner assumes this means open. The data subject also stated his/her belief that if the information is distributed at a board meeting it is public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is important to remember that a discussion of not public data at an open meeting does not classify those data as public. The open meeting law allows for not public data to be disclosed without liability or penalty if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business of or agenda item before the public body. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b). In addition, the open meeting law provides, Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger asked the Commissioner to comment on the classification of the data in the letter as those data exist at the District. Therefore, the issue of how the letter was treated at the board meeting is not relevant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes, however, that pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 13D.01, ...at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body...shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know whether the letter was an actual agenda item. If it was, and if its contents are public data, a copy should have been provided to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Roszak and Mr. Waldspurger raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A school board member is an employee for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, if School District 2689, Pipetone-Jasper, considers its board members to be employees. If the District does not consider its board members to be employees, the data about a board member are presumed public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, it does not appear that the two names and one job title in paragraph 2(B) of the letter are private personnel data, given that the names and job title are linked to unspecified issues .&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The February 12, 2002, correspondence between elected officials is not private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The classification of the remaining data in the February 12, 2002, correspondence depends upon whether the District, for purposes of Chapter 13, considers its school board members to be employees.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 27, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267742</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School board members</Title><Id>266772</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-012</Title><title>Opinion 02 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267641&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Hopkins in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its practice of providing access to copyrighted building plans for the purposes of inspection, but providing copies of same only with permission of the copyright holder?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 27, 2002; City of Hopkins</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 5, 2002, IPA received a letter from Jim Genellie, Assistant Manager for the City of Hopkins. In this letter, Mr. Genellie asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of building plans that are government data maintained by the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Genellie:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Hopkins is treating building plans as public data. One question that has arisen, however, concerns plans that are copyrighted. While the department of administration has not dealt with this issue directly, an opinion (00-042) was issued regarding copyrighted videotapes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The specific question I have is whether we can make copies of copyrighted building plans. Our current practice is to allow access to copyrighted plans for review purposes but to get permission from the copyright holders in order to provide copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Genellie asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Hopkins in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its practice of providing access to copyrighted building plans for the purposes of inspection, but providing copies of same only with permission of the copyright holder?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267719&quot; title=&quot;00-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The issues arising from situations in which government entities claim copyrights, or enter into agreements with private entities that grant intellectual property rights in government data to the private parties, are nascent. The Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on December 4, 1995, that addressed a situation in which a government entity wanted to exercise its intellectual property rights in certain data it developed. That opinion reads, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;[Government entities] may not assert copyright ownership to deny members of the public their right to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places under [Minnesota Statutes section 13.03, subdivision 3.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [Attorney General&apos;s] Opinion also states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;It therefore is reasonable to conclude that a state legislature can forfeit any part of that federal bundle of rights should it deem such waiver to be in the public interest. The state cannot forfeit those rights on behalf of third parties, however, so state agencies who acquire original works of authorship from third parties cannot be compelled by the MGDPA to violate federal prohibitions on copyright infringement. To the extent then that compliance with the MGDPA would compel an actual violation of the FCA, and subject the State to liability, the FCA controls. See, e.g., Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 59 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 1995).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In relevant part, the Federal Copyright Act, Title 17, U.S. Code, provides that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to: reproduce the copyrighted work in copies; and distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. (See 17 U.S.C. section 106.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Attorney General&apos;s opinion relates to a government entity asserting copyright ownership of data it developed. Although this situation doesn&apos;t involve government ownership of copyrighted materials, it is clear that the Attorney General&apos;s opinion regarding the protection of public access to copyrighted materials, regardless of who produced them, is relevant in resolving the conflicts between Chapter 13 and the Federal Copyright Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Creighton failed to demonstrate how it would violate a producer&apos;s copyright if the Cable Commission simply allowed Mr. Wratkowski to inspect the program in question. Accordingly, the Cable Commission may not deny public access to public government data for the purposes of inspection on the basis that it does not own the copyright to the data. If the Cable Commission maintains a copy of the program, it should provide Mr. Wratkowski an opportunity to inspect it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The requirements of the Federal Copyright Act lend support to the Cable Commission&apos;s position that it cannot supply a copy of the program. We accept that position. We acknowledge that this conclusion appears contrary to a basic tenet of Chapter 13, that, with few exceptions, a person may obtain a copy of public government data. However, to the best of our knowledge, this question has not been answered definitively, and the issue otherwise remains unsettled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, the Cable Commission may not deny public access to public government data for the purposes of inspection on the basis that it does not own the copyright to the data. If the Cable Commission maintains a copy of the program, it should provide Mr. Wratkowski an opportunity to inspect it. The Cable Commission need not supply a copy to Mr. Wratkowski, however.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same analysis applies here. Thus, the City&apos;s practice of allowing inspection of copyrighted building plans, but not providing copies without the copyright holder&apos;s permission, is allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Genellie is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Hopkins is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to its practice of providing access to copyrighted building plans for the purposes of inspection, but providing copies of same only with permission of the copyright holder.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 27, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267641</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Building plans</Title><Id>266995</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspection allowed, copying only with permission</Title><Id>266559</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-011</Title><title>Opinion 02 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267482&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, clauses (c) and (d), has the City of St. Paul sufficiently justified its charge of $600 for a copy of public data in the database for vehicles towed to the City&apos;s impound lot from 1996 through March 2001?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 20, 2002; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;On December 21, 2001, IPA received a letter from Jeffrey Kummer, Projects Editor for the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Kummer asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the fee the St. Paul Police Department charges for copies of a database of all vehicles towed to the St. Paul Police impound lot from 1996 through March 2001. On January 8, 2002, after consultation with IPA staff, the issue statement was agreed upon. The Commissioner notes that both Mr. Kummer and Chuck Laszewski of the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; have been involved in requesting data from the City.
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Finney, Chief of the City&apos;s Police Department, in response to Mr. Kummer&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 8, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Kummer&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 18, 2002, IPA received a response, dated same, from Reyne Rofuth, Assistant St. Paul City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated May 22, 2001, Mr. Laszewski wrote to the City requesting access to the database containing information about cars towed to the City&apos;s impound lot during St. Paul snow emergencies from 1996 through March 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 17, 2001, Michael Jordan, the Police Department&apos;s Public Information Coordinator, wrote to Mr. Laszewski. Mr. Jordan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I now understand you want the data base to include data for all cars towed [from 1996 through March 2001]. You specifically requested data on [sic] car&apos;s make, model, license number, tow date, tow location, vehicle identification number and registered owner plus any other information logged in.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You indicated you could take the data in any number of formats, including DBF files and could take it on floppy disks. We can provide the public data explained below in a D-Based format on floppy disks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...You have also indicated in one of those phone conversations you do not need the narrative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department can provide you with all the requested data and the data from the four field screens except data identifying the registered owner, which would include the name and address of the registered owner. The non-registered owner data is public data. It is the position of the Saint Paul Police Department that registered owner data is not public data pursuant to Title 18 USC (United States Code)2721.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jordan then cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, and stated that the cost for a copy of the database would be $500 plus an additional $100 commercial value add-on fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Laszewski and Mr. Jordan exchanged additional communications, and Mr. Kummer then requested an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kummer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, clauses (c) and (d), has the City of St. Paul sufficiently justified its charge of $600 for a copy of public data in the database for vehicles towed to the City&apos;s impound lot from 1996 through March 2001?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the cost of materials, cost of labor, any schedule of standard copying charges, any special costs, and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the City has asserted that because the database has commercial value, the City may charge a commercial value add-on fee. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s position is that the actual cost of copying the database is $500 and that the commercial value add-on fee is $100.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, the Commissioner will address whether the City&apos;s $500 charge for a copy of the database is allowable. As stated above, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the City may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3(e), specifically discusses data contained in a computer storage medium:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority of [a government entity] that maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium, in electronic form, if the government entity can reasonably make the copy or have a copy made. This does not require a government entity to provide the data in an electronic format or program that is different from the format or program in which the data are maintained by the government entity. The entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of providing the copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 22, 2001, Mr. Laszewski indicated he could take the data in any number of formats, including fixed-width or delimited text files, Microsoft Access files or DBF files. He also stated, I would prefer it on CD-Rom, but could take it on nine-track tape, floppy disks or zip disks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jordan wrote back September 17, 2001, stating, You indicated you could take the data in any number of formats, including DBF files and could take it on floppy disks. We can provide the public data...in a D-Based format on floppy disks. Mr. Jordan also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To provide the above data in the requested format is beyond what our computer system is presently set up to do. Therefore, we would need to have a program written to archive the data, isolate the data, export the data to a file, merge it, take out the registered owner and narrative data, then compress and put the data on disk. The data base will have the same structure without certain above identified data and fields. The cost of processing the above necessary steps, excluding removing the registered owner and narrative data, is estimated to be $500.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 30, 2001, Mr. Laszewski responded, [the September 17, 2001, letter] indicates you will be putting it in D-based format on a floppy disc. My question is, what format is the data in now? We may very well be able to take it in that form and again, save a lot of time and money on your part.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jordan replied on December 10, 2001, the data format is D based and the extension is .DBF.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Kummer wrote, ....the database is stored in .dbf, a straight forward, &apos;plain vanilla&apos; format that is essentially the industry standard. The Pioneer Press has neither requested nor expects any conversion of the public data contained in the Impound Lot database.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Rofuth wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The [City&apos;s] position is that the estimate for the actual cost for copying the database minus the separation of the not public data is going to be approximately $500. The [City] gave the Pioneer Press this estimate approximation based on the [database] developer&apos;s estimate of the actual work he would have to do to retrieve and search for the data which would include his cost for time: making, certifying, and compiling copy of data onto diskette. The [database] developer would be charging the [City] $75 per hour for the work. After the work is done the Department would then know the actual cost and would only charge the Pioneer Press for that actual cost, up to a maximum of $500, as promised.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; asked for a copy of the database and pursuant to Chapter 13, the City must provide a copy. If the database exists in a .dbf format then the City should provide it in that format. It appears, however, that the City is unable to provide a copy of the database in the .dbf format without first conducting a series of programming adjustments. The City did not explain why this is necessary. If the reason is because the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; has asked for a specific manipulation of the database, then the request, in essence, is one to create new data. As the Commissioner has stated in many previously-issued opinions, such a request is outside the purview of Chapter 13. However, it does not appear that the newspaper has asked for a special manipulation of the data in the database. Therefore, the City must provide a copy of the public data in the database. In so doing, the City must keep in mind its obligation under section 13.03, subdivision 1, to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. The City must also keep in mind that pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, it may not charge for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, section 13.03 provides a limited parameter within which a government entity may charge for copies. Here, the City has not demonstrated how the $500 charge represents the actual costs of copying the data. For instance, what portion of the $500 is for searching for and retrieving the data, what portion is for compiling the data, what portion is for actually making a copy of the database, etc. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that the City has not demonstrated that the that the $500 fee is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also would like to point out that the communications between the parties in this situation seem lacking in detail. As technology continues to advance, it is especially important that persons asking for data be very clear about what they are requesting and that government entities be equally clear about how data are maintained and how best to facilitate access. In his opinion request, Mr. Kummer wrote, ...the Pioneer Press asked the Department to allow us to meet with the contractor to better understand how he arrived at the cost quoted. The department declined, however, to arrange or permit such a meeting unless the newspaper agreed to pay the contractor a fee. If, as it appears in this case, the contractor is the one with the most detailed knowledge of the data and the database, it does not seem reasonable for the City to prohibit at least some communication between him and the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner next will discuss the issue of the commercial value add-on fee. It is important to note the Legislature intended that this provision apply only to very specific situations and that in each such situation, the entity must be able to provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. Here, the Commissioner disagrees that there is commercial value and also that the City expended significant public funds for the database. Regarding commercial value, Ms. Rofuth wrote that the City had logically deduced that the Pioneer Press could benefit commercially from the use of the [database] if they use the data in an article for newspapers for which they are in the business of selling. Further, in his September 17, 2001, letter to Mr. Laszewski, Mr. Jordan wrote, ...the system has a commercial value according to the system&apos;s developer and programmer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For an entity to add on a commercial value fee, the data that either make up or are an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system must have intrinsic commercial value. The issue is not whether there is some form of commercial use for the data but rather whether the data, in and of themselves, have commercial value. There is no firm guidance by which to determine whether or not data have commercial value. However, one of the best ways to determine this is whether there is a demand for the data. In this case, Ms. Rofuth noted there has been only one request for the database - that from the &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. One request would not seem to indicate a commercial demand for the data. If, for example, five companies had sought the data and were willing to pay the fee, it would be far more clear that the data have commercial value. Here, the City has only one person requesting the data and he is not willing to pay the add-on fee. Thus, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the City has not demonstrated that the database has commercial value.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments regarding whether the City expended significant public funds for the database. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267382&quot; title=&quot;01-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the origination of the commercial value add-on fee. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This provision was the result of a compromise that originated from a proposal brought forth by Hennepin County. The County sought legislative approval to 1) copyright County databases, and 2) allow user fees to fund databases that the County would build and maintain to carry out required County functions. In adopting the compromise language, the Legislature acknowledged that there are situations when a government entity should be allowed to charge more than the actual cost of making the copies. Thus, the language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), allows government entities to recover development costs the entity has incurred in the course of normal business operations when data such as those contained in a database were developed with a significant expenditure of public funds and the requestor could benefit commercially from obtaining the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature did not define significant. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, statutory interpretation, in relevant part states, When the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other matters...(1) The occasion and necessity for the law. When the Legislature enacted the commercial value add-on fee language in 1984, the amount Hennepin County expended on the database in question was approximately $425,000. If the Legislature thought that $425,000 was a significant expenditure, the Commissioner is not prepared to concur with the City that $10,000 or $30,000 is significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For these reasons, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the City may not charge a commercial value add-on fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kummer raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, clauses (c) and (d), the City of St. Paul has not sufficiently justified its charge of $600 for a copy of public data in the database for vehicles towed to the City&apos;s impound lot from 1996 through March 2001.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 20, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267482</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value of data</Title><Id>266549</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor responsibility</Title><Id>266550</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-010</Title><title>Opinion 02 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266425&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-13T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 2002; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 15, 2002, IPA received a letter from X and Y. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights concerning certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X and Y&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles R. Weaver, Commissioner of DPS. The purposes of this letter, dated January 18, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position. On February 11, 2002, Commissioner Weaver responded. On March 6, 2002, IPA received additional comments from Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, DPS&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official, that corrected a factual error. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated August 9, 2000, Daniel A. Eller, attorney for X and Y, wrote to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a division of DPS:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please be advised that I represent [X or Y] regarding the above referenced matter which was dismissed by the Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan, on or about May 8, 2000. At this time, on behalf of [X or Y], I hereby demand returned to [X or Y] all finger and thumb prints, distinctive physical mark identification data and other identification [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] along with copies and duplicates of them to my office. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299C.11(d) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;]. All charges were dismissed in this matter prior to the determination of probable cause. Which probable cause hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to X and Y, DPS returned X&apos;s finger prints and arrest data but not Y&apos;s, and did not return photographs to either X or Y. IPA also received information from X on behalf of Y that asserts that neither Y nor Mr. Eller received the information Mr. Eller requested in his August 9, 2000, letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Weaver stated that in a letter dated August 25, 2000, BCA notified Mr. Eller that BCA has deleted criminal history record information on [X] and that BCA has returned the identification data to counsel, Mr. Eller. According to Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske, BCA also returned the identification data on Y to Mr. Eller.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Weaver stated that BCA did not have any photographs of X or Y on file at the time of the request, and that the aforementioned records are the only records the Department has maintained on this matter. Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske stated that on March 5, 2002, BCA staff conducted a search of both the Minnesota and FBI criminal history databases and no information remains in either system related to the data referenced in X and Y&apos;s August 2000 correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: the Commissioner addresses the same issues, involving other government entities, in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267957&quot; title=&quot;02-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-008&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267956&quot; title=&quot;02-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-009&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, certain identification data such as finger and thumb prints, and photographs, etc., are required to be collected by law enforcement agencies under circumstances related to the arrest of an individual. Pursuant to section 299C.11(b), under certain conditions a government entity shall, upon demand, return to the arrested person finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Commissioner Weaver and Ms. Beyer-Kropuenske, any data responsive to Mr. Eller&apos;s requests on behalf of X and Y have either been destroyed or provided to Mr. Eller. According to X on behalf of Y, Mr. Eller did not receive the information on Y that Commissioner Weaver stated was returned to him. Thus, there is an obvious factual dispute here that the Commissioner (of Administration) cannot resolve. However, given that DPS has correspondence dated in August 2000 that states that the data in question were being returned to X and Y, the Commissioner must conclude that DPS complied with its statutory obligations under section 299C.11.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X and Y raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 13, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266425</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Identification data (299C.11)</Title><Id>266424</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-009</Title><title>Opinion 02 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267956&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-13T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 2002; Crow Wing County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 15, 2002, IPA received a letter from X and Y. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights concerning certain data maintained by Crow Wing County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X and Y&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dick Ross, Sheriff of Crow Wing County. The purposes of this letter, dated January 18, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. IPA did not receive a response from the County. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated August 9, 2000, Daniel A. Eller, attorney for X and Y, wrote to Sheriff Ross:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please be advised that I represent [X or Y] regarding the above referenced matter which was dismissed by the Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan, on or about May 8, 2000. At this time, on behalf of [X or Y], I hereby demand returned to [X or Y] all finger and thumb prints, distinctive physical mark identification data and other identification [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] along with copies and duplicates of them to my office. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299C.11(d) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;]. All charges were dismissed in this matter prior to the determination of probable cause. Which probable cause hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to X and Y, Crow Wing County did not respond to this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: the Commissioner addresses the same issues, involving other government entities, in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267957&quot; title=&quot;02-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-008&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266425&quot; title=&quot;02-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-010&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, certain identification data such as finger and thumb prints, and photographs, etc., are required to be collected by law enforcement agencies under circumstances related to the arrest of an individual. Pursuant to section 299C.11(b), under certain conditions a government entity shall, upon demand, return to the arrested person finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to X and Y, Crow Wing County did not respond to their requests for the return of identification data to them. If, indeed, the conditions specified at section 299C.11(b), hold here, then Crow Wing County should return to X and Y, immediately, any finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them that it maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 13, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267956</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-008</Title><title>Opinion 02 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267957&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 2002; City of Brainerd</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 15, 2002, IPA received a letter from X and Y. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights concerning certain data maintained by the City of Brainerd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X and Y&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Bolduc, Chief of the Brainerd Police Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 18, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. IPA did not receive a response from the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated August 9, 2000, Daniel A. Eller, attorney for X and Y, wrote to Frank Ball, then Chief of Police for Brainerd:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please be advised that I represent [X or Y] regarding the above referenced matter which was dismissed by the Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan, on or about May 8, 2000. At this time, on behalf of [X or Y], I hereby demand returned to [X or Y] all finger and thumb prints, distinctive physical mark identification data and other identification [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] along with copies and duplicates of them to my office. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299C.11(d) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;]. All charges were dismissed in this matter prior to the determination of probable cause. Which probable cause hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 15, 2000, Lyman D. Dahl, Acting Chief of Police for Brainerd, responded: [w]e would be obliged to respond to your request, via a court order to our department to release the requested documentation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: the Commissioner addresses the same issues, involving other government entities, in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267956&quot; title=&quot;02-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-009&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266425&quot; title=&quot;02-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-010&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, certain identification data such as finger and thumb prints, and photographs, etc., are required to be collected by law enforcement agencies under circumstances related to the arrest of an individual. Pursuant to section 299C.11(b), under certain conditions a government entity shall, upon demand, return to the arrested person finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 299C.10 does not require the data subject to provide a court order to accomplish the return of identification data. It simply states that upon demand of the data subject, the government entity is to do so. Accordingly, if the conditions specified at section 299C.11(b), hold here, then the City of Brainerd should return to X and Y, immediately, any finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them that it maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, the City of Brainerd did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X, because it required X to provide a court order before it would do so.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, the City of Brainerd did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y, because it required Y to provide a court order before it would do so.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 13, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267957</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-007</Title><title>Opinion 02 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267964&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-03-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a January 11, 2002, request for access to public data about a District employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 7, 2002, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter, dated same, from Mike Herbst. In his letter, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 276, Minnetonka, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 8, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 20, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated February 19, 2002, from Mark Wolak, the District&apos;s Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Accountability.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Herbst presented them is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Herbst wrote that on January 10, 2002, he submitted to Mr. Wolak a request to view all public data allowed by MN chapter 13.43 of [a District employee&apos;s] personnel file, a [sic] employee of district 276. Mr. Herbst stated, As a response to this request they indicted [sic] that the information was private.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Herbst wrote that he then resubmitted his request in a letter dated January 11, 2002. In that letter he stated, I request to review and all data/documentation pertaining to the following: All public data from the personnel file of [a District employee].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Herbst further wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A meeting was then held on 1/15/02 to go over the data request with [Dr. Wolak]. At that meeting I was told that he (Dr. Wolak) was just appointed as the responsible authority, and the School Board has not established a policy on data practices. A determination of what was going to be released was to be done by Dr. Mike Lovett (Asst. Supt. of Human Resources), and I would be contacted.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Herbst added, To date I have not been contacted by either the responsible authority or Dr. Mike Lovett.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to a January 11, 2002, request for access to public data about a District employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, certain data about employees are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, Mr. Herbst made a request for public data on January 10 and 11, 2002. According to Mr. Herbst, the District&apos;s initial response was that the data were private. Shortly thereafter, on January 15, 2002, Mr. Wolak informed Mr. Herbst that the District needed to determine the classification of the data and that District staff would then contact Mr. Herbst. As of the date Mr. Herbst requested this opinion, February 7, 2002, he had not received any data from the District.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Dr. Wolak wrote that he did ask the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources to prepare the response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request. Information Dr. Wolak submitted indicates that the District faxed its response to Mr. Herbst on February 19, 2002.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, pursuant to section 13.03, government entities must respond to requests for access to data promptly, appropriately, and within in a reasonable time. Here, it took the District almost six weeks to provide Mr. Herbst with data he requested. This is not prompt, appropriate, or within a reasonable time. Therefore, the District did not respond appropriately, i.e., in this case, within the statutory time frame.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Herbst raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately to a January 11, 2002, request for access to public data about a District employee. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 11, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267964</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-006</Title><title>Opinion 02 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266270&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-02-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 728, Elk River, respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: surveys entitled &quot;School Options Survey - Elk River Area School District&quot; that parents completed and returned to the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 28, 2002; School District 728 (Elk River)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 30, 2002, the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) received a letter dated January 27, 2002, from Michael Kerr. In his letter, Mr. Kerr asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 728, Elk River, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alan Jensen, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Kerr&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 1, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Kerr&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 13, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ivars Krafts, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated January 5, 2002, Mr. Kerr wrote to Superintendent Jensen and asked to review surveys returned by individual parents from the Zimmerman area. Mr. Kerr noted that he had also made verbal requests for access to the surveys. He wrote, ...my wife was advised by [District staff] that you would not provide access to the surveys. No explanation other than your statement of confidentiality was provided to us then.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 22, 2002, Mr. Kerr reiterated his request stating, to date, I have not received a response from your office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 17, 2002, Superintendent Jensen wrote to Mr. Kerr:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I did direct [District staff] to deny your verbal requests for the actual individual surveys. My decision is based on the fact that the individual survey responses are correspondence between individuals and elected officials and therefore is considered private data. My basis for this is Minnesota Statute Section 13.601, Subd. 2...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kerr attached a copy of a survey to his opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 728, Elk River, respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: surveys entitled School Options Survey - Elk River Area School District that parents completed and returned to the District?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Krafts argued that the individual survey responses are not public for three reasons. First, Mr. Krafts asserted they are private pursuant to section 13.601, subdivision 2, which provides, Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. Mr. Krafts wrote that comments were directed to elected officials, i.e., Board members. He stated, While individuals were not required to sign their names, they could include names and whatever data they wished, some of which could identify individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second reason Mr. Kraft offered as to why the data are not public is because parents were informed that individual surveys would be kept confidential. He wrote, Any parents who wish to make their opinions public are, of course, entitled to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third reason Mr. Kraft put forth is that the School Board declared the survey statistically invalid since many respondents did not follow the instructions to use the pre-addressed, stamped envelopes and many of the forms were photocopies rather than originals. He added, Consequently, the disclosure of individual forms would compromise the integrity of the School District and the individuals who properly responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees with the District&apos;s position. Section 13.601, subdivision 2, classifies correspondence between individuals and elected officials. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267620&quot; title=&quot;95-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-013&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the fact that the Legislature did not define the term correspondence. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If the data are government data, then the remaining question is whether they are data classified under Section [13.601, subdivision 2], Elected Officials; Correspondence; Private Data, which states: [c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. The legislature did not define correspondence, therefore guidance on the language used is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, correspondence is defined as [c]ommunication by the exchange of letters or [t]he letters written or received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner went on to opine that data in a telephone log were not correspondence within the plain meaning on section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267573&quot; title=&quot;95-041&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-041&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner determined that an investigative report did not constitute correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the District sent a survey to Zimmerman area parents. In relevant part, the third paragraph of the Overview section states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In response to input received at a recent parent meeting in Zimmerman, the Elk River Area School District is conducting a survey of Zimmerman area parents about future school options. The purpose of this survey is to provide the school board and administration with information on what parents would prefer. Individual responses to the survey will be kept confidential. Results will only be reported by group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the type of correspondence or communication the Legislature envisioned when it enacted the language in section 13.601, subdivision 2, is the kind that is initiated by either the individual or the elected official. Here, the survey is an instrument created by the District designed to provide the District with feedback about two very specific options for restructuring. The first option is to Begin the phase-in of the grades 7-12 program at Zimmerman site when operating funds are available and the second option is to Delay start of 7-12 program at Zimmerman site with grades 9-12 attending Elk River High School, and use the new addition at Zimmerman Junior High School to open another elementary school to alleviate overcrowding at Zimmerman Elementary School. The survey that Mr. Kerr submitted is not a letter he wrote to one of the School Board members about a particular issue. Rather, the District asked him to complete the survey and it was examined, presumably, by all Board members as well as certain District staff alike. Thus, the data in the surveys are not appropriately classified pursuant to section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City&apos;s position is also problematic because 13.601 provides a classification of private &lt;em&gt;data on individuals&lt;/em&gt;. The survey appears to be structured in such a way that the data do not identify any individual parent. Therefore, the data could not be private &lt;em&gt;data on individuals&lt;/em&gt; as that term is defined in section 13.02, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Krafts&apos; other arguments, i.e., that parents were promised confidentiality and that some of the surveys may be statistically invalid, do not affect the classification of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is appropriate. It is important for the District to be aware that if it had been collecting data from parent(s) whose children attend District schools, and the data were about those parent(s), and the data clearly identified the parent(s), then any such data, excluding directory information, would be private. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13.32, subdivisions 2 and 5. When this type of data collection occurs, the Tennessen Warning notice requirement kicks in. See section 13.04, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kerr is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 728, Elk River, did not respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: surveys entitled School Options Survey - Elk River Area School District that parents completed and returned to the District. The data in the surveys are not appropriately classified pursuant to section 13.601, subdivision 2.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 28, 2002&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266270</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Survey responses</Title><Id>266267</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-005</Title><title>Opinion 02 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267205&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-02-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Scott County respond appropriately to a request for a copy of a &quot;market study&quot; concerning possible pay and benefits for County employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2002; Scott County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On January 28, 2002, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson on behalf of his client, the &lt;i&gt;Shakopee Valley News&lt;/i&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by Scott County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David J. Unmacht, Scott County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated January 29, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On February 8, 2002, IPA received a response from Mr. Unmacht. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 According to Mr. Anfinson, Scott County commissioned a study concerning possible pay and benefits for County employees. A &lt;i&gt;News&lt;/i&gt; reporter asked repeatedly for a copy of the study, which the County consistently denied. Mr. Anfinson also stated that the reporter has been told that Scott County has given a copy of the market study to representatives of one of the labor unions involved in negotiations with the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Unmacht stated: [w]hile the market study has been discussed with the negotiating teams of some of the unions . . . it has not been released to the members at large of any union, nor has it been formally presented to the County Board of Commissioners or released to the public. He also stated that the County plans to use the survey information to prepare for our position in arbitration.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Scott County respond appropriately to a request for a copy of a market study concerning possible pay and benefits for County employees? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner was not provided a copy of the study, so the following discussion is based on the County&apos;s assertion and Mr. Anfinson&apos;s description of the data as relating to contract negotiations with County employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (c), &apos;labor relations information&apos; means management positions on economic and noneconomic items &lt;u&gt;that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration&lt;/u&gt;, including information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position. (Emphasis added.) According to subdivision 2, labor relations information data are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Anfinson stated that a &lt;i&gt;News&lt;/i&gt; reporter was told that the County provided a copy of the study to at least one labor union. Mr. Unmacht neither confirmed nor denied that assertion; he stated only that the study has been discussed with representatives of more than one labor union, and that it has not been released to the members at large of any union, nor has it been formally presented to the County Board of Commissioners or released to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    That raises the question of whether those discussions, and possible dissemination of the report in its entirety, represent a presentation of the study data for purposes of section 13.37. The facts in this regard are not entirely clear, but the County has confirmed that the study has been discussed with union negotiating teams and has not denied the claim that the study has been released to at least one of the unions. From the information provided, the Commissioner must conclude that the study data were presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, and are therefore public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Furthermore, Mr. Anfinson stated that although the County has repeatedly denied the &lt;i&gt;News&lt;/i&gt; with access to the study, the County has never furnished a citation to the statute on which its refusal is grounded. It is not clear whether the &lt;i&gt;News&lt;/i&gt; asked the County to furnish the statutory basis for its denial of access to the study. If the News did so, then the County was obligated to provide the specific legal basis for its denial, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, Scott County did not respond appropriately to a request for a copy of a market study concerning possible pay and benefits for County employees, because it presented the market study data to one or more of the labor unions involved in the negotiations, rendering the study data public. Accordingly, the public should be provided immediate access to the market study data. If the County was asked to provide the specific statutory basis for its denial of public access to the study, it should have provided that basis, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 27, 2002
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267205</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition (subd. 1(c))</Title><Id>266502</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-004</Title><title>Opinion 02 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267664&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-02-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), has Hennepin County sufficiently justified its charge of $13,703 for an electronic copy of the County&apos;s property tax records?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2002; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 13, 2001 IPA received a letter dated December 11, 2001, from Gary Hill, of KSTP-TV News. In his letter, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the fee Hennepin County charges for copies of the Hennepin County Property Tax System (PINS).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patrick O&apos;Connor, Director of Hennepin County Taxpayer Services, in response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 18, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Hill&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On January 9, 2002, IPA received a response, dated same, from David Hough, Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On August 27, 2001, Mr. Hill wrote to Donald Kopel, Information Technology Supervisor for the Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department. Mr. Hill noted that the County had quoted a price of $13,500 for an electronic copy of the public property tax records. Mr. Hill asked for clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 12, 2001, Mr. Kopel wrote back and provided additional information. He stated, The documented development cost for the [PINS] for the period 1975 to 2000 is approximately $14,251,358. Mr. Kopel cited Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), noting that in certain situations, a government entity is entitled to charge a fee above and beyond the actual copying costs. He wrote, The additional cost is pro-rated at a reasonable fee until such time as the total development costs are amortized over the life of the system. Mr. Kopel stated that the County currently has 385,715 Property ID Numbers (PIDS) and that the per PID charge is $.035. He wrote that personnel services costs are $200 and the CD-rom charge is $3 for a total cost of $13,703.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 19, 2001, Mr. Hill asked for further clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kopel responded in a letter dated October 22, 2001, to which he attached several documents. He explained that in 1991, the County determined that the per PID cost was $.01. Mr. Kopel further explained that in 1996, the County developed the process for creating the Property ASCII Extract (PAE) data file. Then, in 1996, the County adopted a sliding fee schedule, based on the number of PIDs requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hill then requested an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), has Hennepin County sufficiently justified its charge of $13,703 for an electronic copy of the County&apos;s property tax records?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual requests copies of data of which s/he is not the subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the government entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor, any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, Hennepin County asserted that because the database has commercial value, the County may charge a commercial value add-on fee. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Hough quoted section 13.03, subdivision 3(d). He wrote, The PINS property tax attribute data has significant commercial value, as evidenced by the hundreds of persons and corporations which have purchased the electronic format and paid the Board authorized fee. Mr. Hough listed the various documents that Mr. Kopel had previously provided to Mr. Hill. In addition, Mr. Hough made the following comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He discussed the Hennepin County Information Technology Department summary reports. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The report for 1975 - 1990 included both computer and personnel costs which totaled $10,591,358. This $10,591,358 was used in determining the original rates that were adopted by the Hennepin County Board in 1991. The 1991-2000 report lists both computer and personnel costs. Hennepin County from 1991-2000 only used the personnel costs in determining development costs. The cost breakdown is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1975 - 1990 Report Total $10,591,358
&lt;br /&gt;
1991 - 2000 Report Total $4,058,837 (personnel costs only)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Less personnel costs
&lt;br /&gt;
associated with Assessor&apos;s
&lt;br /&gt;
ACE project not applicable
&lt;br /&gt;
to development costs (398,837)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Total $14,251,358&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hough further wrote, Hennepin County in determining these costs only included the actual programming development costs. No overhead or administrative costs were included. The personnel costs represented in these summary reports were taken directly from the reports of individual Hennepin County employees over the twenty-five year period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion Mr. Hough wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Hennepin County has incurred development costs for the PINS in excess of $14 million. In 1991, the Hennepin County Board authorized a $.01 per property identification number or parcel (PID) (per database) charge for providing property tax attribute data electronically. In 1996, the Hennepin County Board after a public hearing, adopted the Property ASCII Extract (PAE) file fee schedule. This schedule provides for a sliding fee based upon the number of properties extracted. Since providing the PINS in electronic format, Hennepin County has recovered approximately $1.2 million. Mr. Kopel in his October 22, 2001 letter states, [I]t is reasonable to assume that development costs will never be recaptured.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267382&quot; title=&quot;01-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-030&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the commercial value add-on fee. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This provision was the result of a compromise that originated from a proposal brought forth by Hennepin County. The County sought legislative approval to 1) copyright County databases, and 2) allow user fees to fund databases that the County would build and maintain to carry out required County functions. In adopting the compromise language, the Legislature acknowledged that there are situations when a government entity should be allowed to charge more than the actual cost of making the copies. Thus, the language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), allows government entities to recover development costs the entity has incurred in the course of normal business operations when data such as those contained in a database were developed with a significant expenditure of public funds and the requestor could benefit commercially from obtaining the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, pursuant to section 13.03, when an individual requests copies of data, the government entity may charge certain actual costs. If the data have commercial value, the entity may charge an additional fee. However, the entity must be able to demonstrate that any such additional fee relates to the actual development costs of the information. At issue in this opinion is whether the County has clearly demonstrated that its add-on fee relates to the &lt;em&gt;actual development costs of the database&lt;/em&gt;. The Commissioner has the following comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the County states that the development cost for the PINS is $14,251,358, and is for the time period from 1975 to 2000. It is evident, however, that the County calculated this cost by including ongoing costs incurred through 2000. For example, Mr. Hough wrote that the Hennepin County Information Technology Department summary reports document the development costs from 1975 through 2000. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The 1991-2000 report lists both computer and personnel costs. Hennepin County from 1991-2000 only used personnel costs in determining development costs....Hennepin County in determining these costs only included the actual programming development costs. No other overhead or administrative costs were included. The personnel costs represented in these summary reports were taken directly from the reports of individual Hennepin County employees over the twenty-five year period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the reports to which Mr. Hough referred is entitled, [PINS] Initial Development and Ongoing Cost Recap. This clearly implies that ongoing costs have been calculated into the total development cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in 1991, when the County determined the price per PID, it relied upon development and maintenance cost recovery allocation. The document entitled, 1991 Property Information System (PINS) Data Base Product Pricing states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the development and maintenance cost recovery allocation is based on amortizing a portion of the actual cost of developing and maintaining the PINS system since 1975. The amount to be recovered annually has been determined by taking .02%, an assigned amortizing value, of the PINS development costs from 1975 to 1990...Maintenance recovery was determined by taking .02% of the respective portions of the Departments of Property Tax Public Records and Assessor&apos;s 1991 annual budget...and the 1991 projected system for maintenance for PINS....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on these statements, it is clear the County finds it appropriate to include, in the add-on fee, not only its initial development costs for the system, but also its costs of continued development and maintenance since 1975.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that when the Legislature adopted the commercial value add-on fee, it did not intend that a government entity recapture ongoing development/other costs beyond the initial development expenditure. In 1975, the County began the development of the PINS. However, the situation is not one in which the County&apos;s initial expenditure for development of the PINS occurred for 25 years (between 1975 and 2000), after which the County allowed the public access to the database. Rather, as the 1991 Property Information System (PINS) Data Base Product Pricing document states, ...copies of and direct access to this information have been made available to commercial firms for many years. The County, in calculating the development cost for the PINS for the period 1975 through 2000, apparently included ongoing costs. The burden is on the County to clearly demonstrate that the add-on fee relates to the actual development costs of the information. The County has not met that burden. Therefore, the County&apos;s charge is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Commissioner questions whether the County&apos;s charge of $200 for the actual costs associated with searching for and retrieving the data...and for making certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the database is justified. The County did not provide any breakdown of that cost other than referring to it as a service charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hill raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), Hennepin County had not sufficiently justified its charge of $13,703 for an electronic copy of the County&apos;s property tax records.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267664</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Schedules/calendars</Title><Id>266496</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-003</Title><title>Opinion 02 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267577&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-02-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a November 14, 2001, data request, did the Ramsey County Library Board properly deny access to certain calendar/telephone register notes of the Library Director?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 6, 2002; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 17, 2001, IPA received a letter from Timothy J. Nelson. In this letter, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey County Library Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Nelson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alice-Jo Carlson, Director of the Library Board. The purposes of this letter, dated December 21, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Nelson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On January 3, 2002, IPA received a response from Gary Davis, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 14, 2001, Mr. Nelson requested data concerning communications between the Library Board and an independent contractor. At issue here are the entries from Ms. Carlson&apos;s calendar/telephone register notes that the Board provided to Mr. Nelson. The entries contain only the contractor&apos;s name and telephone number; the content of the notes was redacted. The County stated to Mr. Nelson that it had redacted the data on the basis of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4 (i.e., private personnel data.) Mr. Nelson questioned the redactions in letters dated November 27 and December 10, 2001; the County reiterated its position in letters to Mr. Nelson dated December 5 and 11, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request to the Commissioner, Mr. Nelson stated that the redacted notes were not fully redacted (he was able to read some of them) and it was clear that the subject matter of the notes was the work [an independent contractor] was doing, and therefore can not be considered &apos;personnel data.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Davis stated: [t]he data contained in Ms. Carlson&apos;s personal calendar/telephone register is private personnel data that was collected because Ms. Carlson is an employee of the Ramsey County Library Board as described in Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 1. Mr. Davis referred to previous advisory opinions, namely &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266731&quot; title=&quot;96-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-055&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267237&quot; title=&quot;96-056&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-056&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267267&quot; title=&quot;98-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-029&lt;/a&gt;, in support of the County&apos;s position. Mr. Davis continued: [f]unctionally the personal calendar/telephone register in question is a personally dated calendar maintained by a government employee, the library director, containing notes related to conversations with individuals (including incidental private calls). It is not segregated in any way into formal or informal &apos;business&apos; files. The notes remain in a calendar form . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a November 14, 2001, data request, did the Ramsey County Library Board properly deny access to certain calendar/telephone register notes of the Library Director?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data on individuals collected, created, maintained, etc., because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and therefore not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266731&quot; title=&quot;96-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-055&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that data in a government employee&apos;s appointment calendar were collected and created because that person is or was a public employee. Therefore, those data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Further, because the data contained in the appointment calendar are not among the types of data classified as public pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.43, those data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same analysis applies to the situation presented by Mr. Nelson; however, at issue here are data contained in a calendar that also serves as a telephone register. From the information provided, it appears that the entries at issue contain details concerning the public business of the library, i.e., discussions between the library director and a contractor about a possible library expansion project. Such data are not data on an individual, and therefore are not properly classified under section 13.43. There may also be data in other entries in the calendar/register that are private personnel data per section 13.43, subdivision 4, or even data that are not government data per Chapter 13 (i.e., strictly personal data - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Davis stated that the data in the calendar/register are not segregated into formal or informal business files. However, Chapter 13 classifies data, not files or records. Accordingly, the County must provide the public data contained in the calendar/register, i.e., data that document public business, even if those data are commingled with not public data. In fact, the Legislature anticipated just such a situation by first, classifying data, not files or records, and second, by providing that government entities must separate public and not public data, at no cost to the requestor, per section 13.03, subdivision 3 (c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nelson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a November 14, 2001, data request, the Ramsey County Library Board improperly denied access to certain public data that document public business of the library, contained in the calendar/telephone register notes of the Library Director. The calendar/register may also contain not public data.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 6, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267577</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment calendars</Title><Id>266730</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Separation of public, not public data</Title><Id>267074</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal calendar/telephone register</Title><Id>266607</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-002</Title><title>Opinion 02 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267491&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-01-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Council improperly disclose data about an employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 2002; Metropolitan Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 21, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her rights regarding certain data maintained by the Metropolitan Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ted Mondale, Chair of the Metropolitan Council. The purposes of this letter, dated December 5, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Council&apos;s position. The Metropolitan Council did not submit any comments in response. A summary of the facts of this matter as presented by X follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X is an employee of the Metropolitan Council-Environmental Services ( MC-ES ) division. According to X:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. On a memo dated September 25, 2001, every MC-ES employee was required to submit a &apos;Respiratory Qualification Survey&apos; to the employer MC-ES in connection with job BUMP/BIDS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. We were told the survey was confidential and would not be opened. On October 8, 2001 MC-ES (public) employees opened the confidential RQS and violated Chapter 13 by examining and exposing MC-ES employees&apos; confidential forms which included personal medical information as well as employee social security numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The September 25, 2001, memorandum, sent by a Metropolitan Council employee and addressed to Local 35 employees, contains the following statement: [e]veryone is required to submit a bid along with a completed Respiratory Qualification Survey (Place the Survey in a sealed envelope, which will be provided.) The survey states the following: [t]his questionnaire will assist in determining the need for you to have a medical provider evaluate your ability to wear a respirator. The information will be kept confidential. A confidential envelope is provided with this questionnaire. Your employer will only receive a recommendation as to whether or not you need further medical evaluation related to wearing a respirator. The survey asks for the employee&apos;s Social Security number, home telephone number, and general and specific medical data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided a statement by another Metropolitan Council employee:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On October 9, 2001, I was assigned as part of my work duty to clean in the West Screen Grit Bldg. of the Metro Plant (this area was not cleaned on Oct. 8 because our crew was off work due to the holiday). When I went to empty the waste basket in the room that the Local 35 bid was being held, I found in the wastebasket several empty envelopes. I recognized these envelopes to be those that held our health surveys. They had been opened and the contents removed, eliminating any confidentiality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Council improperly disclose data about an employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about public employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Medical data and employee home telephone numbers are classified as private under section 13.43; Social security numbers are private according to sections 13.43 and 13.49.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, private data are accessible within a government entity only to individuals whose work assignments reasonably require that they gain access to the data. According to the information provided by X, envelopes, that X assumes contained surveys, were opened within the offices of the Metropolitan Council, rather than at the offices of its agent, the medical provider, as was implied would be the case on the survey form. Although X&apos;s assumption is reasonable, from what has been described to him, the Commissioner cannot ascertain with certainty if the envelopes discovered in the wastebaskets did contain employee health surveys. Therefore, he cannot determine whether any Metropolitan Council employee improperly gained access to data contained in another employee&apos;s survey. If, indeed, someone who was not authorized to gain access to the private data contained in the surveys did so, such disclosure was not appropriate under Chapter 13 and its rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, when private or confidential data are collected by a government entity from and about the data subject, the entity must provide a Tennessen Warning notice comprised of the following elements: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, a 2000 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision puts the application of the section 13.04, subdivision 2, notice requirement in doubt. (See &lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 613 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. App. 2000.) In Kobluk the Court ruled that Chapter 13 does not require an employer to give an employee a Tennessen warning before obtaining information from the employee about incidents that occur within the course and scope of employment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It does not appear that the Metropolitan Council provided X with a Tennessen Warning in connection with the collection of the survey data, which X was told s/he must provide. However, the survey form stated that the information would be kept confidential and stated that the Metropolitan Council would only receive a recommendation as to whether or not you need further medical evaluation related to wearing a respirator. Thus, even if no Tennessen Warning were required here per &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, X relied upon an express promise from an agent of the Council, and should not suffer any consequences from relying on those assurances of confidentiality, notwithstanding any further obligation upon the Council to provide a Tennessen Warning.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Metropolitan Council improperly disclosed data about an employee. If the health surveys were opened by someone not authorized to gain access to the private data contained therein, such disclosure was not proper.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 10, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267491</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Promise of confidentiality</Title><Id>267043</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 02-001</Title><title>Opinion 02 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267881&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2002-01-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Will Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, violate FERPA if it releases all documentation, including an investigative report, which contains private education records/educational data regarding the student victim as well as witnesses, to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families &amp; Learning, which is conducting an investigation of a maltreatment of minors report under Minnesota Statutes section 626.556?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 7, 2002; School District 281 (Robbinsdale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 19, 2001, IPA received a letter from Stephen M. Knutson and Michelle D. Kenney, attorneys for Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale. In this letter, Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner determined that he would give notice of this opinion request to Christine Jax, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL), to ask for any comments she might wish to provide. On November 13, 2001, Thomas J. Lombard responded on behalf of CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney, CFL notified the District that it had received a report of alleged maltreatment of a minor District student. CFL asked the District to provide school records regarding this incident, including the written results of any and all investigations under the statutory authority provided CFL pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 626.556, and 13.32. The data requested include data regarding the student victim as well as student witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney then discussed the interplay between and among section 13.32, subdivision 3 (n), section 626.556, and provisions of two federal laws, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ), and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act ( CAPTA. ) Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney concluded that under FERPA, the District cannot provide CFL with all the data it has requested without the consent of the students&apos; parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Lombard discussed the same provisions of state and federal law, but reached a different conclusion with respect to the data disclosures allowed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Will Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, violate FERPA if it releases all documentation, including an investigative report, which contains private education records/educational data regarding the student victim as well as witnesses, to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning, which is conducting an investigation of a maltreatment of minors report under Minnesota Statutes section 626.556?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Lombard asserted that the data in question are more correctly classified as personnel data on the alleged perpetrator under section 13.43. He stated: [e]ven if students&apos; names are on the investigative report, it is not a document that &apos;contains information directly related to a student.&apos; The student victim or the student-witnesses are not the subject of the investigative report, the alleged perpetrator is. Data about students are generally classified as private under both state and federal laws.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Without examining the data in question, the Commissioner cannot determine whether there is only one data subject, i.e., the alleged perpetrator, or whether some of the data are about District students. Given the nature of the allegation, it seems reasonable that the data are about multiple subjects. To the extent that the data are not data about students, then there is no conflict with federal law. Pursuant to a 2001 amendment to section 13.43, codified at subdivision 14:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When a report of alleged maltreatment of a student in a school facility, as defined in section 626.556, subdivision 2, paragraph (f), is made to the commissioner of children, families, and learning under section 626.556, data that are relevant to a report of maltreatment and are collected by the school facility about the person alleged to have committed maltreatment must be provided to the commissioner of children, families, and learning upon request for purposes of an assessment or investigation of the maltreatment report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the District, if it has not already done so, must provide data about the alleged perpetrator to CFL immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The remainder of this discussion is limited to the issues regarding release of student data. Data about students are generally classified as private under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, and FERPA (20 U.S.C. section1232g.) In the 2001 legislative session, section 13.32 was amended to require, upon request of the Commissioner of CFL, the dissemination of educational data to CFL for purposes of an assessment or investigation of a report of alleged maltreatment of a student as mandated by section 626.556. Under section 13.32, subdivision 3 (n), the data that must be disclosed to CFL include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) information regarding the student alleged to have been maltreated;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) information regarding student and employee witnesses;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) information regarding the alleged perpetrator; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(4) what corrective or protective action was taken, if any, by the school facility in response to a report of maltreatment by an employee or agent of the school or school district.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERPA does not provide a specific exception to the general rule prohibiting disclosure of private data about a student for the purposes of an assessment or investigation of a report of alleged maltreatment. CFL relies for its position, &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt;, on two opinion letters rendered by two federal offices: the Family Policy Compliance Office (&lt;em&gt;Letter to Ferguson&lt;/em&gt;), and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (&lt;em&gt;Letter to Schaffer&lt;/em&gt;), both part of the United States Department of Education. (The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) is responsible for investigating potential violations of FERPA, and providing technical assistance to schools, including providing oral and written interpretations of FERPA. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) develops and implements policy and legislation that directly affect disabled individuals and their families, and monitors related laws and regulations.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney state that those two letters address whether schools may disseminate education records only in connection with initial reports of suspected child abuse, not any later investigations. CFL takes the position that the letters address what kind of information and how much information can be disclosed pursuant to a child abuse or maltreatment investigation and not just initial mandated reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner believes it is reasonable, when asked to reconcile federal and state laws, to examine any relevant rulings from federal agencies. Upon examination, the Commissioner finds the &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Schaffer&lt;/em&gt; letters helpful. The &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; letter, in the first paragraph, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is in response to your inquiry . . . in which you ask if [FERPA] would preclude school districts in Texas from disclosing information from education records &lt;em&gt;in connection with investigations&lt;/em&gt; of alleged child abuse or neglect. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the second paragraph, the letter states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;You state that your law firm represents the San Antonio Independent School District (District) and that the District is concerned about disclosing education records to case workers from the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) &lt;em&gt;who come to schools to investigate&lt;/em&gt; child abuse allegations. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The letter discusses Texas Code section 552.114, which provides that student records are exempt from public disclosure except that such a record shall be made available on the request of . . . a person conducting a child abuse investigation required by Subchapter D, Chapter 261, Family Code. It then states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While FERPA does provide that an educational agency or institution may disclose education records without prior written consent under certain limited exceptions, none of these exceptions . . . applies to the disclosures required under this State law provision. Nevertheless, we believe that Texas&apos; mandatory reporting requirements found in section261.101 (a) of the Family Code that require release of information from a student&apos;s education records do not violate FERPA. Based on our review of Federal law, we have concluded that the conflict here is between two Federal laws rather than the Texas statute and FERPA. Further, we believe that when a conflict exists between two Federal laws, the later enacted Federal law must prevail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, at the outset, &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; appears to address the question of dissemination of data in connection with an investigation of alleged child abuse, but limits its conclusion to data disseminations in connection with mandatory reports. As to its applicability here, the Commissioner agrees with Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney, that &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; does not indicate that there is authority under FERPA for the District to provide CFL with the data requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Schaffer&lt;/em&gt; letter states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While FERPA does not specifically permit schools to disclose information from a student&apos;s education record to a child welfare agency if a student is a suspected victim of child abuse, we have advised schools that they may do so under [CAPTA.] Our review of CAPTA indicates that it is a later enacted, more specific Federal statute that conflicts with FERPA regarding the disclosure of information, and that Congress intended to override the privacy protections of FERPA when it enacted CAPTA. As a later enacted and more specific statute, we believe that CAPTA reflected congressional intent that &lt;em&gt;information specified in the statute be reported&lt;/em&gt; to child welfare agencies, notwithstanding FERPA&apos;s privacy provisions. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By this letter, OSERS is indicating that disseminations by school districts to child maltreatment investigators are contemplated by CAPTA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has been presented here with a dilemma that is not easily resolved. The Commissioner believes, as CFL has asserted, that it would make no sense for the law to allow schools to report the fact that an incident of alleged abuse occurred but then not allow the schools to disclose other pertinent information about the incident, to enable the authorities to conduct an investigation about the incident in the school. Nonetheless, that appears to be the conclusion that a strict interpretation of the law dictates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In situations such as these, the courts look to Congressional findings for assistance. Those findings in CAPTA, provide that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Congress desires a thorough, coordinated and comprehensive investigation of child maltreatment allegations;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Congress takes note that there is a burden on investigation due to strict laws regarding confidentiality, and while the privacy of child abuse records is important, these laws can end up protecting the perpetrators;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Therefore comprehensive and coordinated interagency communication needs to be established with adequate provisions to protect against public disclosure.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, CAPTA was enacted with knowledge of FERPA and of the fact that schools would need to disseminate data to investigators of alleged child maltreatment. Given the goals of CAPTA, Congress must have intended for greater disclosure than the mandated initial report. This conclusion is further supported by the analysis in the &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; letter that found that the potential conflict is between two federal laws. The conclusion reached by the FPCO in &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; that, based on &lt;em&gt;Watt v. Alaska&lt;/em&gt;, 451 U.S. 259, (1981), the two statutes must be read to give effect to each if that can be done while preserving both statutes&apos; sense of purpose. (See &lt;em&gt;Watt v. Alaska&lt;/em&gt;, 451 U.S. at 268.) When faced with a conflict between the purposes of FERPA and CAPTA, the FPCO stated its belief that Congress intended for the requirements of CAPTA to be followed rather than the protections against disclosure of student records found in FERPA. (See &lt;em&gt;Ferguson&lt;/em&gt; letter at page 7.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also acknowledges the following comments made by Mr. Lombard:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is notable that public school districts, such as Robbinsdale, have not interpreted FERPA to prevent them from providing to county social service agencies the same data now being requested by CFL as mandated by the 1999 and 2000 changes to Minn. Stat. section 626.556 and Chapter 13. It is common practice throughout the state of Minnesota for schools to work with county social services to comply with section 626.556 when the reported abuse occurs outside the school. The information provided by schools in such cases often includes information, such as that gathered in student interviews, social workers&apos; reports, school nurse reports, interviews of other students the abused child may have reported to (i.e., witnesses) and other school records. If schools were to apply the same interpretation of section 626.556 and FERPA as that asserted in [this] Opinion Request, it would mean that schools would no longer cooperate with county social service agencies in fully reporting the information needed to assess and investigate reported familial abuse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted by CFL, historically schools have cooperated with welfare investigators, including by providing educational data/education records. Furthermore, section 626.556, subdivision 10, authorizes child abuse investigators to conduct interviews on school property, and section 626.556, subdivision 4(a)(3), immunizes school officials from liability if they act in good faith. It appears that the only thing that has changed here is that it is CFL, not a county social service agency, that is doing the investigation. There is no reasonable basis for an argument that the dissemination of the same data historically provided to a county social service agency is not authorized to CFL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given all of the above, the Commissioner concludes that the District must disseminate to CFL the data in question, i.e., data that are relevant to a report of maltreatment, as specified in sections 13.32, subdivision 3 (n), and 626.556.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes that FERPA requires that if an educational agency or institution cannot comply with FERPA due to a conflict with State or local law, it must notify the Family Policy Compliance Office within 45 days. If the District has not notified the FPCO of this apparent conflict between FERPA and Minnesota statutes, it should do so immediately. Furthermore, because this is an issue of huge import not only to Minnesota but nationally, the Commissioner believes that the District should request an opinion from the FPCO.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also notes that both the District and CFL discussed why other FERPA exceptions allowing disclosure without consent either do or do not apply here. The Commissioner did not find those discussions helpful to the resolution of the main issue, and as such, has determined not to address those arguments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, will not violate FERPA if it releases, without parental consent, all documentation, including an investigative report, which contains private education records/educational data regarding the student victim as well as witnesses, to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning, which is conducting an investigation of a maltreatment of minors report under Minnesota Statutes section 626.556.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 7, 2002&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267881</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Release of education data to Dept of Education</Title><Id>267052</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Education</Title><Id>266712</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:28:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-096</Title><title>Opinion 01 096</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267724&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-12-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner respond appropriately to requests for access to public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 18, 2001; Blue Earth County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On October 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from John P. Borger, on behalf of his client the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Borger&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to D.D. Gremel, Blue Earth County Medical Examiner. The purposes of this letter, dated November 6, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On November 13, 2001, IPA received a response from Dr. Gremel. On November 14, 2001, IPA received a response from Ann E. Decker, attorney for Dr. Gremel in his capacity as a pathologist with privileges at Immanuel Joseph&apos;s Hospital in Mankato, Minnesota. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                This request involves issues surrounding the release of information in connection with the death on August 1, 2001, of Minnesota Vikings football player Korey Stringer. Mr. Borger wrote: [t]his was the first heat-related death in National Football League history, and [Stringer&apos;s] death attracted national attention. Dr. Dennis Gremel is the medical examiner for Blue Earth County. Dr. Gremel also is a pathologist at Immanuel St. Joseph&apos;s Hospital in Mankato, a private hospital. He performed the autopsy on Korey Stringer, although the death certificate signed on August 13, 2001, was signed by Dr. Wm. David Knowles, who coordinates care for the Vikings.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 According to Mr. Borger, shortly after Mr. Stringer&apos;s death, a &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; reporter contacted the Blue Earth County Attorney&apos;s office seeking information on any investigation of the death, and spoke with assistant county attorney Doug Sinclair. No information was forthcoming, so a &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; editor made a written request to Mr. Sinclair, asking for public data related to the death of Korey Stringer under section 13.832 [&lt;i&gt;sic&lt;/i&gt;].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 The &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; was directed by Dr. Gremel&apos;s office to Kevin Burns, the director of communications for Immanuel St. Joseph&apos;s Hospital, who refused to provide any data, and who stated that the data in the death certificate would not be released to the public until it was filed at the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Subsequently, the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s repeated requests were referred from the medical examiner&apos;s office, to the hospital, to the county attorney, and back to the medical examiner. At some point, Mr. Borger writes, Mr. Burns stated that there was no data to be released, because Dr. Gremel was not acting in his capacity as medical examiner, but rather as a private doctor. Dr. Gremel confirmed that position in a telephone call with the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. The death certificate was signed on August 13, 2001, and filed on August 20, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Borger stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Although the Requested Data eventually was provided, we believe that it was not provided in a timely fashion, and that the proper official (the medical examiner) did not release the Requested Data at all. Dr. Gremel&apos;s contention that he did not perform the autopsy as a public official is particularly troubling. In many locations outside the metropolitan areas of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth, county medical examiners serve part-time and maintain private practices in addition to their public duties. If Dr. Gremel is correct in his assertion that he did not have to provide the Requested Data because he performed the autopsy in his capacity as a private physician, there is a potential for widespread manipulation of the Data Practices Act to deprive the public of data which the Act provides shall be public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In connection with his discussion of the applicability of Minnesota Statutes, section 390.11, (which requires a coroner to investigate certain deaths, i.e., violent deaths, deaths under unusual or mysterious circumstances, deaths of persons whose bodies are to be cremated, and deaths of certain inmates), Mr. Borger stated that the circumstances of Mr. Stringer&apos;s death were sufficiently mysterious that Dr. Gremel, in his capacity as medical examiner, should have conducted an investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Dr. Gremel related that a team of doctors treated Mr. Stringer, and that [a] disease process was well established by this team of physicians. Dr. Gremel wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                After death, the physicians requested an autopsy from the family to assure the physicians that they did not miss any underlying process or opportunity to avoid the outcome in this case. . . . . This autopsy was performed as a medical autopsy, and not as a medical examiner autopsy. . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The next question is obvious. Why wasn&apos;t this considered to be a medical examiner case? . . . . The death of Mr. Stringer was presented to us in the laboratory as an autopsy requested by the attending physicians with a valid consent form signed by the family. There was no evidence of criminal activity. There was no unknown public health issue of concern, and the idea to assign the case as a medical examiner was not considered. The diagnoses were well established. The therapeutic interventions appeared appropriated [&lt;i&gt;sic&lt;/i&gt;] with no evidence of therapy misadventure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Decker wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A fundamental error in the Star Tribune&apos;s analysis is that the autopsy information at issue was data maintained by the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner. It was not. The autopsy information is private, privileged and confidential health information which cannot be released absent authorization from the patient or authorized representative. The Minnesota Data Practices Act is simply inapplicable in this setting.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her discussion of the operation of section 390.11, Ms. Decker stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Inherent in the statute is the judgement resting in the attending physician and certainly the coroner or medical examiner to determine which deaths fit the type described by statute . . . . In addition, the statute allows, and in fact directs, the exercises [&lt;i&gt;sic&lt;/i&gt;] of clinical judgement regarding when a death is, for example, unusual or mysterious. While a death may appear mysterious to a layperson, physicians or coroners/medical examiners may, and often do, apply their professional judgement and clinical knowledge to determine that a death is a result of clinical circumstances, and not &apos;violent&apos; or &apos;unusual or mysterious.&apos;
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner respond appropriately to requests for access to public government data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A person&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 are invoked when the person makes a request for access to government data to the responsible authority of the government entity that maintains the data. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (A): [f]or counties, each elected official of the county shall be the responsible authority for the official&apos;s office. An individual who is an employee of the county shall be appointed by the county board to be the responsible authority for any data administered outside the offices of elected officials.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Dr. Gremel related that he was appointed as the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner, because after the retirement of the elected County Coroner, no one stood for election as coroner, and Dr. Gremel was, at the time, the only pathologist living in the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Because Dr. Gremel is not an elected official of the County, the responsible authority for medical examiner data is the individual appointed by the County to be the responsible authority. The Commissioner was not provided information from Blue Earth that identifies that individual. Part of the problems the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; encountered with respect to a timely response from the County stem from the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s apparent failure to direct the request to the County&apos;s responsible authority, as well as the County medical examiner and attorney&apos;s offices failures to direct the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s request to the appropriate County responsible authority. The County&apos;s established data practices policies and procedures, which have been required to be in writing since January 1, 2001, should identify the County&apos;s responsible authorities, and provide a method for the County to direct a request to the appropriate responsible authority or appropriate designee, thus avoiding the confusion and delay that resulted in this case.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     There remains the question of whether the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; was entitled to gain access to any of the data it requested, at the time of its initial request. The official duties of a county coroner or medical examiner are governed by various provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 390. As noted above, section 390.11, subdivision 1, requires that deaths under certain circumstances be referred to a coroner or medical examiner. Mr. Borger contends that Mr. Stringer&apos;s death was sufficiently mysterious to trigger that requirement. According to Dr. Gremel and Ms. Decker, the Stringer case was never considered appropriate for review by the medical examiner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Borger&apos;s concern that in situations like this one, where the medical examiner is also a private physician, confusion may result with respect to the proper role for that individual to assume in a given case. Given the circumstances of this case, there was significant public interest in any information about Mr. Stringer&apos;s death. Had Dr. Gremel acted as the County&apos;s medical examiner, then the data the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested would have been public, under section 13.83, subdivision 2. However, section 390.11 grants the medical examiner the discretion to determine whether the circumstances of a death require investigation by the medial examiner. Dr. Gremel stated that the Stringer case did not trigger the requirements of section 390.11. That is his judgement to make. However, the Commissioner urges the County to review its policies so that should this kind of situation arise again, the County can better articulate to the public how the medical examiner/private physician roles are properly determined.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Borger raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Blue Earth County Medical Examiner and County Attorney should have referred the data request to the County&apos;s responsible authority. The data requested were not government data for purposes of Chapter 13, and therefore not subject to disclosure to the public.
                            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 18, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267724</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical examiner data</Title><Id>266449</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.83</Title><Id>379306</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Coroner data</Title><Id>379305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-095</Title><title>Opinion 01 095</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267977&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-12-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Dodge Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) respond appropriately to a September 17, 2001, request for the following data: copies of all public and private data that have been collected, created, maintained, or dispersed by the Dodge SWCD board, or Ratwik, Roszak &amp; Maloney, or DMG Maximus that relate to the requestor&apos;s job rating or job description?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 13, 2001; Dodge Soil and Water Conservation District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 30, 2001, IPA received a letter dated October 24, 2001, from Kathleen Loew. In her letter, Ms. Loew asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that the Dodge Soil and Water Conservation District maintains. At IPA&apos;s request, Ms. Loew clarified her opinion request in a letter dated November 6, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Gray, Chair of the District, in response to Ms. Loew&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 7, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Loew&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 26, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Ann Goering, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts according to Ms. Loew is as follows. Ms. Loew noted that in a letter dated September 17, 2001, addressed to Mr. Gray, she requested the following data: copies of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt;public and private data that has been collected, created, maintained, stored, or dispersed by the Dodge SWCD board, or Ratwik, Roszak Maloney, or DMG Maximus that relates to my job rating or job description.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Loew further wrote that she did not receive any response from the District. She also stated, When I asked for all the data relating to my most recent job rating that was adopted at the January 13, 2000, board meeting, I believe there is information that DMG Maximus used to put together this current job rating.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Loew asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Dodge Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) respond appropriately to a September 17, 2001, request for the following data: copies of all public and private data that have been collected, created, maintained, or dispersed by the Dodge SWCD board, or Ratwik, Roszak Maloney, or DMG Maximus that relate to the requestor&apos;s job rating or job description?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for data of which the requestor is the subject, the government entity must respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering made several assertions. One is that Mr. Gray did not receive a request for data. Ms. Goering wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The first notice of the alleged request Mr. Gray received was the letter dated November 7, 2001 from the Department of Administration, which he received the week of November 17. Now that the request has been received, Mr. Gray will respond to it....all of the data requested is public, and therefore a response will be made within a reasonable amount of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s second assertion is that under the Local Government Pay Equity Act job ratings are not related to the performance of the individual. Ms. Goering stated, Therefore, all materials related to the requestor&apos;s job rating and job description are public, not private data....In fact, such data is not data on individuals at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s final assertion is that records created and maintained by DMG Maximus and Ratwik, Roszak Maloney are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, the issue of whether or not Ms. Loew requested data on or about September 17 is a factual dispute the Commissioner cannot resolve. Ms. Loew states that she made a data request. Ms. Goering states that Mr. Gray was not aware of any data request until the week of November 17. However, now that the District confirms it has Ms. Loew&apos;s request it must respond according to the statute, i.e., within ten working days for any data of which Ms. Loew is the subject, and/or promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time for any data of which Ms. Loew is not the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the issue of whether data collected, created, maintained, etc., by DMG Maximus and/or Ratwik, Roszak, Maloney are subject to Chapter 13 depends on the contract that each of these parties has signed with the District. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267976&quot; title=&quot;01-092&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-092&lt;/a&gt;. Assuming the contracts went into effect or were amended after August 1, 1999, the following language applies:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; section 13.05, subdivision 11.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the contracts were in effect prior to August 1, 1999, certain data collected, created, maintained, etc., by DMG Maximus and/or Ratwik, Roszak Maloney may be subject to Chapter 13. However, the answer depends upon the applicability of certain statutory provisions (in Chapter 13) and whether certain language regarding Chapter 13 has been included in the contracts. The Commissioner urges the reader to review &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267976&quot; title=&quot;01-092&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-092&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Loew raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Dodge Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) responded appropriately to a September 17, 2001, request for the following data: copies of all public and private data that have been collected, created, maintained, or dispersed by the Dodge SWCD board, or Ratwik, Roszak Maloney, or DMG Maximus that relate to the requestor&apos;s job rating or job description. However, now that the District confirms receipt of the data request, it must respond as required by sections 13.03 and 13.04.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 13, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267977</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-094</Title><title>Opinion 01 094</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267077&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-12-10T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains: results of a soil test the County CDA had done as part of the process of evaluating a piece of land for purchase?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 10, 2001; Dakota County Community Development Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 31, 2001, IPA received an e-mail from Janet Shefchik, Personnel Officer for the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA). In her e-mail, Ms. Shefchik asked about the classification of certain data that the County maintains. In a follow-up e-mail, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her October 31, 2001, e-mail, Ms. Shefchik wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the process of evaluating a piece of land for purchase, the CDA had the soil tested for ground contamination. The soil test was paid for using federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies. In order to better understand the results of the test and possible ground contaminant findings, the CDA forwarded the test results to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (this was allowable under the purchase agreement). After learning more about what the results meant, the CDA ultimately elected not to purchase the property.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains: results of a soil test the County CDA had done as part of the process of evaluating a piece of land for purchase?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her e-mails, Ms. Shefchik asserted that the data in question are classified as not public pursuant to section 13.54, housing agency data. Subdivision 1 of section 13.54 defines housing agency as the public housing agency or housing and redevelopment authority of a political subdivision. Ms. Shefchik wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The CDA was previously the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, we changed our name to the Dakota County CDA as of January 1, 2000. The CDA is really a combination of functions, including housing and redevelopment, and community/economic development.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Shefchik pointed the Commissioner to Minnesota Statutes, section 383D.41. In part, subdivision 1 states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    There is created in Dakota County a public body corporate and politic, to be known as the Dakota county community development agency, having all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under sections 469.001 to 469.047; and all powers and duties of a county housing and redevelopment authority under any other provisions of Minnesota law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Shefchik also referenced subdivision 7 of section 383D.41, which states in part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In addition to the other powers granted in this section, the Dakota county community development agency shall have the powers of an economic development authority under sections 469.090 to 469.1081...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the language in section 383D.41, it appears that data the County CDA maintains are classified pursuant to section 13.54.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 4 of section 13.54 classifies as nonpublic the following data not on individuals that a housing agency maintains:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...all data pertaining to negotiations with property owners regarding the purchase of property. With the exception of the housing agency&apos;s evaluation of properties not purchased, all other negotiation data shall be public at the time of the closing of the property sale.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Shefchik wrote that the soil test was conducted as part of the County CDA&apos;s evaluation of whether or not to purchase a piece of land. As Ms. Shefchik noted, the County CDA ultimately did not purchase the property. The Commissioner&apos;s analysis is that the test data pertain to negotiations with property owners regarding the purchase of property. Therefore, the data are nonpublic.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The following data that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains are classified as nonpublic pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.54, subdivision 4: results of a soil test the County CDA had done as part of the process of evaluating a piece of land for purchase. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 10, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267077</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Housing agency data (13.54)</Title><Id>266584</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:25:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-093</Title><title>Opinion 01 093</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267156&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-12-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 277, Westonka, maintains: names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the subscribers to the District&apos;s electronic newsletter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 10, 2001; School District 277 (Westonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2013 the Legislature enacted 13.356 which classifies as private certain personal contact and online account information.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 5, 2001, IPA received a letter from Pamela Myers, Superintendent of School District 277, Westonka. In her letter, Superintendent Myers asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Superintendent Myers wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                westonka.news ...is published weekly during the school year by the school district. In its second year, it represents a way to reach interested readers with timely school district news, including breaking news, such as safety issues, school closings, or other urgent concerns.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The newsletter is available to anyone who wishes to subscribe. Subscribers are solicited in several ways, including school district publications, the school district Web site, and the local community newspaper. Only those who have voluntarily subscribed receive it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Superintendent Myers also wrote that when individuals subscribe, they do not identify themselves as parents, community members, or any other group. She noted, however:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Anecdotally, we know that many of the subscribers are parents of students in the Westonka Public Schools. We also know that the list includes retired employees, civic leaders..., the local librarian, a former school board member who has moved out of state, staff members at a local parochial school, local realtors, and other individuals. In the past, at least one subscriber was a prospective employee.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Superintendent Meyers asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 277, Westonka, maintains: names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the subscribers to the District&apos;s electronic newsletter? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Here, the District is producing an electronic newsletter. The District has collected the data in question because the subjects of the data wish to receive a copy of the newsletter. There is no provision in Chapter 13 or another statute that classifies these data as anything other than public. Therefore, the names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the subscribers are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Superintendent Myers noted that some of the subscribers happen to be parents of students who attend school in the District. If the District collected the names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of these individuals because they are parents, the data would be classified pursuant to section 13.32, educational data. However, the District collected and maintains the data because the individuals, who happen to be parents, wish to receive the electronic newsletter. The purpose of this data collection is to maintain a newsletter subscription list and not to collect data about individuals in their roles as parents. Therefore, section 13.32 does not apply.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Superintendent Meyers raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the subscribers to the District&apos;s electronic newsletter are public data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 10, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267156</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-092</Title><title>Opinion 01 092</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267976&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-11-26T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?
Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its July 12, 1993, Participation Agreement contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?
Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its August 8, 1998, Homebuyers Assistance Program contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 26, 2001; Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 26, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated same, from Steven Cross, President of the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association, Inc. (PPERRIA). In his letter, Mr. Cross asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding whether PPERRIA is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Cross wrote, PPERRIA and NRP [Neighborhood Revitalization Program]/MCDA [Minneapolis Community Development Agency] have a contractual relationship governed in this case by two contracts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The central issue is whether any PPERRIA data is subject to [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some argue that PPERRIA is not subject to [Chapter 13] because it is not:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) a government subdivision;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) performing privatized government functions; or
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) contractually required by the NRP/MCDA to follow [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Others argue that the act does apply to PPERRIA since:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) PPERRIA receives some public funds for general administration;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) has some involvement with NRP/MCDA loans of public funds under the program; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) the contract amendment of August 2000, should have included a provision binding PPERRIA under [Chapter 13], so it is presumed that the contract did include that provision.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cross stated that both the NRP and the MCDA are part of the government of the City of Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Cross asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its July 12, 1993, Participation Agreement contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its August 8, 1998, Homebuyers Assistance Program contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1, All state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems shall be governed by this chapter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;State agencies are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 17, to be the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Political subdivisions are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 11, to be any county, statutory or home rule charter city, school district, special district, any town exercising powers under chapter 368 and located in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision. Political subdivisions also may include nonprofit social service agencies under contract to a government entity. (Government entity means a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system - see section 13.02, subdivision 7a.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Statewide systems are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 18, to be any record keeping system in which government data is collected, stored, disseminated and used by means of a system common to one or more state agencies or more than one of its political subdivisions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Cross wrote that PPERRIA is a private non-profit Minnesota corporation under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A. Based on the above definitions, PPERRIA is not a state agency, a political subdivision, or a statewide system. Thus, the only other possible way in which PPERRIA could be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 is if it is under contract to a government entity. See Issues 2 and 3 for more discussion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its July 1, 1993, Participation Agreement contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Specific provisions of Chapter 13 provide that when a private person contracts with a government entity, data created, collected, maintained, etc., by the private person may become subject to Chapter 13 by virtue of the contractual relationship. On August 1, 1999, a new provision relating to contracts - section 13.05, subdivision 11 - went into effect. It states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the Participation Agreement went into effect in July of 1993, section 13.05, subdivision 11, does not apply. The Commissioner notes that the Agreement terminated on December 31, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to August 1, 1999, data collected or created because of a contract between a private person and a government entity could become subject to Chapter 13 in one of two ways: 1) If one of three relevant statutory provisions in Chapter 13 applied or 2) if language in the contract applied. One of the relevant contract provisions is section 13.05, subdivision 6. However, it applies only when the contract requires that the government entity make data on individuals available to the contracting party. The Commissioner has reviewed the Participation Agreement; it does not appear to contain any provision in which the MCDA/NRP would have supplied data on individuals to PPERRIA. Thus, it does not appear that section 13.05, subdivision 6, applies to the Agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another of the provisions relating to contracts between government entities and private persons - section 13.46, subdivision 5 (welfare data contracts) - does not apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The final provision is in section 13.02, subdivision 11. It states that when nonprofit social service agencies perform services under contract to a government entity, data related to the contractual agreement are subject to Chapter 13. This provision does not apply to the Agreement because PPERRIA is not a private social service agency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in his review of the Participation Agreement, the Commissioner did not find any specific clause referencing Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it appears that neither PPERRIA nor any of the data related to the July 1, 1993, Participation Agreement contract with the MCDA/NRP are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, via its August 8, 1998, Homebuyers Assistance Program contract with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding with any analysis, the Commissioner notes that the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract was amended twice: On January 11, 1999, and on September 8, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner first will address the original Homebuyers Assistance Program contract and the first amendment. As discussed above, prior to August 1, 1999, data at the center of a contract between a private person and a government entity could become subject to Chapter 13 in one of two ways: 1) If one of the relevant statutory provisions in Chapter 13 applied or 2) if language in the contract applied. In the case of both the &lt;em&gt;original contract&lt;/em&gt; (signed on August 8, 1998) and the &lt;em&gt;first amendment&lt;/em&gt; (signed on January 11, 1999), there is no language in the contract that subjects PPERRIA to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, given the nature of the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract, it appears that section 13.05, subdivision 6, does apply. In relevant part, this provision states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...in any contract between a governmental unit subject to this chapter and any person, when the contract requires that data on individuals be made available to the contracting parties by the governmental unit, that data shall be administered consistent with this chapter. A contracting party shall maintain the data on individuals which it received according to the statutory provisions applicable to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner finds at least two instances in which the MCDA is required, via the contract, to provide data on individuals to PPERRIA. One is in Exhibits A98 (original contract) and A98-2 (first amendment). The clause is the same in each exhibit and states, For these buyers, MCDA will send a certificate of income eligibility for the PPERRIA NRP coordinator. Another instance is in Exhibit B98. Number 10 of Other Duties and Responsibilities of the Minneapolis Community Development Agency states that the MCDA shall:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Submit monthly status reports to PPERRIA (to include the following data):
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Information on applicants being assisted (by name and address)
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Information on funds sent to title companies (by applicant name and address)
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Projects in progress (by name and address)
&lt;br /&gt;
d. Projects completed (by name and address)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it appears that any data on individuals the MCDA/NRP contractually was required to submit to PPERRIA during the time of the original Homebuyers Assistance Program contract (August 8, 1998, to January 11, 1999) and the first amendment of the contract (January 11, 1999, to September 8, 2000) must be administered consistent with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner notes that the other two statutory provisions relating to contracts between government entities and private persons (discussed in relation to Issue 2) do not apply in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Next, the Commissioner will discuss the second amendment of the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract, which the MCDA/NRP and PPERRIA entered into on September 8, 2000. As discussed in relation to Issue 2, when a private person and a government entity enter into a contract after August 1, 1999, and the private person is performing any of the entity&apos;s functions, all related data are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.) This provision applies even if the required language is not included as one of the contract terms. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon reviewing the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract, the Commissioner concludes that PPERRIA, via the contract, has been performing some of the MCDA&apos;s functions. For example, some of PPERRIA&apos;s duties include: developing program guidelines and supervising program implementation; marketing the program in the neighborhood and to real estate agencies; fielding questions on the program; ensuring that all properties are eligible for assistance; and verifying that applicants are eligible to receive loans/grants and that they meet and follow the Program Guidelines. Therefore, all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by PPERRIA in performing those functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner again stresses that the discussion above does not subject PPERRIA and all of its operations, generally, to Chapter 13. Only those data that pertain to the contractual relationships discussed are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is appropriate. In his opinion request, Mr. Cross wrote, The NRP unilaterally adopted the &apos;NRP Funding Agreement Guidelines&apos; (dated 11/14/94). It says that, &apos;State law requires that NRP contractors acting on behalf of the MCDA or other public entity comply with the Minnesota Data Practices act, when acting on behalf of a public entity.&apos; Based on this information, it appears that the NRP adopted some type of guideline. The Commissioner has not seen this guideline. However, the act of adopting a guideline does not, in and of itself, mean that the NRP has subjected its contractors to the provisions of Chapter 13. As discussed throughout this opinion, the data of a private person become subject to Chapter 13 by virtue of the contractual relationship between the private person and the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Cross raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) as a stand- alone entity is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Neither PPERRIA nor any of the data related to the July 12, 1993, Participation Agreement contract with the (Minneapolis Community Development Association (MCDA)/Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) are subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Regarding the original and first amendment of the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract between PPERRIA and the MCDA/NRP: any data on individuals the MCDA/NRP contractually was required to submit to PPERRIA must be administered consistent with Chapter 13.
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the second amendment to the Homebuyers Assistance Program contract: all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by PPERRIA in performing any of the MCDA/NRP&apos;s functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 26, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267976</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-091</Title><title>Opinion 01 091</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267503&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-11-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a request for data gathered in connection with the day care licensing process?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 26, 2001; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: This opinion has been edited to correct inaccuracies.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 9, 2001, IPA received a letter from Randy M. Lebedoff, an attorney for the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Lebedoff asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Lebedoff&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated October 8, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Lebedoff&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS&apos;s position. On October 26, 2001, IPA received a response from Kerri Stahlecker Hermann, Assistant Attorney General for DHS. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request, Ms. Lebedoff stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; wishes to research and write about the licensing process for daycare providers in Minnesota. It has requested certain public information from the Department of Human Services to aid in this study. Among the public data it has requested is the birthdate [ DOB ] of all persons who are licensed family childcare providers. These licensees are persons who operate family childcare businesses, often as the sole proprietors. Birthdate information is needed to reliably track publicly available data about individual proprietors. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lebedoff referenced Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, which governs the classification of licensing data in general. According to section 13.41, subdivision 1, [d]ata pertaining to persons or agencies licensed or registered under authority of the commissioner of human services shall be administered pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Lebedoff, DOB data are not specified in either section 13.46, subdivision 4 (b) or (c), which set forth certain categories of data that are either public or private. Therefore, she stated, the DOB data are presumptively public according to section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lebedoff further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In correspondence with the Star Tribune, [DHS] has taken the position that this DOB data is not public because it is &apos;welfare data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system&apos; citing Minn. Stat. 13.46 subd. 2(a), which makes such data private. However, the data the Star Tribune seeks is not data on an &apos;individual&apos; collected by the welfare system. It is data that has been specifically &lt;u&gt;excluded&lt;/u&gt; from the definition of &apos;individual&apos; by the terms of Minn. Stat. 13.46 subd.1 which states that a vendor of services is &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;an &apos;individual&apos; under the section. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Stahlecker Hermann stated that DHS takes the position that the DOB data are private. She stated that section 13.46 contains two default provisions, namely subdivisions 2 and 6. According to Ms. Stahlecker Hermann, subdivision 2 classifies data on individuals as private, unless otherwise provided by law or under certain enumerated conditions. Subdivision 6 classifies data not on individuals as public, except for certain enumerated types of data. Therefore, if there is no specific classification of a particular type of data, these default provisions apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Stahlecker Hermann, because the data in question are licensing data, i.e., data about a licensee that are maintained by DHS, section 13.46, subdivision 4, . . . must be examined. Subdivision 4(b) classifies certain specified data on licensees as public. Subdivision 4, parts (c) and (d) classify certain specified licensing data as private or nonpublic. None of those provisions, however, name the type of data at issue here. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the default provisions contained in subdivisions 2 and 6 of section 13.46.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Stahlecker Hermann stated that the data in question relate to individuals, and therefore the section 13.46, subdivision 2, default provision is applicable. She disagreed with Ms. Lebedoff&apos;s assertion that family day care providers are vendors of services. Ms. Stahlecker Hermann stated that such providers . . . although licensed by DHS are not paid by DHS for the services rendered to the children in their care, and are not under contract with DHS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Stahlecker Hermann also stated: [i]n section 13.46 the presumption is that data on individuals is private unless otherwise provided. This specific presumption alters the general presumption of the Government Data Practices Act, evidencing a legislative intent to provide special protection for welfare data as a matter of policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Lebedoff asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a request for data gathered in connection with the day care licensing process?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At issue here are data about child care licensees who are individuals, not corporations. Pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 1 (a), &apos;individual&apos; means an individual according to section 13.02, subdivision 8, but does not include a vendor of services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her discussion of whether a family day care provider is a vendor of services for purposes of section 13.46, Ms. Stahlecker Hermann discussed subdivision 3, which refers to [d]ata on persons, including data &lt;em&gt;on vendors of services and data on licensees&lt;/em&gt;, that is collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system in an investigation . . . . (Emphasis added.) According to Ms. Stahlecker Hermann:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By referencing both vendors of services and licensees, this language makes it evident that whatever a vendor of services is, it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; synonymous with a licensee - they are separate categories of persons. This is especially significant given the legislative history of that subdivision, which shows that the Legislature added the language &apos;and data on licensees&apos; in 1985. &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 293. Had the Legislature intended the phrase &apos;vendor of services&apos; to include licensees, there would have been no need to add the language about licensees in 1985. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question of the classification of DOB data about licensees, remains. The operation of section 13.46, subdivision 4, in this regard is somewhat ambiguous. This subdivision is confusing because clause (b) classifies specific data on licensees as public, and clauses (c) and (d) classify other specific licensing data as private or nonpublic. None of those provisions, however, includes DOB data. Ms. Lebedoff takes the position that the applicable default provision is the presumption that government data are public unless specifically classified otherwise, pursuant to section 13.03. Ms. Stahlecker Hermann asserts that the default provision of section 13.46, subdivision 2, classifying the data as private, applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Stahlecker Hermann, but acknowledges that this conclusion is not obvious. The Legislature has specified in section 13.46, subdivision 4, the data elements on licensees that are public, and clearly DOB data are not included. However, the Legislature has also specified in subdivision 4 the data elements on licensees that are not public, but did not include a default provision in this subdivision, from which the confusion arises. The Commissioner notes that the Legislature has examined and amended more than once the welfare licensing data provisions upon DHS&apos;s request. DHS might want to consider seeking an amendment to this language to clarify it, so that an analysis of the classification of data on licensees not specified at section 13.46, subdivision 4, is more straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Lebedoff is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, the Minnesota Department of Human Services responded appropriately to a request for data gathered in connection with the day care licensing process, by denying access to private date-of-birth data on licensees.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 26, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267503</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>267273</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Welfare data (13.46)</Title><Id>266953</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Daycare, child care provider</Title><Id>266743</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vendor</Title><Id>267026</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-090</Title><title>Opinion 01 090</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267594&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data: videotapes from the City of Watertown&apos;s municipal liquor store that are created on cameras maintained by a security service?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 2001; City of Watertown</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 5, 2001, the Commissioner received a letter dated October 3, 2001, from Kelly Dohm, an attorney representing the City of Watertown. In her letter, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. At IPA&apos;s request, Ms. Dohm submitted a clarifying letter dated October 9, 2001, that IPA received on October 16, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Dohm wrote that the City owns a municipal liquor store and that the store uses videotapes for surveillance. She stated, [t]here is an organization that provides security services to the City in setting up the cameras in the liquor store which takes the videotapes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                She further wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As I understand the security services role, the security service maintains the videotape equipment, but does not possess or hold the videotapes themselves. The videotapes are stored at the liquor store for a period of approximately 30 days after which time they are taped over. Although the security service maintains the videotape equipment in that it repairs the equipment when necessary in order for the videotapes themselves to record and run, the security service does not house the videotapes or collect them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Dohm asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data: videotapes from the City of Watertown&apos;s municipal liquor store that are created on cameras maintained by a security service?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no question that the videotapes are government data. They are data that the City of Watertown creates and maintains.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Ms. Dohm questioned whether the videotapes might be classified as not public pursuant to section 13.861, security service data. Section 13.861, subdivision 1(b), defines security service data as all data collected, created, or maintained by a security service for the purpose of providing security services. Here, although the security service maintains and presumably owns the video cameras, it is the City that directs the creation of the data on the tapes and is always in possession of the tapes. For these reasons, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the videotapes are not classified pursuant to section 13.861.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner notes there are other provisions of Chapter 13, that, depending upon the content or way in which the data on the videotapes are being used, could make portions of the tape(s) not public for specific purposes and for specific periods of time. However, given the facts of this case, none of those provisions apply.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, based on the presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, and absent any other relevant information from the City it appears that, in this case, the data on the videotapes are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Dohm raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, it appears that the following data are public: videotapes from the City of Watertown&apos;s municipal liquor store that are created on cameras maintained by a security service. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267594</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security service data (13.861)</Title><Id>266963</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Videotapes</Title><Id>266402</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T14:31:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-089</Title><title>Opinion 01 089</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266354&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-11-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Moose Lake Regional State Operated Services Policy # 24.6, Section IV, of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 6, 2001; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2, clauses (e) (4) and (f), were enacted in 2012, after this opinion was issued. Those provisions supersede the conclusion the Commissioner reached here.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 14, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion concerning his/her rights regarding a policy of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS&apos;s position. On October 24, 2001, IPA received a response from Noah Cashman, Assistant Attorney General for DHS. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X is a patient at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ( Program ) in Moose Lake. X disagreed with certain data in his/her treatment plan, and was informed that s/he could submit a written addendum that would be included in the record. X replied that s/he understood that the appropriate route to challenge data was through Commissioner O&apos;Keefe. S/he was advised that both options were available, and that the addendum option was the established practice of the Program. X located a copy of the Program policy in question, Policy # 24.6, Section IV, which states that data challenges may be submitted to the Program CEO, who will make a determination regarding the disputed data. If the patient disagrees with the CEO&apos;s determination, s/he may appeal to the Commissioner of Human Services within 60 days of notice.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Mr. Cashman made the following comments:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The issue that [X] asks Commissioner Fisher to address results from an error by the Program. After a review of Policy #24.6 in 1999, the Program decided it would not use the data challenge procedures set out in Section IV of the policy. It determined that the procedure specified in [the DHS] &lt;i&gt;The Key to Privacy&lt;/i&gt; brochure [a copy of which X had obtained from DHS] was the appropriate one for challenging the accuracy and completeness of data held by the Program. And that is, in fact, the procedure that is followed by the Program. Once it had determined that the data challenge procedures in Policy # 24.6 would not be followed, the Program should have revised the Policy to avoid any confusion as to what its accuracy and completeness procedures actually are. Program staff is now in the process of revising the Policy. The failure to issue a revised policy on accuracy and completeness challenges created confusion, and for this the Program apologizes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [X] is also apparently concerned that the treatment team offered him/her the option to immediately add an addendum to the challenged record in addition to submitting a written accuracy and completeness challenge to the Commissioner. The practical effect of such an addendum is that anyone referring to the challenged data before the Commissioner renders his decision would learn that the data is being challenged. In the event that the Commissioner upholds the challenge, the data would then be corrected and the addendum removed. If the challenge fails, the addendum would remain if the challenger continues to maintain that the data is inaccurate or incomplete.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This seems to be a fair and expeditious way to acknowledge that there is an existing dispute about the accuracy and completeness of certain data, and it is fully consistent with [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.] It is also consistent with [Minnesota Rules Part] 1205.0900(B), which requires the Commissioner to make good faith attempts to resolve administrative controversies over the agency&apos;s data practices.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Moose Lake Regional State Operated Services Policy # 24.6, Section IV, of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about him/her that a government entity maintains:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In order for a data subject to exercise his/her right to challenge data per section 13.04, subdivision 4, the data subject must follow the procedures outlined in statute and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. DHS has acknowledged that Moose Lake Regional State Operated Services Policy # 24.6, Section IV, is in error and is being corrected. Henceforth, data challenges will be handled by the Program in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, as specified in DHS&apos;s &lt;i&gt;The Key to Privacy&lt;/i&gt; brochure.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    With respect to Mr. Cashman&apos;s statements regarding the opportunity for a patient to place an addendum in his/her record, the Commissioner has the following comments. There is a clear obligation upon government entities under the statute to include the statement of disagreement with any disclosure of disputed data. Mr. Cashman is correct that allowing a Program patient to place an addendum in his/her file while a data challenge is pending is not in contravention of Chapter 13, as long as the inclusion of the addendum is in addition to providing a statement of disagreement, not in lieu of same. In fact, depending upon how DHS interprets the meaning of disclosure for purposes of section 13.04, subdivision 4, such practice may offer a data subject more rights than those provided under Chapter 13. For example, if access to disputed data by a Program staff person is not considered by DHS to be a data disclosure for purposes of this section, inclusion of the addendum with those data could inform a staff member who might not otherwise know that the data are under challenge. As long as DHS&apos;s practice complies with the essential process for challenging data, as provided at section 13.04, subdivision 4, the opportunity to include an addendum regarding disputed data is allowable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;DHS has acknowledged that Moose Lake Regional State Operated Services Policy # 24.6, Section IV, is in error and is being corrected. Henceforth, data challenges will be handled by the Program in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 6, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266354</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-088</Title><title>Opinion 01 088</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266876&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are Minnesota private/nonpublic schools government entities subject to Chapter 13 regulation and therefore subject to section 13.32, subdivision 5a?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 2001; Minnesota Catholic Conference</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 15, 2001, IPA received a letter dated October 12, 2001, from Peter Noll, Education Director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. In his letter, Mr. Noll asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that Minnesota private/nonpublic schools maintain.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Noll wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am requesting that you provide me with a written opinion relative to private/nonpublic schools, specifically, pertaining to [section 13.32, subdivision 5a] (miliary recruitment) and, generally, regarding the Minnesota Data [Practices] Act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Apparently there is consternation among some Minnesota private schools that have been led to believe that they are required by law to provide information to military recruiters.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Noll asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are Minnesota private/nonpublic schools government entities subject to Chapter 13 regulation and therefore subject to section 13.32, subdivision 5a?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1, All state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems shall be governed by this chapter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    State agencies are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 17, to be the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Political subdivisions are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 11, to be any county, statutory or home rule charter city, school district, special district, any town exercising powers under chapter 368 and located in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision. Political subdivisions may also include nonprofit social service agencies under contract to a government entity. (Government entity means a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system - see section 13.02, subdivision 7a).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Statewide systems are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 18, to be any record keeping system in which government data is collected, stored, disseminated and used by means of a system common to one or more state agencies or more than one of its political subdivisions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Private/nonpublic schools in Minnesota are not state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. Thus, the only other possible way in which such a school could be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 is if it is under contract to a government entity. The Commissioner assumes this is not the case and Mr. Noll did not provide any information indicating otherwise. Therefore, private/nonpublic schools are not subject to Chapter 13 and any of its provisions, including section 13.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Noll raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Generally speaking, Minnesota private/nonpublic schools are not subject to any of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, including section 13.32, subdivision 5a. If, however, a particular school is under contract to a government entity, the school may be subject to certain provisions of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 31, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266876</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private schools</Title><Id>266875</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-087</Title><title>Opinion 01 087</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267338&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Mounds View respond appropriately to data requests made on August 7 and August 29, 2001?
Is the City of Mounds View required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to make copies of its written public access procedures easily accessible, either by distributing free copies to the public or by posting a copy?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 25, 2001; City of Mounds View</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 24, 2001, IPA received two letters, dated September 21 and 24, 2001, from X regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the City of Mounds View maintains. After conversations between X and IPA staff it was determined that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on the matters listed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kathleen Miller, Administrator of the City, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 3, 2001, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 16, 2001, IPA received a response, dated October 15, 2001, from Julie Fleming-Wolfe, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. In letters dated August 7 and August 29, 2001, X requested access to various types of data. In the August 7 letter, X, asked to inspect:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. All reports, bills, notes, emails, correspondence, and other any documents between Springsted, Inc. and its representatives from 1999 to present.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. All notes, reports, motions, resolutions, ordinances, and other documentation approving and/or appointing a fiscal or financial consultant for the City of Mounds View and for the Mounds View Economic Development Authority, from 1996 to present.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. All correspondence with or from Dan Coughlin from 1998 through the present (Note: individual was elected Mayor in November 1998 and served as mayor until December 2000, and serves as the Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission in 2001).
&lt;br /&gt;
4. All notes, reports, emails, correspondence, and any other correspondence between Kern, DeWinter, and Vierre, Ltd and its representatives from 1999 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. All correspondence, reports, emails, etc. with any other Audit/Accounting firm and/or Independent Audit/Accounting firm regarding any and all matters from 2000 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
6. All performance appraisals and/or documents referring to my performance from 1996 to present.
&lt;br /&gt;
7. All just and correct claims reports (name of report may be slightly different) that are submitted to the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting, and approved and signed by the Mayor and Clerk-Administrator, from 1999 through the present. Note: information should include the report, signed cover sheet, and any other resolution/documentation.
&lt;br /&gt;
8. Any notes, reports, contracts, motions, resolutions, etc. between caterers, managers, etc. at the City&apos;s Community Center/Banquet Center, including but not limited to Elegant Thymes Catering.
&lt;br /&gt;
9. Any notes, reports, contracts, emails, agendas, minutes, and other documentation relating to any form of managing or overseeing the banquet center at the Community Center from 1996 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
10. All correspondence, including but not limited to notes and reports, that document the quality and/or level of work expected of the City&apos;s Finance Director, from 1990 to present.
&lt;br /&gt;
11. All notes, emails, reports, agendas, minutes, resolutions, and any other correspondence relating to budget reports, variance reports, or requests thereof, from 1996 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
12. All notes, emails, reports, agendas, minutes, resolutions, and any other correspondence relating to financial reports and/or summaries, or requests thereof, from 1996 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
13. All campaign reports, financial disclosure reports, reports/statements of financial interest, and any other similar statement/report for all elected officials, members of all boards and commissions, and the Clerk-Administrator, from 1998 to present.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the August 29 letter, X requested the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Any and all disciplinary action taken by any individual or Council Member/Mayor in the City of Mounds View against any and all employees including notes, reports, etc. from 1998 to the present.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Advance notice and copy of agenda for all City Council meetings, special meetings, work sessions, retreats, and any and all committees thereof, including dates, times and locations.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Any and all information relating to candidates for the Finance Director position (or similarly titled position), including but not limited to:
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Name, address and phone number of candidates;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Summary of phone calls, copies of letters, notes, interviews, etc. that are conducted, including but not limited to interviews, notes, possible employment offers, etc., as well as preliminary summary of such activity and follow up summary of any proposed action or actual action taken.
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Any meetings of staff, human resources committee, City Council, or committees of the City Council where the position or individuals for such position are discussed (including dates and times).
&lt;br /&gt;
d. Any offers that are made to any individual for such position including the terms thereof.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 14, 2001, Ms. Miller advised X that the data X requested on August 7, 2001, were available for X&apos;s review. She asked X to call for an appointment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X wrote that s/he left a message for Ms. Miller on September 17. Receiving no response, X left another message on September 19 and advised Ms. Miller that s/he would be at City Hall on September 21 to inspect the data unless X heard otherwise. Hearing nothing, X went to City Hall on the 21st, and was advised by other staff that no data were available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 19, 2001, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe wrote to X&apos;s attorney, Ann Walther. In her letter, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please advise your [client] that any contact with City employees or officials on matters related to [his/her] current dispute with the City should be made through [his/her] own and/or the City&apos;s attorney. All correspondence, including any requests for information, should be directed to me, and not the city administrator or the individual council members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Mounds View respond appropriately to data requests made on August 7 and August 29, 2001?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the City of Mounds View required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to make copies of its written public access procedures easily accessible, either by distributing free copies to the public or by posting a copy?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Mounds View respond appropriately to data requests made on August 7 and August 29, 2001?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for data of which the requestor is the subject, the government entity must respond within 10 working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s] August 29 request, as with [his/her] August 7 request, was sent to the City after [X] filed a Petition for review with BMS. In that proceeding, [X is] represented by an attorney, Ann Walther....Because [X was] represented by counsel who had filed actions on [X&apos;s] behalf with BMS, I wrote to their attorney and asked that all direct contact with my clients (the City) cease, and that any requests for information or contact with my clients be made through their attorney....I informed Ms. Walther that the City would not be responding to requests for data that had been made after the petitions had been filed with BMS, with the exception of the August 7, 2001 request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Fleming-Wolfe also wrote that when X arrived at City Hall on September 21 to inspect the data Ms. Miller originally said would be available, City staff advised X that X should contact his/her attorney. Ms. Fleming-Wolfe stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] did not contact me to arrange a time to review the documents until Friday, October 12, 2001. I informed [X] of my availability for [X&apos;s] review of the documents, and [X] informed me that [s/he] would call me this week to schedule a time to review them. As of the date of this letter, I have not yet heard back from [X].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to make requests through his/her attorney. Nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to hire an attorney, and incur the resulting expense, so that the attorney can make requests on behalf of the person. Thus, given that the language in Section 13.03 describes a process by which an &lt;u&gt;person&lt;/u&gt; can make requests directly to a government entity, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Legislature did not contemplate a government entity creating procedures which would effectively result in the following: that a request for access to public data by a person would trigger a letter to the person&apos;s attorney advising the attorney to advise his/her client that the client could make requests for public data only through her/his attorney. Such a result contradicts the Legislative policy behind Chapter 13 of making public government data easily and promptly accessible to members of the public. (See Section 13.03.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, it was not appropriate for the City to require X to make data requests through his/her attorney. X has the right to make data requests and to have those requests responded to by the City. Second, if the City has not yet provided data responsive to X&apos;s August 7 and 29 requests, it should do so immediately given that X made those requests between eight and eleven weeks ago. If the City does not understand parts of X&apos;s requests, it should seek specific clarification. If some of the requested data are classified such that they cannot be released to X, the City must so inform X. If some of the requested data do not exist, the City should so inform X. Finally, given that Ms. Fleming-Wolfe stated that she can facilitate X&apos;s review of the data X requested on August 7, X should contact her to arrange a convenient time for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the City of Mounds View required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to make copies of its written public access procedures easily accessible, either by distributing free copies to the public or by posting a copy?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Fleming-Wolfe wrote, There is no question but that the City is required by Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to make copies of its written public access procedures easily accessible by distributing free copies to the public or by posting a copy. This is precisely what the City has done, as [X] is fully aware.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She further wrote, A copy of the City&apos;s policy...was provided to [X] in connection with numerous other requests for data under the Data Practices Act in June 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges to the best of my knowledge that the City has neither posted the policy nor provided free copies. The City asserts that it previously provided X with a copy of the policy. If the City has not yet provided X with a copy of the policy, X should ask for a copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is appropriate. By providing X with a copy of the policy, the City has not necessarily fulfilled the requirement set forth in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). The statute requires that the City either post a copy of the policy or distribute free copies to the public. The Commissioner&apos;s interpretation of this provision is that the City must take a proactive measure to make its policy available to all members of the public. One option is to post a copy. Other options include having copies available at the main reception desk or publishing the policy in a newsletter or web site. If the City has not yet done one of these things, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Mounds View did not respond appropriately to data requests made on August 7 and August 29, 2001.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City of Mounds View is required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to make copies of its written public access procedures easily accessible, either by distributing free copies to the public or by posting a copy.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 25, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267338</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-086</Title><title>Opinion 01 086</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267086&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge an individual $4 per page to scan a copy of a document? (The individual will bring his own scanner to the office.)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge a fee for an individual to inspect data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 24, 2001; Le Sueur County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 13, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated September 2, 2001, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to data that the Le Sueur County Sheriff maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Gliszinski, Le Sueur County Sheriff, in response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 21, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s office&apos;s position. On October 3, 2001, IPA received a response, dated October 1, 2001, from Sheriff Gliszinski.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Quiram are as follows. Mr. Quiram wrote that staff in the Sheriff&apos;s office, expects to charge me $4.00 per page for every page I pass across my scanner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Quiram also wrote that Sheriff&apos;s office staff have insisted that financial charges will be leveled because it will take an extensive amount of &apos;administrative research&apos; to retrieve the data I am requesting to review.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge an individual $4 per page to scan a copy of a document? (The individual will bring his own scanner to the office.)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge a fee for an individual to inspect data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge an individual $4 per page to scan a copy of a document? (The individual will bring his own scanner to the office.) &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski wrote, The Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Department does not charge a fee to an individual for scanning public data if that individual brings their personal scanner. (Nor would we deny that individual an electrical outlet to use such equipment.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, an individual is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of government data. There is no provision, however, in Chapter 13 that provides guidance on how to handle a case in which the requestor uses his/her own scanner to make copies of the data. Therefore, the Commissioner urges a common sense solution. He finds this situation akin to the requestor inspecting the documents. The government entity is not required to provide paper or labor for staff to make the copies. Thus, it does not seem reasonable for the entity to assess any charge. The Commissioner adds, though, that if an individual were to scan an unusually large number of documents, e.g., for days at a time, it seems reasonable for the government entity to recoup some cost for electricity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, it would not be appropriate for the Sheriff to charge Mr. Quiram $4 per page for him to scan government data. However, the Sheriff states that he does not charge a fee to someone scanning documents on their own scanner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge a fee for an individual to inspect data?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When an individual requests access to data of which s/he is not the subject, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3.) When an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the individual shall be shown the data without any charge. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski wrote, The Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Department does not charge a fee for the inspection of public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s only comment is that if Mr. Quiram is the subject of any private data that the Sheriff&apos;s office maintains, Mr. Quiram would be entitled to inspect those data free of charge, as well as any public data he wished to inspect.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is not appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge an individual $4 per page to scan a copy of a document. (The individual will bring his own scanner to the office.) However, the Sheriff states that his office does not charge a fee to an individual scanning documents on their own scanner.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is not appropriate for the Le Sueur County Sheriff to charge a fee for an individual to inspect government data. However, the Sheriff states that his office does not charge a fee to inspect public data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 24, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267086</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal electronic device used</Title><Id>266888</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-085</Title><title>Opinion 01 085</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267387&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to May 31, 2001, and June 13, 2001, requests for access to public government data?
Is Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 11, 2001; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 25, 2001, IPA received a letter from Michael P. Herbst. In this letter, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of the response he received from Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, to a request for public data. Mr. Herbst also asked the Commissioner to address the issue of the District&apos;s compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, concerning the appointment of a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 1, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 9, 2001, IPA received a response from Gloria B. Olsen and Kimberly H. Boyd, attorneys for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an email dated April 19, 2001, Mr. Herbst wrote to Mark Wolak, Assistant Superintendent of the District, asking to inspect operational expenses for the past five years. In his email, Mr. Herbst indicated that it was his understanding that Mr. Wolak was acting as the responsible authority for the District and that if this was not the case, that his request be forwarded to the responsible authority. On April 23, 2001, Mr. Wolak acknowledged Mr. Herbst&apos;s request, would determine the responsible authority and work to find the data that had been requested. On April 24, 2001, Mr. Wolak sent an email to Mr. Herbst requesting that he clarify his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 25, 2001 Mr. Herbst clarified his requests to be (1) the identity of the point person in charge of data dissemination for the district, (2) expenses for the last five years (identified by fiscal year) for District (Second) Level Operational Costs and, First Level Operational Costs as identified in the District Report entitled 1997-98 Operating Budget Task Force - Report of the Task Force to the Superintendent dated March 14, 1997. Data were provided to Mr. Herbst in a meeting on May 15, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 31, 2001, Mr. Herbst sent an email to Mr. Wolak asking for ...Expenditures for fiscal year 95-96 in the same format that was provided at the meeting. On June 13, 2001, Mr. Herbst sent another email to Mr. Wolak requesting inspection of the 1995-1996 operational expenses. The District provided the data to Mr. Herbst on July 23, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response on behalf of the District, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd indicate that the data for the 1995-1996 operational expenditures did not exist and had to be created.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the designation of a responsible authority for the District, Mr. Herbst asked for the identity of the responsible authority in his emails of April 19, 2001 and April 25, 2001. Mr. Wolak&apos;s email of April 24, 2001 indicates that he will be handling the response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request but does not specifically state that he is the responsible authority for the District. In the District&apos;s response, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd indicate that Mr. Wolak acted as the responsible authority at the time of Mr. Herbst&apos;s response. They did not indicate if there is a responsible authority currently designated for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to May 31, 2001, and June 13, 2001, requests for access to public government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to May 31, 2001, and June 13, 2001, requests for access to public government data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data Mr. Herbst requested from the District are public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. Therefore, the District needs to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300. The question then becomes whether a delay from May 31, 2001 to July 23, 2001 is appropriate, prompt and within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Herbst asked for the 1995-96 data to be produced in a specific format. In its response, the District indicates that it did not have the data in that format. It chose to organize the data into the format requested by Mr. Herbst before producing it. The District explained its delay by stating that it was in the process of hiring a superintendent, completing the budget process, and the two people responsible for responding took vacation time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) that requires a government entity to produce data in a format that it does not have. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267323&quot; title=&quot;01-001&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-001&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266578&quot; title=&quot;01-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267945&quot; title=&quot;01-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-011&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267507&quot; title=&quot;01-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-012&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267733&quot; title=&quot;01-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-025&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267326&quot; title=&quot;00-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-008&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267776&quot; title=&quot;00-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267600&quot; title=&quot;00-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-048&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266952&quot; title=&quot;00-57&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-057&lt;/a&gt;. The appropriate response here should have been for the District to inform Mr. Herbst in a timely manner that the data were not available in the format that he had requested. The District did not do that. It does not appear that the District communicated at all with Mr. Herbst between June 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 concerning his request. This is not an appropriate, prompt or reasonably timely response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the District chose to organize the data into the format requested by Mr. Herbst, they had an obligation to provide the data within a reasonable period of time. A delay of 8 weeks to provide public data does not seem to be a reasonable period of time and so the District did not respond appropriately to Mr. Herbst&apos;s requests of May 31, 2001 and June 13, 2001. The reasons given for the delay, while presenting practical inconveniences to the District, are not supported in the law as justification for a failure to respond in a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2. Is Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16 requires each government entity to appoint a responsible authority. The responsible authority is an employee responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of government data maintained by the government entity. In the case of a school district, the school board needs to designate the responsible authority. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 14, subparagraph C. A form resolution for the appointment can be found at Minnesota Rules, section 1205.2000, subpart 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The responsible authority is the position that ensures compliance with the MGDPA, assures that citizens and subjects of data have appropriate access to government data and that data are maintained in a manner that is easily accessible for convenient use. The District indicates that at the time Mr. Herbst made his data request, Mr. Wolak ...acted as the designee or responsible authority.... From the District&apos;s response, it appears that it is not certain what role Mr. Wolak was playing. Appointment of a responsible authority is a requirement of the MGDPA. If Mr. Wolak was, in fact, the responsible authority for the District at the time of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request, the District did not provide this data to Mr. Herbst in response to his request. This failure to respond to a data practices request is not appropriate or in compliance with the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the District has not indicated, who, if anyone, has been appointed by the School Board to be the responsible authority for the District now. Therefore, the District may not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13, Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, did not respond appropriately to May 31, 2001 and June 13, 2001, requests for access to public government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, may not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 11, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267387</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment required</Title><Id>267059</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-084</Title><title>Opinion 01 084</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267149&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Blaine respond appropriately to a request for the following data: the locations of National Night Out parties?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 9, 2001; City of Blaine</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The legislature changed the definition of &quot;security information&quot; in 2012  to include a requirement that entities make a determination to designate data as security information. Also, after this opinion, the legislature amended section 13.37 to add the language in subdivision 3, classifying the locations of National Night Out events as public.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 24, 2001, IPA received a letter dated August 22, 2001, from Don Betzold, a Minnesota State Senator. In his letter, Senator Betzold asked that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Blaine maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Fraser, Manager of the City of Blaine, in response to Senator Betzold&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 29, 2001, were to inform him of Senator Betzold&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 7, 2001, IPA received a response, dated September 4, 2001, from David Johnson, Safety Services Manager/Chief of Police for the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Senator Betzold wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I asked the Blaine Police Department for a list of National Night Out parties in the city of Blaine so that I could visit constituent block parties. My request was denied on the ground that the information was not public. When I inquired as to the specific ground for the denial, I received [a letter] from the Blaine Police Chief citing Minnesota Statutes section 13.37, subd. 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...I disagree with his interpretation of that statute. I believe that section applies to organized neighborhood Watch programs. National Night Out parties are not limited to Watch participants, and nothing in the National Night Out program requires the disclosure of Watch volunteers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chief Johnson&apos;s interpretation, with which Senator Betzold disagrees, is that the requested data cannot be disclosed because Blaine&apos;s National Night Out parties are held in Neighborhood Watch Group areas with Neighborhood Watch Group volunteers participating. Chief Johnson&apos;s position is that section 13.37, subdivision 2 prohibits disclosure of specific Neighborhood Watch Group data and that these are the data that Senator Betzold had requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kummer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Blaine respond appropriately to a request for the following data: the locations of National Night Out parties?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 2, security information is not public data. Of relevance to this opinion is the last sentence of subdivision 1(a), which defines security information as crime prevention block maps and lists of volunteers who participate in community crime prevention programs and their home addresses and telephone numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Chief Johnson wrote that Senator Betzold&apos;s initial request for data differs slightly from the issue he asked the Commissioner to address in an opinion. Chief Johnson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The specific request for information on August 8, 2001 which was denied was for names and addresses of National Night Out &lt;strong&gt;hosts&lt;/strong&gt;. In Blaine, all of the National Night Out hosts are members of organized Neighborhood Watch groups which are components of Blaine&apos;s community crime prevention program. The denial of that information was based on Minnesota Statute Section 13.37 General Nonpublic data , Subdivision 1(a) which includes in the definition of Security Information crime prevention block maps and lists of volunteers who participate in community crime prevention programs and their home addresses and telephone numbers....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The nature of the information that is the center of the request for a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion seems to be a variation of the information requested by Senator Betzold&apos;s in his August 8th letter. That is, should the City of Blaine provide the location of National Night Out parties upon request as information classified as Public ....All of the National Night Out parties take place in organized crime watch neighborhoods with all of the adult participants being volunteer members who participate in that community crime prevention program. The parties themselves are held in the residence or yard of one of the neighborhood members...It is also clear, though, that the National Night Out parties are a specific program and that the participants in National Night Out are volunteers participating in a community crime prevention program. We found ourselves in the position that if we disclosed the location of a National Night Out party we would be disclosing the name and address of a member of a Neighborhood Watch Group which is nonpublic and/or private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 13.37, classify as private lists of volunteers who participate in community crime prevention programs, and their home addresses and telephone numbers. Here, Chief Johnson has stated that regardless of whether Senator Betzold&apos;s request was for the names and addresses of National Night Out party hosts or for the location of National Night Out parties, the data are not public. Chief Johnson wrote that in either case, releasing names and addresses or only addresses, respectively, would reveal information about volunteers who participate in community crime prevention programs. The Commissioner concurs with the City&apos;s position on this matter. Therefore, the data Senator Betzold requested are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Senator Betzold raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Blaine did respond appropriately to a request for the locations of National Night Out parties. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivisions 1 and 2, the data are not public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 9, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267149</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-083</Title><title>Opinion 01 083</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267374&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the Clay County Sheriff a &quot;public official&quot; for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)?
For purposes of classifying data, does section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), apply only to state government entities, or also to local government entities?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 8, 2001; Clay County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2021, the legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2 to add clause (e)(4) and paragraph (f) about local public officials.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 23, 2001, IPA received a letter dated same from Ann Goering, an attorney representing the Clay County Sheriff&apos;s Office. In her letter, Ms. Goering asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains. In a letter dated August 31, 2001, IPA invited Michael Rengel, an attorney representing Clay County, to submit comments. In a letter dated September 7, 2001, Mr. Rengel stated that he had no additional questions. He did not submit comments to the issues that Ms. Goering raised.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Goering wrote, A question has been raised regarding the public&apos;s right to access the nature of a complaint against the Sheriff that did not result in a disciplinary action. She also wrote, There continues to be a question as to the applicability of Minn. Stat. section 13.43 Subd 2(e) as to whether elected county department heads are public officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Ms. Goering asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the Clay County Sheriff a public official for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;For purposes of classifying data, does section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), apply only to state government entities, or also to local government entities?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the Clay County Sheriff a public official for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (5), upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources. For purposes of this paragraph, public official means:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1)the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) members of boards or commissions required by law to be appointed by the governor or other elective officers; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) executive or administrative heads of departments, bureaus, divisions, or institutions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature originally enacted part of this section in 1995. At that time, the definition of public official was the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant agency heads. (See Minnesota Laws 1995, Chapter 259, Article 1, Section 7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 1996, the Legislature amended the provision by adding the language in clauses (2) and (3). (See Minnesota Laws 1996, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 10.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA staff attended and testified at the Legislative hearings in 1995 and 1996 during which discussions about section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) occurred. There is no question that this provision applies only to state agencies, which are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 17, as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. The Legislature considered including local levels of government but did not do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), the Clay County Sheriff is not a public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For purposes of classifying data, does section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), apply only to state government entities, or also to local government entities?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed regarding Issue 1, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), applies only to state agencies as that term is defined in section 13.02, subdivision 17. It does not apply to local government entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Goering raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Clay County Sheriff is not a public official for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;For purposes of classifying data, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(3), applies only to state government entities. It does not apply to local government entities.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 8, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267374</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official</Title><Id>267210</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-23T20:14:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-082</Title><title>Opinion 01 082</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266342&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-05T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225, did Martin County respond appropriately to a July 23, 2001, request to review birth records?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 5, 2001; Martin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 13, 2001, IPA received a letter dated August 9, 2001, from Richard Bolster. In his letter, Mr. Bolster asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that Martin County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kay Wrucke, Recorder of the County, in response to Mr. Bolster&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 14, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Bolster&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On August 30, 2001, IPA received a response, dated August 24, 2001, from Ms. Wrucke.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Mr. Bolster is as follows. On July 23, 2001, Mr. Bolster went to the Recorder&apos;s Office at the County Court House and inquired about the procedures for reviewing birth records. Mr. Bolster related that the deputy clerk advised him that he could not review birth records and that they were not public. Mr. Bolster wrote, The deputy continued that if there were specific information that I wanted from the birth records, she would have to review the birth records and give me the information if she is allowed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Bolster continued, I believe &apos;birth records&apos; meets Minnesota Status [sic] 144.225, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Status [sic] 13.02, Subdivision 15 are public records that can be personally reviewed upon request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                He added, Minnesota Status [sic], 144.225, Subdivision 2 specifically states that birth records meeting those facts are &apos;confidential.&apos; I believe that the Martin County Recorder is filing birth records in such a manner that &apos;public&apos; and &apos;confidential&apos; are together.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bolster asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225, did Martin County respond appropriately to a July 23, 2001, request to review birth records?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Before proceeding, the following note is appropriate. Certain birth data are private or confidential. However, for purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes that Mr. Bolster&apos;s request involves only those birth data that are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates access to government data. Birth records that a County maintains are government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for data of which he is not the subject, that individual shall be permitted to inspect and copy the data at reasonable times and places.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, however, there is an additional statutory provision that applies to vital records. Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Except as otherwise provided for in this section and section 144.1761 [adoption records], information contained in vital records shall be public information. Physical access to vital records shall be subject to the supervision and regulation of state and local registrars and their employees pursuant to rules promulgated by the commissioner in order to protect vital records from loss, mutilation or destruction and to prevent improper disclosure of records which are confidential or private data on individuals, as defined in section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (The Commissioner reviewed Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4601, and did not find anything directly relating to the issues of this opinion.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Wrucke wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The birth data filed in our office is filed with confidential or private birth reports combined. There are also seal [sic] birth names revealed on the record and indexes. They are filed in ledger format in many of the books and various other formats in other books. The indexes [sic] also reveal confidential information. The costs to convert the records to other formats would be astronomical to Martin County taxpayers.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We state immediately to our customers that we have confidential records combined in the books. It has always been the policy of our office to search for birth information for anyone. We refer you to MS 114.225 [sic - the Commissioner assumes Ms. Wrucke meant Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    By enacting section 144.225, the Legislature gave state and local registrars authority to supervise and regulate physical access to vital records. However, nothing in section 144.225 negates the County&apos;s obligations under Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.03, the County is required to provide public birth record data to Mr. Bolster. However, pursuant to sections 13.02 and 13.04, the County also is obligated to protect from disclosure those data that are private or confidential data. Further, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the County is required to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Ms. Wrucke appears to be asserting that in the County, the data at issue are recorded/maintained in such a way that an individual viewing public data could also view private and/or confidential data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On its face, section 144.225 appears to say that state and local registrars have total authority to determine physical access to vital records. However, section 144.225 must be read in concert with the public access requirements of Chapter 13. This means that, to the extent possible, individuals be given physical access to public data. If this is not possible, then the way in which Martin County allows access to public data is up to the County, as long as it fulfills its obligations to make public data accessible, to physically protect those data, and to prohibit release of private and/or confidential data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear whether Mr. Bolster is asking to browse all public birth records or whether he is asking for information on a specific individual(s). In either case, if it is possible for the County to physically separate the public data from the not public data, it should do so. If this is not possible, the Commissioner has the following suggestions. One is for the County to photocopy the page(s) Mr. Bolster wishes to review and then to redact the not public data from the photocopy(s). Another suggestion is for the County to develop some type of template it could place over the not public data but which would expose the public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Bolster raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, if Martin County is able to physically separate public birth record data from private/confidential birth record data, it should do so to respond to Mr. Bolster&apos;s request. If separation is not possible, it is up to Martin County to determine how to provide the data to Mr. Bolster. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 5, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266342</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Vital records</Title><Id>266341</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-081</Title><title>Opinion 01 081</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267626&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may Independent School District 194, Lakeville, provide to the Lakeville Police Department, in connection with a report of a possible crime, the following data, without consent of the data subject or a court order: (a) the name(s) of the employee(s) who it suspects of wrongdoing, and (b) information provided by employees during the District&apos;s investigation with the name(s) of the employee(s) who provided the information?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 5, 2001; School District 194 (Lakeville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 15, was enacted in 2002, after this opinion was issued. It supersedes the conclusion the Commissioner reached here&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 16, 2001, IPA received a letter from Maggie R. Wallner and Kimberly Hewitt Boyd, attorneys representing Independent School District 194, Lakeville. In this letter, Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the dissemination of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Wallner, the District conducted an investigation of an employee (or employees) whom it suspected of wrongdoing. Other District employees provided the District with information during the course of its investigation. The only other detail Ms. Wallner provided regarding the nature of the allegations was that the District made a report to the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 609.456. Ms. Wallner further stated that the District plans to make a report of a possible crime to the Lakeville Police Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may Independent School District 194, Lakeville, provide to the Lakeville Police Department, in connection with a report of a possible crime, the following data, without consent of the data subject or a court order: (a) the name(s) of the employee(s) who it suspects of wrongdoing, and (b) information provided by employees during the District&apos;s investigation with the name(s) of the employee(s) who provided the information? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given that Ms. Wallner referenced Minnesota Statutes, section 609.456, subdivision 1, the Commissioner assumes that the nature of the allegations against the employee(s) is as described in that statute, namely, evidence of theft, embezzlement, or unlawful use of public funds or property.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about public employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Subdivision 4 also states that personnel data may be released pursuant to a court order, with certain exceptions that do not appear to apply here. Accordingly, the data about the suspect employee(s) and the other employees are private data, and, under section 13.43, may not be released without a court order or the employees&apos; consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 9, the District may disseminate private or confidential data if specific statutory authority exists for the data to be disclosed. Upon review, the Commissioner did not identify any specific statutory authority for the District to provide the data described directly to the local law enforcement agency. There are provisions that may be applicable on the periphery of this kind of situation; for example, section 6.67 authorizes a public accountant to make a report of a discovery of wrongdoing by a public employee to the state auditor and the county attorney. However, there does not appear to be any specific authority for the District to disseminate the data, which are private under section 13.43, to the local police department without consent or a court order.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Furthermore, in general, when private and confidential data are collected by a government entity from and about the data subject (triggering a Tennessen Warning notice - see section 13.04, subdivision 2), the existence of statutory authority for the dissemination of the data is not sufficient; the Tennessen Warning must have included the identity of the entity/person authorized to receive the data. However, a 2000 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision puts the application of the section 13.04, subdivision 2, notice requirement in doubt. (See &lt;i&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/i&gt;, 613 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. App. 2000.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Whether a Tennessen Warning notice was provided to the employees in this case or not, because private data are involved, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requires that there be specific authority before data can be shared, even in the case of suspected theft, embezzlement or unlawful use of public funds. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 (b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Wallner and Ms. Hewitt Boyd is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, absent specific statutory authority, Independent School District 194, Lakeville, may not provide to the Lakeville Police Department, in connection with a report of a possible crime, the following data, without consent of the data subject or a court order: (a) the name(s) of the employee(s) who it suspects of wrongdoing, and (b) information provided by employees during the District&apos;s investigation with the name(s) of the employee(s) who provided the information. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 5, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267626</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal charges against employee</Title><Id>266490</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-080</Title><title>Opinion 01 080</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267716&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-10-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by School District 740, Melrose, that relate to the District&apos;s proposed discharge of a District employee: data contained in an arbitrator&apos;s decision and data contained in a psychological report?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 1, 2001; School District 740 (Melrose)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 10, 2001, IPA received a letter dated August 8, 2001, from Stephen Knutson, an attorney representing School District 740, Melrose. In his letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains. In a letter dated September 19, 2001, IPA wrote to Education Minnesota, the organization representing the employee who is the subject of the data at issue. On September 25, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated same, from Anne Krisnik, an attorney from Education Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. The District proposed immediate discharge of the employee. The employee requested a hearing before an arbitrator. The arbitrator issued her binding decision on December 1, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Arbitrator did not rule in her decision on the issue of whether the teacher&apos;s conduct was remediable. She concluded that a more thorough evaluation is needed before it can be concluded that the [School] District&apos;s decision to immediately discharge was not arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to law. ...In light of this conclusion, the Arbitrator required that a psychological examination be conducted of the teacher. The Arbitrator also imposed a disciplinary suspension without pay and benefits. The length of the disciplinary suspension without pay and benefits and the teacher&apos;s potential return to employment were made dependent upon the results of the full psychological evaluation, remediation (if found to be possible) and, if necessary, reassessment. At no point does the teacher have an opportunity to recoup any of the pay and benefits lost as a result of the disciplinary suspension.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The psychological report has been completed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to opine as to the classification of both the arbitrator&apos;s decision and the psychologist&apos;s report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by School District 740, Melrose, that relate to the District&apos;s proposed discharge of a District employee: data contained in an arbitrator&apos;s decision and data contained in a psychological report?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the [government entity] or arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the Arbitrator issued her Decision in this matter, a final disposition occurred. Discipline, in the form of a suspension without pay, was imposed on the [employee] and that discipline cannot now be overturned. At a minimum, there is a final disposition of a disciplinary suspension of the [employee] without pay and benefits for a lengthy period. In accordance with the [Arbitrator&apos;s] Decision and the law, this disciplinary action stands even if the [employee] is able to complete a remediation program successfully at some point in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson asserted that both the data in the arbitrator&apos;s decision ( Decision ) and that the psychological report ( Report ) are data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action and the data contained within those documents are public, excluding private personnel or private educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Krisnik argued that the Decision is public but that the Report is not. She stated, The arbitrator&apos;s decision sets forth the &apos;disciplinary action&apos; taken (imposing an unpaid suspension and requiring a psychological assessment). As a result, the arbitrator&apos;s decision is public. Similarly, any data relied upon by the arbitrator in making this decision would be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Arbitrator&apos;s decision imposed two separate requirements on the teacher: (1) a psychological assessment to determine when the teacher would be able to return to work, if at all; and (2) an unpaid suspension until such time as the teacher returns to work. These two items comprise the disciplinary action imposed on the teacher; they are the final disposition in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Report, completed as a &lt;em&gt;result&lt;/em&gt; of the final disposition, and prepared &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the final disposition, cannot be considered data that documents the basis for that disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, a final disposition occurs when a government entity makes its final decision about a disciplinary action. In a situation in which the parties have gone to arbitration, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration. Here, the arbitration concluded when the arbitrator issued her report, i.e., on December 1, 2000. The teacher was suspended without pay and benefits. The suspension without pay that the arbitrator ordered was the final disciplinary action. For the purposes of Chapter 13, a final disposition occurred and the following data became public: the final disposition of the disciplinary action together with the specific reasons and data documenting the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, any data in the Decision that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary action, and any data that document the basis of the arbitrator&apos;s decision are public, excluding any data identifying confidential sources who are employees of the body. However, if any of the data in the Decision are about students or other District employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267392&quot; title=&quot;97-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-010&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, because the Report was created after the final disposition, the data within the Report cannot constitute either the specific reasons for the disciplinary action or data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action. Any data in the Report of which the employee is the subject are classified pursuant to section 13.43; subdivision 2 lists those data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies the remainder of personnel data as private. The Commissioner assumes most of the data in the report are private. Further, any data in the Report about students are classified pursuant to section 13.32 and data about other employees are also classified pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Knutson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5), data in the arbitrator&apos;s report that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary action, and any data that document the basis of the action are public, excluding any data identifying confidential sources who are employees of the body. Further, if any of the data in the report are about students or other District employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private.
&lt;p&gt;Data contained in the psychological report that was created after the arbitrator&apos;s decision do not constitute either the specific reasons for the disciplinary action or data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action. Data in the report about the employee are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Data in the report about students or other employees are classified pursuant to sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 1, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267716</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arbitrator decision or award</Title><Id>266606</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-078</Title><title>Opinion 01 078</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267591&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-28T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Since Minnesota Statutes section 13.32, subdivision 5a mandates the release of data regardless of whether it is designated as &quot;directory information&quot; by the School Board&apos;s policy, is a School District obligated to respond to a request for data under this provision at all and, if so, to what extent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 28, 2001; School District 279 (Osseo)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2015, Congress amended federal provisions related to military recruiters&apos; access to student information. 20 U.S.C. section 7908 requires local educational agencies to disclose names, addresses, and telephone listings of secondary school students to military recruiters upon request unless the parent or student has opt-ed out of such disclosure.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 4, 2001, Stephen M. Knutson and Michelle D. Kenney, attorneys representing Independent School District No. 279, Osseo, (the District) requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration. The request, as detailed in the Issue statement below, deals with access to data about 11th and 12th grade students by military recruiters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In making the request, Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney identified a new provision of Minnesota law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5a, and asked how the district should respond to this new language as the District has received a request from a military recruiter for access to student data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Since Minnesota Statutes section 13.32, subdivision 5a mandates the release of data regardless of whether it is designated as directory information by the School Board&apos;s policy, is a School District obligated to respond to a request for data under this provision at all and, if so, to what extent?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Issue Statement poses a preliminary issue that must be resolved. That issue is whether the District is required to respond to any request for data made according to section 13.32, subdivision 5a. The Commissioner has previously addressed the requirement that a government entity provide a response to a request for access to government data. See, for example, Advisory Opinions 00-040, 00-041, 00-059 and 01-023. Therefore, the District must provide a response to a request for data made according to section 13.32, subdivision 5a.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students in public schools is governed by both federal and state law. The federal law, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, (FERPA) provides that data about students are private. This classification of the data is echoed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. FERPA also gives parents access to their children&apos;s school data and the ability to determine who receives access to that data. 20 U.S.C. section 1232g (a)(1)(A) and (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Congress did provide some exceptions so that certain disclosures could be made and those are detailed in the federal regulations that are found at 34 CFR part 99. Minnesota has generally followed these exceptions and the state provisions can be found within Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. The Minnesota Legislature&apos;s ability to act in the area of access to and dissemination of school data is limited by the provisions of FERPA and the accompanying regulations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the 2001 session, the Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5a. The language became effective August 1, 2001 and it reads:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 5a. [MILITARY RECRUITMENT.] A secondary institution shall release to military recruiting officers the names, addresses, and home telephone numbers of students in grades 11 and 12 within 60 days after the date of the request, except as otherwise provided by this subdivision. A secondary institution shall give parents and students notice of the right to refuse release of this data to military recruiting officers. Notice may be given by any means reasonably likely to inform the parents and students of the right. Data released to military recruiting officers under this subdivision:
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) may be used only for the purpose of providing information to students about military service, state and federal veterans&apos; education benefits, and other career and educational opportunities provided by the military; and
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) shall not be further disseminated to any other person except personnel of the recruiting services of the armed forces.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue which now must be addressed is whether the Minnesota Legislature has the ability to mandate the disclosure of the specified data to military recruiters given the limitations imposed by FERPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERPA does provide a mechanism by which some data about students may be made public. This type of public data is known as directory information. 20 U.S.C. section 1232g (a)(5) and 34 CFR section 99.37. FERPA provides that the school board must determine what data elements about students are not considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. 20 U.S.C. section 11232g (a)(5). The data elements that the U.S. Department of Education has offered as examples to a school board for consideration as directory information include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;student&apos;s name, home address, telephone number, email address, photograph, date and place of birth, field of study, dates of attendance, grade level, enrollment status, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, degrees, honors and awards received and the most recent educational agency or institution attended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;34 CFR section 99.3 (definition of directory information, as amended and effective August 7, 2000).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The school board is free to choose which of the data elements it wants to designate as directory information, to make its determination of what constitutes directory information once each year, and notify parents of its decision. 34 CFR section 99.7. Parents are also given the option to have the directory information about their children not be public and the school district must have a way to honor such a request. 34 CFR section 99.37. Directory information is public data in Minnesota and must be provided to anyone who asks. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Access to student data by military recruiters is an issue that has received attention in Congress for many years. Congress has addressed the issue in 10 U.S.C. section 503 and there is a difference in the access recruiters are granted to students in higher education institutions and those in secondary schools (i.e. 9-12 grades). The Commissioner will focus on those provisions relating to students in secondary schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 503 provides that the Secretary of Defense may collect directory information about students 17 years of age or older or in the 11th grade or higher. 10 U.S.C. section 503(b)(1) (emphasis added). Paragraph (b)(6) further provides that the Secretary cannot require a school to furnish directory information. In 2000, Congress amended section 503 to adopt the definition of directory information used in FERPA. In other words, the data elements that are available to the Secretary of Defense are those data elements designated by the local school board as directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue presented by the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s adoption of section 13.32, subdivision 5a is that by using the word shall, it appears that school districts are required to provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of students in the 11th and 12th grades to military recruiters. FERPA says that those elements of data are available only with the consent of the parents or if they are part of what the school board has designated as directory information. When, as is the case here, federal law has been adopted in a subject area, federal law controls if state law is in conflict. &lt;u&gt;Forster v. R J Reynolds Tobacco Co.&lt;/u&gt;, 437 N.W.2d 655,658 (Minn. 1989) &lt;em&gt;citing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;u&gt;Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.&lt;/u&gt;, 464 U.S. 238, 248, 104 S.Ct. 615, 621, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District has indicated that its school board has, of the three data elements in section 13.32, subdivision 5a, designated student name and address as directory information. The District has also provided the notice to parents of their right to refuse release of student data to military recruiters. The District has a request from a military recruiter for data about 11th and 12th graders. To respond to the request, the District may provide those data that meet all the following criteria:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) data elements designated as directory information pursuant to 34 CFR section 99.37;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) data about those students whose parents have not chosen to generally restrict access to directory information about their children pursuant to 34 CFR section 99.37; and
&lt;br /&gt;
3) data about those 11th and 12th graders whose parents have not refused release of data to military recruiters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 5a.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Ms. Kenney is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The School District is obligated to respond to a request for data under Minnesota Statutes section 13.32, subdivision 5a and to provide those data that the District has designated as directory information for those students whose parents have not chosen to restrict access to directory information about their children generally and for those 11th and 12th grade students whose parents have not refused to release data to military recruiters.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 28, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267591</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Military recruiters</Title><Id>266757</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Authority to regulate data practices</Title><Id>266598</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-12T13:52:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-079</Title><title>Opinion 01 079</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267628&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-28T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When a government entity uses Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, as the basis for denying access to public documents sought pursuant to a data practices request, must the government entity also give the underlying basis for the claim of protection through the attorney?
Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office appropriately withhold criminal investigative data from the requestor (Attorney Rouse) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?
If Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, applies to the current case, did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office waive attorney work product protection by mailing the December 22, 2000, Declination to Prosecute memo containing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office to Attorney Rouse prior to his data practices request, and, discussing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office with Attorney Rouse on February 7, 2001?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 28, 2001; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: There is an an informal opinion from the Minnesota Attorney General&apos;s Office, dated February 12, 2002, that disagrees with the conclusion reached in Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 7, 2001, IPA received a letter from attorney Kevin Rouse who asked the Commissioner to address several issues related to data held by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s Office (Office). All the data relate to an investigation begun at Mr. Rouse&apos;s request and conducted by the Office concerning possible criminal conduct by a referee. As a result of telephone and faxed communications between Mr. Rouse and IPA staff, three issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Rouse&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated August 23, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Rouse&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On September 5, 2001, IPA received a response from Toni Beitz, Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney on behalf of the Office. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 4, 2000, Mr. Rouse contacted the Office concerning possible criminal conduct by a referee in a matter in which Mr. Rouse had been involved. Mr. Rouse argued that the referee&apos;s appointment as a referee was invalid so that the referee had either impersonated a judicial officer or had engaged in misconduct as a judicial or hearing officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 22, 2000, the Office closed the investigative file by declining to prosecute. A memorandum was prepared to document the decision and its substance was shared with Mr. Rouse by Matt Anderson, the Office attorney assigned to the matter, in a conversation on February 7, 2001. Mr. Anderson, subsequently sent a copy of the December 22, 2000, memorandum to Mr. Rouse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 14, 2001, Mr. Rouse made a request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA), for copies of documents related to the Office&apos;s investigation of the referee. On March 1, 2000, Ms. Beitz responded to the February 14th request but did not provide any documents. Instead, Ms. Beitz referred to documents available from a District Court file and to documents that were not going to be disclosed as attorney work product according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 7, 2001, Mr. Rouse wrote to Ms. Beitz and argued that the data that he had requested were accessible to him as inactive criminal investigative data (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7) and that section 13.393 was not applicable. Ms. Beitz responded on March 15, 2001, and while she disagreed with Mr. Rouse&apos;s legal interpretation, she did provide him with an index of the 9 documents in the Office&apos;s file. Ms. Beitz did not send five of the documents because Mr. Rouse had provided them to the Office or had previously received them. Ms. Beitz did send three documents and refused to disclose one document claiming that section 13.393 applied to its content. The withheld document was identified as a memorandum from Ms. Beitz to James Jacobson (the Beitz/Jacobson memo).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 11, 2001, Mr. Rouse asked for additional information about the Beitz/Jacobson memo to understand the basis for the Office&apos;s reliance on section 13.393. Ms. Beitz responded on April 17, 2001, and identified Mr. Jacobson as the Chief Deputy County Attorney and that the memo is work product that is not accessible based on section 13.393.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Office disclosed, as part of its submission to the Commissioner, that the Beitz/Jacobson memo summarizes an attorney/client conversation between Ms. Beitz and her clients who are part of the management of the Hennepin County District Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rouse asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When a government entity uses Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, as the basis for denying access to public documents sought pursuant to a data practices request, must the government entity also give the underlying basis for the claim of protection through the attorney?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office appropriately withhold criminal investigative data from the requestor (Attorney Rouse) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, applies to the current case, did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office waive attorney work product protection by mailing the December 22, 2000, Declination to Prosecute memo containing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office to Attorney Rouse prior to his data practices request, and, discussing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office with Attorney Rouse on February 7, 2001?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because Mr. Rouse has received the majority of the data contained in the Office&apos;s file, the Commissioner will restrict his opinion to the remaining data in the Beitz/Jacobson memo that continue to be withheld.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. When a government entity uses Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, as the basis for denying access to public documents sought pursuant to a data practices request, must the government entity also give the underlying basis for the claim of protection through the attorney?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to 2000, the language now found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 was codified at section 13.30. Section 13.30&apos;s applicability to data held by a government entity has previously been discussed in a number of Advisory Opinions including &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267583&quot; title=&quot;99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-003&lt;/a&gt;. To understand the significance of the issue presented here, the following from Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt; is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;, page 4.) In other words, there needs to be a basis on which the government entity can justify removing data from the applicability of the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Providing the basis to a requester such as Mr. Rouse is not, however, a requirement of the statute and cannot be mandated by the Commissioner. As suggested in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267583&quot; title=&quot;99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Office should be able to provide the basis on which section 13.393 has been invoked. In this case, the Office has said that the Beitz/Jacobson memo documents an attorney/client conversation. However, that explanation was not provided until the Office made its submission in response to Mr. Rouse&apos;s request for an advisory opinion. The Commissioner encourages the Office and other parties using section 13.393 to deny access to government data to provide this explanation at the time that access is denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2. Did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office appropriately withhold criminal investigative data from the requestor (Attorney Rouse) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before discussing the Beitz/Jacobson memo, the Commissioner would like to address Mr. Rouses&apos; argument that the all data that he requested are in an inactive criminal investigative file and are therefore public according to Minnesota Statues, section 13.82, subdivision. 7. The Office argued that the data in question are protected by attorney work product under section 13.393 and so are not accessible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis begins with section 13.82, subdivision 7 which provides in pertinent part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subd. 7. &lt;strong&gt;Criminal investigative data.&lt;/strong&gt; Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data is public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 17. Photographs which are part of inactive investigative files and which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data, provided that the existence of the photographs shall be disclosed to any person requesting access to the inactive investigative file. An investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) a decision by the agency or appropriate prosecutorial authority not to pursue the case;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) expiration of the time to bring a charge or file a complaint under the applicable statute of limitations, or 30 years after the commission of the offense, whichever comes earliest; or
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal by a person convicted on the basis of the investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first question that must be answered is whether the Office is a law enforcement agency for purposes of this section. Section 13.82, subdivision 1 provides, in pertinent part, that&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 1. &lt;strong&gt;Application.&lt;/strong&gt; This section shall apply to agencies which carry on a law enforcement function, &lt;em&gt;including but not limited to&lt;/em&gt; municipal police departments, county sheriff departments, fire departments, the bureau of criminal apprehension, the Minnesota state patrol, the board of peace officer standards and training, the department of commerce, and the department of labor and industry fraud investigation unit, the program integrity section of, and county human service agency client and provider fraud prevention and control units operated or supervised by the department of human services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What the Legislature has provided in subdivision 1 of section 13.82 is a list of entities that are covered by that section. The list is not, however, an exclusive one as indicated by the language that has been highlighted above. By specifying that the list of entities in section 13.82, subdivision 1 is not exhaustive, the Legislature has specifically provided a means for other government entities to be covered by section 13.82. The next question is how to determine which entities might be included in the blank the Legislature has provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answer follows common sense. First, prosecutors have labeled themselves the chief law enforcement officer for their jurisdiction. Second, prosecutors operate within the criminal justice system. The Legislature has defined criminal justice agency in section 13.02, subdivision 3a. Prosecutors are included in that definition and so it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature did intend that county attorneys be included in law enforcement agency for purposes of section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, this conclusion is further supported because the Office was carrying out a law enforcement function, namely the investigation of a criminal complaint against a referee. The Office has argued that no investigation occurred because the Office accepted Mr. Rouse&apos;s statement of the facts, applied the law to those facts and made a determination whether to prosecute. It is necessary to define investigation in order to continue the analysis here. The American Heritage College Dictionary defines investigation as 1. The act or process of investigating. 2. A detailed inquiry or systematic examination. Investigate is defined as To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically. (&lt;u&gt;The American Heritage College Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1997, page 715.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In other words, an investigation is a systematic examination of a situation. In this case, the Office did do a systematic examination of the situation that was presented by Mr. Rouse when it determined whether the facts presented were sufficient to support a criminal complaint against the referee. As a result, the Office was acting as a law enforcement agency and section 13.82, subdivision 7 applies to at least some of the data held by the Office. As the Office declined to prosecute the referee, at least some of the data in its criminal investigative file became public by operation of section 13.82, subdivision 7(a).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Commissioner were to agree with the Office that it did not conduct an investigation in this case, then section 13.82 does not apply. If section 13.82 does not apply, then the general presumption in section 13.03 applies and the data would be classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Office has continued, however, to state that the Beitz/Jacobson memo remains unavailable to Mr. Rouse pursuant to section 13.393. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that two conditions must be met for data to be withheld pursuant to section 13.393. The first is that the attorney must generate the data in the course of acting in his or her professional capacity for their office. The second is that the attorney must not be performing duties that are required to be performed by the responsible authority. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267759&quot; title=&quot;97-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-009&lt;/a&gt;) These conditions are based on the language in section 13.393 which reads:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislature has determined that for section 13.393 to apply to data, the lawyer must be acting in his or her professional capacity on behalf of the government entity. The second important point in section 13.393 is that a government entity may not transfer a function, responsibility or data to an attorney as a means of avoiding its responsibilities under the MGDPA. In other words, a government entity cannot use its attorney to shield data that would otherwise be available under the provisions of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the first condition has been met with respect to the Beitz/Jacobson memo. Ms. Beitz&apos;s documentation of her attorney/client conversation is within the course of her actions in her professional capacity. The Commissioner does not, however, have sufficient information to determine if the second condition has been met. The Office has chosen not to provide the withheld document to the Commissioner for review. As a result, there is no way to determine if the conversation was one by an attorney advising her client with respect to the matter involving the referee or whether the conversation involved part of the decision making process about the course and result of the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the Commissioner is not able to determine if either section 13.393 or section 13.82 applies to the Beitz/Jacobson memo as the Office did not provide the Commissioner with a copy to review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;3. If Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, applies to the current case, did the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office waive attorney work product protection by mailing the December 22, 2000, Declination to Prosecute memo containing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office to Attorney Rouse prior to his data practices request, and, discussing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office with Attorney Rouse on February 7, 2001?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has discussed above, he is unable to determine if section 13.393 applies to the Beitz/Jacobson memo. In addition, the Commissioner notes that the issue of waiver is not one related to the MGDPA and its provisions and so is outside the Commissioner&apos;s jurisdiction pursuant to section 13.072. Therefore, the Commissioner has no authority to determine whether production of the December 23, 2000, Declination to Prosecute memorandum has waived attorney work product protection for the Beitz/Jacobson memo.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Rouse raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When a government entity uses Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, as the basis for denying access to public documents sought pursuant to a data practices request, the statute does not require the government entity to also give the underlying basis for the claim of protection through the attorney. However, the Commissioner strongly encourages government entities to provide the underlying basis for the claim of protection to the requestor.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine if the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office appropriately withheld criminal investigative data from the requestor (Attorney Rouse) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner does not have the authority to decide if the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office waived attorney work product protection by mailing the December 22, 2000, Declination to Prosecute memo containing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office to Attorney Rouse prior to his data practices request, and, discussing the mental impressions and legal opinions of the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office with Attorney Rouse on February 7, 2001.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 28, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267628</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal justice agency</Title><Id>267110</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal justice agency, defined</Title><Id>267046</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigation, defined</Title><Id>266847</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-077</Title><title>Opinion 01 077</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267436&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-27T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Mounds View violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by not providing access, via inspection, to the data requested in Exhibits A - O? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2001; City of Mounds View</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from Ann Walther, an attorney representing X, an employee or former employee of the City of Mounds View. In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her and her client&apos;s access to certain data that the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kathleen Miller, Administrator of the City, in response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2001, were to inform her of Ms. Walther&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 15, 2001, IPA received a response dated same from Robert Alsop, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In May and June of 2001, either Ms. Walther on behalf of X, or X on behalf of him/herself, requested access, via inspection, to certain data. Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 9, 2001, [X]...entered City Hall to review the City&apos;s public book which should have included an agenda and supporting documents for all City Council meeting [sic]. This included the data requested for review by me and [X]. [City staff] refused to allow [X] to view the information and indicated that they could contact their attorney to set up a meeting for the following week. In the interest of cooperation, I agreed to allow the City to produce the data at Kennedy and Graven, even though any other member of the public would be provided immediate access to the data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 23, 2001, [X] reviewed the data provided by the City at the offices of Kennedy amp; Graven, and determined that most of the data was not provided, and that of the data that was provided, large portions of [sic] were missing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Has the City of Mounds View violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by not providing access, via inspection, to the data requested in Exhibits A - O?
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before proceeding, the Commissioner would like to note the following. In his comments, Mr. Alsop stated that the data requests were very broad and document intensive. He also noted that on two occasions, he sought written clarification from Ms. Walther. (In her opinion request, Ms. Walther provided copies of these two letters.) Mr. Alsop wrote, Ms. Walther provided very little clarification. He also wrote, Once the documents were collected and transferred to the offices of Kennedy amp; Graven, inspection of the data was delayed for at least one additional week to accommodate the schedule of [another of Ms. Walther&apos;s clients who had made, essentially, the same data requests]. Mr. Alsop appears to be suggesting that these factors affected the City&apos;s response time. The Commissioner has the following comments. Regarding the date of the document inspection, in terms of any data requested in May 2001, the City should have responded prior to July 1, 2001. In other words, for requests made in May 2001, the fact that Ms. Walther and her clients delayed the inspection date for a week or so is irrelevant.
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Alsop&apos;s requests for clarification, the Commissioner has the following comments. One of the letters in which Mr. Alsop requested clarification is dated June 25, 2001. However, the clarification he requested does not seem to be issue-specific. Rather, it appears to focus on whether Ms. Walther and/or X wished to obtain copies of the data or to inspect them. Ms. Walther responded in an e-mail that same day, June 25, 2001. It is not clear how this request for clarification affected the City&apos;s response time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second letter in which Mr. Alsop requested clarification is dated June 29, 2001. Of relevance here, this letter focuses on two specific requests. One is about the meaning of personnel data. Ms. Walther responded in a letter dated July 6, 2001. She wrote that she was not going to narrow her request and that no clarification was needed. She stated, &apos;Personnel data&apos; is very clearly defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.43. Thus, I find it difficult to understand why you believe the request is &apos;vague.&apos; We wish to review all personnel data on [X]. The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Walther. Personnel data are defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 1. Furthermore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the City had ten working days to respond to the request for personnel data. The City did not seek clarification until approximately four weeks after having received the request; this is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in his June 29, 2001, letter, Mr. Alsop asked for clarification regarding a data request Ms. Walther or her client made for accounting data for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center. The data request was made on June 15, 2001. The Commissioner will discuss this issue as part of item M.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One additional note is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Walther labeled the data requests that either she or X made as A through O. Below, the Commissioner will address each item separately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A. On May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The agendas, minutes and other data collected, maintained, created, disseminated or discussed by the City&apos;s Human Resources Committee since September 1, 2000.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther related that on July 23, 2001, the City provided access to the following agendas for the following dates: February 26; March 26; April 23; and May 29 of 2001. She stated that the City provided no other data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Human Resources Committee is a committee created by the Mounds View City Council pursuant to a resolution adopted on December 11, 2000. The Committee maintains no official calendar and generally meets informally on a monthly basis to review and consider personnel or human resources issues. [X] has been provided copies of all agendas and/or minutes that exist with respect to the City&apos;s Human Resources Committee. City staff also gathered all staff reports presented to the Human Resources Committee, however, such reports were inadvertently not included in the documents reviewed by [X]...Copies of the staff reports will be provided to Ms. Ann Walther under separate cover.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, X and/or Ms. Walther made a data request on May 31, 2001. The City did not provide access to data until July 23, 2001. This is not prompt, appropriate, or within a reasonable time. Furthermore, as of the date Mr. Alsop responded to Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, the City had not provided the data Mr. Alsop described as having been inadvertently not included in what the City provided on July 23, 2001. If Mounds View has not yet provided those data to X, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, if some of the requested data do not exist, Mounds View should have so informed X and/or Ms. Walther at the time of the request. As the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions, there is no requirement in Chapter 13 that government entities create data in response to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. If the Human Resources Committee is a body subject to the Open Meeting Law, the Committee may be required to create certain other data, such as a record of any votes taken, and provide notices of its meetings, in addition to other requirements. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Documentation of actions taken by the committee are also subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;B. On May 16 and May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All personnel data (as that term is defined in section 13.43) on X, including, but not limited to, all data collected, created, maintained, disseminated or discussed during closed City Council meetings, all City Human Resources Committee meetings and the Karl Neu Session held in April 2001.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote that although X requested a review of all personnel data on him/her, the City, on May 18, provided X with access only to his/her personnel file. She stated, Upon information and belief, personnel data on [X] is in the possession of the City but is not part of [his/her] personnel file. The request encompasses all personnel data on [X]; not just that kept in this personnel file. Ms. Walther added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43, [X] is entitled to access to all data which has been collected because [s/he] was an employee of the City of Mounds View. [X] believes that a great deal more data has been collected, created and maintained by the City on [him/her] than was produced in response to the request....[S/he] does know that at least some of [his/her] performance evaluations are missing, and that [s/he] was discussed at several meetings....and that the City generally maintains notes or other data from such meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s] entire personnel file was copied and included in the documents inspected by [him/her] on July 23, 2001....The City provided [X] with [his/her] personnel file, and the City staff is unaware of any performance evaluations other than those contained in the personnel file. Similarly, the City staff is unaware of any letter of recommendation from a former [elected official] that allegedly was once in [X&apos;s] personnel file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] asserts that [s/he] was discussed at council meetings in the past, and that data regarding those meetings was not produced. The City has produced all documents in its possession that are responsive to [X&apos;s] request. To the best of City staff&apos;s knowledge, no other documents exist that relate to [X&apos;s] performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some personnel data (such as payroll records) have not been produced, but the City advised Ms. Walther that those records would be produced upon request. To the extent that personnel data has not been produced, it is due to lack of clarification from [X] as to the specific types of records sought.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject the government entity must respond within ten working days. First, providing a copy of what the City has labeled personnel file is not appropriate when an individual asks for all personnel data about him/herself. See section 13.43, subdivision 1, for a definition of personnel data. Chapter 13 governs neither the physical location where government entities maintain data, nor the type of filing system entities use to organize data. Those decisions are left to the discretion of the entity. However, regardless of where the data are located, when an individual requests access to all personnel data about him/herself, the entity must provide access to all data it has collected and maintains about that individual because the individual is an employee of the entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Ms. Walther and/or X requested the data on May 16 and May 31, 2001. The City provided some data on May 18, apparently provided additional data on July 23, and has yet to provide certain other personnel data. This is not a timely response. As the Commissioner previously discussed, he cannot accept Mr. Alsop&apos;s argument that the City did not provide X&apos;s payroll records because neither X nor Ms. Walther clarified the request. If the City did not understand the request, it was obligated to seek clarification within ten days of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;C. On May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data collected, maintained, created, disseminated or discussed during meetings between City Administrator Kathleen Miller and anyone else regarding Tour Fit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Walther, the City made some of the requested data available on July 23rd. However, she also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My client is aware that there was at least one additional meeting where Tour Fit, the City Administrator, Assistant Administrator and other City staff meet [sic] to discuss Tour Fit providing services to the City, however, no information was presented on this meeting; my client also has reason to believe that the Clerk-Administrator and/or Mayor meet [sic] and/or discussed the Tour Fit proposal on numerous other occasions, however, no information was presented on these meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote, The City has provided [X] with all data in its possession relating to Tour Fit&apos;s proposal, including a video tape of the City Council work session conducted on April 16, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, as he stated in relation to item A, a response time of two months is not prompt, appropriate, or reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it has provided all data in its possession relating to Tour Fit&apos;s proposal. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested. However, it is important to keep in mind that section 15.17 does require the City to make and preserve all records of its official actions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;D. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;An index of the documents contained on the following computers:
&lt;br /&gt;
a. The computer used by Mayor Sonterre
&lt;br /&gt;
b. The computer used by City Administrator Kathleen
&lt;br /&gt;
c. The computer used by Assistant City Administrator Giovanna Reed
&lt;br /&gt;
d. The computer used by X, and
&lt;br /&gt;
e. The computer used by Finance Director Bruce Kessel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Walther wrote that no index or any other data were made available for review on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Partial excerpts of documents and e-mails that were on [X&apos;s] computer were provided, that in the context provided made no sense. [X&apos;s] computer has already been downloaded and documents and e-mails from that computer were used in the summary of charges against [him/her], yet neither an index of documents nor completed documents were provided on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Alsop wrote that his law firm had requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration regarding this issue, and that the Commissioner&apos;s response is pending. He wrote, Once the City has received the Department&apos;s guidance regarding the classification of the requested data, the City will promptly provide [X] with the data as the Commissioner&apos;s opinion determines to be applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather than repeat what he opined and discussed in the Opinion to which Mr. Alsop referred, the Commissioner directs readers to Advisory Opinion 01-075.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;E. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data contained on the hard drive of the following computers:
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Mayor Sonterre&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
b. City Administrator Kathleen&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Assistant City Administrator Giovanna Reed&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
d. The computer used by X, and
&lt;br /&gt;
e. Finance Director Bruce Kessel&apos;s computer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;No access nor any other information was made available on July 23rd. It should be noted that at least some of this data would be responsive to [X&apos;s] request for access to all personnel data on himself. It should also be noted that Kennedy and Graven, on behalf of the City, has apparently requested an opinion from the Commissioner on access to such computer data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Alsop provided the same comments for items D and E.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner again refers readers to Advisory Opinion 01-075.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;F. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data, including, but not limited to, electronic data, referring to or relating to Tour Fit Golf for the past two years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The City provided [X] with a videotape of the work session in which the Tour Fit proposal was discussed with City officials, along with the documents identified and produced under Section D herein. The City is unaware of any other data which exists or is responsive to these requests.
&lt;br /&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for access to data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. If a government entity does not possess data that an individual requests, the entity is not required to create new data but should so inform the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it is unaware of any other data responsive to the request. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;G. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data, including but not limited to, electronic data, referring to or relating to Total Service Sports ( TSS ) for the past two years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The City is unaware of any entity named Total Service Sports and does not have any data in its possession related to that entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for access to data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. If a government entity does not possess data that an individual requests, the entity is not required to create new data but should so inform the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it does not maintain any data responsive to the request. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested. However, it is not clear why it took the City over one month&apos;s time to inform Ms. Walther/X that it maintains no data relating to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H and I. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;H - The maximum salary payable to the City Administrator for the last five years; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I - &lt;em&gt;The&lt;/em&gt; actual compensation paid to the City Administrator for the past five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding H, Ms. Walther wrote, No information was presented for maximum salaries for 2000 and 2001. Regarding I, Ms. Walther wrote, The only data provided was Personnel Action forms. The information requested was for actual compensation paid for each of the last five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[On July 23, 2001] the City provided summaries and Personnel Action Forms which were intended to provide [X] with both the maximum salary payable and actual salary of the City Administrator for the last five years. After review of the documents provided to [X], the City has determined that it inadvertently failed to provide the maximum salary payable to the City Administrator for 2001 or the City Administrator&apos;s actual salary paid in 2001. This information will be provided to [X&apos;s] counsel under separate cover. The omission was unintentional in light of the volume of documents requested and could have been corrected among the parties simply by notifying the City of the deficiency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is another factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther asserts that maximum salary levels for 2000 and 2001 are missing, as well as all data requested as item I. Mr. Alsop asserts that the only data not provided to X are the 2001 maximum salary payable data and the 2001 salary paid in 2001. Ms. Walther made this request on June 15, 2001. The City should disclose immediately any data responsive to the request that it has not yet provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The expense reimbursement requests made by the City Administrator and the Mayor for the past two years, as well as the actual reimbursements made to both the City Administrator and the Mayor.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City did not include any data for 2000 and further failed to provide access to Visa charges for the period requested, nor items paid directly for items attended by the Clerk-Administrator and Mayor, such as the Nation [sic] League of Cities, Minnesota League of Cities, Rotary, etc., nor items such as reimbursements of the Mayor&apos;s cell phone paid directly to the Mayor&apos;s business and/or partners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has provided [X] with access to all data responsive to this request. Expense reimbursements are charges initially paid by individual employees or officials from personal funds and later reimbursed by the City. The City provided that data to [X]. [X] now indicates that [s/he] would like access to City records that show payments made directly by the City for conferences or other events attended by the city administrator or mayor. The City did not provide those records, but only because [X] did not previously request them. The City is unaware of any reimbursements of the mayor&apos;s cell phone paid directly to the mayor&apos;s business or partners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther states that the City did not provide data for 2000. Mr. Alsop states that the City provided all data responsive to the request. However, it does seem clear from Ms. Walther&apos;s request that she was expecting data from the year 2000. If the City did not provide year 2000 data, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, in reviewing Ms. Walther/X&apos;s request and the type of data the City provided in response (excluding the issue of year 2000 data), it appears the City provided the kind of data Ms. Walther requested. If Ms. Walther wanted the specific types of data she discussed in her opinion request, she needed to ask for those specific data. The Commissioner suggests Ms. Walther submit an additional request to the City and that she provide more detail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council from 1997 to present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City provided resolutions with an attached preliminary schedule of work sessions and Council meetings. During the time period requested, there were numerous changes to the preliminary schedule, however, the actual official calendar listing the date of the meetings, the related type of meeting, and the time and location of such meetings were not produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council from 1997 to the present were made available to [X] on July 23, 2001. Changes to the meetings were not reflected in the official calendars of the City and were not produced for [X&apos;s] review, but only because they were not within the scope of the request. The City will produce whatever additional records [X] may request regarding the meeting dates of the City Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear to the Commissioner why the official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council would not reflect changes made to those meetings. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of...cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If a response to a request for the official calendars would not include any changes made to agendas, etc., it is not clear what kind of request one would make to obtain such data. In this case, the City may be in violation of section 15.17. The City should immediately provide the data to X.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;L. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The official calendars of the monthly meetings of the Golf Course Committee from 1997 to the present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd. At a minimum, the City maintains an official calendar in addition to agendas and associated staff reports and other handouts, all of which are official records of the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The Golf Course Committee did not maintain an official calendar that would be responsive to the foregoing request for by [X]. Ms. Walther suggests in her letter that [X] would like access to staff reports and handouts from Golf Course Committee meetings. Those documents were not produced because they were not within the scope of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know what data the City maintains. Therefore, he is not in a position to determine whether the City responded appropriately. However, if the City did not understand the data request, it should have asked her for clarification shortly after having received the request. Again, it is important to keep in mind that section 15.17 requires all government entities to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;M. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All accounting data, including the trial balances, for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 23, the only data produced were as follows: trial balances were made available for the period ending June 2001. The information requested relates to the period in question, namely final trial balances for the years ending December 31, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, plus a detailed trial balance that will show the transactions for the period in question, and if necessary, all supporting documentation for such transactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the absence of a specific time period, the City interpreted this data request to include only the current trial balances and accounting data for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center which were produced for [X&apos;s] review on July 23, 2001. Despite the City&apos;s prior requests for clarification, until Ms. Walther&apos;s letter to the Commissioner, the City was unaware that [X] wanted to see final trial balances for the years ending December 31, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 [etc.]. The City will provide the trial balances requested. The City cannot determine, however, what supporting documents [X] considers necessary and will await further clarification from [X] as to specific items for which supporting documentation is requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. In a letter dated June 29, 2001, Mr. Alsop did, indeed, ask for clarification from Ms. Walther regarding this specific data request. Ms. Walther responded in a letter dated July 6, 2001. She wrote, ...I do not know precisely what data there is; thus, it would be easier if you tell me what there is with respect to financial data on both locations, and I will advise you whether I would like to review it. It does not appear that Mr. Alsop responded. The Commissioner urges both parties to communicate and determine what data exist and what data Ms. Walther is seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;N. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All documents regarding incentive pay for employees of The Bridges, including, but not limited to, the annual list of incentive pay recipients, for the past four years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 23, the only data produced were as follows: For 2000, a listing of preliminary incentive pay approved by Clerk-Administrator Kathleen Miller was presented. For other years, there were incentive pay listings, however, there were not the copies approved by the Clerk-Administrator. The request was for all documents, and, at a minimum, should include copies approved and initialed by the Clerk-Administrator for all incentive pay for all the years in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City had understood that [X] wanted the incentive pay amounts, which the City provided. As Ms. Walther indicates, there are other documents that contain the same information, although in a different form. The City misinterpreted the nature of the request and will provide the specific documents requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner does not know what data the City actually maintains. Ms. Walther&apos;s request, based on its original wording, seems clear, i.e., all documents regarding incentive pay for certain employees. These data are public under section 13.43. If the City did not understand her request, it should have sought clarification.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;O. On an unknown date, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. Agendas for all City Council meetings, including Council meetings, special council meetings and work sessions from 1996 through present.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Agendas and attachments for all Golf Course Committee meetings from 1996 through present.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tapes of all golf course committee meetings.
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Resolution requiring taping of all meetings held in City Hall.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Tapes of all City Council meetings were [sic] any golf course or community center issue was discussed.
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Resolution approving data retention schedule and appointing an individual to be responsible for data practices issues.
&lt;br /&gt;
7. All statements of financial interest filed by Rich Sonterre.
&lt;br /&gt;
8. All Mounds View City Council Agendas (including all committee agenda) since June 1, 2000.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, None of these data have been produced for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has never received any data requests from Ms. Walther or her [client] for the items listed in numbers 1 through 6 above. The City will provide all public data responsive to the request. Tape recordings of any meetings closed under the attorney-client privilege are not public and will not be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City acknowledges that items 7 and 8 were included in an e-mail to Robert Alsop at Kennedy amp; Graven dated July 11, 2001. With respect to these two requests, the City inadvertently failed to include the documents responsive to these requests at the inspection on July 23, 2001, which instead focused on the prior data requests made by Ms. Walther on May 31, June 11 and June 15, 2001. These documents will be provided to Ms. Walther under separate cover at no expense.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to items 1 - 6, the Commissioner does not know when Ms. Walther requested these data and the City states it did not receive any such request. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot opine as to whether the City responded in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as to items 7 and 8, Mr. Alsop acknowledges that the City received these requests on July 11, 2001, and that it inadvertently failed to provide the data. Clearly, the City did not respond in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Opinion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Walther raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.
&lt;p&gt;B. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;C. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;D. Refer to Advisory Opinion 01-075.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;E. Refer to Advisory Opinion 01-075.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;F. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;G. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.
&lt;br /&gt;
I. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City responded appropriately in part, and not appropriately in part.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;L. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;M. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, it appears the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267436</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Computer use policies</Title><Id>266423</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records retention schedule</Title><Id>266534</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Clarification of request</Title><Id>266275</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personal data/devices</Title><Id>266775</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-075</Title><title>Opinion 01 075</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267561&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When a request is made for copies of all data contained on a specific public employee&apos;s computer, are the contents of the computer &quot;personnel data&quot; about that employee within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
May the City of Mounds View deny access to the city attorney&apos;s computer on the grounds that the contents of the computer are not &quot;government data&quot; or, alternatively, that the data are not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2001; City of Mounds View</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 26, 2001, IPA received a letter dated July 24, 2001, from Corrine Thomson, an attorney representing the City of Mounds View. In her letter, Ms. Thomson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion relating to the classification of certain data that the City of Mounds View maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Thomson wrote that the City has recently received numerous requests for data from members of the public. One of the requests was for the computers of certain employees, city council members, and the city attorney. Another request was for the data on the hard drives of certain employees and the mayor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thomson then requested this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Ms. Thomson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When a request is made for copies of all data contained on a specific public employee&apos;s computer, are the contents of the computer personnel data about that employee within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;May the City of Mounds View deny access to the city attorney&apos;s computer on the grounds that the contents of the computer are not government data or, alternatively, that the data are not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Discussion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner would like to clarify that he will address only the issue of those data that exist on a PC or laptop hard drive, not data that exist on the City&apos;s network system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, in her opinion request, Ms. Thomson stated, The City&apos;s computer use policies permit employees and council members to make limited use of city-owned computers for personal matters. Thus, while the vast majority of data that exist on a City employee&apos;s PC or laptop are government data, there also may be data on the employee&apos;s computer that are personal. What constitutes these personal data depends on what the City has authorized for personal use. Any such personal data are not government data because, although they have been created and/or maintained on a government-owned PC or laptop, the employee did not create them in her/his capacity as a government employee, and the purpose of the data is not related to the operation of government. Personal data, therefore, do not fall under the purview of Chapter 13 and the Commissioner does not have authority to address the classification of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also points out that Chapter 13 regulates data, not machinery such as PCs or laptops. Thus, Mounds View is not obligated under Chapter 13 to respond to a request for an employee&apos;s PC or laptop. However, if an individual makes a request for certain data that exist on the employee&apos;s computer, Mounds View is required to respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1. &lt;/em&gt;When a request is made for copies of all data contained on a specific public employee&apos;s computer, are the contents of the computer personnel data about that employee within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One analysis Ms. Thomson suggested is that all the data contained on a specific employee&apos;s PC or laptop are personnel data classified pursuant to section 13.43, which defines personnel data as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43 applies only when an employee is the subject of the data. Clearly there are data on some employees&apos; PCs or laptops that are not about that employee or other employees. In such cases, classifying the data pursuant to section 13.43 would be inappropriate. The mere fact that many of the data that exist on a PC or laptop are generated by an employee using that PC or laptop does not make all of the data personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, it is likely that many of the data on a given employee&apos;s PC or laptop are data in which the appearance of the employee&apos;s name or other identifying data are only incidental. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that it is most appropriate to analyze the data in terms of content. In other words, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the data are public unless there is a specific classification elsewhere in Chapter 13, another statute, or federal law that prohibits the City from releasing the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/em&gt; May the City of Mounds View deny access to the city attorney&apos;s computer on the grounds that the contents of the computer are not government data or, alternatively, that the data are not public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Thomson stated that her law firm, Kennedy and Graven, is a private corporation that contracts for services with the City of Mounds View. Ms. Thomson did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the contract nor did she provide any specifics about the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, applies when a government entity, such as the City, enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions. It went into effect on August 1, 1999. Clause (a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of [Chapter 13] and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (b) of section 13.05, subdivision 11, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thomson wrote in her opinion request:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The firm contends that it generally is not subject to any requirements of [Chapter 13], including but not limited to the obligation to allow inspection of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The firm recognizes, however, that some of its clients are subject to [Chapter 13] and that, with respect to data that is generated by the firm on behalf of such clients, the firm is obligated to assist its clients in handling that data consistent with [Chapter 13]. Data that is generated by the city attorney and provided to the City is government data, and the firm recognizes the City&apos;s responsibility to respond to requests for such data. The firm regularly cooperates with its clients on such requests by providing the client with &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt; of documents in the firm&apos;s files for that client.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. In section 13.05, subdivision 11, the Legislature intended that parties such as Kennedy and Graven be subject to Chapter 13. Since the Commissioner does not have access to Kennedy and Graven&apos;s contract with Mounds View, it is not possible for him to determine if the provision required by section 13.05, subdivision 11, is included in the contract. If it is, all of the data Kennedy and Graven creates, collects, etc., in performing those services are subject to Chapter 13. In addition, regarding the requirements of Chapter 13 to which the law firm is subject, it must comply as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the provision required by section 13.05, subdivision 11, is not contained in the contract, and the contract went into effect after August 1, 1999, its presence nonetheless should be inferred to give effect to the Legislature&apos;s intent. The language in subdivision 11 is mandatory so its omission would pose a problem for both Mounds View and Kennedy and Graven for which there are two possible remedies. The first is to infer the term&apos;s presence in the contract. The second is to find the contract void or voidable. The Commissioner finds it preferable to keep the contract in effect and infer the presence of the above provision rather than voiding the contract in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the contract between Kennedy and Graven and the City went into effect after August 1, 1999, and if the requested data are data Kennedy and Graven created, collected, etc., in performing legal services for Mounds View, those data appear to be subject to Chapter 13. As discussed above in the analysis for Issue 1, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, any such data are public unless otherwise classified. The law firm must provide access to any requested data that are public (or private if the individual requesting the data is the data subject).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to draw attention to clause (b) of section 13.05, subdivision 11, which provides that, unless the contract states otherwise, there is not a duty on the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Thomson specifically referred to section 13.393. This provision governs certain types of data generated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity, and permits those data to be withheld from disclosure because they are not regulated by Chapter 13. A decision to deny access to data pursuant to section 13.393 or another provision of statute or federal law that classifies the data as not public, lies with both the City and Kennedy and Graven. In this case, the Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether it is appropriate for the City to invoke 13.393 or other provisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, the language in section 13.05, subdivision 11, became effective on August 1, 1999. If the contract between Kennedy and Graven precedes August 1, 1999, the Commissioner cannot be certain how the data might be classified. The answer primarily depends on whether there is any language in the contract that specifies how the data are classified. It is also possible that section 13.05, subdivision 6, applies. This provision applies to situations in which the contract requires that the government entity make data on individuals available to the contracting party. The Commissioner does not know if this provision applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Thomson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data that exist on an employee&apos;s PC or laptop are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the date of the contract between Mounds View and Kennedy and Graven is after August 1, 1999, it appears that data related to Mounds View that exist on the city attorney&apos;s computer are governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and that those data are public unless otherwise classified. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.) If the date of the contract is prior to August 1, 1999, the applicability of Chapter 13 is dependent upon the terms of the contract. The Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether it would be appropriate for the City to deny access to certain data pursuant to section 13.393 or other statutes or federal law.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267561</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data</Title><Id>267165</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data incidental to the data subject</Title><Id>266325</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal data excluded</Title><Id>266777</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Computer use policies</Title><Id>266423</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-17T19:28:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-076</Title><title>Opinion 01 076</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267951&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Mounds View violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by not providing access, via inspection, to the data requested in Exhibits A - O?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 27, 2001; City of Mounds View</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from Ann Walther, an attorney representing X, an employee or former employee of the City of Mounds View. In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her and her client&apos;s access to certain data that the City maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kathleen Miller, Administrator of the City, in response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2001, were to inform her of Ms. Walther&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 15, 2001, IPA received a response dated same from Robert Alsop, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In May and June of 2001, either Ms. Walther on behalf of X, or X on behalf of him/herself, requested access, via inspection, to certain data. Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 9, 2001, [X]...entered City Hall to review the City&apos;s public book which should have included an agenda and supporting documents for all City Council meeting [sic]. This included the data requested for review by me and [X]. [City staff] refused to allow [X] to view the information and indicated that they could contact their attorney to set up a meeting for the following week. In the interest of cooperation, I agreed to allow the City to produce the data at Kennedy and Graven, even though any other member of the public would be provided immediate access to the data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 23, 2001, [X] reviewed the data provided by the City at the offices of Kennedy Graven, and determined that most of the data was not provided, and that of the data that was provided, large portions of [sic] were missing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Mounds View violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by not providing access, via inspection, to the data requested in Exhibits A - O?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding, the Commissioner would like to note the following. In his comments, Mr. Alsop stated that the data requests were very broad and document intensive. He also noted that on two occasions, he sought written clarification from Ms. Walther. (In her opinion request, Ms. Walther provided copies of these two letters.) Mr. Alsop wrote, Ms. Walther provided very little clarification. He also wrote, Once the documents were collected and transferred to the offices of Kennedy Graven, inspection of the data was delayed for at least one additional week to accommodate the schedule of [another of Ms. Walther&apos;s clients who had made, essentially, the same data requests]. Mr. Alsop appears to be suggesting that these factors affected the City&apos;s response time. The Commissioner has the following comments. Regarding the date of the document inspection, in terms of any data requested in May 2001, the City should have responded prior to July 1, 2001. In other words, for requests made in May 2001, the fact that Ms. Walther and her clients delayed the inspection date for a week or so is irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Alsop&apos;s requests for clarification, the Commissioner has the following comments. One of the letters in which Mr. Alsop requested clarification is dated June 25, 2001. However, the clarification he requested does not seem to be issue-specific. Rather, it appears to focus on whether Ms. Walther and/or X wished to obtain copies of the data or to inspect them. Ms. Walther responded in an e-mail that same day, June 25, 2001. It is not clear how this request for clarification affected the City&apos;s response time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second letter in which Mr. Alsop requested clarification is dated June 29, 2001. Of relevance here, this letter focuses on two specific requests for clarification. One is about the meaning of personnel data. Ms. Walther responded in a letter dated July 6, 2001. She wrote that she was not going to narrow her request and that no clarification was needed. She stated, &apos;Personnel data&apos; is very clearly defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.43. Thus, I find it difficult to understand why you believe the request is &apos;vague.&apos; We wish to review all personnel data on [X]. The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Walther. Personnel data are defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 1. Furthermore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the City had ten working days to respond to the request for personnel data. The City did not seek clarification until approximately four weeks after having received the request; this is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in his June 29, 2001, letter, Mr. Alsop asked for clarification regarding a data request Ms. Walther or her client made for accounting data for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center. The data request was made on June 15, 2001. The Commissioner will discuss this issue as part of item M.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional note is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Walther labeled the data requests that either she or X made as A through O. Below, the Commissioner will address each item separately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A. On May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The agendas, minutes and other data collected, maintained, created, disseminated or discussed by the City&apos;s Human Resources Committee since September 1, 2000.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther related that on July 23, 2001, the City provided access to the following agendas for the following dates: February 26; March 26; April 23; and May 29 of 2001. She stated that the City provided no other data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Human Resources Committee is a committee created by the Mounds View City Council pursuant to a resolution adopted on December 11, 2000. The Committee maintains no official calendar and generally meets informally on a monthly basis to review and consider personnel or human resources issues. [X] has been provided copies of all agendas and/or minutes that exist with respect to the City&apos;s Human Resources Committee. City staff also gathered all staff reports presented to the Human Resources Committee, however, such reports were inadvertently not included in the documents reviewed by [X]...Copies of the staff reports will be provided to Ms. Ann Walther under separate cover.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for public data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, X and/or Ms. Walther made a data request on May 31, 2001. The City did not provide access to data until July 23, 2001. This is not prompt, appropriate, or within a reasonable time. Furthermore, as of the date Mr. Alsop responded to Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, the City had not provided the data Mr. Alsop described as having been inadvertently not included in what the City provided on July 23, 2001. If Mounds View has not yet provided those data to X, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, if some of the requested data do not exist, Mounds View should have so informed X and/or Ms. Walther at the time of the request. As the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions, there is no requirement in Chapter 13 that government entities create data in response to a request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The following note is in order. If the Human Resources Committee is a body subject to the Open Meeting Law, the Committee may be required to create certain other data, such as a record of any votes taken, and provide notices of its meetings, in addition to other requirements. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Documentation of actions taken by the committee are also subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;B. On May 23 and May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All personnel data (as that term is defined in section 13.43) on X, including, but not limited to, all data collected, created, maintained, disseminated or discussed during closed City Council meetings, all City Human Resources Committee meetings and the Karl Neu Session held in April 2001.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote that although X requested review of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; personnel data on him/her, X was provided access only to his/her personnel file. She stated, Upon information and belief, personnel data on [X] is in the possession of the City but is not part of [his/her] personnel file. The request encompasses all personnel data on [X]; not just that kept in [his/her] personnel file. Ms. Walther also discussed X&apos;s specific request for access to all videotapes or electronic data having to do with X or the golf course. She added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43, [X] is entitled to access to all data which has been collected because [s/he] was an employee of the City of Mounds View. [X] believes that a great deal more data has been collected, created and maintained by the City on [him/her] than was produced in response to the request....[S/he] does know that at least some of [his/her] performance evaluations are missing, and that [s/he] was discussed at several meetings in the recent past, and that the City generally maintains notes or other data from such meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s] entire personnel file was copied and included in the documents inspected by [him/her] on July 23, 2001....The City provided [X] with [his/her] personnel file, and the City staff is unaware of any performance evaluations other than those contained in the personnel file. Similarly, the City staff is unaware of any letter of recommendation from a former [elected official] that allegedly was once in [X&apos;s] personnel file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] asserts that [s/he] was discussed at council meetings in the past, and that data regarding those meetings was not produced. The City has produced all documents in its possession that are responsive to [X&apos;s] request. To the best of City staff&apos;s knowledge, no other documents exist that relate to [X&apos;s] performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some personnel data (such as payroll records) have not been produced, but the City advised Ms. Walther that those records would be produced upon request. To the extent that personnel data has not been produced, it is due to lack of clarification from [X] as to the specific types of records sought.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject the government entity must respond within ten working days. First, providing a copy of what the City has labeled personnel file is not appropriate when an individual asks for all personnel data about him/herself. See section 13.43, subdivision 1, for a definition of personnel data. Chapter 13 governs neither the physical location where government entities maintain data, nor the type of filing system entities use to organize data. Those decisions are left to the discretion of the entity. However, regardless of where the data are located, when an individual requests access to all personnel data about him/herself, the entity must provide access to all data it has collected and maintains about that individual because the individual is/was an employee of the entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Ms. Walther and/or X requested the data on May 23 and May 31, 2001. The City did not provide any data until July 23, 2001. This is not a timely response. As the Commissioner previously discussed, he cannot accept Mr. Alsop&apos;s argument that the City did not provide X&apos;s payroll records because neither X nor Ms. Walther clarified the request. If the City did not understand the request, it was obligated to seek clarification within ten days of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;C. On May 31, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data collected, maintained, created, disseminated or discussed during meetings between City Administrator Kathleen Miller and anyone else regarding Tour Fit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Walther, the City made some of the requested data available on July 23rd. However, she also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My client is aware that there was at least one additional meeting where Tour Fit, the City Administrator, Assistant Administrator and other City staff meet [sic] to discuss Tour Fit providing services to the City, however, no information was presented on this meeting; my client also has reason to believe that the Clerk-Administrator and/or Mayor meet [sic] and/or discussed the Tour Fit proposal on numerous other occasions, however, no information was presented on these meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Alsop wrote, The City has provided [X] with all data in its possession relating to Tour Fit&apos;s proposal, including a video tape of the City Council work session conducted on April 16, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, as he stated in relation to item A, a response time of two months is not prompt, appropriate, or reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it has provided all data in its possession relating to Tour Fit&apos;s proposal. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested. However, it is important to keep in mind that section 15.17 does require the City to make and preserve all records of its official actions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;An index of the documents contained on the following computers:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;a. The computer used by Mayor Sonterre
&lt;br /&gt;
b. The computer used by City Administrator Kathleen
&lt;br /&gt;
c. The computer used by Assistant City Administrator Giovanna Reed
&lt;br /&gt;
d.. The computer used by X, and
&lt;br /&gt;
e. The computer used by Finance Director Bruce Kessel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Walther wrote that no index or any other data were made available for review on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Partial excerpts of documents and e-mails that were on [X&apos;s] computer were provided, that in the context provided made no sense. [X&apos;s] computer has already been downloaded and documents and e-mails from that computer were used in the summary of charges against [him/her], yet neither an index of documents nor completed documents were provided on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Alsop wrote that his law firm had requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration regarding this issue, and that the Commissioner&apos;s response is pending. He wrote, Once the City has received the Department&apos;s guidance regarding the classification of the requested data, the City will promptly provide [X] with the data as the Commissioner&apos;s opinion determines to be applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather than repeat what he opined and discussed in the Opinion to which Mr. Alsop referred, the Commissioner directs readers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;E. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data contained on the hard drive of the following computers:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;a. Mayor Sonterre&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
b. City Administrator Kathleen&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Assistant City Administrator Giovanna Reed&apos;s computer
&lt;br /&gt;
d. The computer used by X, and
&lt;br /&gt;
e. Finance Director Bruce Kessel&apos;s computer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;No access nor any other information was made available on July 23rd. It should be noted that at least some of this data would be responsive to [X&apos;s] request for access to all personnel data on himself. It should also be noted that Kennedy and Graven, on behalf of the City, has apparently requested an opinion from the Commissioner on access to such computer data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Alsop provided the same comments for items D and E.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner again refers readers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;F. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All data, including, but not limited to, electronic data, referring to or relating to Tour Fit Golf for the past two years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The City provided [X] with a videotape of the work session in which the Tour Fit proposal was discussed with City officials, along with the documents identified and produced under Section D herein. The City is unaware of any other data which exists or is responsive to these requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for access to data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. If a government entity does not possess data that an individual requests, the entity is not required to create new data but should so inform the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it is unaware of any other data responsive to the request. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;All data, including but not limited to, electronic data, referring to or relating to Total Service Sports ( TSS ) for the past two years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The City is unaware of any entity named Total Service Sports and does not have any data in its possession related to that entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, when an individual makes a request for access to data of which the requestor is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. If a government entity does not possess data that an individual requests, the entity is not required to create new data but should so inform the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther is in disagreement with the City&apos;s response and the City asserts it does not maintain any data responsive to the request. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains. For this reason, he is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested. However, it is not clear why it took the City over one month&apos;s time to inform Ms. Walther/X that it maintains no data relating to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;H and I. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;H&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;- The maximum salary payable to the City Administrator for the last five years;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;- The actual compensation paid to the City Administrator for the past five years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding H, Ms. Walther wrote, No information was presented for maximum salaries for 2000 and 2001. Regarding I, Ms. Walther wrote, The only data provided was Personnel Action forms. The information requested was for actual compensation paid for each of the last five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[On July 23, 2001] the City provided summaries and Personnel Action Forms which were intended to provide [X] with both the maximum salary payable and actual salary of the City Administrator for the last five years. After review of the documents provided to [X], the City has determined that it inadvertently failed to provide the maximum salary payable to the City Administrator for 2001 or the City Administrator&apos;s actual salary paid in 2001. This information will be provided to [X&apos;s] counsel under separate cover. The omission was unintentional in light of the volume of documents requested and could have been corrected among the parties simply by notifying the City of the deficiency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is another factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther asserts that maximum salary levels for 2000 and 2001 are missing, as well as all data requested as item I. Mr. Alsop asserts that the only data not provided to X are the 2001 maximum salary payable data and the 2001 salary paid in 2001. Ms. Walther made this request on June 15, 2001. The City should disclose immediately any data responsive to the request that it has not yet provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;J. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The expense reimbursement requests made by the City Administrator and the Mayor for the past two years, as well as the actual reimbursements made to both the City Administrator and the Mayor.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City did not include any data for 2000 and further failed to provide access to Visa charges for the period requested, nor items paid directly for items attended by the Clerk-Administrator and Mayor, such as the Nation [sic] League of Cities, Minnesota League of Cities, Rotary, etc., nor items such as reimbursements of the Mayor&apos;s cell phone paid directly to the Mayor&apos;s business and/or partners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has provided [X] with access to all data responsive to this request. Expense reimbursements are charges initially paid by individual employees or officials from personal funds and later reimbursed by the City. The City provided that data to [X]. [X] now indicates that [X] would like access to City records that show payments made directly by the City for conferences or other events attended by the city administrator or mayor. The City did not provide those records, but only because [X] did not previously request them. The City is unaware of any reimbursements of the mayor&apos;s cell phone paid directly to the mayor&apos;s business or partners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Walther states that the City did not provide data for 2000. Mr. Alsop states that the City provided all data responsive to the request. However, it does seem clear from Ms. Walther&apos;s request that she was expecting data from the year 2000. If the City did not provide year 2000 data, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, in reviewing Ms. Walther/X&apos;s request and the type of data the City provided in response (excluding the issue of year 2000 data), it appears the City provided the kind of data Ms. Walther requested. If Ms. Walther wanted the specific types of data she discussed in her opinion request, she needed to ask for those specific data. The Commissioner suggests Ms. Walther submit an additional request to the City and that she provide more detail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;K. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council from 1997 to present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City provided resolutions with an attached preliminary schedule of work sessions and Council meetings. During the time period requested, there were numerous changes to the preliminary schedule, however, the actual official calendar listing the date of the meetings, the related type of meeting, and the time and location of such meetings were not produced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council from 1997 to the present were made available to [X] on July 23, 2001. Changes to the meetings were not reflected in the official calendars of the City and were not produced for [X&apos;s] review, but only because they were not within the scope of the request. The City will produce whatever additional records [X] may request regarding the meeting dates of the City Council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear to the Commissioner why the official calendars of the monthly council meetings and work sessions for the City Council would not reflect changes made to those meetings. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of...cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If a response to a request for the official calendars would not include any changes made to agendas, etc., it is not clear what kind of request one would make to obtain such data. In this case, the City may be in violation of section 15.17. The City should immediately provide the data to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;L. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;The official calendars of the monthly meetings of the Golf Course Committee from 1997 to the present.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, No information was made available on July 23rd. At a minimum, the City maintains an official calendar in addition to agendas and associated staff reports and other handouts, all of which are official records of the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote, The Golf Course Committee did not maintain an official calendar that would be responsive to the foregoing request for by [X]. Ms. Walther suggests in her letter that [X] would like access to staff reports and handouts from Golf Course Committee meetings. Those documents were not produced because they were not within the scope of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know what data the City maintains. Therefore, he is not in a position to determine whether the City responded appropriately. However, if the City did not understand the data request, it should have asked her for clarification shortly after having received the request. Again, it is important to keep in mind that section 15.17 requires all government entities to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;M. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All accounting data, including the trial balances, for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 23, the only data produced were as follows: trial balances were made available for the period ending June 2001. The information requested relates to the period in question, namely final trial balances for the years ending December 31, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, plus a detailed trial balance that will show the transactions for the period in question, and if necessary, all supporting documentation for such transactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the absence of a specific time period, the City interpreted this data request to include only the current trial balances and accounting data for the Bridges and the Mounds View Community Center which were produced for [X&apos;s] review on July 23, 2001. Despite the City&apos;s prior requests for clarification, until Ms. Walther&apos;s letter to the Commissioner, the City was unaware that [X] wanted to see final trial balances for the years ending December 31, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 [etc.]. The City will provide the trial balances requested. The City cannot determine, however, what supporting documents [X] considers necessary and will await further clarification from [X] as to specific items for which supporting documentation is requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. In a letter dated June 29, 2001, Mr. Alsop did, indeed, ask for clarification from Ms. Walther regarding this specific data request. Ms. Walther responded in a letter dated July 6, 2001. She wrote, ...I do not know precisely what data there is; thus, it would be easier if you tell me what there is with respect to financial data on both locations, and I will advise you whether I would like to review it. It does not appear that Mr. Alsop responded. The Commissioner urges both parties to communicate and determine what data exist and what data Ms. Walther is seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;N. On June 15, 2001, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;All documents regarding incentive pay for employees of The Bridges, including, but not limited to, the annual list of incentive pay recipients, for the past four years.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On July 23, the only data produced were as follows: For 2000, a listing of preliminary incentive pay approved by Clerk-Administrator Kathleen Miller was presented. For other years, there were incentive pay listings, however, there were not the copies approved by the Clerk-Administrator. The request was for all documents, and, at a minimum, should include copies approved and initialed by the Clerk-Administrator for all incentive pay for all the years in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City had understood that [X] wanted the incentive pay amounts, which the City provided. As Ms. Walther indicates, there are other documents that contain the same information, although in a different form. The City misinterpreted the nature of the request and will provide the specific documents requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Commissioner does not know what data the City actually maintains. Ms. Walther&apos;s request, based on its original wording, seems clear, i.e., all documents regarding incentive pay for certain employees. These data are public under section 13.43. If the City did not understand her request, it should have sought clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;O. On an unknown date, Ms. Walther or X requested:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. Agendas for all City Council meetings, including Council meetings, special council meetings and work sessions from 1996 through present.
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Agendas and attachments for all Golf Course Committee meetings from 1996 through present.
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tapes of all golf course committee meetings.
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Resolution requiring taping of all meetings held in City Hall.
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Tapes of all City Council meetings were [sic] any golf course or community center issue was discussed.
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Resolution approving data retention schedule and appointing an individual to be responsible for data practices issues.
&lt;br /&gt;
7. All statements of financial interest filed by Rich Sonterre.
&lt;br /&gt;
8. All Mounds View City Council Agendas (including all committee agenda) since June 1, 2000.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Walther wrote, None of these data have been produced for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Alsop wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City has never received any data requests from Ms. Walther or her [client] for the items listed in numbers 1 through 6 above. The City will provide all public data responsive to the request. Tape recordings of any meetings closed under the attorney-client privilege are not public and will not be provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City acknowledges that items 7 and 8 were included in an e-mail to Robert Alsop at Kennedy Graven dated July 11, 2001. With respect to these two requests, the City inadvertently failed to include the documents responsive to these requests at the inspection on July 23, 2001, which instead focused on the prior data requests made by Ms. Walther on May 31, June 11 and June 15, 2001. These documents will be provided to Ms. Walther under separate cover at no expense.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to items 1 - 6, the Commissioner does not know when Ms. Walther requested these data and the City states it did not receive any such request. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot opine as to whether the City responded in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as to items 7 and 8, Mr. Alsop acknowledges that the City received these requests on July 11, 2001, and that it inadvertently failed to provide the data. Clearly, the City did not respond in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Walther raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;B. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;C. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;D. Refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;E. Refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267561&quot; title=&quot;01-075&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-075&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;F. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;G. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City responded appropriately in part, and not appropriately in part.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;L. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;M. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, it appears the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;N. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;O. Regarding items 1 - 6, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the City responded appropriately. Regarding items 7 and 8, the City did not respond appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267951</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:28Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-074</Title><title>Opinion 01 074</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267642&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-18T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville improperly deny access to police reports containing public data, i.e., arrest data, request for service data and response or incident data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville fail to comply with its responsibility to provide written notice that a request for public data was denied and the City&apos;s legal basis for that decision?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 18, 2001; City of Burnsville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from Jeffrey Kummer, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;St. Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Kummer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Burnsville Police Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Kummer&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Greg Konat, City Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Kummer&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 22, 2001, IPA received a response from Roger N. Knutson, City Attorney for Burnsville. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 13, 2001, a &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; reporter asked members of the Burnsville Police Department for information involving specific incidents. The Department responded by providing a news release that contained some information. The reporter than asked for additional information, including police reports containing request for service data and response or incident data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, the Burnsville Chief of Police told the reporter not to expect police reports because the case remained the subject of an ongoing investigation. Later that day, the suspect was charged, and the City provided a copy of the criminal complaint, but still refused to release any police reports, including request for service data and response or incident data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the Police Chief dated July 16, 2001, the reporter repeated her request for data, and stated: [i]f you are denying my request, please provide the required [written] statement and legal basis for your actions. In response, by telephone, the Police Chief told the reporter that any police reports would have to come from the city attorney. An attorney for the City subsequently told the reporter in a telephone conversation that she couldn&apos;t have the reports because the case was still under investigation. The reporter asked the City again for the legal basis for its denial in writing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of the date of this opinion request, the City had neither provided the data nor certified in writing the legal basis for its denial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson stated that the requests for data were not submitted to the City&apos;s responsible authority, as required per section 13.03, subdivision 3. According to Mr. Knutson, had they been, there would have been less chance for confusion over what was wanted. Mr. Knutson stated that the requests for data were not specific, but very general.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson also stated that the data provided, i.e., a copy of the criminal complaint, contains the data requested in the July 16, 2001, letter, except for the names of the victims, which were withheld under section 13.82, subdivision 17, (b) and (g), because the incident involved sexual conduct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson further stated: [t]he City did not receive any request for public data that was denied. [The reporter] was told that the investigative data was being withheld because it was an active investigation. She was also told why the name [sic] of the victims were being withheld.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kummer asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville improperly deny access to police reports containing public data, i.e., arrest data, request for service data and response or incident data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville fail to comply with its responsibility to provide written notice that a request for public data was denied and the City&apos;s legal basis for that decision?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville improperly deny access to police reports containing public data, i.e., arrest data, request for service data and response or incident data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. The specific data elements described at subdivision 2, so-called arrest data, and subdivision 3, request for service data, are always public. Response or incident data, as described at subdivision 6, may be temporarily withheld from the public under certain circumstances, none of which appear to apply here. (See section 13.82, subdivisions 6 and 14.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the data described in those subdivisions are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data elements were specified to ensure that a law enforcement agency could not protect them as active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, certain law enforcement data are never public. For example, under section 13.82, subdivision 17, the identities of undercover agents, informants, certain witnesses and victims (under certain conditions), and victims of criminal sexual conduct, among others, are never public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, some law enforcement data, i.e., active criminal investigative data, are not public while an investigation is active. (See section 13.82, subdivision 7.) When the investigation no longer is active, criminal investigative data, with certain exceptions, are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With the exception of the names of victims of criminal sexual conduct, the data requested by the Pioneer Press, i.e., arrest data, request for service data and response or incident data, may not be withheld from the public on the basis of section 13.82, subdivision 7, as asserted by the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It may be the case that some, or even most, of the data the Pioneer Press requested are contained in the criminal complaint filed in District Court. However, that does not negate the City&apos;s obligation, upon request, to provide access to all of the relevant data it maintains, including any public law enforcement data contained in police reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Burnsville fail to comply with its responsibility to provide written notice that a request for public data was denied and the City&apos;s legal basis for that decision?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f): [u]pon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The purpose of this provision is to let the public know why, when making a request for data it believes to be public, a government entity denies access to the data. Mr. Knutson&apos;s comments notwithstanding, the City did not meet its obligation to certify, in writing, the legal basis for its denial of access to requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson stated that had the reporter directed her request to the City&apos;s responsible authority, there would have been less chance for confusion over what was wanted. The Commissioner cannot determine the clarity or lack of same of the initial verbal requests, and the data request contained in the July 16, 2001, letter to the Police Chief refers back to those initial requests. The Commissioner agrees that, in order to ensure one&apos;s rights under Chapter 13, the procedures in place should be followed, including that requests for government data should be directed to the entity&apos;s responsible authority. However, both the City&apos;s police chief and attorney responded to the reporter&apos;s requests, and neither directed her at the time to the City&apos;s responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Kummeri is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Burnsville improperly denied access to police reports containing public data, i.e., arrest data, request for service data and response or incident data, on the basis of section 13.82, subdivision 7.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f), the City of Burnsville failed to comply with its responsibility to provide written notice that a request for public data was denied and the City&apos;s legal basis for that decision.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 18, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267642</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-073</Title><title>Opinion 01 073</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266997&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Duluth improperly deny access to the following data: records detailing the amount of money the City has paid to individual homeowners and contractors for supplies, construction labor and materials used to disconnect individual basement drains from the City&apos;s sanitary sewer system and install sumps; addresses of homes and businesses identified as needing inspection for participation in the program; and records of homes and businesses that have already been inspected.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 18, 2001; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from Sally L. Tarnowski, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, Ms. Tarnowski asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Duluth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Tarnowski&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jeffrey Cox, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Tarnowski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 13, 2001, IPA received a response from Bryan F. Brown, City Attorney for Duluth. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated May 25, 2001, the &lt;em&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/em&gt; requested access to data related to the City&apos;s I amp; I Reduction Project Fund, the purpose of which, according to Ms. Tarnowski, is to assist homeowners in making alterations, repairs or improvements so that the City is in compliance with sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration standards. . . . The homeowner has the work done by an independent contractor and then the City issues a check made payable to the homeowner and the contractor jointly in the amount of the contractor&apos;s bill. Ms. Tarnowski stated that the City maintains the data, but refused to provide access to some of the data the Tribune requested, on the basis of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Brown stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The city has been conducting a program to limit infiltration of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. . . . One part of the program is to enlist homeowners to disconnect foundation footing drains and then drain the foundations with a sump pump system. The City has either paid the contractors to perform the conversion or reimbursed homeowners. We consider this a housing rehab program similar to fuel assistance or weatherization programs. Therefore, some of the data is benefit data under M.S.A. section13.462.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Tarnowski asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Duluth improperly deny access to the following data: records detailing the amount of money the City has paid to individual homeowners and contractors for supplies, construction labor and materials used to disconnect individual basement drains from the City&apos;s sanitary sewer system and install sumps; addresses of homes and businesses identified as needing inspection for participation in the program; and records of homes and businesses that have already been inspected.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.462, subdivision 1, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As used in this section, &apos;benefit data&apos; means data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, rehabilitation and community action agency, Head Start, and food assistance programs administered by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. Benefit data does not include welfare data which shall be administered in accordance with section 13.46.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 3, other than certain data about individuals who apply for and receive assistance to purchase housing or other real property, all benefit data are private data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Tarnowski and Mr. Brown disagree as to the applicability of section 13.462 to the data in question. According to Ms. Tarnowski, the I I project fund is not a housing program, a home ownership program, a rehabilitation or community action program, a Head Start program or a food assistance program. This project is not intended to necessarily benefit the individual so much as it is intended to benefit the City by keeping sewer water out of the storm water system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Tarnowski further asserted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the qualifications for receiving funding are simply that a particular home is putting sewer water into the storm water system and, eventually, Lake Superior, during times of significant rainfall. This is not a situation where an applicant only qualifies for the funding based upon his or her income, race, or other personal characteristic. This funding may go to the owner of a $30,000 home as well as to an owner of a $230,000 home. This is not the type of benefit contemplated by the statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Tarnowski. From the information provided, it appears that the I amp; I project benefits the City as a whole, rather than individual homeowners. The City receives the benefit of cleaner water in its sewer system. There is nothing in the record that indicates that property owners receive any individual benefit. Section 13.462 classifies data about individual recipients of benefits, and therefore does not apply to the data in question. Accordingly, those data are presumptively public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Tarnowksi is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Duluth improperly denied access to the following data: records detailing the amount of money the City has paid to individual homeowners and contractors for supplies, construction labor and materials used to disconnect individual basement drains from the City&apos;s sanitary sewer system and install sumps; addresses of homes and businesses identified as needing inspection for participation in the program; and records of homes and businesses that have already been inspected. Those data are not benefit data for purposes of section 13.462, and are public under section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 18, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266997</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-072</Title><title>Opinion 01 072</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267711&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-10T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the government data contained in the following documents classified: (1) &quot;Superintendent Goals for 2001-2002 School Year&quot; and (2) a letter from the School Board to the Superintendent?
If the letter is private personnel data, would the classification of the &quot;Superintendent Goals&quot; document change if it were made an attachment to the letter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 10, 2001; School District 482 (Little Falls)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 20, 2001, IPA received a letter from James E. Knutson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Independent School District 482, Little Falls. In this letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Knutson, [t]he facts involve the School Board&apos;s proposed goals for its Superintendent for the 2001-2002 school year entitled Superintendent Goals for 2001-2002 School Year. Mr. Knutson stated that the School Board must adopt the Goals formally at a public board meeting, according to Minnesota Statutes section 123B.143, subdivision 1 (6), and various provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes section 13D.01 et seq.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Knutson stated: [f]urthermore, the Goals do not represent personal data on an individual, such as the Superintendent, since the goals merely represent duties that the Superintendent must perform and goals that he/she must achieve. Therefore, the Goals are public information and not personnel data as set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, Subd. 2 and Subd. 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Knutson also asked the Commissioner whether a letter from the School Board Chair to the Superintendent is public or private: [y]ou should note that the letter constitutes a final disposition of disciplinary action as provided in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43. It provides that if the Superintendent does not meet all of the goals set forth in [the aforementioned letter,] he/she shall be subject to [negative consequences.] The letter, in and of itself, is the final disposition.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the government data contained in the following documents classified: (1) Superintendent Goals for 2001-2002 School Year and (2) a letter from the School Board to the Superintendent?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the letter is private personnel data, would the classification of the Superintendent Goals document change if it were made an attachment to the letter?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, how are the government data contained in the following documents classified: (1) Superintendent Goals for 2001-2002 School Year and (2) a letter from the School Board to the Superintendent?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, provide that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Knutson stated that the Goals are not data on an individual, but rather merely represent duties that the Superintendent must perform and goals that he/she must achieve. According to Mr. Knutson, the Goals are not personnel data. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If there were no Superintendent in place in District 482, then the Goals document would not be associated with a specific individual, and would not constitute data on individuals, as Mr. Knutson asserted. However, there is a Superintendent in place, and the Goals are specific to his job for the coming School Year. Furthermore, the Goals include references to making certain improvements, which clearly relate to the current Superintendent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Public personnel data are enumerated at section 13.43, subdivision 2(a). Data like those related to the Superintendent that are contained in the Goals document are not included in that list, and are, therefore, private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When a government entity takes disciplinary action against an employee, certain data become public when the disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The classification of the letter depends, therefore, on whether the letter constitutes disciplinary action and, if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action. Because Chapter 13 does not specifically define the term disciplinary action it is appropriate to seek further guidance. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, in relevant part defines discipline as, to punish or penalize. Action, also in relevant part, is defined as, an act or thing done. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of disciplinary action is an act that either punishes or penalizes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The letter to the Superintendent refers to the Goals and states that if all of the Goals are not met, he is subject to negative consequences. Mr. Knutson stated that the letter constituted final disciplinary action. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears the purpose of this document is to serve as a threat of punishment or penalty to the employee; not to set forth discipline. There is no mention of punishment; instead the document describes what could happen if the Superintendent does not meet all of the Goals. Therefore, because it appears no disciplinary action was taken, the letter does not constitute final disciplinary action, and is private personnel data, under section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; If the letter is private personnel data, would the classification of the Superintendent Goals document change if it were made an attachment to the letter?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to the discussion above, both the letter and the Goals document are private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Knutson raised a question of the effect of the Open Meeting Law on these issues. To the extent that the Goals and letter were discussed at a meeting of the School Board, as necessary to carry out an agenda item properly before the board, a record of the discussion that appeared in the minutes of the meeting would be public data. However, the original documents retain their classification as private personnel data. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 1, (b) and (c).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Knutson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4, the government data contained in the following documents classified: (1) Superintendent Goals for 2001-2002 School Year and (2) letter from the School Board to the Superintendent are private personnel data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Both the letter and the Superintendent Goals are private personnel data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 10, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267711</id><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Defined</Title><Id>266478</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-071</Title><title>Opinion 01 071</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267949&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an June 5, 2001, request to inspect government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 10, 2001; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 9, 2001, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL, in her capacity as responsible authority for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The purposes of this letter, dated July 24, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On August 9, 2001, IPA received a response from Tammy L. Pust, Assistant Commissioner of CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 5, 2001, Mr. Pachl wrote to Commissioner Jax and asked to inspect certain public data. As of the date of his opinion request, CFL had not responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Pust wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A check of the Department&apos;s records confirms that CFL received Mr. Pachl&apos;s letter via facsimile transfer on June 5, 2001 and that the request was forwarded to the agency&apos;s Data Practices Compliance Official. The Data Practices Compliance Official commenced the process necessary to gather the responsive materials. This action was completed on June 20, 2001. On that date and for the ten days thereafter, the agency&apos;s attentions were primarily centered on preparing for an unprecedented government shutdown due to the uncompleted Legislative Session. In the course of this activity, the Department inadvertently failed to timely notify Mr. Pachl that his information request had been processed and was available for his inspection at the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Pust, CFL became aware of its failure to make the data available to Mr. Pachl when he called asking about it on July 11, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Pust also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In order to avoid similar problems in the future, the Department has taken the following actions:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department will coordinate all requests pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act through the Data Practices Compliance Official; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department is in the process of reviewing and improving the system it utilizes to receive, log, process and respond to data requests in order to ensure that all future requests are handled in accordance with applicable law in the required timeframes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an June 5, 2001, request to inspect government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed an essentially identical issue, which also involved a data inspection request Mr. Pachl made to CFL, in Advisory Opinion 01-054, which was issued on June 27, 2001. CFL has stated that it has taken corrective steps to ensure that this kind of situation will not recur.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to a June 5, 2001, request to inspect government data, because it did not respond at all until the data requestor contacted the Department five weeks later to enquire about his request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 10, 2001&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267949</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-070</Title><title>Opinion 01 070</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267903&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-09-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains: all identifying data about Minnesota State Conservation Officers (peace officers) who are assigned intermittently to undercover duties in addition to their regular assignments as community law enforcement officers?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 4, 2001; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 21, 2001, IPA received a letter from Major William Everett, Division of Enforcement, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In his letter, Major Everett asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the DNR maintains. At the request of IPA staff, Major Everett submitted additional information and clarification, the last of which he submitted on July 9, 2001. Anthony Cornish, President, Minnesota Conservation Officers Association, submitted comments to the Commissioner on July 17, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Major Everett wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The issue involves the classification of data about Minnesota State Conservation Officers (peace officers) who are assigned intermittently to undercover duties in addition to their regular assignments as community law enforcement officers. The Division of Enforcement acknowledges that data relating to these officers - in their undercover capacity - is classified as private pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 5. Our question is whether these intermittent undercover assignments shroud all data about these officers, even data relating to arrests and other actions taken as part of regular uniformed patrol activities, in subdivision 5&apos;s cloak of privacy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Major Everett described the organization of the Division of Enforcement:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Division of Enforcement is organized into various operational and support sections. One of those sections is the Special Investigations Unit, or SIU. SIU is staffed with three full-time officers, all three of whom work extensively in an undercover capacity, posing as customers of illicit services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The staffing of SIU is augmented by the intermittent participation of regular, uniformed conservation officers. These are officers who, for the overwhelming majority of their working hours, conduct uniformed patrol operations and function as very visible members of their communities. Their duties include not only uniformed patrol, but also include appearing in uniform within their patrol areas to give informational presentations to community groups and safety classes. They also appear on camera as part of television stories, give interviews and pose for photographs as part of newspaper and magazine articles, and do radio spots with conservation and safety messages.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                However, at times, these officers are asked to work in an undercover capacity. They perform these undercover duties almost exclusively in areas away from their home duty stations. When working undercover, they are provided with false identities, credentials, and identification.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As part of the Division&apos;s efforts to keep our customers informed, newsworthy events are compiled every week into a document which has become known as the Monday Morning Report. Every officer assigned to a field station is required to submit a summary of newsworthy events for this report. The Division, in turn, compiles these individual reports and provides media outlets, members of the legislature, and other stakeholders with copies. The reports are organized by officer, with a summary of newsworthy events following his or her name. Data about the officers, as it relates to undercover activities, is not reported.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Major Everett provided to the Commissioner a copy of a Monday Morning Report.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Major Everett asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains: all identifying data about Minnesota State Conservation Officers (peace officers) who are assigned intermittently to undercover duties in addition to their regular assignments as community law enforcement officers? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 provides the types of employee data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of employee data as private. Subdivision 5 of section 13.43 specifically classifies data about undercover law enforcement officers:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    All personnel data maintained by any [government entity] relating to an individual employed as or an applicant for employment as an undercover law enforcement officer are private data on individuals. When the individual is no longer assigned to an undercover position, the data described in subdivisions 2 and 3 become public unless the law enforcement agency determines that revealing the data would threaten the personal safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cornish wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    By the Conservation Officers&apos; nature, they travel all over the state in their regular capacity. They run the risk of running into the same subjects that they have worked on while traveling on their regular assignment. They receive training on what to do if that unfortunate circumstance would happen.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is the MCOA&apos;s position that this statute should be interpreted in a very restrictive manner. It does not make sense to be liberal with the definition of what is no longer assigned to an undercover position means. We firmly believe that they are still assigned. The only way that they are not assigned would be if they got fired or moved formally out of that position to something else, not to return.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Mr. Cornish raises some valid concerns, based on the language of section 13.43, subdivision 5, the Commissioner must respectfully disagree. Section 13.43, subdivision 5, states that when an individual is working as an undercover law enforcement officer, all personnel data about that individual are private. It further provides that when the individual is no longer assigned to the undercover position, certain personnel data become public, unless the employing entity determines that revealing the data would threaten the personal safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation. Thus, before an agency publicly reveals data that were previously classified as private, the agency must determine that revealing those data would not threaten the safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation. If the agency determines that revealing the data would threaten the safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation, the agency must continue to treat the data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, Major Everett has described a situation in which DNR moves officers on and off of undercover assignments. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 5, when the officers are working undercover assignments, all personnel data about them are private. However, when those same officers are rotated back to their regular assignments as community law enforcement officers, the data about them listed as public in subdivisions 2 and 3, e.g., name, actual gross salary, work location, work telephone number, etc., are public, unless the DNR determines that revealing the data would threaten the personal safety of the officer or jeopardize an active investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Major Everett raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 5, all personnel data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maintains about Minnesota State Conversation Officers (peace officers) when those officers are assigned to undercover positions are private data. However, when those officers assume their regular assignments as community law enforcement officers, the data in section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3, are public, unless the DNR determines that releasing such data would threaten the personal safety of the officers or jeopardize an active investigation.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 4, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267903</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Undercover officers</Title><Id>267056</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-069</Title><title>Opinion 01 069</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267758&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of previous and current reports about X that the Le Sueur County Sheriff maintains? X requested and signed a &quot;Victim and/or Witness Identity Protection&quot; form.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 28, 2001; Le Sueur County Sheriff</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 10, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated July 3, 2001, from Carla Mador, Data Practices Compliance Officer for the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Department. In her letter, Ms. Mador asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Sheriff&apos;s Department maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Mador wrote that at a specific point in time, an individual requested and signed a Victim and/or Witness Identity Protection form... Ms. Mador provided to the Commissioner a copy of the form. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The question now arises with what previous and current reports can be released under the Data Practices Act, Section 13.82, Subd. 10(d), allowing a law enforcement agency to withhold public access to data that the victim believes could/would be harmful to his/her personal safety....Even though [the individual] did not sign the Identity Protection Form until approximately four (4) years after the initial incidents, does that allow for release of all prior contacts or does that seal all files and is the victim&apos;s concern over [his/her] health and well being reason enough to withhold this information...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Mador asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of previous and current reports about X that the Le Sueur County Sheriff maintains? X requested and signed a Victim and/or Witness Identity Protection form. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data that law enforcement agencies, such as the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s office, maintain are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of particular events. One of the circumstances in which data are never public is when those data qualify for protection under subdivision 17. Subdivision 17 classifies certain identification data as private; of relevance to this opinion are identifying data about victims or witnesses.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, section 13.82, subdivision 17, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    A law enforcement agency...shall withhold public access to data on individuals to protect the identity of individuals in the following circumstances...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (d) when access to the data would reveal the identity of a victim of or witness to a crime if the victim or witness specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the victim or witness would not threaten the personal safety or property of the individual...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Data concerning individuals whose identities are protected by this subdivision are private data about those individuals. Law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make the decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in...(d)...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the language of subdivision 17, law enforcement agencies, in essence, must complete a two-part evaluation prior to treating victim/witness identification data as private. First, the individual must request that his/her name be protected from public disclosure. Second, the agency must determine that if it did reveal the individual&apos;s identity, the individual&apos;s personal safety or property would not be threatened. If the agency determines that the release of identifying data would threaten the personal safety or property of the individual, the agency must treat the identifying data as private and must not release those data to the public. However, the agency must continue to treat as public other public data that do not identify the individual; in other words, the agency should release any such data upon request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments regarding this opinion. Ms. Mador stated that X requested that the Sheriff&apos;s office protect his/her identity. However, Ms. Mador did not provide any information indicating that the Sheriff&apos;s office had determined that releasing X&apos;s identity would or would not threaten his/her personal safety or property. (The Sheriff&apos;s office has been using a form entitled Victim and/or Witness Identity Protection. However, this form contains only the relevant statutory language [section 13.82, subdivision 17] and a blank space for the signature of the individual who has requested that the Sheriff&apos;s office protect his/her identity.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Ms. Mador provided no information to suggest that the Sheriff&apos;s office has established any of the data protection procedures discussed in section 13.82, subdivision 17. The development and existence of such procedures presumably would assist the Sheriff&apos;s office in determining how to evaluate each situation, and to ensure consistency in making these determinations.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Mador also raised the question of how one determines what is meant by the personal safety of an individual. The Legislature did not define this term for the purposes of Chapter 13. Therefore, the Commissioner recommends that each agency make such a determination using reasonableness and common sense. For instance, if an individual is a witness to a serious crime and the perpetrator has threatened the safety of this individual, i.e., threatened to harm the witness and his/her family, and would be able to locate the witness if the witness&apos; identifying data were released, it would seem the Legislature intended that the agency withhold the witness&apos; identity. Again, each agency must rely on reasonableness, common sense, its own in-depth knowledge of the facts, and the procedures the agency has developed pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the Commissioner has the following comments about Ms. Mador&apos;s question regarding which data are protected when a victim/witness requests and an agency determines that identifying data must be withheld. In section 13.82, subdivision 17, the Legislature has made a clear statement that law enforcement agencies must withhold identifying victim/witness data when both criteria in the two-step evaluation process have been met. Although the Legislature did not clearly specify the scope of the protection, it seems reasonable for the agency to withhold all identifying data it maintains about a victim/witness if those data have any direct or remote connection to the situation that caused the victim/witness to request identity protection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, if, for example, X requested identity protection in 1996 and the Sheriff&apos;s office determined that releasing X&apos;s identity would threaten X&apos;s personal safety or property, the Sheriff&apos;s office must protect data which identify X, and which exist in any files relating to the event(s) that caused X to feel threatened, regardless of when the Sheriff&apos;s office collected or created those data. If the identifying data existed in the Sheriff&apos;s office prior to 1996, the Sheriff&apos;s office must protect those data. If the Sheriff&apos;s office has collected or created identifying data since 1996 that relate to the original event(s) that caused X to feel threatened, the Sheriff&apos;s office must also protect those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner points out, however, that it would be administratively prudent for the Sheriff&apos;s office to keep its evaluation process up to date. In other words, each time there is new data collection and X, or any other citizen, is either a victim or a witness, the Sheriff&apos;s office should follow its procedure(s) and conduct the two-part evaluation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Mador raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, before the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s office can treat any victim/witness data about X as private, it must complete the two-part evaluation process established in section 13.82, subdivision 17(d). If X asked for protection, the Sheriff&apos;s office must treat X&apos;s identity as private data unless the Sheriff&apos;s office reasonably determined that revealing X&apos;s identity would not threaten X&apos;s personal safety or property. If the Sheriff&apos;s office has met its obligation under section 13.82, subdivision 17(d), it must withhold all identifying data it maintains about X that have any direct or remote connection to the situation that caused X to request protection. However, the Sheriff&apos;s office should continue to treat as public any public data that do not identify X. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 28, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267758</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-068</Title><title>Opinion 01 068</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266452&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a request for a copy of the City&apos;s Police Department Policy Manual when it redacted portions of the Manual pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 27, 2001; City of Farmington</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 13, 2001, IPA received a letter dated July 11, 2001, from David Gross, an attorney representing Gary Shade. In his letter, Mr. Gross asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his client&apos;s access to certain data that the City of Farmington maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robin Roland, Interim Administrator for the City of Farmington, in response to Mr. Gross&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 23, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Gross&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 31, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Joel Jamnik, an attorney representing the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On or about April 3, 2001, Mr. Shade requested from the City a copy of the Police Policy and Procedure Manual. Following Mr. Shade&apos;s request, he and the City corresponded a number of times; several of the letters related to the City&apos;s determination to withhold data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 27, 2001, Mr. Shade received a letter from the City indicating that a copy of the redacted manual was available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Gross provided specific details about the pages that the City redacted from the Manual. In place of page 14, the City wrote: This page is a memo from the Chief to All Officers. It is dated May 17, 1996 and discusses shift schedules of the department, and indicates when there will be double or triple coverage of officers on weekends.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In place of pages 61 and 62, the City wrote, These pages detail dispatch and patrol procedure and response protocols for officers responding to silent alarms at banks and businesses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In place of page 91, the City wrote, This page details officer protocols for responding to bomb threats.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In place of pages 154 and 155, the City wrote, These pages discuss response protocol in/to hostage situations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In place of pages 181 and 182, the City wrote, 10 code. In one of his letters to Mr. Shade, Mr. Jamnik wrote, The release of this information could assist those inclined to criminal activity in determining when and how to engage in this activity, thus substantially jeopardizing the safety of property or persons...The same analysis applies to the release of 10 codes, which can assist criminal activity through the use of radio scanners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Gross asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Farmington respond appropriately to a request for a copy of the City&apos;s Police Department Policy Manual when it redacted portions of the Manual pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public. Security information is defined as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one of his letters to Mr. Shade, Mr. Jamnik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the nine pages of data that I am recommending to be withheld from release address specific police procedures and protocols employed by the Farmington Police Department in responding to silent alarms, bomb threats, and hostage situations, as well as information pertaining to the level and scheduling of officers on weekends and police radio codes....The rationale for my recommendation is that the safety of police officers or members of the public may be affected by the public release of the requested data thus meeting the statutory definition of security information and generally precluding it [sic] release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Jamnik wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;he City is not seeking to employ the section as a blanket classification scheme for all Policy and Procedures matters. The information redacted comprises 8 pages of a 226 page Manual. The specific information details when the City will enjoy the protection of multiple officers, how the City Police Department will specifically respond to silent alarms, bomb threats, and hostage situations, and what radio codes will be employed by City officers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also addressed the proper classification of data as security information in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;01-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;. In that Opinion, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature did not define substantially jeopardize. In an attempt to clarify this term and the applicable language in section 13.37, the Commissioner reviewed various statutes, laws, and case law but was unable to locate anything specifically applicable to the situation at hand. Because the Commissioner is not comfortable with the broad discretion seemingly available to government entities in using the security data provision to deny access to data, he intends to present this issue to the 2001 Legislature, in hopes that they will clarify the language. This is a particularly prudent time for the Commissioner to seek legislative guidance because, in addition to the issues raised in this opinion, he is aware of several recent instances in which government entities have used the security data provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the issue raised by Ms. Kramer remains. The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor&apos;s security detail, and for protecting the Governor&apos;s person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See &lt;em&gt;Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership&lt;/em&gt;, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); &lt;em&gt;In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T.&lt;/em&gt;, 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination. As stated above, we recognize a need for legislative clarification regarding the security information provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The 2001 Legislature did not take up the issue of security information.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the Commissioner has opined previously that subdivisions 1(a) and 2 of section 13.37 may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme. Rather, those subdivisions apply to otherwise public data in specific situations in which an entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-046&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Commissioner is again inclined to defer to the expertise of the City. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the release of the types of data the City redacted, e.g., protocols for responding to silent alarms at banks and businesses, protocols for responding to bomb threats, and protocols for responding to hostage situations, would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, individuals or property against theft, improper use, trespass, or physical injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Gross raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Farmington responded appropriately to a request for a copy of the City&apos;s Police Department Policy Manual when it redacted portions of the Manual pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security information.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266452</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-067</Title><title>Opinion 01 067</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267230&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-16T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Oak Park Heights in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: $50.00 per hour for labor, plus an additional $.10 per page, $30.00 per videotape and $5.00 per audiotape?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 16, 2001; City of Oak Park Heights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 26, 2001, IPA received a letter from Song Lo Fawcett, an attorney, on behalf of a client, the owner of an MGM Liquor Warehouse. In this letter, Ms. Fawcett asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Oak Park Heights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Fawcett&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Melena, City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated June 28, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Fawcett&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 23, 2001, IPA received a response from Mark J. Vierling, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the City dated April 12, 2001, Ms. Fawcett requested copies of [a]ll data concerning and relating to the MGM Liquor Warehouse . . . . The cost was $504.70 for 72 black and white photocopies, which included the following charges: $50.00 per hour for labor, plus an additional $.10 per page, $30.00 per videotape and $5.00 per audiotape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Vierling stated that the charges for providing data on a videotape, namely $30.00 for two hours&apos; labor and $5.00 for the blank tape was what the City paid for the tape to the Central St. Croix Valley Cable Commission, which, at that time, was videotaping City Council meetings . . . . According to the Cable Commission&apos;s invoice, the $30.00 labor charge was to find various segments on original tapes; then compile them onto new videotape copy in video editor. The $5.00 charge was for the cost of a blank videotape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vierling also included a copy of the hourly wage and benefits paid to City staff that are used to research and produce records, which range from $12.32 to $42.67 per hour, and a copy of the City Finance Department&apos;s analysis of the cost to produce photocopies, which is $.10 per page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Fawcett asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Oak Park Heights in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: $50.00 per hour for labor, plus an additional $.10 per page, $30.00 per videotape and $5.00 per audiotape?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of public government data, the entity may recover some of its associated costs. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a reasonable fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The primary problem with the response from the City is that it does not adequately account for its charges and how they relate to the language in section 13.03. For example, it is not clear how the City calculated its copying charges in this instance. According to the City&apos;s invoice to Ms. Fawcett, it charged 9.25 hours of labor at $50.00 per hour, but the labor charges it provided to the Commissioner ranged from $12.32 to $42.67 per hour. Furthermore, as the Commissioner has previously opined, it is not appropriate for a government entity to charge the salary rate of its highest paid employees when it calculates its labor costs associated with making photocopies. Rather, the government entity should base its charge for labor on the salary and benefits of an employee in a clerical position. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, based on the information provided by Mr. Vierling, the City has not met the burden of establishing that its charge of $.10 per page represents its actual cost to produce a copy. Specifically, the City charges $.07 per page for electricity and all other costs associated with copying. What constitutes all other costs? Furthermore, the Commissioner has previously opined that it is not appropriate to include charges for costs like electricity in copy charges for government data. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267598&quot; title=&quot;01-066&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-066&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Vierling, the City simply passed on to Ms. Fawcett its actual cost, i.e., what it paid to the Cable Commission, to provide a copy of the videotape. (In her opinion request, Ms. Fawcett referred to a charge of $5.00 for an audiotape; the documentation refers only to a videotape. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes that the $5.00 charge in dispute is the cost of the blank videotape.) According to a brief survey conducted by IPA, the cost of a blank videotape ranges from $1.08 to $1.75 per tape; however, because the $5.00 charge represents the City&apos;s actual cost, it may pass that charge along to Ms. Fawcett.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One further comment is in order. When discussing the City&apos;s copy charges, Mr. Vierling referred to charges for research. Ms. Fawcett did not ask the City to conduct any research. She made a straightforward request for copies of existing government data, and any costs charged to her must comply with Chapter 13 and its implementing rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Fawcett is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Oak Park Heights is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: $50.00 per hour for labor, plus an additional $.10 per page.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 16, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267230</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Operating expenses excluded</Title><Id>266306</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-066</Title><title>Opinion 01 066</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267598&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Lakeland in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charge for copies of government data: $1.00 per page for black and white photocopies?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 16, 2001; City of Lakeland</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 26, 2001, IPA received a letter from Song Lo Fawcett, an attorney, on behalf of her client. In this letter, Ms. Fawcett asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Lakeland.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Fawcett&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wanda Bridges, City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated June 28, 2001, were to inform her of Ms. Fawcett&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 23, 2001, IPA received a response from Mark J. Vierling, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the City dated March 9, 2001, Ms. Fawcett requested copies of all data concerning Gary Mau/Beanie&apos;s Resort . . . . (Ms. Fawcett&apos;s client is neither Gary Mau nor Beanie&apos;s Resort.) The charge for 781 black and white photocopies was $781.00. Ms. Fawcett then asked the City to provide further itemization of the charges, to which Mr. Vierling replied: [t]he City of Lakeland has established a single charge of $1.00 per page for purposes of reproducing copies at public request which would incorporate all of the City&apos;s time in searching for those records that are being reproduced: the employee staff time, City Hall overhead, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Vierling stated: [e]nclosed herewith and provided to you is a certified copy of the City of Lakeland Resolution 2000-11. The City of Lakeland has reviewed its policy with regard to charges for research, staff time, photocopying, etc. as it affects permissible charges under Minnesota Statute 13.03 and has, within the Resolution, identified its effective staff time and rates for charges based on actual staff time and photocopying costs. The Resolution was passed by the City Council on July 17, 2001. According to Mr. Vierling, the City would, in accordance with its newly adopted policy, revise the copy charges at issue here. Mr. Vierling did not specify how the City would adjust its charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
In request for an opinion, asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Lakeland in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charge for copies of government data: $1.00 per page for black and white photocopies?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of public government data, the entity may recover some of its associated costs. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a reasonable fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City charged Ms. Fawcett $1.00 per page for 781 photocopies. When asked for data that document the basis of that charge, the City simply stated that it had established a single charge that included all of the City&apos;s time in searching for those records that are being reproduced: the employee staff time, City Hall overhead, etc. The City produced no data that support its copy fee, and thus, did not meet the burden of establishing that its actual and reasonable cost to produce a page of public government data is $1.00. When it revises its fee in this case, the City must ensure that the fee represents its actual and reasonable cost to provide the copies to Ms. Fawcett.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment about one aspect of the City&apos;s Resolution 2000-11. In its calculation of its per copy cost, the City included $1055 for its annual maintenance cost, and $950.00 annual depreciation. However, as the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-059&lt;/a&gt;, it is not appropriate for government entities to include those costs when calculating copy charges:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated above, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, allows a responsible authority to recover the actual costs of providing copies of public government data. Pursuant to this subdivision and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, it is permissible to include certain costs in the calculation of the fee charged for copies of public data. Mr. Burt states that included in the costs considered by the City in its determination of a $.50 per sheet copy charge were the costs of copy machines and maintenance. Neither the statute nor the rule allows inclusion of costs for copy machines and maintenance in the calculation of reasonable copying fees, unless the machine and maintenance costs are directly attributable to the costs of providing the public with copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Presumably Rosemount must operate and maintain copy machines for its internal operations. Rosemount did not submit information to the Commissioner which indicates that it must operate and maintain machines other than those necessary for its internal operations in order to provide members of the public with copies of public data. It is not reasonable for government entities to recover a portion of their normal operating expenses by charging a copying fee which is higher than the actual cost to supply the copy. (See also Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-040&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Fawcett is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Lakeland was not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charge for copies of government data: $1.00 per page for black and white photocopies, because it did not meet the burden of establishing that it is its actual and reasonable cost to produce a page of public government data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 16, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267598</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Maintenance, wear, tear, depreciation</Title><Id>266852</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-065</Title><title>Opinion 01 065</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267681&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 271, Bloomington, maintains: a letter to an employee of the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 16, 2001; School District 271 (Bloomington)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 21, 2001, IPA received a letter from Gloria Olsen, an attorney representing School District 271, Bloomington. In her letter, Ms. Olsen asked the Commissioner to address the classification of certain data that the District maintains. Dale Swanson, an attorney representing the individual who is the subject of the data at issue, asked for an opportunity to provide comments. The Commissioner received his comments, dated same, on July 23, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Olsen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is a request...for an opinion related to whether the enclosed April 20, 2001 letter to an employee of the Bloomington Public Schools is public as final disciplinary action or private personnel data. The time period for grieving the April 20, 2001 letter under the applicable collective bargaining agreement has passed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Olsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that School District 271, Bloomington, maintains: a letter to an employee of the District?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 271 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), provides that the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The key to answering Ms. Olsen&apos;s question, therefore, is whether or not the Notice of Deficiency constitutes disciplinary action, and whether or not a final disposition has occurred. The Legislature did not define disciplinary action for purposes of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Notice is approximately 11 pages long and consists of a list of various deficiencies; each deficiency includes a series of specific examples. Following the deficiencies are a list of directives. But the first and second-to-last paragraph of the Notice contain the most relevant language. The first paragraph states, This Notice of Deficiency constitutes disciplinary action against you. The second-to-last paragraph states: You must correct the deficiencies and follow the directives noted above. If you fail to do so, you will be subject to &lt;u&gt;additional disciplinary action&lt;/u&gt;, including the possibility of termination of your continuing contract. (Emphasis added.) Based on this language, the Commissioner concludes, as he similarly did in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266940&quot; title=&quot;00-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-005&lt;/a&gt;, that the Notice of Deficiency constitutes disciplinary action. Further, because Ms. Olsen stated in her opinion request that the time period for the employee to grieve the letter has expired, it appears that a final disposition has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, because there apparently has been a final disposition, the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. Whether all of the data contained in the letter represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and data documenting the basis of the action is for the District to determine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Swanson argued that the Notice of Deficiency is not discipline. He discussed &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266940&quot; title=&quot;00-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-005&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner appears to have previously taken the position that even in a context of inconsistent statement, a singe declaration by the employer that a document is disciplinary action is sufficient to reclassify data as public when finality is achieved.... We believe those opinions were incompletely and ill considered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As discussed above, the Legislature did not define discipline for purposes of Chapter 13. Thus, in cases where the government entity has not made a clear statement that it has disciplined an employee, the Commissioner must look at the data provided and make a reasonable determination as to whether discipline has occurred. In some cases, the determination may hinge on policies and/or procedures relating to discipline contained in either the employee&apos;s contract or the entity&apos;s general policies. Here, neither party provided the Commissioner with relevant portions of the employee&apos;s contract or any other related documents. Furthermore, in this case, the District made a specific statement that the data constitute discipline. In such instances, the Commissioner has tended to agree with the entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its treatment of disciplinary data about public employees, it is clearly the Legislature&apos;s intent to open up data about final disciplinary action to maximum public scrutiny. In this instance, the District says it has disciplined a public employee, and indicates that the disciplinary action is final. The Commissioner is not in a position to disagree with that determination, particularly when the document at issue clearly specifies performance problems about the employee, details corrective actions that must be taken, and characterizes the overall discussion about performance deficiencies and corrective directives as a disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266940&quot; title=&quot;00-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-005&lt;/a&gt; was issued on February 29, 2000. From that point on, entities, employees, and the Legislature have been on notice of the Commissioner&apos;s position. There is no basis in the context of this case for reconsideration of that Advisory Opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One final note is in order. In his comments, Mr. Swanson revealed that he, on behalf of his client, has challenged the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data contained in the Notice. He has made this challenge pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. He wrote, That matter will be submitted to the Commissioner within the next several weeks pursuant to the administrative appeal provisions of Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1600. Upon learning this fact, IPA staff wrote to Ms. Olsen and urged her to withdraw her request for this Advisory Opinion, on the grounds that the data may at some point be altered because they are incorrect or incomplete. Ms. Olsen did not withdraw her request prior to the opinion being submitted to the Commissioner for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. OIsen raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Notice of Deficiency appears to be disciplinary in nature. Therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the data in the Notice are classified as private or public, depending upon whether the data provide the specific reasons for, and/or document the basis of, the disciplinary action.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 16, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267681</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Defined</Title><Id>266478</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Policy or contract determines</Title><Id>266857</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-064</Title><title>Opinion 01 064</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267782&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-08-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data that describe actions taken by employees of the City of Minneapolis be frustrated if the City did not document these activities?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 3, 2001; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 17, 2001, IPA received a letter dated April 13, 2001, from James Erickson. In his letter, Mr. Erickson discussed the difficulty he was having gaining access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains. Upon subsequent conversations between Mr. Erickson and IPA staff, it was determined that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on matter listed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jim Moore, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, in response to Mr. Erickson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 30, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Erickson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 11, 2001, IPA received a response, dated June 7, 2001, from Craig Steiner, responsible authority for the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Mr. Erickson submitted them is as follows. Mr. Erickson is aware of a series of incidents that occurred on December 23, 1999, during which the assistance of the Minneapolis Police Department was requested. On that day, an individual committed suicide at Mr. Erickson&apos;s house. Subsequently, Mr. Erickson made requests for access to data regarding the suicide; specifically, the events that led up to the suicide. (Mr. Erickson&apos;s data requests are the subject of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268032&quot; title=&quot;00-076&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-076&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the Minneapolis Police Department assigned two case numbers to the events surrounding the suicide, #MP99400432 and #MP99400462. Mr. Erickson&apos;s contention is that #MP99400432 does not reflect a complete recording of the events. He provided his accounting of #MP99400432 and stated, My friend&apos;s death by suicide with the shotgun approximately 2 laquo; hours later is documented extensively as Case #MP99400462. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As of this date, no official police record, statements, or incident reports generated by [the City] exist concerning Case #MP99400432. What does exist is a transcript from radio communications in which it is stated that one camo shotgun was recovered as well as almost everything I have described above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Erickson also stated, No mention of the transfer of the shotgun from [a neighbor&apos;s] property to my property is made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Erickson wrote, ...it seems almost incredulous that no officer statements or incident reports exist regarding the police transfer of my friend&apos;s firearm - not to mention the absence of an official report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Erickson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data that describe actions taken by employees of the City of Minneapolis be frustrated if the City did not document these activities?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, individuals have the rights to inspect and obtain copies of government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of the state, counties, cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03 (access to public data), imposes an obligation upon government entities to make and preserve a record of their actions, so that those records will be available for public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Erickson asserts that the City has not created or maintained sufficient records surrounding #MP99400432. In his opinion request, he stated that he inspected the City&apos;s June 24, 1998, Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual. He provided relevant portions of this document to the Commissioner. Volume Four, Administrative Procedures, 4-601 (A) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Officers shall make reports for crimes or incidents occurring, or originating in, the City of Minneapolis (12/06/92).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In serious or major crimes, officers shall immediately dictate a report to a typist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If two or more officers are involved in an incident, the superior or senior officer involved is responsible for reviewing the reports for validity, completeness and clarity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Superior officers shall assume responsibility for all reports submitted by their subordinates. They shall review and sign, in the upper right hand corner, the station or unit copies within five days of submittal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[Section 15.17] requires all officials of municipal corporations such as the City to make and preserve all records necessary to full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. The City fully complied with this statutory requirement. Mr. Erickson complains that no narrative police report was written by police officers responding to the first call to his address on December 23, 1999. However, the fact that the officers provided police service at that address is well documented. Minneapolis Emergency Communication records reflect the dispatch of the officers to that location and the officers&apos; response. The police response to the address is further verified and documented within the police report of Sergeant Alquire appended to Mr. Erickson&apos;s letter. Mr. Erickson&apos;s complaint, then, seems to relate not to the absence of an official record, but to the quality of such and the level of detail contained therein. What type of a police report is required of a police officer in a particular circumstance is a matter left to the sound discretion of the municipality and its police department. Here the Police Department has determined that no narrative report was required. The Official Records Statute does not require such a detailed description of every act taken by any public official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. The City&apos;s position, as articulated by Mr. Steiner, is that the Police Department has met its obligation under section 15.17. Mr. Erickson argues there is a specific set of facts that the Police Department did not record, as well as the general lack of an official report. While Mr. Steiner is correct that the City has certain discretion regarding what data it records and maintains, it must meet the threshold provided in section 15.17; that is, the City must make and preserve &lt;em&gt;all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities&lt;/em&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the only data created about the first of the two police responses to Mr. Erickson&apos;s residence (Case #MP99400432) are those contained in the Emergency Communication Records. This document appears to be a log sheet documenting radio communications with the officers. Given Mr. Erickson&apos;s accounting of the events that occurred in relation to #MP99400432, it is not clear why the officers involved did not create a more detailed report of the incident. What little record the Department did create, does not enable the public to gain any understanding of the officers official activities in relation to their response to Mr. Erickson&apos;s request for assistance. There appears to be no record of what the officers did while in and around Mr. Erickson&apos;s home and why they did what they did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, as Mr. Erickson pointed out, the City has a manual that sets forth its policy regarding the creation of police reports. As stated above, the manual states, Officers shall make reports only for crimes or incidents occurring, or originating in, the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Steiner did not address the City&apos;s manual in his comments. Given that #MP99400432 originated out of a 911 call from Mr. Erickson, to which it appears more than one officer responded, it seems reasonable to conclude that officers would have created a report. However, this did not happen. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, therefore, based on the information provided, that the City did not sufficiently demonstrate why it did not, in this case, produce a record that would fully and accurately document the activities conducted by the police officers dispatched to Mr. Erickson&apos;s home.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Erickson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota section 15.17, the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data that describe actions taken by employees of the City of Minneapolis would be frustrated if the City did not document these activities.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 3, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267782</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reports</Title><Id>245973</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Obligation to maintain and preserve records</Title><Id>266373</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-063</Title><title>Opinion 01 063</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267660&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-30T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 821, Menahga, appropriately deny public access to the following government data: the identities of two District employees whose employment the School Board resolved to terminate, prior to the final disposition of disciplinary action?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> July 30, 2001; School District 821 (Menahga)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 12, 2001, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;em&gt;Sebeka-Menahga Review Messenger&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 821, Menahga.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Seybert, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 18, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 2, 2001, IPA received a response from Kevin J. Rupp, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the minutes of its regularly scheduled meeting on May 23, 2001, the Menahga School Board closed part of the meeting to give preliminary consideration to a complaint against an employee. When the Board reconvened in open session, a motion was made and carried unanimously to terminate the School District employees effective immediately. The meeting minutes contain no other details. Mr. Anfinson stated that the employees were school bus drivers; Mr. Rupp identified them only as employees. Mr. Rupp stated that the two employees involved have grieved their termination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After the Board meeting, the &lt;em&gt;Review Messenger&lt;/em&gt; asked for the names of the employees, which the District refused.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 821, Menahga, appropriately deny public access to the following government data: the identities of two District employees whose employment the School Board resolved to terminate, prior to the final disposition of disciplinary action?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; (see subdivision 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Rupp, the final disposition of the disciplinary action has not occurred. He stated: [i]f the School District releases the names of the terminated employees, at least two items of data will be disclosed: (1) that the complaints against the employees have been substantiated by the School District and (2) that the employees have been fired. Such release is improper. Mr. Rupp cited Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267481&quot; title=&quot;01-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-037&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-042&lt;/a&gt;, and further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the name of the employee and the nature of the proposed disciplinary action are inextricably intertwined. The newspaper is already aware of the nature of the discipline because the School Board&apos;s resolution states that the two employees have been terminated. If the School District releases the identity of the two employees who were terminated, it will release the nature of the disciplinary action taken against these two employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted by Mr. Rupp, the Commissioner addressed a very similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;. In that situation, a City held a closed meeting for the purpose of considering charges against a City employee. When the meeting was reopened, the City Council voted to discipline an employee. A newspaper asked for the employee&apos;s name and the nature of the discipline, which the City refused. The Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The name of a public employee, against whom complaints or charges have been made and discipline proposed, is public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. The nature of the proposed disciplinary action is private unless and until the proposed disciplinary action becomes final.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What distinguishes that situation from the instant case is that here, the School Board disclosed the nature of the discipline, i.e., termination, at the public meeting. However, its mistake in disclosing more data than it should have does not negate its obligation to release to the public the names of the employees, which are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Rupp also stated that if the District were to release the names of the terminated employees, it would improperly disclose that complaints against the employees have been substantiated by the District. He cited &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267481&quot; title=&quot;01-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-037&lt;/a&gt; to support his position, in which the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is correct that section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), clearly states that status of a complaint or charge is public, and, under different circumstances, an entity&apos;s disclosure that a complaint had been substantiated might be appropriate. However, as the Commissioner has previously discussed, if a final disposition has not occurred (as is the case here), an entity&apos;s release of status information should not disclose particular details regarding a complaint. The problem in this situation is that Ms. Becker, in revealing to the complainant parents that their complaint had been substantiated, released much more than status information. She implicitly informed them that the very things they had alleged about X were correct. Thus, in this particular fact situation, the Commissioner opines that the District inappropriately released data about X. An appropriate response would have been a statement that the investigation had been completed and that the District was initiating disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The circumstances in that case are not comparable to this one. There, the District told the &lt;u&gt;complainants&lt;/u&gt; that their complaints had been substantiated, which clearly revealed the nature and substance of the complaints prior to final disciplinary action. The Commissioner qualified his comments in that case as applying to that particular fact situation. He has not been provided any information that suggests that the circumstances here are similar.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 821, Menahga, inappropriately denied public access to the following government data: the identities of two District employees whose employment the School Board resolved to terminate, prior to the final disposition of disciplinary action.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 30, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267660</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Names of employees</Title><Id>266917</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-062</Title><title>Opinion 01 062</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267845&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-30T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools, inappropriately disseminate private data during a July 31, 2000, special meeting of the School Board?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 30, 2001; School District 2169 (Murray County Central)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 11, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her rights regarding certain data maintained by Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cornelius H. Smit, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 13, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On July 6, 2001, IPA received a response from Jay T. Squires, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 The Murray County Central School Board held a special session on July 31, 2000. According to X, at that meeting the School Board released data about him/her to the public. On August 7, 2000, the &lt;i&gt;Murray County Wheel/Herald&lt;/i&gt; newspaper published an article that contained the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A Level III Grievance Hearing will be scheduled. [X] and the MCC Education Assn&apos; have requested the hearing. [X&apos;s] grievance is based on a letter in which Principal Mark Bergmann threatened termination of [his/her] contract because of actions on [X&apos;s] part. The hearing needs to be held within 20 days. Those actions were not defined in the notice received by Superintendent Smit.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X wrote: [a]t the time of the article, I was involved within the grievance procedure through our education association over a letter of discipline which had been placed in my personnel file.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Squires provided the Commissioner with a copy of a letter from X and his/her union representative to Superintendent Smit. Mr. Squires wrote: [X] asked whether the District appropriately released personnel data by including in the School Board packet a copy of [his/her] letter requesting [his/her] grievance be moved to Level III under the local bargaining agreement. The grievance involved a challenge to the accuracy of the data in a letter issued by the District to [X.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Squires stated that the contents of that letter are public because they are either data that identify the existence or status of a complaint or charge against X, per section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4), or are X&apos;s statement of disagreement regarding the accuracy of data maintained by the District, as provided under section 13.04, subdivision 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools, inappropriately disseminate private data during a July 31, 2000, special meeting of the School Board? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (see subdivision 2(a)(5).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b), and in this context, occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The substantive content in the letter from X to the District, which the District made available to the public, is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Per the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the MCCEA and Independent School District No. 2169, we have decided to move the grievance of [X] to Level III.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We will wait for your reply as to a hearing with the School Board as per the CBA. In response to your statement, the letter itself does not constitute discipline&apos; under the CBA , it is very hard to interpret Mr. Bergmann&apos;s concerns any other way when he refers to MN Statute 122A.40 three times as to possible termination of [X&apos;s] teaching position if such actions continue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is hoped that an agreement between the two parties will be forthcoming in a timely manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Squires characterized the contents of X&apos;s letter to the District as 1) constituting the existence and status of charges involving X, and 2) as X&apos;s challenge to the accuracy of data maintained about him/her by the District and X&apos;s statement of disagreement regarding those data. With respect to the first point, Mr. Squires stated: [i]n particular, the letter at issue contains no data regarding the nature of the charges, and thus still falls within the definition of existence and status as that term is used in state law. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The letter X sent to Superintendent Smit serves to clarify the issues between them, and while the fact that s/he is grieving the complaint or charge against him/her is public, the other details contained in the letter are not. For example, X refers to a letter from his/her principal that states that if X continues certain actions, his/her employment could be terminated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    With respect to the second point, Mr. Squires stated the letter included in the School Board packet contained the letter advising the Board of the employee&apos;s challenge to the accuracy of data. . . . . Paragraph two of the letter challenges the characterization of the letter on which the grievance was based, and thus constitutes the employee&apos;s own statement of disagreement&apos; with the data&apos;s accuracy.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about him/her that a government entity maintains:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In order for a data subject to exercise his/her right to challenge data per section 13.04, subdivision 4, the data subject must follow the procedures outlined in statute and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. Mr. Squires did not provide any data that demonstrate that X has formally challenged the data in question. The letter from X to Superintendent Smit does not mention a data challenge under section 13.04. Accordingly, the letter does not constitute a statement of disagreement that must be disclosed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools, inappropriately disseminated private data during a July 31, 2000, special meeting of the School Board. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 30, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267845</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Statement of disagreement</Title><Id>266510</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-061</Title><title>Opinion 01 061</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267262&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an April 10, 2001, request for copies of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 30, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 8, 2001, IPA received a letter from David Waage. In this letter, Mr. Waage asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Waage&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Weaver, Commissioner of DPS. The purposes of this letter, dated June 18, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Waage&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DPS&apos;s position.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 28, 2001, IPA received a response from Lt. Colonel Steven J. Mengelkoch, Assistant Chief of the Minnesota State Patrol. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Waage&apos;s father died in 1997 as the result of an automobile accident. The following is a summary of Mr. Waage&apos;s communications with DPS regarding his data request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  On April 10, 2001, Mr. Waage requested copies of two audio cassette tapes that contain interviews conducted by the State Patrol in connection with its investigation of the fatal accident.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  In a letter dated April 17, 2001, DPS told Mr. Waage that it would forward the tapes to him upon receipt of the copying fee. DPS mailed the copies to Mr. Waage on May 8, 2001.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  Mr. Waage returned the tapes, and in a letter dated May 15, 2001, stated they were of unacceptable sound quality, and asked for better quality copies. He also requested that the tapes be in standard size cassettes, rather than the micro size originally provided.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  Commissioner Weaver replied, in a letter dated May 21, 2001, that he had asked the State Patrol to make every effort to comply with your request.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  In a letter also dated May 21, 2001, Captain Al Kutz of the State Patrol wrote to Mr. Waage that he agreed that the sound quality was poor, and that he would retrieve the original tapes and make new copies.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  In a letter to Mr. Waage dated June 1, 2001, Lt. Colonel Mengelkoch wrote: Captain Kutz assures me that he is making every effort to provide you with the requested tape.
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 6, 2001, Captain Kutz wrote the following to Mr. Waage:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Enclosed is a tape containing both interviews obtained from Trooper John Hodnefield&apos;s original micro cassette tapes. We listened to the two original tapes, and both are of poor quality. You initially did not receive poor recordings of quality tapes; the original tapes themselves are the problem.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I listened to the tapes with Trp. Hodnefield. He did remember that when he listened to the tapes after taking the interviews, he found they had not recorded well. He learned that the equipment used while recording the tapes was not working properly at that time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We do not have the equipment at our office to copy a micro cassette to a standard size cassette. One of our clerical staff was kind enough to make the recording at her home on her equipment. What you have received today is the best recording we can get given what we have to work with.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Waage stated that DPS had not responded to his data request in a prompt manner, as mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Lt. Colonel Mengelkoch recounted DPS&apos;s responses to Mr. Waage, and stated [g]iven the totality of the circumstances, the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Patrol responded promptly and reasonably to Mr. Waage&apos;s request. Considering mailing time, the difficulty in making the reproductions, and the fact that Mr. Waage was kept apprised of the progress being made to create the best possible audio reproductions, the State Patrol acted appropriately in responding to Mr. Waage&apos;s data request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wagge asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to an April 10, 2001, request for copies of government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request to a responsible authority for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, the response must be made within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner agrees with DPS that it responded promptly and reasonably to Mr. Waage&apos;s request for copies of audio tapes. Unfortunately, the quality of the original recordings is poor, and Mr. Waage is understandably frustrated that he cannot understand all of the contents of the taped interviews. However, DPS apparently has done all it is able to do to provide Mr. Waage with audible recordings.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Presumably DPS has addressed the problems with the recording equipment used, so that in the future it will be able to fulfill its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, subdivision 1, to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [its] official activities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Waage is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to an April 10, 2001, request for copies of government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 30, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267262</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely, generally</Title><Id>266408</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-060</Title><title>Opinion 01 060</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267279&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-26T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625, St. Paul, inappropriately disseminate data about student X to X&apos;s peers?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 26, 2001; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 30, 2001, IPA received a letter from X&apos;s parent. In his/her letter, X&apos;s parent requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding whether School District 625, St. Paul, inappropriately released data about X. X is a student in the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia Harvey, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s parent&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 4, 2001, were to inform her of the request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 21, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Nancy Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by X&apos;s parent is as follows. X&apos;s parent wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On [a specific date, X&apos;s teacher] announced to [his/her] classroom that a list of students would not be accompanying [a specific grade] on a scheduled field trip for disciplinary reasons. Those students, who [X&apos;s teacher] named, would instead be assigned to a classroom in another grade. All the students in the room heard this announcement, and the named students were more than a little embarrassed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [X] was among those students named.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X&apos;s parent asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625, St. Paul, inappropriately disseminate data about student X to X&apos;s peers?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data maintained by a public educational agency or institution that relate to a student are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, educational data. Subject to limited exceptions, which apparently do not apply in this situation, educational data are private data on individuals and are not accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on individuals are defined in section 13.02, subdivision 5, as data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [X&apos;s teacher] informed [his/her] classroom, Those not going [on the field trip] will go to [another grade] rooms. [X&apos;s teacher] used the word those and does not believe [s/he] used the students&apos; names. Because [his/her] statement did not identify any individual, including Student X, as the data subject...[his/her] statement does not constitute data on individuals. ...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [X&apos;s teacher] denies saying that [the students] would not be going for disciplinary reasons. They might not have been going for any number of reasons - e.g., lack of parental permission, no interest, religious beliefs, or possibly discipline.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve. X&apos;s parent alleges that X&apos;s teacher released information revealing that X could not attend the field trip because of disciplinary reasons. Ms. Cameron, on behalf of the District, disputes that assertion and states that X&apos;s teacher revealed only that those students not going on the field trip would be going to rooms in another grade.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comment. If X&apos;s teacher named X and explained why X would not be attending the field trip, i.e, because X was being disciplined, such a dissemination was inappropriate. Pursuant to section 13.32, because the data about why X did not attend the field trip are data that relate to a student, they are educational data. Pursuant to section 13.32, section 3, those data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final note is in order. Ms. Cameron, in her response to the Commissioner, included some private data about X that the Commissioner did not need to render his opinion. The Commissioner encourages the District and all other responding government entities to limit their comments to only that information which is relevant and necessary to the opinion issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X&apos;s parents raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;There is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. If X&apos;s teacher named X and explained why X would not be attending the field trip, such a dissemination was inappropriate. Pursuant to section 13.32, the data about why X did not attend the field trip are private educational data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 26, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267279</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity comments</Title><Id>266978</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-059</Title><title>Opinion 01 059</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267060&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations respond appropriately to a request for the following data: 1) Provide lag triangles detailing claims paid by month of incurral for each Care System for the two-year period ending 3/31/01. Separate MAPE employee claims from total if possible and provide separate triangles for total SEGIP and MAPE only; 2) Include member exposure by month or employee count by month if member data is not available, for each Care System. Again, provide separate MAPE exposure and total SEGIP exposure; 3) Provide SEGIP established reserves as of 3/31/01 and 12/31/00, with separate MAPE reserves if available; and 4) If available, provide copies of any actuarial reports detailing reserve development?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 26, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 15, 2001, IPA received a letter dated May 11, 2001, from Gregg Corwin, an attorney representing the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE). In his letter, Mr. Corwin requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding MAPE&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) maintains. At the request of IPA staff, James Monroe, Executive Director of MAPE, provided additional information in a letter received by IPA on May 31, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julien Carter, Commissioner of DOER, in response to Mr. Corwin&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 31, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Corwin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On June 11, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated June 8, 2001, from Commissioner Carter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated April 17, 2001, Mr. Monroe requested certain data from DOER. In his letter to the Commissioner (of Administration) he wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Following submission of the information request, I had telephone conversations with [DOER staff and the state&apos;s Chief Negotiator] concerning this request. During these conversations, we agreed to drop our request for MAPE specific information and would work with the information for the entire plan....[both DOER staff and the State&apos;s chief negotiator] informed me verbally that they would not provide the information we requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Corwin then requested this opinion on behalf of MAPE.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Corwin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations respond appropriately to a request for the following data: 1) Provide lag triangles detailing claims paid by month of incurral for each Care System for the two-year period ending 3/31/01. Separate MAPE employee claims from total if possible and provide separate triangles for total SEGIP and MAPE only; 2) Include member exposure by month or employee count by month if member data is not available, for each Care System. Again, provide separate MAPE exposure and total SEGIP exposure; 3) Provide SEGIP established reserves as of 3/31/01 and 12/31/00, with separate MAPE reserves if available; and 4) If available, provide copies of any actuarial reports detailing reserve development? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless they are classified otherwise.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, section 13.67, employee relations data, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The following data collected, created, or maintained by the department of employee relations are classified as nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 9...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (e) Claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators participating in either the state group insurance plan, the Minnesota employee insurance program, the state workers&apos; compensation program, or the public employees insurance program as defined in chapter 43A, and survey information collected from employees and employers participating in these plans and programs, except when the department determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Carter wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    All of the data requested by MAPE is covered by [section 13.67], and therefore, classified as nonpublic unless the department determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. We have determined that the release of these data will be detrimental to the plan or program. DOER has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to manage all aspects of the State Employee Group Insurance Program, including appropriate setting of rates and reserves. Release of the data requested by MAPE compromises our ability to effectively carry out these responsibilities. Moreover, any misrepresentation or misuse of these data even though unintentional, could result in significant adverse impact on the program, including but not limited to changes to the rate setting and reserving process, that could potentially place the state at serious financial risk and exposure.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon examining section 13.67, it is clear the Legislature, in adopting this provision, intended that all claims experience and related information from carriers and claims administrators, and survey information collected from employees and employers be protected. It is also clear the Legislature gave considerable discretion to DOER by providing that DOER could decide to release any of this information if it determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. The Commissioner also adds that, in the case of this opinion, neither MAPE nor DOER provided any significant detail about the data at issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first group of data Mr. Monroe requested is lag triangles detailing claims paid by month of incurral for each Care System for the two-year period ending 3/31/01. Such information appears to be part of claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators participating in the state group insurance plan. Therefore, based on section 13.67, and the fact that Commissioner Carter has determined that a release of these data will be detrimental, the data are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second group of data Mr. Monroe requested is member exposure by month or employee count by month if member data is not available, for each Care System. Again, this information appears to fit within the parameter of what is protected by section 13.67. However, because the Commissioner is not entirely clear as to the definition of exposure in this context, it is possible that these are data that DOER alone has created and maintains, as opposed to data provided by carriers and claims administrators. If DOER received the data from carriers and claims representatives, they are properly classified pursuant to section 13.67.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third group of data Mr. Monroe requested is SEGIP requested reserves as of 3/31/01 and 12/31/00. Because DOER presumably received these data from carriers and/or claims administrators, the data appear to fall under the definition of section 13.67 and therefore are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The final data Mr. Monroe requested are copies of any actuarial reports detailing reserve development. Although these data seem to be related to claims, it is not clear whether they are data received from carriers and claims representatives or whether they are data that DOER has created and maintains. As stated above in reference to the second group of data, if DOER received the data from carriers and claims representatives, those data are properly classified pursuant to section 13.67.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Corwin raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.67, it appears the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations responded appropriately to the first and third items that the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees requested. Regarding the second and fourth items, if carriers and claims representatives provided the data to DOER, they are classified pursuant to section 13.67. However, if DOER created and maintains the data, are not classified pursuant to section 13.67.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 26, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267060</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee relations data (13.67)</Title><Id>267025</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-058</Title><title>Opinion 01 058</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267899&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-11T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, did the City of Ellsworth provide appropriate access to the public to all written materials discussed at a December 13, 2000, public taxation hearing and meeting?
The City of Ellsworth did not appoint a responsible authority until December 13, 2000. Was the City out of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, during the time that no responsible authority existed?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), is the City of Ellsworth required to prepare written public access procedures, and make free copies of those procedures easily accessible to the public?
Is the City of Ellsworth in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it posts a resolution appointing a responsible authority as a substitute for the written public access procedures described in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 2001; City of Ellsworth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 31, 2001, IPA received a letter dated May 30, 2001, from Jon Faltinson. In his letter, Mr. Faltinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Ellsworth maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dawn Huisman, Clerk of the City of Ellsworth, in response to Mr. Faltinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 8, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Faltinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 25, 2001, IPA received a response, dated June 20, 2001, from Harris Darling, an attorney representing the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Faltinson is as follows. On December 13, 2000, Mr. Faltinson attended the City Council&apos;s public taxation and hearing and meeting. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At the beginning of the meeting, and AGAIN during the meeting, I asked to have a copy of the budgets and material that the members of the Council were looking at so that I could follow along. The first request was ignored, and the second time I asked, I was told NO! All five council members and the City Clerk had copies of the material, but none of them would share, and no copies where [sic] available to the public to inspect, look at, or follow along with.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Faltinson also noted that the City had appointed its first ever responsible authority on December 13, 2000, and questioned whether the City, to comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, should have previously appointed a responsible authority. Mr. Faltinson further wrote that on December 18, 2000, he asked for a copy of the City&apos;s written public access procedures. He stated that his request was ignored.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, Mr. Faltinson wrote that on May 7, 2001, he visited City Hall and asked again for a copy of the written public access procedures. The City Clerk referred Mr. Faltinson to the resolution appointing the responsible authority, but did not provide him with any access procedures.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Faltinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, did the City of Ellsworth provide appropriate access to the public to all written materials discussed at a December 13, 2000, public taxation hearing and meeting?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The City of Ellsworth did not appoint a responsible authority until December 13, 2000. Was the City out of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, during the time that no responsible authority existed?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), is the City of Ellsworth required to prepare written public access procedures, and make free copies of those procedures easily accessible to the public?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the City of Ellsworth in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it posts a resolution appointing a responsible authority as a substitute for the written public access procedures described in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, did the City of Ellsworth provide appropriate access to the public to all written materials discussed at a December 13, 2000, public taxation hearing and meeting?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, upon request, an individual shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data of which s/he is not the subject. In a situation involving a meeting of a body subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, the government entity has additional statutory obligations regarding the public&apos;s access to data. In part, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [at] least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (3) available in the meeting room to all members
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Faltinson, at the City&apos;s December 13, 2000, public taxation hearing and meeting, he requested access to copies of the written materials the council members had received. His request was denied.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Darling wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    At the meeting [Mr. Faltinson] requested a copy of the complete budget. The City Clerk indicated she did not know whether he could have that complete budget and advised him that she would get that to him. The copy of the complete budget was subsequently sent to Mr. Faltinson.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.03, government data are accessible unless those data are classified as other than public. Further, as stated above, the City has additional obligations in providing access to data that are the subject of an open meeting. In this case, pursuant to the specific direction of section 13D.01, the City was required to make available at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items. Based on the information provided, the City did not meet this obligation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City of Ellsworth did not appoint a responsible authority until December 13, 2000. Was the City out of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, during the time that no responsible authority existed?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, Responsible authority in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1000:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the governing body of each political subdivision and the governing body of each state agency whose activities are subject to the direction of a governing body shall, by September 30, 1981, if it has not done so, appoint a responsible authority....The governing body shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by the act and by this chapter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, according to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (B), the responsible authority for a city shall be an individual employee of the city appointed by the city council.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Darling wrote, The City of Ellsworth did not appoint a responsible authority until December 13, 2000.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, government entities were to have appointed a responsible authority by September 30, 1981. In the case of this opinion, Ellsworth did not appoint its responsible authority until December 2000. Therefore, during the time that no responsible authority existed, the City was not in compliance with certain requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 3
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), is the City of Ellsworth required to prepare written public access procedures, and make free copies of those procedures easily accessible to the public?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Faltinson wrote that on December 18, 2000, he requested from Mr. Darling a copy of the City&apos;s procedures explaining how the public can gain access to government data. Mr. Faltinson stated that the City ignored his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Darling wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [T]he City is required to prepare written access procedures and make copies of those procedures accessible to the public. The City is in the process of doing this and has secured a model policy from the Minnesota Department of Administration. The City has also been in contact with the League of Municipalities and are [sic] securing copies of present policies that are in existence in other Cities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Faltinson made his request for the data on December 18, 2000. Technically, the requirement to prepare and post the procedures did not go into effect until January 1, 2001. However, regardless of whether the data existed at the time of the request, the City was obligated to respond to Mr. Faltinson&apos;s request. See section 13.03. The City&apos;s response would have been that the data do not exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is encouraged by Mr. Darling&apos;s comments that the City is working to prepare the policies and procedures that Chapter 13 requires of government entities. Given that the specific requirement regarding the public access procedures went into effect in January 1, 2001, the Commissioner encourages the City to create those procedures as soon as possible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 4
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Is the City of Ellsworth in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it posts a resolution appointing a responsible authority as a substitute for the written public access procedures described in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Faltinson wrote that on May 7, 2001, he, for the second time, requested access to the data access procedures described in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). The City&apos;s response was to refer Mr. Faltinson to the resolution appointing the responsible authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Darling wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The City has posted a resolution appointing the responsible authority. This cannot be considered a substitute to the written public access procedures. It would appear that the Statute requires both. The more complicated requirement is the establishment of procedures concerning public access to government data and the City is in the process of doing this.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Darling has acknowledged that the City must prepare data access procedures in addition to appointing a responsible authority. Regarding Mr. Faltinson&apos;s May 7, 2001, request, the City did not respond appropriately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Faltinson raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, the City of Ellsworth did not provide appropriate access to the public to all written materials discussed at a December 13, 2000, public taxation hearing and meeting.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, the City of Ellsworth was required to appoint a responsible authority by September 30, 1981. The City did not appoint a responsible authority until December 13, 2000. During the time the City did not have a responsible authority, it was not in compliance with certain provisions of Chapter 13.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), as of January 1, 2001, the City of Ellsworth is required to prepare written public access procedures, and make free copies of those procedures easily accessible to the public.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The City of Ellsworth did not respond appropriately to a request for access to its written public access procedures (as required by section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)).
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 11, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267899</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment required</Title><Id>267059</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-057</Title><title>Opinion 01 057</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267030&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-07-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Vadnais Heights responded appropriately to a request for the following data: 1) complaint/discipline data made against the City&apos;s Public Works Director by a particular person; and 2) the audits of the City for the past ten years?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 2001; City of Vadnais Heights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 17, 2001, the Commissioner received a letter dated May 16, 2001, from Carol Berg O&apos;Toole. In her letter, Ms. O&apos;Toole asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data that the City of Vadnais Heights maintains. After IPA staff sought clarification from Ms. O&apos;Toole, she submitted a revised opinion request dated May 24, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gerald Urban, Administrator of Vadnais Heights, in response to Ms. O&apos;Toole&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 30, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. O&apos;Toole&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 25, 2001, IPA received a response, dated June 22, 2001, from Roger Jensen, an attorney representing the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a March 26, 2001, letter to Mr. Jensen, Ms. O&apos;Toole wrote, in relevant part, We request that you provide...the audits of the City for the last 10 years including management notes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a March 28, 2001, letter to Ms. O&apos;Toole, Mr. Jensen wrote, in relevant part, I do not know what audits you are referring to regarding the past ten years. If you are referring to the annual audit prepared by the City&apos;s CPA firm, I am requesting copies of those audits which the City still has in its files. I doubt very much if they have those audits going back ten years.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In an April 27, 2001, letter to Mr. Jensen, Ms. O&apos;Toole asked again for the audits of the City for the last 10 years including management notes. She also asked for information regarding a possible complaint against the Public Works Director. Ms. O&apos;Toole stated, Will you indicate if there was a complaint, whether oral or in written [sic], whether there was an investigation, whether there was an outcome to the investigation, whether any discipline was meted out and if so, to whom and in what amount.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a May 11, 2001, letter to Mr. Jensen, Ms. O&apos;Toole wrote, in relevant part, You have not at this date provided us with...the following public data...the audits of the City for the last 10 years including management notes...information regarding a complaint...against the Public Works Director...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a May 14, 2001, letter to Ms. O&apos;Toole, Mr. Jensen wrote, in relevant part, I have given you all the information you have requested, that is required under the Data Practices Act...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. O&apos;Toole asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Vadnais Heights responded appropriately to a request for the following data: 1) complaint/discipline data made against the City&apos;s Public Works Director by a particular person; and 2) the audits of the City for the past ten years? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request to a responsible authority for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Jensen wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I am the attorney for the City of Vadnais Heights in a Veteran&apos;s Preference hearing involving [one of Ms. O&apos;Toole&apos;s clients]....I am also representing the City with regard to this response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I am neither the City&apos;s regular City Attorney nor have I been appointed by the City of Vadnais Heights Council as the individual designated by the Governing Body of that political subdivision as the individual [sic] for the collection, use and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data... , pursuant to 13.02, subd. 16. Ms. Berg O&apos;Toole has never made a request of the Responsible Authority who is Mr. Gerald Urban, the Clerk Administrator for the City of Vadnais Heights.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    All of the requests made by Ms. Berg O&apos;Toole to me have been made in the context of the Veteran&apos;s Preference arbitration hearing which is governed by Minn. Stat. 197.46. Neither that statute nor Minn. Stat. 572, the Uniform Arbitration Act, provides for any form of discovery. Ms. Berg O&apos;Toole appears to be attempting to use [Chapter 13] as her discovery vehicle....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [I]f she had properly made a request under [Chapter 13], the information would have been gathered and made available to her as would be required by the statute. That was not done.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. Mr. Jensen is correct that when an individual seeks access to data pursuant to Chapter 13, the individual is required to make his/her request to the government entity&apos;s responsible authority. In this case, Ms. O&apos;Toole should have made her data practices requests to Mr. Urban, whom Mr. Jensen has identified as the City&apos;s responsible authority. The problem, though, is that there appears to have been some confusion as to whom Ms. O&apos;Toole should have directed her requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In two of his letters to Ms. O&apos;Toole, Mr. Jensen seems to be making decisions, based on Chapter 13, regarding her access to certain data. In his March 28, 2001, letter, he wrote (regarding other data that Ms. O&apos;Toole had requested), Under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, you are not entitled to the information you have requested... In his May 14, 2001, letter, he wrote, I have given you all of the information you requested, that is required under [Chapter 13]... Based on Mr. Jensen&apos;s statements, a reasonable person might conclude that Mr. Jensen has authority to make determinations about access to government data, something which he now denies. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that, in this case, Mr. Jensen should have advised Ms. O&apos;Toole at the outset that she needed to direct any data practices requests to Mr. Urban.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is also the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that Ms. O&apos;Toole should have made an attempt to determine to whom she should direct her data practices requests. It is not clear whether she did so. The Commissioner recommends that Ms. O&apos;Toole re-direct her data practices requests to Mr. Urban.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. O&apos;Toole raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s attorney appears to have represented himself as someone with authority to make decisions regarding data practices requests and Ms. O&apos;Toole has not received a response as required by Chapter 13. Therefore, the City of Vadnais Heights did not respond appropriately to her request for the following data: 1) complaint/discipline data made against the City&apos;s Public Works Director by a particular person; and 2) the audits of the City for the past ten years. However, because it is now clear that Gerald Urban, the City Administrator, is the responsible authority, Ms. O&apos;Toole should re-direct her data practices requests to him.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 11, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267030</id><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-056</Title><title>Opinion 01 056</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267774&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a May 12, 2001, request for a fee waiver, on the basis of financial hardship, of a photocopy charge for private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes 13.04 subdivision 5 was repealed in 2005.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 6, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 15, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 14, 2001, X wrote to Superintendent Giroux asking to inspect educational data about X&apos;s minor child, Y, a student in the District with a disability. The District responded that the copy charge would be $51.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 26, 2001, X wrote back to the District and asked that the copy charge be waived due to financial hardship. The District responded by stating that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does not contain a financial hardship provision, and by citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 5. The District also stated that it would continue to provide X the opportunity to inspect the data and that that right has not been impaired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X again wrote the District, in a letter dated May 12, 2001, and provided reasons for his/her assertion that the District&apos;s copy charge would impair his/her right to review the data. X stated that s/he needed the data to prepare for a Due Process Hearing that was to take place shortly, and that in order to inspect the data at the District, s/he would need to make special arrangements to take time off of work without pay, arrange and provide childcare. Besides the hardship, [Y] was recently hospitalized due to surgery and just came home yesterday. [Y] was, is, and continues to be very medical [sic] fragile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, in a letter dated May 18, 2001, the District reiterated that it would not waive the copy fee because Chapter 13 does not contain a financial hardship provision. The District offered to work with X to determine a date and time for your inspection that is most convenient to both parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady cited section 13.04, subdivision 5, and stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At no time has the District impaired the ability of [X] to exercise his right to inspect and review records. To the contrary, the District has communicated to [X] that it has and will continue to provide [X] an opportunity to inspect and review data on dates and times that inspection is most convenient to both parties. As you are aware, [X]&apos;s most recent data request is not isolated. [X] has inspected documents at District offices on numerous occasions. [X] has never indicated that the mutually agreeable dates and times impaired [his/her] ability to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a May 12, 2001, request for a fee waiver, on the basis of financial hardship, of a photocopy charge for private data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in general, when an individual requests copies of government data of which s/he is the subject, the entity may recover some of the associated costs of providing copies. However, section 13.04, subdivision 5, provides, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;An agency or institution that receives a request for copies of the educational records of a child with a disability &lt;u&gt;may&lt;/u&gt; charge a fee that reflects the costs of reproducing the records &lt;u&gt;except when to do so would impair the ability of the child&apos;s parent&lt;/u&gt; or guardian, or the child who has reached the age of majority, &lt;u&gt;to exercise their right to inspect and review those records&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there is a similar provision in federal law that is applicable here. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300, which governs the education of children with disabilities, parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to inspect and review all education records relating to their child. (See 34 C.F.R., sections 300.501 and 300.562.) According to section 300.566 (a), the District may charge a fee for copies of records that are made for parents under this part if the fee does not effectively prevent the parents from exercising their right to inspect and review those records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of the above-cited provision of state law, which Mr. Cady acknowledged, and the federal law governing the education of children with disabilities, the District&apos;s repeated assertions that there is no applicable financial hardship provision is puzzling. While neither state nor federal law contains the exact term financial hardship, both authorize a charge for copies only if such a charge does not impede a parent&apos;s right to inspect and review the data, as is the case with financial hardship. Furthermore, the applicable provisions of state and federal law authorize a copy charge, they don&apos;t mandate it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asserted that given the particular circumstances surrounding his/her April 14, 2001, data request, s/he can neither pay the District&apos;s copy fees nor inspect the data during hours when the District normally operates, resulting in the impairment of his/her ability to inspect and review those data about Y. Mr. Cady stated that X had never made this assertion regarding previous requests to inspect government data maintained by the District. That is irrelevant. In his/her May 12, 2001, request for a fee waiver, X asserted that s/he needed access to the data to prepare for an upcoming Due Process Hearing about Y&apos;s education, and X&apos;s circumstances at the time precluded his/her ability either to inspect the data at the District or pay for copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the reasons X provided to the District, the District&apos;s refusal to waive the copy charge impairs or effectively prevents X&apos;s ability to exercise his/her right to inspect and review the data s/he requested about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 5, and Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 300.566 (a), Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a May 12, 2001, request for a fee waiver, on the basis of financial hardship, of a photocopy charge for private data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 28, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267774</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy charge is optional for entity</Title><Id>266742</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA</Title><Id>266318</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-23T20:14:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-055</Title><title>Opinion 01 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267327&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-27T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does St. Louis County&apos;s decision regarding where it physically maintains data about an employee violate the rights of that employee under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 27, 2001; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 11, 2001, IPA received a letter dated May 8, 2001, from Sarah Lewerenz, an attorney representing AFSCME, and, in this case, employee X. In her letter, Ms. Lewerenz asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding certain practices by St. Louis County regarding data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julie Brunner, Administrator of St. Louis County, in response to Ms. Lewerenz&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 14, 2001, were to inform her of Ms. Lewerenz&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On May 23, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Shaun Floerke, Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Lewerenz is as follows. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;St. Louis County is currently taking the position that under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] a Minnesota government unit may not remove documents from an employee&apos;s personnel file. [X] has asked St. Louis County to remove outdated disciplinary documents from [his/her] personnel file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under applicable labor law, it makes a difference whether disciplinary documents are kept in the employee&apos;s own personnel file or in some sort of retention file....Recently, we have been unable to agree with St. Louis County as to the removal of discipline documents from the employee&apos;s personnel file because St. Louis County claims that under [Chapter 13] they may not remove documents from the personnel file and place them in another County file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Lewerenz asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does St. Louis County&apos;s decision regarding where it physically maintains data about an employee violate the rights of that employee under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates the collection, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in government entities. See section 13.01, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Floerke wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[M]s. Lewerenz appears to be asking the Commissioner to determine whether St. Louis County is required to remove items which Ms. Lewerenz characterizes as outdated from an employee&apos;s personnel file and keep those items in some other sort of retention file. Our position is that [Chapter 13] makes no distinction and contains no such requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...wherever the data is stored, whether in a personnel file or some other retention file, the classification of that data and resultant access to the data will remain the same pursuant to sections 13.02 and 13.03. [Chapter 13] makes no distinction between personnel files and other files....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Lewerenz is not arguing with the appropriateness or timeliness of the County&apos;s responses to requests for access to data. Her assertion, rather, is the County claims that Chapter 13 prevents the County from physically moving data from one file to another. However, in his comments to the Commissioner on behalf of the County, Mr. Floerke stated that Chapter 13 &quot;makes no distinction between &apos;personnel files&apos; and other files...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 governs neither the physical location where government entities maintain data, nor the type of filing system entities use to organize data. Those decisions are left to the discretion of the entity. What Chapter 13 does prescribe is that entities must &quot;keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&quot; See section 13.03, subdivision 1. Furthermore, government entities must &quot;establish procedures...to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&quot; See section 13.03, subdivision 2. In the instance of a data subject&apos;s request for access to data about him or herself, government entities must provide that access immediately or within ten working days. See section 13.43, subdivision 3. Thus, as long as the County is able to respond to requests for access to data within the statutory time frames, it may organize its data in whatever manner it sees fit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Lewerenz raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;St. Louis County&apos;s decision regarding where it physically maintains data about an employee does not violate the rights of that employee under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267327</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-06-27T19:47:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-054</Title><title>Opinion 01 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267938&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an April 6, 2001, request to inspect government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 27, 2001; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 7, 2001, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated May 23, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On June 8, 2001, IPA received a response from Kenneth W. Hasledalen, Assistant Commissioner and CIO for CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 6, 2001, Mr. Pachl wrote to Commissioner Jax and asked to inspect certain public data. As of the date of his opinion request, CFL had not responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner Hasledalen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A check of the records confirms that CFL did receive Mr. Pachl&apos;s letter via facsimile on April 6, 2001. Mr. Pachl&apos;s letter was forwarded to one division of CFL, then forwarded to a second CFL division. Unfortunately, this April 6th letter was inadvertently misplaced due to confusion of receiving multiple data requests from Mr. Pachl at the same time. CFL was not aware that it had failed to respond to this specific letter until it received [notice of his opinion request] on May 30, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assistant Commissioner Hasledalen stated that CFL has now responded to Mr. Pachl, and that: [i]n order to avoid this problem in the future, the Department has taken the following action: The Department will be coordinating any requests pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act through the Data Practices Compliance Official.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an April 6, 2001, request to inspect government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL acknowledges that it did not respond appropriately to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, and that it has taken steps to ensure that such a situation will not recur.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to an April 6, 2001, request to inspect government data, because it did not respond at all until receiving notice of this opinion request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267938</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-053</Title><title>Opinion 01 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267851&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 834, Stillwater, respond appropriately to a request for the following data regarding school expulsions: age, grade level, sex, home town, race, and the act that led to the expulsion?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 20, 2001; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 25, 2001, IPA received a letter dated April 23, 2001, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Stillwater Gazette&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data that School District 834, Stillwater, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kathleen Macy, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. This letter, dated April 26, 2001, served to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide support for the District&apos;s position. On May 7, 2001, IPA received comments, dated same, from Karen Kepple, attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. Sometime around March 10, 2001, the editor of the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&lt;/em&gt; requested data from the District. He previously had learned that the District had expelled two students and he asked for the following information about each student: age; grade level; sex; home town; race; and the act that led to the expulsion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District responded, in part, in the following manner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[O]ne 10th grader was expelled for the balance of the 2000-2001 school year; and one 12th grader was expelled for one year. The only additional information we can provide is that both students violated the District 834 Discipline Policy regarding possession, use, or intent to sell dangerous drugs/controlled substances on school property. Any further information, such as more detailed demographic information, could reveal the identity of the students, which would violate state and federal laws.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[W]e do not believe that the District&apos;s refusal to provide the additional information sought by [the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&lt;/em&gt;] can be justified. Summary data as defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 19, are of course classified as public and [the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&lt;/em&gt;] sought nothing but summary data....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he Stillwater district has disclosed that the two students expelled were respectively in 10th and 12th grade. This district is one of the biggest in the state. There are several hundred students in each grade. To contend that by providing the age of the students expelled, their sex, their home town, or their race, the district would on any reasonable basis enable them to be identified is simply not plausible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 834, Stillwater, respond appropriately to a request for the following data regarding school expulsions: age, grade level, sex, home town, race, and the act that led to the expulsion?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data at issue in this opinion involve student expulsions. Generally speaking, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, data about students are private; and the fact that a particular student had been expelled would be private. However, this does not necessarily mean that the District would be unable to provide data in response to a request. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data are accessible to the public. Further, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 16, provides that summary data may include reports once all the data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0700, provides additional guidance regarding summary data requests. The key, as the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-025&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267873&quot; title=&quot;00-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-014&lt;/a&gt;, is that the District cannot release any data that identify a particular student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; request, the District released only the grade level of each student and that both students had violated that District&apos;s discipline policy regarding drugs/controlled substances. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple defended the District&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[T]he Department of Administration also recognized that [Chapter 13] precludes the release of private educational data, such as demographic data which would reveal the identity of an expelled student. [See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267873&quot; title=&quot;00-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-014&lt;/a&gt;]. In fact, in that opinion, the Department acknowledged, as does [the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&lt;/em&gt;], that if the expelled student is a male Caucasian and is in grade 11, and the District has only one Caucasian student in grade 11, the District cannot release any combination of grade, gender, or race.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is precisely the case here. In both expulsions, each of the students is the only student of his/her gender, grade, or race living in their hometown. The School District would plainly be in violation of [Chapter 13] Section 13.32, Subd. 3, Minn. Stat. Section 13.02, Subd. 19, and Minn. Rules Section 1205.0200, Subpart 16, if it were to release the data requested by the Stillwater Gazette which would clearly identify the individuals who are the subject of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, the District may release only those data that, in and of themselves or in combination, do not identify either of the expelled students. Ms. Kepple has asserted that a release of gender, hometown, race, and age would, in effect, identify each student. Therefore, the District may not release those data. That said, however, the Commissioner does have the following comments. First, given that the District has released the students&apos; grade levels, it is not clear why a release of the age of each student would identify him/her. The Commissioner urges the District to reconsider its position on releasing this element of data, unless the situation is one in which one or both of the students is/are much older or younger than the average age for the 10th or 12th grade, and that this situation is unique to these students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the District responded to the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; request for the act that led to the expulsion by stating that both students violated the District 834 Discipline Policy regarding possession, use, or intent to sell dangerous drugs/controlled substances on school property. When a person makes a request for summary data, as did the &lt;em&gt;Gazette&lt;/em&gt;, the entity is required to provide the data minus all the data elements that could link the data to a specific individual. Thus, if a report exists that provides more explicit detail about the act that each of the students committed, the District is obligated to provide that information after having removed all personal identifiers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 834, Stillwater, responded appropriately to a request for the following data regarding school expulsions: age; grade level; sex; home town; race; and the act that led to the expulsion. However, absent any peculiar circumstances, of which the Commissioner is not aware, the District should release the age information. In addition, if there are additional data about the acts committed by the students, and all personal identifiers can be removed from those data, the District is obligated to provide those data to the requestor.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 20, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267851</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Expulsion</Title><Id>266682</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-052</Title><title>Opinion 01 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267055&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When Delta Dental acts under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide access to an individual to welfare data classified as private data on the individual that Delta Dental has generated and stored concerning that individual, does Delta Dental violate the Chapter 13 by refusing to disclose and by redacting from photocopies the name of the individual who created the private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 8, 2001; Delta Dental</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 16, 2001, IPA received a letter dated April 13, 2001, from Charles Thomas, an attorney representing the Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc. (SMRLS). In his letter, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his clients&apos; access to certain data that Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota (Delta Dental) maintains. Mr. Thomas wrote that Delta Dental acts as a subcontractor for the BluePlus health care plan operated by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, under contract to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). He added that this method of providing Medical Assistance coverage to eligible individuals is called the Prepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Walsh, President of Delta Dental, in response to Mr. Thomas&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 20, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Thomas&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for Delta Dental&apos;s position. On May 2, 2001, IPA received comments, dated same, from David Morse, Legal Counsel for Delta Dental.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Thomas is as follows. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...[SMRLS] provides free legal assistance in civil cases to low income persons...including cases involving public assistance benefit programs which are administered under the authority of [DHS]. Appeals of assistance are heard by appeals referees under authority of Minn. Stat. section 256.045.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Thomas stated that in two recent cases, SMLRS represented individuals who each appealed a decision by Delta Dental denying prior authorization for orthodontic treatment for their minor children. In the course of the appeal proceedings, SMLRS requested access to all the private data on the individual clients that Delta Dental had stored, generated, collected, or disseminated in regard to the denials for orthodontia. Mr. Thomas wrote, Specifically, SMLRS requested the names and credentials of the orthodontists or other dentists for Delta Dental who apparently had internally reviewed the initial requests and denied approval.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Delta Dental responded by providing a copy of the notes that were used as the basis for its decision/denial for orthodontia services but, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 72A.285, refused to provide the identity of the orthodontist who had conducted the prior authorization review. The appeals referee did not address the issue of the orthodontist&apos;s identification.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When Delta Dental acts under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide access to an individual to welfare data classified as private data on the individual that Delta Dental has generated and stored concerning that individual, does Delta Dental violate the Chapter 13 by refusing to disclose and by redacting from photocopies the name of the individual who created the private data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be no dispute that, for purposes of this opinion, Delta Dental is subject to certain requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. In his opinion request, Mr. Thomas wrote, There was no dispute that Delta Dental is subject to the same contract provisions as BluePlus with respect to [Chapter 13]. Mr. Thomas also included a copy of a Model Contract for Prepaid Medical Assistance Program Services (PMAP) between the Department of Human Services (DHS) and a given health plan. Relevant language in this contract states, All records collected, used, disseminated and stored by the HEALTH PLAN pertaining to Enrollees shall be maintained in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13... (See section 9.7.1.) The Model Contract also states, For purposes of executing its responsibilities, and to the extent set forth in this Contract, the HEALTH PLAN shall be considered part of the welfare system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.46, Subdivision 1. (See section 9.7.4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    At issue here is whether Delta Dental is required to release the identifying information about the orthodontist who reviewed the SMRLS case files. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Morse wrote that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 72A.285, Delta Dental did not have to release those data. That provision states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...when a review organization...has conducted a review of health services given or proposed to be given to an insured or claimant in connection with or in anticipation of a claim for insurance benefits, a complete summary of the review findings must be furnished by the insurer to the provider who requested the review or to the insured or claimant, upon that person&apos;s request....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of the identity of the person conducting the review.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Morse&apos;s assertion. Here, section 72A.285 cannot be read alone. As stated above, All records collected, used, disseminated and stored by [Delta Dental] pertaining to Enrollees shall be maintained in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13... The notes the reviewer created are data that Delta Dental used that pertain to the enrollees (SMRLS clients). Therefore, those notes are subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 72A.285, is clear that Nothing in this section requires disclosing the identity of the person who conducted the interview. However, SMRLS is seeking access to data identifying the reviewer under section 13.04 of Chapter 13. Although data identifying reviewers are not data about Mr. Thomas&apos; clients, they are data that Delta Dental must release to the public because they are public data under Chapter 13. Via its contract with DHS, Delta Dental has agreed to subject itself to certain requirements in Chapter 13. The presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government are public unless otherwise classified, provides that the identifying data are available to Mr. Thomas and his clients.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Thomas raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Delta Dental violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by refusing to disclose and by redacting from photocopies the name of the individual who conducted a review for prior authorization for orthodontia. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 8, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267055</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities bound by contract</Title><Id>267054</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-051</Title><title>Opinion 01 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267548&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-06T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for access to a copy of the audit of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa&apos;s gambling operations?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 6, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 19, 2001, IPA received a letter from William J. Lawrence, publisher of the &lt;em&gt;Native American Press/Ojibwe News&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Lawrence asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Lawrence&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charlie Weaver, Commissioner of DPS. The purposes of this letter, dated April 26, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Lawrence&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 21, 2001, IPA received a response from Commissioner Weaver. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In February 2001, Mr. Lawrence asked the Alcohol Gambling Enforcement Division of DPS for copies of audits of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa&apos;s gambling operations. Frank Ball, Director of the Division, denied his request, in a letter dated April 10, 2001, based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, because [t]he data contains security information and is considered trade secret information. Mr. Ball also stated that the audit /includes surveillance information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lawrence stated to the Commissioner that he had recently reviewed other Minnesota tribal casino gambling audited financial statements. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please note that there is nothing in the Federal Indian Gaming Regulation legislation, 25 USC section section 2701 - 2721, prohibiting State release of the requested information. Please further note that &lt;em&gt;Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon&lt;/em&gt;, 143 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1998) specifically provides that State public record laws are not preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Neither the Tribal-State Compacts nor Minnesota Statutes section 3.9221 precludes the release of Indian gambling audits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Commissioner Weaver stated that DPS&apos;s position is based on three separate points. First, the tribal state compacts governing video games of chance and blackjack play. Second, the state&apos;s gambling enforcement law. Third, the trade secret exception to the data practices act. Each is examined in detail below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lawrence asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for access to a copy of the audit of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa&apos;s gambling operations?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Weaver acknowledged that under the Tribal-State Compacts governing video games of chance, the Band is required to provide the State with copies of its internal audits upon written request. A separate Compact governing blackjack play /includes the following, regarding the requirement that the Band provide copies of its audits to the State upon its written request: [t]o the extent possible under state law, the state shall not disclose any information obtained pursuant to such a request. Apparently in reference to that Compact provision, Commissioner Weaver stated: the audit is subject to compact non-disclosure terms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Commissioner Weaver did not discuss how to reconcile the meaning of to the extent possible under state law with Chapter 13. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency . . . . Pursuant to section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. As far as the Commissioner of Administration is aware, absent any specific reference to Chapter 13, the language in the Compact that states that the data shall not be disclosed to the extent possible under state law does not itself override the presumption that the data are public under Chapter 13. The question of whether the audit is a trade secret under section 13.37 is discussed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to DPS&apos;s second point, Commissioner Weaver cited section 299L.03, subdivision 11 of which provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Data provided to the director, &lt;u&gt;by a governmental entity located outside Minnesota&lt;/u&gt;for use in an authorized investigation, audit, or background check, has the same data access classification or restrictions on access, for the purposes of chapter 13, that it had in the entity providing it. If the classification or restriction on access in the entity providing the data is less restrictive than the Minnesota data classification, the Minnesota classification applies. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Weaver further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Band is a distinct political community, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive. . . . &lt;em&gt;Worcester v. Georgia&lt;/em&gt;, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483, 499 (1832). Because of this long-standing Supreme Court decision, it is axiomatic that the Band, as a sovereign entity with territorial boundaries, may avail itself of the protections guaranteed under Minn. Stat. Ch. 299L. The audit is, therefore, subject to the Band&apos;s data classification and the Band has restricted the dissemination of the audit. The State, pursuant to law, must grant that same classification to the audit. The Band, as a sovereign entity, is entitled to its protected classification even after it submits the audit to Minnesota regulators.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reliance on section 299L.03 as a basis to deny public access to the audit is also problematic. Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., class III gaming is lawful on Indian lands if: (1) authorized by the governing body of the Indian tribe; (2) located in a state that permits such gaming; and (3) conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State Compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the state. (See 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner understands it, if he were to accept DPS&apos;s position, the Band would have no need to negotiate a Compact with the State. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act authorizes gaming activity on Indian lands located within a state that permits such gaming, which leads us to conclude that the Band is not an entity outside the State. Accordingly, the Commissioner rejects section 299L.03, subdivision 11, as a basis to deny public access to the audit data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Commissioner Weaver asserted that the audits are not public, because they are trade secrets under section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To be considered trade secret under section 13.37, government data must satisfy &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt;four elements that comprise the statutory definition: 1) it must be a collection of information; 2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; 3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and 4) that, a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third element requires that the data in question are the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy. According to Commissioner Weaver, [t]he Band considers the information proprietary and non public and has requested the information be maintained as trade secret. However, Commissioner Weaver did not reference specific language in the Compact to that effect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a similar situation in Oregon, the Siletz Tribe included the following language in its Tribal-State Compact:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The State is hereby authorized to review and copy . . . all records maintained by the Tribal gaming operation; provided, that any documents containing financial information, proprietary ideas, plans, methods, data development, inventions or other proprietary information regarding the gambling enterprise of the Tribe, games conducted by the Tribe, or the operation thereof provided to the State by the Tribe, any copy thereof and any information derived therefrom shall be deemed confidential and proprietary financial information of the Tribe and is hereby acknowledged by the State to have been submitted to the State by the Tribe voluntarily and in confidence, and with the expectation that the records will be regarded as confidential. The State agrees that the disclosure of such documents shall be protected to the extent provided under ORS 192.410 to 192.505. (See &lt;em&gt;Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon&lt;/em&gt;, 143 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1998) at page 483.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here, the Red Lake Band and the State did not include similar language in their Compact that could have had the effect of protecting the audit data. Given the record before the Commissioner, he cannot conclude that the third element has been satisfied. The Band and the State both acknowledged the potential that at least some of the data the Band provided to the State might be public, and chose not to ensure that the audit would not be subject to disclosure under Chapter 13. The Band and the State did not agree to Compact language like the Oregon case that says proprietary data are protected, but instead agreed to a vague statement that the data are protected to the extent allowed by law. The failure to include such language indicates that the Band did not exert reasonable efforts to protect the data to the greatest extent possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Weaver did not assert that the audit contains security or surveillance data. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Administration concludes that the security data provision of section 13.37 is not applicable to the audits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lawrence is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety inappropriately denied a request for a copy of the audit of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa&apos;s gambling operations. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the audit is public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 6, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267548</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Indian gaming audit data</Title><Id>267034</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Efforts to maintain secrecy (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266785</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-050</Title><title>Opinion 01 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267631&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul Police Department respond appropriately to a March 22, 2001, request for data by denying KSTP-TV access to the identity of the complainant and the transcript of the 911 tape?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 6, 2001; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 2, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 30, 2001, from Gary Hill of KSTP-TV News. In his letter, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding KSTP&apos;s access to certain data that the City of St. Paul Police Department maintains.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Finney, Chief of the City&apos;s Police Department, in response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 4, 2001, were to inform Chief Finney of Mr. Hill&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On April 16, 2001, IPA received a response, dated April 13, 2001, from Reyne Rofuth, Assistant St. Paul City Attorney.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts as Mr. Hill presented them is as follows. On March 22, 2001, a KSTP staff person requested data from the Police Department about a particular occurrence, including request for service data (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 3), a transcript of a 911 call (section 13.82, subdivision 4), and response or incident data (section 13.82, subdivision 6). Mr. Hill wrote that on March 23, 2001, the Department provided the response or incident data but redacted the identity of the complainant and denied the request for the 911 transcript citing section 13.82, subdivision 7.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul Police Department respond appropriately to a March 22, 2001, request for data by denying KSTP-TV access to the identity of the complainant and the transcript of the 911 tape? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. The Legislature specified those data as public so they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7. (Subdivision 7 classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions 97-023 and 97-024, 00-024, and 00-025.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, an individual made a 911 call to the St. Paul Police Department. The purpose of that call was to request service. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Rofuth stated that shortly after officers responded to the individual&apos;s call, the individual became a possible perpetrator of a crime. Ms. Rofuth wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [By the time KSTP-TV made a data request] the incident had already evolved from a case where a complainant/victim, A, had used the 911 system to called [sic] in a situation which consisted of elements of the serious crime of felony assault to that of an investigation where it appeared the same complainant/victim was potentially a suspect by falsely reporting a crime to the police. The data of that active investigation continued to be active until [a Department Investigator] turned the case over to the City Attorney&apos;s Office and the prosecutor then declined prosecution...on March 29, 2001. The case&apos;s status is now, once again, that of an active investigation due to the fact that the prosecution is reconsidering th [sic] facts for charging.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Ms. Rofuth asserted that A&apos;s status changed quickly from a complainant/victim to a potential suspect. She wrote, Therefore, A held the status of a suspect in an active investigation...A, however, was &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;cited, arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty at the time of [KSTP-TV&apos;s] request. Ms. Rofuth added, A&apos;s entire 911 telephone conversation, in and of itself, is the potential crime....The 911 call is part of the ongoing investigation from the street officer to [the Inspector] to the prosecutor for consideration and now reconsideration of charging.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 3, clause (b), the name and address of an individual who makes a request for service are public unless the identity of that individual qualifies for protection under subdivision 17. In this case, the caller made a request for service. Therefore, the only situation in which his/her identity can be protected is if s/he qualifies for protection under subdivision 17; either clause (d) or clause (f) could apply. Clause (d) states that an agency shall withhold the identity of a victim or witness to a crime if that individual specifically requests not to be identified publicly, unless the agency reasonably determines that revealing the individual&apos;s identity would not threaten the personal safety or property of the individual. Clause (f), in relevant part, states that an agency shall withhold the identity of a person who placed a call to a 911 system when the agency determines that revealing the identity may threaten the personal safety or property of any person. Subdivision 17 also provides that law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to acquire the data and make decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in clauses (d) and (f).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding subdivision 17, Ms. Rofuth wrote, A&apos;s 911 telephone call indicated A wanted to remain anonymous. She also stated, [While]...the Department could argue that A&apos;s identification qualified for protection under subdivision 17 (f), the Department asserts the determinative position is that [the data are criminal investigative data]. Thus, although Ms. Rofuth raised the issue of subdivision 17, she did not elaborate about the caller&apos;s request to remain anonymous (clause (d)) or how release of the caller&apos;s identity would threaten his/her personal safety or property (clause (f)). Therefore, it does not appear to the Commissioner that the Department can rely on subdivision 17 to deny access to the caller&apos;s identity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Rofuth also argued that the caller&apos;s identity and the 911 transcript are not public because they are criminal investigative data pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, arrest, request for service, and response or incident data, including the name and address of the individual making the request, are always public. Subdivision 7 provides: [e]xcept for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data . . . is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Accordingly, the identity of an individual making a request for service is public under subdivision 6. A law enforcement agency is not obligated to disclose to the public that the individual is also a suspect. See also Advisory Opinion 00-078 in which the Commissioner addressed a similar issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the 911 transcript, section 13.82, subdivision 4, states the following: The audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting services from a law enforcement...agency is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making the call, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17. As discussed above, Ms. Rofuth did not demonstrate that, in this case, the caller&apos;s identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17. Therefore, the transcript is public data. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the transcript cannot be protected under subdivision 7 as criminal investigative data because it is not data that the Department collected or prepared in order to prepare a case against the caller. Rather, a call of this nature to a 911 center is a type of request for service data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hill raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of St. Paul Police Department did not respond appropriately to a March 22, 2001, request for data by denying KSTP-TV access to the identity of the complainant and the transcript of the 911 tape. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 6, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267631</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-048</Title><title>Opinion 01 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267465&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of a video tape of the booking area within the secured portion of the Washington County Jail?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 5, 2001; Washington County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 17, 2001, IPA received a letter from Meredeth Magers, Assistant Washington County Attorney. In this letter, Ms. Magers asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Magers stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This office has received a request for a specific video tape of the booking area within the secured portion of the Washington County Jail. The request is for the video of a specific individual in the process of being booked into the facility. All incoming inmates are personally escorted into and through this area, but never have any diagrams, photographic depictions or videos of the area ever been allowed to be taken or released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This office believes that the video recordings of this particular type of area is classified as non public security data pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.37 subd 1 (a) and 13.85. We believe that the public disclosure of this specific type, booking and other secured/controls [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] areas within the correctional facility, places the individuals coming into the facility (and their property) as well as the staff within the facility at risk or harm. With public disclosure of this type of video, the public could become aware of the dimensions of the location of various objects, cameras, security systems and any other information which compromises security within the facility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Magers stated that the video of the booking area is an accurate depiction of such things as location of security cameras, entrances and exits to a secured area, personal property, number of personnel present at particular times, types of equipment used, methods used when an inmate is processed, floor plans, and depictions of persons in custody.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Magers asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of a video tape of the booking area within the secured portion of the Washington County Jail?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public. Security information is defined at subdivision 1 (a) as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also addressed the proper classification of data as security information in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;01-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;. In that Opinion, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature did not define substantially jeopardize. In an attempt to clarify this term and the applicable language in section 13.37, the Commissioner reviewed various statutes, laws, and case law but was unable to locate anything specifically applicable to the situation at hand. Because the Commissioner is not comfortable with the broad discretion seemingly available to government entities in using the security data provision to deny access to data, he intends to present this issue to the 2001 Legislature, in hopes that they will clarify the language. This is a particularly prudent time for the Commissioner to seek legislative guidance because, in addition to the issues raised in this opinion, he is aware of several recent instances in which government entities have used the security data provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the issue raised by Ms. Kramer remains. The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor&apos;s security detail, and for protecting the Governor&apos;s person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See &lt;em&gt;Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership&lt;/em&gt;, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); &lt;em&gt;In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T.&lt;/em&gt;, 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination. As stated above, we recognize a need for legislative clarification regarding the security information provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that case, the data in question all related to the protection of a specific individual, i.e., the Governor. Here, Ms. Magers proposes protecting ALL videotapes depicting the booking area of the Jail. The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.37, subdivisions 1 (a) and 2, may not be employed as a blanket classification scheme, but instead applies to otherwise public data in those specific situations in which an entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-046&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-029&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-029&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For example, in conversation with IPA staff, County staff mentioned a situation involving domestic abuse, in which a woman asked that the data not be made available to her former partner, whom she had reason to fear. In such a case, a classification as not public under section 13.37 might be appropriate. However, the County may not withhold from the public all addresses and telephone numbers because it is concerned about the possibility, in general, of a security risk. In order for section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), to be applicable, the County must make a determination on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Also, the Commissioner considers the security information issue raised here to be distinct from that addressed in Advisory Opinion 01-006. In that Opinion, the Commissioner deferred to the expertise of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety in law enforcement and security matters, by accepting Commissioner Weaver&apos;s determination regarding the classification as security information of certain data maintained by Public Safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Commissioner is again inclined to defer to the expertise of the County. The general public does not enjoy free access to the secured areas of the County Jail. Only staff and inmates may gain access. Therefore, a video depiction of those secured areas is not otherwise public data in the same way as the data at issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267810&quot; title=&quot;01-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-029&lt;/a&gt;. In this situation, the broad discretion granted entities to classify data as security information overcomes the Commissioner&apos;s reluctance to approve this kind of blanket classification. The nature of the data at issue here makes the difference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Magers also raised the question of the applicability of section 13.85 to the videotapes. Section 13.85 governs data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in . . . county jails . . . . Pursuant to subdivision 2, data on individuals are classified as private . . . to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to their lawful confinement or detainment or (b) endanger an individual&apos;s life. (Emphasis added.) The Commissioner does not agree that a videotape depiction of an inmate being processed into the County Jail is not related to his/her lawful confinement. Furthermore, section 13.85 classifies data only about individuals. Therefore, any data on a videotape of the booking area that does not depict individuals would not be covered by section 13.85. Accordingly, section 13.85 does not apply to the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that a 1985 Minnesota Appellate Court case may have implications as to the discoverability of the videotapes. (See &lt;em&gt;State v. Hopperstad&lt;/em&gt;, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.App. 1985.))&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Magers is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, a video tape of the booking area within the secured portion of the Washington County Jail is not public security information, pursuant to section 13.37, subdivisions 1 (a) and 2.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 5, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267465</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Booking area</Title><Id>267118</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-049</Title><title>Opinion 01 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268004&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-06-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, include a $32.00 per hour fee for labor in its charges for copies of government data, as detailed in letters dated April 9, 2001, and April 20, 2001?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 4, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 2001, were to inform him of X=s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 3, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated April 11 and 15, 2001, X asked the District to make an adjustment on a photocopy charge for an earlier request for copies of data about X&apos;s minor child. The Commissioner considered issues related to that request in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-033&lt;/a&gt;, wherein the Commissioner opined that a charge of $50.00 per hour for administrative time to make photocopies of government data does not reflect the actual labor cost borne by the District, and is therefore not allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The Commissioner reached that conclusion based on information, provided to X by the District, that the person who made the photocopies is an administrator, employed full-time, at a salary of $43,550 per year. The fringe benefit is $9,850; salary and fringe total $53,400. The Commissioner used the information provided by the District to calculate an hourly rate for salary and fringe of $25.67 per hour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s requests for an adjustment to the copy fee, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-033&lt;/a&gt;, the District told X that the actual cost for the administrator&apos;s time was $32.00 per hour. X objected, based on the figure of $25.67 per hour figure calculated by the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request for access to data that document the basis of the District&apos;s charge of $32.00 per hour, the District stated: A. . . please be advised that the $25.67 stated by the Commissioner takes into account only [the administrator&apos;s] salary and flex benefits. In addition to the wage and flex benefits, the $32.00 fee . . . includes other benefits [she] receives and other expenses incurred by the District to employ her.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [X&apos;s] reliance on the Departments [sic] reference of $25.76 [sic] in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-033&lt;/a&gt; is misplaced. The Departments [sic] reference was based on insufficient information and failed to take into account all relevant and direct labor expenses. Mr. Cady stated that due to an inadvertent typographical error the actual charge should have been $30.00 per hour, rather than the $32.00 the District had charged X and others. According to Mr. Cady, the correct figures for the employee are: salary and benefits, including 403b, $55,400; PERA, Worker&apos;s Compensation FICA, $7,357; for a total of $62,757, which yields an hourly rate of $30.17 per hour. According to Mr. Cady: [t]herefore, it is the District&apos;s position that $30.00 per hour . . . is appropriate. Please be advised the District will be making appropriate adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue::&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, include a $32.00 per hour fee for labor in its charges for copies of government data, as detailed in letters dated April 9, 2001, and April 20, 2001?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of government data, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 5, which governs access to private data, [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the criteria set out in part 1205.0300 concerning access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the things a government entity may include in its copying charges, as authorized under Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, is the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner in connection with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-033&lt;/a&gt;, Mr. Cady did not state that the salary and benefit figures the District had provided to X were incomplete. Now, Mr. Cady says that the Commissioner erred in relying upon the District&apos;s own figures in calculating the District&apos;s labor cost to provide photocopies to a data subject. The Commissioner cannot reconcile the difference in the figures provided in connection with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-033&lt;/a&gt; and this one. However, the District ought to be able to make available specific, accurate data that document the basis of its photocopy charges, including its actual total labor cost. It appears from the figures provided here by Mr. Cady that the District is now calculating its actual labor cost to make photocopies as allowed under statute and rule. However, regarding the propriety of calculating the labor cost to make photocopies at an administrator&apos;s salary rate, the Commissioner has previously opined that the District should charge its labor cost at a clerical salary rate. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268029&quot; title=&quot;01-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-033&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268029#/detail/appId/1/id/267872&quot; title=&quot;01-047&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-047&lt;/a&gt;.) Under the applicable rule, the photocopy charge must be reasonable. It is not reasonable for the District to charge an administrator&apos;s salary to make photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, may include its labor costs in its photocopy charge. In case of a particular administrator, the actual labor cost appears to be $30.00 per hour. However, the District should base its labor charge for photocopies on a clerical salary rate.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 4, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268004</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-047</Title><title>Opinion 01 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267872&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-25T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: 1) $.50 per page; 2) $20 per hour for secretarial time; 3) $45 per hour for administrative time; and 4) $15 per disk?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 25, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 6, 2001, IPA received a letter from &quot;X.&quot; In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 2, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X requested copies of educational data about X&apos;s minor child, a student in the District. After reviewing the District&apos;s copy charge invoice, and copy fee schedule, X wrote to the District and requested &quot;data that documents justification for the $.50 per page charge, $15 per disk charge, $20 per hour for secretarial time, and $45 per hour for administrative time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District responded to X&apos;s request with the following: &quot;[t]he District arrived at the current fee schedule after administrative discussions of appropriate charges. There is no data available. The $20 and $45 per hour charge for secretarial and administrative time were arrived at by a wage and benefit analysis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady referred to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, and stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to this guidance, the District determined that $.50 per page based on the cost of materials (i.e. paper, toner, staples, etc.) and the labor to make and prepare the copies is reasonable and within the meaning and intent of [Chapter 13] and the Departments= [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] corresponding rules. It should be noted that the Department opined more than five years ago that $.25 per page is, on its face, reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The following is a description of how the District arrived at the $.50 per page charge:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;$.15 cents per page is a well-recognized, usual and customary cost to cover paper, toner, staples, etc. for copy projects.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;$20 per hour is the average secretarial labor cost based on the hourly rate of pay, benefits and other miscellaneous employer expenses ($14.53 per hour, $3.14 per hour for benefits, $1.99 per hour for miscellaneous expenses {Workers Comp, PERA and FICA contributions}).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;$45 per hour is the average administrative labor cost based on salary, benefits, and other miscellaneous employer expense ($41.82 per hour including salary and benefits and $5.56 per hour for miscellaneous expenses {Workers Comp, PERA and FICA contributions}).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;A typical ten (10) page copy project takes approximately ten (10) minutes of labor time. Therefore, for every ten pages copied by a secretary or administrator, the labor cost would be $3.33 or $7.50 respectively. The cost of supplies for the same project would be $1.50 (10 pages at $.15 per page). The total cost of the project would be $4.83 or $9.00. Therefore, the per page fee would be approximately $.48 or $.90.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, it is the District&apos;s position that $.50 per page is reasonable and serves as an appropriate standard cost for operations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As for the $15 per disk fee, the District used the same rationale with regard to materials and labor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: 1) $.50 per page; 2) $20 per hour for secretarial time; 3) $45 per hour for administrative time; and 4) $15 per disk?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may recover some of the associated costs. Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of government data, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 5, which governs access to private data, [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the criteria set out in part 1205.0300 concerning access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A. the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;B. the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;C. any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of operations;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;D. any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based recordkeeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;E. mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, a government entity may charge a data subject its reasonable actual costs to make, certify (if requested) and compile the photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District&apos;s position is problematic for a number of reasons. Mr. Cady stated that the Commissioner had previously opined that $.25 per page is, on its face, reasonable. That statement was made in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267414&quot; title=&quot;96-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-014&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On its face, a copy charge of $.25 per page does not seem unreasonable. However, such a charge is statutorily permissible only if it is the true cost incurred by the City in making, certifying, and compiling each copy. Because the City did not include any documentation indicating how the $.25 per page cost was calculated, the Commissioner is unable to determine if such a charge is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same situation holds here. Mr. Cady stated, for example, that $.15 cents per page is a well-recognized, usual and customary cost to cover paper, toner, staples, etc. for copy projects. Mr. Cady did not provide documentation for that assertion. However, Kinko&apos;s current standard photocopy charge, which includes labor, is $.08 per page. The Commissioner does not find it reasonable that the District&apos;s costs for paper, toner, staples, etc., are twice Kinko&apos;s total cost to produce photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District&apos;s &lt;u&gt;average&lt;/u&gt; labor costs for secretarial and administrative staff are $20.00 per hour and $45.00 per hour respectively. However, the statute requires a government entity to charge its actual, not average, costs associated with producing copies of data. Furthermore, regarding the propriety of calculating the labor cost to make photocopies at an administrator&apos;s salary rate, the Commissioner has previously opined that the District should charge its labor cost at a clerical salary rate. (See Advisory Opinion 01-033.) In addition, Mr. Cady stated that District staff take ten minutes to produce ten photocopies. Based on Department of Administration experience, the Commissioner does not find that to be reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District charges $15.00 per disk for data in electronic format. According to a brief survey conducted by IPA, the cost of a formatted diskette is less than $1.00. Again, the Commissioner questions the District&apos;s assertion that $15.00 reflects its actual cost to provide a data subject with a copy of data on a diskette.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner recognizes that pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4, a government entity may be guided by a fee schedule of standard copying charges. However, the fee schedule must reflect the entity&apos;s actual and reasonable copying costs. The Commissioner finds that the District&apos;s is neither.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, with respect to the following charges for copies of government data: 1) $.50 per page; 2) $20 per hour for secretarial time; 3) $45 per hour for administrative time; and 4) $15 per disk.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 25, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267872</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee wage/labor cost</Title><Id>267067</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee wage/labor cost</Title><Id>267067</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-046</Title><title>Opinion 01 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267971&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a request for photocopies of private data by including in the copy costs a charge for &quot;time to search for and retrieve&quot; the data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 25, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 6, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 12, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 20, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated March 5 and 6, 2001, X wrote to Superintendent Giroux, and requested copies of data about X&apos;s minor child, Y, a student in the District. X requested an itemized receipt for the copying charges. The invoice the District provided X contains the following entry: 2.5 hrs. Administrative time to search for and retrieve data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated that the charge for administrative time was inadvertently included, and the District had sent X a revised invoice, with the improper charge removed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a request for photocopies of private data by including in the copy costs a charge for time to search for and retrieve the data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed this issue, as it involves School District 11, in numerous previous opinions, most notably &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor is not the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor is the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady acknowledged the District&apos;s error, and the District has removed the improper charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a request by a data subject (a parent acting for her/his minor child) for photocopies of private data because it included in the copy costs a charge for time to search for and retrieve the data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 25, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267971</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-045</Title><title>Opinion 01 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267970&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request for copies of public personnel data, may Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, require a person to pay for photocopies of a blank application form?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 23, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On April 3, 2001, IPA received a letter from Tammy Emery. In this letter, Ms. Emery asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Emery&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 5, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Emery&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 13, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After inspecting public personnel data maintained by the District, Ms. Emery requested copies of some of the data. Ms. Emery stated to the Commissioner: I was given 3 totally blank copies of application forms . . . . I mentioned to [District staff] while I was there, that I did not want these and did not request these 3 copies. She refused to remove them from the total charges. I was forced to take them if I wanted all of the other data I requested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please be advised that the District provided and charged Ms. Emery for copies of data she requested. At no time did the District charge Ms. Emery for copies she had not requested. . . . It is my understanding that while Ms. Emery questioned [District staff] about one of the three pages in question, she never indicated that she did not want the copy. It should be noted that the three pages in dispute are individual pages that were part of personnel applications Ms. Emery was inspecting. Had Ms. Emery made her request clear, she would not have been provided or charged for those pages.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Emery asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request for copies of public personnel data, may Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, require a person to pay for photocopies of a blank application form?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), a government entity may charge its actual cost to provide copies of public government data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ms. Emery and the District do not agree upon the details of her data request. Ms. Emery says she did not request copies of the three application form pages for which the District required payment. She said she disputed the charge at the time she received the copies. Mr. Cady said that the District asked Ms. Emery to pay only for copies she requested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the copies provided to the Commissioner, it appears that the three pages of the application forms do not contain any personnel data, i.e., data on individuals. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5, and section 13.43, subdivision 1.) They are pages of the District&apos;s application form that have not been filled in. If Ms. Emery asked for copies of public personnel data about three District employees, then the District may not charge Ms. Emery for copies of pages that do not contain any of the government data, i.e., personnel data, she requested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, if, after inspecting data, Ms. Emery asked for copies of the three application forms, then the District may charge her for the blank pages, i.e., those containing no personnel data. She may not have wanted those pages once she realized they contained no personnel data, but if she asked for copies, she is obliged to pay for them. However, given that Ms. Emery challenged their inclusion upon receipt, the District could have saved itself considerable time and expense had it simply removed the charge for those three pages at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady stated [h]ad Ms. Emery made her request clear, she would not have been provided or charged for those pages. However, as the Commissioner has stated numerous times in previous opinions, if a government entity is not clear about what data are requested, it is incumbent upon it to clarify the request.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Emery is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in response to a request for copies of public personnel data, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, may not require a person to pay for photocopies that contain no personnel data, unless the requestor included those pages with the data she asked to have copied.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 23, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267970</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-044</Title><title>Opinion 01 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267521&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-15T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Lake Superior Center (Great Lakes Aquarium) responded appropriately to a request for access to public government data by stating that it is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 15, 2001; Lake Superior Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On March 26, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 23, 2001, from Paul Hannah, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Duluth News-Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Hannah requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data that the Lake Superior Center maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ann Glumac, President of the Great Lakes Aquarium, the facility that the Lake Superior Center manages, in response to Mr. Hannah&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 29, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Hannah&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Center&apos;s position. On April 6, 2001, IPA received comments, dated same, from Michael Donovan, an attorney representing the Lake Superior Center.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Donovan described the relationship between the various entities involved in this opinion. The Lake Superior Center (Nonprofit) is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation formed on May 19, 1989, pursuant to the predecessor of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A. The Lake Superior Center Authority (Authority) is a public corporation created by Laws 1990, Chapter 535. The Great Lakes Aquarium at Lake Superior Center (Facility), completed in 2000, is owned by the Authority. Pursuant to the Management Agreement dated November 8, 1998, between the Authority and the Nonprofit, the Nonprofit manages the Facility.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In his opinion request, Mr. Hannah wrote that in a letter dated December 1, 2000, staff of the &lt;i&gt;Duluth News-Tribune&lt;/i&gt; wrote to the Authority and requested, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, access to data pertaining to the operation of the Lake Superior Center, also known as the Great Lakes Aquarium. The Authority&apos;s response was to provide some of the requested data and to advise the newspaper that the remaining data would not be provided. Ms. Glumac stated in a December 11, 2000, letter to the newspaper, ...we don&apos;t believe the nonprofit Great Lakes Aquarium is subject to the government&apos;s data practices act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Hannah disagreed with Ms. Glumac&apos;s position.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hannah asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Lake Superior Center (Great Lakes Aquarium) responded appropriately to a request for access to public government data by stating that it is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no dispute that the Authority is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 11, it is a political subdivision. The issue before the Commissioner is whether the Nonprofit is subject to Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.01, subdivision 3, Chapter 13 regulates the collection, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in state agencies, statewide systems, and political subdivisions. The Nonprofit is not a state agency, statewide system, or a political subdivision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, Chapter 13 also provides that when a private person contracts with a government entity, data maintained by the private person may become subject to Chapter 13 by virtue of the contractual relationship. One such provision is found at section 13.05, subdivision 11. Clause (a), in relevant part, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with the requirements of this chapter as if it were a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This provision does not apply to the situation at hand because it became effective on August 1, 1999, approximately nine months after the Management Agreement between the Authority and the Nonprofit went into effect.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 6, which was in effect at the time the Authority and the Nonprofit signed the Management Agreement, also applies to situations in which government entities contract with private persons. However, this provision applies only when the contract requires that data on individuals be made available to the contracting party by the government entity. This provision does not appear to apply to the situation at hand.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final provision regulating contracts between private persons and government entities regards private health care providers and thus, does not apply. See section 13.43, subdivision 5.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the Commissioner has reviewed the Management Agreement and finds nothing in the contract that subjects the Nonprofit or any of its data to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In closing, the Commissioner would like to add the following. The gist of Mr. Hannah&apos;s argument is that when the Authority entered into contract with the Nonprofit, it (a public body) delegated its operating authority to the Nonprofit (a not public body). In essence, this shields the operation of the Aquarium from public scrutiny. This is the very type of situation the Legislature rectified by amending Chapter 13 to include the contract language now codified at section 13.05, subdivision 11. However, the Management Agreement between the Authority and the Nonprofit, which was not required to contain any privatization language, is in effect until December 31, 2023.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is also aware of a bill introduced during the 2001 Legislative Session, HF 266/SF 235, essentially providing that the Nonprofit would become a political subdivision. As of the date of this opinion, HF 266/SF 235 is before committee in both the House and the Senate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Hannah raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Lake Superior Center (Great Lakes Aquarium) responded appropriately to a request for access to public government data by stating that it is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 15, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267521</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Private party contracts with government (13.05, subd. 11; see also: Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).)</Title><Id>266280</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Lake Superior Center</Title><Id>266642</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-043</Title><title>Opinion 01 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267420&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that Jackson County maintains: data about County employees who recently became Court employees as the result of recently passed legislation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 15, 2001; Jackson County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 26, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 22, 2001, from Janice Fransen, the Jackson County Coordinator. In her letter Ms. Fransen asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Fransen wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On July 1, 2000 the Court Administration staff in Jackson County became State Court employees as a result of legislation passed the previous year. This legislation mandated the takeover of most Court Administration costs by the State in several Judicial Districts within Minnesota. Because the Court employees are no longer County employees, I am inquiring as to the County&apos;s responsibility for the personnel files maintained on these individuals during their tenure as County employees. Are these files still considered County records? If they are still considered County files, can we allow access under Chapter 13 to these files by State Court employees, such as the Court Administrator who supervises these employees, but is also a State employee?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Fransen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that Jackson County maintains: data about County employees who recently became Court employees as the result of recently passed legislation? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, a legislative mandate required that Court administration staff, who previously were Jackson County employees, become employees of the State Court system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates government data. Data that the judiciary maintains are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. See section 13.90. Access to Court data is regulated by the rules of the Court. Specifically, Rule 5 of the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch governs access to Court employee records.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the official records act, provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Every legal custodian of government records, at the expiration of that official&apos;s term of office or authority...shall deliver to a successor in office all government records in custody; and the successor shall receipt therefore to the predecessor or legal representative and shall file in the office a signed acknowledgment of the delivery. Every public officer shall demand from a predecessor in office, or the predecessor&apos;s legal representative, the delivery of all government records belonging to the office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that pursuant to section 15.17, Jackson County is required to transfer to the State Court system the personnel records of the former County employees who are now State Court employees. Access to those records now is governed by Rule 5 of the Rules of Public Access to the Judicial Branch.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Fransen raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the following data that Jackson County maintains are classified pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules of Public Access to the Judicial Branch: data about County employees who recently became Court employees as the result of recently passed legislation.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 15, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267420</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Judicial branch (13.90) (See also: Court records)</Title><Id>266853</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records of judicial branch</Title><Id>266854</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T14:32:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-042</Title><title>Opinion 01 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267585&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has Special School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately to a December 12, 2000, request for the following information relating to the Effie MacGreagor Memorial/Mural: copies of the nine complaints as referenced in the above letter and the names of the complainants; copies of the faculty survey and names of faculty involved; the nature of the consultation the Principal had with his supervisor and the Facilities Department; copies of the comments and suggestions received for the several weeks that the new lettering for the mural was displayed; and the name of the visiting State of Minnesota judge that the Superintendent had conversations with regarding this matter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 1, 2001; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 20, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 15, 2001, from Loren Piller. In his letter, Mr. Piller asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that Special School District 1, Minneapolis, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Piller&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 23, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Piller&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 5, 2001, IPA received a response, dated April 4, 2001, from Margaret Westin, Assistant District General Counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Mr. Piller is as follows. Mr. Piller sent a letter, dated December 12, 2000, to Kay Sack, the responsible authority for the District. He referred to an October 23, 2000, letter he received from Dan Loewenson, Assistant to the Superintendent, and asked for the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Copies of the nine complaints as referenced in the above letter and the names of the complainants;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Copies of the faculty survey and names of faculty involved;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The nature of the consultation the Principal had with his supervisor and the Facilities Department;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Copies of the comments and suggestions received for the several weeks that the new lettering for the mural was displayed; and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The name of the visiting State of Minnesota judge that the Superintendent had conversations with regarding this matter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Sack responded in an e-mail dated March 2, 2001. She wrote that Mr. Loewenson would be contacting him to determine the additional information you need to have.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Piller contacted Mr. Loewenson via e-mail on March 3, 2001, and wrote, If you do not intend to give me the information I have requested, please cite a statute that will help the Administrator of the State of Minnesota determine the validity of your decision. Mr. Piller sent another e-mail to Mr. Loewenson on March 8, 2001, asking if Mr. Loewenson had received the March 3, 2001, e-mail.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Piller wrote that he had not received any response from Mr. Loewenson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Piller asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has Special School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately to a December 12, 2000, request for the following information relating to the Effie MacGreagor Memorial/Mural: copies of the nine complaints as referenced in the above letter and the names of the complainants; copies of the faculty survey and names of faculty involved; the nature of the consultation the Principal had with his supervisor and the Facilities Department; copies of the comments and suggestions received for the several weeks that the new lettering for the mural was displayed; and the name of the visiting State of Minnesota judge that the Superintendent had conversations with regarding this matter? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Westin wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Mr. Pillar [sic] has requested copies of complaints, faculty surveys and comments and suggestions made about changing part of a memorial at Burroughs Elementary School. Special School District Number 1 has provided Mr. Pillar [sic] with all written records of the action taken. In addition, several representatives of the District have met personally with Mr. Pillar [sic] to explain how the action taken is consistent with Federal and State law and District policy. [Chapter 13] does not require the District to create data in response to a request for data....Mental processes of public officials does [sic] not constitute government data....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In addition, the District may not release to Mr. Pillar [sic] the identities of individuals who registered complaints with the District to the effect that the Memorial constituted violated provisions of the state Constitution. Accord, Minn. Stat. section 13.44.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is a factual dispute regarding this matter which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Mr. Piller asserts that after making his December 12, 2000, data request, Ms. Sack did not acknowledge receipt of his request until March 2, 2001 - approximately 11 weeks later. Mr. Piller also asserts that as of the date he submitted his opinion request - March 15 - he had yet to receive any response from the District. Ms. Westin asserts that the District has provided Mr. Piller with all written records of the action taken.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner, however, does have the following comments. Although Ms. Westin stated that the District has provided Mr. Piller with all records of the actions taken, she did not discuss whether the District specifically responded to Mr. Piller&apos;s December 12, 2000, request. The Commissioner acknowledges that the third and fifth items in that request appear technically not to be requests for government data and therefore are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. It appears, however, that the first, second, and fourth items are requests for government data. Therefore, the District was required to respond promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. Ms. Westin is correct that the District is not required to create data to respond to a request. She is also correct that if certain data are classified as not public, the District may not release those data to the public. However, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), if the District had determined that certain data are unavailable to Mr. Piller, the District should have so informed him shortly after he made his request. Ms. Westin asserted that some of the data are not public pursuant to section 13.44. The Commissioner notes that he does not agree that this section classifies as confidential the names of persons who have complained to a school district about a mural on one of its buildings.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Piller raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If Special School District 1 did not respond to Mr. Piller&apos;s December 12, 2000, request for access to data, it has not complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and should respond immediately. If the District did respond promptly and appropriately, it has complied with the requirements of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 1, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267585</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-041</Title><title>Opinion 01 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267665&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-05-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 1, 2001; School District 281 (Robbinsdale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 9, 2001, IPA received a letter from Carla C. Kjellberg, an attorney, on behalf of her clients, the Xs. In this letter, Ms. Kjellberg asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her clients&apos; rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Kjellberg&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stan Mack, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated March 12, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Kjellberg&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 27, 2001, IPA received a response from Stephen M. Knutson, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Xs&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. The Xs contacted Superintendent Mack regarding allegations of sexual abuse by other students. According to Mr. Knutson, the Xs complained that District employees did not handle the incidents involving Y properly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequent to the Xs&apos;s complaints, legal counsel for the District conducted an investigation, which consisted of interviews with the Xs and District employees, and produced a report. The District refused the Xs&apos;s request for access to the report, and instead provided them with a summary, including the following statement: [t]o the extent that the investigation revealed problems with any individual employee of the School District, the School District is taking appropriate action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his responses to Ms. Kjellberg and the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson stated that the data in question were classified such that the Xs are not entitled to gain access to them. Specifically, Mr. Knutson stated that the data are classified as private educational data under Minn. Stat. section13.32 and 20 U.S.C. section1232g, private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section13.43, confidential investigative data under Minn. Stat. section13.39 and/or protected by the attorney/client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kjellberg asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, individual subjects of public and private government data have a right to gain access to data about themselves. The Xs requested copies of data relating to their minor child, Y, to which they are entitled under section 13.02, subdivision 8.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson, the report in its entirety consists of data that are not about Y. He asserts that the data are classified as private or confidential or are otherwise not accessible to the Xs under one or more provisions of Minnesota Statutes, namely sections 13.39 (civil investigative data), 13.32 (educational data), 13.43 (personnel data) and 13.393 (attorney data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order for government data to be classified as not public under section 13.39, the data must be collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In early meetings with the School District to discuss this matter, the Xs indicated that they had retained counsel and would pursue their legal rights if necessary. At the direction of the Superintendent, counsel for the School District conducted a comprehensive investigation into the complaints. The reason for the investigation was two-fold: (1) to look into the Xs&apos;s complaints that [Y] had been sexually harassed and determine what, if any, action should be taken; and (2) to collect data for the School District for the purpose of defending a potential lawsuit brought by the Xs against the School District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, according to Mr. Knutson, the entire report is classified as confidential under section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson stated that even absent a threat of pending civil litigation, the data are classified under sections 13.32 and 13.43 such that they are not accessible to the Xs. Citing a Minnesota Appellate Court case, &lt;em&gt;Edina Educ. Ass&apos;n v. Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 273&lt;/em&gt;, 562 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997), Mr. Knutson stated: [w]hile the report does contain references to [Y], this data was incidental to the other children&apos;s behavior . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson, the data in question are either data about students other than [Y], or about District employees, about whose conduct the Xs&apos;s complained. Regarding the employees, Mr. Knutson stated: [i]n this case, once the investigation was complete, the School District took appropriate action. The measures taken, however, did not constitute final disciplinary&apos; action within the meaning of the statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the School District determined that it would not be possible to redact the report such that the identity of other protected individuals (students and employees) would remain private. The School District thus determined that, independent of its otherwise valid decision to classify the report as confidential under Section 13.39, it was required to withhold the entire report as private educational and personnel data under Sections 13.32 and 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the applicability of section 13.393, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In determining whether data is Section 13.30 [this section was renumbered to section 13.393 by the Revisor of Statutes in 2000] data, the Commissioner has found that two conditions must hold. One, that the attorneys generated the data in the course of acting in their professional capacity for the School District, and two, that the attorneys were not performing duties that are required to be performed by the School District&apos;s responsible authority and therefore not relieving the responsible authority of his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 and Section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson, two sections of the report are section 13.393 data and therefore are not government data for purposes of Chapter 13. He stated: [i]n the Discussion and Analysis section, the School District&apos;s attorneys review the information collected and analyze it in light of the complaints alleged and the School District&apos;s legal position relative thereto. The Recommendations section contains the School District&apos;s attorneys&apos; legal advice for responding to the complaints and information received during the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Knutson stated that he had consulted with staff of the United States Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office and the Office of the General Counsel regarding the applicability of 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, or FERPA, to the Xs&apos;s right to gain access to the report. According to Mr. Knutson, as to each of the above named defenses, FERPA does not require a contrary result. . . . In addition, those who enforce FERPA . . . advise governmental entities to read FERPA consistent with applicable state laws. . . . Similarly, the agency does not interpret FERPA to require results inconsistent with state laws, including laws that interpose a civil investigative privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. As noted above, in situations in which the chief attorney acting for a government entity determines that a civil legal action is pending, data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as confidential under section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Knutson stated that those conditions hold here, and therefore, the entire report is confidential and may be withheld from the Xs. In his reference to his consultations with the U.S. Department of Education, Mr. Knutson did not state whether he discussed specifically the applicability of section 13.39. He did not provide any documentation or ruling from the federal government. However, under FERPA, parents are entitled to gain access to the education records of their minor children. (See FERPA Section 1232g(a)(1)(A).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, according to a 1996 letter from the Director of the Department of Education Family Policy Compliance to the President of Moorhead State University, involving the same issue, i.e., whether an educational institution may deny a student access to her education records on the basis of section 13.39, the Office stated that to the extent that section 13.39 conflicts with the FERPA provisions and the educational institution wishes to continue to receive federal funds, the school must comply with FERPA and provide the student with access to her education record. In that letter, the Director stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Additionally, please provide assurance that appropriate steps have been taken to inform school officials that notwithstanding State law, it is a requirement of Federal law to provide students access to their education records within 45 days of each request, and that failure to comply with FERPA could impact on the school&apos;s receipt of federal funds. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please note that FERPA establishes requirements with which a recipient must comply if it desires to continue receiving certain Federal funds; it does not preempt conflicting State laws. Thus, FERPA would not prohibit educational agencies and institutions from complying with a Minnesota State law requirement that prohibits release of certain records regarding investigations to the individual subject of that data. However, compliance with Minnesota law may jeopardize continued eligibility to receive Federal education funds. It appears that the State law in question is in conflict with FERPA. It is therefore recommended that you bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate officials of Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;FERPA also requires that if an educational agency or institution cannot comply with FERPA due to a conflict with State or local law, it shall notify this Office within 45 days, giving the text and citation of the conflicting law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(See U.S. Department of Education, letter to Dr. Roland Barden, Complaint No. 0517, 1996.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Family Policy Compliance Office would take the same position with the District that it did with Moorhead State University, it appears that the District cannot withhold data from the Xs on the basis of section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In general, under section 13.32, and provisions of FERPA, data about students other than Y are not available to the Xs. Accordingly, data in the report that identify students other than Y are private data about the other students and the District may not release those data to the Xs. However, the Commissioner questions the District&apos;s assertion that any mention of Y in the report is only incidental. Given the nature of the report, i.e., an investigation into allegations of incidents of harassment of Y, and actions taken by the District in response, it seems unlikely that there would be no data of which Y is the subject. The Commissioner urges the District to reevaluate its conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the applicability of section 13.43, which governs data about public employees, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. If there is no final disciplinary action with the meaning of section 13.43, then very limited data about the complaint are public, i.e., only the existence and status of the complaints or charges against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Knutson, the District did not take final disciplinary action against any employees as a result of its investigation. Mr. Knutson stated the existence of complaints against particular School District employee(s) was known to the parents (since they initiated the complaint) and its status was revealed to them in the Superintendent&apos;s February 9, 2001 letter. Although it is not clear from the record whether the Xs requested access to public data about the status of a complaint made about a specific employee, if they did, the District did not respond properly. All the District released was the statement: [t]o the extent that the investigation revealed problems with any individual employee of the School District, the School District is taking appropriate action. That statement does not respond to a request for the status of a specific complaint about a specific employee. The District did properly withhold private personnel data, i.e., the other data about the employee(s) related to the investigation, from the Xs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner did not review the report. Therefore, he cannot determine whether Mr. Knutson&apos;s assertion that it is not possible to redact the report such that private data about other students and employees would remain private is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the applicability of section 13.393, which governs data generated by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for a government entity, because the investigation was conducted by attorneys for the District, Mr. Knutson is correct that certain portions of the report may be withheld from the Xs on the basis that Chapter 13 does not regulate attorney data. However, this raises the troubling issue that if, in another District, such an investigation were conducted by District personnel other than attorneys, the resulting classification of the data might be different. The Commissioner does not believe the Legislature intended a government entity to be able to cut off parents&apos; access to data about their children on the basis of the status of the person chosen to conduct investigations of allegations that a child was sexually harassed at a school.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Commissioner notes that, although the letter from the U. S. Department of Education referred to above addressed the interplay between FERPA and section 13.39, it may have applicability to section 13.393 as well. However, in light of the broad protection conferred upon attorney data by the Minnesota Supreme Court (see &lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998)), the Commissioner agrees with Mr. Knutson that the District may withhold some data on the basis of section 13.393. (For further discussion of this issue see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267583&quot; title=&quot;99-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kjellberg is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale, responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data only to the extent that it did not provide access to private data about other students or employees, or to attorney data as defined at section 13.393. The District must provide the Xs with access to all data of which they or their child are the subject.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 1, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267665</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment claims, investigations</Title><Id>266489</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-040</Title><title>Opinion 01 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267764&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If the City of Woodbury requires an individual to supply his/her Social Security number as part of applying for a firearm permit, has the City violated that individual&apos;s rights under state and federal law?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 19, 2001; City of Woodbury</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 26, 2001, IPA received a letter dated February 23, 2001, from Timothy Kelley, an attorney for the City of Woodbury. In his letter, Mr. Kelley requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the rights of data subjects in relation to the collection of certain data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Kelley wrote that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 624.713, a person who has been committed to a treatment facility as mentally ill may not be entitled to possess a pistol. He stated that an applicant is asked on the Minnesota Uniform Firearm Application (Application) whether or not s/he has been confined or committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere as mentally ill.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Kelley wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                To verify the answer given by the applicant, the City contacts the Minnesota Department of Human Services to verify the identity of a person committed that has applied for a handgun permit. The City is required to check this under State law, but the City has encountered problems with [DHS]. The [Application] does not ask for the applicant&apos;s Social Security Number, but [DHS] will not verify whether a person has been committed without the Social Security Number.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Kelley noted that because Social Security numbers are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.49, if the City were to collect such data, it would need to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. Mr. Kelley further noted that federal law also comes into play when a government entity collects an individual&apos;s Social Security number. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...In general, federal law prohibits states from denying an individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law based on an individual&apos;s refusal to disclose her social security number. If the City gave a legally sufficient Tennessen Warning, but the applicant refused to provide his or her social security number, would the City violate state and/or federal law by denying that person&apos;s application?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Because DHS is involved in the issues Mr. Kelley raised, the Commissioner thought it would be appropriate to solicit the Department&apos;s comments. In response to the Commissioner&apos;s request for comments, Francis Bly of DHS submitted a letter dated March 9, 2001. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...I am the Director of the Division which processes these [firearms] background checks. We do not, and have not in the past, required the Social Security number to obtain information on any individual...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                There are rare instances when our clerk finds a near match. This may be a full match on the name but birth date is one day different. It may be a match on everything but middle initial. In those instances, we notify the law enforcement office that we have a near match and that the only other identifier on the record is the Social Security number. In some instances, the requester may go back to the applicant and obtain the Social Security number. Without additional information a near match must be reported as no match. Our clerk has noticed that since having a near match situation, Woodbury added a line for the applicant&apos;s Social Security number. This is not a requirement, and was not discussed with Department staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kelley asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the City of Woodbury requires an individual to supply his/her Social Security number as part of applying for a firearm permit, has the City violated that individual&apos;s rights under state and federal law? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number is subject to requirements of both state and federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data. When a government entity asks an individual to supply private data about him/herself, such as a Social Security number, the entity is required to give the individual a notice. See section 13.04, subdivision 2. This notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen Warning, must advise the data subject of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; 2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; 3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Intertwined with the Tennessen Warning notice is the requirement that the collection and storage of all data on individuals and the use and dissemination of private and confidential data shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the Legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. See Section 13.05, subdivision 3. In other words, as the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, not only must the Tennessen Warning describe which outside entities may be receiving the data, any such disseminations must be necessary for the administration and management of a particular program authorized by federal, state, or local law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Kelley described what he believes to be an adequate Tennessen notice: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data is to complete the application process; 2) the individual is not legally required to provide his or her Social Security number; 3) if an applicant refuses, it could result in the denial of his application; and 4) the City would be sharing the applicant&apos;s Social Security number with DHS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments regarding Mr. Kelley&apos;s proposed notice. First, it is not clear to the Commissioner whether Woodbury has authority to collect an applicant&apos;s Social Security number. As stated in section 13.05, subdivision 3, collection and storage of all data on individuals is limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the Legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. Mr. Kelley did not provide information demonstrating that the collection of Social Security numbers meets the requirement set forth in section 13.05.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, it is not clear to the Commissioner that state or federal authority exists for Woodbury to disseminate an applicant&apos;s Social Security number to the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Commissioner is not aware of any such authority and neither Mr. Kelley nor DHS provided any related citations. Therefore, if Woodbury does have authority to collect an applicant&apos;s Social Security number, to comply with state law, the City must obtain the individual&apos;s consent prior to disseminating the data to DHS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When a government entity collects Social Security numbers, there are also federal law implications. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires a state and local government entity requesting Social Security numbers to provide the following information: 1) whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; 2) how the entity will use the number; and 3) under what statutory or other authority the entity is requesting the number.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, federal law makes it illegal for federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security numbers unless the disclosure is required by federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the Social Security number before 1975. See 5 USC 552a, (note).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case at hand, Mr. Kelley did not provide any information indicating that an applicant is required by federal law to supply his/her Social Security number in order to apply for a gun permit. Therefore, if Woodbury did request an applicant&apos;s Social Security number and s/he refused to supply the information, pursuant to federal law, it appears that Woodbury would not be able to use that as a basis to deny the applicant a permit. However, Woodbury also must take into account the requirements set forth in Chapter 13, as discussed above. Woodbury may collect Social Security numbers only if they are necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the Legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kelley raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Mr. Kelley did not provide information demonstrating that Woodbury has authority pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 3, to collect Social Security numbers for the purpose of evaluating gun permit applications. Therefore, it does not appear that the City can require an individual to supply his/her Social Security number as part of the application. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 19, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267764</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data necessary for administration and management of programs (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266359</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Firearms background check</Title><Id>266597</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Background checks</Title><Id>266447</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-039</Title><title>Opinion 01 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267669&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Cottage Grove respond appropriately to a request for access to secret ballots that were intended but not used for the purpose of selecting finalists to fill a vacancy on the Council?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 16, 2001; City of Cottage Grove</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On February 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;i&gt;South Washington County Bulletin&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Cottage Grove.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On March 2, 2001, IPA received a response from Corrine H. Thomson, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In December of last year, the Cottage Grove City Council undertook to fill a vacancy that had occurred on the council. When the council&apos;s intention to fill the vacancy was announced, 18 people applied for the position. In an effort to reduce the number of applicants, the council decided to use secret ballots by which to choose a group of finalists (each council member indicating his or her choices on the ballot).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 However, in response to objections from the &lt;i&gt;Bulletin&lt;/i&gt; about this procedure, the council abandoned it, but only after it had received the completed secret ballots from the city council members.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Thomson:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The city clerk retained the lists that the city council members had initially provided, in which the council members had identified 4 persons to interview. Because the city council had abandoned that process, the lists were never circulated to city council members and therefore played no role in the ultimate selection process. The city clerk and the city administrator are the only persons who have seen the lists.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Thomson stated that the City takes the position that the data are private personnel data on applicants for employment, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his reqest for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Cottage Grove respond appropriately to a request for access to secret ballots that were intended but not used for the purpose of selecting finalists to fill a vacancy on the Council? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to the relevant provision of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4 (a), [t]he votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission &lt;u&gt;on an action taken&lt;/u&gt; in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose. (Emphasis added.) Subdivision 5 provides that the journal must be open to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Furthermore, pursuant to the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in &lt;i&gt;Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato&lt;/i&gt;, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. App. 1997), the Open Meeting Law does not permit a public body to make decisions by means of secret ballots. It would therefore seem anomalous to hold that even though the balloting procedure was conducted in contravention of the public&apos;s right to be informed about decisions made by a public body, the illegal ballots could nonetheless be withheld as private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Thomson:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson suggests in his letter that the Commissioner of Administration would be condoning &apos;illegal&apos; balloting by allowing the data to remain private. There was no violation of the Open Meeting Law, because the City did not use the &apos;ballots&apos; in the selection process. All discussion and votes took place in a public meeting, without the council members having seen or been informed about the previously solicited lists.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Votes taken by a government entity at a meeting open to the public must be maintained in a journal that is accessible to the public. However, here, although characterized as ballots, the data in question were not votes relied upon by the City Council during the meeting in which the Council decided which applicants to interview. (In fact, the Council decided to interview all of the applicants.) Thus, the data do not constitute a vote on an action and therefore are not subject to the Open Meeting Law requirement that they be kept in a journal and made available to the public. The question before the Commissioner might be different if the City had actually relied upon the data in its selection process.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the data are in existence. Under the presumption provided at section 13.03, subdivision 1, the data are public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Thomson, Cottage Grove considers its elected officials to be employees for data practices purposes. She stated: [t]he lists in question were collected because individuals were applicants for a vacant council position with the City and are data about those individuals. Under subdivision 4 of section 13.43, all personnel data is private data on individuals unless expressly made public under subdivision 3 of section 13.43. Ms. Thomson asserted that the data in question, namely an X&apos; or checkmark placed next to an applicant&apos;s name, are data about individual applicants, and because those data are not made public under subdivision 3, they are private under subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson stated: . . .we do not believe the ballots can be considered personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was . . . an applicant for employment by a government entity. Subdivision 3 classifies data about current and former applicants for employment. The following applicant data are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. An applicant&apos;s name becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. At that point, the applicant has become a finalist. Pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has opined that elected officials are employees for purposes of section 13.43 if the government entity so considers them. (See Advisory Opinions 00-079 and 99-043.) Ms. Thomson stated that Cottage Grove City Council members are considered by the City to be employees. Accordingly, the applicants for the vacant Council position are applicants for employment, and data about them are classified at section 13.43, subdivisions 3 and 4. Under the classification scheme provided at section 13.43, which runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified, the data in question, i.e., checkmarks beside applicants&apos; names, are private personnel data, because they are not included in the data classified as public under subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Cottage Grove responded appropriately to a request for access to data that were intended but not used for the purpose of selecting finalists to fill a vacancy on the City Council, because those data are private personnel data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivisions 3 and 4. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 16, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267669</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status as employees (13.601, 13.43)</Title><Id>266326</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Journal of votes, ballots</Title><Id>266345</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266798</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-038</Title><title>Opinion 01 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267630&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Murray County Central Schools respond appropriately to an April 12, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 16, 2001; School District 2169 (Murray County Central)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 13, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cornelius H. Smit, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated February 15, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 23, 2001, IPA received a response from Jay T. Squires, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X is a teacher employed by the District. In an April 11, 2000, meeting with the school principal, X was informed there were some concerns addressed in a letter to the principal from another District teacher. In a letter to the principal dated April 12, 2000, X asked for a copy of the letter of concerns. The principal denied the request on April 14, 2000, and noted I am completing my investigation of complaint and intend to issue a response in writing as soon as possible. You may then resubmit your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X repeated his/her data request in another letter to the principal dated April 17, 2000, which was denied the same day. According to X, [o]n April 26, 2000, a disciplinary letter of concerns . . . was delivered to me. Included in this document was one of the items addressed in [the other teacher&apos;s] letter. In a letter to the principal dated April 27, 2000, X repeated his/her request for access to that letter. The principal did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Superintendent Smit dated May 2, 2000, X requested the opportunity to view all district data in relation to myself. . . . Subsequently, X was allowed access to his/her personnel file, which contained the disciplinary letter from the principal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the principal dated May 26, 2000, X asked again for access to the teacher&apos;s letter, and asked for the statutory basis if access was denied. The principal did not respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a June 27, 2000, letter to Superintendent Smit, X stated that s/he was making her/his fifth request for access to the teacher&apos;s letter of concerns, and stated: I am requesting, from the Responsible Authority of District #2169, a response to my request either by receiving a copy of the letter of concerns or the statute which denies my access at this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 18, 2000, Superintendent Smit responded: [w]ith respect to your July [sic] 27, 2000, data practices request for a copy of an April 2000 letter from [the other teacher to the principal], the District does not have a copy of the letter in its possession and therefor cannot respond to your request for a copy of the letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Squires stated that in March 2000 the principal commenced an investigation as the initial step in the administrative proceeding process established by the teacher tenure law, Minn. Stat. section 122A.40. As of April 12, 2000, those proceedings were still pending, and the investigation was still in process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Squires further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minn. Stat. section 13.39 indicates that data collected by school districts as part of an active investigation undertaken and for the purpose of the potential commencement of judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings is confidential data in the case of data on individuals. Consequently, since the . . . principal was on April 12, 2000 conducting an active investigation under the auspices of the administrative process established by the teacher tenure law, the employee had no right on April 12, 2000 to access to the requested data. Moreover, the employee never made a request for access to the responsible authority as is required by Minn. Stat. section section 13.03 and 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Murray County Central Schools respond appropriately to an April 12, 2000, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, individuals are entitled to gain access to public or private data of which they are the subject. When a data subject makes a request for data about him/herself, government entities are required to make the data available within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Squires noted that X did not make his/her request to the District&apos;s responsible authority, but rather directly to the principal. However, Mr. Squires acknowledged that the high school principal nevertheless responded to the employee&apos;s request for a copy of the letter. Mr. Squires did not identify the District&apos;s responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is correct that X addressed his/her initial requests for data (April 12, 17 and 27, and May 26) to the principal. However, X addressed the May 2 and June 27 requests to the Superintendent, and in the latter request, stated that s/he was asking the District responsible authority to respond. Superintendent Smit did not respond to X&apos;s June 27 request until July 18, and in his response, he did not state that he is not the District&apos;s responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Squires comments notwithstanding, it appears that the District treated X&apos;s April 12 and 17 requests to be legitimate data practices requests. The high school principal examined those requests and responded to them. Further, even if the ten-day response time began when the Superintendent, as the apparent responsible authority for the District, received X&apos;s May 2, 2000, request for access to all data about her/himself, the District continued to deny X access to the teacher&apos;s letter of concern, as of its July 18, 2000, response. This is past the ten-day statutory deadline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Squires asserted that at the time of X&apos;s initial request, the data were classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.39. As the Commissioner has previously opined, in order for a government entity to deny access to data based on section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the entity must have determined that a civil legal action is pending. In this case, the Commissioner was not provided any information to demonstrate that the chief attorney acting for the District had made such a determination at the time of X&apos;s requests to the principal or the superintendent. In his denials to X, the principal made no mention that he was acting on advice from the District&apos;s chief attorney. The first mention of section 13.39 as the basis for denying X access to the other teacher&apos;s letter was made by Mr. Squires in his comments to the Commissioner. Absent a determination from the District&apos;s chief attorney, the District may not deny X access to the teacher&apos;s letter on the basis of section 13.39. (Additional information about section 13.39 can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267894&quot; title=&quot;01-022&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinions 01-022&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267385&quot; title=&quot;98-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267895&quot; title=&quot;96-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-044&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267505&quot; title=&quot;95-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-050&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267726&quot; title=&quot;94-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Squires stated that the principal was conducting an investigation into X&apos;s conduct according to the process provided at Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.40, the teacher tenure law. However, there is nothing in that section that classifies data on teachers under investigation as confidential. In fact, pursuant to subdivision 19, [a]ll evaluations and files generated within a school district relating to each individual teacher must be available to each individual teacher upon written request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in his July 18, 2000, response to X, Superintendent Smit stated: . . . the District does not have a copy of the letter in its possession and therefor cannot respond to your request for a copy of the letter. X stated to the Commissioner that one of the items addressed in the letter from the other teacher was included in the April 26, 2000, disciplinary letter to X from the District. If the District relied upon data in the letter from the other teacher to make a decision about disciplining X, the data are official records within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 and Minnesota Statutes, section 138.163, et. seq. The District should have both maintained the letter from the other teacher and made it available to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has an additional comment. Government entities might avoid situations like this one if they provided their employees with the policies and procedures they are required to develop, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 8, concerning the rights of data subjects and the specific procedures in effect for access to data by the data subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools did not respond appropriately to an April 12, 2000, request for access to data. The District should have provided X with access to the letter written about him/her by another District teacher.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 16, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267630</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Teacher Tenure law (122A.40)</Title><Id>266909</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-037</Title><title>Opinion 01 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267481&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 239, Rushford-Peterson, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data to parents that their complaint about a District employee had been substantiated?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 6, 2001; School District 239 (Rushford-Peterson)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 9, 2001, IPA received a letter dated February 6, 2001, from Debra Corhouse, an attorney representing Education Minnesota. In her letter, Ms. Corhouse asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding whether School District 239, Rushford-Peterson, inappropriately released data about a District employee, X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David U&apos;ren, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Corhouse&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Corhouse&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 23, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Anne Becker, an attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts according to Ms. Corhouse is as follows. In March of 2000, in response to a parental complaint, the District initiated an investigation of X. On April 3, 2000, Ms. Becker sent a letter to the parents stating that the parents&apos; complaint was substantiated. Two days later, the District issued its initial notice of deficiency and reprimand to X. Three weeks later, on or about April 27, 2000, the District completed its revisions to the letter, in response to X&apos;s grievance of April 25, 2000. The grievance was resolved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Corhouse asserted that when the District disclosed to the parents that their complaint had been substantiated, the District released more data than what is allowed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). She stated, The fact that the District released data as to its conclusions is especially troubling in this case, because informing the complainants (the parents) that their complaint was substantiated was essentially equivalent to releasing the actual investigative report (which is clearly private data).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Corhouse asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did School District 239, Rushford-Peterson, violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data to parents that their complaint about a District employee had been substantiated?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(see subdivision 2(a)(5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The essence of these provisions is that more data become public when and if a final disposition of a disciplinary action has occurred. If no final disposition occurs, very limited data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267528&quot; title=&quot;94-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-042&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Becker wrote, About a year ago, our firm was asked to investigate a complaint brought against a School District employee by members of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, we were asked to inform the complainants of the outcome of that investigation. Ms. Becker stated that in the letter to the parents she wrote, As part of my investigation of your complaint, I interviewed [various people]. Following my investigation, I made recommendations to the School District concerning my findings and possible action. The complaint was substantiated. The School District took appropriate action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Becker added, In this case, the status of the complaint was that it had been investigated and substantiated and the statements in the letter were fully consistent with the disclosure of the complaint&apos;s status.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Becker&apos;s position. It is correct that section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), clearly states that status of a complaint or charge is public, and, under different circumstances, an entity&apos;s disclosure that a complaint had been substantiated might be appropriate. However, as the Commissioner has previously discussed, if a final disposition has not occurred (as is the case here), an entity&apos;s release of status information should not disclose particular details regarding a complaint. The problem in this situation is that Ms. Becker, in revealing to the complainant parents that their complaint had been substantiated, released much more than status information. She implicitly informed them that the very things they had alleged about X were correct. Thus, in this particular fact situation, the Commissioner opines that the District inappropriately released data about X. An appropriate response would have been a statement that the investigation had been completed and that the District was initiating disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Corhouse raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 239, Rushford-Peterson, did violate Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it released data to parents that their complaint about a District employee had been substantiated.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 6, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267481</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant access to data</Title><Id>266751</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-036</Title><title>Opinion 01 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267517&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-03T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request in December 1999 for &quot;ICR information of who and what caused [the Sheriff&apos;s Office] to respond to my private property&quot;?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a &quot;winter 2000&quot; request for &quot;investigation work product&quot; regarding an incident that occurred in December 1999? (This request was made again on January 10, 2001, for &quot;the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000.&quot;)
In May 2000, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff violate X&apos;s rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring X to fill out a &quot;Document/Service Request&quot; form because the form requires payment before &quot;service complete or documents released&quot;? X wanted to inspect data.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request to inspect the Sheriff&apos;s &quot;data practices policy&quot;?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request for &quot;the ICRs, report, statements and other supporting data of reports made by [Y], of which I or any of my family are the subject of [Y&apos;s] reports&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 2001; Le Sueur County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 26, 2001, IPA received a letter dated January 20, 2001, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s Office maintains. Following conversations with IPA staff, Mr. Quiram submitted a revised opinion request dated February 2, 2001, received by IPA on February 7, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Gliszinski, Sheriff of Le Sueur County, in response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On March 14, 2001, IPA received a response, dated March 12, 2001, from Sheriff Gliszinski.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts according to Mr. Quiram is as follows. In December 1999, a Le Sueur County Deputy was at Mr. Quiram&apos;s residence. Mr. Quiram wrote, I asked him for ICR information of who and what caused him to respond to my private property. He refused to provide me with the information... Mr. Quiram wrote that he then made the same request to the Deputy&apos;s supervisor. Mr. Quiram stated that the supervisor also refused to provide him with the requested public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quiram wrote that several days later, he called the Sheriff&apos;s Office requesting to see the investigation work product [regarding a complaint Mr. Quiram made about two officers&apos; conduct and criminal behavior]. Mr. Quiram wrote, I am refused. I ask in writing several times and end with a final e-mail request on 10 Jan 2001. Mr. Quiram provided to the Commissioner a copy of his January 10, 2001, e-mail. In the e-mail he wrote, I am requesting...to view the public data of...the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quiram added that in his January 10, 2001, e-mail to Sheriff Gliszinski, he requested access to the policy on data practices. Mr. Quiram stated that he asked again for the data in February 2001, and has received no response. In his January 10, 2001, e-mail, Mr. Quiram asked to view your data practices policy. You stated to me in 1999 that I could view it at the auditor&apos;s office&apos;, He laughed when I went to him....He said he don&apos;t have any of the sheriff&apos;s policy.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quiram further related that in May 2000, he visited the Sheriff&apos;s Office to inspect a particular report and investigation the Sheriff had personally worked on. The Sheriff asked Mr. Quiram to fill out a form entitled document/service request. Mr. Quiram objected to this form because, in his opinion, it did not provide a way for him to ask to inspect data, which is free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quiram&apos;s final issue regards his requests to inspect public data relating to reports made to the Sheriff&apos;s Office by a member of Mr. Quiram&apos;s family. Mr. Quiram stated that the Sheriff&apos;s position has been that those data are not available to Mr. Quiram because the family member signed an identity release. Mr. Quiram most recently requested the data in his January 10, 2001, e-mail. He asked for the ICRs, reports, statements and other supporting data of reports made by [Y], of which I or any of my family are the subject of [Y&apos;s] reports ?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request in December 1999 for ICR information of who and what caused [the Sheriff&apos;s Office] to respond to my private property ?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a winter 2000 request for investigation work product regarding an incident that occurred in December 1999? (This request was made again on January 10, 2001, for the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000. )&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In May 2000, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff violate X&apos;s rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring X to fill out a Document/Service Request form because the form requires payment before service complete or documents released ? X wanted to inspect data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request to inspect the Sheriff&apos;s data practices policy ?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request for the ICRs, report, statements and other supporting data of reports made by [Y], of which I or any of my family are the subject of [Y&apos;s] reports ?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is the subject, pursuant to section 13.04, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a request in December 1999 for ICR information of who and what caused [the Sheriff&apos;s Office] to respond to my private property ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Deputy David Struckman, as he was initiating the investigation, advised Quiram that this was a criminal investigation and he could not release requested information at that time. Quiram was later informed of the name of the complainant, at the conclusion of the investigation, when Quiram received the criminal complaint indicating the violation of Mn. State Statute regarding this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies are classified at section 13.82. Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of section 13.82 contain descriptions of types of data and associated data elements that are always public. However, the data described in those subdivisions are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data elements were specified to ensure that a law enforcement agency could not protect them as active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 7. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, certain law enforcement data are never public. For example, under section 13.82, subdivision 17, the identities of undercover agents, informants, certain witnesses and victims (under certain conditions), and victims of criminal sexual conduct, among others, are never public. Further, some law enforcement data, i.e., active criminal investigative data, are not public while an investigation is active. See section 13.82, subdivision 7. When the investigation no longer is active, criminal investigative data, with certain exceptions, are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, it appears that when Mr. Quiram made his initial request for data, the Sheriff&apos;s Office was conducting a criminal investigation. Therefore, some data about the investigation were not available to Mr. Quiram. However, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, the Sheriff&apos;s Office was required to release certain data about the incident. Based on the Sheriff&apos;s comments, it appears that the investigation is now over. Thus, Mr. Quiram should be provided with all public data about the incident. If the Sheriff&apos;s Office has not yet provided Mr. Quiram with the public data, it should do so promptly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a winter 2000 request for investigation work product regarding an incident that occurred in December 1999? (This request was made again on January 10, 2001, for the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000. )&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Sheriff Gliszinski did not address the issue of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request for data relating to his (Mr. Quiram&apos;s) complaint against members of the Sheriff&apos;s Department. The Sheriff wrote only that he met with and corresponded with Mr. Quiram regarding the allegations of misconduct. The Commissioner cannot determine, therefore, whether the Sheriff responded in any respect to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request. If the Sheriff does not understand Mr. Quiram&apos;s request, he should ask Mr. Quiram for clarification. If the request is clear, the Sheriff is required by sections 13.03 and 13.04 to respond to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the Commissioner notes that data about employees are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the various types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. When a complaint has been made about an employee, certain data are public: the name, the fact that a complaint was made, and the status of the complaint. See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). If the entity takes disciplinary action and a final disposition occurs, more data become public. See section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(5) and 2(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In May 2000, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff violate X&apos;s rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by requiring X to fill out a Document/Service Request form because the form requires payment before service complete or documents released ? X wanted to inspect data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Quiram provided to the Commissioner a copy of the Document/Service Request form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner Sheriff Glizsinski wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This documentation is requested to assist LeSueur County employee&apos;s [sic] gather requested material completely and in a timely manner. Because the LeSueur County employee&apos;s [sic] workload is substantial, it may not [sic] possible to retrieve requested documents at that given time, however, when requested through the form process the documents can be retrieved during a reasonable time period. These forms are not required to be completed by the requester, however, staff will fill them out and maintain them to ensure all requested information is retrieved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments regarding the form. One, there is no provision in Chapter 13 prohibiting government entities from requiring that requests be made in writing. An issue could arise, however, if an individual wishes to make an anonymous request, as provided for in section 13.05, subdivision 12. The government entity would have to determine how to accommodate such a request. Two, the Commissioner finds the following statement confusing: Payment is required before service complete or documents released. If this form were presented to an individual who was not aware of his/her rights under Chapter 13, it would be reasonable for this person to conclude that a fee is required to access data. This is incorrect because inspection is free of charge. Therefore, the Commissioner urges the Sheriff&apos;s Office to revise its data request form so that it accurately reflects the provisions of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), a government entity is required to prepare and make available that entity&apos;s procedures for accessing government data. The 2000 Legislature enacted this provision, which went into effect on January 1, 2001. Presumably, a document such as the Document/Service Request form would be a part of the Sheriff&apos;s Office&apos;s procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Quiram asserted that in at least one instance he filled out the form indicating he wished to inspect data and was never provided any response. Under Chapter 13, the Sheriff&apos;s Office would be denying Mr. Quiram&apos;s rights if it denied him the opportunity to inspect data free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request to inspect the Sheriff&apos;s data practices policy ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, the Sheriff wrote, This request appears to be made by e-mail. I do not respond to requests for documents by e-mail and have advised Quiram that e-mail requests will not be accepted by me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 does not address the issue of how an individual is to make requests for data. The statute does not require that an individual request data in writing nor does it state that an individual cannot request data in writing. Further, Chapter 13 does not provide any guidance on whether or not an entity must accept data requests via e-mail. Sheriff Gliszinski stated that the Office&apos;s policy is not to accept data requests via e-mail. Assuming this is the case, the Office is required, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), to include such information in its data access procedures. Sheriff Gliszinski did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the Office&apos;s procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheriff Gliszinski also asserted that he has informed Mr. Quiram of the policy. The Commissioner has no way of knowing whether this is the case. The appropriate time to inform Mr. Quiram of the policy would have been shortly after Mr. Quiram made his request. If Mr. Quiram was aware of the policy regarding e-mail requests, he should be submitting his requests to the Sheriff&apos;s Office in person or via U.S. mail. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Sheriff&apos;s Office is required to provide a copy of the data access policy/procedures within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 5&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Le Sueur County Sheriff respond appropriately to a January 10, 2001, request for the ICRs, report, statements and other supporting data of reports made by [Y], of which I or any of my family are the subject of [Y&apos;s] reports ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Sheriff Gliszinski again wrote, This request appears to be made by e-mail. I do not respond to requests for documents by e-mail and have advised Quiram that e-mail requests will not be accepted by me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Please see Issue 4 for the Commissioner&apos;s discussion regarding data requests via e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments regarding the content of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request. The Sheriff is required, in a prompt or appropriate manner, or within a reasonable time, to provide Mr. Quiram with any public data of which Mr. Quiram is not the subject. See section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300. Also, the Sheriff is required, within ten working days, to provide Mr. Quiram with any data of which he is the subject. See section 13.04. As stated above, if the Sheriff&apos;s standard procedure is that data requests will not be accepted via e-mail, Mr. Quiram should submit his requests in person or by U.S. mail. The Sheriff&apos;s Office must then respond to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request as required by sections 13.03 and 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Quiram raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Le Sueur County Sheriff responded appropriately to a request in December 1999 for ICR information of who and what caused [the Sheriff&apos;s Office] to respond to my private property. However, pursuant to section 13.82, some law enforcement data are always public regardless of whether there is an active criminal investigation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Le Sueur County Sheriff responded appropriately to a winter 2000 request for investigation work product regarding an incident that occurred in December 1999. (This request was made again on January 10, 2001, for the ICR, report, statements and all other supporting data of the investigation outlined in the request given you in May 2000. )&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner urges the Le Sueur County Sheriff to revise its Document/Service Request form to reflect the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s policy is that he does not respond to data requests made via e-mail, Mr. Quiram must resubmit his request in person or via U.S. mail. However, the Sheriff should have advised Mr. Quiram of the policy shortly after Mr. Quiram made his request. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), the Sheriff is required to prepare and make available the Office&apos;s procedures for gaining access to public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming the Le Sueur County Sheriff&apos;s policy is that he does not respond to data requests made via e-mail, Mr. Quiram must resubmit his request in person or via U.S. mail. However, the Sheriff should have advised Mr. Quiram of the policy shortly after Mr. Quiram made his request. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), the Sheriff is required to prepare and make available the Office&apos;s procedures for gaining access to public data. Further, pursuant to sections 13.03 and 13.04, Mr. Quiram is entitled to gain access to public data and data of which he is the subject.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 3, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267517</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266411</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data (13.43)</Title><Id>266798</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Written requests, procedures may require</Title><Id>266416</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-035</Title><title>Opinion 01 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267606&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-04-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Isanti County violate X&apos;s rights concerning a consent to release information that X was asked to provide the County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 2001; Isanti County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 30, 2002, IPA received a letter from Ann M. Tessneer, an attorney, on behalf of her client X. The request was co-signed by attorney Stephen Anderson, on behalf of his client, X&apos;s minor child, Z. In this letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her client&apos;s rights as a subject of data maintained by Isanti County. IPA requested additional information and clarification, which Ms. Tessneer provided in a letter dated February 7, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Tessneer and Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin VanHooser, Director of Isanti County Family Services. The purposes of this letter, dated February 12, 2001, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On March 2, 2001, IPA received a response from William J. Robyt, Chief Deputy County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In July, 2000, Isanti County filed a Child in Need of Protective Services Petition with the Isanti County District Court on behalf of X&apos;s minor child, Y. According to Ms. Tessneer, in early December, 2000, prior to Z&apos;s birth, the County informed X that it was contemplating bringing a second CHIPS petition on behalf of [Z] once the child was born.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 14, 2000, while meeting with her case worker prior to Z&apos;s birth, X signed a release form authorizing the release of hospital records after Z&apos;s birth. The reason for the release on the form states for case management.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Upon learning from X that she signed the release form, Ms. Tessneer advised X to revoke the consent. Ms. Tessneer then contacted the case worker to inform her of X&apos;s intention to revoke the consent, at which time Ms. Tessneer was informed that the consent could be revoked only in writing by X. According to Ms. Tessneer, as of the date of her opinion request, the only court order in effect related to Y: [t]here were no court orders compelling [X] to sign a release of the hospital records concerning her unborn child or compelling [X] to sign any releases concerning any information about her unborn child. Further, a judge has never expressly ordered the release of the infant&apos;s hospital records.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Tessneer and Mr. Robyt provided the Commissioner with conflicting versions of the events that followed Ms. Tessneer&apos;s instructions to X to revoke the consent. According to Ms. Tessneer, during the December 14 meeting between X and her caseworker, X was told only that the consent was needed because it was court ordered&apos;. . . . In addition, Ms. Tessneer stated that in a telephone conversation between X and the caseworker on December 15, 2000, the caseworker told X that she could not revoke the consent because it was court ordered&apos; that she cooperate with Family Services and that if [X] did not cooperate, her non compliance would be reported to the judge. Ms. Tessneer also stated that X provided a written revocation of the consent to release data on January 24, 2001.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Robyt stated that the caseworker at no point during the December 14, 2000 meeting, pressured [X] into signing a release, or otherwise implied that [X] must sign it because of the Court&apos;s order. Therefore, it appears that the original consent to release information was valid.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Robyt also stated: [w]hen [X] informed Family Services of her desire to revoke consent, any further action by Family Services with respect to obtaining hospital records, ceased. [X], however, was correctly informed that a written revocation of consent was needed in order for the revocation to be valid. To date, Isanti County has never received a written revocation of consent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Tessner and Mr. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Isanti County violate X&apos;s rights concerning a consent to release information that X was asked to provide the County? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), a government entity may disseminate private government data to any designated person or agency if the data subject has given his/her informed consent. Informed consent implies the data subject is aware of or has the ability to find out which specific data s/he is consenting to release.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4, provide additional information about informed consent. Pursuant to subpart 3, informed consent means the data subject possesses an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question. Pursuant to subpart 4 (A), [t]he responsible authority shall not take any action to coerce a data subject to give informed consent, and shall explain the necessity for or consequences of the new or different purpose or use. Subpart 4 (B) provides: [a]ll informed consents shall be given in writing. Prior to any signature being affixed to it by the data subject, such writing shall identify the consequences of the giving of informed consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case there is a factual dispute, which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Tessneer alleges that the County told X that her consent was court ordered and therefore not revocable. The County states that X was only told, and properly so, that her consent must be revoked in writing. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the County incorrectly stated or implied that X was obligated by court order to provide her consent, it violated X&apos;s rights under statute and rule regarding informed consent. If the County stated that it could honor only a written revocation of the consent X provided, it did so properly. The consent form that X signed states clearly that such revocation must be made in writing. In fact, X ignored her own attorney&apos;s advice, of December 15, 2000, to provide the County with her written revocation as soon as possible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner has additional comments. First, pursuant to the provisions of the applicable rule quoted above, the County was required to communicate the consequences to X of providing the consent sufficiently to enable X to give her &lt;u&gt;informed&lt;/u&gt; consent. The County consent form X signed makes no mention of the consequences of giving the consent. Accordingly, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05 or Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1400.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, the County asked X to provide her consent to release data that were not in existence at the time the consent was executed, i.e., Z&apos;s hospital records before Z was born. X could not provide informed consent to release data when she had no way of knowing which data she was consenting to release. In this respect also, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05 to secure X&apos;s informed consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Tessner and Mr. Anderson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Isanti County violated X&apos;s rights by telling X that she was under a court order to provide her consent to release data. The County did not violate X&apos;s rights by stating that any revocation must be made in writing. Because the County did not include the consequences to X of providing consent on its form, and because it asked X to sign the consent to release data before the data were in existence, X was not able to provide the County with her informed consent concerning the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 3, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267606</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-034</Title><title>Opinion 01 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267689&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-03-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is School District 273, Edina, required to provide access to public data about all past and present District employees, in response to a December 28, 2000, request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 27, 2001; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2001, IPA received a letter dated February 1, 2001, from Paul Ratwik, an attorney representing School District 273, Edina. In his letter, Mr. Ratwik requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the District&apos;s obligation to respond to a particular request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On December 28, 2000, the District received a request from Teresa Graham to inspect all public data on all past and present employees of the District. Mr. Ratwik wrote that since August 11, 2000, Ms. Graham has made numerous and detailed requests to the District for access to and to view or to be provided with copies of government data. He stated that Ms. Graham has asked for certain types of public and private data, data about her, and in October, she asked to view 21 categories of public data on 19 current employees, and additionally, [the District&apos;s] attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ratwik stated that the District has complied with each of Ms. Graham&apos;s requests but that the pending request raises issues of cost and administrative workload that have a significant impact upon the functioning of the District. He stated, The School District believes that it will take more than a year for two employees working full-time, to retrieve the personnel files for each present and past employee and redact their contents so that each may be viewed without violating the data practices rights of any data subject. Mr. Ratwik provided a copy of a letter from the District&apos;s Human Resources Director who estimated that the cost of responding to Ms. Graham&apos;s request would be at least $100,000. The Human Resources Director also estimated the number of employees about whom the District would be responding to be in the range of 15,000 to 20,000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ratwik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is School District 273, Edina, required to provide access to public data about all past and present District employees, in response to a December 28, 2000, request?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issues Mr. Ratwik has raised are almost identical to several the Commissioner recently addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-031&lt;/a&gt;. The issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-031&lt;/a&gt; was that Ms. Graham asked five Minnesota State agencies - Department of Employee Relations (DOER), Department of Public Safety (DPS), Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL), Department of Labor and Industry (DLI), and Department of Human Services (DHS) - to provide her with access to all public data about all past and present employees. Ms. Graham has a variety of long-standing disputes with each of the agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-031&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that the agencies were not required to provide data responsive to Ms. Graham&apos;s request because of the unique facts of the situation and because the circumstances surrounding the requests indicated that Ms. Graham&apos;s requests were not necessarily motivated by her desire to gain access to the data. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Graham&apos;s request of each agency is to inspect all public data about current and former employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places... Interpretation of this statutory language seems clear and unambiguous; when a person asks for public data, the government entity shall provide such data. There is no limitation on the volume of data that may be requested or that must be provided. However, that interpretation seems less clear when the person has a past history of making requests and then fails to view the data once they are available for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, states, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Section 645.16 further provides that the words of a law must be considered in their application to an existing situation to determine if the interpretation is free from ambiguity. When applying the facts of Ms. Graham&apos;s previous interactions with the five state agencies to her most recent requests for all data on current and former employees, the interpretation of section 13.03 becomes ambiguous.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To resolve ambiguous situations such as this, the Legislature has provided additional tools to determine underlying intent. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, provides, in pertinent part, that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. In this case, Commissioner Carter has not indicated that responding to Ms. Graham&apos;s request would be impossible to execute, although he does estimate that it would take many months and would require diverting critical staff or hiring additional staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, the next question is whether responding to Ms. Graham&apos;s request would create an absurd or unreasonable result. As per &lt;em&gt;State v. Murphy&lt;/em&gt;, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn. 1966); &lt;em&gt;Knopp v. Gutterman&lt;/em&gt;, 102 N.W.2d 689, 695 (Minn. 1960), if the application of section 13.03 to the facts of this situation is either absurd or unreasonable, section 645.17 requires a different outcome. In reviewing Commissioner Carter&apos;s discussion of Ms. Graham&apos;s November 2000 request of each agency, her conduct suggests that, for the following reasons, she is using Chapter 13 as a tool to harass or punish each agency....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner asserts that such a result is not what the Legislature intended when it enacted the public access requirements of Chapter 13. The expenditure of public resources to gather public data that the requestor will not review is an absurd and unreasonable result. As referenced above, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, states that when interpreting a statute, neither an absurd nor an unreasonable result is presumed. Rather a logical, practical result is preferred. &lt;em&gt;State v. Murphy&lt;/em&gt;, 545 N.W.2d at 916 citing &lt;em&gt;Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Prods. Co.&lt;/em&gt;, 285 Minn. 511, 515, 171 N.W.2d 728, 732 (1969). Using the facts of this unique situation to interpret section 13.03, the only reasonable result is that the five state agencies are not required to provide Ms. Graham with the public data she requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, Ms. Graham provided the District with a list of the types of data she wanted to inspect about all past and present employees of the Edina School District. The list is essentially all types of data about employees that are public. In his opinion request, Mr. Ratwik provided information that, combined with additional information of which the Commissioner is aware (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;03-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-031&lt;/a&gt;), leads the Commissioner to conclude that Ms. Graham may be requesting the data as a means of retaliation against the District. Mr. Ratwik pointed out that Ms. Graham&apos;s numerous and detailed requests for data began after she had an encounter with the District, the result of which was unsatisfactory to Ms. Graham. It was after this encounter that Ms. Graham began making fairly substantial data requests to the District. Mr. Ratwik also stated, The thousands of personnel and payroll records the District has created since it was formed cannot simply be gathered for the requestor&apos;s inspection. The District believes that the request was made with the primary, if not sole, intent of inflicting upon it and its employees the cost and burden of separating the public from the private data to be found in the files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the Commissioner combines the facts of this situation with his knowledge of Ms. Graham&apos;s past involvement with several state agencies and with Intermediate School District 287 (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-031&lt;/a&gt;), he is of the opinion that requiring the District to provide the requested data to Ms. Graham would be an absurd and unreasonable result. The Commissioner reaches this conclusion because, given Ms. Graham&apos;s past conduct, it is reasonable to assume she made her latest data request as a retaliatory measure and/or has no intention of inspecting the data. This is not what the Legislature intended when it enacted the public access requirements of Chapter 13. Minnesota Statutes, section 654.17, states that when interpreting a statute, neither an absurd nor an unreasonable result is presumed to be what the Legislature intended. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s determination, given this unique and very specific set of facts, that the District is not required to provide access to public data about all past and present District employees, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s December 28, 2000, request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a final note, however, the Commissioner reiterates a comment he made in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857&quot; title=&quot;01-031&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-031&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The Commissioner wishes to make clear that the conclusion he reached in this opinion is based on a unique and very specific set of facts. The outcome is in no way intended to suggest that a government entity does not have to respond to a data request merely because responding will be costly or time-consuming.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Ratwik raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because of the unique and very specific set of facts present in this situation, School District 273, Edina, is not required to provide access to public data about all past and present District employees, in response to a December 28, 2000, request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 27, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267689</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Burdensome or harassing</Title><Id>266804</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-033</Title><title>Opinion 01 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268029&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-03-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does $50.00 per hour for &quot;administrative time&quot; reflect the actual labor cost to make photocopies of government data borne by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 26, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 31, 2001, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 14, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 12, 2001, X requested copies of certain data about X&apos;s minor child, a student in the District. In response, the District wrote X: [t]he cost of the copies is $14.00, which includes the cost of labor to prepare the copies (15 minutes of administrative time at $50.00 per hour) and $.15 per page (10 pages). When X questioned the $50.00 per hour labor cost, X was told that the person who made the copies is an administrator. X then asked to inspect data documenting that individual&apos;s salary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the data the District provided to X, the administrator is employed full-time, i.e., 260 days, at a salary of $43,550 per year. The fringe benefit is $9,850; salary and fringe total $53,400.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although it is the position of the District that its administrative charge of $50 per hour is reasonable, on or about February 6, 2001, the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-018&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267988&quot; title=&quot;01-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-019&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267040&quot; title=&quot;01-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-020&lt;/a&gt; with its interpretation that the fee schedule used by the District is not allowable pursuant to Minn. Stat. sections 13.03 and 13.04. Because Advisory Opinions 01-018, 01-019 and 01-020 were issued after the instant request for response to request for an opinion, the District will review its fee schedule and its corresponding labor charges for any necessary changes as well as follow-up with [X] to ensure that the labor cost charged to [X] reflect [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] the actual labor cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does $50.00 per hour for administrative time reflect the actual labor cost to make photocopies of government data borne by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved District 11, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation here is essentially the same as that detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;. The District stated that its administrative time charge to make photocopies is $50.00 per hour. However, the administrator&apos;s salary and fringe benefit total $53,400. At an hourly rate calculated on a full-time basis, i.e., 2080 hours, salary and fringe are paid at $25.67 per hour. The District has not met the burden of establishing that $50.00 per hour represents its actual labor cost to make the copies of the data X requested. Mr. Cady acknowledged that the District is reviewing its fee schedule and will ensure that the labor cost charged to X will reflect its actual cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the District reviews its fee schedule, the Commissioner would like to reiterate a point made in an earlier Opinion, regarding the propriety of calculating the labor cost to make photocopies at an administrator&apos;s salary rate. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-027&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, the Chief [of police in a City] states that due to the employee complement in the office, it is appropriate that he conduct the search, retrieval, and copying of relevant data. This is his decision to make, as the manager of the office. However, it would not be fair or prudent, then, for the city to also charge for the fully allocated cost associated with that assignment. Rather, the individual should pay only that amount of the actual costs incurred which would be equal to the fully allocated cost associated with use of a city employee in a clerical position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The charge of $50.00 per hour for administrative time to make photocopies of government data does not reflect the actual labor cost borne by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, and is therefore not allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 26, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268029</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-032</Title><title>Opinion 01 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266801&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-03-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation?
Did MAPP respond appropriately to a request for access to data related to the formulation of its emergency operating guidelines?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 23, 2001; Mid-Continent Area Power Pool</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On February 8, 2001, IPA received a letter from Aldo Santin, a reporter for the &lt;i&gt;Winnipeg Free Press&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper published at Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. In this letter, Mr. Santin asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Santin&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Harris, Chair of MAPP. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Santin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MAPP&apos;s position. On February 20, 2001, IPA received a response from Roger C. Miller, attorney for MAPP. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On numerous occasions, Mr. Santin requested access to data maintained by MAPP regarding the provision of power to member utilities in the event of a contingency - loss of generation - within any member utilities. MAPP denied his requests.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Miller stated that MAPP is not a government entity for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and therefore was not obligated to provide Mr. Santin with access to the data he requested. Mr. Miller stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                MAPP is a voluntary unincorporated association of electric utilities and power marketers under the Restated Mid-Continent Power Poll Agreement, as amended. It is a regional reliability pool, regional transmission group and an energy market. Its members are private corporations, cooperatives, power marketers, public power districts, municipal power agencies, municipal utilities, the Western Area Power Administration, and Manitoba Hydro. MAPP is not a political subdivision, a state agency, nor a statewide system under [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Santin asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did MAPP respond appropriately to a request for access to data related to the formulation of its emergency operating guidelines?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 3, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in state agencies, statewide systems, and political subdivisions. In addition, Chapter 13 applies when a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions (see section 13.05, subdivision 11.) Further, under certain circumstances, corporations formed by government entities are subject to Chapter 13 regulation (see sections 465.717 and 465.719.) However, none of these applies to MAPP, which is an unincorporated voluntary association of government and non-government entities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, MAPP is not subject to Chapter 13, and is not obligated to provide public access to the data it maintains.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Santin is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) is not a government entity subject to regulation under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and as such, is not obligated to provide access to data related to the formulation of its emergency operating guidelines, or to any data it maintains.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 23, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266801</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)</Title><Id>266800</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T14:44:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-031</Title><title>Opinion 01 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267857&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-03-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following Minnesota State agencies required to provide access to public data about all past and present employees in response to an individual&apos;s requests, under circumstances indicating that the requests are not necessarily motivated by a desire to gain access to data: Employee Relations; Public Safety; Children, Families and Learning; Human Services; and Labor and Industry?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 22, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 30, 2001, IPA received a memo dated January 29, 2001, from Julien Carter, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER). In his memo, Commissioner Carter, on behalf of DOER and the Minnesota Departments of Human Services (DHS), Public Safety (DPS), Labor and Industry (DLI), and Children, Families and Learning (CFL), asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his and the other named agencies&apos; obligation to respond to a particular request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his memo, Commissioner Carter, wrote that an individual, Teresa Graham, had asked to inspect all public data on all past and present employees maintained by each of the above-named Departments. Commissioner Carter wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is our collective belief that this is an extremely burdensome, unreasonable and capricious request, made for no other reason than to harass the agencies. The number of present employees in these departments is approximately 11,000, and past employees for whom there are existing records could potentially equal that number. The entire process of obtaining all available public data on all current and former employees for all five agencies would certainly take many months of staff time. The agencies would face the choice of paralyzing agency activities or hiring additional staff at a time of limited agency resources. The amount of paper produced would be enormous. We are asking that we not be obligated to provide this data. Any other interpretation of [Chapter 13] would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result that could not have been intended by the Legislature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Commissioner Carter added, The agencies do not believe that Ms. Graham&apos;s latest request is a valid request under [Chapter 13]. We believe that Ms. Graham does not actually want to view the data, that in fact, she is making these requests only as a means of harassing the agencies with which she perceives she has had negative experiences.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Commissioner Carter, in November 2000, each agency received and responded to a data request from Ms. Graham. These were situations in which she requested all public data on between 28 and 78 employees. Commissioner Carter stated that in each of these cases, the agencies gathered data responsive to the request and contacted Ms. Graham to set up times to view the data. According to Commissioner Carter, In each case, Ms. Graham demanded to view the data when she knew it was not yet available, often showing up at the agencies unannounced. Once informed that the data was available, and given times to review the data, she showed no interest in reviewing the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Carter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are the following Minnesota State agencies required to provide access to public data about all past and present employees in response to an individual&apos;s requests, under circumstances indicating that the requests are not necessarily motivated by a desire to gain access to data: Employee Relations; Public Safety; Children, Families and Learning; Human Services; and Labor and Industry? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Graham&apos;s request of each agency is to inspect all public data about current and former employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places... Interpretation of this statutory language seems clear and unambiguous; when a person asks for public data, the government entity shall provide such data. There is no limitation on the volume of data that may be requested or that must be provided. However, that interpretation seems less clear when the person has a past history of making requests and then fails to view the data once they are available for inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, states, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Section 645.16 further provides that the words of a law must be considered in their application to an existing situation to determine if the interpretation is free from ambiguity. When applying the facts of Ms. Graham&apos;s previous interactions with the five state agencies to her most recent requests for all public data on all current and former employees, the interpretation of section 13.03 becomes ambiguous.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To resolve ambiguous situations such as this, the Legislature has provided additional tools to determine underlying intent. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, provides, in pertinent part, that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. In this case, Commissioner Carter has not indicated that responding to Ms. Graham&apos;s request would be impossible to execute, although he does estimate that it would take many months and would require diverting critical staff or hiring additional staff.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Thus, the next question is whether responding to Ms. Graham&apos;s request would create an absurd or unreasonable result. As per &lt;i&gt;State v. Murphy&lt;/i&gt;, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn. 1966); &lt;i&gt;Knopp v. Gutterman&lt;/i&gt;, 102 N.W.2d 689, 695 (Minn. 1960), if the application of section 13.03 to the facts of this situation is either absurd or unreasonable, section 645.17 requires a different outcome. In reviewing Commissioner Carter&apos;s discussion of Ms. Graham&apos;s November 2000 request of each agency, her conduct suggests that she is using Chapter 13 as a tool to harass or punish each agency.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, when each agency received the request that Ms. Graham made in November of 2000, it informed her that it would take some time to compile the data. Each agency further informed her they would notify her when the data were ready for review. Regardless of this action by each agency, Ms. Graham called and demanded access to the data. Each agency reported that the telephone contacts included abusive language on Ms. Graham&apos;s part. In some cases, Ms. Graham appeared at an agency even though she had been informed that the data were not ready. According to Commissioner Carter, she was abusive to agency personnel who had contact with her.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, when the Department of Public Safety (DPS) informed Ms. Graham that the data were ready for her to review, the location of the review was unacceptable to Ms. Graham. After a new location was found, Ms. Graham appeared to review the data. DPS had produced the data as required by Chapter 13. However, Ms. Graham was not satisfied with the manner in which the data were organized and left without reviewing anything. She has yet to review the data that DPS compiled.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Third, the other agencies&apos; compilations have not been reviewed by Ms. Graham. Each agency notified her that the data were ready for review and offered time for the review to occur. Ms. Graham has not availed herself of any of these opportunities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Fourth, the Commissioner is aware that Ms. Graham has treated School District 273, Edina, in a similar manner. She requested all public data about current and former employees. The District has asked for an advisory opinion regarding its obligation to respond to this request and has described similar treatment of its employees by Ms. Graham, along with a pattern of conduct similar to that described by the five state agencies. Further, the Commissioner is aware that Ms. Graham made the same request for public data to Intermediate School District 287. The District obtained a restraining order from Hennepin County District Court which included a provision restricting Ms. Graham from asking for and obtaining access to certain types of data. The effect of the Order is that the District does not have to respond to Ms. Graham&apos;s request for all public data about all current and former employees. See Court File No. HA 00-18020, issued February 27, 2001.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Commissioner Carter noted that part of the past history between Ms. Graham and DOER, DPS, and CFL includes the fact that, in 1998, the District Court issued an Order restraining her from contacting five state agencies for two years, except in writing. Commissioner Carter wrote, The request for a restraining order stated that Ms. Graham had engaged in a &apos;deliberate, systematic pattern of behavior intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy&apos; of various staff, and that &apos;her intentions are intended to harass, intimidate, scare, frighten, and destroy jobs and reputations.&apos;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner also notes that on January 10, 2001, he informed Ms. Graham that he would not issue four opinions she had requested. He based his determination on the fact that the authority to issue advisory opinions should not be considered a vehicle to support unreasonable demands made of government entities, or to otherwise harass government employees. He also wrote, Under the circumstances, I cannot condone what appears to be an abuse of statutory process designed to assist, and not hinder, citizen access to government. It detracts from the ongoing work of the department and other government entities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given Ms. Graham&apos;s past conduct with the five agencies, it is likely that once each agency has expended considerable time and money gathering data responsive to her request for all public data about all current and former employees, she will choose not to review the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner asserts that such a result is not what the Legislature intended when it enacted the public access requirements of Chapter 13. The expenditure of public resources to gather public data that the requestor will not review is an absurd and unreasonable result. As referenced above, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, states that when interpreting a statute, neither an absurd nor an unreasonable result is presumed. Rather a logical, practical result is preferred. &lt;i&gt;State v. Murphy&lt;/i&gt;, 545 N.W.2d at 916 citing &lt;i&gt;Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Prods. Co.&lt;/i&gt;, 285 Minn. 511, 515, 171 N.W.2d 728, 732 (1969). Using the facts of this unique situation to interpret section 13.03, the only reasonable result is that the five state agencies are not required to provide Ms. Graham with the public data she requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An additional note is in order. The Commissioner wishes to make clear that the conclusion he reached in this opinion is based on a unique and very specific set of facts. The outcome is in no way intended to suggest that a government entity does not have to respond to a data request merely because responding will be costly or time-consuming.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, in this particular instance, the person requesting public data has demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of asking for large volumes of data to be prepared and then, for all practical purposes, refusing to view the data unless that inspection is provided only as she specifies. Requiring agencies to ignore that history and to prepare huge amounts of data that might never be examined not only would be an absurd result, but would make a mockery of one essential purpose of Chapter 13, which is to ensure governmental accountability.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the Commissioner has the following comments for those who might argue he lacks authority to conclude that the five agencies are not required to respond to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. In 1993, the Legislature granted the Commissioner authority to issue advisory opinions regarding questions of data access, data subjects&apos; rights, and classifications of government data. If he were powerless to remedy the abuses here, he would not be fulfilling the objectives of the legislation, but would be frustrating them. The Commissioner is not prepared to serve as an agent for Ms. Graham&apos;s abuse by perpetuating fruitless exercises in the expenditure of government resources so that she can exact revenge on entities with whom she has a variety of long-standing disuptes. This surely is not what the Legislature intended in granting the opinion authority or in granting individuals the right to gain access to government data. The Commissioner&apos;s position on this issue is similar to that taken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who is the person charged with ensuring compliance with freedom of information and policy laws in Ontario. See Order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner M-618, dated October 18, 1995.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Commissioner Carter raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because of the unique facts of this situation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following Minnesota State agencies are not required to provide access to public data about all past and present employees in response to an individual&apos;s requests, under circumstances indicating that the requests are not necessarily motivated by a desire to gain access to data: Employee Relations; Public Safety; Children, Families and Learning; Human Services; and Labor and Industry. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 22, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267857</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Burdensome or harassing</Title><Id>266804</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-030</Title><title>Opinion 01 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267382&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the Minnesota Department of Public Safety&apos;s - specifically the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension&apos;s - charges of 1) $250 for a copy of the criminal history database and 2) $15 for a copy of a background check, allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 28, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On October 13, 2000, IPA received a letter dated October 10, 2000, from Randy Lebedoff, on behalf of the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;, Society of Professional Journalists (Minnesota Chapter), the &lt;i&gt;St. Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/i&gt;, KSTP-TV, WCCO-TV, and the &lt;i&gt;Duluth News Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In her letter, Ms. Lebedoff asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding fees that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) charges for certain information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Weaver, Commissioner of DPS, in response to Ms. Lebedoff&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 20, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Lebedoff&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On November 6, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Commissioner Weaver. Mr. Weaver included several attachments with his letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Lebedoff wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Last year the fee charged for the [criminal history] database was $80.00 and the fee charged for background checks was $7.00. This year the database fee has been raised to $250.00, and the background check fee has been raised to $15.00....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Star Tribune reporter James Walsh requested a written explanation of the fee increase. He received a written response which is attached to this letter. In it, the Department argues that Minn. Stat. 299C.10, subd. 4 (1998) requires it to charge a fee for background checks which will fund maintaining and enhancing its computerized system. The letter does not respond to the request for a written explanation for the increase in fees charged for the database.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Lebedoff asserted, ...it is our belief that the Department&apos;s current pricing practices are still governed by [Chapter 13] and do not comply with it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Lebedoff asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the Minnesota Department of Public Safety&apos;s - specifically the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension&apos;s - charges of 1) $250 for a copy of the criminal history database and 2) $15 for a copy of a background check, allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner first will address the issue of the BCA charging members of the public $15 for a criminal background check.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota law authorizes the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, specifically the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), to conduct criminal background checks. Law enforcement agencies request checks and so do other entities that are required to check information about potential employees, volunteers, applicants for various licenses, etc.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Ms. Lebedoff noted that the BCA recently had raised the fee for a background check from $7 to $15. She argued that any charge the BCA levies should be consistent with the data copying fees outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Commissioner Weaver wrote, Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, subd. 4 (1998) governs background checks and not the provisions of [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner (of Administration) agrees. Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, subdivision 4, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;The superintendent shall collect a fee in an amount to cover the expense for each background check provided for a purpose not directly related to the criminal justice system or required by section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714. The proceeds of the fee must be deposited in a special account. Money in the account is appropriated to the commissioner to maintain and improve the quality of the criminal record system in Minnesota. &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    By enacting this language, the Legislature specifically granted the Department of Public Safety authority to charge a fee to cover the expense of each background check. Therefore, it is section 299C.10 that regulates the fee that the Department can charge, not Chapter 13. The language in section 13.03 applies when a member of the public requests copies of public government data, not when an member of the public requests a background check.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner also would like to point out that there is a significant difference between obtaining a background check and obtaining copies of data. In conducting a background check, the BCA is providing a service that involves reviewing records and editing data based on the specific type of check that has been requested. In a memo, the Assistant Superintendent described the process: They search for court depositions on open&apos; arrests, verify the validity of the request, review records from other states and the FBI and make determinations based on those records whether the subject is qualified for the particular position being sought. In contrast, when an individual requests copies of data, the entity photocopies or electronically copies data as they exist in the entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Next, the Commissioner will address the issue of the BCA charging $250 fee for a copy of the computerized criminal history (CCH) database.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In 1993, the Legislature amended section 13.87, the provision that classifies criminal history data as private. The 1993 amendment requires the BCA to make certain criminal conviction data available to the public. The public can obtain this information only by visiting the BCA&apos;s central office. Subdivision 1(b) of section 13.87 states, The bureau of criminal apprehension shall provide to the public at the central office of the bureau the ability to inspect in person, at no charge, through a computer monitor the criminal conviction data classified as public under this subdivision. After the BCA set up the public terminal, individuals began seeking access to the entire database of public criminal conviction data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that the BCA maintains a public CCH database. When an individual goes to the BCA and requests conviction data about a particular person, it is from this database that the information is obtained. When a person, such as the Star Tribune, requests a copy of the entire database, the BCA copies the database.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Commissioner Weaver first argued that Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, subdivision 4, not Chapter 13, controls the cost the BCA can charge for a copy of the database. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Department&apos;s position. As discussed above, section 299C.10, subdivision 4, provides that the BCA shall collect a fee to cover the expense for each background check. When an individual obtains a copy of criminal history data, s/he is obtaining copies of data, not the service of a background check. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the costs of gaining access to the criminal history database are governed by Chapter 13, not section 299C.10, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, the BCA may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs. Commissioner Weaver stated that the actual cost for copying the CCH Database is $190.80. Commissioner Weaver added that because the CCH Database has commercial value for the recipients of the database, the BCA should be able to charge a commercial value add on fee of approximately $60, in addition to the actual costs of copying the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(d).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Weaver. In this case, it is not appropriate for the BCA to charge a commercial value add on fee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 3(d) provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This provision was the result of a compromise that originated from a proposal brought forth by Hennepin County. The County sought legislative approval to 1) copyright County databases, and 2) allow user fees to fund databases that the County would build and maintain to carry out required County functions. In adopting the compromise language, the Legislature acknowledged that there are situations when a government entity should be allowed to charge more than the actual cost of making the copies. Thus, the language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(d), allows government entities to recover development costs the entity has incurred in the course of normal business operations when data such as those contained in a database were developed with a significant expenditure of public funds and the requestor could benefit commercially from obtaining the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issues in this case are whether the fee quoted by the BCA is derived from its normal function, and whether the fee as a whole has been substantiated on the basis of cost. The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that DPS has not sufficiently demonstrated the appropriateness of the additional charge. In a November 2, 2000, intra departmental memo, the BCA&apos;s Assistant Superintendent wrote, As we explained in the letter to Mr. Walsh we have made numerous improvements in our technology to enable us to deliver the data on a more useable medium. In a memo to Mr. Walsh, Commissioner Weaver wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The new fee is based on actual costs incurred in acquiring and enhancing our technology &lt;i&gt;for providing the data&lt;/i&gt;, including enhancements driven by the needs of our clients who often had difficulty processing the data from 9-track tapes and tape cartridges, as well as the actual costs associated with providing the data. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Weaver&apos;s main argument is that the BCA has purchased and used new technology so that the database is easier for its clients to use. However, he does not discuss how DPS developed that system to carry out the functions of the Department and how commercial interests can, in essence, unjustly profit from the Department&apos;s work. Commissioner Weaver did not establish that creation and maintenance of the database is a cost the BCA derives from its normal function and would have incurred regardless of whether individuals were asking for copies of the database. The enhancements to the database are not something that the Legislature required the BCA to create or something that the BCA, itself, uses. In fact, the Assistant Superintendent wrote, The BCA does not utilize the Public CCH. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Department has not established it can charge a commercial value add on fee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Weaver provided a general breakdown of the $190.80 fee the BCA is charging for the actual costs portion of the $250 charge. He stated that the cost of materials is $278 but did not explain what the materials are and what they cost. He cited the labor as costing $400 but did not explain which employees were doing work and what kind of work they were doing. Commissioner Weaver also listed two special cost items but did not explain, in detail, what they represent. As the Commissioner of Administration has stated in many previous advisory opinions, when an entity charges a fee for copies of data, it must be able to provide a detailed account of how it calculates the fee. In this case, Commissioner Weaver did not provide such information. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Department has not met the burden of establishing that a charge of $190.80 for the actual costs portion of the database is allowable under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Lebedoff raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 299C.10, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has the authority to charge a fee for a criminal background check. Section 299C.10, not Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, controls the amount that the Department can charge.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) did not meet the burden of establishing that a charge of $250 for a copy of the criminal history database is allowable under Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 28, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267382</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Background checks</Title><Id>266447</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal history/justice data (13.87)</Title><Id>266457</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value of data</Title><Id>266549</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-029</Title><title>Opinion 01 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267810&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of &quot;site evaluations&quot; and &quot;site designs&quot; submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of telephone numbers and home addresses submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process, in cases where concerns have been raised about individual safety?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 27, 2001; Mahnomen County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Eric Olai Boe, Mahnomen County Attorney. In this letter, Mr. Boe asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County. IPA staff asked Mr. Boe to clarify his opinion request; he and other County staff did so in a series of letters, the last dated December 18, 2000. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boe raised questions with regard to the classification of certain data submitted to the County in connection with the County&apos;s septic system permitting process, namely, site evaluation plans and designs, and the landowners&apos; home addresses and telephone numbers. Each is discussed in detail below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Boe asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of site evaluations and site designs submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of telephone numbers and home addresses submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process, in cases where concerns have been raised about individual safety?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of site evaluations and site designs submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Landowners contract with environmental consultants to produce site evaluation plans and designs. The consultants perform soil tests and observations. According to the County:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Design&apos; is an illustration of the septic treatment system that includes measurements, specifications, and installation information . . . . Uniqueness, degree of difficulty, and size of the septic system will generally dictate the cost [of the plan and design.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It has occurred to [County personnel] that some landowners may wish to sell part or all of the information contained in their Site Evaluation Plan&apos; and Design&apos; to other landowners, who wish to build a similar septic system. Should [the County] provide this information to the public, it would prevent the landowner from selling this information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boe further stated . . . it is my understanding that the drawing and soil testing (site design) documents . . . do have independent economic value and are unique in that they are applied to a specific set of requirements for a certain parcel of land.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As far as the County is aware, no consultant has claimed trade secret with regards to a Site Evaluation Plan&apos; and/or Design,&apos; but the County has been served notice by several landowners that these documents are their private property and they do not wish [the County] to release this information without their consent. The Commissioner did not have an opportunity to inspect any of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies trade secret information as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order to protect data as trade secret, a government entity must be able to demonstrate that the specific data fit all the criteria set forth in statute. Pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), trade secret information must be government data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County&apos;s assertion that the site plans and designs are properly classified as trade secret is problematic. The County has stated that, to its knowledge, no consultant has claimed trade secret for any of the data, although some landowners have said that the data were their private property. An individual&apos;s declaration that data provided to a government entity are the individual&apos;s private property does not meet the statutory threshold of a trade secret, i.e., that the data are the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the County has stated both that the plans and designs are unique, i.e., that they relate to specific parcels of land, and that they have independent economic value, because landowners could sell them to other landowners who wish to build similar septic systems. The County has not adequately explained how another landowner could submit a design created for one parcel of land for a different parcel of property, thus clearly demonstrating that the plans and designs have independent economic value not readily ascertainable by others who could benefit from being in their possession. Accordingly, the County did not demonstrate how any of the data contained in the plans or designs satisfy the specific requirements set forth in section 13.37. Therefore, those data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of telephone numbers and home addresses submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process, in cases where concerns have been raised about individual safety?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boe wrote: . . .the documents . . . may contain information such as unlisted phone numbers and addresses of the home owners involved. The release of such information, which the home owner(s) may wish to be protected, may represent a substantial jeopardization of persons or property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified. The Commissioner is not aware of any specific statutory provision that classifies home addresses and telephone numbers of septic system permit applicants as not public. However, the County raised the possibility that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for it to withhold from the public home addresses and telephone numbers, if those data fit the requirements of security information set forth in statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), security information means government data the disclosure of which &lt;u&gt;would be likely to substantially jeopardize&lt;/u&gt; the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. (Emphasis added.) Under subdivision 2, security information is not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-046&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, a government entity&apos;s discretion to withhold data as not public is limited to those situations in which there is a likelihood of &lt;u&gt;substantial jeopardy&lt;/u&gt; to security. In his comments, Mr. Clark stated that in certain situations, the MMCD has reason to believe that dissemination of some of the data in question might place some individuals or their property at risk of harm. In those limited situations, the MMCD may properly treat the data as security information under Section 13.37. However, the protection provided by that Section does not apply to all data collected by the MMCD that relate to its services. Mr. Clark stated that the MMCD takes the position that &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; data associated with any requests regarding its services are security information, pursuant to Section 13.37. However, the MMCD may treat as security information only those data the disclosure of which is likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Mr. Boe stated that the County staff are not in a position to know which landowners are vulnerable to criminal activity and which landowners are not. The Commissioner acknowledges that government entities are not necessarily able, in each case, to know who may be at risk from disclosure of the data in question. The Commissioner believes that this provision is intended to provide government entities discretion to withhold otherwise public data in those situations in which the entity has reason to believe that the disclosure would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, in conversation with IPA staff, County staff mentioned a situation involving domestic abuse, in which a woman asked that the data not be made available to her former partner, whom she had reason to fear. In such a case, a classification as not public under section 13.37 might be appropriate. However, the County may not withhold from the public all addresses and telephone numbers because it is concerned about the possibility, in general, of a security risk. In order for section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), to be applicable, the County must make a determination on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: The Commissioner has issued several recent Opinions in which questions about the proper application of the security data provision were raised. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;1-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267401&quot; title=&quot;00-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-024&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267605&quot; title=&quot;00-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-021&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267549&quot; title=&quot;00-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-010&lt;/a&gt;.) As noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;1-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;, he recognizes a need for legislative clarification regarding the security information provision, and is in the process of presenting issues arising from these Opinions to the 2001 Legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the Commissioner considers the security information issue raised here to be distinct from that addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267497#/detail/appId/1/id/267393&quot; title=&quot;01-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-006&lt;/a&gt;. In that Opinion, the Commissioner deferred to the expertise of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety in law enforcement and security matters, by accepting Commissioner Weaver&apos;s determination regarding the classification as security information of certain data maintained by Public Safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Boe is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the site evaluations and site designs submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process are public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, telephone numbers and home addresses submitted to Mahnomen County as part of the septic permit application process are public, except in cases where specific concerns have been raised about individual safety. If, under limited circumstances, the County has specific reason to conclude that dissemination of some of those data would be likely to substantially jeopardize information, possessions, individuals or property, then those specific data are not public, pursuant to section 13.37.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 27, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267810</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Independent economic value from not being generally known (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266951</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-028</Title><title>Opinion 01 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267763&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 281, Robbinsdale, appropriately withhold from X data on interview notes that identify the persons who interviewed X for employment?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 2001; School District 281 (Robbinsdale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 21, 2000, IPA received a letter, dated December 20, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that School District 281, Robbinsdale, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stan Mack, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 9, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Ken Kostka, Senior Associate for Human Resources for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 22, 2000, X wrote to Mr. Kostka and asked to inspect all private and public data that the District maintains about him/her. On December 6, 2000, X inspected the data but some were missing. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Specifically, I was allowed to view my notes from an interview conducted by five district employees, all of whom had given me their names and titles at the time of the interview. Two sets of notes had been signed by the interviewers. Mr. Kostka had redacted the names of these employees and in a letter dated December 8, 2000, cited Mn. Statue [sic] 13.03, subd (e) [sic] and 13.43 as reasons for his actions....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In addition, I requested the identities of the three other interviewers...Mr. Kostka claimed that this would be creating data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 281, Robbinsdale, appropriately withhold from X data on interview notes that identify the persons who interviewed X for employment?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, individuals are entitled to gain access to data of which they are the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Kostka wrote that X asked to inspect notes taken by five interview panelists during X&apos;s interview for a District job. Mr. Kostka stated, On December 6, 2000, when X was present to inspect this data, the School District notified [him/her] in writing that the School District had redacted personally identifiable information regarding School District employees from the notes pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kostka argued that the District properly redacted the documents. He asserted that because the interview panelists are District employees, the identities of the authors of the signed notes constitute personally identifiable information about those employees. He added, An individual panelist&apos;s impressions of an applicant constitute private personnel data about the interview panelist in part.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; under subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private. Names of public employees are public data. The District&apos;s characterization of the data in question, i.e., an individual panelist&apos;s impressions of an applicant, is not included in the list of public personnel data enumerated at subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neither X nor the District provided the Commissioner with the interview notes. Therefore, he is not able to determine whether X or the interviewing employee is the subject of the notes. However, the Commissioner does have the following comments. The District provided the contents of each note to X and redacted the name of each interviewer. Thus, the District&apos;s redaction is appropriate if, in the case of each note, revealing the identity of the interviewer along with the content of the note would reveal private personnel data about the interviewer. If a note does not contain any data about the interviewer, then there are no private personnel data in the note, and the reviewer&apos;s name would be public, and available to X. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267733&quot; title=&quot;01-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-025&lt;/a&gt;.) As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, when government entities are faced with redacting documents containing data about multiple data subjects, it is important for the entity to review each document on a case-by-case basis, to determine who is the subject of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. In addition to asking the District to identify the employees whose names had been redacted, X requested the identities of the three other interviewers (who never wrote their names on the notes). In his comments, Mr. Kostka wrote, The notes in question were unsigned. If the School District were to provide X with the specific identity of the author of the notes, the School District would have been creating data. The School District was not obligated to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Kostka. Chapter 13 provides that individuals may gain access to government data as those data exist in some physical or electronic form. If the names of the interviewers were not contained in the notes, the District was not obligated to add them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 281, Robbinsdale, appropriately withheld from X data on interview notes that identify the persons who interviewed X for employment.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 15, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267763</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Determine data subject case by case</Title><Id>266579</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject determined case-by-case</Title><Id>266580</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-027</Title><title>Opinion 01 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266907&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to public data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to the District&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 2001; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 19, 2000, IPA received a letter dated December 18, 2000, from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that Special School District 1, Minneapolis, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 2000, were to inform her of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On January 10, 2001, IPA received a response, dated January 9, 2001, from Margaret Westin, Assistant District General Counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Graham provided them is as follows. She wrote that during the months of September, October, and December she attempted to gain access to public data from the District. Ms. Graham wrote that in September she was seeking public personnel data. She was transferred eight times and was sent from the Superintendent&apos;s Office to the Human Resources Department. Human Resources staff referred Ms. Graham to a toll free number that she later learned was for employment verifications.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Graham wrote that in October, she called the District again to obtain the same public data. She again was transferred numerous times and was advised by the Superintendent&apos;s Office to contact the Human Resources Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Graham wrote that in November she was seeking public test data. She called the District and was transferred five times. She called the Superintendent&apos;s Office. She wrote, I received a general answer to only one question that I had about the test data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Graham wrote that in December she was still trying to obtain public data. She wrote that staff in the Superintendent&apos;s Office did not know the identity of the data practices official. Ms. Graham also wrote that she was transferred to the Human Resources Department and again was advised to contact the toll free employment verification number.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, Ms. Graham wrote she repeatedly asked where written protocols were kept or posted but got no response. She noted that section 13.03, subdivision 2 (b), requires government entities to make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to public data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to the District&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to public data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests access to public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides additional guidance and requires that entities respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Westin wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Contrary to Ms. Graham&apos;s assertion, the law does not require a school district to appoint the superintendent as its responsible authority. The Minneapolis Public Schools has designated Kay Sack, Assistant Superintendent, District Support Services, as its responsible authority. Ms. Graham did not indicate that she ever made her request to Ms. Sack&apos;s office, or even if she asked for the responsible authority during any of her calls. Any request for public data should be made first to the responsible authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Westin also wrote that when Ms. Graham spoke with the Director of Labor Relations, he offered to disclose to her, via telephone, the public data she was requesting. Ms. Westin stated that Ms. Graham refused the information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has the following comments. First, without knowing when and to whom Ms. Graham made specific requests for government data, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the District responded as Chapter 13 requires. Second, Ms. Westin is correct in stating that pursuant to Chapter 13, all requests for data must be made to the responsible authority. However, if Ms. Graham&apos;s rendition of the facts is somewhat accurate, and staff knew she was trying to obtain government data, it is not clear why someone did not direct her to Ms. Sack. Ms. Westin stated, MPS will be reemphasizing the requirements of Minn. Stat. section 13.03 with employees who are responsible for directing telephone calls within the District. The Commissioner applauds this measure. If Ms. Graham is still seeking data from the District, she should contact Ms. Sack.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did Special School District 1, Minneapolis, respond appropriately to a request for access to the District&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response, Ms. Westin wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Again, it is impossible to reconstruct the conversations Ms. Graham had with MPS employees to discern where their communication broke down....Minneapolis Public Schools employees attempted to ascertain the nature of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and attempted to provide her with the public information she requested. This is an appropriate response. It is clear that Ms. Graham was not able to communicate effectively her request for access to the District&apos;s public access procedures. Minneapolis Public Schools has procedures addressing access to government data. These procedures are available at the responsible authority&apos;s office....If Ms. Graham wishes to view access procedures, she should write to the responsible authority and make that request. In response to Ms. Graham&apos;s concerns, MPS will be reemphasizing the requirements of Minn. Stat. section 13.03 with employees who are responsible for directing telephone calls within the District.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Here, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Ms. Graham wrote that she repeatedly asked the District how she could gain access to the procedures for obtaining public data. Ms. Graham did not identify when she made these requests or with whom she spoke. Ms. Westin asserts that the District and Ms. Graham had a communication breakdown regarding access to the information. Ms. Westin also wrote that the District&apos;s procedures for access to public data are available from the Responsible Authority, Kay Sack. Ms. Graham should contact Ms. Sack and request the data. The District, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Graham raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commissioner is unable to determine if Special School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, to a request for access to public data. However, given the factual account that the data requestor presented, the Commissioner agrees with the District&apos;s counsel that the District needs to reemphasize the requirements of Chapter 13 with those employees who are responsible for directing telephone calls.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commissioner is unable to determine if Special School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately to a request for access to the District&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 15, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266907</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-026</Title><title>Opinion 01 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267244&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-07T16:18:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to requests for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2001; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 19, 2000, the Commissioner received a letter dated December 16, 2000, from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of DHS, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On January 8, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Martha Watson, Human Resources Director for DHS.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Graham wrote that on November 15, 2000, she requested inspection of public data from the [DHS] pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.43. Ms. Graham wrote that on December 8, 2000 (approximately three weeks later), she called Ms. Watson who acknowledged having received the data request. Ms. Watson asserted that Ms. Graham called on December 7, not December 8.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 8, 2000, Ms. Watson wrote to Ms. Graham. She stated, You have requested all public data about a long list of people. We have begun to collect that data but anticipate that it will take some time to do so. We hope to have it ready shortly after the first of the year. We will notify you when we have it available.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Graham wrote, A month after I had made the initial request, I again contacted [Ms. Watson] and told her that I needed the information in the timely manner outlined in the statute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 4, 2001, Ms. Watson wrote to Ms. Graham and advised her that the data she requested were available for her to inspect.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, Ms. Graham wrote she repeatedly asked where written protocols were kept or posted with no response. She noted that section 13.03, subdivision 2 (b), requires government entities to make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to requests for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, Ms. Graham requested data on November 15, 2000. Approximately three weeks later, Ms. Watson sent a letter to Ms. Graham advising her that DHS had received her request, that they had begun to collect the data, and that they hoped to have the response ready shortly after January 1, 2001. In a letter dated January 4, 2001, Ms. Watson informed Ms. Graham that the data had been compiled and suggested several possible inspection times.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, although it took DHS approximately three weeks to acknowledge Ms. Graham&apos;s request, Ms. Watson did make an acknowledgment, gave Ms. Graham an accurate estimation as to how long DHS needed to gather the data, and made the data available. The Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that DHS&apos; response was timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Human Services respond appropriately to requests for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response, Ms. Watson wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It was my belief that Ms. Graham did not request this information until a letter to us dated January 2, 2001, and received by us on January 3, 2001. However, a review of...Ms. Graham&apos;s correspondence to us shows that she did, in fact, request this information...[on] July 13, 2000. Unfortunately, we missed that when we responded and she has not raised the question again until the most recent letter. We will, of course, be responding to her and letting her know that the requested data is available on the DHS Internet site...If she does not have access to the Internet, DHS will make a hard copy available for her review.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Ms. Graham did not provide the Commissioner with specific dates as to when she requested the public data access procedures, Ms. Watson noted that DHS did receive such a request on July 13, 2000. Given that DHS did not respond until sometime after January 8, 2001, the response was not timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Graham is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the Minnesota Department of Human Services responded in a timely manner to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the Minnesota Department of Human Services did not respond in a timely manner to requests for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 7, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267244</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-025</Title><title>Opinion 01 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267733&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-07T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers from the score sheets?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to &quot;cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided?&quot;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2001; Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 12, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data about X&apos;s child, Y, maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL.) X&apos;s request required additional information and clarification with IPA staff, which was provided in a letter IPA received on December 15, 2000. Subsequent to X&apos;s initial requests to CFL, Y achieved the age of majority. Accordingly, IPA clarified that Y was a party to this opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X and Y&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated January 2, 2001, were to inform her of X and Y&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL&apos;s position. On January 24, 2001, IPA received a response from Jessie R. Montantilde;o, Assistant Commissioner of CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Y was an applicant for a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship. In correspondence beginning in May, 2000, and extending into September, 2000, X asked CFL to provide certain data related to Y&apos;s scholarship application. CFL did not provide all of the data X requested. X and CFL exchanged correspondence as X requested additional data about Y, and sought clarification of CFL&apos;s reasons for withholding some of the data requested. The specific data X requested, and CFL&apos;s responses, are detailed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers from the score sheets?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers from the score sheets?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asked CFL to provide copies of the scoring sheets with reviewers&apos; names included. CFL had provided the sheets with the names of the reviewers redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated that the reviewers are employees of the State of Minnesota, and that there is no authority under section 13.43, subd. 2 to identify an individual&apos;s work product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; under subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has reviewed the scoring sheets provided to X about Y, and concludes that, with the exception of the reviewers&apos; names (which were redacted), the data contained therein are data about Y, not the reviewers. Under section 13.43, subdivision 2, public employees&apos; names are public. Ms. Montantilde;o is correct that work product is not included in the public personnel data enumerated in section 13.43, subdivision 2. However, the reviewers are not the subjects of the balance of the data contained in the scoring sheets, and, therefore, the scoring sheets contain no other personnel data. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the subject of all of the data contained in the scoring sheets, other than the reviewers&apos; names, is the scholarship applicant, not the reviewer. Accordingly, CFL erred in redacting public data, i.e., the reviewers&apos; names, from the scoring sheets provided to X and Y. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-065&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated: . . . upon further reconsideration, so long as the files, evaluation sheets or names of students are not organized in a manner in which it would be possible to ascertain which student got the lowest score, we will release this information to X&apos; and Y&apos;. Therefore, we will be advising X&apos; and Y&apos; that we will release the lowest score of each geographical region.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 21, 2000, X wrote to CFL: [t]he review sheets cannot be paired by applicant and accordingly cannot be evaluated for consistency between applicants. It is suggested that the review sheets be paired by stapling them together, as the two copies of the review sheets provided of [Y&apos;s] application were. The number of applicants is such that there is no individually identifiable information contained in the response format suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, X and Y characterized the data in question with a hypothetical, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A state agency operates a scholarship program. Each potential recipient submits an application to the agency for evaluation. Each application is reviewed by two evaluators, each submitting a single scoring sheet. Each application&apos;s conglomerate score is calculated using the two individual subscores assigned. Accordingly, if there are five hundred applications submitted, there will be five hundred evaluations, each consisting of two single page scoring sheets paired together. A constituent is interested in evaluating the consistency and relationship between assigned scores and their individual subscores. For example, a score of 185 could represent subscores of 100 and 85, subscores of 120 and 65, etc. The constituent&apos;s request for scoring sheets is responded to with one thousand pages in no particular order. It is impossible to compare scoring patterns unless the sheets are provided in a manner in which they are paired as originally scored.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated that in a letter dated June 17, 2000, X requested copies of the scoring sheets of all the applicants for the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship program with the individually identifiable information deleted.&apos; CFL provided copies of all of the scoring sheets, with the names of the students and reviewers redacted. X then made the August 21, 2000, request noted above. Ms. Montantilde;o wrote: [t]here is no requirement under the Data Practices Act that public data itself be organized in such a fashion as requested by the applicant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Montantilde;o is correct, CFL is not obligated under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to organize data to suit a particular requestor. However, here, X and Y simply asked for the data to be provided to them in the same manner as it is maintained by CFL. The total score for each applicant, which determines who is selected, is ascertained by adding the two scores from each pair of scoring sheets. CFL could not make the determinations it must, i.e., to whom to award the scholarships, if it did not maintain the scoring sheets paired by applicant. It would not be possible for anyone to glean any meaningful information from the scoring sheets in the manner in which CFL provided them to X and Y. Accordingly, CFL should provide X and Y access to the paired scoring sheets.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers, which are public, from the score sheets.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request by denying access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request by refusing to provide access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 7, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267733</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data included (See also: Personnel data - educational data)</Title><Id>266436</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-024</Title><title>Opinion 01 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267290&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-07T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for public access to data made on November 15, 2000?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2001; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 20, 2000, IPA received a letter dated same from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that the Minnesota Department Labor and Industry (DLI) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gretchen Maglich, Commissioner of DLI, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 2000, were to inform her of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DLI&apos;s position. On January 11, 2001, IPA received a response, dated January 9, 2001, from Nancy Leppink, DLI&apos;s Director of Legal Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Ms. Graham provided them is as follows. Ms. Graham wrote that on November 15, 2000, she made a written data request to DLI for public data and has not received any response. She wrote, I wrote to the responsible authority of DOLI, Gretchen Maglich, to request public data pursuant to 13.43.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Graham also wrote that she has asked DLI to indicate where their written procedures are available or posted pursuant to MN Statute 13.03, Subd. 2 (b), but there has been no response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for public access to data made on November 15, 2000?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Prior to addressing Ms. Graham&apos;s concerns, the Commissioner needs to respond to Ms. Leppink&apos;s assertion that he lacks authority to issue this opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Leppink. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, he may issue an opinion upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by [a government entity] regarding that individual&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. Here, Ms. Graham alleges that DLI has not responded to her data requests within the statutorily-prescribed time frame, i.e., that DLI has violated her right to gain access to government data. The Commissioner does have authority to issue this opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for public access to data made on November 15, 2000?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response, Ms. Leppink wrote that there are many factors affecting how long it takes an entity to comply with a request. She stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    These factors, all of which were present in this case, include but are not limited to the number and frequency of requests for data an individual submits to an agency, the amount of data the individual is requesting, the personnel and resources the agency has to comply with the request at the time the request is made, whether public and not public data must be separated, whether there are legal issues regarding whether data is public and the complexity of those legal issues...to name just a few.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Graham requested data on November 15, 2000, and apparently had received no acknowledgment or data from DLI as of December 20, 2000, more than a month after her request. (Ms. Leppink did not dispute this in her comments.) The Commissioner does not know the type or volume of data that Ms. Graham requested. He knows only that she asked for public data pursuant to 13.43. Therefore, he cannot comment on whether DLI should have provided all data responsive to Ms. Graham&apos;s request by the date she requested this opinion. However, regardless of the volume of the request, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DLI, if unable to provide all the data by December 20, 2000, should have acknowledged Ms. Graham&apos;s request, should have given her an estimate as to the time required to respond, and, if possible, should have provided her with some of the data. Because it appears DLI took none of these actions, the Commissioner is left to conclude that DLI has not responded in a timely manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An additional note is in order. In her opinion request, Ms. Graham wrote that the data she requested on November 15, 2000, should have been immediately available according to MN Statute 13.03, Subd. 3. This is not correct. As discussed above, and as the Commissioner has discussed in many previous opinions, section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, require that government entities respond to requests for public data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. There is no language in section 13.03 requiring entities to respond immediately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments, Ms. Leppink wrote, At the time [Ms. Graham] requested DLI&apos;s public access procedures [she] was advised by DLI of the effective date of the provision and that DLI would be in compliance with the provision on its effective date. Since putting its public access procedures in effect on January 1, 2001, DLI has provided X with a copy.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Technically, Ms. Leppink is correct that prior to enactment of section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), Chapter 13 did not explicitly require entities to prepare and to post written procedures explaining how the public can gain access to public data. Ms. Leppink wrote that DLI provided Ms. Graham with a copy of the public access procedures sometime between January 1, 2001, and January 9, 2001 (the date of Ms. Leppink&apos;s letter). The Commissioner considers this to be a timely response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Graham raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, it appears that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry did not respond appropriately to a request for public access to data made on November 15, 2000.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry responded appropriately to a request for access to the Department&apos;s public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 7, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267290</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No response</Title><Id>266300</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-023</Title><title>Opinion 01 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266409&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-07T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 21, 2000, IPA received a letter dated December 20, 2000, from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charlie Weaver, Commissioner of DPS, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On January 16, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Commissioner Weaver.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Graham wrote that she requested access to public personnel data on November 15, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 17, 2000, DPS&apos; Data Practice Compliance Official (DPCO) wrote to Ms. Graham to say that DPS had received the request and that staff had begun gathering the data. The DPCO also asked for some clarification and noted that because the request was substantial (public data about 76 or 78 current and former DPS employees), the Department would need additional time to compile the information. The DPCO advised Ms. Graham that when DPS completed its compilation, she would contact Ms. Graham to arrange an inspection time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 15, 2000, the DPCO wrote to Ms. Graham confirming a December 15, 2000, telephone conversation. The DPCO stated that DPS was working diligently to compile all the data and that everything should be available no later than January 2, 2001. The DPCO also offered Ms. Graham the opportunity to inspect data that the Department had thus far compiled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 22, 2000, the DPCO wrote to Ms. Graham to inform her that DPS had gathered all data responsive to her request. The DPCO advised Ms. Graham that she could inspect the data during business hours at a specific location.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety respond appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Ms. Graham requested data on November 15, 2000. Two days later, DPS&apos; Data Practices Compliance Officer (DPCO) wrote to Ms. Graham and acknowledged receipt of the request, asked for clarification, and advised her that although DPS had begun working to compile information, it would take some additional time. Four weeks later, the DPCO updated Ms. Graham on the status of DPS&apos; response and offered her the opportunity to inspect any data compiled as of that date. One week later, the DPCO wrote Ms. Graham to inform her that the data responsive to her request were available for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although DPS took slightly over five weeks to compile all data responsive to Ms. Graham&apos;s request, the Commissioner opines that the response was timely. First, Ms. Graham requested a significant amount of data. Second, the DPCO continued to update Ms. Graham throughout the process; at no time did it appear DPS was ignoring Ms. Graham&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional note is in order. In her opinion request, Ms. Graham wrote that the data she requested on November 15, 2000, should have been immediately available according to MN Statute 13.03, Subd. 3. This is not correct. As discussed above, and as the Commissioner has discussed in many previous opinions, section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, require that government entities respond to requests for public data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. There is no language in section 13.03 requiring entities to respond immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Graham raised by is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for access to data made on November 15, 2000.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 7, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266409</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Timely, generally</Title><Id>266408</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-022</Title><title>Opinion 01 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267894&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Maplewood maintains: data in a letter regarding a former city employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 7, 2001; City of Maplewood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 18, 2000, IPA received a letter dated December 14, 2000, from Robert Fowler, an attorney representing the City of Maplewood. In his letter, Mr. Fowler requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the City maintains. At IPA&apos;s request, Mr. Fowler sent a clarifying letter dated December 19, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Fowler wrote that a former Maplewood employee who signed a separation agreement is now alleging, pursuant to the agreement&apos;s penalty clause, the City has violated the agreement. The former employee&apos;s attorney wrote a letter to the City; the data at issue are those contained in the letter. Mr. Fowler provided the Commissioner with a copy of the letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fowler argued that the data in the letter are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Fowler asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Maplewood maintains: data in a letter regarding a former city employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 provides the types of employee data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of employee data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the letter, it is the Commissioner&apos;s determination that the data in the letter are data about the former employee and, as such, are classified by section 13.43. The data in the letter are not those listed as public in section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the data are private and not available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is in order. Mr. Fowler stated that although he believes the data to be private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, because the letter is a notice of claim and request for arbitration related to [his/her] employment termination agreement, the data arguably could be public under section 13.39, civil investigative data. Mr. Fowler cited &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/em&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993). In &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt;, the court wrote, Inasmuch as a notice of claim is not data collected by...a political subdivision,&apos; it cannot be classified as either protected nonpublic data or confidential.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner finds the facts of the opinion at hand distinguishable from those of &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt;. In &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt;, the court was asked to determine whether the City, citing section 13.39, had appropriately denied access to the notice of claim. The Court did not discuss the applicability of section 13.43, presumably because the data in the notice of claim were not about a current or former employee. In the situation before the Commissioner, the data are about a former Maplewood employee. Furthermore, in &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt;, the applicability of section 13.39 arose only because the City of St. Peter relied upon that statutory provision to deny access to the data. Here, it does not appear the chief attorney acting for Maplewood has determined that a civil legal action is pending, which must occur before an entity can deny access based on section 13.39. Additional information about section 13.39 and the &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/em&gt; case can be found in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267726&quot; title=&quot;94-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267505&quot; title=&quot;95-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-050&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267895&quot; title=&quot;96-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-044&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267385&quot; title=&quot;98-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Fowler raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.43, the following data that the City of Maplewood maintains are private: data in a letter regarding a former city employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 7, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267894</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of claim</Title><Id>266943</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-021</Title><title>Opinion 01 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268001&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-06T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, inappropriately disseminate private educational data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 6, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On December 11, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of private government data about X&apos;s minor child, Y, by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 11, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 22, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to X, a parent of another District student provided him/her with a copy of data that the District had supplied the other parent, that contained Y&apos;s name.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [t]he District agrees that it inadvertently failed to redact [Y&apos;s] name from the [data provided the other parent.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, inappropriately disseminate private educational data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Data about students and their parents are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data are private and not accessible to the public. Dissemination is appropriate only if the subject has given consent or there is express statutory authorization for the release. (See section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9, and section 13.32, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady acknowledged that the District disseminated data about Y inappropriately.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One further note is in order. The same document that contained the data about Y also contained the Social Security number of an individual who provided service to the District. Pursuant to section 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data. Accordingly, the District also erred by disseminating the employee&apos;s (or agent&apos;s) Social Security number to the other parent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, inappropriately disseminated private educational data about Y.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 6, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268001</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-020</Title><title>Opinion 01 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267040&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-06T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make seven photocopies of private government data?
Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 6, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 11, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 11, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 22, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 6, 2000, X requested copies of certain data about X&apos;s minor child, a student in the District. In response, the District wrote X: . . . the labor to prepare the copies is frac12; hour of clerical time at $20.00 per hour and there is [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] approximately 7 copies at $.15 per page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided the Commissioner with a copy of the District&apos;s fee schedule, entitled Charges for supplying copies of data, and raised questions as to its propriety. The charges include $.15 per page, plus charges for the cost of time to photocopy, transfer data electronically, and prepare materials for mailing, including minimum charges for same. Also included are a $15.00 per disk cost for electronic copies of documents/databases, in addition to the minimum charge for transferring data to the disk. Charges for photographs range from $2.00 to $10.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady referred to his response to the issues raised in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-018&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267988&quot; title=&quot;01-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;01-019&lt;/a&gt;, which are identical to the issues here. In that response, Mr. Cady stated that, in deference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved the District but was issued after its response to X in this matter, the District will review and follow-up with [X] to ensure that the labor time involved in the preparation of copies in the instant matter did not extend beyond the actual time to prepare, make or compile copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the District&apos;s fee schedule, Mr. Cady stated that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act does not prohibit government entities from establishing fee schedules. As such, it is the position of the District that its fee schedule is allowable . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make seven photocopies of private government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make eight photocopies of private government data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Please see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-018&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The situation here is essentially the same as that detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;. The District told X it cost $.15 per copy, plus the $10.00 labor cost of one-half hour, to make and compile nine photocopies. However, the District did not provide justification for either the per-page cost, or for its assertion that it took one-half hour to make and compile nine photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Cady statement that the District will review its response to X in this matter to ensure that its charge for the labor to make the nine photocopies did not extend beyond the actual labor time involved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The fee schedule for copies of data published by the District does not contain any explanation or justification for any of its copying charges. In addition, under this fee schedule, the District does not differentiate its charges for copies of data depending upon whether the requestor is the subject of the data. As noted above, government entities may not charge data subjects some of the costs associated with complying with requests for data that they may charge members of the public. Also, minimum copying charges are not allowable under Chapter 13. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady did not explain how any of the copying charges reflect the District&apos;s actual cost to produce copies of government data. Accordingly, the District did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400. (The Commissioner has addressed the issue of computing costs for copies of government data in numerous previous advisory opinions. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267216&quot; title=&quot;94-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267781&quot; title=&quot;95-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-044&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267240&quot; title=&quot;95-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-051&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267414&quot; title=&quot;96-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267345&quot; title=&quot;97-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-012&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-042&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-054&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, may charge for one-half hour labor to make seven photocopies of private government data only if that is the actual time it took to make the copies.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, is not allowable under Chapter 13, because it contains minimum charges, and because the District did not did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 6, 2001
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267040</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minimum charge not allowed</Title><Id>266919</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-019</Title><title>Opinion 01 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267988&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make eight photocopies of private government data?
Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 6, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 11, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 11, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 22, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 6, 2000, X requested copies of certain data about X&apos;s minor child, a student in the District. In response, the District wrote X: . . . the labor to prepare the copies is frac12; hour of clerical time at $20.00 per hour and there is [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] approximately 8 copies at $.15 per page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided the Commissioner with a copy of the District&apos;s fee schedule, entitled Charges for supplying copies of data, and raised questions as to its propriety. The charges include $.15 per page, plus charges for the cost of time to photocopy, transfer data electronically, and prepare materials for mailing, including minimum charges for same. Also included are a $15.00 per disk cost for electronic copies of documents/databases, in addition to the minimum charge for transferring data to the disk. Charges for photographs range from $2.00 to $10.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady referred to his response to the issues raised in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-018&lt;/a&gt;, which are identical to the issues here. In that response, Mr. Cady stated that, in deference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved the District but was issued after its response to X in this matter, the District will review and follow-up with [X] to ensure that the labor time involved in the preparation of copies in the instant matter did not extend beyond the actual time to prepare, make or compile copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the District&apos;s fee schedule, Mr. Cady stated that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act does not prohibit government entities from establishing fee schedules. As such, it is the position of the District that its fee schedule is allowable . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make eight photocopies of private government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make eight photocopies of private government data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Please see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-018&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The situation here is essentially the same as that detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;. The District told X it cost $.15 per copy, plus the $10.00 labor cost of one-half hour, to make and compile nine photocopies. However, the District did not provide justification for either the per-page cost, or for its assertion that it took one-half hour to make and compile nine photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Cady statement that the District will review its response to X in this matter to ensure that its charge for the labor to make the nine photocopies did not extend beyond the actual labor time involved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267987&quot; title=&quot;01-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 01-018&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The fee schedule for copies of data published by the District does not contain any explanation or justification for any of its copying charges. In addition, under this fee schedule, the District does not differentiate its charges for copies of data depending upon whether the requestor is the subject of the data. As noted above, government entities may not charge data subjects some of the costs associated with complying with requests for data that they may charge members of the public. Also, minimum copying charges are not allowable under Chapter 13. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady did not explain how any of the copying charges reflect the District&apos;s actual cost to produce copies of government data. Accordingly, the District did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400. (The Commissioner has addressed the issue of computing costs for copies of government data in numerous previous advisory opinions. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267216&quot; title=&quot;94-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267781&quot; title=&quot;95-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-044&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267240&quot; title=&quot;95-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-051&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267414&quot; title=&quot;96-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267345&quot; title=&quot;97-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-012&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-042&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-054&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, may charge for one-half hour labor to make eight photocopies of private government data only if that is the actual time it took to make the copies.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, is not allowable under Chapter 13, because it contains minimum charges, and because the District did not did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 6, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267988</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-018</Title><title>Opinion 01 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267987&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-02-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make nine photocopies of private government data?
Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 5, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 8, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 11, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 21, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 6, 2000, X requested copies of certain data about X&apos;s minor child, a student in the District. In response, the District wrote X: . . . the labor to prepare the copies is frac12; hour of clerical time at $20.00 per hour and there is [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] approximately 9 copies at $.15 per page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X provided the Commissioner with a copy of the District&apos;s fee schedule, entitled Charges for supplying copies of data, and raised questions as to its propriety. The charges include $.15 per page, plus charges for the cost of time to photocopy, transfer data electronically, and prepare materials for mailing, including minimum charges for same. Also included are a $15.00 per disk cost for electronic copies of documents/databases, in addition to the minimum charge for transferring data to the disk. Charges for photographs range from $2.00 to $10.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated that, in deference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, which also involved the District but was issued after its response to X in this matter, the District will review and follow-up with [X] to ensure that the labor time involved in the preparation of copies in the instant matter did not extend beyond the actual time to prepare, make or compile copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the District&apos;s fee schedule, Mr. Cady stated that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act does not prohibit government entities from establishing fee schedules. As such, it is the position of the District that its fee schedule is allowable . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make nine photocopies of private government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is it reasonable for School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, to charge for one-half hour labor to make nine photocopies of private government data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, referenced by Mr. Cady, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor is not the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor is the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation here is essentially the same as that detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;. The District told X it cost $.15 per copy, plus the $10.00 labor cost of one-half hour, to make and compile nine photocopies. However, the District did not provide justification for either the per-page cost, or for its assertion that it took one-half hour to make and compile nine photocopies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Cady statement that the District will review its response to X in this matter to ensure that its charge for the labor to make the nine photocopies did not extend beyond the actual labor time involved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is the copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, allowable under Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fee schedule for copies of data published by the District does not contain any explanation or justification for any of its copying charges. In addition, under this fee schedule, the District does not differentiate its charges for copies of data depending upon whether the requestor is the subject of the data. As noted above, government entities may not charge data subjects some of the costs associated with complying with requests for data that they may charge members of the public. Also, minimum copying charges are not allowable under Chapter 13. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady did not explain how any of the copying charges reflect the District&apos;s actual cost to produce copies of government data. Accordingly, the District did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400. (The Commissioner has addressed the issue of computing costs for copies of government data in numerous previous advisory opinions. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267216&quot; title=&quot;94-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267781&quot; title=&quot;95-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-044&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267240&quot; title=&quot;95-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-051&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267414&quot; title=&quot;96-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267345&quot; title=&quot;97-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-012&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267623&quot; title=&quot;99-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-042&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267877&quot; title=&quot;00-027&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-027&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-054&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, may charge for one-half hour labor to make nine photocopies of private government data only if that is the actual time it took to make the copies, and if the labor cost is not included in the per-page copying charge.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The copy fee schedule used by School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, is not allowable under Chapter 13, because it contains minimum charges, and because the District did not did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 5, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267987</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-017</Title><title>Opinion 01 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267786&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the information or reports maintained by ambulance personnel on criminal defendants releasable to law enforcement personnel?
Should statements made by criminal defendants to ambulance personnel be differentiated between statements about medical care and general statements? If so, would only the general statements be releasable to law enforcement?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 18, 2001; Cass County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 3, 2001, Earl E. Maus, the Cass County Attorney, requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration. The request, as detailed in the Issues statements below, deals with access to information maintained by ambulance personnel and the applicability of Minnesota Statutes, section 144E.123.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In making his request, Mr. Maus indicated that law enforcement personnel are involved in situations where a defendant or suspect requires medical care and statements sometimes are made to the ambulance personnel who provide service.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Mr. Maus asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the information or reports maintained by ambulance personnel on criminal defendants releasable to law enforcement personnel?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Should statements made by criminal defendants to ambulance personnel be differentiated between statements about medical care and general statements? If so, would only the general statements be releasable to law enforcement?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Before the discussion of the first issue begins, a clarification is necessary. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, governs the collection, storage, use and dissemination of government data. Data is a term that describes a subset of information and so, to the extent that the Cass County Attorney seeks access to information that is in the minds of ambulance personnel and not recorded as government data, that access is outside the scope of Chapter 13. See &lt;i&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/i&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. App. 1992).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; 1. Are the information or reports maintained by ambulance personnel on criminal defendants releasable to law enforcement personnel? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Resolution of the issue presented by Cass County requires a review of several different statutory provisions. This review is needed because an ambulance service may be operated by a private enterprise, a private hospital, a public hospital or another government entity and different statutes apply to each situation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In its opinion request, Cass County questioned the applicability of Minnesota Statutes, section 144E.123. This section classifies prehospital data when maintained by the Emergency Medical Services Board as private data on individuals. Minnesota Statutes, section 144E.123, subdivision 3. Prehospital data includes a wide variety of data collected by an ambulance service that are reported to the Emergency Medical Services Board to prove how services are provided. The section does not, however, address how the ambulance services should handle the data they have collected.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first type of organization is an ambulance service provided by a private enterprise. Data collected by this type of ambulance organization are outside the scope of Chapter 13. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 3. The Cass County Attorney&apos;s Office will need to determine from each private provider whether information is available.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A second type of organization is an ambulance service operated by a private hospital. In this case, services are provided according to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 144. Section 144.335, subdivision 3a provides that patient records cannot be released without the consent of the patient. As a result, records of ambulance services operated by a private hospital are not available to law enforcement without the consent of the patient.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A third type of organization is an ambulance service operated by a public hospital. In this case, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.384, subdivision 3 classifies the data as private and available in limited circumstances with the patient&apos;s consent or pursuant to a court order. Without the consent of the patient or a court order, law enforcement is not entitled to access ambulance service records when the ambulance is operated by a public hospital.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A fourth type of organization is an ambulance service operated by a government entity other than a public hospital. In the case of an ambulance service operated by a law enforcement agency or fire department, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 6 make certain data public. To the extent that data other than those specifically listed in subdivisions 3 and 6 of section 13.82 are maintained, those data are public as there is no statute classifying them otherwise. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1. Therefore, law enforcement would be entitled to access data maintained by an ambulance service operated by a government entity other than a public hospital.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; 2. Should statements made by criminal defendants to ambulance personnel be differentiated between statements about medical care and general statements? If so, would only the general statements be releasable to law enforcement?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The analysis here also is done according to the organization operating the ambulance service. For privately operated ambulances, the owner will determine what data and statements it will make available. For ambulances operated by public entities other than public hospitals, all the data are public and so are accessible to law enforcement.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For ambulances operated by private hospitals, Minnesota Statutes, section 144.335, subdivision 2(b) provides a broad definition of the types of records that cannot be released without a patient&apos;s consent. As a result, there is no difference in the type of statements so neither general statements nor statements made about medical care are available to law enforcement personnel.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For ambulances operated by public hospitals, the definition of medical data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.384, subdivision 1 (b) also is broad and results in a determination that general statements are private data and are not accessible to law enforcement personnel.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Maus is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The accessibility of data or reports maintained by ambulance personnel on criminal defendants is dependent on the type of organization operating the ambulance service.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The accessibility of non-medical statements made by individuals receiving care from ambulance personnel is determined according to the type of organization operating the ambulance service.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 18, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267786</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Ambulance service data</Title><Id>266519</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical data</Title><Id>266987</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-016</Title><title>Opinion 01 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267823&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:20:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to X&apos;s September 20, 2000, request to gain access to a &quot;full and complete copy&quot; of the educational records of X&apos;s children?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 7, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 3, 2000, from X. In X&apos;s letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his/her access to data maintained by School District 625, St. Paul. Upon request from IPA staff, X provided additional documentation on November 20, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia Harvey, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 11, 2000, IPA received comments, dated December 8, 2000, from Nancy Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. In a letter dated September 20, 2000, X wrote to the principal of one of the District&apos;s schools. X stated, In order to review and inspect, I request a full and complete copy of the education records of X&apos;s two children. X also requested a copy of the record of the pages of [one of X&apos;s children&apos;s] communication devise [sic]. X wrote, If a fee is required [for copies], please send me a note specifying the amount required...I do not wish to receive any telephone calls. X sent this letter certified and it was signed by a recipient on September 22, 2000. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter and the mail receipts.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 9, 2000, X wrote again to the principal. X stated that s/he had not yet received a response. X sent this letter certified and it was signed by a recipient. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter and the mail receipts.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s opinion request, X noted that on October 20, 2000, s/he contacted staff at the IPA office. Staff advised X that s/he needed to determine the identity of the District&apos;s responsible authority so that X could address his/her requests to that person. X noted that s/he then spoke with the office manager of the District&apos;s student data office. This person advised X that X had sent his/her request to the appropriate person within the District. X wrote that this person volunteered to investigate why the school had not responded.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s opinion request, X wrote that on October 30, the office manager called X to say that the school had not received X&apos;s first request and required another request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X wrote that s/he then contacted the Superintendent&apos;s Office (after speaking with IPA staff) and was transferred to staff in the Area Superintendents&apos; Department. X wrote that this person took record of my experience and informed me she would call the school. I also, per my choice, faxed her a copy of my two letters to the school on 9/20 and 10/9.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X stated that on November 1, 2000, X received a call from the school principal. X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I discontinued the call without response due to the nature of the inquiry and immediately called [the Area Superintendents&apos; staff person] to inform her of the phone call. (The principal stated to me that since she assumes I already have some records of my [children] that she was not going to send those.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X then, on November 1, 2000, wrote to the Area Superintendents&apos; staff about the phone call. X provided a copy of this letter to the Commissioner. X stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It has made me feel that if I was not very specific in my request for copies of my [children&apos;s] educational records that I would not receive a complete copy. Additionally, I do not know how specific I need to be. Do I need to fill out a form? Otherwise, let me be as specific as I can without a form....I would like complete educational records (copies) maintained by St. Paul School District, of, about, or concerning my [children] as stated in my request of September 20, 2000. I also would like a copy of the pages of my [child&apos;s] [communication device] that are maintained by the district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 14, 2000, X wrote to IPA and stated that on November 3, 2000, s/he received data from the District. However, wrote X, some of the data X expected to receive, such as attendance records, progress reports, academic competition records, therapy records, communication device records, etc., were missing. Apparently X then returned all of the records to the school.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter X received from the District regarding X&apos;s return of the records. The school principal wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We received the educational records for [X&apos;s children]...that were sent to you on Nov. 2nd, 2000. These are educational records you requested in writing September 20 and October 9, 2000. Since you found the educational records confusing, we are in the process of reorganizing the educational records for you so it will be less confusing. We are also in the process of working with our Special Educational professionals to get the information you are requesting from the [communication device]....We apologize for not being able to get everything to you at the time of your request. As soon as we have everything, we will send everything out to you that we have on file.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to X&apos;s September 20, 2000, request to gain access to a full and complete copy of the educational records of X&apos;s children? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject makes a request for data about him/herself, government entities are required to make the data available within ten working days. When the data subjects are minors, in most cases, the parent(s) is entitled to obtain the data. See section 13.02, subdivision 12. X&apos;s authority to gain access to data about his/her children is not in dispute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron argued that while there may have been a technical violation, in that there was a time delay in X&apos;s request for copies and X&apos;s receipt thereof, there was no substantive violation. She first asserted that the ten day response requirement does not apply because X did not make his/her request to the District&apos;s responsible authority - the Superintendent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is correct that X did not make his/her initial request for data (September 20, 2000) to the District&apos;s Superintendent. However, on October 20, 2000, X contacted the student data office and staff there advised X that X had sent the September 20, 2000, request to the correct person. Ten days later, on October 30, 2000, upon a suggestion from IPA staff, X contacted the Superintendent&apos;s office and spoke with staff in the Area Superintendents&apos; Office. X faxed the original request to that person. Shortly thereafter, X received a call from the school principal to whom X had originally sent his/her request. From that point on, it appears that all correspondence from the District came from that school principal.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The problem with Ms. Cameron&apos;s argument is that it appears the District treated X&apos;s September 20, 2000, communication to be a legitimate data practices request. District staff had examined the request and were processing it. Furthermore, if a parent calls the student data office and is advised by staff that the parent has directed a data request to the correct person, it seems reasonable for the parent to rely on that response. Ms. Cameron did not dispute the fact that X contacted someone at the student data office. Finally, even if the ten day response time began upon the Superintendent&apos;s Office receiving X&apos;s request (October 30, 2000), it appears that as late as November 17, 2000, the District was still sending data to X in response to the original request. This is past the ten day statutory deadline.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Cameron further argued that the District was not required to provide data about one of X&apos;s children because X had received data on this child after April 12, 2000. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, does state that if a person has gained access to private data, the entity is not required to disclose those data again for six months thereafter, unless there are additional data or a dispute or action is pending.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, based on the District&apos;s actions, it does not appear the District refused or delayed providing data to X because X had obtained data about one of his/her children within the previous six months. On November 1, 2000, the principal wrote to X stating, Enclosed are the items you have requested for [the child about whom Ms. Cameron alleges X previously had received data]. The records for [the other child] are still being prepared and when complete, we will forward those to you. The Commissioner is of the opinion that if the District were delaying or denying access pursuant to the six month provision, it would have made that argument to X at the time of X&apos;s request. It should also be noted that X has the right to gain access to data about his/her children pursuant to the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which does not have a limitation comparable to the six month limitation that exists in Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Cameron also argued that a delay in response time was justified because the District required clarification from X regarding the request. She wrote that the principal tried to reach X by telephone several times between September 25 and the end of October. Ms. Cameron stated, There was no answer and no way to leave a message for [X] by phone. The Commissioner has two comments. First, X&apos;s request seems quite clear; s/he wanted a copy of everything the District maintained about his/her children. Second, X specifically asked to have communications conducted in writing. It is not clear why the District did not send X a letter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Cameron further argued that a delay is excusable because of the circumstances. She wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The health records were located off-site, because [X&apos;s children] had withdrawn, and had to be retrieved and copied. The person who knew how to access the [communication device] records had had a stroke and another person had to be found who could retrieve these computerized records. The school year had just begun and many students needed their records copied and transferred, and the copy machine kept breaking down.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, section 13.04, subdivision 3, requires that government entities respond to data subject requests within ten working days. The statute does not allow for exceptions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Ms. Cameron argued that X had most, if not all, of the records in [his/her] possession. She wrote, Thus, it appeared to staff that the school had very little, if any, additional records that [X] did not already have in [his/her] possession. Staff reasonably sought clarification from [X] about [his/her] request before incurring the expense of staff time and school resources to recopy all the records again for no apparent purpose whatsoever. Chapter 13 provides that a parent may gain access to data about his/her children. Whether or not the parent has copies of the data is irrelevant. The parent has the right to request and gain access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 625, St. Paul, did not respond appropriately to X&apos;s September 20, 2000, request to gain access to a full and complete copy of the educational records of X&apos;s children. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267823</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parental access to private data (13.02, subd. 8); (1205.0500)</Title><Id>266540</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-015</Title><title>Opinion 01 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267100&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:19:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 2, 2000, the Commissioner received a letter dated November 16, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Weaver, Commissioner of DPS, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 8, 2000, IPA received comments, dated December 6, 2000, from Commissioner Weaver.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. X wrote that since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested public and private data from DPS. X stated, On three occasions since August, 2000, I have been required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data by unidentified personnel in some departments within [DPS]. I declined, citing Mn. Statute 13.05, Subd. 12.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X further wrote that on November 16, 2000, s/he contacted DPS for some public information and was again asked to identify his/herself and to justify the request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Commissioner Weaver wrote that since the August 1, 2000, law change, DPS employees have not required data requestors to identify themselves nor justify their requests for public data. He added, If X can provided [sic] further information naming employees who asked [him/her] to identify [him/herself] and on what dates, we would be better able to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that, on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. Commissioner Weaver asserts that DPS employees are not requiring data requestors to identify themselves or to justify requests. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that a government entity cannot require individuals making requests for public data to identify themselves or to justify their requests, unless the entity requires such information to facilitate a response. If DPS employees requested identifying information and/or justifications for any requests, the Department is in violation of Chapter 13. If DPS employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) to ask the requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether DPS asked the requestor to provide identifying information or justification for the request(s). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267100</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-014</Title><title>Opinion 01 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267444&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:18:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 17, 2000, the Commissioner received a letter dated November 16, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gretchen Maglich, Commissioner of DLI, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 18, 2000, IPA received comments, dated December 15, 2000, from Nancy Leppink, Director of Legal Services for DLI.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X wrote that since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested public and private data from DLI. X added that since August 1, 2000, s/he has repeatedly been required to identify him/herself, state reasons for, and justify his/her request(s) for public data. X named several DLI employees who have committed these violations. X also stated that Commissioner Maglich has required X to put all requests in writing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addition, X described an occasion in which s/he went to DLI to request data. On November 7, 2000, the front desk employee advised X that the requested data were located on another floor and that X would have to sign his/her name on a clipboard in order to go into the building to obtain this public data. X stated that s/he declined, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink first argued that, in this case, the Commissioner does not have authority to issue an opinion. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, he may issue an opinion upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by [a government entity] regarding that individual&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. Here, X alleges DLI determined that s/he cannot gain access to data without providing identifying information. Thus, alleges X, DLI violated his/her rights pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 12.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Leppink did not directly address any situations in which X requested data but generally discussed the language in section 13.05, subdivision 12, noting that it applies only to requests for public data. She concluded:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is appropriate and in some instance required for a government entity to ask for identifying and clarifying information from a person who is requesting access to other than public government data. In addition, it is appropriate for a government entity to ask for identifying and clarifying information from a person who is requesting access to public government data if the information is being requested to facilitate access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner offers the following comments. Based on Ms. Leppink&apos;s comments, the Commissioner assumes DLI has asked X for identifying information prior to acting on his/her requests (Ms. Leppink did not deny that this has occurred). However, because Ms. Leppink did not demonstrate why DLI needs such information to facilitate access to data, the Commissioner is left to conclude that DLI has no basis upon which to ask for the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Leppink also did not comment on X&apos;s allegation that DLI requires X to put all data requests in writing. In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will have some effect on such policies. Clearly, government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267444</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Written requests, procedures may require</Title><Id>266416</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-013</Title><title>Opinion 01 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267341&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> January 16, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 20, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 16, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julien Carter, Commissioner of DOER, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 6, 2000, IPA received comments, dated same, from Commissioner Carter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. X wrote that since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested public and private data from DOER. S/he stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Since August 1, 2000, on three occasions when I have contacted the Department of Employee Relations to request public government data, I have been required to identify myself and state my reasons for requesting public government data. The employees who violated the statute include [Y, a specific DOER employee] and other unidentified personnel. I declined, citing the data practices statute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X added that on November 16, 2000, s/he called DOER to request public information and was again asked to identify him/herself. X wrote that s/he declined to do so.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Carter identified several occasions when X requested data from DOER. He wrote that in each of those situations, X voluntarily and without solicitation provided his/her name and address. Regarding the November 16, 2000, request, Commissioner Carter wrote that the DOER staff person did not ask X to identify him/herself or to indicate the reasons for his/her data practices request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Carter added that providing X with a contact person at DOER for X&apos;s data practices requests is not a violation of section 13.05, subdivision 12. He wrote, The reason that DOER designated [DOER staff person Y] as X&apos;s point person is because of a growing concern that X was beginning to harass DOER staff. Commissioner Carter discussed that X has had numerous dealings with DOER and other state agencies over the past several years.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. Commissioner Carter asserts that at no time did DOER staff ask X to identify him/herself or to justify any request. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If DOER employees requested identifying information and/or justifications for any requests, DOER is in violation of Chapter 13. If DOER employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding DOER&apos;s designation of a specific person to deal with X&apos;s data requests, the Commissioner has the following comments. Commissioner Carter stated that due to the nature of its past association with X, DOER has designated a specific person to whom X must direct all data practices requests. This is not a violation of Chapter 13. Therefore, if X requests public data, as long as X&apos;s contact person at DOER does not ask X to identify him/herself or to justify the request, DOER is in compliance with Chapter 13. The Commissioner notes, however, that section 13.05, subdivision 12, does provide that a person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised by is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public government data, it is not appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether DOER asked the requestor to provide identifying information or justification for the request(s).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267341</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Written requests, procedures may require</Title><Id>266416</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-012</Title><title>Opinion 01 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267507&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately to a September 7, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 15, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 14, 2000, from Jeffrey Bradt. In his letter, Mr. Bradt requested assistance from the Commissioner in obtaining certain data maintained by Special School District 1, Minneapolis. In an e-mail dated November, 22, 2000, Mr. Bradt clarified that he was seeking an advisory opinion. In two additional e-mails, both dated and forwarded to the District on December 4, 2000, Mr. Bradt explained that he had received some information from the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Bradt&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Bradt&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 11, IPA received comments, dated December 5, 2000, from Dan Loewenson, Assistant to the Superintendent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 7, 2000, Mr. Bradt requested the following information from Mr. Loewenson:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Total compensation paid to all Minneapolis Public School employees, by employee, in calendar year 1999. The information should include: &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                2. Employee name
                &lt;br /&gt;
                3. Job title
                &lt;br /&gt;
                4. Job code
                &lt;br /&gt;
                5. Total compensation (as reported on their W-2)
                &lt;br /&gt;
                6. Total overtime compensation
                &lt;br /&gt;
                7. Total hours of overtime worked
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8. For all job classifications currently held by Minneapolis School employees: &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                9. Job title
                &lt;br /&gt;
                10. Job code
                &lt;br /&gt;
                11. Bargaining unit
                &lt;br /&gt;
                12. Salary range maximum
                &lt;br /&gt;
                13. Salary range minimum
                &lt;br /&gt;
                14. Number of vacation days earned per year
                &lt;br /&gt;
                15. Number of sick days earned per year
                &lt;br /&gt;
                16. Number of holidays
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17. Total fees paid to National Benefits and/or Bill Williams and the contractual basis for those fees. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Bradt wrote he believed that providing the information on a diskette in the form of an Excel Spreadsheet would be the least costly. He also enclosed $50 to cover any charges.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 18, 2000, the District acknowledged receipt of Mr. Bradt&apos;s request and sent Mr. Bradt data in response to his items 8-16.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 4, 2000, Mr. Bradt sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Loewenson and enclosed another $50, reiterating his request that the data be provided in an electronic format.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 24, 2000, Mr. Bradt sent an e-mail to Mr. Loewenson. He expressed concern that the District had not yet sent him the data. He wrote, Given, then, that this information is already overdue, I am requesting that - rather then [sic] add to the delay - you send it to me as soon as possible and bill me for any charges over $100. Also, as noted in my letters, my strong preference is that the information be sent on diskette as an Excel spreadsheet.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his December 4, 2000, e-mail to IPA staff, Mr. Bradt wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [t]he only information I have received thusfar [sic] are copies of the [District&apos;s] collective bargaining agreements. Although those agreements contain information relative to items 8-16, that information is of no use without knowing how many persons are actually employed in each of the units, in which job titles, and their total compensation. That is the information I requested in items 1-7. I have received no information relating to those items.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In addition, I have not received any information relative to item 17 of my request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bradt asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately to a September 7, 2000, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond to requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding Mr. Bradt&apos;s item 17, Mr. Loewenson wrote to the Commissioner, I am sending to you [the Commissioner] and to Mr. Bradt information he requested on our agreement with National Benefits. Mr. Bradt made his request on September 7, 2000. It took the District nearly 2 frac12; months to provide the contract information. This is not reasonable and therefore is not a timely response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding Mr. Bradt&apos;s items 1-7, Mr. Loewenson wrote to the Commissioner:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [w]e have been working on a report which meets his specific requirements and still complies with our legal parameters under [Chapter 13]. This is a new report for us since we have not yet received a request like this before...We believe we will be able to deliver the information he has requested within the next couple of weeks.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Please be assured that the district, in no way, is reluctant to provide this public data to anyone. In this case, Mr. Bradt has requested information in a specific format and containing specific content...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Bradt is under the impression that producing a report such as he requested should have taken less time than it did. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [w]hile I was employed at [the District] as the Executive Director of Human Resources, I had [the District&apos;s human resources information systems specialist] produce an earnings history report very similar to the information I requested in my Sept 7 letter....[t]hat report took - at most - two weeks to generate. It should have taken even less time this second time around.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue here is whether the District was required to create data to respond to Mr. Bradt&apos;s request. If so, and that appears to be the District&apos;s position, the request and the time in which the District must respond is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. As the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions, government entities are not required to create data to respond to a request. If responding means formatting the data differently than those data are maintained, it is up to the requestor and the entity to work out details of cost and time of response. The Commissioner would like to add, however, that before the District agreed to create for Mr. Bradt a report made up of public data, it probably should have advised him that he could have inspected and received copies of the public data in the format in which the District maintains those data. If Mr. Bradt had requested the raw data, the request would have been subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Bradt raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Special School District 1, Minneapolis, did not respond in a timely manner to a September 7, 2000, request for access to data. However, the part of the request that required the District to create new data, i.e., a report, is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267507</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-011</Title><title>Opinion 01 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267945&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a request to inspect all &quot;public information associated with the invoice for all records associated with the invoice for Spring Cleanup - 1998?&apos;&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On November 22, IPA received a letter dated November 20, 2000, from John Musgjerd. In his letter, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of Greenwood maintains.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Larson, Administrator of Deephaven, in response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request. (The City of Deephaven provides a variety of services, including providing public access to data, to the City of Greenwood.) The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On December 4, 2000, IPA received a response, dated December 1, 2000, from Mr. Larson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 7, 2000, Mr. Musgjerd wrote to the Greenwood City Clerk and asked to inspect public information associated with the invoice for Spring Cleanup-1998.&apos; He stated, This is a formal request to look at all the records associated with/used to generate the above-mentioned invoice. For your benefit, I am enclosing a copy of the invoice (dated May 2, 1998).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 10, 2000, the City Clerk wrote to Mr. Musgjerd and returned his data request. She wrote, There are no records in our offices that created the invoice from Waste Management. You would have to contact Waste Management to review their records...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 13, 2000, Mr. Musgjerd made the same data request to Mr. Larson. Mr. Musgjerd wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because it is still not evident that the City of Greenwood has appointed a responsible authority as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16...I am addressing this request for access to certain public data maintained by the City of Greenwood to you, as the defacto responsible authority for the City of Greenwood. If this request should be directed elsewhere advise me of this immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Musgjerd referred to the City Clerk&apos;s October 10, 2000, letter. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Her response constituted a refusal to allow public review of financial information maintained by the City of Greenwood. This is evident because the invoice, which was generated by the City for the Spring Cleanup, would have had to be prepared from supporting documentation (as this is clearly not any invoice from Waste Management.) The invoice/document had to be prepared by the City and was used as the support for the payment to Waste Management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Larson responded in a letter dated November 17, 2000. He wrote, [a]ny documentation or records used to generate the bill for the Greenwood Spring Clean-up 1998 is held by Waste Management. We do not have any documentation in this office.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a request to inspect all public information associated with the invoice for all records associated with the invoice for Spring Cleanup - 1998?&apos;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond to requests for public in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time. However, no provision in Chapter 13 requires government entities to create new data to respond to requests.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Larson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The copy of the invoice that [Mr. Musgjerd submitted as documentation] is in fact a duplicate copy of the original invoice that was submitted by Waste Management to the City of Greenwood. The invoice clearly and plainly states the weights and rates for each segment of the event. These are the figures the city of Greenwood relied upon in voting to approve the company&apos;s pay request. The City of Greenwood does not possess any other information related to the invoice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Mr. Larson stated that the City does not possess any other data related to the invoice. As stated above, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data to respond to a request. The City cannot provide to Mr. Musgjerd data that it does not have.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, the scope of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request is very broad - all records associated with/used to generate the invoice. The Commissioner is of the opinion that in response to this request, the City should have provided a copy of the contract between Waste Management and Greenwood, as well as a copy of the City Council vote authorizing payment to Waste Management. If Greenwood does not possess these records, the City may not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, which requires government entities to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Musgjerd raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears the City of Greenwood did not fully respond to a request to inspect all public information associated with the invoice for all records associated with the invoice for Spring Cleanup - 1998.&apos;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 16, 2001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267945</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-010</Title><title>Opinion 01 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266536&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 2001; Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of DCFL, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 13, 2000, IPA received comments from Thomas Lombard, Manager of DCFL&apos;s Division of Accountability and Compliance.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X wrote that since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested public and private data from DCFL. X added that since August 1, 2000, s/he has been asked repeatedly to identify him/herself, state reasons for, and justify his/her request(s) for public data. X named several DCFL employees who have directly violated this statute. X identified two specific incidents, one on November 13, 2000, and one on November 16, 2000, in which DCFL employees asked X to identify him/herself.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X also stated that Mr. Lombard has required X to put any requests in writing and to identify him/herself. X wrote that s/he has put requests in writing but has told the DCFL that its actions were illegal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Lombard disputed X&apos;s assertions. He stated, No one at DCFL has required [X] to identify [him/herself] or justify the reason for the request in order to gain access to the data. He wrote that X often identified him/herself in communications with DCFL, that X often requested private data (which requires identification), and that many of X&apos;s communications were not requests for data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Lombard also wrote that in following standard office practice, DCFL staff may ask a caller, Who is on the line? or What is this call about? prior to knowing that an individual is calling to request access to public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Mr. Lombard allowed that certain situations may require DCFL to obtain identifying information in order to facilitate access to the data. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If a requestor wants the data sent to him/her, the agency must know where to send the documents. Also, an agency may want to follow-up with an individual to make sure that the data was sent. Further, an agency may be entitled to payment for copies of documents and will need to know how to collect. In these circumstances, an agency may ask the individual for identifying information. As long as the agency provides an alternative way to accommodate the data request if the requestor declines to provide the information, there is no violation of law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. Mr. Lombard asserts that no one at DCFL has required such information from X. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that a government entity cannot require individuals making requests for public data to identify themselves or to justify their requests, unless the entity requires such information to facilitate a response. If DCFL employees requested identifying information and/or justifications for any requests, DCFL is in violation of Chapter 13. If DCFL employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A couple of additional comments are in order. Mr. Lombard is correct that in some situations it may be necessary for an entity to obtain identifying information about a requestor. For instance, if an individual wants copies of data mailed to him/her, it is necessary for the entity to obtain the person&apos;s name and address. However, if an individual does not want to provide such information, it is up to the entity and the individual to work out a mutually agreeable solution. For instance, if an individual wants copies of data, but does not want to provide a name and mailing address, the entity could place the data in an envelope and require that the individual pick up the information during regular business hours. The requestor then would be able to obtain the data without identifying him/herself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, in the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will have some effect on such policies. Clearly, government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning (DCFL) to ask the requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether DCFL asked the requestor to provide identifying information or justification for the request(s). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 16, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266536</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-009</Title><title>Opinion 01 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267553&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-12T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for Intermediate District 287 to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 12, 2001; Intermediate District 287</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 17, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Intermediate School District 287.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Lobben, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 4, 2000, IPA received a response from Ann R. Goering, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X, since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested access to public and private data maintained by the District. X stated: [s]ince August 1, 2000, I have been repeatedly required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data. X identified several District employees whom X says requested that information. X stated that in August 2000, Superintendent Lobben, the District&apos;s responsible authority, demanded that I put all my data requests in writing, which is clearly a violation of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subdivision 12, since he required that I identify myself and provided no alternative that would not require disclosure of my identity.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering stated the District never asked X her/his reasons for requesting public data. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Earlier this month, [X] telephoned the District and asked to speak to the Superintendent. He was not available. [X] was asked [his/her] name in order for a message to be taken. [X] refused to say who [s/he] was and continued to demand to speak to someone who was not there. It cannot reasonably be argued that a violation of the MGDPA occurs whenever a public entity asks someone&apos;s name for the purpose of taking a message. Moreover, the District may need the name of an individual in order to respond to a request for data that is not immediately accessible, as in the case of [X&apos;s] requests. The statute specifically states: &lt;i&gt;A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.&lt;/i&gt; Minn. Stat section 13.05 Subd. 12. Asking the name of a caller who wants to speak to an employee cannot reasonably be viewed as a violation of the MGDPA. [Emphasis provided.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Notwithstanding the provisions of the MGDPA, Intermediate School District 287 reserves the right to require individuals who have made hostile, demanding and repetitive calls to staff members to make future communications in writing. This is particularly true where there is a documented history of the individual mischaracterizing the content of telephone conversations and the District has the need of a record of the communication to protect it from false allegations.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In the present case, the District has required [X] to communicate in writing since August due to conduct and communications unrelated to any request for government data. Therefore, the District&apos;s actions cannot reasonably be construed to be a violation of the MGDPA.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for Intermediate District 287 to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to state her/his reasons for requesting data. The District denies that assertion. According to the District, X was asked for identification in order to take a message. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If District employees requested identifying information and/or justification for any data requests, they are in violation of Chapter 13. If District employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data to requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will affect such policies. Clearly government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data. In addition, a written record of data requests can reduce disagreements over compliance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District states that, due to the nature of its past association with X, it now requires X to contact the District only in writing. On its face, that requirement appears to violate section 13.05, subdivision 12, because X would, by necessity, have to identify her/himself each time s/he contacted the District. However, given the history of its contacts with X, as described by the District, the Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the District to place that restriction upon X&apos;s contacts with the District, including X&apos;s requests for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature enacted section 13.05, subdivision 12, in large part to facilitate public access to government data, by eliminating artificial barriers that discourage access. However, in situations like this one, it appears that the District is not demanding that X make his/her data requests in writing in order to discourage those requests, but rather out of concern that there be absolute clarity as to what data X is asking the District to provide, and to avoid further disagreement about how the District is required to respond. It is unfortunate, but, in our view, does not amount to an artificial barrier to access to data. Therefore, in very limited situations such as this, we believe that the District may require that X contact it only in writing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for School District 287 to ask the requestor to identify him/herself and to provide reasons for the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the District asked the requestor to provide identifying information or reasons for the request(s). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 12, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267553</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Facilitate public access</Title><Id>266586</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:32:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-008</Title><title>Opinion 01 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267968&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-12T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for School District 273, Edina, to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 12, 2001; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On November 17, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 273, Edina.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kenneth A. Dragseth, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 14, 2000, IPA received a response from Ann R. Goering, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to X, since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested access to public and private data maintained by the District. X stated: [s]ince August 1, 2000, I have been required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data. X identified several District employees whom X says requested that information. X stated that in August 2000, Superintendent Dragseth, the District&apos;s responsible authority, demanded that I put my data requests in writing, which is clearly a violation of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subdivision 12, since he required that I identify myself and provided no alternative that would not require disclosure of my identity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;X stated: [o]n November 16, 2000, I again attempted to reach the responsible authority at the Edina Schools to obtain public data. I stated that I was seeking public data. Several employees again directly violated MN Statute 13.05, Subd. 12 by demanding to know who I was. Even after I declined to identify myself and cited the statute, they persisted in demanding my identity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering stated that X has never been asked to justify [X&apos;s] reasons for requesting data. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X] has in the past made numerous phone calls to the District. When the person s/he was calling was not available, s/he was asked to provide [her/his] name, a telephone number where s/he could return the call, and a message. This was not done with the purpose of denying [X] access to data, but to assist in responding to [X]. On the same date as [X&apos;s] letter to you requesting this opinion, in a transparent attempt to set up the District for an alleged MGDPA violation, [X] called the District demanding to speak to the Superintendent. He was not available. [X] was asked [his/her] name in order for a message to be taken. [X] refused to say who [s/he] was and continued to demand to speak to someone who was not there. It cannot reasonably be argued that a violation of the MGDPA occurs whenever a public entity asks someone&apos;s name for the purpose of taking a message. Moreover, the District may need the name of an individual in order to respond to a request for data that is not immediately accessible. The statute specifically states: &lt;em&gt;A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.&lt;/em&gt; Minn. Stat section 13.05 Subd. 12. Asking the name of a caller who wants to speak to an employee cannot reasonably be viewed as a violation of the MGDPA. [Emphasis provided.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of the MGDPA, Independent School District 273 reserves the right to require individuals who have made hostile, demanding and repetitive calls to staff members to make future communications in writing. This is particularly true where there is a documented history of the individual mischaracterizing the content of telephone conversations and the District has the need of a record of the communication to protect it from false allegations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the present case, the District has required [X] to communicate in writing since August due to conduct and communications unrelated to any request for government data. Therefore, the District&apos;s actions cannot reasonably be construed to be a violation of the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for School District 273, Edina, to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. The District denies that assertion. According to the District, X was asked for identification in order to take a message. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If District employees requested identifying information and/or justification for any data requests, they are in violation of Chapter 13. If District employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data to requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will affect such policies. Clearly government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data. In addition, a written record of data requests can reduce disagreements over compliance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The District states that, due to the nature of its past association with X, it now requires X to contact the District only in writing. On its face, that requirement appears to violate section 13.05, subdivision 12, because X would, by necessity, have to identify her/himself each time s/he contacted the District. However, given the history of its contacts with X, as described by the District, the Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the District to place that restriction upon X&apos;s contacts with the District, including X&apos;s requests for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Legislature enacted section 13.05, subdivision 12, in large part to facilitate public access to government data, by eliminating artificial barriers that discourage access. However, in situations like this one, it appears that the District is not demanding that X make his/her data requests in writing in order to discourage those requests, but rather out of concern that there be absolute clarity as to what data X is asking the District to provide, and to avoid further disagreement about how the District is required to respond. It is unfortunate, but, in our view, does not amount to an artificial barrier to access to data. Therefore, in very limited situations such as this, we believe that the District may require that X contact it only in writing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for School District 273, Edina, to ask the requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the District asked the requestor to provide identifying information or justification for the request(s).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 12, 2001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267968</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-007</Title><title>Opinion 01 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266524&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-12T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Human Services to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 12, 2001; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 17, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS&apos;s position. On December 5, 2000, IPA received a response from Marsha Eldot Devine, Assistant Attorney General. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X, since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested access to public and private data maintained by DHS. X stated: [s]ince August 1, 2000, I have been repeatedly required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data. X identified several DHS employees whom X says requested that information. X also stated that in August, 2000, a particular DHS employee demanded that I put all my data requests in writing, which is clearly a violation of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subdivision 12, since she required that I identify myself and provided no alternative that would not require disclosure of my identity.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X also asserted that on November 16, 2000, X told an employee in Commissioner O&apos;Keefe&apos;s office that X was calling to obtain public data and the employee demanded to know who I was.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Eldot Devine recounted the history, over several months, of X&apos;s data practices requests to DHS, in which X voluntarily and without solicitation provided his/her full name and address.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In regard to X&apos;s assertions that various DHS staff asked for X&apos;s identification, Ms. Eldot Devine stated that it is common practice for DHS staff to ask the identity of persons who telephone Commissioner O&apos;Keefe.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Eldot Devine did not directly address whether, in fact, DHS requires X to make all of his/her data requests in writing. According to Ms. Eldot Devine, DHS has designated an employee to to represent DHS in all contacts from and concerning X. That delegation, which originated in 1998, was prompted by DHS&apos;s concern for the safety and security of employees at DHS, after X had engaged in inappropriate interactions with DHS staff . . . . She referred to a letter sent to X by DHS in which X was reminded that the staff person was the designated contact for X at DHS, but it is not clear if, in that letter, X was directed to make all data requests to DHS in writing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Eldot Devine stated that the decision to delegate one staff person as X&apos;s contact at DHS was not prompted by X&apos;s data practices requests, nor was it continued for that reason. The letter of August 25, 2000, which was sent to X to remind [X] of this delegation was simply a continuation of an already existing directive. Contrary to X&apos;s claim, X has never been forced to identify [him/herself] and provided with no alternatives that would not require disclosure of [X&apos;s] identity.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, is it appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Human Services to ask a data requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. DHS denies that assertion, and states that X has voluntarily provided his/her identification. Also, DHS states that X was asked for identification in order to take a message or convey X&apos;s concerns to the appropriate person. In some of those cases, according to Ms. Eldot Devine, X was not making a data practices request when asked for identification. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If DHS employees requested identifying information and/or justification for any data requests, they are in violation of Chapter 13. If DHS employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data to requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will affect such policies. Clearly government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data. In addition, a written record of data requests can reduce disagreements over compliance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding DHS&apos;s designation of a specific person to deal with X&apos;s data requests, the Commissioner has the following comments. DHS stated that due to the nature of its past association with X, it has designated a specific person to whom X must direct all data practices requests. This is not a violation of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear if DHS requires X to contact the point person only in writing. On its face, such a requirement would appear to violate section 13.05, subdivision 12, because X would, by necessity, have to identify her/himself each time s/he contacted DHS. However, given the history of its contacts with X, as described by DHS, the Commissioner believes it would be reasonable for DHS to place that restriction upon X&apos;s contacts with DHS, including X&apos;s requests for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature enacted section 13.05, subdivision 12, in large part to facilitate public access to government data, by eliminating artificial barriers that discourage access. However, in situations like this one, if DHS does require X to make all his/her data requests in writing, it appears that DHS is not doing so in order to discourage those requests, but rather out of concern that there be absolute clarity as to what data X is asking DHS to provide, and to avoid further disagreement about how DHS is required to respond. It is unfortunate, but, in our view, does not amount to an artificial barrier to access to data. Therefore, in very limited situations such as this, we believe that DHS may require that X contact it only in writing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12, when an individual requests access to public data, it is not appropriate for the Minnesota Department of Human Services to ask the requestor to identify him/herself and to justify the request. However, in this case, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether DHS asked the requestor to provide identifying information or justification for the request(s). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        David F. Fisher
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 12, 2001
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266524</id><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-006</Title><title>Opinion 01 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267393&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for access to the following data: weekly timesheets for certain employees of the Department?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 12, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 24, 2000, IPA received a letter dated October 20, 2000, from Julie Kramer, WCCO-TV. In her letter, Ms. Kramer requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding WCCO&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Weaver, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Ms. Kramer&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Kramer&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On November 6, 2000, IPA received a response, dated November 2, 2000, from Commissioner Weaver.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Ms. Kramer is as follows. She wrote, On October 16, I requested copies of weekly timesheets for several Minnesota Public Safety employees. Ms. Kramer stated that DPS denied her request, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security information. She wrote, [DPS staff] said, because these employees provide protection for the governor, their timesheets are considered security information.&apos; Ms. Kramer argued that much of the information DPS refuses to provide has already been published in the media, e.g., number of people assigned to executive protection, and the hours the Governor is protected.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kramer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for access to the following data: weekly timesheets for certain employees of the Department? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data about employees. Subdivision 2 (8) of section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public: payroll timesheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Commissioner Weaver wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...The release of timesheets for the officers protecting the Governor would endanger the Governor&apos;s safety by detailing the days of the week, times of day and number of officers protecting the governor at any given time. Information on the security staffing patterns for the governor would enable those intending to harm the governor to determined [sic] when he is most vulnerable....the timesheets were determined to be nonpublic, security information under Minn. Stat. 13.37 Subd.2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public. Security information is defined as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature did not define substantially jeopardize. In an attempt to clarify this term and the applicable language in section 13.37, the Commissioner reviewed various statutes, laws, and case law but was unable to locate anything specifically applicable to the situation at hand. Because the Commissioner is not comfortable with the broad discretion seemingly available to government entities in using the security data provision to deny access to data, he intends to present this issue to the 2001 Legislature, in hopes that they will clarify the language. This is a particularly prudent time for the Commissioner to seek legislative guidance because, in addition to the issues raised in this opinion, he is aware of several recent instances in which government entities have used the security data provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, the issue raised by Ms. Kramer remains. The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor&apos;s security detail, and for protecting the Governor&apos;s person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See &lt;i&gt;Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership&lt;/i&gt;, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); &lt;i&gt;In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T.&lt;/i&gt;, 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination. As stated above, we recognize a need for legislative clarification regarding the security information provision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kramer raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and under the circumstances of this case, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety responded appropriately to a request for access to the following data: weekly timesheets for certain employees of the Department.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kirsten Cecil
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Deputy Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 12, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267393</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-001</Title><title>Opinion 00 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267323&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, would it violate the rights of data subjects if the City of Tyler City Council discussed certain data relating to a housing rehabilitation loan program at a City Council meeting open to the public? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 6, 2000; City of Tyler</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 15, 1999, IPA received a letter dated November 10, 1999, from Leland Bush, an attorney representing the City of Tyler. In his letter, Mr. Bush asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the treatment of certain data that are to be discussed in an open meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts that Mr. Bush submitted is as follows. The City is a past participant in a Department of Trade and Economic Development Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. Consequently, the City has issued a variety of Housing Rehabilitation Contracts to homeowners. The City needs to discuss various loans and applicants at a City Council meeting. Mr. Bush described some of the circumstances that the City may need to discuss:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A homeowner and program participant who requests to have his loan totally or partially forgiven, even though under the terms of the loan document it would not be eligible for that treatment. For example, the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A homeowner who vacated his home before the requisite waiting period because of medical reasons;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A homeowner who has violated the terms of the agreement and vacated the home prematurely, but did not inform the City, and the requisite occupancy period has now expired;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A homeowner who is inquiring about the prospect of repaying the loan, but repaying the loan over time rather than in a lump sum;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A homeowner who violates the terms of the grant/loan agreement and intends to pay off the loan in full, but requests that the City grant a Satisfaction of Mortgage;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A homeowner who is refinancing his loan, and seeks to obtain a subordination of his existing loan with the City.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bush further wrote, The City is concerned on one hand about its obligation to comply with the requirements of the open meeting law, and on the other hand to comply with the requirements of protecting the privacy of the program participants.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bush asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, would it violate the rights of data subjects if the City of Tyler City Council discussed certain data relating to a housing rehabilitation loan program at a City Council meeting open to the public?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Meetings of the Tyler City Council are subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705. Subdivision 1d of section 471.705 provides for the treatment of not public data that are discussed at a public meeting. Clause (a) states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Except as provided in this section, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data. Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this section without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The remainder of section 471.705, subdivision 1d, sets forth the various situations in which it is legal to close a public meeting. Clause (b) states that any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by other law or if the following types of data are discussed: (1) identifying data about alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults; (2) active investigative data or internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct; or (3) not public educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clause (c) states that a public body must close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. Clause (d) states that a public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. Clause (e) states that meetings may be closed if expressly authorized by statute or permitted by the attorney-client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information Mr. Bush provided, it appears that some of the data in question are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.31, benefit data. However, even if these housing rehabilitation loan data are not public, the City cannot close a meeting to discuss them; they do not fit into any of the exceptions outlined in section 471.705, subdivision 1d.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Bush is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, it would not violate the rights of data subjects if the City of Tyler City Council discussed certain data relating to a housing rehabilitation loan program at a City Council meeting open to the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 6, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267323</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:23:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-003</Title><title>Opinion 01 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267245&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-05T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 270, Hopkins, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 3, 2001; School District 270 (Hopkins)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 20, 2000, Mike Herbst sent an email to bobbi_mclaird@hopkins.k12.mn.us requesting four different data elements. Mr. Herbst had received this email address by calling the secretary to the superintendent of School District 270 (Hopkins) and asking for the name, email and fax number of the individual in charge of information dissemination to [sic] the district. The data elements he requested were: (1) the districts [sic] data retention list; (2) teacher and administrator turnover rates for the last seven years; (3) the number of teachers and administrators previously employed by District 276; and (4) the administrator in charge of the information requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                When Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 email, he forwarded the message to the superintendent of Hopkins on November 3, 2000. It is not possible to tell what email address was used for the November 3, 2000 email because it does not display in the copy of the email forwarded by Mr. Herbst. Mr. Herbst has not received a response to either email.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 21, 2000, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion about the appropriateness of Hopkins&apos;s response to his request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 1, 2000, Donald Gemberling of the Information Policy Analysis Division sent a letter to Mr. Michael Kremer, the superintendent of Hopkins, informing him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and offering Hopkins the opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 19, 2000, a response was received from Karen Janisch, attorney for Hopkins. In her response, Ms. Janisch provided a copy of the records retention schedule as Mr. Herbst had not provided his mailing address; indicated that Mr. Herbst had spoken with Dr. Ross Moen of Hopkins on an unspecified date after October 20, 2000 and that Dr. Moen had indicated that turnover and previous employment data did not exist; and that the request for the name of the administrator was vague as most of the data were not maintained. No further explanation of Hopkins&apos;s handling of this data request was offered.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 270, Hopkins, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, it seems best to address each data element requested by Mr. Herbst and evaluate Hopkins&apos;s response. The first data element is for Hopkins&apos;s data retention list. Although Hopkins has provided a copy of the records retention schedule as part of its response to the request for an advisory opinion, the only explanation it offers for doing so is that Mr. Herbst did not provide an address to which it could be mailed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is difficult to understand why Hopkins believes that it had no obligation to forward the records retention schedule to Mr. Herbst. It is not as if Hopkins had no way to communicate with Mr. Herbst. They could have sent him an email asking for his address or they could have asked him for his address during his conversation with Dr. Moen. Hopkins has not responded appropriately to this first data request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second and third requests are for data about turnover rates and Hopkins employees who were previously employed in District 276. Dr. Moen did provide a response to Mr. Herbst during their telephone conversation and indicated that the data did not exist. While a written response is not required by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, it is a good business practice to document responses to data requests to prevent future disputes. Hopkins did respond appropriately to the second and third requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fourth request was for the name of the administrator in charge of the data requested. Hopkins has indicated that the request was vague. If a government entity does not understand a request for data, it should ask for a clarification. If Hopkins did not want to request clarification, the appropriate response would have been that there was no administrator because the data were not maintained. By failing to respond at all, Hopkins has not responded appropriately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 2 and 13.05, subdivision 8, government entities such as Hopkins are required to have procedures in place to respond to requests for access to government data. It appears that no such procedures are in place as Mr. Herbst did not receive a uniform response to his October 20, 2000 request for data. Model policies and procedures are available for Hopkins to use. One set is available from the Minnesota School Boards Association and another has been developed by the Department of Administration and is available on the Web at www.ipad.state.mn.us. Hopefully, these will be of assistance to Hopkins.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, Hopkins did respond appropriately to two of the data requests and did not respond appropriately to the other two.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 270, Hopkins, did respond appropriately to two of the data elements requested and did not respond as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 to the other two elements in the October 20, 2000 request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kirsten Cecil
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Deputy Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 5, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267245</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-005</Title><title>Opinion 01 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267480&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-05T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did MnSCU respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data within the time frame set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?
Was MnSCU&apos;s February 22, 2000, response to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data appropriate?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 5, 2001; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 1, 2000, the Commissioner received a letter dated October 31, 2000, from Christina Clark, attorney for Education Minnesota, on behalf of X. In her letter, Ms. Clark requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the possibility that Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) violated X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Subsequent to conversations with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would address the issues listed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Morris Anderson, Chancellor of MnSCU, in response to Ms. Clark&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 16, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Clark&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MnSCU&apos;s position. On November 28, 2000, IPA received comments, dated November 27, 2000, from Kristine Legler Kaplan, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Clark is as follows. On January 4, 2000, X made a request to Northwest Technical College (part of MnSCU), This letter is follow-up to the message that I sent via Email yesterday regarding my request and permission that a complete copy of my personnel file be sent to John DeSantis [union staff]....Please include all additional personnel information regarding me that may be filed in other files in your office....I would also like to request a complete copy for my records as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 13, 2000, MnSCU staff sent data to Mr. DeSantis. Staff wrote, Enclosed you will find copies of [X&apos;s] various files that we have.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Clark wrote, On February 22, 2000, upon a further request, the employer furnished copies of six documents which the originally provided personnel file did not contain. Ms. Clark provided the Commissioner with a copy of MnSCU&apos;s letter that accompanied the data. MnSCU staff wrote, Enclosed please find additional information provided in response to [X&apos;s] January 4, 2000, data request. This information is maintained in Dean [X&apos;s] supervisory file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the six documents, Ms. Clark advised the Commissioner that MnSCU had redacted four. Ms. Clark also related that MnSCU staff advised her only that the items that are crossed out do not pertain to [X] and as such have been properly redacted. Ms. Clark contended that MnSCU should have provided a statutory citation relating to the redacted data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Clark asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did MnSCU respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data within the time frame set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Was MnSCU&apos;s February 22, 2000, response to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data appropriate?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt; Did MnSCU respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data within the time frame set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a January 4, 2000, letter, X asked for a copy of his/her complete personnel file, adding that s/he wanted all additional personnel information regarding me that may be filed in other files in your office. In this letter, X wrote that s/he gave permission for MnSCU to provide a copy of this information to X&apos;s representative. MnSCU&apos;s January 13, 2000, response was within the statutorily-mandated time frame. However, MnSCU then forwarded additional data on February 22, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kaplan related that the data MnSCU provided on January 13 were the official&apos; personnel file, as defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement at Article 24, Section 1, and as requested, other miscellaneous files maintained by the Human Resources Department. She added, The College did not include all personnel data that existed on X,&apos; including a supervisor&apos;s file maintained by Dean Y&apos; that was not part of the official&apos; personnel file under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ms. Kaplan also wrote, The facts...present a threshold issue on the extent to which [Chapter 13] or the Collective Bargaining Agreement controls the access to information. She then argued, There is nothing in the January 4 request that reasonably puts MnSCU on notice that it was intended to be a comprehensive request under [Chapter 13] for all personnel information about X&apos; in any location.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the issue is whether MnSCU&apos;s February 22 response was timely. Ms. Kaplan argued that the February 22 response contained data that were maintained in a supervisory file as opposed to a personnel file. The Commissioner opines that this is irrelevant. As stated above, section 13.04 requires government entities to respond to data subjects&apos; requests within ten days. Chapter 13 does not provide for a different response time when data requestors are covered by collective bargaining agreements. From the Commissioner&apos;s perspective, X&apos;s request seems clear; a copy of his/her complete personnel file as well as all additional personnel information regarding me that may be filed in other files in your office. If MnSCU was confused about X&apos;s request, someone should have obtained clarification from X within the ten day period. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that MnSCU&apos;s response to X was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Was MnSCU&apos;s February 22, 2000, response to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data appropriate?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Clark argued that four of the six documents MnSCU provided to X on February 22 were improperly redacted. She added, According to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, upon the employee&apos;s request the employer must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Kaplan wrote that MnSCU redacted some data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6. The Commissioner does not agree that MnSCU can use this section as a basis upon which to deny access to data. Section 13.43, subdivision 6, sets forth the situations in which an entity may provide data to labor organizations when the entity does not have consent from the data subject to share the data. In the case at hand, it appears that X gave MnSCU his/her permission to share the data with X&apos;s labor representative.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kaplan wrote also that the redactions were appropriate for other reasons. Regarding one document, a letter from students whose signatures MnSCU redacted, she cited section 13.32 and federal law stating that the identities of the students are private data. Regarding the other three documents, she cited section 13.43, stating that the redactions consisted of identities and other private personnel data about other employees who were commenting about X&apos;s work. Ms. Kaplan added, MnSCU acknowledges that it should have provided the statutory citations justifying the redactions...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has reviewed the four documents and has the following comments. The letter from the students expresses their concerns about X as their instructor. Although MnSCU redacted the students&apos; signatures, MnSCU did not redact the names of the classes those students attend. Most data about students are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3. Given the subject matter of the letter and the context under which the letter was created, it seems appropriate that MnSCU redacted the students&apos; names.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kaplan asserted that the data redacted from the remaining three documents was done so pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of data about employees that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types as private. In this case, because the Commissioner has not seen the unredacted documents and does not know the specifics of the situation involving X&apos;s issues with Northwest Technical College, he is not in a position to determine, with certainty, whether MnSCU&apos;s redactions are appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner agrees with Ms. Kaplan that when MnSCU refused to disclose some of the data to X (by redaction), MnSCU should have provided X with the statutory citations upon which it relied to deny access to the data. See section 13.03, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Clark is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MnSCU did not respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s January 4, 2000, request for data within the time frame set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, in its February 22, 2000, response, MnSCU should have provided X with the statutory citations upon which MnSCU denied X access to data. It was not appropriate for MnSCU to withhold data from X pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6. It appears MnSCU appropriately withheld student names pursuant to section 13.32. The Commissioner is unable to determine whether MnSCU appropriately withheld data from X pursuant to section 13.43.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kirsten Cecil
&lt;br /&gt;
Deputy Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 5, 2001&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267480</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data)</Title><Id>266980</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)</Title><Id>266738</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:10:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-004</Title><title>Opinion 01 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267568&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School Disrict 284., Wayzata, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 5, 2001; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 20, 2000, Mike Herbst sent an email to lbalombiny@wayzata.k12.mn.us requesting four different data elements. Mr. Herbst had received this email address by calling the secretary to the superintendent of School District 284 (Wayzata) and asking for the name, email and fax number of the individual in charge of information dissemination to [sic] the district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                When Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 email, he forwarded the message to the superintendent of Wayzata on November 3, 2000. It is not possible to tell what email address was used for the November 3, 2000 email because it does not display in the copy of the email forwarded by Mr. Herbst. Mr. Herbst has not received a response to either email.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 21, 2000, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion about the appropriateness of Wayzata&apos;s response to his request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 1, 2000, Donald Gemberling of the Information Policy Analysis Division sent a letter to Dr. Paul Beilfuss, the superintendent of Wayzata, informing him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and offering Wayzata the opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 15, 2000, a response was received from Gloria Olsen, attorney for Wayzata. In her response, Ms. Olsen indicated that Wayzata had not received either of Mr. Herbst&apos;s emails. She further indicated that Wayzata was not aware of having provided an incorrect email address to Mr. Herbst.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                After receiving the notice of a request for an advisory opinion, Dr. Beilfuss sent Mr. Herbst an email on December 7, 2000 informing him that the emails had not been received and that the addresses that had been used by Mr. Herbst were incorrect. The December 7, 2000 email did not respond to any of Mr. Herbst&apos;s requests.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Olsen&apos;s response on behalf of Wayzata included information that was responsive to Mr. Herbst&apos;s requests. Ms. Olsen provided the name of Wayzata&apos;s data practices compliance official and indicated that teacher/administrator turnover rates and information about where teachers or administrators worked before being employed by Wayzata were not data maintained by Wayzata. Ms. Olsen also requested clarification of what was meant by Mr. Herbst&apos;s request for the district data retention list. The response did not address why this information had not been provided directly to Mr. Herbst.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School Disrict 284., Wayzata, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The discussion of the issue presented in this advisory opinion must follow two paths: one that assumes that Mr. Herbst received an incorrect email address from Wayzata personnel and the second that assumes that Mr. Herbst somehow erred in entering the email address on his emails directed to Wayzata.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If Mr. Herbst received an incorrect email address from Wayzata in response to his inquiry on October 20, 2000, then Wayzata needs to take corrective steps to ensure that accurate data are provided to those that inquire. According to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 2 and 13.05, subdivision 8, government entities such as Wayzata are required to have procedures in place to respond to requests for access to government data. It appears that no such procedures are in place as Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 request for data. Model policies and procedures are available for Wayzata to use. One set is available from the Minnesota School Boards Association and another has been developed by the Department of Administration and is available on the Web at www.ipad.state.mn.us. Hopefully, these will be of assistance to Wayzata.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If, on the other hand, Mr. Herbst did not enter the correct address when sending either the October 20, 2000 or the November 3, 2000 emails, then Wayzata did not receive a request for data and has no obligation to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is also appropriate to address an issue raised in Wayzata&apos;s response. Wayzata is not certain what constitutes the data retention list requested by Mr. Herbst. When a government entity receives a request that is not clear, its obligation is to ask the requester for clarification. As Wayzata develops procedures, a method for handling requests that need clarification should be included.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is not possible to tell whether School District 284, Wayzata, responded as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 to the October 20, 2000 request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kirsten Cecil
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Deputy Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 5, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267568</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-002</Title><title>Opinion 01 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266578&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 283, St. Louis Park, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 3, 2001; School District 283 (St. Louis Park)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 20, 2000, Mike Herbst sent an email to lerdall.elaine@slpschools.org requesting five different data elements. Mr. Herbst had received this email address by calling the secretary to the superintendent of School District 283 (St. Louis Park) and asking for the name, email and fax number of the individual in charge of information dissemination to [sic] the district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                When Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 email, he forwarded the message to the superintendent of St. Louis Park on November 3, 2000. It is not possible to tell what email address was used for the November 3, 2000 email because it does not display in the copy of the email forwarded by Mr. Herbst. Mr. Herbst has not received a response to either email.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 21, 2000, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion about the appropriateness of St. Louis Park&apos;s response to his request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 1, 2000, Donald Gemberling of the Information Policy Analysis Division sent a letter to Ms. Barbara Pulliam, the superintendent of St. Louis Park, informing her of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and offering St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;
              On December 15, 2000, a response was received from Marie C. Skinner, attorney for St. Louis Park. In her response, Ms. Skinner does not address the lack of response by St. Louis Park but rather responds to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request for data.
            &lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 283, St. Louis Park, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is nothing in the response offered by St. Louis Park that explains why Mr. Herbst has not received a direct response to his request for data. The response states: It is the policy of the St. Louis Park School District to comply with all state and federal laws with respect to government data. There is nothing, however, that explains why St. Louis Park did not comply in this instance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 2 and 13.05, subdivision 8, government entities such as St. Louis Park are required to have procedures in place to respond to requests for access to government data. It appears that no such procedures are in place as Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 request for data. Model policies and procedures are available for St. Louis Park to use. One set is available from the Minnesota School Boards Association and another has been developed by the Department of Administration and is available on the Web at www.ipad.state.mn.us. Hopefully, these will be of assistance to St. Louis Park.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is also appropriate to address the issues raised in St. Louis Park&apos;s response. First, St. Louis Park is not certain what constitutes the data retention list requested by Mr. Herbst. When a government entity receives a request that is not clear, its obligation is to ask the requester for clarification. As St. Louis Park develops procedures, a method for handling requests that need clarification should be included.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, teacher and administrator turnover rates and where teachers and administrators were employed before reaching St. Louis Park are not maintained by the District. The appropriate response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request would have been to so inform him. Nothing in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 requires government entities to produce data they don&apos;t have, but they are required to inform the requester that it is not available. A method for notifying requesters when data do not exist should be included in St. Louis Park&apos;s procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, by not responding to Mr. Herbst&apos;s requests, St. Louis Park is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. St. Louis Park is strongly encouraged to develop policies and procedures to assist staff in responding to future data requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 283, St. Louis Park, did not respond at all to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request for access to data that was made on October 20, 2000 and so did not respond appropriately pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Kirsten Cecil
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Deputy Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 3, 2001
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266578</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 01-001</Title><title>Opinion 01 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266674&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2001-01-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 3, 2001; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 20, 2000, Mike Herbst sent an email to cwilkinson@edenpr.org requesting five different data elements. Mr. Herbst had received this email address by calling the secretary to the superintendent of School District 272 (Eden Prairie) and asking for the name, email and fax number of the individual in charge of information dissemination to [sic] the district.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                When Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 email, he forwarded the message to the superintendent of Eden Prairie on November 3, 2000. It is not possible to tell what email address was used for the November 3, 2000 email because it does not display in the copy of the email forwarded by Mr. Herbst. Mr. Herbst has not received a response to either email.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 21, 2000, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion about the appropriateness of Eden Prairie&apos;s response to his request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 1, 2000, Donald Gemberling of the Information Policy Analysis Division sent a letter to Dr. William Gaslin, the superintendent of Eden Prairie, informing him of Mr. Herbst&apos;s request and offering Eden Prairie the opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 15, 2000, a response was received from Marie C. Skinner, attorney for Eden Prairie. In her response, Ms. Skinner does not address the lack of response by Eden Prairie but rather responds to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a request to access data made on October 20, 2000?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is nothing in the response offered by Eden Prairie that explains why Mr. Herbst has not received a direct response to his request for data. The response states: It is the policy of the Eden Prairie School District to comply with all state and federal laws with respect to government data. There is nothing, however, that explains why Eden Prairie did not comply in this instance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 2 and 13.05, subdivision 8, government entities such as Eden Prairie are required to have procedures in place to respond to requests for access to government data. It appears that no such procedures are in place as Mr. Herbst did not receive a response to his October 20, 2000 request for data. Model policies and procedures are available for Eden Prairie to use. One set is available from the Minnesota School Boards Association and another has been developed by the Department of Administration and is available on the Web at www.ipad.state.mn.us. Hopefully, these will be of assistance to Eden Prairie in developing procedures to assist all staff in responding to requests for data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is also appropriate to address the issues raised in Eden Prairie&apos;s response. First, Eden Prairie is not certain what constitutes the data retention list requested by Mr. Herbst. When a government entity receives a request that is not clear, its obligation is to ask the requester for clarification. As Eden Prairie develops procedures, a method for handling requests that need clarification should be included.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, teacher and administrator turnover rates and where teachers and administrators were employed before reaching Eden Prairie are not maintained by the District. The appropriate response to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request would have been to so inform him. Nothing in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 requires government entities to produce data they don&apos;t have, but they are required to inform the requester that it is not available. A method for notifying requesters when data do not exist should be included in Eden Prairie&apos;s procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, by not responding to Mr. Herbst&apos;s requests, Eden Prairie is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Eden Prairie is strongly encouraged to develop policies and procedures to assist staff in responding to future data requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 272, Eden Prairie, did not respond at all to Mr. Herbst&apos;s request for access to data that was made on October 20, 2000 and so did not respond appropriately pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Kirsten Cecil
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Deputy Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 3, 2001
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266674</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:31:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-079</Title><title>Opinion 00 079</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267544&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-29T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of ethics opinions/reviews/determinations that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations prepares pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.38?
If the ethics opinions are not public data, and a complaint or charge is made, or disciplinary action is taken regarding the same situation the Department reviewed in a previously-issued opinion, what is the classification of the previously-issued ethics opinion/review/determination?
What is the classification of the request for the ethics determination and other documents submitted for review that contain information about the individual who is the subject of the ethics review?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 29, 2000; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 2000, the Commissioner received a memo dated November 1, 2000, from Julien Carter, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER). In his memo, Commissioner Carter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that DOER maintains. On November 15, 2000, the Commissioner received another memo from Commissioner Carter, in which he asked the Commissioner (of Administration) to consider an additional issue in the advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Commissioner Carter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I am requesting your assistance in clarifying the status of ethics opinions prepared by my office. Under the Code of Ethics for Employees in the Executive Branch (M.S. 43A.38), the Commissioner of Employee Relations may be asked to review a situation and determine whether a statutory conflict of interest exists. The Commissioner may also initiate a review and make a determination, absent a specific request. My questions concern the public or non-public nature of these ethics reviews and determinations...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Carter asserted that he believes the data about employees or data in which employees are identified are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. He then raised his second question - if there is a complaint, charge or disciplinary action after the not public response is made but regarding the same situation, does DOER&apos;s information become public even though it was not prepared in response to the complaint or charge or as part of the disciplinary investigation?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his December 15, 2000, memo, Commissioner Carter wrote, Specifically, I would ask that your advisory opinion also address the data classification of the request for the ethics determination and other documents submitted for review that contain certain information about the subject of the ethics review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Carter asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of ethics opinions/reviews/determinations that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations prepares pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.38?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the ethics opinions are not public data, and a complaint or charge is made, or disciplinary action is taken regarding the same situation the Department reviewed in a previously-issued opinion, what is the classification of the previously-issued ethics opinion/review/determination?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of the request for the ethics determination and other documents submitted for review that contain information about the individual who is the subject of the ethics review?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of ethics opinions/reviews/determinations that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations prepares pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.38?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data, classifies the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Commissioner Carter discussed that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.38, he may be asked to review a situation or may initiate a review to determine whether a statutory conflict of interest exists. These inquiries involve employees of the executive branch.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 provides the types of employee data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of employee data as private. Therefore, when an employee is the subject of, and is identified as such, data contained in ethics opinions/reviews/determinations, those data are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Because such data are not contained in subdivision 2&apos;s list of public data, those data are private pursuant to subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Commissioner Carter wrote that there may be cases in which some of the data would be public if no individual is named or identifiable from the facts of the situation. The Commissioner agrees. Data contained in ethics opinions/reviews/determinations which are general in nature and of which specific employees are not the subject, are classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, and are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would like to emphasize, however, that if the data contained in ethics opinions are about an individual who is an elected official, the classification of those data depends on whether or not the elected official is an employee. See Commissioner of Administration Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267969&quot; title=&quot;99-043&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-043&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-049&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267448&quot; title=&quot;00-065&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-065&lt;/a&gt;. If the entity considers the elected official to be an employee, the data are classified at section 13.43. If the entity does not consider the elected official to be an employee, the data are public pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the ethics opinions are not public data, and a complaint or charge is made, or disciplinary action is taken regarding the same situation the Department reviewed in a previously-issued opinion, what is the classification of the previously-issued ethics opinion/review/determination?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an executive branch agency requests an ethics opinion from DOER, DOER issues an opinion and that opinion is on file in the requesting agency. The Commissioner assumes that DOER also maintains a copy of that opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the agency then uses the opinion in taking disciplinary action against the employee, the opinion becomes part of the disciplinary record. If the disciplinary action has reached a final disposition (see section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)), any data in the opinion that are specific reasons for the action or data documenting the basis of the action (see subdivision 2(a)(5)), are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the classification of those same data as maintained by DOER, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the data also are public. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, interpretation of statutes, requires that legislative enactments be interpreted reasonably and not in a way that would produce an absurd result. A copy of the same data, in this case a copy of an ethics opinion, should have the same classification in the hands of the issuing agency as it has in the hands of the receiving agency. To conclude otherwise would not be reasonable and clearly would be absurd.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the classification of the request for the ethics determination and other documents submitted for review that contain information about the individual who is the subject of the ethics review?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner stated in response to Issue 1, it is his opinion that data about employees contained in ethics opinions are classified pursuant to section 13.43. It is also his contention, therefore, that data about employees contained in opinion requests, as well as data contained in documentation submitted by the requestor, are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Thus, because such data are not contained in subdivision 2&apos;s list of public data, those data are private pursuant to subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data contained in opinion requests and accompanying documentation of which specific employees are not the subject are classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1, and are presumed public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Commissioner Carter raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data about employees contained in ethics opinions/reviews/determinations that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) prepares pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.38, are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4. Data not about employees in ethics opinions are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. The classification of data about elected officials in ethics opinions depends upon whether the elected official is considered to be an employee. If an entity does not consider an elected official to be an employee, the data are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If a final disposition has occurred pursuant to section Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), and the data in the ethics opinions are specific reasons for the action or data documenting the basis of the action (see subdivision 2(a)(5)), the data in the opinions are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data about employees contained in requests for ethics opinions and other documents submitted for review that contain information about the subject of the ethics review are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 4. Data not about employees in those documents are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 29, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267544</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Same data, different entities, different classification</Title><Id>266810</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Ethics opinions (DOER)</Title><Id>266694</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-078</Title><title>Opinion 00 078</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267457&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-29T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Hibbing respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: name and address of an individual, present at the scene of an alleged crime, whom the law enforcement agency regards as a potential suspect or perpetrator, when the individual has not been arrested, charged or cited at the time of the request for access to the data?
If, after the request for the data described above, the law enforcement agency determines that the potential suspect of perpetrator was not present at the scene, are the data classified under Chapter 13 such that public access may denied?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 29, 2000; City of Hibbing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;em&gt;Hibbing Daily News&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Hibbing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Tourville, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated November 9, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 22, 2000, IPA received a response from Richard K. Sellman, attorney for the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 15, 2000, an alleged assault occurred in Hibbing. The police were not called to the scene, but were contacted by the alleged victim the following day. Mr. Anfinson provided copies of two incident reports: Exhibit 1 contains more details, including the names of witnesses identified by the alleged victim; Exhibit 2 does not contain the identities of witnesses of the alleged assault.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Daily News&lt;/em&gt; learned of the incident and asked the Hibbing Police Department to provide her with access to so-called response or incident data, which are enumerated at section 13.82, subdivision 6. The Police Department provided the reporter a copy of Exhibit 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Anfinson:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In subsequent conversations with the police chief and the city attorney, the police department took the position that the identities of the alleged perpetrators (or suspects) were not public information, even though these people witnessed the incident. Rather, the identities were subject to the provisions of section 13.82, subd. 7 (criminal investigative data). At the time of the reporter&apos;s request, none of the suspects had been charged with respect to the incident at the bar. It also appears that one of the individuals who was initially identified as a suspect in the assault was later determined not to have been present at the bar, apparently owing to a misidentification. However, it is clear from the more detailed incident report enclosed as Exhibit 1 that the police did record that individual&apos;s name while obtaining information about the incident from the complainant, and that two individuals . . . witnessed the incident, and were listed as suspects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the newspaper&apos;s position that where a suspect (or alleged perpetrator) is present at the scene of a possible crime, that individual is at minimum a witness to the incident, and that therefore his or her identity is public under the provisions of section 13.82, subd. 6(g) regardless of whether the individual has been arrested, charged, or cited. This interpretation is based both on the express language of subdivision 6 and on the fact that nowhere else in section 13.82 is there a specific exception referring to a suspect or perpetrator that would seem sufficient to allow authorities to withhold the identity of an individual in that category who was also a possible witness.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Sellman stated that personnel in the Hibbing Police Department took notes as the alleged victim made his statement, and an officer was then assigned to investigate the complaint. The investigating officer further interviewed the alleged victim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Sellman, handwritten notes were taken down as the incident was [initially] reported which were later entered into a computer, which resulted in the incident report that was provided to the reporter (Exhibit 2.) The investigating officer who then interviewed the victim created the more detailed incident report (Exhibit 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sellman stated: [b]ecause the individuals named as suspects were running for local political offices and the department could be perceived as being bias [sic] in the investigation, . . . the Chief asked the St. Louis County Sheriff&apos;s Department to continue the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sellman further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Clearly Minnesota Statute 13.82, Subd. 6, does not apply to this situation as there was no agency response to the request for service or action initiated by the police department. [The] request was not for an agency&apos;s response but to report a crime. This would naturally lead to an investigation of the reported crime which is covered under [section 13.82, subdivision 7], and is [not public.] Reporting a crime is a request for (investigation) service under Subd. 3 which does not list for disclosure the names of witnesses or victims (or suspects).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . . There was no response by the Hibbing Police Department to a request for service and there were no actions taken by the Hibbing Police Department on its own initiative. The newspaper&apos;s request was rather under Subd. 3, Request for service data, being a request to investigate a reported criminal act. All of the information listed under Subd. 3 was provided the newspaper. The matter was then assigned for investigation. The investigation data is confidential or non public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Hibbing respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data: name and address of an individual, present at the scene of an alleged crime, whom the law enforcement agency regards as a potential suspect or perpetrator, when the individual has not been arrested, charged or cited at the time of the request for access to the data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If, after the request for the data described above, the law enforcement agency determines that the potential suspect of perpetrator was not present at the scene, are the data classified under Chapter 13 such that public access may denied?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7. (Subdivision 7 classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267401&quot; title=&quot;00-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-024&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267492&quot; title=&quot;00-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-025.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 3, certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents requests by the public for law enforcement services are public government data. Under subdivision 6, certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents the agency&apos;s response to a request for service . . . or which describes actions taken by the agency on its own initiative shall be public government data. Witnesses&apos; names and addresses are specified as public data under subdivision 6(g) (unless her/his identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 17), but are not specified under subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sellman stated that subdivision 3 is applicable to this situation, but subdivision 6 is not. We respectfully disagree. Here, the request for service was the report of a crime, and the Hibbing Police Department responded to that request by interviewing the alleged victim, and creating two incident reports. Although the Department determined it would not investigate the case itself, it did respond to the request for service by interviewing the victim, and created government data in the course of its response. Accordingly, the data specified at subdivision 6, including the names and addresses of witnesses not subject to protection under subdivision 17, are public upon creation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One further note is in order. Mr. Anfinson stated that in conversations with Police Department personnel, they took the position that the identities of the witnesses, because they were suspects, were confidential per subdivision 7 of section 13.82. It is reasonable to assume that witnesses to possible crimes are frequently also suspects. However, as discussed above, arrest, request for service, and response or incident data, including identities of witnesses, are always public. Subdivision 7 provides: [e]xcept for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data . . . is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Accordingly, the identity of an individual, &lt;u&gt;as a witness&lt;/u&gt;, is public under subdivision 6. A law enforcement agency is not obligated to disclose to the public that the individual is also a suspect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Hibbing did not respond appropriately when it denied a request for access to the name and address of a witness of an alleged crime. Unless the identity of a witness qualifies for protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17, the witness&apos;s name and address are public government data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(g).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Even if, after the request for the data described above, the law enforcement agency determines that the potential suspect or perpetrator was not present at the scene, the data are classified as public, as part of the response or incident data created in response to a request for service, according to section 13.82, subdivision 6. To meet its obligation under section 13.05, subdivision 5, that all data on individuals are accurate and complete, the Department may want to add a note to the file that acknowledges that an individual was incorrectly identified in the incident report as a witness.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 29, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267457</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-077</Title><title>Opinion 00 077</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267427&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625 (St. Paul) respond appropriately to a January 28, 2000 request for summary data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 29, 2000; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 27, 2000, C. Elaine Dunbar sent a letter to Mary Jo Stump, principal of Capitol Hill Magnet School in St. Paul asking for the number and percentage of students by ethnicity and economic status for a number of different pools such as the Capitol Hill attendance area and the School District 625 (St. Paul). Ms. Dunbar requested the data on behalf of the Capitol Hill Recruitment Committee to help plan, administer, and monitor the committee&apos;s outreach efforts. On January 28, 2000, Ms. Dunbar sent an email to Ms. Stump that contained some of the same data requests along with some new ones.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 23, 2000, Ms. Dunbar sent a follow up email to Steven Schellenberg of St. Paul again asking for the data requested in January. She also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Schellenberg on an unspecified date and was referred to a web page for district wide data and to Jill Cacy for the remainder of her request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 26, 2000, Ms. Dunbar sent an email to Ms. Cacy with same letter as contained in her January 28, 2000 email to Ms. Stump.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 8, 2000, Ms. Dunbar sent a letter to Kris Peterson of St. Paul as a follow up to a conversation they had in late June, 2000. In this letter, Ms. Dunbar requests aggregate data about students who had attended a workshop and comparative data for similar students throughout the district. According to Ms. Dunbar, this request was referred to Ms. Stump, the Capitol Hill principal. Ms. Stump agreed to provide the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 10, 2000, Ms. Dunbar asked for data about new 2000-2001 students by ethnicity and economic status. On October 13, 2000, Ms. Dunbar called Cindy Porter of St. Paul and received some information that related to 2000-2001 students over the phone.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 25, 2000, Ms. Dunbar sent a request for an advisory opinion to the Commissioner of Administration. After discussions with staff of the Information Policy Division, the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner was clarified and the request was accepted on November 3, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 13, 2000 a letter was sent to Dr. Patricia Harvey, the superintendent of St. Paul. The purpose of the letter was to inform Dr. Harvey of the request for an advisory opinion and to give St. Paul an opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 6, 2000, St. Paul provided its response through Assistant General Counsel Nancy L. Cameron. In the response, Ms. Cameron indicated that: (1) the request was not covered by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act because Ms. Dunbar was acting on behalf of the school district as a member of the Recruitment Committee and the Act does not cover internal disseminations of data; (2) even if Ms. Dunbar&apos;s request was covered by the Act, she had not made an appropriate request for summary data and so St. Paul was not obligated to respond; (3) that some of the data did not exist; and (4) St. Paul had responded appropriately.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Ms. Dunbar asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 625 (St. Paul) respond appropriately to a January 28, 2000 request for summary data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I. Is the request covered by Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The resolution of the issue begins with a determination of the role Ms. Dunbar is playing in requesting the data. In the first request, Ms. Dunbar identifies herself as an agent of the Capitol Hill Recruitment Committee who works with St. Paul to recruit students to Capitol Hill Magnet School. St. Paul also identifies Ms. Dunbar as an agent in its response. Therefore, the two parties agree that Ms. Dunbar is acting on behalf of a school based committee. As a result, Ms. Dunbar is not making a &lt;i&gt;public&lt;/i&gt; request for access to data held by St. Paul.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As an agent of St. Paul, Ms. Dunbar is entitled to receive access to data according to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4 require that the responsible authority for St. Paul establish procedures for the collection, storage, use and dissemination of private data. Since Ms. Dunbar was requesting data that identified individual students and this data is classified as private according to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, St. Paul&apos;s responsible authority should have had procedures in place to respond to Ms. Dunbar&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;II. Was St. Paul&apos;s response appropriate? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A delay from January to October in providing even some of the data requested does not comply with statute. In addition, it appears that St. Paul does not have any policies or procedures in place to help school employees respond to requests for data whether from an internal party or the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, work best when all parties understand how requests will be handled. In fact, Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 2 and 13.05, subdivision 8 require St. Paul to have procedures in place to appropriately handle requests for data. To assist government entities like St. Paul in developing these procedures, the Minnesota School Boards Association and the Department of Administration&apos;s Information Policy Analysis Division both have models that can be used. The Information Policy Analysis Division&apos;s model is available on the Web at www.ipad.state.mn.us.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    So how should St. Paul have responded to Ms. Dunbar&apos;s request? First, the request should have been forwarded to the responsible authority for review. The responsible authority is the St. Paul employee designated by the St. Paul School Board to be accountable for handling requests for data. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16 and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 14. In reviewing the request, the responsible authority should have determined whether Ms. Dunbar was eligible to received the requested data. As Ms. Dunbar is operating as an agent of St. Paul, there needed to be a determination of her legitimate educational interest in and work assignment that authorized her to receive the requested data. See 34 CFR section 99.31(a). Legitimate educational interest is a term that the St. Paul School Board should have defined for use in all types of situations where there is a need to determine when a person is authorized by their legitimate educational interest to have access to student records.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second determination that needed to be made was whether Ms. Dunbar&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access to the private data about students. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400, subpart 2. If, as a volunteer, it was reasonable for Ms. Dunbar to have access to the private data about students in order to recruit new students for Capitol Hill Magnet School, then St. Paul should have provided access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If Ms. Dunbar did not have a legitimate educational interest and a work assignment that permitted disclosure of student records, then the process for requesting and receiving summary data should have been explained. Although St. Paul&apos;s response makes an issue of the fact that Ms. Dunbar did not use the summary data process described in Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0700, it does not make sense that St. Paul would charge Ms. Dunbar for creating the data when they would be used to recruit students for a school operated by St. Paul.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; III. What happens if some of the data do not exist?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If some of the requested data do not exist, then St. Paul should have so informed Ms. Dunbar. This information should have been provided as soon as possible after the request was received. In so informing Ms. Dunbar, St. Paul would also have had an opportunity to explain the way to make a summary data request or to explain why St. Paul was unable to produce the data at all.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;IV. Did St. Paul respond appropriately?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, Ms. Dunbar made a request that fell under the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act because of her status as an agent for St. Paul. In its role as a responder to the request, St. Paul did an ineffective job of promptly and appropriately handling the request. St. Paul is encouraged to develop procedures to prevent this type of response to data requests in the future. Time lines for prompt responses to requests for data should be included in the procedures that are developed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Dunbar is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As the party requesting summary data was an agent of School District 625 (St. Paul), the request was not one for public access. Given all the facts and circumstances in this case, St. Paul&apos;s response to the request is acceptable, but St. Paul is encouraged to establish and use procedures to promptly and fully respond to &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; requests for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 29, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267427</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)</Title><Id>266514</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-076</Title><title>Opinion 00 076</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268032&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-22T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond appropriately to a request, made at a meeting in late June, for access to a complete police report regarding an incident that occurred on December 23, 1999?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2000; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 2, 2000, IPA received a letter dated same from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jim Moore, Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 14, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 28, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Moore, Assistant City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X is aware of a series of incidents that occurred on December 23, 1999, during which the assistance of the Minneapolis Police Department was requested. An individual committed suicide on that day. A related meeting involving various City staff and neighbors, including X, occurred in June of 2000. X wrote, Ms. Culp [attorney for the police department] had also refused to grant me access to the complete police report of the incident - stating that it was not public. On August 1st I received a copy of the complete police report from a local newspaper reporter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X also provided a copy of a related letter the Mayor wrote to X, dated July 5, 2000. She wrote, As you know, a copy of Minneapolis Police Department records is available to [the deceased victim&apos;s personal representative] who has the legal authority to act on behalf of the estate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minneapolis respond appropriately to a request, made at a meeting in late June, for access to a complete police report regarding an incident that occurred on December 23, 1999?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 6 (2000) (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 7 (2000) classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active. When the investigation is no longer active, within the meaning of subdivision 7 (2000), then criminal investigative data are classified as public, with certain exceptions as provided in subdivisions 7 (2000) and 17 (2000).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 (2000), are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7 (2000). The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under Section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At issue in this opinion is whether Minneapolis responded appropriately to a data request X made at a meeting in June 2000. In his response, Mr. Moore did not directly address the City&apos;s response to the June 2000 request except to say, The City does not believe that Ms. Culp told X at the June meeting that the police report was not public. In fact, most of the report was released to X in January, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming X made a request (the City did not refute this) at the meeting for a copy of the police report relating to an incident that occurred on December 23, 1999, the City was required to provide X with the report - minus any not public data - in a prompt and reasonable manner and within a reasonable time. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300. Because the City, in its comments, did not provide any information as to whether or how it responded to X, the Commissioner can opine only that Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to X&apos;s request. If the City has not yet provided the report to X, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has one additional comment. In his comments, Mr. Moore wrote that when the City released a copy of the report to X in January, the City redacted certain data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.769 (1999; section repealed by 2000 Legislature) (penalty for unauthorized release of patient information) and 13.384 (2000) (medical data). However, Mr. Moore wrote that later, when the City released copies of the reports to the media, it was clear that the references to physical or mental conditions of the deceased were not derived from medical records and were not subject to statutory privacy interests. Pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 1, a government entity is required to be aware of how its data are classified. It is not appropriate for the City to determine a data classification and then, at a later point in time, change its mind.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request, made at a meeting in late June, for access to a complete police report regarding an incident that occurred on December 23, 1999.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 22, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268032</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-075</Title><title>Opinion 00 075</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267186&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-22T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>As of December 2, 1998, was the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision &quot;public data?&quot;
Did the Chief of Police violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when, on December 2, 1998, he released to the public the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2000; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 7, 2000, Ann E. Walther, an attorney in Minneapolis, requested that the Commissioner of Administration issue an advisory opinion regarding data released by the Minneapolis Police Department in December, 1998. Ms. Walther represents Minneapolis Police Officer Doug Leiter. The background information relating to the data released in December, 1998 follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 27, 1998, Officer Doug Leiter was driving a marked squad car when he and his partner responded to a burglary in progress. En route to the scene, the officers learned that the suspect had left in a dark vehicle. While following a vehicle that matched the description they had received, the officers&apos; squad car collided with a truck driven by Steven Winkel. Mr. Winkel&apos;s passenger, Jeffrey Carlson, was killed instantly. Mr. Winkel died one week later from injuries suffered in the accident.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 2, 1998, Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson wrote a letter to Steven Winkel&apos;s family. Included with that letter was a copy of the Preliminary Fact Sheet giving some information about the investigation of the accident. Included in the fact sheet was the following statement: Our preliminary investigation indicates that squad 351 was not operating with red lights and siren at the time of the collision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Following the investigation, accident reconstruction and forensic testing, the final conclusion of the investigators regarding the operation of the red lights at the time of the accident were inconclusive. The results of the investigation were used to charge Officer Leiter with misdemeanor traffic violations, as the basis for civil suits against the City and for internal disciplinary action by the police department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In requesting the advisory opinion, Ms. Walther indicated that it was their belief that the preliminary finding regarding the red lights on the squad car was not public data as of December 2, 1998.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 14, 2000, a letter was sent to the Office of the City Attorney for the City of Minneapolis. The purpose of the letter was to inform the City Attorney of the request for an advisory opinion and to provide the City with an opportunity to respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In its response on November 27, 2000, James A. Moore of the Office of the City Attorney accepted Ms. Walther&apos;s recitation of the facts as accurate and also acknowledged that the Chief of Police had sent the preliminary fact sheet as an attachment to his letter of December 2, 1998 to the Winkel family. Mr. Moore argued that the data released by Chief Olson were public. He further argued that even if they were not public on December 2, 1998, the Chief had the authority to release the data to a victim&apos;s family according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 15 (2000) which authorizes release of not public data when access to the data will ...aid the law enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            As of December 2, 1998, was the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision public data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the Chief of Police violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when, on December 2, 1998, he released to the public the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;1. As of December 2, 1998, was the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision public data? &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, contains a presumption that government data are public unless classified otherwise by federal or state law. See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1. In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82 contains specific classifications for data relating to law enforcement.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 6 (2000) specifically provides that data created or collected by law enforcement which documents an agency&apos;s response to requests for service including traffic accidents ...shall be public government data.... A brief factual reconstruction of the events associated with the action is included in the list of data that are public according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.92, subdivision 6 (f)(2000). There is no statutory definition for the phrase brief factual reconstruction. As the phrase is commonly understood, the attachment to Chief Olson&apos;s December 2, 1998 letter certainly qualifies as a short statement of what happened. Therefore, the preliminary fact sheet fits within the list of items specifically made public by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 6 (2000).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In requesting the advisory opinion, Ms. Walther suggests that language in the December 2, 1998 letter indicate that Chief Olson knew he was releasing not public data. That is not, however, what the December 2, 1998 letter says. It says in pertinent part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Because the investigation, forensic evidence and forensic results are not yet completed, we cannot release those reports.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Contrary to Ms. Walther&apos;s suggestion, this sentence tells the Winkel family what is not being released. Chief Olson provided that which was releasable; the preliminary fact sheet.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In finding that the preliminary fact sheet is public data, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether releasing the data constituted a public benefit according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 15 (2000).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;2. Did the Chief of Police violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when, on December 2, 1998, he released to the public the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the preliminary fact sheet is public data according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 6 (2000), the Chief of Police did not violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when he released it on December 2, 1998.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Walther is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As of December 2, 1998, the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on during the time of the collision was public data according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 6 (2000).
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Chief of Police did not violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when, on December 2, 1998, he released to the public the preliminary finding of investigators that the squad&apos;s red lights were not on at the time of the collision.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 22, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267186</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-074</Title><title>Opinion 00 074</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267513&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-22T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) responded appropriately to X&apos;s request to have access to all data maintained about him/her when the Department provided copies of audio tapes that are difficult to understand?
Whether DHS responded appropriately to X&apos;s request to have access to all data maintained about him/her when the Department has not provided access to data to reflect a history of more than 10 years of interactions, including professional contacts and applications for employment, by the data subject with the Department?
Whether DHS appropriately withheld data from the data subject, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 13.30; 13.37, subds. 1 and 2; and 13.43, subd. 8?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2000; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 14, the Commissioner received a letter dated August 11, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains. IPA staff began discussions with X about the requested advisory opinion. Included in these discussions was the need for a delay in accepting the request due to a marked increase in the number of advisory opinions being requested by several individuals and entities. It was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on the matters listed below. X sent follow-up letters to that effect dated September 19 and October 2, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of DHS, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 9, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On October 19, 2000, IPA received comments dated October 18, 2000, from Marsha Eldot Devine, an Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 13, 2000, X requested visual inspection of all public and private data relating to [me]...which have been collected, created, stored, maintained, or disseminated by [DHS] from January 1, 1990 to the present day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 28, 2000, DHS staff wrote to X:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...you will find the public and private data relating to you...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.03 you are hereby advised that the Department is invoking the attorney client privilege under Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.30 in withholding some pages of documents that reference you. These are communications between the agency and its attorneys and between our attorneys and the agency. Such data is therefore considered to be confidential data and is not being provided to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department also advised X that it was withholding additional data pursuant to sections 13.43, subdivision 8, and 13.37, subdivisions 1 and 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an August 3, 2000, letter to the Department, X objected to the quality of the audiotapes and the Department&apos;s withholding of certain data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 25, 2000, the Department responded to X&apos;s objections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X then requested an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Whether the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) responded appropriately to X&apos;s request to have access to all data maintained about him/her when the Department provided copies of audio tapes that are difficult to understand?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Whether DHS responded appropriately to X&apos;s request to have access to all data maintained about him/her when the Department has not provided access to data to reflect a history of more than 10 years of interactions, including professional contacts and applications for employment, by the data subject with the Department?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Whether DHS appropriately withheld data from the data subject, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.30; 13.37, subds. 1 and 2; and 13.43, subd. 8?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that the audio tapes at issue were created by employee(s) of the Department during telephone conversations the employees had with X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Devine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DHS complied with the Data Practices Act when it disclosed copies of audio tapes to X, notwithstanding their lack of clarity. Because the original tapes were not clear to begin with, DHS was unable to provide X with a copy that was clearer than its original.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...However notwithstanding that data should be disclosed in a form that is easily accessible, there is no provision in [Chapter 13] that requires an agency to enhance a tape recording or alter a recording to make it more understandable or clearer than it was in its original form....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The tapes that were sent to X may in fact be difficult to understand in parts. However, due to the condition of the original tapes, they are not any more understandable to DHS than they are to X. In this case, there was no intent to prevent X from obtaining data to which [s/he] was entitled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. On one hand, it is correct that government entities are not required to create data to respond to a data request. However, one of the principles of Chapter 13 is that individuals gain access to government data in a meaningful fashion. Both section 13.03 and 13.04 require government entities, upon request, to inform requestors of the meaning of data. If an entity does not understand data it has created, it is not clear how the entity can discuss the meaning of the data with the requestor. In this case, although DHS is not required to reproduce the tapes, if the Department chooses to audiotape certain telephone conversations in the future, it needs to take Chapter 13 into account and insure that the meaning of the tapes is clear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond to data subjects&apos; requests for access to data within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Devine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;To the best of DHS&apos; knowledge, DHS has provided X with access to all data it has concerning X, with the exception of the documents that were withheld in response to X&apos;s July 13, 2000, request. DHS is not aware of any other data it possesses pertaining to X other than what it has already produced or identified as withheld. DHS has made a due and diligent search of the data it has pertaining to X, and complied with the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, there is a dispute over the facts. X asserts that DHS has not fully responded to his/her request. The Department asserts that it responded to the request in full. The Commissioner cannot make a determination one way or the other. The Records Management statute, section 138.17, et. seq., does authorize DHS to dispose of government records once they have outlived their usefulness to the Department. It is possible that records about X have been disposed of under the Records Management Act. However, if DHS currently maintains additional data about X, it should provide any such data to X immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, regarding DHS&apos; withholding of data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 8, Ms. Devine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X was a [former] applicant for a job at DHS...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...several DHS employees complained about their growing discomfort when dealing with X&apos;s harassing...behavior....It is evident from X&apos;s recent accusations that [his/her] conduct is escalating...If DHS did not take prompt and immediate action to protect its current employees from harassment, it could be subject to liability for creating a hostile work environment or for allowing employees to be harassed by X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 8, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) subject the complainant or witness to harassment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Department&apos;s analysis. Section 13.43, subdivision 8, clearly applies to access to data by persons who are employed by a government entity. Ms. Devine wrote that X was once an applicant for a job at DHS; X was not an employee. Therefore, DHS cannot use section 13.43, subdivision 8, as a basis to withhold data from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Devine also argued that DHS can withhold data from X pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), security data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Security information means government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of...individuals...against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, security data are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. First, Ms. Devine did not state clearly what type(s) of data the Department is withholding pursuant to section 13.37. However, it appears DHS may be withholding names of employees. Ms. Devine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DHS has an ongoing concern for the security and safety of its employees relative to X. X&apos;s history of harassment and aggression has been well documented by several state agencies...and various employees of DHS. The false allegations X has made about [a DHS staff person] harassing [X] as well as X&apos;s disregard for the parameters of contacting DHS show X&apos;s current propensity for threatening behavior. [X&apos;s] past threats and escalating harassing behavior against staff at DHS and other agencies is clear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267713&quot; title=&quot;00-071&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-071&lt;/a&gt;. The Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While section 13.43 classifies names of employees as public, section 13.37 classifies security data as not public. In this case, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that section 13.37 modifies section 13.43; employee names are public except when the release of those names would substantially jeopardize the security of...individuals... Because DLI has asserted it believes the release of the employee names would substantially jeopardize the security... of those employees, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DLI can withhold the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;That said, however, the Commissioner points out he is aware of the potential for entities to inappropriately withhold data pursuant to section 13.37. The problem is that the Legislature, by not defining substantially jeopardize, has provided government entities with a great deal of discretion in determining whether or not they can rightfully withhold data. Therefore, the Commissioner welcomes guidance from the Legislature in interpreting section 13.37 (1)(a) so that he can better assist entities in understanding their obligations under Chapter 13 and better assist individuals in realizing their rights under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, in this case, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DHS may appropriately withhold employee names if the Department has determined that a release of those names would substantially jeopardize the security of those employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Devine also wrote, Any communications DHS has had with its own security department concerning X is security data&apos; and as such is not accessible to X. Further, any communications DHS has had with its employees as a safety measure concerning X is also security data&apos; and is not accessible to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. First, any communications relating to X that DHS has had with its security department are not necessarily classified at section 13.37. For example, it is not reasonable that a communication stating, X is coming to the Department today, is data that seriously jeopardizes the safety of persons or property. Also, some security service data are public pursuant to section 13.861. Therefore, Ms. Devine&apos;s statement that any such communications are not accessible to X is incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, because DHS did not provide detailed information about what constitutes a safety measure concerning X, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether DHS can appropriately withhold data from X pursuant to section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding DHS&apos; withholding of data pursuant to section 13.30, Ms. Devine wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;DHS has its own in-house attorneys that provide legal advice and consultation about various issues, including but not limited to data practices concerns. DHS also relies upon the attorneys at the Office of the Attorney General who provide consultation, representation, and legal advice. In this instance, DHS has sought and received legal advice concerning X from both sources. The nature of these communications has not only been orally, but also in writing and by e-mail. DHS had not waived its attorney client privilege and expects its attorneys to not knowingly reveal confidences, either....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Communications concerning X which DHS has had with its attorneys were not disclosed to X, as indicated in its letters to X, dated July 28, 2000 and August 25, 2000. Withholding such data from X does not violate the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008&quot; title=&quot;00-062&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-062&lt;/a&gt;. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner has addressed discussed the applicability of section 13.30 in previous advisory opinions. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267680&quot; title=&quot;95-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-045&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;As discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-040&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities are controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected, as an attorney&apos;s work product, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 supersedes and/or alters the classification or treatment of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this Section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17. Otherwise, a government entity could effectively shield any data it did not wish to disclose, by turning the matter over to its attorney. If Mr. Krafts&apos; logic were accepted, anything an attorney did related to the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data could be exempted from regulation under Chapter 13. By including the last phrase of Section 13.30, the legislature clearly intended to prevent just such an occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Denying access to data based on attorney/client privilege is somewhat different than denying access based on section 13.30. When an entity claims attorney/client privilege, it is asserting that communications occurred between itself and its attorney and that those communications are protected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, it appears that DHS denied X access to data based on both section 13.30 and attorney/client privilege. This is appropriate; the Department has authority to withhold such data from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) is not required to create new data in response to a data request. However, the Department should be aware of its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, to inform a data subject of the content and meaning of data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, DHS responded appropriately to X&apos;s request to have access to all data maintained about him/her.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30 and attorney/client privilege, DHS did appropriately withhold data from X. It was not appropriate for DHS to withhold data from X pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 8. DHS may withhold names of employees pursuant to section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2, if DHS determines that the release of those names would substantially jeopardize the security of those employees.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 22, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267513</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Explanation of data</Title><Id>266621</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-073</Title><title>Opinion 00 073</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266541&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Goodhue County respond appropriately to a September 7 (or 8), 1999, request by X for data about X and X&apos;s child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 22, 2000; Goodhue County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 1, 2000, IPA received a letter dated October 31, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that Goodhue County maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Greg Schoener, Director of Goodhue County Social Services, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 6, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On November 13, 2000, IPA received comments, dated November 8, 2000, from Mr. Schoener.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On either September 7 or 8, X sent a letter to Goodhue County asking for, [a]ll of the information in my Social Service file pursuant [sic] Data Privacy Act...regarding both myself and my [child]. X made several follow-up requests for the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to a court order issued in June 1999, the Goodhue County District Court ruled that legal custody of X&apos;s child be returned to the child&apos;s other parent and that the County file a petition to terminate X&apos;s parental rights. According to documents submitted to the Commissioner, the final Termination hearing was set for November 9, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X wrote that s/he did receive some of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Goodhue County respond appropriately to a September 7 (or 8), 1999, request by X for data about X and X&apos;s child?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, government entities are required to respond within ten working days. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, generally speaking, a parent is entitled to gain access to data about his/her minor child unless evidence exists that there is a law or court order governing such matters such as divorce, separation, or custody, or a legally binding instrument that provides to the contrary. See also Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0500, subpart 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Schoener wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On September 8, 1999 and again around September 15, 1999, [X] submitted written requests to our department for information we had regarding [X and X&apos;s child]. We immediately verbally informed [X] that it was our understanding that [X] was likely entitled to information about [X] and any children of whom [X] had custody, but that this did not include [X&apos;s child], for whom [X] did not have legal custody...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County Attorney&apos;s Office advised us to not respond to [X&apos;s] data information request, any further than we had already verbally done, because the County Attorney&apos;s office would address the data information request through the Court, and that data would be distributed once a Court Order is in place allowing that distribution.....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Again, on October 19 and October 20, 1999, the County Attorney [sic] wrote regarding [X&apos;s] data information request. In the October 19, 1999 County Attorney letter to [X&apos;] legal counsel, it&apos;s pointed out that certain data information was turned over by the County Attorney&apos;s office to [X&apos;s] counsel at the previous week&apos;s Court hearing. In a follow-up letter...the County Attorney&apos;s Office reiterated that a plan for the release of documents was in place through the court system and that the Goodhue County Social Services had performed according to law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, government entities must respond to requests for data from data subjects within ten days. In this case, the County did not submit any documentation indicating that X was, for any reason, restricted from gaining access to data about him/herself and his/her child. At the time of X&apos;s September requests, his/her parental rights had not been terminated. As the Commissioner wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to make requests through his/her attorney. Nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to hire an attorney, and incur the resulting expense, so that the attorney can make requests on behalf of the person.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Commissioner opines that the County did not respond appropriately to X&apos;s September 1999 data request(s). The County should have provided X with all public and private data about X and X&apos;s child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Goodhue County did not respond appropriately to a September 7 (or 8), 1999, request by X for data about X and X&apos;s child.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 22, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266541</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Parental access to private data (13.02, subd. 8); (1205.0500)</Title><Id>266540</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-072</Title><title>Opinion 00 072</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267576&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has a &quot;final disposition&quot; of a disciplinary action occurred by reason of the resignation of a School District 15, St. Francis, employee, where grievance proceedings arising under the applicable collective bargaining agreement have commenced but have not yet concluded?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 15, 2000; School District 15 (St. Francis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 11, 2000, IPA received a letter from Paul C. Ratwik, an attorney, on behalf of his client, School District 15, St. Francis. Mr. Ratwik&apos;s request required additional information, which IPA received on October 23 and 25, 2000. In his letter, Mr. Ratwik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Ratwik, following a complaint made by a parent against a District employee, the District conducted an investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the District took disciplinary against the employee, who resigned after receiving notification of the discipline.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Subsequently, the employee&apos;s union filed a grievance on the employee&apos;s behalf, which it is entitled to do under the collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Ratwik stated: [t]he employee appeared at and participated with the union at the Level II grievance hearing which was held on August 28, 2000. The matter has not yet been resolved and arbitration remains a possibility.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ratwik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has a final disposition of a disciplinary action occurred by reason of the resignation of a School District 15, St. Francis, employee, where grievance proceedings arising under the applicable collective bargaining agreement have commenced but have not yet concluded? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a)(5), the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. &lt;u&gt;In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.&lt;/u&gt;Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, in general, if an employee who is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement resigns after the government entity makes its final decision, then there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action. However, in this case, there is a collective bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration, which remains a possibility. The terms of the agreement allow a grievance to be filed either by the employee or, as is the case here, by the union on behalf of the employee. Thus, the statutory provision quoted immediately above that governs discipline in the case of arbitration proceedings is applicable here. Accordingly, there has been no final disposition of the disciplinary action. Final disposition in this situation will occur when arbitration is either concluded, or is no longer a possibility.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ratwik is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action taken against the School District 15 employee, even though the employee has resigned, because the grievance proceedings arising under the applicable collective bargaining agreement have commenced but have not yet concluded. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 15, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267576</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grievance filed by union</Title><Id>266404</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-071</Title><title>Opinion 00 071</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267713&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for data when it denies a data subject access to data that would identify personnel of the Department who have sent and received e-mail messages about him/her?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 13, 2000; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 25, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 24, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) maintains. IPA staff began discussions with X about the requested advisory opinion. Included in these discussions was the need for a delay in accepting the request due to a marked increase in the number of advisory opinions being requested by several individuals and entities. It was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on the matter listed below. X submitted a letter to that effect dated September 19, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gretchen Maglich, Commissioner of DLI, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 2000, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On October 31, 2000, IPA received a response, dated October 27, 2000, from Nancy Leppink, Director of Legal Services of the Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated August 3, 2000, X asked to visually inspect all public and private data relating to me, [X], which have been collected, created, stored, maintained, or disseminated by [DLI] during calendar year 2000 to the present day. This request includes data collected, created, stored, maintained, or disseminated by any past or present employees of [DLI].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Commissioner Maglich wrote to X in a letter dated August 16, 2000. Of relevance to this opinion, she wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Also enclosed are copies of correspondence between you and the department and, in response to your request for electronic data in which your name appears, copies of e-mails generated in response to your phone calls to the department. Some data have been redacted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.43, subd. 8, 13.37, subds. 1 (a) and 2, and 13.30.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X disagreed with the Department&apos;s redactions and requested an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for data when it denies a data subject access to data that would identify personnel of the Department who have sent and received e-mail messages about him/her? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data. Personnel data means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of...a state agency... Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.43, names of employees are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote, It is the position of DLI, that the names of DLI employees who sent or received the e-mail messages that were provided to X in response to his/her government data request are private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.37, subd. 1(a) and 2, Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 4, Minn. Stat. section 1.5 and Minn. Stat. section 15.86.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 15.86, requires that each state agency adopt a goal of zero tolerance of violence. Subdivision 1 states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...Each agency is encouraged to develop a plan that describes how each agency will:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (1) seek to eliminate any potential for violence in and around the agency workplace; and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (2) seek to eliminate any potential for violence by affecting the attitudes and behavior of people that the agency serves or regulates.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 1.50, states, The state of Minnesota hereby adopts a policy of zero tolerance of violence. It is state policy that every person in the state has a right to live free from violence.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Leppink wrote, In accordance with [section 15.86], DLI adopted a Zero Tolerance for Workplace Violence Policy....X&apos;s harassing, abusive, threatening and aggressive behavior toward state employees, including DLI employees falls within the DLI policy&apos;s definition of violence. She added, Thus, DLI deleted the names of DLI employees from the e-mails they either sent or received...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 15.86 requires state agencies to adopt a goal of zero tolerance of violence. It does not classify certain data as not public nor does it appear to give agencies discretionary authority to withhold certain data information when an agency deems it appropriate. For these reasons, the Commissioner is of the opinion that DLI cannot rely on section 15.86 to withhold the names of DLI employees from X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Leppink&apos;s other argument is that DLI can withhold from X the employee names pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), security data:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Security information means government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of...individuals...against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.37, security data are classified as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    X has a long history of engaging in harassing, abusive, threatening and aggressive behavior toward State of Minnesota employees. This harassing, abusive, threatening and aggressive behavior has been documented by several state agencies, the Minnesota Court of Appeals...and employees of DLI.....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is the position of DLI that the names of the employees who sent or received e-mails that were provided to X in response to his/her request for government data constitute security information. DLI determined...the release of the employees&apos; names to X would substantially jeopardize the security of those employees against improper use and/or physical injury perpetrated by X. DLI&apos;s [sic] was particularly concerned about the security of its employees because the text of several of the e-mails conveyed information regarding the difficulty employees were having assisting X and about X&apos;s inappropriate behavior.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    While section 13.43 classifies names of employees as public, section 13.37 classifies security data as not public. In this case, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that section 13.37 modifies section 13.43; employee names are public except when the release of those names would substantially jeopardize the security of...individuals... Because DLI has asserted it believes the release of the employee names would substantially jeopardize the security... of those employees, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DLI can withhold the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    That said, however, the Commissioner points out he is aware of the potential for entities to inappropriately withhold data pursuant to section 13.37. The problem is that the Legislature, by not defining substantially jeopardize, has provided government entities with a great deal of discretion in determining whether or not they can rightfully withhold data. Therefore, the Commissioner welcomes guidance from the Legislature in interpreting section 13.37 (1)(a) so that he can better assist entities in understanding their obligations under Chapter 13 and better assist individuals in realizing their rights under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a), and 2, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry appropriately withheld from a data subject access to data that would identify personnel of the Department who have sent and received e-mail messages about the data subject. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 13, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267713</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor and Industry Department</Title><Id>266544</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-070</Title><title>Opinion 00 070</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266634&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-12T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until &quot;reviewed for approval?&quot;
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 12, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 16, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated November 21, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 4, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In a letter to the District dated October 30, 2000, X requested copies of all of the itemized attorney bills . . . relating to [Y] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 7, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [f]or your information, the District has now received the attorney bills for the month of August as well as the month of September 2000. However, the bills are still being reviewed for approval within the District. Upon final approval, I will forward copies to you responsive to your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady referred to the response he provided in connection with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267959&quot; title=&quot;00-068&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-068&lt;/a&gt;, which involves an identical issue, in which he stated: [i]t is reasonable that the District informed [X] that it would make copies available following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. Accordingly, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also addressed an identical issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267958&quot; title=&quot;00-69&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-069&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the Commissioner addressed identical issues in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267959&quot; title=&quot;00-068&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-068&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267958&quot; title=&quot;00-069&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-069&lt;/a&gt;, in which he opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the responsible authority shall provide copies of private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, X may exercise Y&apos;s rights under section 13.04 to gain access to data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District would provide the requested data to X following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. However, given the definition of government data cited above, the attorney bills are government data upon creation or receipt by the District, not subsequent to or contingent upon its review of the data. Accordingly, the District was obligated to provide X with copies of the attorney bills upon receipt of X&apos;s request. If the District is concerned that following its review, the data may be amended, it may mark the data as unapproved or otherwise indicate that the data are subject to correction, but it may not deny X access to the data while it conducts its review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue, involving draft or preliminary city council meeting minutes, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267425&quot; title=&quot;94-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-026&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the data at issue in that opinion were public, the underlying principle holds here. Accordingly, the District erred in withholding the attorney bills until it had conducted its internal review. The unapproved bills are subject to disclosure to X pursuant to the requirements of section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval. The unapproved bills are government data, and should have been provided to X upon request, within the time frame provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 12, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266634</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Exist upon creation or receipt</Title><Id>266633</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T14:58:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-069</Title><title>Opinion 00 069</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267958&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-12T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until &quot;reviewed for approval?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 12, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 15, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated November 21, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 4, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In a letter to the District dated October 30, 2000, X requested copies of all of the itemized attorney bills . . . relating to [Y] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 7, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [f]or your information, the District has now received the attorney bills for the month of August as well as the month of September 2000. However, the bills are still being reviewed for approval within the District. Upon final approval, I will forward copies to you responsive to your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady referred to the response he provided in connection with Advisory Opinion 00-068, which involves an identical issue, in which he stated: [i]t is reasonable that the District informed [X] that it would make copies available following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. Accordingly, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the Commissioner addressed an identical issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267959&quot; title=&quot;00-068&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-068&lt;/a&gt;, in which he opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the responsible authority shall provide copies of private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, X may exercise Y&apos;s rights under section 13.04 to gain access to data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District would provide the requested data to X following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. However, given the definition of government data cited above, the attorney bills are government data upon creation or receipt by the District, not subsequent to or contingent upon its review of the data. Accordingly, the District was obligated to provide X with copies of the attorney bills upon receipt of X&apos;s request. If the District is concerned that following its review, the data may be amended, it may mark the data as unapproved or otherwise indicate that the data are subject to correction, but it may not deny X access to the data while it conducts its review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue, involving draft or preliminary city council meeting minutes, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267425&quot; title=&quot;94-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-026&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although the data at issue in that opinion were public, the underlying principle holds here. Accordingly, the District erred in withholding the attorney bills until it had conducted its internal review. The unapproved bills are subject to disclosure to X pursuant to the requirements of section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to an October 30, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval. The unapproved bills are government data, and should have been provided to X upon request, within the time frame provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 12, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267958</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-068</Title><title>Opinion 00 068</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267959&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 10, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until &quot;reviewed for approval?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 12, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 15, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In a letter to the District dated October 10, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] which I have not yet received. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 18, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [f]or your information, the District has now received the attorney bills for both the month of August as well as the month of September 2000. However, the bills are still being reviewed for approval within the District. Upon final approval, I will forward copies to you responsive to your request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [i]t is reasonable that the District informed [X] that it would make copies available following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. Accordingly, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an October 10, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the responsible authority shall provide copies of private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, X may exercise Y&apos;s rights under section 13.04 to gain access to data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady stated that the District would provide the requested data to X following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. However, given the definition of government data cited above, the attorney bills are government data upon creation or receipt by the District, not subsequent to or contingent upon its review of the data. Accordingly, the District was obligated to provide X with copies of the attorney bills upon receipt of X&apos;s request. If the District is concerned that following its review, the data may be amended, it may mark the data as unapproved or otherwise indicate that the data are subject to correction, but it may not deny X access to the data while it conducts its review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a similar issue, involving draft or preliminary city council meeting minutes, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267425&quot; title=&quot;94-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-026&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the data at issue in that opinion were public, the underlying principle holds here. Accordingly, the District erred in withholding the attorney bills until it had conducted its internal review. The unapproved bills are subject to disclosure to X pursuant to the requirements of section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to an October 10, 2000, request for copies of private data, by stating that the data would not be made available until reviewed for approval. The unapproved bills are government data, and should have been provided to X upon request, within the time frame provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 12, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267959</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-067</Title><title>Opinion 00 067</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267825&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-05T16:18:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately respond to a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to all e-mails, either generated or received by Department personnel, that contain data about the data subject, including but not limited to e-mail messages generated by Captain Patrick Chase, former manager of Capitol Security?
Has the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately denied a data subject access to data about him/herself based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2000; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 13, 2000, X sent a written request to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) to inspect all public and private data held about X. On July 24, 2000, X inspected data that had been collected by DPS in response to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 25, 2000, X sent DPS a letter with concerns about the data that had been inspected on July 24th. Those issues were that: (1) there were no data from the Board of Private Detectives; (2) there were no data from the Division of Motor Vehicles; (3) documents had been withheld by the Office of the Attorney General; (4) the DPS justification for its photocopy charges had not been available; and (5) that no emails had been included.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 1, 2000, DPS sent a letter to X responding to the concerns raised in X&apos;s letter of July 25th. The responses were that: (1) the Board of Private Detectives was separate from DPS and a data request would need to be made to that Board directly; (2) Division of Motor Vehicle records had been re-searched; a short list of the records was provided as well as the cost for copies of those records; (3) the documents withheld by the Office of Attorney General were classified as confidential according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.65, subdivision 2 (1998); (4) a copy of the DPS justification for its photocopy charges was provided; and (5) the effort to find and produce responsive emails was described.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 11, 2000, X requested the Commissioner of Administration to issue an advisory opinion in this matter. IPA staff began discussions with X about the requested advisory opinion. Included in these discussions was the need for a delay in accepting the request due to a marked increase in the number of advisory opinions being requested by several individuals and entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 23, 2000, DPS sent a letter to X notifying X that DPS did not have any audio or video tapes where X was the data subject. The letter also indicated that Division of Motor Vehicle and email data were available for X to review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2000, X sent DPS a written request to notify X if X was the subject of any confidential data maintained by DPS. DPS responded on September 27, 2000 that DPS did have confidential data about X and that those data were classified according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5 (1998).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 2, 2000, X reaffirmed X&apos;s request for an advisory opinion and requested that the issue of the classification of data about X as confidential be addressed in the opinion. The Commissioner accepted X&apos;s request for an advisory opinion on October 12, 2000, and notified DPS that it needed to respond to the request. On October 23, 2000, DPS responded to the request for an advisory opinion and indicated that data had been classified as confidential in error, that X had been able to inspect all of the data that were erroneously classified as confidential and the efforts that had been and would be made to provide X with access to email in which X was the data subject. DPS indicated that it had been unable to review all of the computer back up tapes containing email messages because it did not have the proper equipment in place. DPS indicated that once the new server was installed in early November, the back up tape would be checked and that this good faith effort to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act should be recognized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately respond to a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to all e-mails, either generated or received by Department personnel, that contain data about the data subject, including but not limited to e-mail messages generated by Captain Patrick Chase, former manager of Capitol Security?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately denied a data subject access to data about him/herself based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately respond to a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to all e-mails, either generated or received by Department personnel, that contain data about the data subject, including but not limited to e-mail messages generated by Captain Patrick Chase, former manager of Capitol Security?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s request for access to all emails that contain data about X may result in the need for DPS to produce both public and private data. To the extent that the data contained in the emails are classified as public, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c) requires that access to public data be provided as soon as reasonably possible. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267776&quot; title=&quot;00-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-017&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267902&quot; title=&quot;00-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-019&lt;/a&gt;. DPS has provided X with access to some emails that contain data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By its own admission, DPS has not been able to check back up tapes for additional emails that may be responsive to X&apos;s request. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, requires that a responsible authority ...keep records in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. DPS indicates in its response that the new server was scheduled for delivery in early November. Hopefully, the server has been delivered, installed, the backup tape reviewed and X has copies of responsive emails or has been informed that no responsive emails exist. As X made the data request in July, having to wait three months or more for a new server to be ordered, delivered and installed so that a back up tape can be reviewed is not keeping records in a way that makes them easily accessible for convenient use. Agencies need to act proactively to prepare their computer systems so that they are easily able to respond for requests for data, including review of backup tapes. Waiting for a request and then determining that data are not accessible is not responsive to the statutory authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the backup tape has not yet been reviewed, it would be appropriate at this point for the tape to be sent to a vendor for review; X should not have to wait any longer. In summary, with respect to emails on the back up tape that may contain public data about X, DPS should have acted more promptly in reviewing the back up tapes thereby meeting the requirement to produce public data as soon as reasonably possible. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to emails that contain private data about X, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires that private data be supplied immediately, if possible or within ten days for the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. As was noted above, DPS has provided some email messages to X. DPS has not, however, made any responsive emails on the back up tape available to X. The statute provides that a government entity has ten days to respond to a request for private data. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267712&quot; title=&quot;00-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-033&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266972&quot; title=&quot;99-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-044&lt;/a&gt;. DPS has not responded within the ten days, at least with respect to any emails that may be found on the back up tape. If DPS is unable to read the emails on the back up tape, it should have chosen one of the following: (1) stored the emails on the back up tape in such a way that they could be read using technology currently available at DPS; (2) sent the back up tape to an outside party capable of reading it and producing the emails responsive to X&apos;s request; or (3) established an approved records retention schedule with short time period for holding emails that would then satisfy inquirers such as X that data are no longer held by DPS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a final note, DPS states in its response that it has made several good faith efforts to respond to X&apos;s request. Unfortunately for DPS, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does not recognize good faith efforts to comply. Rather, the provisions of Chapter 13 must be followed as set forth by the Legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2. Has the Minnesota Department of Public Safety appropriately denied a data subject access to data about him/herself based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7 (2000) (previously codified as Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5) classifies criminal investigative data as confidential and therefore not accessible to the subject of the data. A citizen such as X has no way of knowing how data are classified and is at the mercy of a government entity to correctly inform them how requested data are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, DPS made data about X available for inspection on July 24, 2000, and then later told X that those same data were classified as confidential. Because X did not believe that DPS held data that could be classified as criminal investigative data, X continued to challenge the classification. Because X persevered, DPS reviewed their actions and determined that the data had been incorrectly classified. It was not the Legislature&apos;s intent that citizens continue to challenge a government entity over the classification of data. Rather, to the extent possible, government entities should know how their data are classified and act in accordance with the classification(s). See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 1 and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.1200.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, although X had access to the data DPS later classified as confidential, DPS did not act appropriately in classifying the data as confidential when there was no basis for that classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Public Safety should have acted more promptly in responding to the data subject&apos;s request to gain access to all emails that contain data about the data subject. As the response for public data was dependent on the acquisition of new computer equipment, the response may not have been made within a reasonable time (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c)) and the response for private data has not been made within ten days as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Public Safety did not act appropriately in denying a data subject access to data about the data subject based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, after previously providing access to that same data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 5, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267825</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Computer design</Title><Id>266488</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-066</Title><title>Opinion 00 066</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268017&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-05T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by charging a copy fee for two pages when the requested data were not contained on those pages?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by providing copies of all of the private data requested?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 10, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 18, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 15, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In a letter dated September 11, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] going as far back as the attorney&apos;s [sic] were involved. . . . According to X, I received four pages of so called itemized attorney bills . . . . Two of the pages are actually copies of itemized bills and two of the pages have no itemized billing of any kind (just a signature and a small statement) - at the top of the pages appear Page 11&apos; Page 8.&apos; X stated that the District charged him/her for copies of four pages of itemized attorney bills, although there is no billing information or documentation on two of the four pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, X stated that the District did not provide all of the itemized attorney bills s/he requested. According to X, s/he attended three meetings in 1999 and 2000, with District personnel that included an attorney for the District. The District did not provide any itemized attorney bills for those meetings in response to X&apos;s request. X provided copies of the District&apos;s Notice of Conciliation Conference that indicate the persons expected to attend, including District Attorney. According to X, an attorney for a law firm representing the District was in attendance at all three meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [a]s part of its response to the request the District provided both the cover and signature pages set forth [sic] in the attorney bills. . . . . The District redacted information regarding other matters not responsive to the request. Consequently, it is the District&apos;s position that its response to the request for copies of attorney bills, including two pages that reflect cover and signature pages, was an appropriate response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Cady, the District&apos;s attorney bills contain file numbers, but do not identify individuals. The District was represented by legal counsel in a proceeding involving Y during the summer of 2000, and based on the information it had at the time and in response to [X&apos;s] September 11, 2000, request, the first identification of attorney representation appeared to be the May 15, 2000 matter referenced in the May bill. Mr. Cady stated that in X&apos;s opinion request, X has provided additional information which indicates that the District had legal counsel representation during the three meetings X mentioned. Mr. Cady stated that upon review of previous attorney bills, the District discovered bills for two of those meetings, copies of which are being forwarded to X. Mr. Cady said the omission of those bills was an oversight. He further stated: [i]t is apparent that this oversight could have been avoided had [X] followed up with the District with the information [X] provided the Department regarding [X&apos;s] knowledge of the presence of legal counsel during [Y&apos;s] meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by charging a copy fee for two pages when the requested data were not contained on those pages?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by providing copies of all of the private data requested?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X requested copies of data of which X&apos;s minor child, Y, is the subject. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, X may exercise Y&apos;s rights under section 13.04 to gain access to data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The two pages X referred to contain only the following data: the name of the law firm employed by the District; the page numbers; and the following statement, signed by the firm&apos;s account manager: I declare under the penalties of law that this account, claim or demand is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Cady, it is the District&apos;s position that inclusion of, and charging for, two pages that contained only the data noted immediately above was appropriate. We respectively disagree. X requested itemized attorney bill data about Y. A statement attesting that the attorney&apos;s bill had not yet been paid does not constitute data about Y. The District should not have charged X for copies of two pages that contained no data about Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the second issue, according to Mr. Cady, the District&apos;s failure to provide X with all of the data requested about Y was due to an oversight, because the District maintains its attorney bills by file numbers, which do not identify individuals. Nonetheless, under section 13.04, X was entitled, upon request, to all the attorney billing data that related to Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady also suggested that X might have facilitated the District&apos;s location of the data had X told the District that X had knowledge of the presence of legal counsel during [Y&apos;s] meeting. X may have been in a position to assist the District in its efforts to locate all of the data responsive to X&apos;s request, but X is not obliged under Chapter 13 to do so. However, the District is obligated to maintain its data in a manner that enables it to comply with a request such as X&apos;s.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by charging a copy fee for two pages when the requested data were not contained on those pages.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data by providing copies of all of the private data requested. The District is obligated to maintain its data in such manner as to be able to comply fully with a request such as X&apos;s.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 5, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268017</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-065</Title><title>Opinion 00 065</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267448&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-05T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to an August 24, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s August 24, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data made on August 25 and August 28, 2000: addresses and telephone numbers of the members of the Intermediate District 287 Board of Education?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would it be a violation of a data subject&apos;s rights if Intermediate School District 287 denied the data subject, who was a school employee, access to data about him/herself because the data about him/her appears in forms, records, papers, etc., in which students are also identified?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2000; Intermediate School District 287</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 17, 2000, IPA received a letter dated September 6, 2000, from X. In X&apos;s letter s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that Intermediate District 287 maintains. Upon subsequent conversations with IPA staff, it was agreed upon that the Commissioner would issue an opinion regarding the matters listed below. X sent a clarifying letter dated October 2, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Lobben, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 6, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 16, 2000, IPA received comments, dated same, from Ann Goering, an attorney for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated August 24, 2000, X requested access to all data about him/her that have been collected, created, stored, maintained, or disseminated by Intermediate District 287 since January 1, 1999. In that letter, X also requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...information on all applicants who were interviewed for the four positions...Please provide the following information in a timely manner: name of applicant; address; veteran status; test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes; rank; job history; education and training, including licensure information; work availability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X also asked the District to indicate the name of the selected candidate for each of the positions that were recently filled and their building assignments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267504&quot; title=&quot;00-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-050&lt;/a&gt;, X asked the Commissioner to address the same issue involving X&apos;s similar data request for applicant data to School District 273, Edina.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 25, 2000, X requested access to the names and addresses of the District&apos;s Board members. In a letter dated August 28, 2000, to the District, X stated that the District had provided the names of the Board members and their cities of residence. X asked for the Board members&apos; addresses and telephone numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-049&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed the issue of X&apos;s request regarding names and addresses of District 287 Board members - the District requested the opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to an August 24, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s August 24, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Intermediate District 287 respond appropriately to a request for access to the following data made on August 25 and August 28, 2000: addresses and telephone numbers of the members of the Intermediate District 287 Board of Education?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, would it be a violation of a data subject&apos;s rights if Intermediate School District 287 denied the data subject, who was a school employee, access to data about him/herself because the data about him/her appears in forms, records, papers, etc., in which students are also identified?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, classifies data about current and former applicants for employment. The following applicant data are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. An applicant&apos;s name becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. At that point, the applicant has become a finalist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X requested access to the following applicant data: name; address; veteran status; test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes; rank; job history; education and training, including licensure information; and work availability. X also asked the District to indicate the name of the selected candidate for each of the positions that were recently filled and their building assignments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By way of letter dated September 5, 2000, the District provided X with the following applicant information: veteran&apos;s status; test score; rank on eligibility list; job history; education and training; and work availability. In addition, the District provided X with the names of the two people whom the District selected to fill the positions. The District also provided to X the building assignments for those two persons. Therefore, the remaining issue before the Commissioner is whether the District should have provided X with the following data: for applicants - names, addresses, supporting documentation and interview notes of test scores, and licensure information; and for the two new employees - their addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, the name of an applicant for employment becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. In this case, in his September 15, 2000, letter, Superintendent Lobben wrote, The interview committee is not the appointing authority. The School Board is. Therefore, the names of individuals interviewed by any group other than the School Board are not public and will not be provided to you. In her response to the Commissioner on behalf of the District, Ms. Goering did not comment directly on the issue of applicant data. Rather, she wrote, With respect to Issues No. 1 and No. 3, I direct your attention to my letter dated September 5, 2000 requesting an opinion on those same issues and setting forth the District&apos;s position. The Commissioner issued Ms. Goering&apos;s opinion as &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-049&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-049&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In their opinion request, Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Intermediate District 287 asserts that the appointing authority for employees of the District is the Intermediate School Board. The Intermediate District is a statutorily authorized combination of two or more independent school districts for purposes of offering integrated services. Minn. Stat. section136D.01; section136D.21. The Intermediate School Board has the same powers granted by law to the participating school districts. Minn. Stat. section136D.24. The board of each participating district, and therefore the Intermediate School Board is the only entity that has the statutory authority to hire employees for a school district. Minn. Stat. section122B.02 subd. 14; section123B.09 subd 6; section122A.40, subd. 3; section122A.44, subd. 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;Therefore, they wrote, the names of the applicants that the search team interviews are not public. The names of any applicants that are then chosen to be interviewed by the School Board, the appointing authority, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;The Commissioner concurs with the District&apos;s analysis. In this case, because the School Board, not the selection committee, is the appointing authority, the names of applicants that the selection committee interviews are not public. The names of any applicants the School Board chooses to interview are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the District does not explicitly state that the five unnamed applicants were not interviewed by the appointing authority - the School Board - the Commissioner makes that assumption. If that is not correct and the unnamed applicants were interviewed by the Board, the District must make those names available to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding addresses of applicants, such data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and not available to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding supporting documentation and interview notes of relevant test scores, such data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and not available to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding licensure information, such data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and not available to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding addresses of the two new employees, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, a work location is public. The District provided to X the names of the buildings in which each employee would be working. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the District&apos;s answer is responsive to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, government entities are required to respond to data subject&apos;s requests for data about themselves within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asked to inspect all public and private data about him/herself in a letter dated August 24, 2000. In a letter dated September 5, 2000, Superintendent Lobben wrote to X. He stated, Enclosed please find copies of all public and private personnel data regarding you...The only exceptions to the enclosed data are audio tapes which are currently being copied and which will be sent to you shortly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 6, 2000, to the Commissioner, X wrote that the District did not provide X with all data to which s/he is entitled. X wrote: My own notes provided...also were incomplete....Dr. Lobben...has also withheld data which I know exists, such as correspondence with Mary Rice, an attorney hired by the school district to investigate...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 9, 2000, X asked Dr. Lobben to provide the missing data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. Lobben responded in a letter dated September 13, 2000. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The School District does not have your notes. It is not the practice of the School District to seek or accept the notes...All notes pertaining to...have been provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to correspondence with Mary Rice, Ms. Rice has not provided the District with any notes, correspondence, or other materials as of this date. If you would like copies of documents you provided to her, I suggest that you contact her and request them....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The only data about the data subject that was not forwarded to her were:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1) Attorney-client privileged communications;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2) Data collected by an investigator hired by the School District to look into alleged violations of District policy. None of this data was in the hands of the District at the time of the request for the response. Moreover, the data was classified as confidential data under Minn. Stat. 13.39. In the August 25 letter, the data subject requested only public and private data about herself; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3) Letters received from the data subject after August 24, 2000 but before the response was sent, which she obviously already had copies of, as [s/he] wrote them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has the following comments. Regarding the notes, there is a dispute. X states some are missing and the District states that they have all been provided. The Commissioner cannot make a determination one way or the other.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding data relating to Mary Rice&apos;s investigation, if Ms. Rice was acting as an agent of the District and her contract with the District was written after August 1, 1999, all data relating to her service to the District are subject to Chapter 13. Therefore, regardless of where those data are located, if they are about X, and they are not confidential, they are accessible to X. Ms. Goering asserts that the data are classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.39. As the Commissioner has opined in other advisory opinions, when an entity denies access to data based on section 13.39, the chief attorney acting for the entity must have determined that a civil legal action is pending. In this case, the Commissioner is not aware that this has occurred. Furthermore, when X initially began asking about data relating to Ms. Rice&apos;s investigation, the District did not respond that the data were classified as confidential per section 13.39, or otherwise constitute data subject to an attorney-client privilege. The District cannot deny access to the data pursuant to section 13.39 unless its chief attorney has made a determination that a civil legal action is pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the documentation provided to the Commissioner, it is not clear whether or when the District responded to X&apos;s request for data about the addresses and telephone numbers of the members of the District 287 Board of Education. Ms. Goering did not address this issue in her comments to the Commissioner but referred to the statements she made regarding &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-049&lt;/a&gt;, the opinion she requested on behalf of District 287.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267682&quot; title=&quot;00-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-049&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As stated above, the District has determined, for purposes of Chapter 13, that Intermediate School Board members are employees of the District. Data about them are therefore classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 1 of section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public. Because home addresses and home telephone numbers are not listed as public, they are classified as private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43. (A work number and work address, however, are public.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, District 287 is not required to provide X with the home addresses and telephone numbers of Board members.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is possible for private data about more than one person to be contained in the same document. In such cases, when one of the data subjects makes a request for access to data about him/herself, it is incumbent upon the government entity to try to separate the data and provide the requestor with data about him/her without releasing private data about the other data subject(s). If separation is impossible, it may be necessary for the entity to withhold the entire document. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267854&quot; title=&quot;94-034&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-034&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Your fourth question assumes that the individual was the subject of the data being withheld on the grounds of the data privacy of students. This is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We agree that if private data regarding an individual is mixed with private data regarding other individuals, the appropriate way to respond to a request is to redact the names and other personally identifying information about the other individuals and provide the sanitized data to the requestor....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, the process of redaction is only appropriate when the requestor is the subject of the data. In the present case, the requestor was given all public and private data about which s/he is the subject. The requestor is not, however, entitled to private data on students in which her name appears incidentally as a provider of services. Data on individuals&apos; means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data &lt;em&gt;unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data&lt;/em&gt;... Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 5. The log assembled and the statements concerning the January 1994 incident might be data on individuals&apos; as applied to [the students] but Gentling was not the subject of the data. To the degree that the data identified Gentling, it was incidental to the factual focus of the inquiry. &lt;u&gt;Edina Education Association v. Independent School District No. 273&lt;/u&gt;, 562 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn.App. 1997), rev. denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Ms. Goering asserts that the District withheld data from X in which X&apos;s name appears only incidentally and in which, therefore, the District determined X was not a subject of the data. Such determinations are dependent upon the content of the data and require that the District examine each piece of data separately. For example, if X were a teacher in the District and a student turned in a test with X&apos;s name at the top of the page, such data are not about X - his/her name is only incidental to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Intermediate District 287 did respond appropriately to an August 24, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Intermediate District 287 responded appropriately, in part, and not appropriately, in part, to a data subject&apos;s August 24, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself. The District cannot deny access to data pursuant to section 13.39 unless the District&apos;s chief attorney has determined that a civil legal action is pending.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Intermediate District 287 responded appropriately to a request for the addresses and telephone numbers of the members of the Intermediate District 287 Board of Education. However, in this case, their home addresses and home telephone numbers are not public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If X&apos;s name or identity is only incidental to the data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is not a violation of X&apos;s rights if the District withheld such data from X&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 5, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267448</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data incidental to the data subject</Title><Id>266325</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status as employees (13.601, 13.43)</Title><Id>266326</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensure information</Title><Id>266331</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Test scores</Title><Id>266332</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work location/telephone number</Title><Id>266333</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-064</Title><title>Opinion 00 064</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267357&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-05T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did St. Paul School District 625 respond appropriately to a July 27, 2000, request for access to public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2000; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from James Skalicky. In this letter, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 625, St. Paul.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia Harvey, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 25, 2000, IPA received a response from Nancy L. Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 27, 2000, Mr. Skalicky requested access to certain data on all teaching finalists that interviewed for a science teaching position (7-12) at St. Paul Schools. Specifically, Mr. Skalicky requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Name&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Job Title&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Job Description&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Education and training background&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Previous work experience&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Work location&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Work availability&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Veteran status&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Relevant test scores&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Rank on eligible list&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Skalicky asked for the following information for each hired finalist:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Actual gross salary&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Work telephone number&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Date of first and last employment&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District responded to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request in a letter dated October 19, 2000, subsequent to the Commissioner&apos;s notification of his intent to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote, in reference to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, that the Commissioner does not have the authority to issue an advisory opinion here because the District had not made a determination regarding Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request as of the date of his opinion request. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Cameron&apos;s position. As he has previously opined, when a government entity fails to make any response to a request for access to government data, that is a determination for purposes of Chapter 13. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/268012&quot; title=&quot;94-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267053&quot; title=&quot;96-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-003&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267655&quot; title=&quot;96-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Cameron further wrote that Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request was unclear and required clarification, which the District requested in its October 19, 2000, response to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s July 27, 2000, request. Ms. Cameron also stated that the District&apos;s response was reasonable because Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request came at a time when the staff that would be called on to respond to the request were already burdened by the operational demands of the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did St. Paul School District 625 respond appropriately to a July 27, 2000, request for access to public government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on public employees and applicants for public employment are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. For the most part, Mr. Skalicky requested access to public personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provide the time requirements regarding access to public government data. In part, section 13.03, subdivision 2 states, &quot;[t]he responsible authority. . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and &lt;em&gt;prompt manner&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides, in relevant part, &quot;the responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. . . . In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a &lt;em&gt;reasonable time&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question at hand is whether the District responded to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request as required by Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267053&quot; title=&quot;96-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in&lt;/em&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;em&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As defined in&lt;/em&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;em&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Cameron, the District received Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request on August 4, 2000. The District, responded, seeking clarification, in a letter dated October 19, 2000, some eleven weeks later. Such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable. Ms. Cameron stated that Mr. Skalicky made his request when District personnel were, essentially, too busy to respond. Nonetheless, pursuant to Chapter 13, the District was obliged to respond to his request promptly and within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Skalicky is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Given that St. Paul School District 625 took eleven weeks to respond to Mr. Skalicky&apos;s request for access to government data, it did not respond within the time frame required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 5, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267357</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determination under 13.072</Title><Id>266701</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-063</Title><title>Opinion 00 063</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267509&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the public entitled to gain access to the following data maintained by the City of Windom: the job status of, and compensation and benefits received by, a City employee following an incident that occurred in July, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 5, 2000; City of Windom</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, attorney for the &lt;i&gt;Cottonwood County Citizen&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper published at Windom, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Windom.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Nelson, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. The City did not respond. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 According to Mr. Anfinson, a City police officer was involved in an incident that resulted in criminal charges, and shortly thereafter, the &lt;i&gt;Citizen&lt;/i&gt; sought information . . . about [the employee&apos;s] job status, i.e., whether [s/he] had been placed on administrative leave with pay, was on leave without pay, or continued on active duty. Mr. Anfinson stated that the City has repeatedly denied access to the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In support of his position that the data requested are public, Mr. Anfinson wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We understand, of course, that under Minn. Stat. section13.43, personnel data about public employees are generally classified as private unless otherwise enumerated in subdivision 2. However, we believe that the explicit language of subdivision 2, coupled with any reasonable interpretation of this language, requires that public agencies disclose whether a law enforcement officer has been placed on leave as the result of an incident, and if so whether the officer is receiving pay and benefits during leave. Although common and routine practice is obviously not dispositive as to legal questions, it certainly seems to be the case that almost invariably, law enforcement agencies in Minnesota do provide information about the job status of an officer following the occurrence of a serious incident.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is the public entitled to gain access to the following data maintained by the City of Windom: the job status of, and compensation and benefits received by, a City employee following an incident that occurred in July, 2000? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is not clear from the information provided if the &lt;i&gt;Citizen&lt;/i&gt; made a data practices request of the City, or merely posed questions that do not amount to a request for access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. If it is the latter, then the City was under no obligation to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, if the &lt;i&gt;Citizen&lt;/i&gt; requested access to the employee&apos;s job status, compensation and benefits under Chapter 13, then the City should have provided it with the following public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (1) and (8): actual gross salary; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the &lt;i&gt;Cottonwood County Citizen&lt;/i&gt; requested access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City should have provided it with the following public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (1) and (8): actual gross salary; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 5, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267509</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement</Title><Id>266491</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-062</Title><title>Opinion 00 062</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267008&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-01T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s July 13, 2000, request to have access to all data about him/herself if DOER does not include in its response any e-mails either sent by or received by DOER personnel?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 1, 2000; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 14, 2000, the Commissioner received a letter dated August 11, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) maintains. IPA staff began discussions with X about the requested advisory opinion. Included in these discussions was the need for a delay in accepting the request due to a marked increase in the number of advisory opinions being requested by several individuals and entities. It was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on the matter listed below. X also submitted a letter to that effect dated September 19, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julien Carter, Commissioner of DOER, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On October 13, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Commissioner Carter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated July 13, 2000, X asked to visually inspect all public and private data about him/her that have been collected, created, stored, maintained, or disseminated by all divisions of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations from January 1, 1990 to the present day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 18, 2000, Commissioner Carter wrote to X and stated, In response to your letter faxed to my office on July 13, 2000 you will find the public and private data relating to you...All such items are being provided to you. These are all of the records in the possession of our department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 25, 2000, X wrote to Commissioner Carter. X stated, I have received part of the information that I requested...However, you have not provided access to the emails that I requested nor to other information about me that I know was generated by your department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 9, 2000, Commissioner Carter wrote to X: There are no further documents that meet the description of emails and other documents&apos; about you generated&apos; by or in the possession of this department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote, Mr. Carter provided part of the data, but has not provided documents that I was told by other state agencies exist in his department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s July 13, 2000, request to have access to all data about him/herself if DOER does not include in its response any e-mails either sent by or received by DOER personnel?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when a data subject requests access to data about him/herself, a government entity is required to respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Carter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On September 21, 2000, DOER received by facsimile yet another letter from X...On September 26, 2000, I responded in writing...At the time I sent that response, it was our belief that we had provided X with all private and/or public data to which [X] was entitled. The only items that we withheld at that time were e-mails to and from DOER&apos;s attorney&apos;s regarding the handling of X&apos;s current requests. Since our contacts with our attorneys were then on-going, we did not notify X that these e-mails were being withheld. As you know, such e-mails are protected by attorney/client privilege and not accessible to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On Tuesday, October 10, 2000, while in the process of preparing this response, one of my staff discovered some additional documents pertaining to X, that we had not been aware of when I sent X my letter, dated September 26, 2000. Those documents contain some e-mails and other notes from 1998, pertaining to X&apos;s...and are being sent to [him/her] to supplement DOER&apos;s response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Accordingly, to the best of our knowledge, we have now sent X all the documents pertaining to [him/her] to which [s/he] is entitled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, X requested data on July 13, 2000. DOER provided some data on July 18, 2000, but later located additional data it sent to X apparently sometime around the date of Commissioner Carter&apos;s October 13, 2000, response to X&apos;s opinion request. Pursuant to Section 13.04, DOER should have provided all data responsive to X&apos;s request within ten working days. This did not happen. In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government entities are required to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Commissioner Carter wrote that DOER located the second batch of data while staff were in the process of responding to this opinion request; this does not suggest that DOER is maintaining its records so they are easily accessible upon request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Commissioner Carter also stated that some e-mails are protected by attorney/client privilege and are not accessible to X. Commissioner Carter also cited section 13.30, attorney data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has discussed the applicability of section 13.30 in previous advisory opinions. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267680&quot; title=&quot;95-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-045&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As discussed in Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267589#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-040&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities are controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected, as an attorney&apos;s work product, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 supersedes and/or alters the classification or treatment of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this Section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17. Otherwise, a government entity could effectively shield any data it did not wish to disclose, by turning the matter over to its attorney. If Mr. Krafts&apos; logic were accepted, anything an attorney did related to the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data could be exempted from regulation under Chapter 13. By including the last phrase of Section 13.30, the legislature clearly intended to prevent just such an occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Denying access to data based on attorney/client privilege is somewhat different than denying access based on section 13.30. When an entity claims attorney/client privilege, it is asserting that communications have occurred between itself and its attorney and that those communications are protected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Commissioner Carter stated, The only e-mails withheld from X are those pertaining to our correspondence with our attorneys regarding X&apos;s request for data. It appears, therefore, that DOER is denying access to the e-mails based on attorney/client privilege. This is appropriate; DOER can properly withhold such data from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, at the time X requested his/her opinion, there was a factual dispute regarding whether DOER had provided X with all data responsive to his/her request. After requesting this opinion, DOER provided additional data to X. However, even at this point, the Commissioner cannot determine, with absolute certainty, whether DOER has responded fully to X&apos;s request for all public and private data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) has responded fully to X&apos;s request. DOER did not respond to X&apos;s request within the statutorily prescribed ten day time frame. In addition, absent information to the contrary, it appears DOER may appropriately deny X access to certain data pursuant to attorney/client privilege.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 1, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267008</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:00:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-061</Title><title>Opinion 00 061</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267219&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-12-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request to have access to all data about him/herself when the Department does not include in its response any e-mails, that identify the data subject, that were either sent by or received by Department personnel?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the data subject provides clarifying detail about a request and receives no response to the clarified request?
In denying a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to data about him/herself, is it appropriate for the Department to claim that the data are not available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30, which the Department cites, in a typographical error, as Section 13.03?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the Department does not provide a response within 10 days of the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 1, 2000; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 13, 2000, X sent a written request to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) to inspect all public and private data held about X. On July 26, 2000, X received data that had been collected by CFL in response to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 27, 2000, X sent CFL a letter with concerns about the data that had been delivered on July 26th. Those issues were that: (1) there were data missing covering X&apos;s contacts with CFL from 1988 to 1994; (2) there was only one email provided; and (3) documents had been withheld based on attorney-client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 3, 2000, X sent another letter to CFL indicating that there had been no response to the letter of July 27th. On August 11, 2000, X sent a letter to David Fisher, Commissioner of Administration, requesting that an advisory opinion be issued regarding CFL&apos;s response to X&apos;s requests for data. IPA staff began discussions with X about the requested advisory opinion. Included in these discussions was the need for a delay in accepting the request due to the marked increase in the number of advisory opinions being requested by several individuals and entities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 11, 2000, Dr. Thomas Lombard of CFL wrote to X and responded to X&apos;s letter of July 27, 2000. In his letter, Dr. Lombard indicated that all data, including emails, about X had been provided on July 26, 2000, and the documents that had been withheld were classified as confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 19, 2000, X sent a letter to Don Gemberling of IPA indicating that documents from 1988 to 1994 were missing, that no emails had been produced and that no response to X&apos;s letter of July 27th had been received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 16, 2000, the Commissioner accepted X&apos;s request for an advisory opinion and notified CFL that it needed to respond to the request. On October 26, 2000, CFL responded to the request for an advisory opinion and indicated that X had received all of the data in CFL&apos;s possession on July 26, 2000; the 1988 complaint files X said were missing were no longer in CFL&apos;s possession; the August 11, 2000, letter responded to X&apos;s second request; attorney-client privilege classified the withheld documents as confidential and that CFL had responded to X&apos;s initial request within the ten day period stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request to have access to all data about him/herself when the Department does not include in its response any e-mails, that identify the data subject, that were either sent by or received by Department personnel?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the data subject provides clarifying detail about a request and receives no response to the clarified request?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In denying a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to data about him/herself, is it appropriate for the Department to claim that the data are not available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30, which the Department cites, in a typographical error, as Section 13.03?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the Department does not provide a response within 10 days of the request?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request to have access to all data about him/herself when the Department does not include in its response any e-mails, that identify the data subject, that were either sent by or received by Department personnel?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In requesting this advisory opinion, X indicates that a single email was received from CFL and that was concerning the July 13, 2000, request for access to public and private data about X. CFL has responded that this is the only email in its possession where X is the data subject. In other words, the two parties do not agree on the facts. CFL could further support its position that emails do not exist by providing X with a copy of the approved records retention schedule(s) showing the retention period for email and by further providing copies of the records destruction reports showing that the emails were, in fact, destroyed in compliance with the retention schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 does not provide authority for an investigation or resolution of this factual dispute. As a result, the Commissioner is unable to provide an opinion on the appropriateness of CFL&apos;s conduct with regard to emails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the data subject provides clarifying detail about a request and receives no response to the clarified request?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL has offered proof, in the form of Dr. Lombard&apos;s letter of August 11, 2000, that X did receive a response to X&apos;s letter of July 27, 2000, that contained clarifying detail. CFL did not, however, provide that response within ten working days as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3. It is important that government entities meet this statutory requirement and respond to a request by a data subject to access private data immediately, if possible, and definitely within ten working days of the request. See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267712&quot; title=&quot;00-033&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-033&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266972&quot; title=&quot;99-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-044&lt;/a&gt;. While CFL has responded to X&apos;s clarifying request, it did not do so in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;In denying a data subject&apos;s request to gain access to data about him/herself, is it appropriate for the Department to claim that the data are not available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30, which the Department cites, in a typographical error, as Section 13.03?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30 (1998)(now recodified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393) classifies data used by an attorney acting on behalf of a government entity according to the professional rules that govern attorney conduct. The decision to invoke the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 (2000) lies with the government entity and its attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, CFL and its attorney at the Office of the Attorney General have determined that there are documents where X is the data subject that are to be classified according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393 (2000). Therefore, it is appropriate for CFL to claim that these data are not available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. &lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request when the Department does not provide a response within 10 days of the request?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the requirement to provide private data to the data subject within ten working days is an important provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Timeliness is critical to the ability of the data subject to exercise his/her rights under the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, X made a request for access to private data on July 13, 2000. CFL provided copies of data where X was the data subject on July 26, 2000, nine working days after the request was made. CFL has met the statutory requirement with respect to X&apos;s initial request for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CFL did not, however, meet its statutory duty with respect to X&apos;s subsequent request that was made on July 27, 2000. By responding on August 11, 2000, CFL acted on the 11th working day, which is not appropriate according to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner of Administration is unable to determine if the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning has responded appropriately to X&apos;s request for access to emails because there is a factual dispute between the parties.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did respond to the data subject&apos;s clarifying request but did not respond within the time required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning appropriately denied X access to data based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13.30 (1998)(now codified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393(2000)).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did respond to X&apos;s initial request within the ten working days provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3. The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond to X&apos;s clarifying request with ten working days as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 1, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267219</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-060</Title><title>Opinion 00 060</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268016&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Deephaven respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, data subject&apos;s request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 21, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 5, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert J. Larson, Administrator of the City. (The City of Deephaven provides a variety of services, including providing public access to data, to the City of Greenwood.) The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 17, 2000, IPA received a response from Mr. Larson. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 11, 2000, X wrote to Mr. Larson, asking to inspect all of the public and private data Greenwood maintains about X. X also expressed concern about the accuracy of meeting minutes of a particular Greenwood City Council meeting. As of October 3, 2000, the date of X&apos;s opinion request, s/he had not received a response from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Larson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon receiving [X&apos;s] September 11, 2000 letter, I personally attempted to contact [X] via telephone. [X&apos;s] telephone voice-mail system activated, at which point I left a detailed message stating the purpose of my call. I further explained that the official, written minutes of the Greenwood City Council meeting do not contain any information about the incident in question, but that [X] was welcome to obtain a copy of them to verify this or to contact me if [s/he] had any questions. Unfortunately, [X] failed to return my call.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Deephaven respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, data subject&apos;s request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request for access to government data by a data subject, the responsible authority must comply with the request within ten working days. X asked for access to all data maintained about him/her in a letter dated September 11, 2000. According to X, the City did not respond at all to that request. According to Mr. Larson, he left X a telephone message related to X&apos;s concerns about data about him/her contained in City Council meeting minutes, to which X did not respond. Mr. Larson did not address the issue of X&apos;s access to all other City data of which X is the subject. Mr. Larson did not state whether the date of that telephone call was within ten working days of receipt of X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whose version is correct. Both parties need to make reasonable efforts to satisfy their respective responsibilities and rights under the statute. If the City has not done so, it needs, without delay, to provide X the opportunity to inspect all of the public and private data it maintains about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted in Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266612&quot; title=&quot;00-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-059&lt;/a&gt;, we are aware of considerable controversy about public access to City of Greenwood data, in light of the number of advisory opinions we have issued that involve Deephaven and Greenwood. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267808&quot; title=&quot;00-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-030&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267346&quot; title=&quot;00-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267784&quot; title=&quot;00-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267605&quot; title=&quot;00-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-021&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-015&lt;/a&gt;.) Therefore, it would have been helpful in this situation if the City of Greenwood had recorded its attempt to contact [X] in writing, in order to document its response to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood responded appropriately to a September 11, 2000, data subject&apos;s request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 21, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268016</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-059</Title><title>Opinion 00 059</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266612&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Deephaven respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request to inspect public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 17, 2000; City of Deephaven</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from John Musgjerd. In this letter, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Deephaven. Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request required clarification with IPA staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
              In response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert J. Larson, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated October 3, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 17, 2000, IPA received a response from Mr. Larson. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;p /&gt;
              In a letter dated September 11, 2000, Mr. Musgjerd wrote to Mr. Larson asking to inspect public information associated with services charged to the City of Greenwood under the contract between the two cities. Will you advise me as to the date(s) that I will be allowed to inspect the data?
              &lt;p /&gt;
              According to Mr. Musgjerd, as of October 2, 2000, Deephaven had not responded to his request.
              &lt;p /&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Larson wrote:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;Upon receiving Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s September 11, 2000 letter, I personally attempted to contact him via telephone on three separate occasions to request that he arrange a time to review the information in question. The most recent date that I attempted to contact him was Friday, October 6, 2000. On all three occasions his telephone voice-mail system activated, at which point I left a detailed message stating the purpose of my call and how he could contact me. Unfortunately, Mr. Musgjerd failed to return any of my calls. &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Deephaven respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request to inspect public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 3, government entities must respond to requests for access to public data in a prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. According to Mr. Musgjerd, the City did not respond at all to his request. According to Mr. Larson, he left three telephone messages for Mr. Musgjerd to arrange a time for Mr. Musgjerd to inspect the data, to which messages Mr. Musgjerd did not respond.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                  It is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whose version is correct. Both parties need to make reasonable efforts to satisfy their respective responsibilities and rights under the statute. If the City has not done so, it needs to provide Mr. Musgjerd the opportunity to inspect the data he requested. If Mr. Musgjerd has not responded to the City&apos;s invitation to arrange a time to inspect the data, he should do so.
                  &lt;p /&gt;
                  In general, however, we note that the most reasonable method of attempting a response to an inquiry is to use the same communication medium as the inquiry. For instance, a written, mailed request for information, as used in this case, would reasonably have been answered by a written, mailed response.
                  &lt;p /&gt;
                  The City of Deephaven provides a variety of services under contract to the City of Greenwood, including providing public access to government data. We are aware of considerable controversy about public access to City of Greenwood data, in light of the number of advisory opinions we have issued that involve Deephaven and Greenwood. (See Advisory Opinions 00-030, 00-028, 00-026, 00-021 and 00-015.) Given that controversy, it would have been helpful in this situation if the City of Deephaven had documented its attempts to contact Mr. Musgjerd in writing. Clear and documented dialogue by the parties to this controversy is essential if the ongoing disputes over access to data at the City of Greenwood are to ever be resolved.
                  &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Musgjerd is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Deephaven responded appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request to inspect public data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 17, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266612</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Method of response</Title><Id>266611</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-058</Title><title>Opinion 00 058</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266506&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Two Harbors: data on customers of the City&apos;s electric, gas, water, sewer and storm water utilities?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 2000; City of Two Harbors</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from Patty Nordean, on behalf of the City of Two Harbors. In this letter, Ms. Nordean asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the City. Ms. Nordean&apos;s request required clarification with IPA staff. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Nordean, the City provides the following utilities for customers located in the City: electric, natural gas, water, sewer and storm water. She asked the Commissioner to address the classification of data on City utility customers, including name and address, and utility consumption data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Nordean asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Two Harbors: data on customers of the City&apos;s electric, gas, water, sewer and storm water utilities? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. Pursuant to section 13.685, data on customers of municipal electric utilities are either private (data on individuals), or nonpublic (data not on individuals), but may be released to certain entities or persons under conditions enumerated in that section.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on customers of other municipal utilities, in this case the City&apos;s gas, water, sewer and storm water utilities, are public data, according to section 13.03. However, pursuant to section 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data. If the City collects the Social Security numbers of its utility customers, those numbers must be redacted from the other utility customer data the City makes accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Nordean is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.685, data on customers of municipal electric utilities are not public, but may be released to certain entities or persons under conditions enumerated in that section. Data on customers of the City&apos;s gas, water, sewer and storm water utilities are public data, according to section 13.03, except for Social Security numbers, which are private under section 13.49. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 16, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266506</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Municipal utility customer data (13.685 / 13.612)</Title><Id>266505</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:02:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-057</Title><title>Opinion 00 057</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266952&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-15T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Lakeville respond appropriately to requests for data made on the following dates:
verbal request on 11/8/99 
verbal request on 11/9/99 
verbal request on 11/24/99 
written request dated 11/26/99 
written request dated 4/21/00 
written request dated 5/9/00 
written request dated 5/17/00 
written request dated 5/18/00 
written request dated 5/25/00 
verbal request dated 6/1/00 
verbal request dated 6/2/00 
written request dated 6/6/00 
written request dated 6/10/00 
written request dated 7/8/00 
written request dated 7/19/00 
written request dated 7/21/00 
written request dated 7/23/00 
written request dated 7/27/00 
written request dated 8/9/00
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Lakeville inappropriately disseminate data about X (via letters X wrote to the City dated November 11/9/99 and 11/10/99) to a member of the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 2000; City of Lakeville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 8, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding X&apos;s access to certain data that the City of Lakeville maintains. After consultation with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion regarding the matters stated below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Erickson, City Administrator for Lakeville, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 15, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 26, 2000, IPA received a response, dated September 25, 2000, from Roger Knutson, Lakeville City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X has been seeking data relating to the building of a particular structure in Lakeville. X began seeking information in November of 1999. X believes that the City has not responded appropriately per the obligations that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, imposes on government entities. X requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Lakeville respond appropriately to requests for data made on the following dates:
&lt;br /&gt;
verbal request on 11/8/99
&lt;br /&gt;
verbal request on 11/9/99
&lt;br /&gt;
verbal request on 11/24/99
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 11/26/99
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 4/21/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 5/9/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 5/17/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 5/18/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 5/25/00
&lt;br /&gt;
verbal request dated 6/1/00
&lt;br /&gt;
verbal request dated 6/2/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 6/6/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 6/10/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 7/8/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 7/19/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 7/21/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 7/23/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 7/27/00
&lt;br /&gt;
written request dated 8/9/00&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Lakeville inappropriately disseminate data about X (via letters X wrote to the City dated November 11/9/99 and 11/10/99) to a member of the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s verbal request on 11/8/99 to Associate City Planner, Ron Mullenbach&lt;/em&gt;, was for &quot;FAX anything to me that he had, and he agreed&quot; regarding &quot;recent staking activity&quot; at a particular vacant lot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that on 11/8/99, the City faxed to him/her certain Exhibits, specifically those lettered B -J.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s verbal request on 11/9/99 to Mr. Mullenbach&lt;/em&gt; was for &quot;research and data he had regarding such a vastly dissimilar structure and the relative effect it would have on adjacent neighboring property and resale values, including the effect it would have on the ease of resale.&quot; X wrote that the City Planner &quot;assured me that he and the Legal Department had done this already and discovered &lt;strong&gt;similar&lt;/strong&gt; situations which clearly established no negative effect on property values or resale issues. He told me that he would send this data right out to me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that on 11/12/99, the City Planner contacted him/her and advised that they would be sending a packet of information for the &quot;Planning Commission Meeting this Thursday, 11/18/99.... I asked him if this packet would include everything he had been assuring me would soon be forthcoming. All he would say in response is: &quot;You&apos;ll get everything you need.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that on 11/13/99, X received the packet of information from the City. The packet contained the meeting agenda, Document 6c (a discussion about the structure/property in question), and Exhibits A - S (X wrote that of these, only E, F, I, J enclosed, - the Commissioner notes, however, that the City had previously faxed to X Exhibits B - J.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s verbal request on 11/24/99 to Mr. Mullenbach&lt;/em&gt; was for the revised plans for the structure/property in question (X wrote that upon calling the City to inquire about the project status, Mr. Mullenbach informed him/her that the owner had submitted revised plans and that those plans would soon be approved).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that Mr. Mullenbach stated the revision was &quot;none of my business, and he wasn&apos;t going to allow me to see any data.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s written request on 11/26/99 to Bob Erickson, City Administrator&lt;/em&gt;, regards the &quot;Matasosky Variance Request/Shoreland Conditional Use Permit, file # 336.17 - 83.19.&quot; X wrote, &quot;This is a request for any information you or the city may have on this subject, including the Administrative Waiver documents...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that s/he did not receive any response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 4/21/00 written request was to Lakeville&apos;s Mayor&lt;/em&gt;. X wrote that he had not received responses to the data s/he requested in his/her 11/24/99 and 11/26/99 letters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that s/he did not receive any response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 5/9/00 written request was again to Lakeville&apos;s Mayor&lt;/em&gt;. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is a follow-up to the letter I sent you, dated 4/21/00, regarding some significant matters.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I still have not received a response to my formal requests for public records...My requests for documents...[go] back several months....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that s/he did not receive any response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 5/17/99 written request to Mr. Erickson&lt;/em&gt; was for a copy of the City&apos;s public access procedures as well as the following data regarding a specific property:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;All requests, opinions, surveys, plats, statistical data, drainage and storm sewer data, all permits, variances, rulings, Administrative Waivers and actions (particularly those not available at the Dakota County Records Department) by property owners, the City of Lakeville, and any city official, person, or entity relative to this property from January 1, 1980 to May 17, 2000.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Planning Commission and City Council meetings and minutes, and any other meetings, and minutes that may exist, relative to the this property (1/1/80-5/17/00).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Records of any new residential structures not approved by the City of Lakeville, and all related documents, by virtue of city ordinances: Section 11-8-4.A.2 and Section 11-8-13.d (1/1/80-5/17/00).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Specific ordinance or legal document which completely defines: Administrative Waiver, and the responsible Authorities (1/1/80-5/17/00).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 5/18/00 written request to Mr. Erickson&lt;/em&gt; was a clarification of X&apos;s item #3 from his/her 5/17/99 letter. X asked for specific documents relating to item #3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated May 22, 2000, Mr. Knutson responded to X&apos;s 5/17/00 and 5/18/00 requests. Regarding the 5/17/00, the Mr. Knutson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City has these files: Jack Matasosky Variance and CUP file, Administrative Subdivision file, House file for [a particular address].&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;You may review the City Council and Planning Commission files for the data indicated.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;None....&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of the City Code and all ordinances will be made available.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding the 5/18/00 request, Mr. Knutson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;None....&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The City&apos;s plat files will be made available. Copies of all City Council meeting and Planning Commissioner meeting minutes will be made available. Concerns expressed about a structure&apos;s aesthetics are not indexed. Legal precedents not cited in my letter of November 11, 1999 are not government data in the possession of the City.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson added, &quot;You may review the requested data by contacting Donna Quintus at...Once you have reviewed the data, the City will copy what you want copied for [$.15] per page.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On 5/25/00, X &quot;went to Lakeville City Planning Department...to review data. I requested a full set of copies from each file.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 5/25/00 written request to Mr. Erickson&lt;/em&gt; concerned his/her 5/17/00 and 5/18/00 requests. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I do not know what the total volume is of the material I requested. I found it necessary to request the data I did because you did not provide anything that I had previously requested, nor did some of the other officials I had contacted.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In an effort to make my requests easier to comply with, I am willing to assist you and your staff in any appropriate fashion, to make this process easier. Also, I would like immediate access to whichever documents are readily available....This could lead me to realize that some of my requested data is not necessary to my research....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On 5/31/00, X picked up the copies s/he had requested on 5/25/00. Later that afternoon, X contacted Ms. Quintus &quot;regarding poor and duplicate copies, and it appeared that some may be missing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 6/1/00 verbal request was to the Chief Building Official - Gene Abbott&lt;/em&gt; - as instructed by Ms. Quintus, for a &quot;complete copy of file for [a particular address].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that Mr. Abbott agreed to copy the file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 6/2/00 verbal request was to Mr. Abbott&lt;/em&gt; to &quot;inquire about copies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that Mr. Abbott agreed to provide the copies next week. X stated, He never did.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 6/6/00 written request to Ms. Quintus&lt;/em&gt; s/he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;When I spoke with you last week you said that you would have the balance of documents I have been requesting since the second week in November 1999, ready today....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition to the bad copies and other information I noted in my FAX to you last Wednesday, 5/31/00, there remain various documents that exist which I did not receive, but were outlined in my letters to [the City Administrator], and noted in Roger Knutson&apos;s 5/22/00 response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;I still have not received the specific ordinances and documents which completely define: Administrative Waiver and the responsible authority (1/1/80 - 5/17/00); The City Code and all Ordinances I referenced (1/1/80 - 5/17/00); The Responsible Authority&apos;s Public Access Procedure; The aerial map of the property; Information, documents and any minutes or notes from the 12/28/99 meeting between some property owners and city staff; Zoning documents, presumably R-2; All materials relating to the structure being constructed at [a particular address], including, but not limited to, building inspections and permits; Planning Commission minutes, and one additional request, video tapes from the Planning Commission meetings of 7/7/83 and 11/11/99.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;...Plese call me this morning with the time I can pick-up these materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated June 9, 2000, Mr. Knutson responded to X&apos;s letter. He advised X that all requests for government data &quot;from the City must be put in writing, dated and addressed to Donna Quintus at City Hall.&quot; Mr. Knutson further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The following additional information you requested is enclosed: aerial map, zoning ordinance R-2 District text, Planning Commission minutes for 07/07/83. You also requested Planning Commission minutes for 11/11/99. Since there was no Planning Commission meeting on 11/11/99, we are enclosing a copy of the 11/18/99 meeting minutes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The following data you requested does not exist: video tapes of Planning Commission meetings of 07/07/83 and 11/11/99; information, documents, or any minutes or notes from a 12/28/99 meeting. Since you were in attendance at the meeting you presumably are already aware that no such data exists. You have already been furnished all materials relating to the structure being constructed at [a particular address]. The Public Authority&apos;s Public Access Procedure is Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson also addressed the issue of problematic photocopies. He informed X that the City will refund him/her $5 and enclosed new copies of the bad copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, Mr. Knutson wrote, &quot;Copies of the current City Code and the City&apos;s book or [sic] ordinances may be reviewed at any during normal business hours. Administrative subdivisions are addressed in the subdivision ordinance.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his opinion request, regarding Mr. Knutson&apos;s response, X wrote that s/he believes that the City had still not provided him/her with certain data responsive to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In X&apos;s 6/10/00 written request to Mr. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, s/he asks again for the City&apos;s &quot;established and prepared public access procedures in written form.&quot; X also acknowledged a typographical error in his/her 6/10/00 letter and asked for a video tape of the 11/18/99 Planning Commission meeting, rather than the 11/11/99 meeting. X stated, &quot;I still have not received any documents that completely define: Administrative Waivers.&quot; X also stated, &quot;I am now officially requesting that all relative data available only by electronic transmittal be provided to me unless it is identical to printed matter I now have or will soon be provided.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson responded on June 20, 2000:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City does not have video or audio tapes of the 11/18/99 or the 7/07/83 Planning Commission meetings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A copy of the large plat will be forwarded to you by City staff by U.S. Mail.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;None of the data you have requested exists only in electronic format.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&quot;Administrative waivers are addressed in Section 10-1-6 of the City Code.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Donna Quintus or the City Clerk will produce the City Code and ordinances for your review at any time during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;You also asked who at the City could advise you of the meaning of the City Code and ordinances. The code and ordinances are clearly stated; City does not provide interpretive attorney services to private citizens.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 7/8/00 written request to Mr. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, s/he wrote, &quot;...I have received better copies of the two large plats I had requested, but nothing else. I am still waiting for the balance of data requested and referenced to in letters to city officials dating back to last November.&quot; X also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I did not ask for interpretive attorney services. I asked for what the Data Practices Act requires which is to inform me of the data&apos;s meaning, if that should be necessary. With this in mind, I am asking for you, or the Responsible Authority, to inform me of the following data&apos;s specific meaning: Section 11-8-4.A.2, and Section 11-8-13.D.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X also asked Mr. Knutson to &quot;define&quot; his (Mr Knutson&apos;s) 11/11/99 letter, which X wrote is related to the above-mentioned sections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson responded in a letter dated July 26, 2000. He wrote, &quot;To the best of my knowledge the City has supplied you with all the data you requested.&quot; Mr. Knutson then advised X as to how s/he could obtain a copy of the City&apos;s code from the codifier. He also wrote, The language in Sections 10-8-4.A2 and 11-8-13D of the City Code is self explanatory. A key issue in the application of both provisions is proof of depreciation of surrounding property value. The City did not have proof that the proposed [structure] would depreciate surrounding property value.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 7/19/00 written request to Mr. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, s/he asked the City to provide the balance of the data &quot;I have repeatedly requested in writing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote that the City did not provide a response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 7/21/00 written request to Charlene Friedges&lt;/em&gt;, s/he asked for &quot;&lt;strong&gt;any new data&lt;/strong&gt; that exists on or relative to the construction project at [a particular address] &lt;strong&gt;since 5/31/00&lt;/strong&gt;, when Donna Quintus provided a packet of information to me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson responded in a letter dated July 26, 2000. He wrote, &quot;The data concerning the construction project at [a particular address] since 05/31/00 may be inspected or copied by calling Charlene Friedges at...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 7/23/00 written request to Ms. Friedges&lt;/em&gt;, s/he asked, &quot;I would also like to know if the City of Lakeville has or keeps any kind of data about me personally, and whether those data are classified as public, private, or confidential.&quot; X also wrote, &quot;...if any kind of personal data does exist, I would sincerely appreciate your prompt response to inform me of this, and provide complete copies of those data I am entitled to...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson responded in a letter dated August 7, 2000. He wrote, &quot;The only data the City has concerning you is public or private. Copies of [data in which X is referred to] are enclosed. Your identity is &apos;private&apos; in the reports in which you complained about the use of real property. You may inspect or arrange for the copying of the remaining data by calling Charlene Friedges at...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 7/27/00 written request to Mr. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, s/he referred to Mr. Knutson&apos;s 7/26/00 letters. X wrote, &quot;...please have Ms. Friedges respond to my letter in writing.&quot; X also wrote, &quot;I did not ask for copies of the entire city code. Additionally, I have not asked for any of the new or revised sections of city code. The data I have requested is contained in the many letters I have written. Please read those letters again and you will see what I have been requesting since last November, and am still waiting for.&quot; X asked again for an explanation of Mr. Knutson&apos;s 11/11/99 letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Knutson responded in a letter dated August 3, 2000. He wrote, &quot;To the best of my knowledge and the City&apos;s collective knowledge, we have provided you with all the government data that you have requested. It is not productive to say this again and again, so we will not respond further if you send another letter making similar demands.&quot; Regarding Mr. Knutson&apos;s 11/11/99 letter, Mr. Knutson wrote, &quot;We have responded to the last paragraph in your letter dated July 8, 2000. We have no further response.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;em&gt;X&apos;s 8/9/00 written request to Mr. Knutson&lt;/em&gt;, s/he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I do not believe that my letter dated 7/23/00...which you responded to in your letter dated 8/7/00 is appropriately responsive. Please respond to that letter as required.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding the data you provided with your letter, am I to assume that the only data the [City] maintains on me classified as &quot;private&quot; are reports in which I complained about the use of real property?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner does not know whether the City responded to this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute or federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. If a government entity does not possess data that an individual requests, the entity is not required to create new data but should so inform the requestor. If a government entity withholds data because those data are classified as not public, it is required to provide the requestor with the statutory citation upon which the entity denied access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Knutson did not separately address each request. Rather, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The City has fully and promptly responded to each request for data. The City provided all of the date [sic] that was requested. No data was withheld on the basis of its classification. In certain instances data that was requested did not exist. The requestor was promptly informed that the data did not exist.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this case, there is a factual dispute. Mr. Knutson asserts that the City provided X with all the data s/he requested and that in cases where the requested data do not exist, the City so informed X. X asserts that the City has not provided him/her with all data responsive to the various requests. The Commissioner does not know precisely what data the City maintains and precisely what data X received from the City. Given that reality, the Commissioner is unable to make a determination regarding whether the City provided X with all the data s/he requested. As stated above, pursuant to section 13.03, the City is required to respond to requests within a reasonable time. Therefore, if the City has not provided X with existing data that are responsive to X&apos;s request, the City should either provide X with the data immediately or inform him/her that the data do not exist. If the City is denying access to the data, it must provide X with the statutory citation that classifies the data as not public. If there are no additional data, beyond what X has already received, the City is not required to create new data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, if the City does not maintain data X requested, there may be official records and records management implications. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, all officers and agencies of cities shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If some of the requested data constitute official records, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, the City is required to maintain those data for a certain period of time. Disposal of records should be done only according to the General Records Retention Schedule for Cities, which is public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X wrote two letters to Mr. Mullenbach in the fall of 1999 expressing his/her concerns about a particular piece of property in Lakeville. In those letters, X discussed his/her concerns about aesthetics, and also about legal and environmental issues. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...I really do feel that the legal issues in all areas of this matter must be explored further....I implore you to further explore the legal and environmental issues...And, the explanations your legal department provides should logically apply to the proposed structure...we are most anxious to study all of the current and historical facts regarding the water drainage situation....They should be fascinating, considering the building prohibition that has existed for so many years, with respect to the environmental and ecological problems that had to be solved.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 10, 1999, X learned that Mr. Mullenbach had provided copies of the two letters to the owner of the property in question. X objected to the City&apos;s disclosure of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner regarding this issue, Mr. Knutson wrote: &quot;The two letters concerned a pending application. The requestor&apos;s concerns and issues were reviewed with the application in an attempt to resolve the concerns. The letters are public data under Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 1.&quot; The Commissioner notes that Mr. Knutson, in his August 7, 2000, letter to X, wrote, &quot;Your identity is &apos;private&apos; in the reports in which you complained about the use of real property.&quot; It is not clear if Mr. Knutson was referring to other data the City maintains about X, or whether the City has given X two different analyses regarding the classification of the data in the letters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, however, that the City should have protected X&apos;s identity pursuant to section 13.44, property complaint data. Section 13.44 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;n this case, X was making a complaint to the City regarding possible environmental and structural issues that relate to a specific piece of real property. The City should have protected X&apos;s identity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Lakeville provided X with all data responsive to his/her requests.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, the City of Lakeville inappropriately disseminated data about X (via letters X wrote to the City in the fall of 1999) to a member of the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266952</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-10-13T13:54:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-056</Title><title>Opinion 00 056</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267973&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-15T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 14, 2000, request for copies of private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 27, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 4, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the district. In a letter dated September 14, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 21, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [i]t is anticipated that this request will require laquo; hour of clerical time, at $20.00 per hour, &lt;u&gt;to gather the information&lt;/u&gt;. Actual copy charges will depend on the number of pages to be copied. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . it is my understanding that the request for an Advisory Opinion relates to the District&apos;s charging [X] to gather&apos; information in response to [X&apos;s] request for attorney bills. The issue may be one of semantics. As you are aware, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.04, Subd. 3, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.&apos; Similarly, pursuant to the Department&apos;s rules, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data.&apos; Minn. R. 1205.0400, subp 5. The reasonable fee may include the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies.&apos; Minn. Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4. The use of the verbs make,&apos; compile,&apos; and prepare,&apos; certainly would incorporate the verb gather&apos; in response to an individual&apos;s request for data. As such, it is the District&apos;s position that it responded appropriately and reasonably as contemplated by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 14, 2000, request for copies of private data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed an essentially identical issue, also involving Independent School District 11, in Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-054&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267972&quot; title=&quot;00-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;00-055&lt;/a&gt;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, he opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In her response to X, Ms. LaValle stated that the copy charges included the cost to gather the data. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady said the issue is one of semantics, and that making, certifying and compiling incorporate the verb gather. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a September 14, 2000, request for copies of private data, because it included a charge to gather the data, which is not allowed under section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267973</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-055</Title><title>Opinion 00 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267972&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 27, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 4, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the district. In a letter dated September 11, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 21, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [i]t is anticipated that this request will require laquo; hour of clerical time, at $20.00 per hour, &lt;u&gt;to gather the information&lt;/u&gt;. Actual copy charges will depend on the number of pages to be copied. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . it is my understanding that the request for an Advisory Opinion relates to the District&apos;s charging [X] to gather&apos; information in response to [X&apos;s] request for attorney bills. The issue may be one of semantics. As you are aware, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.04, Subd. 3, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.&apos; Similarly, pursuant to the Department&apos;s rules, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data.&apos; Minn. R. 1205.0400, subp 5. The reasonable fee may include the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies.&apos; Minn. Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4. The use of the verbs make,&apos; compile,&apos; and prepare,&apos; certainly would incorporate the verb gather&apos; in response to an individual&apos;s request for data. As such, it is the District&apos;s position that it responded appropriately and reasonably as contemplated by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed an essentially identical issue, also involving Independent School District 11, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857#/detail/appId/1/id/266998&quot; title=&quot;00-054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-054&lt;/a&gt;, in which he opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In her response to X, Ms. LaValle stated that the copy charges included the cost to gather the data. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady said the issue is one of semantics, and that making, certifying and compiling incorporate the verb gather. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a September 11, 2000, request for copies of private data, because it included a charge to gather the data, which is not allowed under section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267972</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-054</Title><title>Opinion 00 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266998&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request for copies of private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 18, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 19, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 2, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the district. In a letter dated August 9, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In a letter dated August 17, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [i]t is anticipated that this request will require 1/2 hour of clerical time, at $20.00 per hour, &lt;u&gt;to gather the information&lt;/u&gt;. Actual copy charges will depend on the number of pages to be copied. (Emphasis added.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . it is my understanding that the request for an Advisory Opinion relates to the District&apos;s charging [X] to gather&apos; information in response to [X&apos;s] request for attorney bills. The issue may be one of semantics. As you are aware, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.04, Subd. 3, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual cost of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.&apos; Similarly, pursuant to the Department&apos;s rules, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data.&apos; Minn. R. 1205.0400, subp 5. The reasonable fee may include the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies.&apos; Minn. Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4. The use of the verbs make,&apos; compile,&apos; and prepare,&apos; certainly would incorporate the verb gather&apos; in response to an individual&apos;s request for data. As such, it is the District&apos;s position that it responded appropriately and reasonably as contemplated by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request for copies of private data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor is the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X requested copies of data relating to X&apos;s minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to X, Ms. LaValle stated that the copy charges included the cost to gather the data. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady said the issue is one of semantics, and that making, certifying and compiling incorporate the verb gather. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request for copies of private data, because it included a charge to gather the data, which is not allowed under section 13.04, subdivision 3. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 15, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266998</id><Tag><Description/><Title>No charge to search/retrieve/redact</Title><Id>266485</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-053</Title><title>Opinion 00 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267416&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, did Douglas County respond appropriately to requests from Mr. and Mrs. X for access to data about themselves that were collected as part of a child maltreatment investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 8, 2000; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. X. In this letter, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by Douglas County Human Services (DCHS).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael J. Woods, the director of DCHS. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2000, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for DCHS&apos;s position. On September 29, 2000, IPA received a response from Mr. Woods. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. and Mrs. X, DCHS has conducted a Child in Need of Protective Services investigation about the X family. Mr. and Mrs. X have made multiple oral and written requests to DCHS to review data about themselves that relate to the investigation and its findings. Mr. and Mrs. X were not permitted to access the data about their family as part of their appeal of the DCHS determination that neglect had occurred and that child protective services were needed. In responding to Mr. and Mrs. X&apos;s requests, DCHS stated that the data were confidential because a decision regarding a Child in Need of Protective Services petition had not yet been made by Douglas County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Woods wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The data remains confidential as long as our office is actively considering or pursuing a Child in Need of Protective Petition. Per Minnesota Statutes 13.46, Subdivision 3, the data remains investigative and, therefore, retains a confidential classification.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, did Douglas County respond appropriately to requests from Mr. and Mrs. X for access to data about themselves that were collected as part of a child maltreatment investigation?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The resolution of the issue rests with a comparison of two provisions of Minnesota law, specifically Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556. Douglas County has relied on the classification of investigative data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 is the portion of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that deals generally with family, welfare and benefit data. Subdivision 3 classifies data collected or maintained by the welfare system about an investigation authorized by statute as confidential. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 3, provides that data that are classified as confidential data on individuals are not accessible to the subject of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, governs maltreatment of minors including how allegations are made and investigated and how data about the allegations and investigations are classified. Regarding the classification of maltreatment investigative data, Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, states in pertinent part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Subd. 11. &lt;strong&gt; Records.&lt;/strong&gt; (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and subdivisions 10b, 10d, 10g, and 11b, all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency or agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report under this section, including any written reports filed under subdivision 7, shall be &lt;u&gt;private data on individuals&lt;/u&gt;...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (emphasis added). Private data on individuals are accessible to the subjects of that data. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When two provisions of Minnesota law appear to resolve the same issue, the provisions are said to be irreconcilable. Minnesota law also provides rules to be used to avoid a finding that sections of law are irreconcilable. In Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1, the Legislature has stated that specific provisions of law overrule general provisions. In order to resolve the issue in dispute here, it must be determined which provision is specific and which is general.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Following a review of the two provisions and the facts in this case where an allegation of maltreatment has been made and investigated, it is clear that Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, is the specific provision. Section 626.556 governs maltreatment of minors; section 13.46 governs welfare system investigations generally. Because section 626.556 controls in this case, the data about Mr. and Mrs. X are classified as private data on individuals and were accessible to Mr. and Mrs. X throughout the period of investigation by DCHS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further support for this conclusion is found in the portion of Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, that classifies the identity of the reporter of alleged maltreatment as confidential. If the investigative data were classified as confidential, there would be no need for the classification of the reporter&apos;s identity as confidential. As the Legislature has classified the identity of the reporter as confidential both during and after the investigation, it is logical to conclude that the investigative data are private data on individuals, as stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 626.566, subdivision 11.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This conclusion is also supported by Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 10 (h). It states in pertinent part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...[D]ata acquired by the local welfare agency during the course of the assessment or investigation are private data on individuals and must be maintained in accordance with subdivision 11.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This statement was made by the Legislature in 1995 as part of a provision that directed local welfare agency conduct of maltreatment investigations. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3, has been part of that section since 1979. Another rule for interpreting laws passed by the Legislature is that the most recent in time controls older law. In other words, the Legislature&apos;s statement in 1995 that data collected during a maltreatment investigation are classified as private controls over a 1979 that provides the welfare system investigative data are confidential.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When Mr. and Mrs. X requested data about themselves developed during the maltreatment investigation of their family, Douglas County Human Services should have provided that data to them as it is classified as private data on individuals by Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 8, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267416</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access to data subject</Title><Id>266497</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child maltreatment data</Title><Id>266782</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigative data</Title><Id>267143</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:01:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-052</Title><title>Opinion 00 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267886&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-03T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 31, Bemidji, inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student X and/or X&apos;s parent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 2000; School District 31 (Bemidji)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 13, 2000, IPA received a letter from Rebecca Hamblin, attorney for Education Minnesota, on behalf of Y, a District employee. In this letter, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Y and X&apos;s rights with respect to certain data maintained by School District 31, Bemidji.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rollie Morud, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 15, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 3, 2000, IPA received a response from Ann R. Goering, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                During an arbitration hearing in June of 2000, Ms. Goering questioned Y about the home-schooling of Y&apos;s child, X, a student in the District. According to Ms. Hamblin:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is Education Minnesota&apos;s position that the information regarding the home-schooling of [X] is educational data&apos; as defined by Minn. Stat. section13.32. As private educational data, this information should be available to very few school district officials if any. It can only be released to officers or employees of the District if they have a legitimate educational interest, such as having work assignments that reasonably require access. The District had no legal basis for informing Ms. Goering, as the District&apos;s counsel in a case that involved [Y] as an employee, that [X] was being home-schooled by [Y] in [Y&apos;s] capacity as a parent, not as a teacher.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Furthermore, the private data regarding [X] is not personnel data&apos; as defined under Minn. Stat. section13.43. Personnel data is collected because the individual is or was an employee. [Y&apos;s] home schooling of [X] is not within the scope of [Y&apos;s] employment with the school district. Therefore, it is not personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 A School District employee had a conversation with [Y] related to home schooling. The employee did not record the substance of the conversation in any manner other than in his memory. The unrecorded mental impressions of public employees are not classified as government data. &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. App. 1992), rev. denied. Because the information provided to counsel for the District was not recorded, a violation of the MGDPA cannot be found to have occurred.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Moreover, the employee recalled the information not because the student was enrolled in the District, but because [Y] was a licensed teacher employed by the District. The student&apos;s name was not referenced. To constitute private educational data on a student it must be recorded because the student is or was enrolled in the District. In this case, the employee recalled [Y&apos;s] statements because a teacher employed by the District made them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 31, Bemidji, inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student X and/or X&apos;s parent? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about students are termed educational data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Generally speaking, educational data are private. (See section 13.32, subdivision 2.) Student is defined at section 13.32, subdivision 1 (c), as an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered, applicants for enrollment or registration at a public educational agency or institution, or individuals who receive shared time educational services from a public agency or institution.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Both state and federal law set forth standards regarding access to private data by employees of a school district. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, private data may be disseminated to those persons within the government entity, e.g., the District, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the private data. Pursuant to 34 CFR 99.31(a)(1), of the rules implementing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), education records may be disclosed to other school officials, including teachers, within the institution whom the institution has determined to have a legitimate educational interest in the record.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, according to Ms. Goering, the source of the information about the home schooling of Y&apos;s child was Y, via the other employee, and not any recorded data maintained by the District. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in 1993 that data must be recorded in physical form in order to be considered government data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See &lt;i&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/i&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In &lt;i&gt;Keezer&lt;/i&gt;, the Court wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] is intended to regulate every aspect of how the government manages the information it collects and records. It is nearly impossible to regulate any function related to data until a record is created somewhere outside the human brain. To give effect to the Act, we conclude that information is not government data&apos; until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Ms. Hamblin did not provide any documentation that the source of the data disclosed by Ms. Goering in the hearing was government data, as defined per &lt;i&gt;Keezer&lt;/i&gt;, that are maintained by the District. Therefore, the Commissioner accepts the District&apos;s assertion that it did not improperly disseminate private educational data about X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Furthermore, even absent &lt;i&gt;Keezer&lt;/i&gt;, given the definition of student cited above, it is hard to see how a home-schooled child is a student for purposes of section 13.32, if s/he was never enrolled in the District. In that case, there would be no educational data, which are defined at section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hamblin raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 31, Bemidji, did not inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student X and/or X&apos;s parent. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267886</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Home schooling</Title><Id>266913</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Student, defined</Title><Id>267154</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-051</Title><title>Opinion 00 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267463&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Inver Grove Heights respond appropriately to requests for access to data made on June 20, 2000, and July 19, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 2000; City of Inver Grove Heights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 31, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 28, 2000, from T.M. Cooney. In his letter, Mr. Cooney requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data that the City of Inver Grove Heights maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Willis, Administrator of Inver Grove Heights, in response to Mr. Cooney&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 11, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Cooney&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 21, 2000, IPA received comments, dated same, from Mr. Willis.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated June 20, 2000, Mr. Cooney wrote to Mr. Willis, the City&apos;s attorney, and the City&apos;s Mayor. In his letter, Mr. Cooney raised his concerns regarding an access road to and acquisition of particular property - in which Mr. Cooney is an owner - located in Inver Grove Heights. (Mr. Cooney wrote that in 1978, the City approved a plat of the property immediately east of the property called Whistlewood Farms and that in 1983, the City approved a plat of the remaining property to the east called Whistlewood Farms II. Mr. Cooney stated that these plats and subsequent developments removed the existing access road to his property.) Mr. Cooney wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If IGH goes forward with acquisition of fee title, under the Freedom of Information Act , and as a property owner, I demand to be notified of any and all hearings on said matter and copied on any and all work product, including notes, memoranda, plans, plats, e-mail, correspondence and records of telephone conversations amongst and between IGH staff and city council relative to this potential acquisition, now and continuing into the future until final disposition of this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 28, 2000, Mr. Willis responded. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have not been able to locate City files dealing with the plats of Whistlewood Farms and the Whistlewood Farms II and I cannot comment on the issue as to whether or not you were noticed of the public hearings held with respect to consideration of the respective plats and/or the impact of those two plats upon access to your property. If you have information, which might help to clarify this issue for me, I would appreciate receiving it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The City has acquired, from time-to-time, title to tax forfeit property in the general area of your property for public purposes. The City&apos;s Comprehensive Plan contemplates public park/open space use of this area....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I would be pleased to meet with you to review the City&apos;s Comprehensive Plan for the area, and attempt to address any other matters of interest to you regarding your property.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 19, 2000, Mr. Cooney wrote again to Mr. Willis, the City&apos;s attorney and the Mayor. He asked for the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. All city files dealing with Whistlewood Farms and Whistlewood Farms Second Addition.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                2. The card catalogue/list pertaining to and used by Inver Grove Heights and the public for the purpose of storage and reference of said files for the period 1972-Present.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 3. The precise current physical location of the archive section known to be the repository of said files, as well as a list of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; persons having access to said files in said period.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                4. All minutes of City Council meetings; planning, zoning; park commission meetings in which any and all references were made to the Dakota land and development property and Whistlewood and Whistlewood II Farms Second Addition.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                5. All work product, including notes, memoranda, plans, plats, aerial photographs, e-mail, correspondence, and records of telephone conversations amongst and between any and all Inver Grove Heights staff, city council members and/or any commission member relative to the aforesaid.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                6. A list of all individuals and their known address, from the period 1973-Present, including IGH staff, council, and any commission member, outside contributors including but not limited to the survey co.; the landowners of Whistlewood and Whistlewood Farms Second Addition.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 7. Furthermore, I demand an on site review of all the aforesaid &lt;u&gt;before&lt;/u&gt; the materials are dispersed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 17, 2000, Mr. Willis responded. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of this date.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In your letter of July 19 you requested information dealing with the Whistlewood Farms and the Whistlewood Farms Second Additions in the City of Inver Grove Heights. Your letter also requested additional information dealing with the Whistlewood Developments.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As I indicated to you, our planning staff has searched our City files and has been unable to locate files dealing with the Whistlewood Farms and the Whistlewood Farms Second Addition. We have located minutes from City Council meetings of September 25, 1978..., July 25, 1983..., and the Planning Commission minutes of April 4, 1978...that deal with the Whistlewood Farms development. Copies of these minutes are enclosed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We would be pleased to make space available to you to review our City records at a mutually convenient time. Please call Mr. Bill Turnblad...at your convenience in order that he might attempt to satisfy your requirements. He has spent a considerable time seeking to find documents dealing with these two developments.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Cooney then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Cooney asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Inver Grove Heights respond appropriately to requests for access to data made on June 20, 2000, and July 19, 2000? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute or federal law. Subdivision 1 of section 13.03 also requires that government entities keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Further, pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.03, the responsible authority in each entity must establish procedures...to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Cooney took issue with the City&apos;s position. He stated, I have been in contact with Mr. WM. Meeker and Mr. Curtis Gutoske, both former city planners for IGH and have learned that the files in question existed during their tenure and were referenced and locatable through a card catalogue&apos; system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Willis wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    On or about June 2000, and July 19, 2000, Mr. T.M. Cooney made written requests to the City with respect to two (2) plats. Although the requests itemize various elements of information for the plats, the requests essentially asked for all data concerning the approval of Whistlewood Farms and Whistlewood Farms 2nd Addition.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I responded to the requests by letter dated June 28, 2000, and August 17, 2000. My responses and Mr. Cooney&apos;s inquiries have been previously provided to you. The responses can be summarized as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    bull; after searching for the two (2) planning files, the City has been unable to locate them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    bull; the City sent Mr. Cooney copies of the Planning Commission and Council minutes that relate to the plats
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    bull; the City invited Mr. Cooney to come to City Hall and review any records he wants to perhaps help us in identifying whether the files may be mistakenly indexed or mistakenly filed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The City cannot give Mr. Cooney data that the City cannot find....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    When Mr. Cooney&apos;s requests were made, I assigned Bill Turnblad, the City&apos;s Planning Supervisor, the task of locating the planning files concerning Whistlewood Farms and Whistlewood Farms 2nd Addition. At the City, the practice has been to keep the correspondence, letters, reports, and memoranda relating to plats in the planning file for each plat.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Bill Turnblad found the card index for Whistlewood Farms, but he has not located the file. He searched in the file archives; he searched in the current planning files, he spent about four hours looking. We reported this to Mr. Cooney in the responses we sent him as well as in the telephone conversations I have had with him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The City&apos;s open invitation to come to City Hall and assist Bill Turnblad in looking at other indexes is genuine. Obviously, Mr. Cooney has been involved with this subject for awhile; he may have a name, a cross-reference, a developer&apos;s business name or other piece of information that could trigger further paths of investigation for the City.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is unable to make a determination regarding Mr. Cooney&apos;s contention that the data he seeks do exist in a file and the City&apos;s position that it can&apos;t locate the data. If the City possesses the data, and knows where they are located, it must provide Mr. Cooney with access to the files immediately, pursuant to section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Willis maintains that the City has been unable to locate the planning files Mr. Cooney requested. It is correct that if the requested data do not exist, the City is not obligated to create data to respond to the request. However, Mr. Willis does not seem to be making a definitive statement that the data do not exist. Rather, he has stated that the City cannot find the information. Pursuant to section 13.03, the City must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Also pursuant to section 13.03, the City must establish procedures...to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. If the City maintains the data, pursuant to Chapter 13, it must be able to locate the information so that it can respond to Mr. Cooney in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. If the City does not possess the data, it should have so informed Mr. Cooney.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, if the City does not maintain the data Mr. Cooney requested, there may be official records and records management implications. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, all officers and agencies of cities shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If some of the requested data constitute official records, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, the City is required to maintain those data for a certain period of time. Disposal of records should be done only according to a schedule that is of a public nature.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, while nothing precludes Mr. Cooney from going to the City offices and offering assistance in locating certain files, it is not a requirement for access to public records that are or should be maintained by the City.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Ms. Cooney raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Inver Grove Heights did not respond appropriately to requests for access to data made on June 20, 2000, and July 19, 2000. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267463</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Misplaced or lost documents</Title><Id>266696</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not found</Title><Id>266697</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-050</Title><title>Opinion 00 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267504&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-11-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, respond appropriately to an August 11, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s August 11, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 2000; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 1, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 31, 2000, from X. In X&apos;s letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his/her access to certain data that School District 273, Edina, maintains. Subsequent communications between X and IPA staff occurred and it was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion on the matters listed below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kenneth Dragseth, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 15, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 25, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Paul Ratwik and Ann Goering, attorneys representing the District. In addition, in a letter dated September 12, 2000, Dr. Dragseth wrote to the Commissioner regarding X&apos;s opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated August 11, 2000, X requested access to all data that the District maintains about him/her. In another letter dated August 11, 2000, X requested access to the following data about applicants for social work positions that were interviewed during calendar year 2000: name of applicant; address; veteran status; test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes; rank; job history; education and training, including licensure information; and work availability. X also asked the District to indicate the name of the selected candidate for each of the nine social work positions that were recently filled and their building assignments.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 22, 2000, Dr. Dragseth wrote to X and provided him/her with certain information. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The fact that an applicant for employment has been interviewed by a site-based team does not make that person a finalist for the position. Accordingly, the information which I am allowed by [Chapter 13] to provide you with in regard to applicants consists of: veteran status, relevant test scores, rank on eligibility test, job history, education and training, and work availability.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Please note that I have not included licensure information regarding the applicants. I do not agree with your conclusion that the term education and training includes licensure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I have attached to this letter a document summarizing the data regarding applicants for social work positions who were interviewed during the calendar year 2000. I have also enclosed a packet containing all public and private data on you as an applicant.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 24, 2000, X wrote to Dr. Dragseth. X stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...Minnesota Statute 13.43, Subd. 3 clearly states that all candidates who are interviewed are finalists. Therefore, please provide the rest of the information promptly...You also did not provide the test scores and notes that I requested for any candidate.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In addition, you did not provide all the information that I requested under Minnesota Statute 13.03 regarding my records. I am aware that both [certain people] contacted several of my references and asked numerous questions. All of that information is missing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 28, 2000, Dr. Dragseth wrote to X. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In response to your letter of August 24, 2000, please be aware that the school district did not conduct any tests on applicants. Therefore, there are no test scores to disclose to you. With respect to notes, nothing in [Chapter 13] authorizes the disclosure of interview notes regarding other applicants for employment. Therefore, this information will not be provided to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                With respect to the names of finalist [sic], you are in error....The interview committee and/or building principal are not appointing authorities. The School Board is the appointing authority. Therefore, the names of individuals interviewed by anyone or any group other than the School Board are not public and will not be provided to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Enclosed please find data related to inquiries made to one of your references. This information was inadvertently omitted from the data previously sent to you. We are unable to locate the reference check performed by [a person]. If we are able to locate it, we will forward a copy to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X then requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, respond appropriately to an August 11, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s August 11, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, classifies data about current and former applicants for employment. The following applicant data are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. An applicant&apos;s name becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. At that point, the applicant has become a finalist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X requested access to the following applicant data: name; address; veteran status; test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes; rank; job history; education and training, including licensure information; and work availability. X also asked the District to indicate the name of the selected candidate for each of the nine social work positions that were recently filled and their building assignments.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the documentation provided to the Commissioner, it appears the District provided X with the following applicant information: veteran&apos;s status; job history; education and training; and work availability. In addition, it appears that the District provided X with the names of the nine people whom the District hired in 2000, but it does not appear the District provided information about their building assignments. Therefore, the Commissioner will address whether the District should have provided X with names, addresses, test scores - including supporting documentation and interview notes, licensure information, and rank on eligible list about applicants, and the building assignments for the nine new social workers.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, the name of an applicant for employment becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. In this case, the District asserts that a search team interviewed the applicants. Because the School Board, not the search team, is the appointing authority, the names of the applicants are not public. In his September 12, 2000, letter, Dr. Dragseth wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In the present situation, the School Board did not interview any of the applicants. It also did not delegate the hiring decision to the search committee. Instead, the search committee, made up of non-School Board members, reviewed applications and narrowed the applicant pool to a group of individuals. The committee then interviewed applicants and made a recommendation to the School Board. As appointing authority for the district, the School Board made the hiring decision without itself interviewing the applicants. Therefore, in this case, there were no finalists as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.43 Subd. 3. Therefore, the names of the applicants remain private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner opines that the District has reached the correct conclusion. In this case, the appointing authority - the School Board - did not interview the applicants. Therefore, their names are not public. The Commissioner would like to add, however, that the District&apos;s hiring process, in this case, could effectively circumvent the intention behind requiring entities to make public the names of finalists. If the process is set up so that no candidates are interviewed by the appointing authority, the only name made public is that of the person who is hired. This does not allow for the public check clearly intended by the Legislature when it enacted section 13.43, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding addresses of applicants, such data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and not available to X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X also asked for test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes. Section 13.43, subdivision 3, provides that relevant test scores are public. Dr. Dragseth wrote that the District did not conduct any tests on applicants. He stated, Therefore, there are no test scores to disclose to you. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the term relevant test scores relates to tests that a prospective employer administers to prospective employees. Therefore, if the District does not have any test score data, it cannot provide such information to X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to education and training data, which the District provided, X requested access to licensure information. The District refused to provide the licensure information. Dr. Dragseth wrote, I do not agree with your conclusion that the term education and training&apos; includes licensure. Licensure information is not one of the types of data listed as public in section 13.43, subdivision 3. Therefore, such data are not available to X. Some types of licensing data are available to X from the licensing board. See section 13.41.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3, rank on eligible list is public. The District provided applicant data to X in chart form. The chart has a column for rank in which the District noted that each applicant was either a non-finalist or a finalist. Subdivision 3 of section 13.43 states that rank on eligible list is public. If the District has an eligibility list with rankings, the applicant&apos;s rank is public and the District should have provided that information to X. If the District does not have a list, it should have advised X that such data do not exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding X&apos;s request for the building assignments for the nine new social workers, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (7), an employee&apos;s work location is public. The District was required to provide X with a work location for each of the nine employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the District was required to respond to X&apos;s request for data about him/herself within ten working days. X asked for data about him/herself in a letter dated August 11, 2000. Attached to a letter dated August 22, 2000, - within the ten day time frame - the District provided X with some data. Dr. Dragseth wrote, I have also enclosed a packet containing all public and private data on you as an applicant.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his/her August 24, 2000, letter, X wrote back and asserted that s/he did not receive all data to which s/he was entitled. X wrote, I am aware that both [certain people] contacted several of my references and asked numerous questions. All that information is missing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his letter dated August 28, 2000, Dr. Dragseth wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Enclosed please find data related to inquiries made to one of your references. This information was inadvertently omitted from the data previously sent to you. We are unable to locate the reference check performed by [a person]. If we are able to locate it, we will forward a copy to you.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X made his/her request on August 11. The District provided X with data on August 22 (within the ten day time frame) and on August 28 (outside the ten day time frame). Pursuant to section 13.04, the District did not provide the reference check data within the statutorily prescribed time frame, although the omission appears to have been inadvertent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, X alleges that the District did not provide him/her with all data responsive to his/her request. The District asserts that it responded to the request in full. The Commissioner cannot make a determination one way or the other. However, if the District maintains additional data about X, e.g., the reference check Dr. Dragseth referred to in his August 28 letter, it should provide any such data to X immediately. If the District used data in the reference check to make a decision about hiring X, the data are official records within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 and Minnesota Statutes, section 138.163, et. seq. The District should have both maintained the data and made them available to X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 273, Edina, responded appropriately, in part, and not appropriately, in part, to an August 11, 2000, request for access to data about job applicants.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 273, Edina, responded appropriately, in part, and not appropriately, in part, to the data subject&apos;s August 11, 2000, request for access to data about him/herself.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267504</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for employment</Title><Id>266522</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Candidates for employment</Title><Id>360796</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensure information</Title><Id>266331</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Selection committee/search team</Title><Id>266822</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Test scores</Title><Id>266332</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-049</Title><title>Opinion 00 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267682&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are candidates interviewed by the search team of non-Board members &quot;finalists&quot; within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, and are their names, therefore, public data?
Are appointed Intermediate District School Board members employees for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
Are home addresses and telephone numbers of the Intermediate School Board members private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 30, 2000; Intermediate School District 287</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the entity that requested this opinion. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On September 7, 2000, IPA received a letter dated September 5, 2000, from Ann Goering and Margaret Skelton. In their letter, Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that Intermediate School District 287 maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;We are requesting an opinion on issues that have arisen in connection with filling several vacancies for social worker and chemical/mental health coordinator positions. The administration of the School District appointed an interview team made up of several employees of the District. No Board members were part of the team. The team reviewed applications of and selected candidates from the pool of applicants to interview. After interviewing eight candidates for the several positions, the team made recommendations to the School Board.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;The Intermediate District has recently received inquiries...requesting the names of all persons that the team interviewed for the positions...has also requested the home addresses and phone numbers of the Intermediate School Board members.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;small&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;small&gt;In their request for an opinion, Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are candidates interviewed by the search team of non-Board members finalists within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, and are their names, therefore, public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are appointed Intermediate District School Board members employees for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are home addresses and telephone numbers of the Intermediate School Board members private data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Data about applicants for employment are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3. For purposes of Chapter 13, a finalist is an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection. Names of finalists are public.
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;Intermediate District 287 asserts that the appointing authority for employees of the District is the Intermediate School Board. The Intermediate District is a statutorily authorized combination of two or more independent school districts for purposes of offering integrated services. Minn. Stat. section136D.01; section136D.21. The Intermediate School Board has the same powers granted by law to the participating school districts. Minn. Stat. section136D.24. The board of each participating district, and therefore the Intermediate School Board is the only entity that has the statutory authority to hire employees for a school district. Minn. Stat. section122B.02 subd. 14; section123B.09 subd 6; section122A.40, subd. 3; section122A.44, subd. 1.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, they wrote, the names of the applicants that the search team interviews are not public. The names of any applicants that are then chosen to be interviewed by the School Board, the appointing authority, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner concurs with the District&apos;s analysis. In this case, because the School Board, not the selection committee, is the appointing authority, the names of applicants that the selection committee interviews are not public. The names of any applicants the School Board chooses to interview are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Data about employees are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 1 of section 13.43 defines personnel data as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, acts as an independent contractor with a government entity or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public, and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;The Intermediate School District asserts that its Board members are employees. Members of the Intermediate School Board are appointed to their positions and provided per diem compensation for services provided to the Intermediate School Board. It is the District&apos;s position that as employees, the School Board member&apos;s home addresses and telephone numbers are not classified as public data under Minn. Stat. section13.43...&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;As stated, Intermediate School District 287 is a combination of two more independent school districts for purposes of offering integrated services. Minn. Stat. section136D.01; section136D.21. The boards of the member school districts appoint individuals to the Intermediate School Board. Many of these appointees are current or former school board members of those districts. The data collected on members of the Intermediate School Board, including their home addresses and telephone numbers, is the direct result of their service on the governing board of the other political subdivision, which may also classify these individuals as employees. In other instances, the member districts have appointed former school district employees to the District 287 Board. In those cases, the information District 287 has on these people is a direct result of their having been employees of the member district. Therefore, data on these Board members must be treated in the same manner as other personnel data.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;It may be argued that the Board members are members of an advisory board or commission. If this were the case, the names and addresses would be public. The intermediate District Board is not, however, an &lt;em&gt;advisory board&lt;/em&gt; of [sic] commission. It is a &lt;em&gt;governing&lt;/em&gt; board vested with the care, management, and control of the Intermediate School District. &lt;u&gt;See&lt;/u&gt;Minn. Stat. section123B.09, Subd. 1. The members of the Board are therefore employees of the District.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the intermediate school district statute, Minnesota Statutes, section 136D.21, et. seq., intermediate school board members may be board members of other school boards, employees of school districts, or other persons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this instance, the Commissioner agrees with the District&apos;s position that its School Board members are employees. However, the Commissioner also acknowledges that this conclusion may lead to strange results, i.e., if one of the District 287 board members is a board member of school district X, and school district X has determined that its elected board members are not employees, home addresses and telephone numbers about that board member will be public (pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1) at district X and not public at District 287. Despite this possibility, the Commissioner is of the opinion that data about the District 287 Board Members are properly classified at section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
As stated above, the District has determined, for purposes of Chapter 13, that Intermediate School Board members are employees of the District. Data about them are therefore classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 1 of section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public. Because home addresses and home telephone numbers are not listed as public, they are classified as private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43. (A work number and work address, however, are public.)
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Goering and Ms. Skelton raised is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because the search team of non-Board members is not the appointing authority, candidates interviewed by this group are not finalists within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3. Therefore, their names are not public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Appointed Intermediate District School Board members are employees for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, home addresses and home telephone numbers of the Intermediate School Board members are private data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 30, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267682</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Selection committee/search team</Title><Id>266822</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:19Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-048</Title><title>Opinion 00 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267600&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was School District 284&apos;s, Wayzata, August 17, 2000, response to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data, appropriate?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 26, 2000; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On September 6, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 29, 2000, from Douglas Sauter. In his letter, Mr. Sauter asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding Mr. Sauter&apos;s access to certain data that School District 284, Wayzata, maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Beilfuss, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 15, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Sauter&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 25, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Daniel Becker and Gloria Olsen, attorneys for the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On June 14, 2000, Mr. Sauter requested certain data from the District regarding the elementary strings music program (the Commissioner addressed the timeliness of the District&apos;s response in Advisory Opinion 00-040). Mr. Sauter asked for the following information:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all parent letters or e-mails referred to by Martha Muffie Tiede at the Wayzata School Board meeting of June 12, 2000 regarding the elementary strings program.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all teacher letters or e-mails referred to by Martha Muffie Tiede at the Wayzata School Board meeting of June 12, 2000 regarding the elementary strings program.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all notes, memorandum, documents or other records used or obtained by the Fine Arts Review Committee upon which said Committee based its claim that Parents, teachers and this committee voiced concerns about the availability of the Suzuki program to all families and its appropriateness in public school setting. (See p. 5 of the report)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all notes, memorandum, documents or other records used or obtained by the Fine Arts Review Committee upon which said Committee based its claim that Several parents reported that they received an instruction sheet (included in this document at the strings orientation this fall that reiterated the requirement of parental involvement in the strings program. (See p. 5 of the report)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all notes, memorandum, documents or other records used or obtained by the Fine Arts Review Committee upon which said Committee based its claim that Parents have also reported that their involvement was impossible because of family and work situations and that they were made to feel guilty about any alternatives. (See p. 5 of the report)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all documents relating to any claims of illegality of the elementary strings program.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all agendas of the Fine Arts Committee Review Committee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Copies of all minutes of the Fine Arts Committee Review Committee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The complete letter which is partially reproduced at p. 40 of the Fine Arts Review Committee Report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The complete letter which is partially reproduced at p. 42 of the Fine Arts Review Committee Report.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;All correspondence, e-mails, documents and materials provided to the Fine Arts Review Committee by Martha Muffie Tiede in connection to the Elementary Strings Program.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Sauter asserted that the information the District provided in response to his request was insufficient and/or absent in many respects. Mr. Sauter stated that some documents were missing and that some documents had been redacted. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I specifically object to the reaction of these documents. The School District has whited out the names of authors of letters critical of the Program...and yet releases the names of those who support the Program...Clearly the redactions are not because the data is private.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Furthermore, there is no specificality in the District&apos;s response to my request or any specific identification of what data is private.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sauter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, was School District 284&apos;s, Wayzata, August 17, 2000, response to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data, appropriate?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute or federal law. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, if a government entity determines that requested data are classified as not public, the entity is obligated to inform the requestor what statutory section so classifies the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about students and their parents are classified pursuant to section 13.32 - most student/parent data are private; those data designated as directory information are public (see section 13.32, subdivision 5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Data about school district employees are classified at section 13.43. Some data about employees are public and some are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Sauter discussed what information the District had provided in response to the request. Regarding #1, he wrote that the District did not provide any e-mails and that the letters had been redacted so that identifying information about the authors did not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding #2, Mr. Sauter wrote that the District did not include any teacher e-mails or letters.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding #3, Mr. Sauter wrote that the District provided only two documents and that both had been redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding #4, #5, and #6, Mr. Sauter wrote that the District did not provide any documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding #7, Mr. Sauter wrote that the District provided agendas for the 3/21/00 and 4/20/00 meetings of the Fine Arts Review Committee, although the Report indicated that the Committee had met seven times during the 1999/2000 school year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding #8, #9, #10, and #11, Mr. Sauter wrote that the District did not provide any data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In their response to the Commissioner Mr. Becker and Ms. Olsen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District acknowledges that it omitted statutory references in the August 17, 2000 response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request. When the School District responded in writing to Mr. Sauter, it advised him that Some of the information you requested is classified as private data and is not available to you except pursuant to a court order or the consent of the data subject; e.g., student data or personnel data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03, subdivision 3(e), the School District should have included references to the specific provisions of Minnesota Statutes defining student data and personnel data, Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively. By this letter, the District hereby certifies for Mr. Sauter that the bases for denying his access to private student data and personnel data responsive to his request were these provisions of state law, as well as 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ), which is the federal counterpart to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.32, Educational Data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Becker and Ms. Olsen asserted that aside from the omission of the specific statutory citations, the District s response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s data request was appropriate. They wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The School District made a thorough search of data in existence at the time of the request for responsive documents....[w]hen the School District&apos;s Fine Arts Review Committee had oral conversations with parents, community members, and staff regarding the Fine Arts program, and the substance of those conversations were not reduced to writing, there is no government data to be produced and the School District is not required to create such data. Mr. Sauter asked for numerous items that do not exist, such as agendas or minutes from each of the meetings of the School District&apos;s Fine Arts Review Committee. Those that exist were provided. Further, numerous comments and items of feedback contained in the Committee Report have no underlying documentation because they were provided to the Committee orally.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mr. Sauter also objects to the redaction of various documents produced in response to his request. As noted above, the basis for such redactions are [sections 13.32 and 13.43]. The redactions made to the materials were to protect private personnel data and private student data, including information concerning parents of student of the School District. Mr. Sauter questions in his August 29, 2000 letter why the letter of Paul Jon Zdunek was not redacted. Mr. Zdunek is not a student, a parent of a student, or an employee of the School District.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In responding to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request, the District was required to provide any public data it maintains. In addition, if the District determined that any of the requested data are classified as not public and could not be released to Mr. Sauter, the District was required, upon Mr. Sauter&apos;s request, to provide Mr. Sauter with the statutory citations so classifying the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In its response, the District provided some of the data and denied access to some of the data (by redaction). Mr. Sauter provided copies of the redacted documents to the Commissioner. The District asserts it redacted the documents to remove data classified as private pursuant to sections 13.32 and 13.43. Without having inspected the documents prior to redaction, and without having in-depth knowledge of the specific situation and the players, the Commissioner cannot state for certain if the District properly redacted the documents. The Commissioner does acknowledge, that most information about students/parents is private and that much information about District employees is private. The Commissioner also acknowledges that in the context of staff and parents/students stating their opinions regarding a particular program, identifying data are likely to be private and not accessible to Mr. Sauter. However, pursuant to section 13.03, the District should have explained to Mr. Sauter that it redacted the data as prescribed by sections 13.32 and 13.43. Mr. Becker and Ms. Olsen acknowledged the District&apos;s omission in their comments to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, if some of the data Mr. Sauter requested do not exist, as is the District&apos;s position as stated by Mr. Becker and Ms. Olsen, the District cannot provide them and is under no obligation to create new data. However, in its August 17, 2000, response, the District should have stated to Mr. Sauter that the remaining data do not exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;One final note is in order. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, all officers and agencies of school districts shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If the Fine Arts Review Committee conducted official activities, it does not seem appropriate that the District does not possess agendas (other than the two that Mr. Sauter obtained) or minutes of any of these meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Sauter raised is as is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, in its August 17, 2000, response to a June 14, 2000, request, School District 284, Wayzata, was required to provide to the requestor the statutory citations upon which the District denied access to certain data. The District did not do so. It&apos;s response was, therefore, inappropriate, in part.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner, however, is unable to determine for certain whether the District appropriately redacted certain data pursuant to sections 13.32 and 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, if some of the requested data do not exist, the District is not required to created new data to respond to the request. However, in its response, the District should have so informed the requestor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: October 26, 2000&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267600</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-08-19T19:52:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-047</Title><title>Opinion 00 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267567&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request to inspect public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 23, 2000, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated August 24, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 5, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 21, 2000, Mr. Pachl asked to review certain public data about a District employee. He also wrote: [i]f all of the specific data is not provided for inspection, certify in writing the basis of the denial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 22, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager and Responsible Authority designee for personnel data, responded: [i]t is anticipated that this request will require one half hour clerical time at $20.00 per hour to gather the information. Actual copy charges will depend on the number of pages to be copied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The public data sought by Mr. Pachl includes public data inextricably intertwined with private data contained in the personnel file. . . . . Consequently, while the government entity may not charge to inspect public data or charge for separating public from not public data, the government entity may charge for creation of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, the MGDPA does not provide clear guidance for distinguishing between data that is separated (as contemplated by Minn. Stat. section 13.03, Subd. 3) for which a charge may not be assessed and data that is created for which a charge may be assessed. In this regard, the creation of data, i.e., creating a summary of the accessible public data after it has been separated from the inaccessible private data is similar to procedures for preparation of summary data. . . . . Finally, it should be noted that it was unclear, until receipt for a response to this matter, that Mr. Pachl only wanted to inspect the data. It was the District&apos;s understanding . . . that Mr. Pachl was desirous of copies of the public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Consequently, based on its understanding of what Mr. Pachl was requesting at that time, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request for public data. Moreover, the half-hour clerical time was reasonable for the purpose of gathering public data and creating a summary of public data in a form that would make it accessible to Mr. Pachl.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request to inspect public government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The treatment of personnel data runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law (see section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Cady, the District maintains the data in question, i.e., the public personnel data on a particular employee, in such a manner that they are inextricably intertwined with the private personnel data on the employee. He stated that the District viewed Mr. Pachl&apos;s request as a request for summary data, within the meaning of section 13.05, subdivision 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady&apos;s response is problematic for the following reasons. First, according to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data shall be maintained in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. The data Mr. Pachl requested are clearly public. If the District maintains them such that they are inextricably intertwined with private data, it has not met its obligation under section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Mr. Cady indicates that the District views Mr. Pachl&apos;s request as a request for summary data. The Commissioner has previously addressed this issue. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267508&quot; title=&quot;00-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-011&lt;/a&gt;, he opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, Summary data&apos; means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. The definition of summary data is key to understanding the difference between preparation of summary data and separation of public from not public data. Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data. Other detailed private or confidential data do not need to be redacted, once the personal identifiers are removed. The principal reason for the summary data provision is to allow access to otherwise private or confidential data for research purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By contrast, separation of public from not public data is not just a process of removing personal identifiers. It is a process of separating &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; not public data from the public data, which government entities are required to do, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, when public and not public data are intermingled. Otherwise the right to free inspection of public government data could be frustrated simply by maintaining public and not public data together. The possibility that commingling of data could adversely affect public access is one of the reasons the Legislature requires government entities to separate public from not public data at no charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Pachl did not ask for summary data. He asked the District to provide him with access to public personnel data. That is not a request that requires preparation of summary data, it is a request that requires separation of public and not public data, as provided at section 13.03, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Cady said that the District assumed Mr. Pachl was requesting copies of data. However, Mr. Pachl did not request copies, he asked to review the data, and referred to inspection of the data. If necessary, the District should clarify the nature of a data request upon receipt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request to inspect public government data. The District should have provided Mr. Pachl an opportunity to inspect, free of charge, the public personnel data he requested.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 23, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267567</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-18T18:02:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-046</Title><title>Opinion 00 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267953&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-20T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a May 18, 2000, request for copies of public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On September 7, 2000, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 11, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 25, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the District dated May 18, 2000, Mr. Pachl requested copies of all of the Minutes of the Administrative Team Meetings held within the last two years. . . In a response dated June 8, 2000, the District replied: [t]he cost of duplication and &lt;u&gt;redaction of any personally identifiable information&lt;/u&gt; is $70.10. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you are aware, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, Subd. 3, a government entity may not . . . charge for separating public from not public data. Accordingly, to the extent the request for an advisory opinion is to confirm that a public entity cannot charge for separation of public from non-public data, the District agrees with that opinion. While the estimated cost of $70.10 would appropriately include the time of labor to retrieve, gather and copy the data as well as the cost of copies, it should not include any time necessary for separation of public from non-public data. The District encourages Mr. Pachl to follow-up with Ms. Butler for clarification of the estimated cost.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond appropriately to a May 18, 2000, request for copies of public government data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), a person requesting copies of public data may not be charged for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Cady acknowledges that the District erred in its response to Mr. Pachl insofar as the copy cost it quoted included the cost to redact not public data. Accordingly, the District should provide to Mr. Pachl, without delay, the actual and reasonable cost to search for, retrieve, and copy the data he requested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a May 18, 2000, request for copies of public government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), the District may not include its cost to separate public from not public data in its copy charge.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 20, 2000&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267953</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-045</Title><title>Opinion 00 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267752&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is School District 2889, Lake Park/Audubon, in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 2000; School District 2889 (Lake Park/Audubon)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 28, 2000, IPA received a letter from George Kohn. In this letter, Mr. Kohn asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 2889, Lake Park-Audubon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Kohn&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stephen F. Twitchell, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated August 31, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Kohn&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 15 and 21, 2000, IPA received responses from Gloria Husarik, Secretary to the Superintendent, and Mr. Twitchell, respectively. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Kohn, on August 10, 2000, he asked to inspect the resolution and appointing order for the responsible authority of the District. No such Order was forthcoming; instead, Mr. Kohn was referred to the new Policy manual.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Husarik wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The ISD 2889 Board of Education approved policy number 406 Public and Private Personnel Data with Superintendent Twitchell as the Data Privacy Information Officer at its regular board meeting on August 21, 2000. In conference with [the Minnesota School Boards Association], we were under the impression that a motion would be the appropriate action to take.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The ISD 2889 Board of Education now understands that this was not totally accurate according to statute. The Board will take the appropriate action to name by resolution the Data Privacy Information Officer, at its next regularly scheduled board meeting on September 18, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Twitchell enclosed a copy of the resolution passed by the Board on September 18, 2000. The resolution reads, in part, as follows: Whereas, a school district must have a data privacy information officer, be it resolved, by the School Board of Independent School District No. 2889 that Superintendent Stephen Twitchell will serve as the Data Privacy Information Officer for District 2889 until such time as the Board names a replacement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kohn asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is School District 2889, Lake Park/Audubon, in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, Responsible authority&apos; in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination . . . of government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1000:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the governing body of each political subdivision . . . shall, by September 30, 1981, if it has not done so, appoint a responsible authority. . . . . The governing body shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by the act and by this chapter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (C), the responsible authority for a school district shall be an individual employee of the school district appointed by the school board. In particular, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, sections 13.03, 13.04 and 13.05, and Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, parts 1205.1100 through 1205.1500, detail the duties of responsible authorities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    By resolution passed on September 18, 2000, the School Board named Superintendent Twitchell the Data Privacy Information Officer for District 2889, but did not appoint him to be the District&apos;s responsible authority, with all the associated duties and authority conferred by Chapter 13 and its enabling rules. The District cannot fully comply with the requirements of Chapter 13 and its rules if the District has not appointed a responsible authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, there is a new requirement, effective August 1, 2000, that requires the school board to appoint a data practices compliance official by December 1, 2000. The data practices compliance official is to serve as the government employee to whom questions or concerns about data practices issues may be addressed. This new requirement is codified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 13. (See Laws for Minnesota 2000, Chapter 468, section 7.) This requirement for the District to have a compliance official is in addition to the requirement that it have a responsible authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Kohn is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 2889, Lake Park/Audubon, is not in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, because it has not appointed a responsible authority. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 20, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267752</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO)</Title><Id>266566</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment required</Title><Id>267059</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-044</Title><title>Opinion 00 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267215&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-19T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did County employee Y inappropriately gain access to data about the parent (X) of Y&apos;s child on March 1, 2, or 3 of 1999?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 19, 2000; Wadena County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 4, 2000, IPA received a letter dated July 23, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. After clarification with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion regarding whether a Wadena County employee inappropriately gained access to data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Sailer, Director of Wadena County Social Services, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 1, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On September 12, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Jonathan Edin, Wadena County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. X and Y are parents of a child. X is now married to Z. Y is an employee of Wadena County. On March 1, 1999, Z visited the County Social Services Department in regard to a matter about an income tax refund. X wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...The documents [s/he] was required to submit according to Wadena County Social Services had financial data about myself on it also. Because the custodial parent of my child works in the same office, we knew that this information given would be passed on to [her/him]. But...we had to submit the documents requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On March 3rd, 1999, I was notified by Wadena County Social Services that [the custodial parent - Y] had requested a motion to modify the child support due to a substantial increase in income....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Since the custodial parent began working at Social Services...I have been subjected to numerous motions to modify support....The custodial parent somehow found out used it against me, I don&apos;t believe this is just a coincidence as social services claims, it happens to [sic] often.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did County employee Y inappropriately gain access to data about the parent (X) of Y&apos;s child on March 1, 2, or 3 of 1999?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are not available to the public and are available to the subject of the data. Further, Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, provides that private data are available to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably requires that they gain access to the data. In the case of this opinion, the data at issue are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, County Attorney Edin wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X&apos;s] complaint makes a false assumption; that [his/her] personal information was accessed or shared with the custodial parent of [his/her] child via [his/her] employment in the social services agency. The agency&apos;s policy is and always has been full compliance with the Data Privacy [sic] Act. The agency is emphatic that this information was not shared or accessed....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Facts pertinent to this complaint were coincidental in time only, thus apparently fueling [X and his/her spouse&apos;s] suspicion that information had been shared or accessed. The pertinent facts are these: [Z], the obligor&apos;s current [spouse], was seeking [action relating to a tax return]. The agency received [Z&apos;s related paperwork] on February 22, 1999. Child support officer [A] wrote [Z] on March 2, 1999, stating that [s/he] could not process [Z&apos;s] request until [Z&apos;s] tax return was received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this time frame, the custodial parent...expressed [his/her] wish to [A] on March 2, 1999, that the issue of [insurance] be revisited....[The custodial parent&apos;s] request was denied by the Child Support Officer as untimely. [The custodial parent&apos;s] pro se motion on March 9, 1999, was solely addressed to amending the initial support order...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[X and Z] make the assumption that [Y&apos;s] motion was precipitated by sharing of personal information protected by [Chapter 13]. This is absolutely false. The timing of the unrelated issues was merely coincidental.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, private data can be disclosed only to limited individuals in limited situations. In this case, there is a dispute over the facts. X asserts that the County released private data about him/her to Y, who is a County Social Services employee. County Attorney Edin asserts that the County did not disclose X&apos;s personal information to Y. The Commissioner cannot determine if the County released data about X to Y, although there appears to be no basis upon which to doubt the County&apos;s assertion. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, an individual of the County can gain access to private data about X if that individual&apos;s work assignment reasonably requires that s/he gain access. In this situation, however, it would be most inappropriate for the County to determine that Y&apos;s work assignment required that s/he gain access to private data about X. Therefore, had the County released private data about X to Y, X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 have been violated. However, if the County did not release data about X to Y, X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were not violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine if County employee Y inappropriately gained access to data about the parent (X) of Y&apos;s child on March 1, 2, or 3 of 1999, although there appears to be no basis upon which to doubt the County&apos;s assertion that it did not release data about X. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, if the County did release private data about X to Y, X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 have been violated. However, if the County did not release data about X to Y, X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were not violated.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 19, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267215</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:05:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-043</Title><title>Opinion 00 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267815&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, what is a government entity&apos;s obligation to include a data subject&apos;s &quot;statement of disagreement&quot; regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data when the entity discloses the data in dispute on its website?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 19, 2000; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 22, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 17, 2000, from James Moore, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney. In his letter, Mr. Moore requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the rights of data subjects in relation to certain data the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Moore wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...The City of Minneapolis is considering making certain public data available on the internet. Specifically, the City is looking to make information about particular parcels of real estate available to the public via the internet. Among data to be made available on the internet about properties includes the name of the taxpayer for the property, land area, total property tax amount on file, delinquent taxes, and business licenses for the properties. The City also keeps fire and housing code inspection records in electronic form....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In designing the system for dissemination of the code inspection data over the internet, staff has a concern about what steps must be taken to comply with the accuracy and completeness requirements of Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd. 4. It seems to staff that the code inspection data is in the nature of data about a person and is thus susceptible of challenge under section 13.04, subd. 4. Given that possibility, what level of specificity is required to describe a challenge to data in the event of a challenge? For example, if a property owner claims that a housing order has been abated but staff determines that the order has not been abated, must the substance of the property owner&apos;s challenge be immediately at the same location on the website. Does the statute allow for a warning at a more general level of inquiry that the data contained on the internet may be subject to challenges for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to appropriate staff or internet links?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Moore asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, what is a government entity&apos;s obligation to include a data subject&apos;s statement of disagreement regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data when the entity discloses the data in dispute on its website? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about him/her that a government entity maintains:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     ...To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. &lt;i&gt;Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data&lt;/i&gt;. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Although section 13.04, subdivision 4, does not state specifically how a government entity must include an individual&apos;s statement of disagreement with challenged data, the Commissioner is of the opinion that common sense dictates. In situations where the data exist in paper form, it would be reasonable for the entity to temporarily attach, i.e., staple, paperclip, etc., the statement of disagreement to the data in dispute so that if a member of the public were to inspect the data, s/he would not miss the fact that the data subject had challenged the data. It is important to be mindful that the Legislature, by stating that data in dispute &lt;i&gt;shall be disclosed only if&lt;/i&gt; the statement of disagreement is included, determined that during the time a data subject is disputing data, the entity must disclose both sides of the dispute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding data that exist in electronic form - in this case, the Internet - the Commissioner again recommends a common sense approach. The Commissioner&apos;s understanding of web-based technology is that in most situations when a document(s) or database is posted to a website, it is possible to create a link in that document or database directly to another document. In other words, if certain information posted on a website are in dispute, it is possible to create a link from that information to a web page that displays the statement of disagreement. It would be best if the link itself indicated that the data are in dispute and that the purpose of the link is to transfer the viewer to a challenge statement. This process seems akin to physically attaching a paper copy of a disagreement statement to a paper copy of data in dispute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Two additional points are in order. First, the City should keep in mind that pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 5, government entities are required to: 1) establish procedures to ensure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current; and 2) to establish appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. As government entities make more data available over the Internet, there exists a greater risk that a data subject&apos;s rights may be violated under this provision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, in order for a data subject to exercise his/her right to challenge data per section 13.04, subdivision 4, the data subject must follow the procedures outlined in statute and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. In other words, if a data subject calls the City and objects to certain data that the City maintains about him/her, the data subject has not formally challenged the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Moore raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, the way in which a government entity meets its obligation to include a data subject&apos;s statement of disagreement regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data when the entity discloses the data in dispute on its website is dictated by a common sense approach. Either a contemporaneous display of, or a link to, the data subject&apos;s statement of disagreement is appropriate. The entity must disclose, with the data in dispute, the statement of disagreement. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 19, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267815</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-042</Title><title>Opinion 00 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267719&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ramsey/Washington County Suburban Cable Commission respond appropriately to a request for access to inspect and/or obtain a copy of a videotape of a particular television program?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 16, 2000; Ramsey/Washington County Suburban Cable Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt; In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 14, 2000, IPA received a letter from Thomas J. Wratkowski, general counsel for Kraus-Anderson Construction Company - Midwest Division. In this letter, Mr. Wratkowski asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey/Washington County Suburban Cable Commission (Cable Commission.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Wratkowski&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tim Finnerty, Director of the Cable Commission. The purposes of this letter, dated July 14, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Wratkowski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Cable Commission&apos;s position. On August 1, 2000, IPA received a response from Thomas D. Creighton, attorney for the Cable Commission. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Creighton, [the Cable Commission] is a Joint and Cooperative Commission established by its member cities for the purpose of administering the cable television franchises granted by the member cities and further foster and promote community programming in the area.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to Mr. Finnerty dated June 26, 2000, Mr. Wratkowski requested a copy of a particular television program, which was broadcast more than once on one of the Cable Commission&apos;s cable channels. In that letter, Mr. Wratkowski referred to the request he earlier made directly to the station, which was refused, for either a copy of the program or the opportunity to view the program at the station. In his opinion request, dated July 12, 2000, Mr. Wratkowski stated that as of that date he had received no response from the Cable Commission. (In a letter dated July 14, 2000, Mr. Wratkowski informed the Commissioner that he had received a letter that day from Mr. Creighton, but the Cable Commission was still denying access to the requested data.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Creighton indicated that he had communicated directly to Mr. Wratkowski that the Cable Commission . . . did not own or control any of the tapes in question and in fact only provided facilities and playback capacity and support for independent producers who owned the tapes and were solely responsible for their content.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Creighton also referred to the Cable Commission&apos;s operating policies and procedures, that clearly state that all programs are the possession of and the responsibility of the producer. All copyright authority vests with the producer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Creighton, if a videotape is produced, and if the producer of the program desires to access play back, the tape is delivered to the Cable Commission: [t]he tape is played back if requested by the producer (and if otherwise in compliance with the Cable Commission&apos;s policies and procedures), but is returned to the producer. Mr. Creighton further stated that the Cable Commission cannot provide Mr. Wratkowski with a copy of a tape that is owned and potentially copyrighted by an independent producer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Creighton further stated: [w]ith the potential of the Commission playing back tapes provided by independent producers on a 24-hour, seven days a week schedule, it would be physically and economically impossible for the Commission to copy (and retain and store copies of) every tape submitted by an independent producer for play back.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wratkowski asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ramsey/Washington County Suburban Cable Commission respond appropriately to a request for access to inspect and/or obtain a copy of a videotape of a particular television program? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Cable Commission, a government entity for purposes of Chapter 13, administers the cable television franchises granted by its member cities, but it does not produce or own the programs cablecast on the system. Given the requirements of Chapter 13, this places the Cable Commission in an unusual position with the potential to present very difficult issues. The issue here is one.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Creighton did not state clearly whether the Cable Commission is in possession of a videotape copy of the program requested. If it is, then pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, the videotape constitutes government data. The Commissioner is unaware of any provision of state or federal law that would classify the tape as anything other than public. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that an individual has the right to inspect and obtain copies of public government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Creighton stated that the programs cablecast over the system overseen by the Cable Commission are owned and copyrighted by the producers, and therefore, the Cable Commission could not provide Mr. Wratkowski with either a copy or an opportunity to inspect (view) the program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issues arising from situations in which government entities claim copyrights, or enter into agreements with private entities that grant intellectual property rights in government data to the private parties, are nascent. The Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on December 4, 1995, that addressed a situation in which a government entity wanted to exercise its intellectual property rights in certain data it developed. That opinion reads, in part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [Government entities] may not assert copyright ownership to deny members of the public their right to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places under [Minnesota Statutes section 13.03, subdivision 3.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Opinion also states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It therefore is reasonable to conclude that a state legislature can forfeit any part of that federal bundle of rights should it deem such waiver to be in the public interest. The state cannot forfeit those rights on behalf of third parties, however, so state agencies who acquire original works of authorship from third parties cannot be compelled by the MGDPA to violate federal prohibitions on copyright infringement. To the extent then that compliance with the MGDPA would compel an actual violation of the FCA, and subject the State to liability, the FCA controls. See, e.g., Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 59 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 1995).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, the Federal Copyright Act, Title 17, U.S. Code, provides that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to: reproduce the copyrighted work in copies; and distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. (See 17 U.S.C. section 106.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Attorney General&apos;s opinion relates to a government entity asserting copyright ownership of data it developed. Although this situation doesn&apos;t involve government ownership of copyrighted materials, it is clear that the Attorney General&apos;s opinion regarding the protection of public access to copyrighted materials, regardless of who produced them, is relevant in resolving the conflicts between Chapter 13 and the Federal Copyright Act.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Creighton failed to demonstrate how it would violate a producer&apos;s copyright if the Cable Commission simply allowed Mr. Wratkowski to inspect the program in question. Accordingly, the Cable Commission may not deny public access to public government data for the purposes of inspection on the basis that it does not own the copyright to the data. If the Cable Commission maintains a copy of the program, it should provide Mr. Wratkowski an opportunity to inspect it.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The requirements of the Federal Copyright Act lend support to the Cable Commission&apos;s position that it cannot supply a copy of the program. We accept that position. We acknowledge that this conclusion appears contrary to a basic tenet of Chapter 13, that, with few exceptions, a person may obtain a copy of public government data. However, to the best of our knowledge, this question has not been answered definitively, and the issue otherwise remains unsettled.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, the Cable Commission may not deny public access to public government data for the purposes of inspection on the basis that it does not own the copyright to the data. If the Cable Commission maintains a copy of the program, it should provide Mr. Wratkowski an opportunity to inspect it. The Cable Commission need not supply a copy to Mr. Wratkowski, however.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     If the Cable Commission does &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt; maintain a copy of the program, the question remains whether it should, pursuant to the requirements of section 15.17, the Official Records Act, and section 138.163 et seq., the Records Management Act.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 15.17, subdivision 1, provides: [a]ll [government entities] shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Pursuant to section 138.17, subdivision 1, government records are defined to include all . . . data, information, or documentary material . . . made or received by an officer or agency of the state . . . pursuant to state law or in connection with the transaction of public business by an officer or agency . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no relevant case law upon which to rely for guidance as to whether a copy of the program is a record for purposes of sections 15.17 and 138.17. Mr. Creighton stated that it would be physically and economically impossible for the Cable Commission to maintain copies of all the tapes submitted for playback, but he did not address the records retention requirements of sections 15.17 and 138.17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given that there is little guidance available, the Commissioner acknowledges that the question of whether a videotape copy of the program is a record for purposes of sections 15.17 and 138.17 could be argued either way. However, it seems to us a more reasonable position that it is not.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Creighton, the Cable Commission was created to administer the cable television franchises granted by the member cities. Apparently, the Cable Commission primarily manages facilities to provide support to independent program producers; it neither produces nor owns the content of the programs cablecast on the system. Presumably, the Cable Commission maintains a record of the programming cablecast over the system, which would meet the requirements of sections 15.17 and 138.17. However, in our view, copies of the actual programs cablecast are not official records that the Cable Commission is required to maintain under sections 15.17 and 138.17. Accordingly, if the Cable Commission does not maintain a copy of the videotape in question, it is not obliged to secure a copy for Mr. Wratkowski&apos;s inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Another question unanswered by the information provided is whether there is any contractual agreement between the Cable Commission and the producers of the programming it broadcasts. If so, the producers are potentially subject to Chapter 13 regulation. When a private person has a contractual relationship with a government entity, there are certain situations in which the private entity itself, or the data created or collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations, may be subject to Chapter 13. (See section 13.05, subdivisions 6 and 11.) If that is the case here, then Mr. Wratkowski could gain access to a copy of the program from the producer, according to the requirements of section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wratkowski is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, if the Ramsey/Washington County Suburban Cable Commission maintains a copy of a videotape of a particular television program, it should provide access to the videotape for the purposes of inspection.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             The question of whether the Cable Commission should provide a copy of the program is less clear; however, the Commissioner accepts as reasonable the Cable Commission&apos;s position that it might be in violation of the Federal Copyright Act if it were to provide a copy of the program, because it does not own the copyright. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 16, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267719</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Cable Commission</Title><Id>266636</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intellectual property (See also: Proprietary information)</Title><Id>266703</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification (subd. 2)</Title><Id>266349</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Form of records</Title><Id>266704</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:07:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-041</Title><title>Opinion 00 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267952&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources responded appropriately to requests for access to government data made on October 20, 1998, and June 7, 2000?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 3, 2000; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On August 28, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 24, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his/her access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Allen Garber, Commissioner of the DNR, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 30, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On September 8, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Kurt Ulrich, Assistant Commissioner for Administration, DNR.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 20, 1998, X requested access to certain Conservation Officer applicant data, and data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 7, 2000, X requested access to certain Conservation Officer applicant data, and data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote: The requests I have made have not been provided as of this date.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources responded appropriately to requests for access to government data made on October 20, 1998, and June 7, 2000?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, further provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Pursuant to section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is the subject, entities are required to respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, X requested access to data of which s/he is the subject and public data of which s/he is not the subject. X made these requests in October of 1998 and on June 7, 2000. As of August 24, 2000, X asserted that s/he had not received any of the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ulrich wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources would like to state that our lack of response to [X&apos;s] request of June 7, 2000, was simply an oversight on our part.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Department is not, and was not, intentionally withholding disclosure of public information to [X]. [X&apos;s] request was simply misplaced due to the workload of our Human Resource employees. We extend our sincere apologies to [X] for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Department is providing the requested data to [X] today.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With respect to [X&apos;s] October 20, 1998, request, our records indicated that [X] was provided with the public information [X] requested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. Further, when the requestor asks for data about him/herself, entities are required to respond within ten working days. Regarding X&apos;s June 7, 2000, request, Mr. Ulrich wrote that the DNR was providing X with the requested data on September 8, 2000 - three months after X&apos;s request - due to an oversight which the DNR regrets. Under applicable Minnesota statute, this response, nonetheless, was not timely.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Regarding X&apos;s October 20, 1998, request, there is a dispute which the Commissioner cannot resolve. X asserts that he did not receive any data. Mr. Ulrich asserts that the DNR provided X with the data. If the Department did not provide X with the data to which s/he is entitled, it should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 284, Wayzata, did not respond appropriately to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 3, 2000&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267952</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-040</Title><title>Opinion 00 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266846&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-10-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 284, Wayzata, responded appropriately to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 2, 2000; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 16, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 14, 2000, from Douglas Sauter. In his letter, Mr. Sauter requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 284, Wayzata, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Beilfuss, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 18, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Sauter&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On August 22, 2000, IPA received a response, dated August 18, 2000, from Mr. Beilfuss.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Sauter related that he requested access to certain data regarding the elementary strings program, which the District is dismantling. Mr. Sauter wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Once again, the Administration...cited, as a basis for the action terminating the kindergarten students, letters and e-mail received by the school district from concerned parents and faculty members. Based on the data referred to in the [Report entitled Review of the Fine Arts Programs ] cited at the meeting [June 12, 2000], the kindergarten program was cut.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 14, 2000, Mr. Sauter requested access to certain data relating to the program and the Administration&apos;s decision. He wrote again to Mr. Beilfuss on August 2, 2000: You and I have unsuccessfully exchanged phone calls...This is almost two months after my initial request. In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sauter wrote, No information has been provided.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Saulter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 284, Wayzata, responded appropriately to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when a person makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, further provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, Mr. Sauter requested access to data from the District on June 14, 2000. Seven weeks later, Mr. Sauter wrote again, reiterating that he had requested data on June 14. In his opinion request, dated August 14, 2000, he wrote that the District, as of that date, had not provided him with any information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Beilfuss wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Mr. Sauter&apos;s initial request was received on June 15, 2000, and we referred the matter to our attorney the very next day, June 16....Our attorney reviewed the materials for data classified as private (student or personnel data), and we now have the information available for Mr. Sauter. During this time, we periodically checked with our attorney on the progress in responding to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request and updated Mr. Sauter, through his wife, Mary, by telephone on July 5 and again on August 11. The August 11 phone call was to inform Mr. Sauter that the materials would be available the week of August 14.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. In this case, it took the District almost nine weeks to provide data in response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request. This is not prompt, appropriate, or reasonable, especially given that pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the District is required to keep all records containing government data in such an arrangement as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Sauter raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 284, Wayzata, did not respond appropriately to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 2, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266846</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-039</Title><title>Opinion 00 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267282&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-09-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes section 144.226, may Ramsey County charge a fee for inspection of vital records?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 19, 2000; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 31, 2000, IPA received a letter from Helen Patrikus and Stephanie Preble. In this letter, Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by Ramsey County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Terry Schutten, Ramsey County Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated August 7, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On August 11, 2000, IPA received a response from Harry D. McPeak, Assistant County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble are amateur genealogists. Their research has included inspection of vital records in Ramsey County. According to them, Ramsey County recently implemented a new policy regarding access by genealogists to vital records. They wrote: [t]he County does not allow genealogist [sic] to inspect public records without first paying a fee. They provided a copy of the policy, entitled Genealogy Requests, which states the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Verification only request, includes view only -
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Fees are set as follows: $8 per application processed when complete information is provided. A $20 per hour search fee is charged if incomplete information is provided. (Fees will be prorated)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. McPeak wrote: [i]t is the County&apos;s position that plain reading of [section 144.226, subdivision 1 (e)] requires that the fees in question be collected when inquiries such as though [sic] made by Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble are submitted to the County. (Emphasis his.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes section 144.226, may Ramsey County charge a fee for inspection of vital records? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a): [i]f a person requests access [to government data] for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 144.226, subdivision 1 (e), provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The fee &lt;u&gt;for the verification of information&lt;/u&gt; from vital records is $8 when the applicant furnishes the specific information to locate the record. When the applicant does not furnish specific information, the fee is $20 per hour for staff time expended. Specific information shall include the correct date of the event and the correct name of the registrant. Fees charged shall approximate the costs incurred in searching and copying the records. The fee shall be payable at time of application. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no definition of verification provided in the statutes governing vital records. (See section 144.212, and Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Health this year, 24SR1379.) There is also no guidance provided by a court ruling. Black&apos;s defines verification as [c]onfirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath or deposition. (Black&apos;s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1990.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. McPeak said the County is required to charge the fees in question for inquiries such as [those] made by Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble. He did not explain what it is in the nature of their request that requires verification. According to Ms. Patrikus and Ms. Preble, they asked to inspect vital records; they did not ask for copies of the data. There is no indication that they asked for verification of anything. They asked only to inspect public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, [t]he responsible authority shall provide access to public data to any person, without regard to the nature of that person&apos;s interest in the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should also be noted that the 2000 Minnesota Legislature amended Chapter 13 to require that, unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. (A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.) The new language, which is codified at section 13.05, subdivision 12, went into effect on August 1, 2000. (See Laws for Minnesota 2000, Chapter 468, section 6.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, absent a specific authority to equate a request to inspect vital records, which are public government data, with a request for verification of same, we must conclude that Ramsey County may not assess any fee in response to a request simply to inspect vital records.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Md. Patrikus and Ms. Preble is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), and Minnesota Statutes section 144.226, Ramsey County may not charge a fee for inspection of vital records.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 19, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267282</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)</Title><Id>266277</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vital records</Title><Id>266341</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-038</Title><title>Opinion 00 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267265&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-09-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the inspection of polling place rosters governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091?
Is the &quot;challenge status&quot; of a voter as set forth on the polling place roster, data that are or are not accessible to the public if the Secretary of State&apos;s proposed rule, 8200.9120 - Inspection of Polling Places Rosters - is adopted</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 14, 2000; Minnesota Secretary of State</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 14, 2000, IPA received a letter dated July 13, 2000, from Mary Kiffmeyer, Secretary of the State of Minnesota. In her letter, Secretary Kiffmeyer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain voter registration data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Secretary Kiffmeyer related that Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, governs access to registered voter lists. Pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 201.091, every county auditor must make a public information list available for inspection. This public information list must contain the name, address, telephone number (if provided), year of birth, and voting history of each registered voter in the county. Any individual wishing to inspect the public list must provide identification to the county auditor and state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law enforcement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Secretary Kiffmeyer further related that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.10, each registered voter, before voting on election day, must sign a polling place roster. The polling place roster is a list of registered voters who live in a particular precinct. It contains the voter&apos;s name, address, entire date of birth, and voter registration status. No statute or rule specifically discusses the inspection of polling place rosters. However, because a roster is a list of registered voters produced from the statewide voter registration system, the Secretary of State&apos;s Office has held the opinion that the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, govern the inspection of the roster.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                To resolve any confusion or inconsistency regarding inspection of polling place rosters, the Secretary of State&apos;s Office recently proposed a rule that Administrative Law Judge Barbara Neilson heard on July 11, 2000. The proposed Rule states:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                An individual who asks to inspect a polling place roster used on election day must provide the county auditor with identification and a written request stating the information required by Minnesota Statutes 201.091, subdivision 4. Before fulfilling the request for inspection, the auditor must conceal (1) the month and day of birth and challenge status of each person on the roster; and 2) all information concerning a registrant under court-ordered protection who has submitted a written request for omission under Minnesota Statutes 201.091, subdivision 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Judge Neilson issued her report on August 11, 2000. She concluded:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Administrative Law Judge finds that the majority of the proposed rule is needed and reasonable to effectuate the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 201.091. Subdivisions 4 and 5 of that statute, taken together, authorize the Secretary of State to withhold from public inspection the month and day of birth of a registered voter. Subdivision 4 of that statute further authorizes the Secretary to withhold from the public information list the name of any registered voter placed under court-ordered protection if the voter so requests and provides a copy of the court order. The Administrative Law Judge concludes, however, that the portion of the proposed rules requiring auditors to conceal a voter&apos;s challenge status from public inspection conflicts with [Chapter 13]....To cure this defect, the Administrative Law Judge suggests that the Secretary of State revise the language of the second sentence of the proposed rule [sic] delete the reference to challenge status.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Secretary Kiffmeyer asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the inspection of polling place rosters governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the challenge status of a voter as set forth on the polling place roster, data that are or are not accessible to the public if the Secretary of State&apos;s proposed rule, 8200.9120 - Inspection of Polling Places Rosters - is adopted
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    At this time, Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, does not state explicitly that it regulates polling place rosters. However, the Commissioner agrees that because the roster is a list of registered voters produced from the statewide voter registration system - which is governed by section 201.091 - it is appropriate that section 201.091 control access to the rosters. Applying the same access standards currently in effect for registered voter lists to polling place rosters will ensure consistency.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner would like to add, however, that the best way to eliminate any possible confusion over the issue of access to polling place rosters is for the Legislature to amend section 201.091 so that it clearly governs rosters.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her opinion request, Secretary Kiffmeyer provided detail about challenge or voter registration status. She wrote, ...the status may be active&apos;; challenged&apos; (usually due to residency questions); felon&apos; (disfranchised until the restoration of voting rights); or guardianship&apos; (disfranchised until the guardianship of the person is ended).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her report, Judge Neilson, reviewed the three types of data in the proposed rule for which the Secretary proposed protection. The Judge noted that language in section 201.091 specifically authorizes the Secretary to withhold birth day and birth month data, and data about a registrant under court-ordered protection. She further noted that there is no statutory provision protecting data relating to challenge status. She concluded, therefore, based on the presumption that all government data are public unless otherwise classified (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. subdivision 1), that protection of the challenge status data would conflict with Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner agrees with Judge Neilson&apos;s conclusion on this matter and opines that challenge status data are public. Challenge status data are government data and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Pursuant to the presumption set forth in section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Although section 201.091 does classify certain voter data as not public, it does not classify challenge status data (active, challenged, felon, or guardianship) as not public. Therefore, based on the presumption set forth in section 13.03, subdivision 1, the Commissioner opines that the challenge status data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Secretary Kiffmeyer raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The inspection of polling place rosters is appropriately governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, the challenge status of a voter as set forth on the polling place roster, are data that are accessible to the public.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 14, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267265</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Voter registration files (201.091)</Title><Id>266385</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:11:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-037</Title><title>Opinion 00 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266585&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-09-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, has Lake County responded appropriately to a March 20, 2000, request for the following data: copies of audiotape recordings of closed meetings of the Board of Commissioners pertaining to contract negotiations of all bargaining units for the 2000-2001 labor agreements?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 12, 2000; Lake County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 23, 2000, IPA received a letter from Dean I. Tharp, on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME.) In this letter, Mr. Tharp asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Lake County. IPA staff requested that Mr. Tharp clarify his opinion request; he did so in a letter dated July 21, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Tharp&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Clair A. Nelson, Chairman of the Lake County Board of Commissioners. The purposes of this letter, dated July 26, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Tharp&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On August 10, 2000, IPA received a response from Wilma H. Clark, Administrative Clerk of the Lake County Board of Commissioners. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Tharp, AFSCME and the Board were involved in very critical negotiations for the 2000 labor agreement. . . . After the strike was averted and the contract ratified by both parties, Union members expressed strong interest in obtaining the tapes of closed sessions of the Board. In a letter to Lake County dated March 20, 2000, Mr. Tharp requested copies of tapes recorded of closed meetings of the Board of Commissioners pertaining to contract negotiations of all bargaining units for the 2000-2001 labor agreements.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 22, 2000, Mr. Nelson responded: [t]here were no closed meetings pertaining to contract negotiations and therefore, are no tapes to provide to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 10, 2000 Mr. Tharp wrote again, asking for copies of tapes, and stated: Board minutes show that a closed meeting of the Board was held on December 30, 1999.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Clark provided a copy of a letter she wrote to Mr. Tharp, dated April 18, 2000, in which she stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The following, appears in the minutes of December 30, 1999: Meeting was then closed for a union negotiation strategy session.&apos; This was a poor choice of words on my part. The negotiating team . . . only updated the board members on where negotiations stood on that day; no strategy was discussed. Unfortunately, when the official board meeting was adjourned, the keeper of the recorder, turned it off. That is clearly reflected on the tapes, which are available in my office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Clark wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                During the regular County Board meeting of December 30, 1999, it was mentioned that there would be a negotiations report at the end of the meeting. I erroneously assumed that that portion of the meeting would be closed. However, this was not correct. No portion of the meeting was closed to the public. There was no vote to hold a closed meeting and no closed meeting occurred. The negotiations team reported to the Board in open session at the end of the regular meeting on December 30, 1999.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Tharp asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, has Lake County responded appropriately to a March 20, 2000, request for the following data: copies of audiotape recordings of closed meetings of the Board of Commissioners pertaining to contract negotiations of all bargaining units for the 2000-2001 labor agreements? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. Pursuant to section 471.705, subdivision 1a, [t]he proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss [labor] negotiation strategies shall be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body. The recording shall be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and shall be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the current budget period.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the content of the official minutes of the Board meeting held on December 30, 1999, Mr. Tharp understandably assumed that a portion of the meeting was closed and there was a tape recording of that portion. If the Board had held a closed meeting to discuss labor negotiations, then per the requirements of section 471.705, subdivision 1a, a tape recording should have been made and retained.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, according to Ms. Clark, the entry in the minutes is inaccurate; there was no closed meeting held to discuss labor negotiation strategy. Accordingly, no audiotape exists that satisfies Mr. Tharp&apos;s request. To avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future, if the Board has not formally corrected the minutes of the December 30, 1999, meeting, it should do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Tharp is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, Lake County responded appropriately to a March 20, 2000, request for the following data: copies of audiotape recordings of closed meetings of the Board of Commissioners pertaining to contract negotiations of all bargaining units for the 2000-2001 labor agreements, because no closed meeting was held, and therefore no tape recording exists. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 12, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266585</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor negotiations</Title><Id>266350</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:24:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-036</Title><title>Opinion 00 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267380&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-09-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minnetonka respond properly to X&apos;s request for access to the following data: the identity of the person(s) who made a complaint about noise at X&apos;s home?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 8, 2000; City of Minnetonka</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 12, 2000, IPA received a letter from Loren H. Dorshow, on behalf of his client, X. In this letter, Mr. Dorshow asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Minnetonka.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Dorshow&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Childs, (former) Manager of the City of Minnetonka. The purposes of this letter, dated July 13, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Dorshow&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 27, 2000, IPA received a response from Desyl L. Peterson, Minnetonka City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X is a resident of the City. According to Mr. Dorshow, the City has received several complaints of noise at X&apos;s home. The City has investigated the complaints, but has not issued any citations. X asked the City to identify the complainant(s), which the City refused to do, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dorshow stated that he believes that the data should be classified as public according to section 13.82. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It seems relatively clear . . . that [section 13.44] is specific to complaints concerning the use of real property. I would take this to mean concerns over building fences, housing additions, storing vehicles - junk - firewood, etc. The complaint in question has to do with a noise complaint on the premises which took place in the evening outside of the home. On it&apos;s [sic] face, this complaint has nothing to do with use of real property. Therefore, it should fit precisely under Minn. Stat. section 13.82 Subd. 3, as this enclosed data [a copy of the incident report] was created and collected by the Minnetonka Police Department and therefore [X] should be entitled to the information outlined specifically in Subd. 3(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Peterson referred to Minnetonka&apos;s 1978 application for temporary classification (see section 13.06) from which section 13.44 originated. She stated that contrary to Mr. Dorshow&apos;s interpretation of the meaning of use of real property as quoted above, . . . there are many uses of property that can generate prohibited noise. Ms. Peterson referred to numerous City ordinances that prohibit uses of real property that result in unacceptable noise. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Dorshow agrees that building fences or housing additions and storing vehicles or firewood on a property would be considered a use of real property.&apos; These are no different in kind than the uses listed and regulated in a city&apos;s noise regulations. All are activities that occur on real property. Inherent in the term use&apos; is the concept of action or activity. An activity that occurs on the property is appropriately categorized as a use&apos; of the property. The property supports and allows the activity to occur. The statute makes no distinction between one kind of activity and another.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The people who are most impacted by the noise from the use of real property are the adjacent neighbors. As noted in the Commissioner&apos;s temporary classification, these are the people most likely to complain, the most likely to fear retribution, and the most in need of protection. Accordingly, the statutory language should be interpreted in favor of that protection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Peterson, in reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266906&quot; title=&quot;99-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-045&lt;/a&gt;, which found that the identities of persons who complained about odors from a municipal wastewater treatment plant were confidential under section 13.44, stated: [o]dor from an activity on real property is no different in kind from noise that results from an activity on real property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mr. Dorshow&apos;s assertion that section 13.82 ought to govern the data in question, Ms. Peterson stated: [u]nder the rules of statutory construction, a provision that is specific in nature takes precedence over a general provision. Minn. Stat. section 645.26, Subd. 1. The statute cited by Mr. Dorshow generally covers law enforcement matters, while Minn. Stat. section 13.44 governs a specific type of law enforcement matter. Accordingly, Minn. Stat. section 13.44 governs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Dorshow asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Minnetonka respond properly to X&apos;s request for access to the following data: the identity of the person(s) who made a complaint about noise at X&apos;s home?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.44 provides: [t]he identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the incident report, one of the complaints about X&apos;s property was that children were yelling around a swimming pool in the backyard. Although the Commissioner appreciates Mr. Dorshow&apos;s comments regarding the meaning of the term use of real property, he agrees with Ms. Peterson that an activity that occurs on real property is a use of the property. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266906&quot; title=&quot;99-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-045&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner concluded that the identities of complainants about odors emanating from a wastewater treatment plant were confidential under section 13.44. Noise resulting from the use of real property for recreation is no different than odor resulting from the use of real property for the treatment of wastewater.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dorshow asserted that because the data in question, i.e., the identities of the complainants, were created by the Minnetonka Police Department, section 13.82 is applicable. (Section 13.82 governs data created or collected by a law enforcement agency.) The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. As Ms. Peterson stated, pursuant to section 645.26, subdivision 1, a specific statute takes precedence over a general provision. The data are properly classified as confidential under section 13.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Dorshow is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Minnetonka responded properly to X&apos;s request for access to the following data: the identity of the person(s) who made a complaint about noise at X&apos;s home. The data are confidential pursuant to section 13.44.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 8, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267380</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)</Title><Id>266467</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data classification&apos;s origin</Title><Id>266468</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-035</Title><title>Opinion 00 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267643&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of investigatory statements and other supporting documentation relating to the disciplinary action Goodhue County took against an employee who is a veteran?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 30, 2000; Goodhue County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from Lynda J. Woulfe, Special Projects Coordinator of Goodhue County. In this letter, Ms. Woulfe asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Goodhue County. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Woulfe, the county has taken final disciplinary action against an employee who is a veteran. The employee did not file a grievance within the time period allowed for non-union County employees, but did request a veteran&apos;s preference hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 197.46, the Veterans Preference Act. According to Ms. Woulfe, the charge against the employee did not involve a charge of sexual harassment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Woulfe asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of investigatory statements and other supporting documentation relating to the disciplinary action Goodhue County took against an employee who is a veteran?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a)(5), the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data. Pursuant to subdivision 2 (b), a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Woulfe, the County has made its final decision regarding disciplinary action against the employee. She stated: . . .the disciplinary action was termed Notice of Intent to Discharge&apos; since the County can&apos;t actually terminate a veteran until the veteran waives their right to a hearing or until the veterans preference panel upholds the decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267008#/detail/appId/1/id/266673&quot; title=&quot;96-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-050&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed an issue with the same factual basis. In that opinion, the Commissioner opined:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Supreme Court case . . . referred to is &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989). The Legislature amended Section 13.43 in 1990, following &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;. That case, in relevant part, dealt with the meaning of the terms final decision and final disposition of disciplinary actions as these terms were used in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, the Court found that a final &lt;u&gt;decision&lt;/u&gt; of the City was not the final &lt;u&gt;disposition&lt;/u&gt; of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt; at 29.) Subsequently, in 1990, the Legislature amended Section 13.43, subdivision 2, by adding clause (b), which provides the definition of final disposition of disciplinary action, and includes the language regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, according to the requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting disciplinary action taken against a public employee become public when there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceeding or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. The City has made its final decision; therefore there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, and, regardless of any later proceeding, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act, the data . . . are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Woulfe is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The County has made its final decision, therefore there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action taken, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act. Accordingly, investigatory statements and other supporting documentation that constitute the specific reasons for and document the basis of the disciplinary action are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 30, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267643</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Veterans Preference Act</Title><Id>266672</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-034</Title><title>Opinion 00 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266684&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-15T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Blue Earth County respond appropriately to a request to gain access to two books prepared by the following land viewers: W.A. Frederickson and Bert Hanson?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 15, 2000; Blue Earth County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 16, 2000, IPA received a letter dated May 13, 2000, from Francis Wingen. In his letter, Mr. Wingen discussed difficulties he was having getting access to data that Blue Earth County maintains. IPA staff asked Mr. Wingen to clarify his request which he did in a letter dated June 6, 2000. Mr. Wingen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis McCoy, Administrator of Blue Earth County, in response to Mr. Wingen&apos;s request. This letter served to inform him of Mr. Wingen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On June 30, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Kurt Deter, an attorney representing Blue Earth County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Mr. Wingen is as follows. Mr. Wingen and two acquaintances went to the County courthouse to look at the ditch file. At that time, they looked at a parcel book prepared by a W.A. Frederickson. Mr. Wingen wrote, It had each parcel described with the feet of tile installed, type of land, land benefit, title benefit, and a map. Someone in Mr. Wingen&apos;s party asked for a copy, and County staff advised that one would be sent, for a fee.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A copy was never received, and Mr. Wingen went back to the County and again asked for the book. Mr. Wingen wrote, We asked for the book and [County staff A] pulled out a different one signed by Bert Hanson. We asked for a copy and [County staff A] refused.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Wingen related that he went back to the County a third time and staff brought out a different book signed by Harold Healy. Mr. Wingen wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We were surprised again to see a different one. They all had the same figures but were worded different. These people were the viewers. [County staff B] gave us a copy of the pages we needed without charge. We told [County staff B] that there are two more books in the file that we wanted copies. [County staff B] said [County staff A] had pulled those books and they were up on [County staff A&apos;s] desk. We asked [County staff B] to get them for a copy. [County staff B] tried but they were gone and have never been found.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wingen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Blue Earth County respond appropriately to a request to gain access to two books prepared by the following land viewers: W.A. Frederickson and Bert Hanson? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public, unless otherwise classified by state statute, federal law, or temporary classification (not applicable in this case). Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides additional guidance; the entity must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Deter wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I have been retained by Blue Earth County to respond on the Blue Earth County Ditch #77 Matter....I have...checked with [the County Attorney] and [the County Administrator] and they are unfamiliar with any request for information. The viewers&apos; workbooks that are discussed, I believe, are from the Viewers&apos; Report that was done in the 1940s. Under Minnesota Statutes 103E, all records are kept as part of the ditch file. Since I have been unable to get to Mankato since the date of your letter, I am unfamiliar as to whether these 1940 viewers&apos; workbooks are in the file. However, I want to stress that all information in the ditch files are public record and, to my knowledge, Mr. Wingen has never been denied access to the ditch files.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...As with all county ditch files, county ditch #77 is open for public review with the statutory requirement that the originals need to stay in possession of the county. Whatever records are in the Blue Earth County Ditch #77 file are still present. Mr. Wingen is represented by counsel and either his counsel or Mr. Wingen are free to review the ditch files at their convenience.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s comments on this matter are as follows. First, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, Mr. Wingen does have the right to gain access to public government data. However, subdivision 3 also requires that any requests for government data be made to the responsible authority of the entity. In this case, Mr. Deter wrote that the County Administrator - presumably the responsible authority - was not aware of any of Mr. Wingen&apos;s requests. Therefore, unless one of the County staff with whom Mr. Wingen was communicating is the responsible authority, the Commissioner recommends that Mr. Wingen go back to the responsible authority and make a written request for the data. If the County Administrator is not the responsible authority, he should provide that information to Mr. Wingen.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, Mr. Wingen stated that he examined viewer books written by W.A. Frederickson and Bert Hanson, and that those books then apparently became unaccessible. There is no dispute that the county ditch file #77 is open for public review. Therefore, the County should locate those books so that Mr. Wingen, upon his request to the responsible authority, can gain access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final note is in order. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 15.17 and 138.17, government entities are required to maintain government data for certain periods of time. Assuming the data in question are part of an official record, unless those data were approved for destruction, they should be available for inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wingen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Blue Earth County responded appropriately to a request to gain access to two books prepared by land viewers W.A. Frederickson and Bert Hanson. If Mr. Wingen did not make his request to the responsible authority, he should do so. If the County has misplaced public government data, it should locate those data and make them available for access. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 15, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266684</id><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-033</Title><title>Opinion 00 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267712&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to an April 19, 2000, request for access to data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to an April 18, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 15, 2000; City of Ely</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 7, 2000, IPA received a letter dated June 1, 2000, from Thomas and Patricia Mighell. In their letter, the Mighells requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding their access to certain data that the City of Ely maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lee Tessier, Clerk/Treasurer of Ely, in response to the Mighells&apos; request. This June 23, 2000, letter served to inform him of the Mighells&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 29, 2000, IPA received a response, dated June 26, 2000, from Patricia Wellvang, Deputy City Clerk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On March 3, 2000, the Mighells made a request for access to certain data that the City maintains. The Mighells wrote that the City provided them with most of the data they had requested, except that copies of two letters were withheld - apparently based on client/attorney privilege. The City Clerk directed the Mighells to go to the City Council, which passed a motion, at its March meeting, to review the letters and make a decision on releasing them. The Mighells then sent a letter dated April 19, 2000, again requesting access to the data. As of the date the Mighells requested this opinion, the City had not responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 18, 2000, the Mighells requested access to certain data that the City of Ely Zoning/Planning/Building Department maintains. As of the date the Mighells requested this opinion, the City had not responded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, the Mighells asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to an April 19, 2000, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to an April 18, 2000, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (not applicable in this case). In addition, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively. Pursuant to section 13.04, if a data subject is requesting access to data about him/herself, the entity is required to respond within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the Mighells&apos; March 3, 2000, request, the City provided all but two items - two letters. The Mighells, in their opinion request wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We were directed by the city clerk to go to the city council and request same - no written explanation - verbal client/attorney for not including.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Went to council in march - council said they had not seen letters - made motion to release - city attorney stated attorney/client privilege possible impending litigation - I stated that litigation was not pending and quoted the provisions of the statute related to the issue - council passed a motion to review the letters and make a decision on releasing them - city attorney closed meeting to the public to discuss the issues the Mighells have raised...still no response to date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Wellvang wrote that in early May, Ely hired Attorney Andy Phillips as an independent contractor to represent the City in matters regarding the Mighells&apos; requests. She stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Attorney Phillips contacted Mr. Mighell by letter several times to set up a time and date to meet with him, so he would know how better to answer his letters dated April 18 and April 19...but Mr. Mighell never responded to Attorney Phillips [sic] communications. The Ely City Council then proceeded to set up a meeting with Mr. Mighell invited, the Ely City Council, members of the Planning Commission and Attorney Phillips, which took place on Tuesday, May 30, 2000, to discuss these issues, and Mr. Mighell never appeared although he was informed of this meeting well in advance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the regular city council meeting of June 20th, the Ely City Council forwarded letters...to the Zoning Officer to work with the Planning Commission, to answer Mr. Mighell&apos;s requests as best they understand them. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission are taking this matter up at their regular meeting of July 6, 2000, of which Mr. Mighell was notified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mighells initially requested the data at issue (two letters) on March 3, 2000. Someone at the City informed the Mighells that the letters were not accessible. However, according to the Mighells, the City Clerk then directed them to go to the City Council and request same - no written explanation - verbal client/attorney privilege. The Mighells made another request for the letters on April 19, 2000 and as of June 1, 2000, the Mighells had not received a final answer regarding their access to those data. The City&apos;s handling of this request is problematic. Pursuant to Chapter 13, the responsible authority must respond to requests for access to data promptly/appropriately and within a reasonable time (when request is for public data), or within ten working days (when the requestor is the data subject). If the Mighells are subjects of the data in the letters, the City needed to determine the classification and respond within ten days - this apparently did not happen. If the data in the letters are public, and not about the Mighells, then the City needed to respond within a reasonable time. The fact that the City hired Mr. Phillips to clarify some of the issues is irrelevant for the purposes of this opinion. The Mighells should have received a final answer before early May (time of Mr. Phillips&apos; hiring) as to whether the data were accessible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 18, 2000, the Mighells requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...the comprehensive data held by the city of Ely planning, zoning, or Building dept. In relationship to building plans and specifications and all related documents for all types of structures with in the city of Ely or it&apos;s [sic] jurisdiction. These would consist of, but not be limited to, building permits, plans, specifications, reports, citation, office notes in files, letters from to the city, maps charts in general or specific to a structure, environmental conditions of a site or structure, occupancy permits as well as compliance with peripherals such as signage, parking, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is not to suggest that there is any request for, or expectations of access to alarm systems, vaults, safes, or other proprietary information that would be reasonable [sic] anticipated being classified as non-public and is required to be separated, held separate and non-public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There appears to be a dispute regarding the City&apos;s response to the April 18, 2000, request. The Mighells assert that they have not received a reply from the City. Ms. Wellvang, in her letter, stated that Mr. Phillips has contacted Mr. Mighell several times by letter to set up a time and date to meet with him, so he would know how better to answer his letters. Ms. Wellvang did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of any of Mr. Phillips&apos; letters. Ms. Wellvang also wrote that the Ely City Council invited Mr. Mighell to a May 30, 2000, meeting with the Council, members of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Phillips. Ms. Wellvang wrote that Mr. Mighell did not attend the meeting. However, the City did not provide any indication to the Commissioner that staff had, at any time, offered to make any of the requested data available to the Mighells.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, when a data subject requests access to data about him/herself, entities must respond within ten working days. If the Mighells are the subject(s) of any of the data they requested, the City did not respond within the statutorily prescribed time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding other of the requested data of which the Mighells are not the subject, the City was required to respond in an appropriate/prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. If an entity does not understand a request, it is appropriate for that entity to seek clarification from the requestor. However, any request for clarification should come fairly soon after the data request so that the entity is still able to meet its obligation to provide the data within a reasonable time. In this case, it is not clear when or if the City sought clarification from the Mighells. Furthermore, it does not seem appropriate that Mr. Mighell be required to attend a meeting with Ely&apos;s elected officials to discuss these issues. Pursuant to Chapter 13, it is Ely&apos;s responsible authority who is responsible for responding to requests for data. The Mighells requested data on April 18, 2000. If the City has not yet provided those data, it should do so promptly or advise the Mighells as to which statutory provision allows the City to withhold the data. If the City does not understand the Mighells&apos; request, the responsible authority should immediately seek clarification, determine the classification of the requested data, and then provide the Mighells with any data to which they are entitled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that the Mihgells raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Ely did not respond appropriately to an April 19, 2000, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Ely did not respond appropriately to an April 18, 2000, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267712</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-032</Title><title>Opinion 00 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267619&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to X&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to Y&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to Z&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 2000; Lake County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 16, 2000, IPA received a letter dated June 13, 2000, from X, Y (X&apos;s spouse), and their minor child, Z. In their letter, X, Y, and Z requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding their access to data that Lake County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Oswald, Director, Lake County Human Services, in response to X, Y, and Z&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 30, 2000, were to inform him of the opinion request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On July 26, IPA received comments dated July 14, 2000, from Bruce Anderson, Lake County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. X operates a day care and is licensed through Lake County. According to X, on March 4, 2000, the County began to conduct a standard background check for re-licensing. X wrote that on March 23, 2000, we made a verbal request to obtain copies of the actual completed studies.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 30, 2000, addressed to X, a County social worker responded:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Enclosed are the results of the background study completed on 3/17/2000....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                According to [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3], data on persons that is collected in an investigation authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law is confidential data and shall not be disclosed except to provide notices required or permitted by statute....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You may want to contact your local law enforcement agency for more specific information regarding criminal history records.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Attached to the letter was a letter dated March 27, 2000. In essence, it states that a background study was completed and that X, Y, and Z are not disqualified from providing direct contact services and may provide services to X&apos;s day care. No other specifics were provided.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 8, 2000, X, Y, and Z, sent a letter to the County requesting that the County send copies of our background checks to the following address...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 25, 2000, the County social worker wrote to X and enclosed a copy of a letter, dated April 17, 2000, from the County Attorney. The County social worker wrote, It is the opinion of the County Attorney that criminal history records collected by Lake County Human Services from law enforcement agencies should not be released and should be requested directly from the subject of the study to the police departments involved.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X, Y, and Z then requested an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, X, Y, and Z asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to X&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to Y&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Lake County respond appropriately to Z&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system pertaining to persons licensed under the authority of the commissioner of human services are licensing data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 4. Clause (c), classifies the following data as private: personal and personal financial data on family day dare program applicants and licensees and their family members who provides services under the license. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that individuals are entitled to gain access to public and private data of which they are the subject. When a data subject makes a request, the government entity must respond within ten working days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the County conducted a background check on X, Y, and Z. Presumably, as part of this check, the County collected various types of information. On April 8, 2000, X, Y, and Z requested access to the background checks. In response, the County provided only a statement that X, Y, and Z may provide services for X&apos;s day care.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anderson asserted that police records contain confidential informant information, juvenile information and other information including reporting authorities that may be confidential. He wrote, The Welfare Department does not know these things and are not trained with regard to police information. As a county attorney, I do not believe it is appropriate for this office to be making decisions on municipal police offices and what information they may or may not disclose... Mr. Anderson&apos;s comments are problematic. First, the Commissioner is unaware of what kinds of confidential data or private data about individuals other than X, Y, and Z, a law enforcement agency would lawfully be providing to the County in response to a background check evaluation. Second, if a law enforcement agency provided private data about X, Y, or Z to the County, the data about X are accessible to X, the private data about Y are accessible to Y, and the private data about Z are accessible to X, Y, and Z. Third, any data that the County maintains are subject to requests for access. Pursuant to Chapter 13, Lake County is required to respond to requests and to know how its data are classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner would also like to add that the County social worker, in his March 30, 2000, letter to X, denied access to data based on section 13.46, subdivision 3, investigative data. That section classifies only those data collected as part of an investigation - not as part of the standard process for re-application for a license. In this case, the data are properly classified pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.46.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner does not know what specific information the County collected while conducting the background checks on X, Y, and Z. However, pursuant to section 13.46, subdivision 4 (c), those data are private as described above, and should have been made accessible within ten working days to the individuals to whom they pertain. The County should provide the data requested immediately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X, Y, and Z is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Lake County did not respond appropriately to X&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Lake County did not respond appropriately to Y&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Lake County did not respond appropriately to Z&apos;s April 8, 2000, request for access to data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 9, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267619</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Background checks</Title><Id>266447</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Background checks</Title><Id>266447</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Daycare, child care provider</Title><Id>266743</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigative data</Title><Id>267143</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266353</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-031</Title><title>Opinion 00 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267760&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the Ramsey County Human Services Department has not responded to a data subject&apos;s February 2, 2000, challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of data, has the County violated the data subject&apos;s rights?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 2, 2000; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 20, 2000, IPA received a letter dated April 14, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X asserted that Ramsey County had violated his/her rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and requested an advisory opinion. IPA staff requested that X clarify his/her request, which X did in a letter dated May 4, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Fashingbauer, Director of the Ramsey County Community Human Services Department, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 26, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On June 7, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Gary Davis, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In 1994, X and his/her spouse were divorced. X and his/her spouse were awarded joint legal custody but X&apos;s spouse was awarded sole physical custody of the children. The Divorce Decree granted X supervised visitation rights.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In August 1996, X petitioned the Family Court for unsupervised visitation. In November 1996, the Family Court denied X&apos;s motion and appointed Ramsey Community Corrections Department, Domestic Relations unit, to evaluate, mediate or conduct visitation supervision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In April 1997, a court referee ordered that Domestic Relations&apos; supervisory authority terminate on November 27, 1997. On December 4, 1997, a court referee issued an order continuing visitation supervision until November 27, 1998.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In May 1998, a court referee ordered a psychological evaluation of X and the children, pursuant to recommendations made by Domestic Relations staff. Pursuant to the order, a licensed psychologist employed by the Ramsey County Mental Health Center, interviewed X. The psychologist issued her report on July 28, 1998.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 2, 2000, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, X renewed an earlier challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of data contained in the psychological evaluation. This letter was addressed to Mr. Fashingbauer. At Mr. Fashingbauer&apos;s request, on March 17, 2000, X met with Donald Mockenhaupt, Division Director, Ramsey County Community Services Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Mockenhaupt did not respond to X&apos;s challenge but informed X that the report was a product of the judiciary and not subject to Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X then requested an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Note: Mr. Davis, in his response to the Commissioner, wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                ...X commenced a legal action against Ramsey County related to a psychological evaluation of [X] performed at the Ramsey County Community Mental Health Department at the direction of the District Court, Family Court Division. This action against the County recently [on April 11, 2000] was dismissed on the County&apos;s motion for summary judgment on a variety of grounds and is now being appealed by X to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the Ramsey County Human Services Department has not responded to a data subject&apos;s February 2, 2000, challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of data, has the County violated the data subject&apos;s rights? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, an individual may challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of public or private government data. Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity]... However, there is also a provision in Chapter 13 clarifying that the judiciary is not subject to Chapter 13; access to data of the judiciary is governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. See section 13.90. Subdivision 1 of section 13.90 states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    For purposes of this section, judiciary means any office, officer, department, division, board, commission, committee, or agency of the courts of this state, whether or not of record, including but not limited to the board of law examiners, the lawyer&apos;s professional responsibility board, the board of judicial standards, the lawyer&apos;s trust account board, the state law library, the state court administrator&apos;s office, the district court administrator&apos;s office, and the office of the court administrator.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The central issue in this opinion is whether the data in the report fall under the jurisdiction of Chapter 13 or the judiciary. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Davis wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It has been the position of Ramsey County that X&apos;s rights to attempt to change the factual premise of the Community Mental Health Department&apos;s psychological evaluation is limited to any right [s/he] may have to file a motion before the Ramsey County District Court, Family Court Division for the purpose of obtaining reconsideration of the report. X previously had the opportunity to contest the report in Family Court but failed to do so despite being represented by Counsel.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It has been the position of Ramsey County that the report is judiciary data and comes within the provisions of Minn.Stat. section 13.90 which exempts the judiciary from the provisions of Minn.Stat. Chapter 13. Access to such data is governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court as set forth in the Rules of Public Access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the documentation provided, the Commissioner concurs with the County&apos;s position. X&apos;s relationship with the County is based strictly upon his/her interaction with the court system. All of the data collected, created, and maintained by the County, including those that make up the psychological report, stem from the court in 1996 appointing the County authority and responsibility to determine another third party to supervise visitation. Were it not for the court involving the County in issues regarding X&apos;s visitation of his/her children, X would not have had a relationship with the County. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that the data contained in the psychological evaluation are judiciary data and are exempt from Chapter 13 as pursuant to section 13.90. The County did not violate X&apos;s rights by not responding to his/her data challenge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Ramsey County Human Services Department has not violated the data subject&apos;s rights by not responding to his/her February 2, 2000, challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of data. Pursuant to section 13.90, the data are governed by the judiciary and not by Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 2, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267760</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Judicial branch (13.90) (See also: Court records)</Title><Id>266853</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-030</Title><title>Opinion 00 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267808&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-01T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a May 24, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a June 2, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 8, 2000, IPA received a letter from Jo Anna Bame. In this letter, Ms. Bame asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Bame&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra R. Langley, an employee of the City of Deephaven, who provides administrative services to Greenwood under contract. The purposes of this letter, dated June 12, 2000, were to inform her of Ms. Bame&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 23, 2000, IPA received a response from Mark W. Kelly, attorney for Greenwood. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 24, 2000, Ms. Bame asked Ms. Langley for a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council meeting. According to Ms. Bame, Ms. Langley told her that the minutes had not been typed. Ms. Bame stated that a contractor prepares the Greenwood City Council minutes, and [i]n other cities for which [the contractor] prepares minutes, a print out is available immediately after the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a telephone call to the City on Friday, June 2, 2000, Ms. Bame again requested a copy of the May 2nd Council meeting minutes. When she arrived at City Hall, she was told that she could not have a copy of the minutes but that she could review them in Ms. Langley&apos;s presence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly stated that the contractor is hired to take notes from which the City Clerk prepares the minutes. According to Mr. Kelly, on May 24, 2000, there were no minutes of the May 2nd Council meeting in existence. He wrote further:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Similarly, on June 2nd the Minutes were in draft form and had yet to be approved by the City Council. Typically, amendments are proposed at the City council meeting and, if adopted, the proposed text is then amended and added to the official Minutebook. Because proposed Minutes are subject to Council approval, the document was withheld as it did not constitute an official statement of the Minutes of the City council of the City of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Bame asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a May 24, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Greenwood respond appropriately to a June 2, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Bame was under the impression that the contractor prepares the City Council minutes for Greenwood. According to Mr. Kelly, this is not the case; the minutes are prepared by the City Clerk, who uses the contractor&apos;s notes in their preparation. Mr. Kelly stated that the minutes had not yet been prepared at the time of Ms. Bame&apos;s initial request. Thus, the City was not obligated to provide access to data that did not exist at the time of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly stated that at the time of Ms. Bame&apos;s second request for a copy of the minutes, on June 2, 2000, they were in draft form. The City allowed her to view the minutes but refused her a copy. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267425&quot; title=&quot;94-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-026&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the City ought to have provided Ms. Bame with a copy of the May 2, 2000, Council meeting minutes at the time of her June 2, 2000, request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Bame is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood responded appropriately to a May 24, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting, as the minutes did not exist at the time of the request.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood did not respond appropriately to a June 2, 2000, request for access to a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2000, Greenwood City Council Meeting. Draft minutes are public data, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, and the City should have provided a copy to the requestor.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 1, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267808</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Draft documents</Title><Id>266609</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minutes, personal notes</Title><Id>266615</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:12:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-029</Title><title>Opinion 00 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266838&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, did Wright County violate X&apos;s rights if the County released, to a member of the public, data that identified X as someone who had reported an incident(s) of child maltreatment?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 2000; Wright County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 30, 2000, IPA received a letter, dated May 22, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion addressing whether Wright County inappropriately released data about X to the public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Don Mleziva, Director of Wright County Human Services, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 12, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On June 26, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X provided is as follows. On either August 18 or 19 of 1997, X telephoned Wright County Child Protection Services and reported to a child protection worker that Y was endangering/abusing Y&apos;s child(children). X then gave his/her statement in person to the same worker on August 21, 1997. X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 [The worker] &lt;u&gt;had&lt;/u&gt; called me [X] back, to let me know! [sic] that [the worker] &lt;u&gt;had gotten ahold&lt;/u&gt; [sic] of [Y] by telephone. [The worker] &lt;u&gt;told&lt;/u&gt; [Y] that [Y] was turned into the [County] by [X].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X related that on August 20, 1997, Y informed X that Y knew that X had reported Y to the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X added that Y sued X for civil harassment. X related that X appeared in court on August 27, 1997, and that Y testified to the following: X had been threatening to report Y to the Wright County Child Protection Services; and the child abuse investigator told Y that X reported Y.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, did Wright County violate X&apos;s rights if the County released, to a member of the public, data that identified X as someone who had reported an incident(s) of child maltreatment? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates data that government entities collect and maintain. Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, specifically classifies data that have been collected as part of an investigation into the maltreatment of minors. Subdivision 11 of section 626.556 provides that the name of a reporter of maltreatment is confidential.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, X asserts that Wright County released confidential data about him/her to a member of the public (Y).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Asleson pointed to several inconsistencies between X&apos;s version of the events and the version contained in the County&apos;s documents. (Mr. Asleson provided to the Commissioner a copy of the Assessment Report of Child Abuse or Neglect that Wright County Human Services agency produced as a result of the report made by X.) First, he asserted that the initial report form indicates that a report was made on August 21, 1997 (X stated that s/he made a report on August 18 or 19). Second, Mr. Asleson asserted that there is no record in the County&apos;s documents of the intake social worker sharing the identity of the reporter with Y. Mr. Asleson did note that the intake worker is no longer employed by the Wright County Human Services Agency.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Asleson also argued that in the County&apos;s records, there are two indications from which one could conclude that the alleged abuser (Y) had some idea (on Y&apos;s own) of the identity of the reporter. He stated that on the initial report form, it indicates that X called the children&apos;s grandmother...who ask(ed) [him/her] to report to us. Mr. Asleson wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Apparently, [X] provided this information to the intake worker. It seems very possible that if [Y] learned the name of the reporter, [Y] may have learned of it through [Y&apos;s] mother. The initial report also indicates that [X] had a verbal exchange with [Y] at or about the time of [sic] the abuse allegedly occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Asleson added that the formal assessment report indicates that Y was extremely upset by this worker&apos;s visit indicating that [Y] had had several problems with X&apos; in that [X] is being harassing towards [Y] and that [Y] has filed a Court Order against [X].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Mr. Asleson disputed X&apos;s assertion that at the August 27, 1997, court hearing Y testified on the record that the intake social worker disclosed X&apos;s identity to Y. Mr. Asleson provided a copy of the transcript of a Harassment Hearing held on August 29, 1997. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    This is the only evidence that we have been able to find of a Court hearing during this approximate time period involving [X] and [Y]. There is no mention in the transcript of [X&apos;s] identity being disclosed to [Y]. However, on page 5 of the transcript, [Y] testifies that [X] had threatened to call child protection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In conclusion, Mr. Asleson wrote that if Wright County had disclosed X&apos;s identity, such a release would constitute a violation of section 626.556. He argued, however, ...under the circumstances, there appear to be numerous facts in this case which would cause [Y] to conclude that [X] was the reporter to the County. There simply appears to be insufficient evidence that such a disclosure was made by a County employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, pursuant to Chapter 13 and section 626.556, the identity of a reporter of child maltreatment is confidential and cannot be released. In this case, there is no dispute that X made a report to Wright County. However, based on the information provided, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the County released X&apos;s name. If the County did disclose X&apos;s identity, it violated provisions of statute. If the County did not disclose X&apos;s identity, it has not violated statutory provisions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised by is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine whether Wright County released, to a member of the public, data that identified X as someone who had reported an incident(s) of child maltreatment. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the County violated X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 1, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266838</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reporter identity is confidential</Title><Id>266837</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-028</Title><title>Opinion 00 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267346&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-08-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the City of Greenwood to require approval from the Mayor before the City processes requests for access to public government data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50 deposit as part of a request to inspect public data? (Request made on April 17, 2000.)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 18, 2000, IPA received a letter dated same from Jeannie Bowers-Stead, a resident of the City of Greenwood and a member of the Greenwood City Council. In her letter, Ms. Bowers-Stead requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data that the City of Greenwood maintains and the appropriateness of a provision in one of Greenwood&apos;s ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra Langley, Greenwood City Clerk/Administrator, in response to Ms. Bowers-Stead&apos;s request. This May 3, 2000, letter served to inform her of Ms. Bowers-Stead&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On May 11, 2000, IPA received comments, dated same, from Mark Kelly, City Attorney for Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Regarding issue 1, on December 7, 1999, Greenwood and the City of Deephaven entered into a contract in which Deephaven provides certain services for pay. One of the provisions in the contract states, Direction to Deephaven staff will be through the Greenwood Mayor only. On January 18, 2000, Greenwood enacted City Ordinance Number 127, Establishing procedures for Management of Government Data. One of the provisions in Ordinance 127 provides for the handling of Council Member requests for information. It states that such requests must be governed by the contract between the City and, in this case, Deephaven and shall not be subject to processing through the Public Information Officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding issue 2, on April 17, 2000, Ms. Bowers-Stead made a request to inspect government data that Greenwood maintains. As part of her request, Greenwood required that she put down a $50 deposit along with her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Bowers-Stead asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 13, is it appropriate for the City of Greenwood to require approval from the Mayor before the City processes requests for access to public government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50 deposit as part of a request to inspect public data? (Request made on April 17, 2000.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, an individual has the right to gain access to government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides that the responsible authority of a government entity must respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, states that the entity must respond within a reasonable time. Further, all government entities are required to appoint someone to handle matters regarding data practices. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1000, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the governing body of each political subdivision and the governing body of each state agency whose activities are subject to the direction of a governing body shall, by September 30, 1981, if it has not done so, appoint a responsible authority....The governing body shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by the act and by this chapter. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 18, 2000, the Greenwood City Council adopted Ordinance No. 127. Subdivision 10 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the event the City Council as a whole (majority vote) or Mayor acting individually, requires information from a municipality or independent contractor of professional services to the City, such requests shall be governed by the contract between the City and the service provider and shall not be subject to processing through the Public Information Officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Provision 9 of the contract between Greenwood and Deephaven states that direction to Deephaven staff will be through the Greenwood Mayor only.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly defended Greenwood&apos;s Ordinance. He cited provisions from Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 412, and stated, Using these various statutory authorities granted municipalities, the City of Greenwood has enacted the ordinance in question. That ordinance adopts the language of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly argued that under subdivision 10 of the Greenwood Ordinance, a request to access public data that comes from an individual who also happens to be a City Council Member is subject to the requirements of provision 9 of the services Letter of Understanding between the City of Greenwood and Deephaven. This contract provision states that such requests can be handled only at the specific direction of the Mayor of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Kelly, requests by members of the public to gain access to data about Greenwood caused the City of Deephaven to complain about such requests. This led Greenwood to adopt the Ordinance which is the subject of this opinion. However, other than citations to Greenwood&apos;s Ordinance, Mr. Kelly has not established that Greenwood has appointed a responsible authority to carry out the duties assigned by Chapter 13, to assure proper handling of requests by individuals to gain access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly argued that it is appropriate for the Mayor of Greenwood to exercise control over requests by the public for access to data. Clearly the Mayor is responsible for some executive role in the management of the affairs of Greenwood. However, Mr. Kelly has not established that the Mayor of Greenwood has been appointed to be Greenwood&apos;s responsible authority. Under both Chapter 13 and the applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Administration (Chapter 1205), it is the responsible authority who must ensure Greenwood&apos;s compliance. If the Mayor had been appointed responsible authority, the exercise of supervision over the City&apos;s handling of requests for public access to data would be consistent with Chapter 13. However, Greenwood has provided no information as to the identity of its responsible authority. Rather than appointing the Mayor as responsible authority to ensure compliance with Chapter 13, it appears the Mayor has been designated to screen requests for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Kelly has stated, a city may, under section 412.221, adopt ordinances for a variety of purposes. However, under that same provision of statute, such ordinances [must not be] inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States or of this state... An ordinance or contract provision that limits the right of any member of the public, including a member of a city council, to gain access to public data is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Bowers-Stead made a written request for government data on April 17, 2000. On the request form, she wrote, inspect/if needed copies. This is clearly a request to inspect data; Mr. Kelly, in his response to the Commissioner, did not dispute this fact. Along with her request, Ms. Bowers-Stead was required to attached a check for $50. City of Greenwood Ordinance No. 127, subdivision 3, states, [a]ll applications [for government data] shall be accompanied by a cash deposit of $50.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a), if a person requests access to government data for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly asserted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Greenwood is of the opinion that it has legal authority under [section 13.03, subdivision 3] to assess a lawfully recoverable cost back to the requesting party and to require the requesting party to make a deposit towards those anticipated costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly also stated that because Ms. Bowers-Stead is a member of the Greenwood City Council, another provision in Ordinance No. 127 (subdivision 10) applies to her request. He wrote: [a]dministration oriented data requests by the Mayor or the City Council as a whole are processed under contract by Deephaven as administrative business of the City. All other requests are processed through the Public Information Officer provisions of the ordinance. Subdivision 10 does not make reference to requiring a deposit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly&apos;s point is not clear. On one hand, he argues that pursuant to subdivision 3 of the Ordinance, Greenwood is justified in requiring Ms. Bowers-Stead to pay a deposit. On the other hand, he asserts that another provision in the Ordinance, subdivision 10, applies to her request because she is a member of the City Council. Subdivision 10 does not include a deposit requirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the information provided to the Commissioner, it is clear that when Ms. Bowers-Stead made her request to inspect government data, Greenwood required her to put down a $50 deposit. Chapter 13 states clearly that inspection of government data is free. Therefore, Greenwood may not require that she pay a cash deposit to inspect data. (For additional information see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857#/detail/appId/1/id/267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-015&lt;/a&gt;, also involving the City of Greenwood.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Bowers-Stead raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it is not appropriate for Greenwood to require approval from the Mayor before requests for public data are processed.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood may not require a $50 deposit as part of a request to inspect public government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 1, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267346</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Ordinances</Title><Id>266765</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Duties, generally</Title><Id>266766</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-027</Title><title>Opinion 00 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267877&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-07-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the City of Oakdale&apos;s charges of $616.81+ $136.70 for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 27, 2000; City of Oakdale</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 16, 2000, IPA received a letter dated May 12, 2000, from Marylee Abrams, General Counsel for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS). In her letter, Ms. Abrams requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding charges that the City of Oakdale assessed LELS for copying government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Waldron, Administrator for Oakdale, in response to Ms. Abrams&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 16, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Abrams&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On May 19, 2000, IPA received a response, dated May 18, 2000, from William Sullivan, Chief of Police.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Abrams wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data in question was originally requested in a meeting with the City Administrator and Chief of Police on April 19, 1999. The request was again reiterated at a second meeting between [a business agent] and [City staff] on an undetermined date. The data was not provided to LELS and therefore we obtained an arbitrator&apos;s subpoena for the requested data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Abrams related that in response to the two subpoenas - which required Oakdale to provide copies of various types of public data - the City provided the data, along with two bills. One bill, dated November 22, 1999, referenced the two subpoenas and was for $616.81 (one subpoena for $272.06 and the other subpoena for $344.75) and the other bill, dated December 31, 1999, was for $136.70. Ms. Abrams requested and received clarification of the bills from the City. She then requested an opinion from the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Abrams asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the City of Oakdale&apos;s charges of $616.81+ $136.70 for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may charge for copies of public government data. Specifically, the statute states that an entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A related provision requires government entities to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 1, 2000, response to Ms. Abrams&apos; request for clarification, Chief Sullivan explained the City&apos;s billing for the data referenced in one of the subpoenas. He wrote that 830 pages were charged at $.10/page, plus 7 hours of clerical retrieval and copying time charged at $16.62/hour, plus 2 hours of Chief Sullivan&apos;s retrieval and copying time were charged at $36.36/hour. The total was $272.06 or approximately $.33/page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in his February 1, 2000, letter, Chief Sullivan discussed the billing referenced in the other subpoena. There were 537 pages charged at $.10/page, plus 7 hours of Captain Grill&apos;s retrieval and copying time at $31.19/hour, plus 2 hours of Chief Sullivan&apos;s retrieval and copying time ($36.36/hour). The total was $344.75 or approximately $.64/page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It does not appear, however, that Chief Sullivan provided Ms. Abrams with any explanation regarding the second invoice for $136.70.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Abrams wrote back to Chief Sullivan on April 6, 2000, stating that his response was inadequate. She questioned the necessity of the Chief and the Captain having spent time reading and copying documents. Ms. Abrams also stated, The union&apos;s request was for raw data. The presentation of the documents in a formal three-ring binder with tabs and title pages went beyond what was requested. She added, Further, it was my understanding that a copy was also made for the employer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chief Sullivan responded in a letter dated April 13, 2000. He wrote that LEIS was not billed for any of the time spent on this project on behalf of the City. The Chief also stated, Captain Grill and I prepared many of these materials because it is the established practice in our department to do so, particularly when any form of personnel or computerized productivity data is requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Chief Sullivan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The law does not, and should not, stipulate who must be responsible for responding to these requests in any governmental organization. In an organization such as ours, with only forty employees and no designated Human Resources Department, it is both prudent and practical for the police department&apos;s command staff to be responsible for maintaining, duplicating and disseminating the types of information requested by LELS. It is the desire of our department to honor the requirements of [Chapter 13], to ensure the integrity of our records system and to protect the privacy interests of our employees, to the extent that such protection is reasonable and lawful. As such, Captain Grill [sic] Administrative Services Director Goeken and myself will always be involved in this form of records management....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[y]ou will note that we did use less expensive time of a clerical person where it was appropriate and reasonable to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205, provide that government entities may charge the following for copies of public data: the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information provided, it does not appear that Oakdale has properly justified the charges it assessed LELS for the copies of data. First, Chief Sullivan offered no explanation for the December 31, 1999, bill totaling $136.70. Other than Copies Labor, there is no accounting for the assessed fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Chief Sullivan&apos;s explanation of the $616.81 fee is problematic. In referencing the subpoena for which Oakdale assessed LELS a fee of $272.06, the Chief stated that the total included 7 hours of clerical retrieval and copying time, 2 hours of his retrieval and copying time, plus an additional $.10 per page. Chapter 13 does permit an entity to charge employee time for searching and retrieving. However, Oakdale also has a statutory responsibility to keep data easily accessible for convenient use. To first assign the task for search, retrieval, and copying to one of its most highly compensated employees, in this case its Chief of Police, and then base its charges on that assignment, could have a chilling effect on an individual&apos;s right to gain access to data. This is not consistent with the City&apos;s obligation to keep data easily accessible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Chief states that due to the employee complement in the office, it is appropriate that he conduct the search, retrieval, and copying of relevant data. This is his decision to make, as the manager of the office. However, it would not be fair or prudent, then, for the city to also charge for the fully allocated cost associated with that assignment. Rather, the individual should pay only that amount of the actual costs incurred which would be equal to the fully allocated cost associated with use of a city employee in a clerical position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is not clear why Oakdale assessed an additional $.10/copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner finds similar issues with the $344.75 fee that Oakdale assessed for the data referenced in the other subpoena. In this situation, Oakdale charged LELS for Chief Sullivan and Captain Grill (most likely the two highest paid employees in the Police Department) to retrieve and copy, and, again, an additional $.10/page fee was assessed. For the reasons stated above, Oakdale&apos;s charges do not seem appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, there appears to be an issue regarding the presentation of the requested data. Regarding the data described in one of the subpoenas, Ms. Abrams stated that Oakdale placed the data in a three-ring binder. She wrote, The citations were divided by officer with a cover sheet for each officer. They were tabbed with brightly colored printed sheets separating citations (orange) and warnings (lime green) by month....This format went far beyond that requested by the union. From Chief Sullivan&apos;s comments, it is not clear whether Oakdale charged LELS for these extras. If so, such a charge would not be appropriate. If a government entity does not understand a request for data, it should clarify before responding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One final comments is in order. In his comments to the Commissioner, Chief Sullivan wrote, The law does not, and should not, stipulate who must be responsible for responding to these requests in any governmental organization. Pursuant to Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1000, government entities are required to appoint a responsible authority. Section 13.02, subdivision 16, states that the responsible authority is the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data... The responsible authority must fulfill numerous obligations under Chapter 13, one of which is establishing procedures to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Chief Sullivan did not indicate that Oakdale has appointed a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Abrams raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Oakdale did not meet the burden of establishing that charges of $616.81+ $136.70 for copies of public government data are allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 27, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267877</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee wage/labor cost</Title><Id>267067</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-026</Title><title>Opinion 00 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267784&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-07-12T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50.00 deposit as part of a request to inspect government data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Greenwood responded appropriately to a January 31, 2000, request for access to government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 12, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 31, 2000, IPA received a letter from James E. Hulbert. In this letter, Mr. Hulbert asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by City of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Hulbert&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra R. Langley, an employee of the City of Deephaven, who provides administrative services to Greenwood under contract. The purposes of this letter, dated June 1, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Hulbert&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 13, 2000, IPA received a response from Mark W. Kelly, attorney for Greenwood. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 31, 2000, Mr. Hulbert requested the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please allow me to inspect the following public information regarding the city property at the end of West Street.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings regarding West Street.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. Minutes of the City Council Meetings regarding West Street.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. Map of this property at the end of West Street.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. Any investigations done on this property at the end of West Street and the findings of these investigations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;5. Any Resolutions and or Ordinances related to this property at the end of West Street.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Hulbert, he made his request to the Deephaven City Administrator, and was required to pay a $50.00 deposit. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;My request to inspect was not met, and I was informed that they would get back to me when and if I could have access to it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Over three months have passed, and I still have been refused the right to inspect any of the requested information. I have not received a refund for my deposit&apos; and have heard nothing from City Hall on the status of my request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly stated: . . . shortly after the City of Deephaven Administrator received [Mr. Hulbert&apos;s] request, he phoned [Mr. Hulbert] and left a voice mail message to the effect that the City was in receipt of his request but that the scope of the request was too broadly stated for the City Staff to knowingly respond in a practical manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly stated that the City does not index its meeting minutes, Resolutions or Ordinances relative to West Street. He said citizens may not demand that the City provide research services. Mr. Kelly wrote: [d]espite the voice mail message left [for Mr. Hulbert], the City Staff has not heard from him; he has not clarified his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hubert asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50.00 deposit as part of a request to inspect government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Greenwood responded appropriately to a January 31, 2000, request for access to government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner previously addressed the issue of the provision in Greenwood City Ordinance No. 127 that requires a person seeking access to government data to pay a $50.00 deposit. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857#/detail/appId/1/id/267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-015&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner opined that according to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a), the City may not require a cash deposit in order to inspect government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner regarding Mr. Hulbert&apos;s request, Mr. Kelly stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please observe that the Greenwood ordinance in question never authorized or provided for the charging of a $50.00 deposit to inspect public data. Rather, the ordinance anticipated the need to collect a deposit where the costs of preparing, collating, copying and disseminating data requested would be incurred. This is in conformance with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 which specifically states: The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data...&apos; [Emphasis his.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Kelly. The provision of section 13.03 Mr. Kelly cites, namely subdivision 3 (c), provides, in relevant part: [i]f a person &lt;u&gt;requests copies or electronic transmittal&lt;/u&gt; of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data. . . . (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hulbert clearly stated that he was seeking to inspect government data. He did not ask for copies or electronic transmittal of data. The Commissioner reiterates his conclusion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-015&lt;/a&gt;: Greenwood may not require a $50.00 deposit in response to a request to inspect government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second issue, Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Kelly disagree about whether the City contacted Mr. Hulbert after he made his January 31, 2000, request to inspect government data. Mr. Hulbert says there was no subsequent contact; Mr. Kelly says the Deephaven City Administrator left Mr. Hulbert a voice mail message. The Commissioner cannot determine whose version is correct. However, we disagree with Mr. Kelly&apos;s assertion that Mr. Hulbert&apos;s request required clarification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hulbert clearly requested access to inspect data in meeting minutes, investigations, ordinances or resolutions relating to City property at the end of West Street. He also asked to see a map of the property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly is correct that Greenwood is not obligated under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to provide research services. Neither is the City obligated to index its data by any specific criteria. However, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, Greenwood is obligated to search for and retrieve government data, and to maintain its data such that they are easily accessible for convenient use. In this case, Mr. Hulbert provided criteria that would enable Greenwood to identify and retrieve the specific data he was seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Kelly stated: [a]s regards a request for a map of the property at the end of West Street, those have always been available at the City Office on request. Accordingly, Mr. Hulbert should have been shown a map at the time of his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Hulbert is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood may not require a $50.00 deposit as part of a request to inspect government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood has not responded appropriately to a January 31, 2000, request for access to government data. Pursuant to section 13.03, the City is obligated to search for and retrieve data responsive to the request, and make it available for inspection free of charge.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 12, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267784</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Ordinances</Title><Id>266765</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:28:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-025</Title><title>Opinion 00 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267492&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-07-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the City of Rochester respond properly to a request for access to data on unpaid parking tickets?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 12, 2000; City of Rochester</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from Josh Freed and Jay Furst, of the Rochester &lt;em&gt;Post-Bulletin&lt;/em&gt;. In this letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Rochester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stevan Kvenvold, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated June 2, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 7, 2000, IPA received a response from David M. Goslee, Deputy City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Freed requested access to City data on paid and unpaid parking tickets. In a letter dated March 7, 2000, Mr. Goslee told Mr. Freed that the City would provide access to all data on paid or resolved parking tickets, and to some of the data on unpaid parking tickets. Mr. Goslee stated that the data on unpaid parking tickets contain a mixture of public and not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Freed wrote: [a]s I understand it, information related to unpaid parking tickets would fall into two categories: 1) Tickets issued recently enough that their fines aren&apos;t due yet, and 2) Overdue tickets, for which arrest warrants are eventually issued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Goslee stated that a Rochester parking ticket is a notice in a form similar to a cash register receipt that does not identify a person. He described some of the relevant data as containing a description of the time and place a ticket was issued, including the license number, year, make and model of the automobile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to Mr. Freed and the Commissioner, Mr. Goslee stated that the data in question are law enforcement data and are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. He wrote: [t]he type and extent of information available depends upon the status of the particular ticket/complaint. Different levels of information are available depending on whether the law enforcement data is arrest data, request for service data, or response or incident data. The distribution of the data also depends on whether the investigation is active or inactive. Mr. Goslee discussed the applicability, or lack of same, of subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 of section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the City of Rochester respond properly to a request for access to data on unpaid parking tickets?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 (arrest, request for service, and response or incident data) specify law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 5 classifies criminal investigative data as not public while an investigation is active. When the investigation is no longer active, within the meaning of subdivision 5, then criminal investigative data are classified as public, with certain exceptions as provided in subdivisions 5 and 10.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data described in section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data were specified in order to ensure that they could not be withheld from the public as active criminal investigative data under subdivision 5. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. Accordingly, the only data that are classified as not public under Section 13.82 are the specific data described in the various subdivisions of Section 13.82 or in other statutes regulating law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Goslee noted that pursuant to subdivision 12, data contained in the arrest warrant indices are confidential until the defendant has been taken into custody, served with a warrant, or appears before the court. However, parking tickets themselves are not an arrest warrant index, and that subdivision cannot be relied upon to deny access to the unpaid parking ticket data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Goslee also stated that he does not believe subdivision 2 of section 13.82 applies to parking ticket data. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. According to section 13.82, subdivision 2, arrest data, which are public at all times, include data that document any actions taken . . . to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty . . . . In the case of parking tickets, the law enforcement agency issues a citation, i.e., the ticket, rather than making an arrest. Parking ticket data that fit the descriptions provided in subdivision 2 are therefore always public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, data on unpaid parking tickets are public unless they are classified as not public under section 13.82, subdivision 5, or another provision of section 13.82 or other statutes regulating law enforcement data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Freed and Mr. Furst is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the City of Rochester did not respond properly to a request for access to data on unpaid parking tickets. The only data that are not public are data specifically classified as same under section 13.82, such as active criminal investigative data, or other statutes regulating law enforcement data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 12, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267492</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest warrant indices</Title><Id>267134</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parking citation/ticket</Title><Id>267035</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Presumption of openness</Title><Id>266912</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-024</Title><title>Opinion 00 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267401&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-29T15:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Kandiyohi County Sheriff maintains:
Name; 
Race; 
Date of birth; 
Address of inmate; 
Booking number; 
Height, weight; 
Eye color; 
Offenses; 
In/out dates; 
Bail amounts - who supplied the cash or who signed for the bail bond; 
The judge presiding on Inmate&apos;s case; 
Work release status; 
Inmate&apos;s employer and work schedule; 
Previous dates, times, and offenses inmate had while being incarcerated; 
Next of kin; 
Scars, marks, and tattoos; 
Victims&apos; names and addresses; 
Inmate or victim phone numbers; 
Any violations that occurred while being incarcerated; Court dates; 
Inmate&apos;s attorney; 
Photos other than inmate mug shot; and 
Visitation records of inmate, and who visited the inmate?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2000; Kandiyohi County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: See note to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267777&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-031&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 2, 2000, IPA received a letter dated April 27, 2000, from Ronald Wilson, Chief Correctional Officer of the Kandiyohi County Jail. In his letter, Mr. Wilson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the Kandiyohi County Jail/Kandiyohi Sheriff maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wilson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the Kandiyohi County Sheriff maintains:
&lt;p&gt;Name;
&lt;br /&gt;
Race;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date of birth;
&lt;br /&gt;
Address of inmate;
&lt;br /&gt;
Booking number;
&lt;br /&gt;
Height, weight;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eye color;
&lt;br /&gt;
Offenses;
&lt;br /&gt;
In/out dates;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bail amounts - who supplied the cash or who signed for the bail bond;
&lt;br /&gt;
The judge presiding on Inmate&apos;s case;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work release status;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inmate&apos;s employer and work schedule;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previous dates, times, and offenses inmate had while being incarcerated;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next of kin;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scars, marks, and tattoos;
&lt;br /&gt;
Victims&apos; names and addresses;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inmate or victim phone numbers;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any violations that occurred while being incarcerated; Court dates;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inmate&apos;s attorney;
&lt;br /&gt;
Photos other than inmate mug shot; and
&lt;br /&gt;
Visitation records of inmate, and who visited the inmate?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Kandiyohi County Sheriff&apos;s Office could apply one, or both, of two different provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to the issues of data classification raised in this opinion. One is section 13.82, law enforcement data. The other is section 13.85, corrections and detention data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 2, arrest data, classifies data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents any actions taken by them to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty... Section 13.82, subdivision 4, response or incident data, classifies data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents the agency&apos;s response to a request for service including, but not limited to, responses to traffic accidents, or which describes actions taken by the agency on its own initiative...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivisions 2 and 4 of section 13.82 set forth the types of arrest and response or incident data, respectively, that are always public. If the agency is conducting a criminal investigation regarding the arrest or incident, any data, other than those listed in subdivisions 2, 3, or 4 of section 13.82, that the agency collected or created in order to prepare a case are confidential. See section 13.82, subdivision 5. However, once the investigation becomes inactive, any data previously protected become public. There are several exceptions to this general rule. One is subdivision 10 of section 13.82 which requires that the agency protect the identities of certain involved parties, e.g., undercover agents, victims of criminal sexual conduct, informants. In addition, subdivisions 5a and 5b protect data relating to child abuse cases.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, several of the types of data in question most likely originated at the Sheriff&apos;s Office as arrest, or response or incident data: name; race; date of birth; address of inmate; booking number; height and weight; eye color; offenses; scars/marks/tattoos; and victims&apos; names, addresses, and phone numbers. Pursuant to section 13.82, in all likelihood, these types of data would be public with one possible exception - the names, addresses, and phone numbers of victims. The Sheriff&apos;s Office will have to make a determination as to whether those data need to be protected pursuant to subdivision 10, or any of the other provisions in section 13.82 that classify specific data as not public. Because the Commissioner is not privy to the details of each particular case, he is not in a position to determine the data classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One additional note related to section 13.82 is as follows. Language in subdivision 5 of section 13.82, provides, Any investigative data presented as evidence in court shall be public. The Kandiyohi County Sheriff&apos;s Office must consider this provision in determining data classifications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The remaining types of data at issue were most likely created or collected because the individual involved was confined at the Kandiyohi jail. Such data are classified at section 13.85, corrections and detention data, and are defined as data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons, and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities. Of relevance to this opinion are subdivisions 2, 3, 4 and 5:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 2. Private data. Unless the data are summary data or arrest data, or a statute specifically provides a different classification, corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to their lawful confinement or detainment or (b) endanger an individual&apos;s life.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 3. Confidential data. Corrections and detention data are confidential, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3, to the extent that release of the data would: (a) endanger an individual&apos;s life, (b) endanger the effectiveness of an investigation authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law, (c) identify a confidential informant, or (d) clearly endanger the security of any institution or its population.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 4. Public data. After any presentation to a court, any data made private or confidential by this section shall be public to the extent reflected in court records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Subdivision 5. Public benefit data. The responsible authority or its designee of any agency that maintains corrections and detention data may release private or confidential corrections and detention data to any law enforcement agency, if necessary for law enforcement purposes, or to the victim of a criminal act where the data are necessary for the victim to assert the victim&apos;s legal right to restitution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In determining the classification of data about specific inmates, the Sheriff&apos;s Office must evaluate whether a release of those data would (1) disclose medical, psychological, or financial information, or personal information not related to the inmate&apos;s confinement; (2) endanger an individual&apos;s life; (3) endanger the effectiveness of an investigation; or (4) clearly endanger the security of any institution or its population. Several of the data types at issue do not appear to fit one of the private or confidential exceptions listed above: work release status; inmate&apos;s employer and work schedule; previous dates, times, and offenses inmate had while incarcerated; violations that occurred while inmate was incarcerated; and photos other than mug shots. Therefore, those data are probably public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that several of the other data types may be properly classified as not public. Names of next of kin, an inmate&apos;s phone number, and visitation records of an inmate and who visited the inmate, appear to be personal information not related to the inmate&apos;s confinement. Therefore, they are private. For a more in-depth discussion about 13.85, subdivision 2, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267328#/detail/appId/1/id/267678&quot; title=&quot;96-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-029&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the data types, inmate in/out dates, depending on certain details of which the Commissioner is unaware, may be properly classified as not public. It is possible that this information, depending on the situation, might endanger someone&apos;s life. On the other hand, such information might necessarily be public pursuant to subdivision 5, public benefit data. The Sheriff&apos;s Office, armed with details of each specific situation, will need to make that decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, bail amounts; presiding judge; court dates; and name of an inmate&apos;s attorney, if part of a court record, would be public pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.85.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would like to make one final point. Law enforcement agencies collect certain types of information, e.g., race, date of birth, height/weight, eye color, scars/marks/tattoos, so that it can be forwarded to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The BCA then uses those data to compile its criminal history database. Even though the BCA&apos;s criminal history database, as it is accessed by government entities, is private (see section 13.87), the classification of the individual types of data that comprise the criminal history system are governed by sections 13.03, subdivision 1; 13.82; and 13.85.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wilson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data that originated as arrest, or response or incident data are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. Those data are public unless there is an active criminal investigation involving the data (see section 13.82, subdivision 5), or the data are otherwise classified as not public, e.g., pursuant to subdivisions 10, 5a, 5b, etc.
&lt;p&gt;Data that originated as corrections and detention data are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 13.85. Those data are public unless they fit one of the exceptions described in subdivisions 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267401</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Corrections and detention data (13.85)</Title><Id>266453</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-023</Title><title>Opinion 00 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267333&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-29T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Pope County respond appropriately to an April 27, 2000, request for the following data: copies of correspondence from or to Enron Gas Company concerning the exposed gas line in New Prairie Township?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2000; Pope County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 2, 2000, IPA received a letter dated April 28, 2000, from Nancy Barsness, Clerk of New Prairie Township. In her letter, Ms. Barsness discussed her attempts, on behalf of New Prairie Township, to gain access to certain data that Pope County maintains. IPA staff asked Ms. Barsness to clarify her request for assistance, which she did in a letter dated May 4, 2000. Ms. Barsness asked that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Belvin Doebbert, Pope County Attorney, in response to Ms. Barsness&apos; request. This letter, dated May 15, 2000, served to inform him of Ms. Barsness&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On May 17, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Doebbert.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a note dated April 27, 2000, Ms. Barsness requested certain data from Mr. Doebbert. She wrote, Please send me a copy of any correspondence from or to Enron Gas Company concerning the exposed gasline in New Prairie Township.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Doebbert responded in a letter dated April 27, 2000. He wrote, I must respectfully decline to furnish any such information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.30...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Barsness, on behalf of New Prairie Township, then requested an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Barsness asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Pope County respond appropriately to an April 27, 2000, request for the following data: copies of correspondence from or to Enron Gas Company concerning the exposed gas line in New Prairie Township?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute, federal law, or temporary classification (not applicable to this opinion).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.39 (civil investigative data), subdivisions 1 and 2, provide that when the chief attorney acting for a government entity determines that a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See Section 13.39, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Doebbert characterized the relationship between Pope County and Enron Corporation. He stated, Pope County is currently in a dispute with Enron Corporation regarding a property rights conflict involving a drainage right of way owned by the County and pipeline right of way owned by Enron.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Doebbert attached to his response several exhibits. One is a letter dated February 4, 2000, from Enron to Dale Wegner, Pope County Highway Department. The County provided this letter to Ms. Barsness. Regarding this letter, Mr. Doebbert wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;By correspondence dated February 4, 2000, Enron denied all responsibility for lowering or proper burial of the pipeline and unequivocally threatened litigation as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;If the County refuses to reimburse Northern for the costs involved, Northern will commence an inverse condemnation action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The February 4, 2000, letter was treated as a notice of claim...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two other exhibits were published in a newspaper. The County withheld the remaining exhibit(s) from Ms. Barsness.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Doebbert wrote, We have no correspondence about the subject matter of this conflict with Enron, other than that mentioned in this letter, between February 4 and the date hereof.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Doebbert then argued that the County appropriately denied Ms. Barsness access to the data at issue. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;With some limited exceptions, data and communications with attorneys relating to the subject matter of threatened and pending litigation are not public data. See, generally, Minn. Stat. Section 13.30 and 13.39. Section 13.39, governing the release of data collected in connection with civil investigations, indicates that authority to classify a conflict as pending litigation is vested exclusively with the chief attorney acting for the...political subdivision. In this case, that is me....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We believe that the public was entitled to notice of Enron&apos;s unsolicited claim and the February 4, 2000 and, as noted by the complainant, that letter was made available to the public. It was upon receipt of this letter, however, that the County was placed under imminent threat of litigation, and information relating to the matter which was collected and retained after that point is clearly nonpublic within the meaning of Chapter 13. Both the plain words of the statute and the court&apos;s clearly articulated policy compel retention of data collected and retained after that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dobbert added, [w]e believe our actions to be absolutely consistent with the requirements of [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, once the chief attorney acting on behalf of a government entity has made a determination that a civil legal action is pending, that entity may appropriately treat certain investigative data as not public. See also &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter, 496 NW2d 812 (Minn. 1993)&lt;/em&gt;. However, once the investigation becomes inactive, most of those data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, Mr. Doebbert, acting as the chief attorney, determined that a civil legal action is pending. Therefore, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One final note is in order. In his response to Ms. Barsness&apos; request, Mr. Doebbert denied her access to data based on section 13.30, attorney data. However, in his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Doebbert&apos;s discussion centered around section 13.39. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the data are appropriately classified as not public under section 13.39; section 13.30 does not appear to apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, although the County appropriately denied Ms. Barsness access to the data, Mr. Doebbert did not cite the correct statutory section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Barsness is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39, Pope County appropriately denied access to the following data: copies of correspondence from or to Enron Gas Company concerning the exposed gas line in New Prairie Township. However, the County did not cite the appropriate statutory section.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267333</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-022</Title><title>Opinion 00 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267468&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-29T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ombudsman for Corrections respond appropriately to a request for the following data: report/recommendations/analysis of Moose Lake Sex Offender program treatment failures?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> June 29, 2000; Office of the Ombudsman for Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 17, 2000, IPA received a letter dated April 7, 2000, from X, an inmate. In his letter, X discussed his difficulty in gaining access to certain data that the Office of the Ombudsman for Corrections maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dave Larson, Ombudsman for Corrections, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 5, 2000, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Ombudsman&apos;s position. On May 24, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Richard Varco, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 3, 1999, X wrote to the Assistant Ombudsman. In that letter, he discussed some concerns regarding the Sex Offender Treatment program. Also in that letter, X requested a copy of the report or recommendations regarding the program.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 1, 1999, the Ombudsman&apos;s office responded to X. Staff wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                You request our analysis of [the treatment program] failures. Ombudsman investigations are confidential and we have no plans to release any data gathered while investigating your complaint. You also request a copy of our report in this matter. This office issued no formal report. As a result of our investigation of your complaint we did make several recommendations for improvements to the program. You were made aware of these in our letter to you dated August 2, 1999.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Ombudsman for Corrections respond appropriately to a request for the following data: report/recommendations/analysis of Moose Lake Sex Offender program treatment failures?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Varco referenced a letter that Patricia Seleen, former Ombudsman, wrote to X on August 2, 1999. (Mr. Varco attached a copy of this letter to his response.) Mr. Varco wrote that the letter informed X that the Ombudsman had reviewed his complaint regarding discrimination, his discharge from the [Sex Offender Treatment] SOT program, and the intermingled questions of staff professionalism and SOT program quality.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Varco further stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In her August 2 letter, Seleen gave [X] the results of her investigation of his allegations that he was discriminated against...and of his allegations regarding his discharge from the SOT program. Furthermore, she informed him that she was making recommendations to the Department of Corrections regarding documentation, training and compliance with program certification standards ....In fact, Seleen did this in a letter dated August 2, 1999, to [Director of the SOT program at Moose Lake] It is this letter which [X] did not receive from the Ombudsman.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (Mr. Varco did not provide to the Commissioner a copy of the letter from Seleen to the Director of the Moose Lake SOT program.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Varco continued:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The statutory authority for the Ombudsman to deny release of the [letter to the Director of the Moose Lake SOT program] is found in legislation establishing the Office of the Ombudsman for Corrections [Minnesota Statutes, sections 241.41- 241.45].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Varco argued that section 241.44, subdivision 1(c), gives the Ombudsman extensive discretion as to the access to be granted to his reports and recommendations. In relevant part, section 241.44, subdivision 1 (c) provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Except as otherwise provided, [the Ombudsman may] determine the form, frequency, and distribution of conclusions, recommendations, and proposals; provided, however, that the governor or a representative may, at any time the governor deems it necessary, request and receive information from the ombudsman.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    He further argued that because the general presumption language in section 13.03 was enacted after the except as otherwise provided language in section 241.44, subdivision 1(c), the Legislature could not have intended that this phrase allowed access to the Ombudsman&apos;s reports through [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Ombudsman&apos;s position, as asserted by Mr. Varco. For purposes of Chapter 13, the Ombudsman for Corrections is a state agency. See section 13.02, subdivision 17. Therefore, all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office are government data and are public unless otherwise classified. Mr. Varco asserts that section 241.44, subdivision 1, classifies certain data that the Ombudsman maintains. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. First, the provision at issue does not contain language specifically stating that certain data are not public. Rather, it states that the Ombudsman may determine the form, frequency, and distribution of conclusions, recommendations, and proposals. The terms form, frequency, and distribution suggest that the Ombudsman may determine how, how often, and to whom s/he distributes conclusions, not that certain information is restricted and cannot be released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s position is further buttressed by actions taken by the Ombudsman in 1979. In that year, the Ombudsman applied for a temporary classification from the Commissioner of Administration. Government entities seek temporary classifications in an attempt to get data immediately classified as either private (nonpublic) or confidential (protected nonpublic). The Legislature must then act on those temporary classifications - either enacting a specific classification or not - within the next two Legislative sessions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If it were the case, as argued by the Ombudsman, that section 241.44, subdivision 1 (enacted in 1973), classified, as not public, data maintained by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office, the Office would not have deemed it necessary to apply for a temporary classification from the Commissioner of Administration in 1979. In fact, one of the questions asked in the application for temporary classification is whether there is any Minnesota statute that classifies the data as not public. In its application, the Ombudsman&apos;s Office did not cite section 241.44.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, accepting Mr. Varco&apos;s position means that there is potential conflict between section 241.44 and section 13.66. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, discusses irreconcilable provisions. Subdivision 4 of section 645.26, states, When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail. Section 241.44, subdivision 1, was enacted in 1973. Section 13.66 was enacted in 1980. Pursuant to section 645.26, section 13.66 prevails.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Specifically, subdivision 1 of section 13.66 classifies the following data as private:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    a. All data on individuals pertaining to contacts made by clients seeking the assistance of the ombudsman, except as specified in subdivisions 2 and 3;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    b. Data recorded from personal and phone conversations and in correspondence between the ombudsman&apos;s staff and persons interviewed during the course of an investigation;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    c. Client index cards;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    d. Case assignments data; and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    e. Monthly closeout data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, section 13.66, subdivision 2, classifies the following data as confidential: the written summary of the investigation to the extent it identifies individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, all other data that the Ombudsman&apos;s Office maintains are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X requested access to the Ombudsman&apos;s report/ recommendations/analysis of the SOT program. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, and section 13.66, X is entitled any public data and any private data about which X is the subject. X is not entitled is a written summary of the investigation to the extent that it identifies individuals. If any data responsive to X&apos;s request exist, and the Ombudsman has not yet provided those data to X, the Ombudsman should do so promptly.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the Ombudsman for Corrections maintains any data relating to a report/recommendations/analysis of the Moose Lake Sex Offender program treatment failures, X is entitled to gain access to all public data and private data of which he is the subject. X is not entitled to gain access to a written summary of any such investigation to the extent that it identifies individuals. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 29, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267468</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Ombudsman for Corrections (13.66); (241.44)</Title><Id>267307</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-021</Title><title>Opinion 00 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267605&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding (1) the appointment of a responsible authority and (2) the development and implementation of procedures for access to government data by the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 17, 2000, IPA received a letter from John Musgjerd. In this letter, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data maintained by the City of Greenwood. Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request required clarification with IPA staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra R. Langley, an employee of the City of Deephaven, who provides administrative services to Greenwood under contract. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for Greenwood&apos;s position. On May 3, 2000, IPA received a response from Mark W. Kelly, attorney for Greenwood. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 7, 2000, Mr. Musgjerd made a request for access to inspect four items of public data. Mr. Musgjerd addressed his letter to the Greenwood Public Information Officer per the requirements of Greenwood City Ordinance Number 127, Establishing Procedures for Management of Government Data, which was enacted by Greenwood on January 18, 2000. (Other aspects of the Ordinance were addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267204#/detail/appId/1/id/267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-015&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Musgjerd, I encountered significant difficulties in having my request completed. This was due in large part to the City of Greenwood failing to have a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Greenwood in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding (1) the appointment of a responsible authority and (2) the development and implementation of procedures for access to government data by the public?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, Responsible authority&apos; in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination . . . . of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1000:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the governing body of each political subdivision and the governing body of each state agency whose activities are subject to the direction of a governing body &lt;u&gt;shall&lt;/u&gt;, by September 30, 1981, if it has not done so, appoint a responsible authority. . . . . The governing body shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by the act and by this chapter. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 14 (B), the responsible authority for a city shall be an individual employee of the city appointed by the city council.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Musgjerd, Greenwood has not appointed a responsible authority. Mr. Kelly has not responded to the Commissioner&apos;s request for information indicating that Greenwood has appointed a responsible authority, nor has he provided the Commissioner with a copy of the City&apos;s resolution to do so. Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that Greenwood has not appointed a responsible authority as required by statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kelly stated that the City of Greenwood obtains its administrative services from the City of Deephaven under contract. According to Mr. Kelly, Deephaven declined to accept responsibility for processing certain requests for access to Greenwood government data, and Greenwood, acting pursuant to Section 13.03, Subd. 3, [sic] then elected to appoint an independent contractor [i.e., the Greenwood Public Information Officer] to serve as the City&apos;s designee&apos; to process data requests. The Greenwood Public Information Officer resigned effective February 15, 2000. Apparently, the position has not been staffed since then.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under section 13.03, subdivision 2, a responsible authority may appoint one or more designees. However, absent a designee, the requirements of Chapter 13 must be fulfilled by the responsible authority. In order to secure one&apos;s rights under Chapter 13, the statute requires persons to direct data requests to the responsible authority of the government entity whose data are sought. Greenwood has not appointed a responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2, (a), [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Kelly, Greenwood City Ordinance Number 127 fulfills the procedural requirements of Chapter 13 regarding public access to City data. However, the Ordinance fails to identify by name or title the City&apos;s responsible authority or designee. There is no direction to the public about how to make a data request when the position of Public Information Officer is not staffed, as is currently the case. Any duty of a designee not performed by the designee reverts to the responsible authority. As noted above, citizens are unable to effectively exercise their rights under Chapter 13 if the government entity has no responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We acknowledge that in a City the size of Greenwood (population 650), there may be practical challenges to full compliance with Chapter 13. Nonetheless, the City is obligated to meet the requirements set forth in statute concerning the appointment of a responsible authority and the development and implementation of effective policies and procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would like to reiterate what he noted in &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267204#/detail/appId/1/id/267328&quot; title=&quot;00-015&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 00-015&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before it enacted Ordinance No. 127, the City asked for an advisory opinion as to its legality. The Commissioner determined that a review of a proposed ordinance was outside his authority under section 13.072, and declined to issue an opinion. However, IPA staff provided Greenwood with extensive comments and concerns raised by the proposed ordinance. The Commissioner calls Greenwood&apos;s attention to those comments and suggests it examine Ordinance No. 127 in light of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Musgjerd is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Greenwood is not in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority and the development and implementation of procedures for access to government data by the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 29, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267605</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee appointed by Responsible Authority</Title><Id>266421</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Ordinances</Title><Id>266765</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-020</Title><title>Opinion 00 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267638&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a student petition that criticizes the performance of a District employee?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the redacted version, provided by the District, of the student petition described above be released to the public?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a petition signed by District teachers regarding state graduation standards?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 16, 2000; School District 32 (Blackduck)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 28, 2000, IPA received a letter from Gloria Blaine Olsen and Gregory S. Madsen, attorneys for Independent School District 32, Blackduck. In this letter, they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More than 40 District students signed a petition criticizing a District employee. The petition was read aloud at a School Board meeting but not distributed to the public. The District has received a request for a copy of the petition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District also received a petition signed by District teachers asking the Board either not to follow or to reevaluate the State&apos;s graduation standards.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a student petition that criticizes the performance of a District employee?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the redacted version, provided by the District, of the student petition described above be released to the public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a petition signed by District teachers regarding state graduation standards?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first petition, signed by District students, contains a complaint about a District employee. Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; all other personnel data are private. Data on students are termed educational data and are classified at section 13.32. With few exceptions, educational data are private. Data on students are also classified under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1232g.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fact that a complaint has been made about an employee, and the status of the complaint, are public data, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). The nature and substance of the complaint are not public, unless the District has taken final disciplinary action against the employee as a result of the complaint. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5).) Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen did not provide information regarding the status of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The petition links student names with their opinions about the employee, and action the students think the District should take. Such data do not fall under any of the exceptions provided in state or federal laws classifying data on students as private. Accordingly, the data about the students contained in the petition are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the redacted version of the student petition provided to the Commissioner, identifying data about the employee and students were removed, but details of the nature and substance of the complaint remain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The right of a member of the public to gain access to the data in the petition depends upon the specific request. If, as Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen indicate, the request was for a copy of the petition, then the District may provide a copy of the petition as redacted. However, if the request was for data about the complaint made against the employee, then the only data that are public is the fact of the complaint and its status, unless there has been final disciplinary action taken. (The Commissioner discussed the importance that the specific nature of the request can have on the accessibility of data in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267632&quot; title=&quot;95-005&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-005&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, under a provision of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, if the petition was made part of the official record of the School Board meeting, then the petition is public. In relevant part, section 471.705, subdivision 1d (a), provides: [d]ata discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; &lt;u&gt;however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The teacher petition contains the names of District teachers linked with their opinions about District policy. Such data are not classified as public under a strict reading of section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the data in the teacher petition are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4. However, as with the student petition, a different result comes about if the employee petition was read into the record of the School Board meeting. If it were, then it too becomes public data under the open meeting law language.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.43 and 13.32, the data contained in the student petition are private data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if the District received a request for a copy of the student petition, the redacted version may be released to the public. If the District received a request for data about a complaint made against an employee, then the data are private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, the data contained in a petition signed by District teachers regarding state graduation standards are private personnel data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 16, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267638</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open meeting</Title><Id>266388</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Record of meeting</Title><Id>266389</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>School boards</Title><Id>266390</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Status</Title><Id>266391</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:00:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-019</Title><title>Opinion 00 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267902&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are e-mails generated or received by Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) employees and that contain information about the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) project public data?

2. Pursuant to Chapter 13, has Mn/DOT complied with a request for access to all e-mails related to the Hiawatha LRT project by allowing access only to e-mails Mn/DOT has printed and has in paper files?

3. Pursuant to Chapter 13, are government data stored on Mn/DOT&apos;s computer backup tapes public data?

4. Is Mn/DOT in violation of Chapter 13 by requiring the data requestor to make an initial payment of $51,000 before Mn/DOT will begin processing the request for access to data?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 16, 2000; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 16, 1999, the Commissioner received a letter dated November 15, 1999, from State Representative Philip Krinkie. In his letter, Representative Krinkie asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner of Mn/DOT in response to Representative Krinkie&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 19, 1999, were to inform him of Representative Krinkie&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for Mn/DOT&apos;s position. On December 10, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Margo LaBau, Mn/DOT Chief of Staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On October 1, 1999, Representative Krinkie wrote to Commissioner Tinklenberg:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As you know, I have repeatedly asked for e-mails relating to a number of topics surrounding the Hiawatha [LRT] project. Since you have not produced any of these documents, I am now making a formal request to access any computer backup tapes for 1999 that contain data from computers used by any members of or support staff for the MnDOT executive office. I also want access to the same information from MnDOT&apos;s Metro Office of Rail Transit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated October 7 and November 1, 1999, Ms. LaBau responded to Representative Krinkie&apos;s request by stating that the back-up tapes are not contained in data base format and that restoring the information would cost approximately $99,950. In addition, before beginning the retrieval and restoration process Ms. LaBau requested a pre-payment of $51,000. She also stated, All e-mails that were printed and added to our paper files were subject to your review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Representative Krinkie objected to Mn/DOT&apos;s position and requested this opinion. For reasons communicated to Representative Krinkie by letter dated January 25, 2000, issuance of this opinion was delayed until this time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Representative Krinkie asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are e-mails generated or received by Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) employees and that contain information about the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) project public data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Pursuant to Chapter 13, has Mn/DOT complied with a request for access to all e-mails related to the Hiawatha LRT project by allowing access only to e-mails Mn/DOT has printed and has in paper files?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Pursuant to Chapter 13, are government data stored on Mn/DOT&apos;s computer backup tapes public data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Is Mn/DOT in violation of Chapter 13 by requiring the data requestor to make an initial payment of $51,000 before Mn/DOT will begin processing the request for access to data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are e-mails generated or received by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) employees and that contain information about the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) project public data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity regardless of their physical form, storage media or conditions of use. Further, in defining data, Minnesota Rules, 1205.0200, subpart 4, states, Data can be maintained in any form, including, but not limited to, paper records and files, microfilm, computer medium, or other processes. Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mn/DOT collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated the e-mails in question. Therefore, they are government data. Further, the data contained in those e-mails (in paper or electronic form) are treated the same as data contained in any other type of document. In other words, the data are public unless otherwise classified. Access to data in e-mails may be restricted only if those data are classified as not public pursuant to state statute or federal law. Pursuant to Chapter 13, e-mails generated or received by Mn/DOT employees that contain information about the Hiawatha LRT project are presumed public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, has Mn/DOT complied with a request for access to all e-mails related to the Hiawatha LRT project by allowing access only to e-mails MnDOT has printed and has in paper files?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, an individual has the right to gain access to public government data. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity. Minnesota Rules, 1205.0200, subpart 4, states that data can be maintained in any form, including, but not limited to, paper records and files, microfilm, computer medium, or other processes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. LaBau wrote, Mn/DOT, however, has taken the position that an e-mail that is printed and added to file documentation is subject to [Chapter 13] and made those available to Mr. Krinkie at the same time that &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; LRT information was made available. She also wrote, It is obvious that [Chapter 13 or other current statutes] was not written to accommodate an electronic environment. In his opinion request, Representative Krinkie wrote, On November 1st, Mn/DOT&apos;s Chief of Staff responded by implying I did have access to e-mails. I quote from her enclosed letter to me: &apos;All e-mails &lt;strong&gt;that were printed&lt;/strong&gt; and added to our paper files were subject to your review.&apos; Representative Krinkie is asserting that he is entitled to gain access to e-mails existing in forms other than paper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are not defined by physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. The Legislature added the regardless of physical form, storage media, or conditions of use language to the definition of government data specifically to clarify that electronic and other forms of non-traditional government records are subject to Chapter 13. Therefore, any public data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated in e-mails are government data and, unless classified as not public, are accessible to the public in printed or electronic form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, are government data stored on Mn/DOT&apos;s computer backup tapes public data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. LaBau wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is Mn/DOT&apos;s position that the computer back-up tapes are not data because they are not in a format that can be used by Mn/DOT personnel nor the public. This back up data, in its current encrypted form is intended to be retrieved only in the wake of a disaster of such magnitude that would justify the cost of such an effort. Back up tapes capture a moment in time and are erased periodically in order to capture more current moments in time so our system could be restored to some working platform but would certainly not return us to a perfect world. Back up tapes are not intended to be a substitute for our responsibility to maintain public data. To what extent there may or may not be e-mail recorded on the back-up tapes regarding LRT is impossible to determine. Only what is active in a mailbox on the day when a back up is made would appear on the tape and would not be in an accessible form. Back up tapes are only made periodically and not daily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity regardless of physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. Therefore, back-up tapes are government data. If the data on the tapes are public, members of the public may gain access to public data contained on the tapes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is Mn/DOT in violation of Chapter 13 by requiring the data requestor to make an initial payment of $51,000 before Mn/DOT will begin processing the request for access to data?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the Legislature enacted the public access provision in 1979, the following was part of the original statutory language: The responsible authority in every [government entity] shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. See section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Session Laws 1979, Chapter 328. As discussed above, the back-up tapes are government data. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, the public is entitled to inspect all public data, free of charge, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning. If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public data, however maintained, as defined by statute, must be provided for simple inspection free of charge. Thus, it is a government entity&apos;s responsibility to make public data contained on back-up tapes easily accessible and intelligible for public inspection. For a more extensive discussion of this issue, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267874&quot; title=&quot;94-032&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-032&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issues addressed in this opinion raise questions concerning data practices and management in an increasingly complex environment of electronic use, transmittal and storage of data, both public and nonpublic. Given the complex issues raised in this opinion, the Commissioner would welcome an opinion by the Minnesota Attorney General regarding the application of Minnesota law and regulation to the circumstances of this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, e-mails generated or received by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) employees and that contain information about the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) project are presumed public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. Pursuant to Chapter 13, the e-mails in question are government data, regardless of the form in which they are maintained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3. Pursuant to Chapter 13, Mn/DOT&apos;s back-up tapes are government data and are presumed public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4. Under Chapter 13, a government entity may not require the data requestor to make an initial payment of $51,000 before processing the request for access to data. In this case, the requestor seeks only to inspect the data; pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, inspection of public government data is free.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 16, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267902</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data, email</Title><Id>266726</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-018</Title><title>Opinion 00 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267160&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond properly, i.e., did the District fully comply with an April 10, 2000, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 12, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 27, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 8, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 10, 2000, Mr. Pachl requested access to the following data maintained by the District:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Copies of job descriptions and salaries for Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech and Language Pathologists, Paraprofessionals, Adaptive Phy. Ed. Teachers, Signed Language Interpreters, Vision Teachers, and Principals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I am also requesting data, which would document the salary of Certified Occupational Therapist Assistants.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 22, 2000, the District responded as follows:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As you requested, enclosed please find position descriptions for paraprofessionals, interpreters, and principals. The District does not maintain job descriptions for the other positions you requested. In addition, enclosed please find copies of the collective bargaining agreements for teachers, paraprofessionals and principals which contains [sic] the salary schedules for the positions you have requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The data the District provided to Mr. Pachl comprise some 76 pages: Position Standards for various paraprofessionals and interpreter; Job Posting for principals; and the contracts for paraprofessionals, teachers and principals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl stated, [f]rom my interpretation of the data I received, I was not provided with the salaries for: Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech and Language Pathologists, Adaptive Phy. Ed. Teachers, and Vision Teachers.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated: &lt;u&gt;[f]or your information, these [the data Mr. Pachl believed he did not receive] are teacher bargaining unit positions covered by the teachers&apos; working agreement provided to Mr. Pachl and includes the teacher salary schedule.&lt;/u&gt; (Emphasis his.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, respond properly, i.e., did the District fully comply with an April 10, 2000, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Cady, the District provided Mr. Pachl with all the data it maintains that were responsive to Mr. Pachl&apos;s request. According to Article III of the contract between the District and its teachers, teacher includes physical and occupational therapists. Speech and language pathologists, adaptive physical education teachers, and vision teachers are not specifically listed, but Mr. Cady&apos;s statement indicates that the teachers&apos; contract also covers those positions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the specificity of Mr. Pachl&apos;s request, it would have been helpful if the District had identified which documents contain the specific data he requested. However, nothing in statute obliges it to do so. Accordingly, Mr. Pachl should have requested clarification and assistance from the District in locating the data he requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, responded properly to an April 10, 2000, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 12, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267160</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor responsibility</Title><Id>266550</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-017</Title><title>Opinion 00 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267776&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-01T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Transportation respond appropriately to a January 14, 2000, request for access to data pertaining to Light Rail Transit in the Hiawatha Corridor?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 2000; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 29, 2000, IPA received a letter dated March 29, 2000, from Laura and John Reinhardt. In their letter, the Reinhardts discussed their attempts to gain access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) maintains. IPA staff requested that the Reinhardts clarify their request for assistance. They did so by asking for an advisory opinion in a letter dated April 4, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner of MnDOT in response to the Reinhardts&apos; request. This letter, dated April 10, 2000, served to inform him of the Reinhardts&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 1, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Commissioner Tinklenberg.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated January 14, 2000, the Reinhardts requested access to the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. MnDOT&apos;s Draft Record of Decision which was submitted to the FTA on November 16, 1999.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                2. We have reviewed the 1985 EIS and the 1993 EA concerning the project, but are unable to locate any reference to an operating plan that would allow Light Rail Transit to preempt all traffic signals at cross streets outside of Downtown Minneapolis. We wish to review all documents which address the specifics of such an operating plan, including, but not limited to, the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                a. A discussion of the social, environmental and economic impacts to the neighborhoods along the Corridor which will be subject to traffic preemption, including:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                (i) degradation to the street traffic system;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (ii) geometric expansion of cross streets;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (iii) development of traffic queues when signal movements are skipped or shortened to accommodate one or more crossing light rail vehicles;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (iv) impacts to air quality in the neighborhoods surrounding the cross streets impacted by preemption due to traffic queues;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (v) impacts to emergency vehicle operation in the Corridor; (vi) impacts to pedestrians/bicycles/wheelchairs attempting to cross Hiawatha Avenue and the Light Rail Line;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (vii) impact of noise from LRT horns being blown at grade crossings;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (viii) time lost by east-west traffic on preempted cross streets;
                &lt;br /&gt;
                (vix) safety impacts for vehicles and pedestrians as a result of LRVs traveling across neighborhood streets at high rates of speed with an inability to stop in a timely fashion if the crossing is not clear.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                b. A discussion of plans to mitigate the negative impacts to such neighborhoods.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                c. A cost analysis for planned mitigation measures.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                d. A discussion of plans to achieve safe preempt service.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                3. Documents which illustrate public participation concerning the issue of traffic preemption, including documents provided to citizens which explain the concept of traffic preemption and its potential impacts to neighborhood residents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                4. Documents which memorialize the decision to operate LRT with traffic preemption in the Corridor:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                a. Who were the decision makers?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                b. On what date was such decision made?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                c. Upon what criteria did the decision makers rely to reach such decision?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                5. All documents concerning the consideration and comparison of an operating plan which does not include preemption of traffic at cross streets (i.e., which causes LRVs to stop and go with traffic on Hiawatha Avenue).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                6. All comments (oral, written or transcribed) received from the public at the 9-16-99 Minneapolis public hearing and MnDOT&apos;s (or any other agency&apos;s) responses to same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                MnDOT sent a letter dated February 29, 2000, to the Reinhardts. Staff of the MnDOT Metro Rail Office wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Commissioner Tinklenberg asked us to respond to your letter of January 14. As a result of our response to that letter you visited our office on February 10, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The material you reviewed that day was the extent of the information available at that time on the topics you raised. We need to apologize for not having the public hearing responses ready when you came to MnDOT&apos;s Metro Office. Since then, we have completed writing responses to the comments and testimony received at the three public hearings regarding the Preliminary Design Plans. Those comments and testimony, and our responses, are available at the following four locations...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                MnDOT staff then commented on the Reinhardts&apos; telephone inquiry regarding pre-emption.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, staff wrote, The rest of what you have requested does not exist. It is either a level of detail that we do not have the resources to produce or it is information that will be provided in the final design phase.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Reinhardts then requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, the Reinhardts asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Transportation respond appropriately to a January 14, 2000, request for access to data pertaining to Light Rail Transit in the Hiawatha Corridor? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, individuals have the right to gain access, i.e., inspect or obtain copies, to public government data. Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.03, a government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Further, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, requires that the entity respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their March 27, 2000, letter to the Commissioner of Administration, the Reinhardts wrote,
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ....In response to [the January 14, 2000] request, we were invited to MnDot&apos;s offices on February 10th to review documents. However, we spent less than ten minutes in MnDot&apos;s offices because the documents which were offered for our review were not, in fact, responsive to our written request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We continued to press MnDot for the documents, and received a letter from [MnDot staff]. [MnDot staff] claims that MnDot has no further documents to disclose....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We were able to obtain a copy of the Draft Record of Decision (Request No. 1 in our 1-14-00 letter) from another source. Request Nos. 2 through 5 all relate to the pre-empt operating plan, and no responsive documents have been produced. MnDot replied to Request No. 6 by directing us to review its responses to public comment at the transportation library. We have done so. These responses are in no way complete. MnDot chose some of the citizen and neighborhood organization comments and drafted answers to the chosen comments. However, there were 200-300 citizens in attendance at the September 16, 1999 public hearing. The transcript of that hearing indicates public officials collected yellow comment cards from attendees to enable citizens to formally state their comments, questions or concerns about this project. We want to review all of the many yellow comment cards which were collected at that public hearing. We are not interested in MnDot&apos;s reinterpretation of the questions, which appears to be the format used in its responses.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Tinklenberg wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ....MnDOT personnel responded to the January 14 inquiry with telephone and written responses. MnDOT sent the Reinhardts a number of documents, including the transcripts of public information meetings, and made available additional documents for public review. MnDOT scheduled a viewing of more voluminous documents and, on February 10, 2000, Mr. Reinhardt came to the Hiawatha Project Office to review documents assembled by MnDOT....The Reinhardts believe that additional documents exist at MnDOT...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Tinklenberg specifically mentioned MnDOT&apos;s February 29, 2000, letter to the Reinhardts. He wrote, The letter goes on to identify four document depositories where data is available for public review, as well as an explanation of the preemption issues raised in his request. More importantly, this letter clearly sets out that the rest of what you have requested does not exist.&apos;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Tinklenberg further stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    ...the documents requested seem to be the kind that would be public and made available, but only to the extent that the documents exist. I have been assured by MnDOT personnel at the Hiawatha Project Office that documents responsive to the Reinhardts&apos; requests have either been previously mailed to them, made available for review at MnDOT offices or simply do not exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, section 13.03 requires that government entities respond to requests for access to public data. In the case of this opinion, there appears to be a dispute regarding whether MnDOT has provided all data responsive to the Reinhardts&apos; request. The Reinhardts assert that MnDOT is refusing to provide some of the data they requested. Conversely, Commissioner Tinklenberg states that MnDOT advised the Reinhardts about four locations where data are available for public review and also informed the Reinhardts that the remainder of the data do not exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although the Commissioner of Administration is not in a position to determine which data do or do not exist, he would like to offer the following comments regarding MnDOT&apos;s response. First, pursuant to section 13.03, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data. In their January 14, 2000, letter, the Reinhardts requested access to various specific types of information. MnDOT&apos;s February 29, 2000, response was incomplete; staff provided a list of document depositories where data is available for public review and also stated that the remaining requested data do not exist. However, MnDOT staff were obligated by law to examine the Reinhardts entire request, and to determine, item by item, which data it maintains and which data do not exist. If MnDOT maintains any of the public data, it should make those data available to the Reinhardts. If some of the requested data do not exist, MnDOT should so inform the Reinhardts.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, some additional language MnDOT included in its February 29, 2000, response regarding the remaining data seems ambiguous. Staff wrote, [the remaining data] is either at a level of detail that we do not have the resources to produce or it is information that will be provided in the final design phase. It is not clear if MnDOT is asserting that some of the data exist, but not in the requested format, or possibly that the data exist but will not be made available until the final design phase of the project is reached, or that the data will come into existence only when the final design phase is reached. If the data do not exist, MnDOT is not obligated to create them and should so inform the Reinhardts. However, if the data do exist, MnDOT is obligated to provide those data to the Reinhardts.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, in their opinion request, the Reinhardts indicated they did not get access to all the written comments from the 9-16-99 public hearing. The Reinhardts stated that when they visited the transportation library to inspect all comments...received from the public at the 9-16-99 Minneapolis public hearing and MnDot&apos;s...responses to same, MnDOT had chosen some of the comments and drafted answers to the chosen comments. The Reinhardts wrote, We want to review all of the many yellow comment cards which were collected at that public hearing. We are not interested in MnDot&apos;s reinterpretation of the questions... The Reinhardts requested access to all comments received. If MnDOT&apos;s response was an interpretation or summary of those comments, and not the comments themselves, MnDOT has not made a complete response and should make the yellow comment cards available to the Reinhardts.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that the Reinhardts raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;MnDOT is required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to respond, in full, to the Reinhardt&apos;s request. If the requested data exist, and are public, MnDOT is obligated to provide them. If the requested data do not exist, MnDOT should so inform the requestor. If MnDOT does not maintain the requested data in the format requested, MnDOT is not obligated to created new data, but is obligated to inform the requestor that the data do not exist in the format requested.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 1, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267776</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-016</Title><title>Opinion 00 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267258&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-06-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Woodbury respond properly to a verbal request of September 20, 1999, and a written request of October 20, 1999, for access to public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 2000; City of Woodbury</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 13, 2000, IPA received a letter from Charles Robb, John and Shanyn Flaten, and Daniel M. Barrett, on behalf of the Markgrafs Lake Concerned Homeowners Association (MLCHA.) In this letter, MLCHA asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Woodbury. IPA staff requested that MLCHA clarify their opinion request; they did so in a letter dated April 3, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to MLCHA&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Barry Johnson, Woodbury City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2000, were to inform him of MLCHA&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 24, 2000, IPA received a response from James F. Lammers, City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Barrett, in August, 1999, he had read a newspaper article about a Lakeside townhome project to be built on Markgrafs Lake in Woodbury, and a $215,000 grant to Woodbury from the Metropolitan Council. On or about September 20, 1999, he went to the Woodbury City Administrator&apos;s office and requested access to data related to the project and the grant. Mr. Barrett was referred to the City Planner&apos;s office, where he repeated his request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The City Planner told Mr. Barrett that the City had no information on the project, and referred him to an individual at the Metropolitan Council. He subsequently received information from the Council, including three letters related to the project sent by Woodbury to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Lammers, the City Planner also referred Mr. Barrett back to the City Administrator&apos;s office to see if there was additional information available there. Mr. Barrett did not return to that office. Mr. Lammers stated that the grant in question was applied for by the developer, not the City, and that the City did not participate in the grant process. Mr. Lammers stated that a development file was opened by the City after it received a complete application for the Project, which was submitted to the City on October 15, 1999. The Grant Agreement was forwarded to the City on November 4, 1999. According to Mr. Lammers: [b]ecause, as of September 20, 1999, the City had not received a formal application for the Project, and because as of that date the City had not been a participant in the grant process, the City had no data to provide to Mr. Barrett pursuant to his request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 20, 1999, Ms. Flaten requested the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I wish to be provided with access to and/or copies of any and all materials (including, but not limited to, (1) documents; (2) letters/correspondence to or from any and all city officials and city staff; (3) memorandums; (4) reports; (5) official/unofficial filings made to or by the City of Woodbury; (6) petitions made to or by the City of Woodbury; (7) maps; (8) charts; (9) audio cassettes; (10) video cassettes; and any other articles) that are either at Woodbury City Hall or under the control of the City of Woodbury that pertain in any way to any of the following subjects:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Lakeside Townhomes
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Duffy Development
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Any and all possible developments of the site (3-4) acres at the north end of Markgrafs Lake.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Any and all possible developments of high density or affordable housing within Woodbury.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (Ms. Flaten subsequently withdrew her request for the data described in item 4.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 26, 1999, Woodbury staff asked to meet with Ms. Flaten to go through her request. In a subsequent telephone call, City staff told Ms. Flaten that her request was vague and asked again to meet with her. In a November 2, 1999, telephone call, Ms. Flaten declined to meet and discuss her request, and asked that the data be made available to her. On November 3, 1999, Ms. Flaten reviewed the data the City had compiled in response to her request. At that time, the City gave her a letter that detailed those data, and further stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I hope that the information we are now making available to you will satisfy your formal request. As I discussed with you on the phone last week, your request was quite broad and somewhat vague. Since we were unable to meet in person to review and clarify the specifics of your request, we did our best to assemble the information as we were able to best interpret the intent of your request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The three letters Mr. Barrett had obtained from the Metropolitan Council were not included in the materials provided to Ms. Flaten. Mr. Lammers characterized those letters as typical staff letters written at the request of the Developer in support of his application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Since no development file had been opened at the time these letters were written regarding the subject Project or the subject grant, copies of these letters were filed in a general correspondence file since there was no development file in which to place them. The letters, like all staff letters of this type, were also stored electronically under a general correspondence directory. Had Ms. Flaten&apos;s formal request for data included a request of any correspondence to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency regarding this Project (which letters she already had in her possession), or if she had requested documents regarding the grant process, the City Staff presumably could have and would have retrieved these letters as a part of her formal request. In addition, had the representatives of the MLCHA, who had copies of these letters in their possession as of October 20, 1999, simply advised the City of the date of the letters and the fact that they were written to the MHFA, the City could have electronically retrieved these letters as well.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, MLCHA asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Woodbury respond properly to a verbal request of September 20, 1999, and a written request of October 20, 1999, for access to public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no disagreement between Woodbury and MLCHA as to the classification of the data requested; they are public data. MLCHA believes the City erred in its failure to provide them with access to the three MHFA letters. Those letters, dated in February and July, 1999, contain the terms Duffy Development or Lakeside Townhomes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear just how specifically Mr. Barrett identified the data he was seeking when he asked for it at the City Administrator&apos;s office, or from the City Planner. Mr. Lammers stated that the City Planner had no personal knowledge of the grant, and referred Mr. Barrett to the City Administration Department, which advice Mr. Barrett declined. However, Mr. Barrett had already visited that office, and had been referred to the City Planner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Lammers remarked that the City periodically updates its Guidelines and Procedures for the Minnesota Data Practices Act, which are reviewed with City Staff. The Commissioner was not provided a copy of those policies and procedures, but presumably they contain information to ensure that requests for data are properly directed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Flaten clearly asked for any and all materials . . . that pertain to 1. Lakeside Townhomes . . . [or] 2. Duffy Development. According to Mr. Lammers, there was no project development file on the project set up at the time of Mr. Barrett&apos;s request; however, pertinent data were stored in files and electronically. That being the case, the City had sufficient information in the request to have made a search regarding the terms Duffy Development or Lakeside Townhomes to have led to the letters in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    State law provides that it is the government entity&apos;s responsibility to maintain data such that it is easily accessible for convenient use, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1. The letters were maintained by Woodbury and should have been located in response to MLCHA&apos;s requests for access to data relating to the project. We acknowledge, however, that while the search for data relevant to the request could have been more diligent, it appears that the data would have been produced had it been located.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It was reasonable for the City to attempt to clarify whether Ms. Flaten wanted to inspect or obtain copies of all the data she requested. However, in the Commissioner&apos;s view, Ms. Flaten did make a request of sufficient clarity to facilitate the appropriate response by the City of Woodbury.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by MLCHA is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Under the circumstances of this case, the City of Woodbury may have taken greater care in searching for data relevant to the requests for access to public data of August 20, 1999, and October 20, 1999. To this extent, the City&apos;s response to the requests was not complete. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 1, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267258</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Sufficiency of request</Title><Id>266398</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-015</Title><title>Opinion 00 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267328&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-05-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50.00 deposit and charge a mininum data access fee in response to t request to inspect public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 26, 2000; City of Greenwood</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 10, 2000, IPA received a letter from John Musgjerd. In this letter, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to inspect certain data maintained by the City of Greenwood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra R. Langley, an employee of the City of Deephaven, who provides administrative services to Greenwood under contract. The purposes of this letter, dated April 11, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Musgjerd&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for Greenwood&apos;s position. On April 18, 2000, IPA received a response from Mark W. Kelly, attorney for Greenwood. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 18, 2000, Greenwood enacted City Ordinance Number 127, Establishing procedures for Management of Government Data. On February 7, 2000, Mr. Musgjerd made a request for access to inspect four items of public data. Mr. Musgjerd included a check in the amount of fifty dollars, per the requirements of City Ordinance No. 127.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address whether Greenwood may lawfully require a cash deposit before it will make government data available for inspection. He also asked whether the City may impose a ten dollar minimum data information access fee as provided for in Ordinance No. 127.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Musgjerd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may the City of Greenwood require a $50.00 deposit and charge a minimum data access fee in response to t request to inspect public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 7, 2000, written request to the City, Mr. Musgjerd clearly stated that he wished to inspect government data. He included his check for $50.00, as required under City of Greenwood Ordinance No. 127, subdivision 3, which states: [a]ll applications [for government data] shall be accompanied by a cash deposit of $50.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a): [i]f a person requests access [to government data] for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Kelly cited the provision of section 13.03, subdivision 3, that allows government entities to recover some of the costs of providing &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt; of public government data. He stated: [t]he City is of the opinion that it has the legal authority under [section 13.03, subdivision 3] to 1) assess lawfully recoverable costs back to the requesting party and 2) require the requesting party to make a deposit toward those anticipated costs. (Excess deposit is refunded.) However, Mr. Musgjerd asked only to inspect government data. According to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a), the City may not require a cash deposit in order to inspect government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Greenwood Ordinance No. 127, subdivision 4, requires that [t]he applicant shall be charged a minimum data information access fee of $10.00 for each written request. Mr. Kelly stated this ordinance adopts the language of [section 13.03, subdivision 3] and is in conformance with the authority granted to cities there under. The use of a $10.00 minimum data information access fee is a nominal fee&apos; which the City will incur . . . whatever the nature of the written data request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Kelly. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), a government entity may not charge any fee for purposes of inspection of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that before it enacted Ordinance No. 127, the City asked for an advisory opinion as to its legality. The Commissioner determined that a review of a proposed ordinance was outside his authority under section 13.072, and declined to issue an opinion. However, IPA staff provided Greenwood with extensive comments and concerns raised by the proposed ordinance. The Commissioner calls Greenwood&apos;s attention to those comments and suggests it examine Ordinance No. 127 in light of them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Musgherd is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Greenwood may neither require a $50.00 deposit nor charge a minimum data access fee in response to a request to inspect public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 26, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267328</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Ordinances</Title><Id>266765</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-014</Title><title>Opinion 00 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267873&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-05-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the position taken by School District 31, Bemidji, as described in the memorandum regarding &quot;Sharing Information with the Media about Student Expulsions&quot; affect the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 3, 2000; School District 31 (Bemidji)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 29, 2000, IPA received a letter dated February 25, 2000, from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of &lt;em&gt;The Pioneer&lt;/em&gt;, a newspaper in Bemidji. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to data that School District 31, Bemidji, maintains. IPA staff requested that Mr. Anfinson clarify his request for an opinion, which he did in a letter dated March 13, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Rollie Morud, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. This letter, dated March 21, 2000, served to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 10, 2000, IPA received comments, dated April 5, 2000, from Jon Huttemier, Director of Special Education.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his March 13, 2000, letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Anfinson explained that following a recent incident in which the District expelled a student, the District circulated a memorandum regarding sharing information with the media about student expulsions. Mr. Anfinson provided a copy of the memorandum. It states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;According to the Minnesota School Boards Association, school officials only need to tell inquiring media that a student was expelled. You can also disclose the reason such as: weapons violation, assault, etc. No other details can be provided because of violations to a student&apos;s privacy. If media officials ask for more information, you should tell them that because of laws relating to confidentiality of data regarding minors, you cannot provide them with more information. The student&apos;s name, grade, sex, race, etc., cannot be mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please make sure your staff are also aware that such data is private and cannot be shared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Huttemier wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Bemidji Area Schools&apos; position is based on information provided by the Minnesota School Boards Association. Minnesota School Board Association references Minnesota Department of Administration &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-025&lt;/a&gt; in concluding that information provided to the public about the disciplining of a minor can lead to providing personal characteristics and other information that would make the student&apos;s identity easily traceable. Providing information that leads to the identity of a minor is a violation of the minor&apos;s rights under [Chapter 13 and FERPA].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson asked that the Commissioner discuss the District&apos;s policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does the position taken by School District 31, Bemidji, as described in the memorandum regarding Sharing Information with the Media about Student Expulsions affect the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the outset, it is important for the Commissioner to point out that the District&apos;s memorandum is technically not a response to a request for access to specific data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data. Therefore, if a member of the public, such as the media, were to make a specific request, the District is required to formulate its response accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the District&apos;s reliance, via the Minnesota School Board Association, on Advisory Opinion 96-025 to deny access to data, seems somewhat misplaced. The question before the Commissioner in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-025&lt;/a&gt; was whether the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning could provide certain educational (test result) data to the Star Tribune in response to the newspaper&apos;s request. The Commissioner&apos;s opinion was that the Department could disclose data to the extent that they did not identify any particular student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As previously stated, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public government data. The data at issue in this opinion involve student expulsions. Generally speaking, data about students (educational data) are private, and the fact that a particular student had been expelled would be private. See section 13.32, subdivision 3. However, this does not necessarily mean that the District would be unable to provide data in response to a request. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data are accessible to the public. Further, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 16, provides that summary data may include reports of individuals once all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. The key, as the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Opinion 96-025&lt;/a&gt;, is that the District cannot release any data that identify a particular student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the directive in the District&apos;s memorandum that the student&apos;s grade, sex, race, etc., cannot be mentioned is not necessarily correct. For instance, if a media representative made a request to inspect all public data surrounding the student that was expelled yesterday, the District is obligated to provide information that does not identify the student. The District could release some demographic data, but only to the extent that the data released would not be data from which the identity of the student could be ascertained. See section 13.02, subdivision 5. For example, if the expelled student is a male Caucasian and is in grade 11, and the District has only one Caucasian student in grade 11, the District cannot release any combination of grade, gender, or race.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Depending on the specific request for data, the position taken by School District 31, Bemidji, as described in the memorandum regarding Sharing Information with the Media about Student Expulsions could infringe upon the public&apos;s right to gain access to government data, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Government entities are required to respond to requests to public government data, to the extent that not public data would not be identified.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 3, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267873</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Expulsion</Title><Id>266682</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-013</Title><title>Opinion 00 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267461&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-05-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 698 (Floodwood) improperly release certain data on District employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 1, 2000; School District 698 (Floodwood)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 16, 2000, IPA received a letter from Rebecca H. Hamblin, an attorney for Education Minnesota, on behalf of the Education Minnesota Floodwood local. In this letter, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether Independent School District 698, Floodwood, improperly released certain data to the public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rob Benson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated March 16, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 24, 2000, IPA received a response from Kevin J. Rupp and Margaret A. Skelton, attorneys for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Hamblin:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                On December 14, 1999, a school board meeting packet was distributed to Floodwood School Board members, administrative staff, and members of the public in attendance at the school board meeting. The packet contained a Direct Deposit Register&apos; generated by the [District] which listed, by individual employee name, the employee&apos;s bank name, account number, and amount deposited for all employees using payroll direct deposit.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 16, 1999, Superintendent Benson issued a memorandum in which he stated that the bank account numbers should not have been included in the packet described above, and apologized for the error.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their response to the Commissioner, the attorneys for the District stated that the data in question were included in the Business Manager&apos;s report, and were not discussed at the School Board meeting. According to Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton, the packet was distributed to Board members, and was available to others in attendance. They stated [t]o the best of the District&apos;s information and belief, no individual saw the data in question who was not entitled to see it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton also stated that the inclusion of the data in question in the packet was entirely unintentional and inadvertent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 698 (Floodwood) improperly release certain data on District employees? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The treatment of personnel data runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the data in question consist of a list, by individual employee name, of the employee&apos;s bank name, account number, and amount deposited for all District employees using payroll direct deposit. Other than employee name, those data are not included in the list of public personnel data. Therefore, they are private and not available to members of the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton stated that the School Board members and District personnel (the Superintendent, Business Manager and Superintendent&apos;s secretary) who viewed the data are entitled to gain access to private data under Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0400. According to the Rule, access to private data within a government entity is limited to those individuals whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton further stated that the union representative was also entitled to gain access to private personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 6, and section 179A.13, subdivision 2 (11), because the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the District requires the District to provide for payroll direct deposit. Therefore, according to Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton, [t]he teachers&apos; union has the right to review the data to verify that the District had in fact implemented a direct deposit system for its members.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6: [p]ersonnel data may be disseminated to labor organizations to the extent that the responsible authority determines that the dissemination is necessary to conduct elections, notify employees of fair share fee assessments, and implement the provisions of chapters 179 and 179A.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, section 179A.13, subdivision 2 (11) provides that public employers are prohibited from refusing to provide, upon the request of the exclusive representative, all information pertaining to the public employer&apos;s budget both present and proposed, revenues, and other financing information . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the District&apos;s position that either of those provisions authorizes a union representative to gain access to District employee bank names, account numbers or deposit amounts in order to verify that the District was meeting its obligation to provide for payroll direct deposit.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As noted above, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton stated that the District is not aware that any other member of the public actually viewed the private personnel data in the packet that was available for public review at the Board meeting. Nonetheless, as the District itself has acknowledged, the District erred in making private personnel data available to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hamblin is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 698 (Floodwood) improperly, albeit inadvertently, included the private data in question, i.e., a list, by individual District employee name, of the employee&apos;s bank name, account number, and amount deposited for all District employees using payroll direct deposit, in a packet of information that was accessible to the public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 1, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267461</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)</Title><Id>266738</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-012</Title><title>Opinion 00 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268028&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-04-06T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a parent&apos;s request for data about his child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 6, 2000; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On February 17, 2000, IPA received a letter dated February 15, 2000, from X. In his letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 272, Eden Prairie, maintains about his child. X&apos;s child is a student in the District.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. William Gaslin, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. This February 29, 2000, letter served to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On March 8, 2000, IPA received a response, dated March 7, 2000, from Joseph Flynn, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, X stated that on October 1, 1999, he wrote to the school principal and requested a list of all the assignments given to his child in a particular course. X attached a copy of this memo to his opinion request. X requested the following: a complete listing of any work or activity for which points were assigned and which was a part of [his/her] grade for [a particular term].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The principal wrote back in a letter dated October 25, 1999. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The purpose of this letter is to inform you why I have not honored your request for specific information about [X&apos;s child&apos;s class]. The Superintendent of Schools, Dr. William Gaslin has requested that I not grant your request until after a meeting that you have scheduled with him on November 1...I am hoping that this issue and your other concerns can be addressed at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, X wrote about the October 25 letter. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This October 25 letter also falsely states that I scheduled this proposed meeting when in actual fact the District has no documentation that I scheduled or requested any such meeting; it was the Superintendent who scheduled this proposed meeting without my consent and then tried to require my attendance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a parent&apos;s request for data about his child?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a parent&apos;s request for data about his child?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Data about students are termed educational data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Generally speaking, educational data are private. See section 13.32, subdivision 2. Pursuant to section 13.04, and section 13.02, subdivision 8, private educational data about minors are accessible to their parents. Further, a government entity must respond to a request for private data within ten working days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Flynn wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Please be advised that it is not and has not been the position of the [District] that [X] is not entitled to the data referred to in his letter dated February 15, 2000. Rather, the issue addressed in [X&apos;s] correspondence relates to a long-standing conflict between the School District administration and [X] as to the specificity of and clarity relating to the information that [X] was seeking. Moreover, the School District had made numerous attempts to schedule a meeting with [X] in order to clarify and facilitate the transmission of the information. On numerous occasions [X] declined to cooperate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Flynn further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are, however, pleased to report that we believe the underlying issue raised in [X&apos;s] February 15, 2000 letter to you has been successfully addressed. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter dated February 23, 2000, enclosing numerous pages in response to various requests by [X]. I believe this addresses the information that has been sought by [X].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In light of Mr. Flynn&apos;s comments, IPA staff contacted X who stated that he wished to move forward with the opinion. In a March 31, 2000, memo to IPA, X wrote, Though the District did belatedly provide the information some five months after I filed this complaint, its original actions were in possible violation of my rights...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As stated above, section 13.04 requires government entities to respond within ten working days to data subjects&apos; requests for data. In this case, X requested data about his child in a letter dated October 1, 1999. The District apparently did not provide the data until the end of February. Therefore, because the District took more that ten working days to respond, it violated X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13. Further, there is no provision in Chapter 13 that allows the District to make X&apos;s access to data about his child contingent upon his appearing at a meeting with school officials.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 272, Eden Prairie, did not respond appropriately to a parent&apos;s request for data about his child.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 6, 2000&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268028</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-011</Title><title>Opinion 00 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267508&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-04-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department respond properly to a request to inspect the public data contained in the Department&apos;s so-called log sheets?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> April 6, 2000; South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 9, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of some clients. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his clients&apos; rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD.) IPA staff requested that Mr. Anfinson clarify his opinion request; he did so in a letter dated February 18, 2000.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Anderson, Chair of SLMPSD&apos;s Coordinating Committee. The purposes of this letter, dated February 28, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for SLMPSD&apos;s position. On March 14, 2000, IPA received a response from Mehmet Konar-Steenberg, attorney for SLMPSD. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                SLMPSD is a joint powers entity that provides police services to the Minnesota communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. In a letter to SLMPSD dated June 9, 1999, Mr. Anfinson referred to his clients&apos; repeated requests for access to the log sheets or daily logs that are used by all SLMPSD officers to track their daily activities. Mr. Anfinson and SLMPSD representatives exchanged correspondence for several months regarding his clients&apos; attempts to inspect, at no charge, the public data contained on the log sheets, among other concerns not at issue here.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson, his clients are particularly interested in the first, second, and third columns of the forms, which would permit an estimate to be prepared of the percentage of calls attributable to each of the four constituent communities and the respective time invested by officers on behalf of each community. This information is significant because the contribution made by each community to the agency&apos;s budget is based on such data. Mr. Anfinson stated to the Commissioner that the log sheets in question cover a number of years, but did not specify a time period in his communications with SLMPSD.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Konar-Steenberg described the log sheets as follows:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The first section is at the top of the log sheet and has blanks for the name of the officer completing the form, the officer&apos;s badge number, the vehicle being used by the officer and its status, and other information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Immediately below is the second section, which consists of four columns. Officers use these columns to record specific data about incidents and other significant activities. In the first column, Source Complaint,&apos; the officer records the manner in which the officer has received a request for assistance, i.e. from a radio dispatcher, from another officer in the field, etc. In the second column, Time Received,&apos; the officer notes the time the officer received the request. The third column, Time Completed,&apos; includes space for documenting the time the officer arrives ( A-&apos;) and clears ( C-&apos;) the scene. The fourth and largest column, Location and Type of Complaint/Action Taken&apos; is where the officers report narrative details of incidents and other significant activities occurring during the shift.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The third section is a single line at the bottom of the form consisting of five blanks preceded by a letter. The officers use four of these spaces ( E,&apos; G,&apos; S,&apos; T&apos;) to record the time they have spent for that shift policing each of the four communities served by the SLMPSD. The fifth space ( O&apos;) is used to record time spent attending to other duties (such as administrative duties). The data on this line is used to develop the SLMPSD&apos;s budget.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a footnote, Mr. Konar-Steenberg added the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Each community pays a share of the SLMPSD&apos;s budget proportionate to the hours that SLMPSD officers spend policing each community. This information gathered [sic] from the log sheets and entered into a computer database. The entries in section 3 are used for this purpose because they account for time spent on patrol and in other routine activities that are not always documented in section 2 of the form.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their correspondence with Mr. Anfinson, SLMPSD representatives told him that it would be very expensive and time-consuming to review and remove the not public data from the thousands of log sheets generated each year, and stated that SLMPSD would require prepayment of the costs involved. Mr. Anfinson objected, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), which provides for free inspection of government data. Mr. Anfinson also disagreed with SLMPSD about the extent of not public data contained on the log sheets.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his responses to Mr. Anfinson and the Commissioner, Mr. Konar-Steenberg stated that it was his position that Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request was a request for summary data, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16, and Part 1205.0700, subpart 6. As such, it was appropriate for SLMPSD to charge a fee to prepare the summary data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Konar-Steenberg also stated that he had offered Mr. Anfinson access to the aforementioned database that is a compilation of the data from section 3 of the log sheets. Mr. Anfinson stated to the Commissioner that his clients do not believe that the computer printouts&apos; are an acceptable alternative form of access, because they are not confident that the printouts actually contain all of the data appearing on the log sheets.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department respond properly to a request to inspect the public data contained in the Department&apos;s so-called log sheets? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson and SLMPSD agree that the log sheets contain both public and not public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. They disagree about which provisions of Chapter 13 and its implementing Rules govern the question of access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a) and (c), a government entity may not charge a fee for inspection of government data and may not charge for separating public from not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson takes the position that his clients have made a request that is governed by section 13.03, i.e., a request for access to inspect public data. According to Mr. Anfinson, SLMPSD is required to separate the public from the not public data, and provide his clients the opportunity to inspect the public data at no charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Konar-Steenberg states that SLMPSD has been asked to create summary data, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16, and Part 1205.0700, subpart 6.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 16:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Summary data,&apos; as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19 means data which has been extracted, manipulated, or summarized &lt;u&gt;from private or confidential data&lt;/u&gt;, and from which all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. Summary data&apos; includes, but is not limited to, statistical data, case studies, reports of incidents, and research reports. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0700, subpart 6, (B), provides that one method of creating summary data is: removing from the entity&apos;s report of any incident, or from any collection of data similar to an incident report, all unique personal identifiers so that the resulting report fulfills the definition of summary data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19. Pursuant to subpart 7, any costs incurred in the preparation of summary data shall be paid by the requestor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Konar-Steenberg also referred to the Department of Administration&apos;s Statement of Need and Reasonableness that accompanied the promulgation of Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205. In that Statement, there is specific mention of police incident reports as an example of summary data that could support Mr. Konar-Steenberg&apos;s position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In order to give effect to both rule and statute, the Commissioner reviewed the pertinent legislative history. The rule postdates enactment of section 13.82, but predates the section 13.03 provision that prohibits government entities from charging for separation of public from not public data. (See Laws for Minnesota 1981, Chapter 311, and 1985 Chapter 298, section 1. The rules were adopted in 1981.) Therefore, if the rule is in conflict with the later-enacted statute, then the rule cannot stand. (See section 645.26.) It is possible to create summary data by redacting personal identifiers from an incident report; the rule is applicable to that situation. However, it is important to distinguish between a request that requires preparation of summary data, and a request that just involves the separation of public from not public data. The Commissioner is of the opinion that once that distinction is understood, as discussed below, there is no conflict between the two provisions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, Summary data&apos; means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. The definition of summary data is key to understanding the difference between preparation of summary data and separation of public from not public data. Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data. Other detailed private or confidential data do not need to be redacted, once the personal identifiers are removed. The principal reason for the summary data provision is to allow access to otherwise private or confidential data for research purposes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     By contrast, separation of public from not public data is not just a process of removing personal identifiers. It is a process of separating &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; not public data from the public data, which government entities are required to do, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, when public and not public data are intermingled. Otherwise the right to free inspection of public government data could be frustrated simply by maintaining public and not public data together. The possibility that commingling of data could adversely affect public access is one of the reasons the Legislature requires government entities to separate public from not public data at no charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson&apos;s clients did not ask for summary data. They asked SLMPSD to provide them with access to inspect, without charge, the public data contained in the log sheets. That is not a request that requires preparation of summary data, it is a request that requires separation of public and not public data, as provided at section 13.03, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to Mr. Anfinson, Mr. Konar-Steenberg also referred to section 13.82, subdivision 9, which provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the interrelationship between this provision and that of section 13.03, subdivision 1, which requires government entities to maintain government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Under section 13.82, subdivision 9, SLMPSD may, for example, provide access to photocopies, rather than originals of the log sheets. As long as it provides access to all the public data contained therein, it may do so in a reasonable fashion. However, the requirements of section 13.03 still apply. If government entities neglect their obligations to maintain data in easily accessible formats, this is the kind of situation that can arise. SLMPSD might want to consider a redesign of the log sheet in order to zone the not public data, so that they are easier to remove for purposes of inspection of the public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears that the parties have made attempts to reach a reasonable resolution in this matter, efforts the Commissioner encourages. However, SLMPSD is obligated to provide free inspection of the public data in the log sheets, and it must bear the cost of separating the not public from the public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department did not respond properly to a request to inspect the public data contained in the Department&apos;s log sheets. SLMPSD must separate the public from the not public data, and provide free inspection of the public data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 6, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267508</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Dispatch logs</Title><Id>266700</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)</Title><Id>267153</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Separation of public, not public data</Title><Id>267074</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)</Title><Id>266514</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-010</Title><title>Opinion 00 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267549&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-04-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to a request for all public data that the City&apos;s building department maintains?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 4, 2000; City of Ely</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 27, 2000, IPA received a letter dated January 24, 2000, from Thomas and Patricia Mighell. In their letter, the Mighells requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding their access to certain data the City of Ely maintains. IPA staff requested that the Mighells clarify their opinion request; they did so in a letter dated February 3, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lee Tessier, Clerk/Treasurer for Ely, in response to the Mighells&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 2000, were to inform him of the Mighells&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 22, 2000, IPA received comments, dated February 21, 2000, from Laurence Klun, attorney for the City. Mr. Klun also sent supplemental materials dated February 28 and March 1, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In their January 24 letter to the Commissioner, the Mighells wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At a meeting with the city bldg. Inspectors state code enforcement, which we asked for assistance, we were told that one of the principal reasons for the need for plans specs. was so the public could view them in the future to see how a building was constructed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When we asked to access same the bldg. Inspector denied us access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We went to the attorney generals office and received a copy of 13:37 and the opinion that we should be able to access the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We contacted the bldg. Official informed him of same and asked him to inform the city; he indicated he would.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We went to the city with a copy of 13:37 and was denied access again. We were directed to the city attorney&apos;s office. We left a copy of 13:37....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[w]e asked who was responsible city contact. That person is the city clerk in Ely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;After several weeks numerous phone calls we received the attorney&apos;s denial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to the Mighells&apos; opinion request was a document dated September 10, 1999, signed by Mr. Mighell. He wrote, We are requesting access to all building department records other than those classified non public under 13.37 of [Chapter 13] held by the city of Ely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his September 8, 1999, response to the Mighells&apos; request for data, Mr. Klun wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that you are seeking access to view building plans for commercial or industrial structures, as they have been filed with the City of Ely Zoning Office....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I have reviewed Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, Subd. 1 (a), which defines Security Information ....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[b]uilding plan information, in my opinion, would constitute security information under [Chapter 13]....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Therefore, you would not be allowed access to building plans that may be in the possession of the City of Ely&apos;s Zoning Officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their February 3 letter to the Commissioner, the Mighells wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We are requesting access to the comprehensive data held by the city of Ely planning zoning or building dept, in relationship to building plans specifications and all related documents for all types of structures with in the city of Ely or its jurisdiction. These would consist of, but not be limited to, building permits, plans, specifications, reports, citations, office notes in files, letters from to the city, maps charts in general or specific to a structure, environmental conditions of a site or structure, occupancy permits as well as compliance with peripherals such as signage, parking, etc..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This is not to suggest that there is any request for, requirement for, need for or expectations of access to alarm systems, vaults, safes, or other proprietary information that would be reasonable anticipated being classified non-public and is required to be separated, held separate and non-public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, the Mighells asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Ely respond appropriately to a request for all public data that the City&apos;s building department maintains?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (section 13.06). Section 13.37, subdivision 2 classifies security information as not public. Security information is defined as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. (See section 13.37, subdivision 1(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, there appears to be a dispute regarding which data the Mighells requested. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Klun wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The understanding I gathered at the time of my September 8, 1999, letter was that Mr. Mighell was looking for building plans for other buildings in the community....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Following my letter of September 8, Mr. Mighell never corresponded with my office requesting any further information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The September 10, 1999, one sentence note by Thomas Mighell, addressed to Thomas Mighell, was never received by my office. I am not aware if it was received by any other city official....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I believe the City responded reasonably based upon the requests communicated. If there is a more specific or further request, which Mr. and Mrs. Mighell may have, we also would intend to respond reasonably to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the Mighells assert that their request was more comprehensive, i.e., all data relating to building plans and specifications, and all related documents for all types of structures within the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine with absolute certainty which data the Mighells requested. If the City did not understand the Mighells&apos; request(s), it should have sought clarification. If the Mighells did not clearly identify which data they are seeking, they should submit another request(s).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the actual data requested, Mr. Klun did assert the City&apos;s position regarding the classification of building plans for commercial/industrial structures. He denied access to the plans based on section 13.37, security information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that certain building plan information can be properly withheld pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(a), security information, or subdivision 1(b), trade secret information. However, if a government entity relies on either of these two provisions, it must be able to demonstrate that the specific data fit the criteria set forth in statute. For instance, if the entity protects data based on the security provision, the disclosure of those data must be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. Some examples would be plans that contain details about alarm systems, the presence of hidden safes, etc. (For additional information, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267047&quot; title=&quot;98-046&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-046&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Or, if the entity protects data based on the trade secret provision, those data must be government data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(For more information, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267876&quot; title=&quot;99-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-035&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, Mr. Klun did not demonstrate how any of the data that the City refused to release fit the specific requirements set forth in section 13.37. Therefore, he did not respond appropriately to the Mighells&apos; request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final note is important. In Mr. Klun&apos;s response to the Commissioner, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is my understanding that the Department of Administration oversees building plans and had issued advisory information on the Data Practices aspect of building plans. From our Building Inspector I was informed that building plans, architectural, design, structural and utility are classified under M.S. Section 13.37 as non-public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In follow-up correspondence to the Commissioner, Mr. Klun added,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It was our contract building inspector who informed us of the data classification of the commercial plans, which the Mighells requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Enclosed is a copy of the pertinent pages [from the First Edition January 1999 Minnesota Department of Administration Building Department Information Handbook] that were provided to us. These guidelines were followed in responding to the Mighells.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The documents Mr. Klun provided are two pages of the current City General Records Retention Schedule. Although the records retention schedule does include a listing for classifications of various types of data, its primary purpose is to serve as a guide for disposing of government records. Therefore, government entities should not rely on the retention schedule to resolve data classification issues; government data are classified at Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that the Mighells raised is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine the exact data that the Mighells requested. However, the City of Ely did not provide sufficient documentation to support its position that certain data, i.e., building plans for commercial or industrial structures, can be protected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 4, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267549</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Building plans</Title><Id>266995</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records retention schedule</Title><Id>266534</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-009</Title><title>Opinion 00 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267734&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-03-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 281 (Robbinsdale) inappropriately disseminated private educational data about a student to a union steward by allowing that individual to attend the student&apos;s IEP meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 30, 2000; School Disrict 281 (Robbinsdale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 3, 2000, IPA received a letter dated February 2, 2000, from X. In his letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding School District 281&apos;s (Robbinsdale) release of certain data about X&apos;s child, a student in the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ken Kostka, Superintendent of the District, in response to X&apos;s request. This February 7, 2000, letter served to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 22, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Dave Baumann, Acting Senior Associate for Human Resources.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X is having a disagreement with the District involving the person who is the case monitor for his child&apos;s IEP (Individual Educational Plan) team. Because of this disagreement, the school invited a teacher&apos;s union steward to sit in on the team meetings (discussions relating to X&apos;s child and his/her educational planning). X did not give consent for the steward to participate at the meetings. X wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [S/he] is seated at the same table with us. This person is making recommendations regarding the use of this case manager and in fact is listening to confidential information on our family and on our [child] to which we believe [s/he] has no right. We discuss psychological testing and psychiatric testing and diagnostic information on [our child], [our child&apos;s] academic problems, behavioral issues and family issues pertaining to myself and my wife....I do not understand the rights of a union representative to pose questions during an Individual Educational Planning Team meeting, much less listen to the information being presented.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has School District 281 (Robbinsdale) inappropriately disseminated private educational data about a student to a union steward by allowing that individual to attend the student&apos;s IEP meeting? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about students are termed educational data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Generally speaking, educational data are private. See section 13.32, subdivision 2. Both state and federal law set forth standards regarding access to private data by employees of a school district. Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400, states that private data may be disseminated to those persons within the entity, e.g., the District, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the private data. 34 CFR 99.31(a)(1), of the rules implementing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), provides that education records may be disclosed to other school officials, including teachers, within the institution whom the institution has determined to have a legitimate educational interest in the record.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Baumann wrote that the teacher/case manager did have the building union representative attend a couple of meetings. He stated, The teacher did not know the follow-up meetings were technically IEP meetings. He added, We have dealt with this by informing the principals and the teachers&apos; group. A mistake was made through ignorance, not malice and we will work to improve.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, attached to Mr. Baumann&apos;s response was a copy of a memo he wrote to the Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers. He apparently sent a copy of this memo to the Senior Associate for Human Resources and asked her to share it with District principals. The memo states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It has been brought to my attention that a teacher at [a District school] asked the building union rep to attend an IEP meeting. The building rep did attend with the teacher. This was a violation of the statute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The violation was in no way intentional on the part of the union rep; it was clearly the administrator&apos;s responsibility to have told the building rep the rules and asked the building rep to leave.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, the District has acknowledged that the union representative&apos;s work assignment did not require that s/he be present when private data about X&apos;s child were discussed during the IEP meeting. Therefore, because this person was present at the IEP meeting, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the District inappropriately disseminated data about X&apos;s child.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 281 (Robbinsdale) inappropriately disseminated private educational data about a student to a union steward by allowing that individual to attend the student&apos;s IEP meeting. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 30, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267734</id><Tag><Description/><Title>IEP (Individual Education Plans)</Title><Id>266338</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-008</Title><title>Opinion 00 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267326&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-03-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Roseville responded appropriately to requests for access to the following data:
&quot;spell out what makes up the $4,190,089 of current year expenditures as shown on the overall summary on page 90&quot;(see August 3, 1999, letter);
&quot;please provide me with a detail of what makes up the current 1998 administrative expense figure (by amount, to whom paid, for what purpose). Also, please provide the same recap of year to date, by year through 12/31/97, of all expenses in the administrative expense category by to whom paid, purpose, and amount since inception&quot; (see August 3, 1999, letter);
&quot;a complete listing of disbursements by date&apos; check number&apos; paid to&apos; purpose&apos; and amount&apos; for all items charged to tif for the year 1998, and also identified by which category it falls into in your distribution summary&quot; (see September 1, 1999, letter);
&quot;I would like the detail of purchases on the Reservoir Woods project, and the phase I of the Acorn project. Paid/due to, amount, fund charge, and date of purchase&quot; (see November 24, 1999, memo);
&quot;I would like the detail behind the total non TIF revenues and expenditures. Date, description, and amount by each category showing up on F-9&quot; (see November 24, 1999, letter); and
&quot;I would like to receive a listing of park improvements by park over the last five years, including the date (year) a description of the improvement, and the amount of improvement&quot; (see January 5, 2000, letter).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 2000; City of Roseville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 24, 2000, IPA received a letter dated January 11, 2000, from Al Sands. In his letter, Mr. Sands asked that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding Mr. Sands&apos; access to certain data that the City of Roseville maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Steve Sarkozy, City Manager, in response to Mr. Sands&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 1, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Sands&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 10, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Edward Burrell, Finance Director.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as Mr. Sands presented them is as follows. In letters dated August 3, September 1, and November 24, 1999, and January 5, 2000, Mr. Sands requested access to certain data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands wrote he had not received a response from the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Roseville responded appropriately to requests for access to the following data:
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            spell out what makes up the $4,190,089 of current year expenditures as shown on the overall summary on page 90 (see August 3, 1999, letter);
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            please provide me with a detail of what makes up the current 1998 administrative expense figure (by amount, to whom paid, for what purpose). Also, please provide the same recap of year to date, by year through 12/31/97, of all expenses in the administrative expense category by to whom paid, purpose, and amount since inception (see August 3, 1999, letter);
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            a complete listing of disbursements by date&apos; check number&apos; paid to&apos; purpose&apos; and amount&apos; for all items charged to tif for the year 1998, and also identified by which category it falls into in your distribution summary (see September 1, 1999, letter);
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            I would like the detail of purchases on the Reservoir Woods project, and the phase I of the Acorn project. Paid/due to, amount, fund charge, and date of purchase (see November 24, 1999, memo);
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            I would like the detail behind the total non TIF revenues and expenditures. Date, description, and amount by each category showing up on F-9 (see November 24, 1999, letter); and
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            I would like to receive a listing of park improvements by park over the last five years, including the date (year) a description of the improvement, and the amount of improvement (see January 5, 2000, letter).
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, an individual is entitled to gain access (inspect and make copies) to public government data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.03 states that a government entity must respond to requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that the entity must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Sands stated that (as of January 11, 2000), he had not received a response from the City or its responsible party.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Burrell, in his response to the Commissioner, discussed the specific data Mr. Sands requested. Regarding the data described above in #1, Burrell wrote that the City had provided Mr. Sands with raw data earlier but can certainly provide another copy. Regarding #2 and #3, Mr. Burrell wrote that the City had provided the ledger detail earlier but could provide another copy.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be a dispute regarding the first three items Mr. Sands requested. He wrote that as of January 11, 2000, he had not received a response from the City. In contrast, Mr. Burrell wrote that the City had provided Mr. Sands with raw and ledger data at an earlier time (he did not specify exact dates.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Burrell&apos;s response is problematic for the following reasons. First, he did not clarify whether the raw and ledger data that the City provided are the data Mr. Sands requested. In addition, Mr. Burrell did not inform the Commissioner how soon after Mr. Sands&apos; requests the City provided this information. Mr. Burrell wrote generally about Mr. Sands&apos; requests:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We have previously provided Mr. Sands with much of the requested data, but several of his requests go beyond the raw information and ask us to reconcile his numbers to ours, or make other requests that are difficult if not impossible to do. That type of request, we feel is beyond what we are both bound to do and able to reasonable [sic] devote public resources to complete.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In determining how to respond to Mr. Sands&apos; requests, the City should have figured out whether it maintains the requested data and if so, whether it maintains the data in the format in which Mr. Sands requested them. Or, if the City did not understand Mr. Sands&apos; request, it should have asked for clarification.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the City maintains the data but not in the format requested, the City should have so informed Mr. Sands. At that point, the City could have given Mr. Sands access to the raw data or the two parties could have negotiated an arrangement whereby the City would format the data in a specific manner. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, however, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to format data to fit a request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Sands stated that the City has not responded to his requests. Mr. Burrell stated that the City has provided Mr. Sands with the raw and ledger data. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine if the data provided are the data requested, or when the City provided the information. However, given that Mr. Sands (as of February 10) was under the impression that the City had not responded to any of his requests, it appears that the City needs to contact him and sort out the problem.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Of the three remaining data requests Mr. Sands made, Mr. Burrell stated that the City could provided the information - or portions of it. Specifically, of #4, Mr. Burrell wrote, copies of this ledger information can be provided. Regarding #5, Mr. Burrell stated, This information will be provided when it is available. Regarding #6, Mr. Burrell wrote, This information has been compiled and a copy is available to Mr. Sands.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Sands requested those data in letters dated November 24, 1999, and January 5, 2000. Given that as of January 11, the City had apparently not provided him with a response, the City has not complied with the requirements of section 13.03. Furthermore, as the Commissioner stated above, if the City does not maintain the data in the format requested, it needs to so inform Mr. Sands.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sands is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Regarding Mr. Sands&apos; first three requests for data, it is not clear whether the City provided him with the data he requested. If the City does not maintain the data in the requested format, it is not required to reformat those data. However, it should have so informed Mr. Sands.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             Regarding Mr. Sands&apos; last three requests for data, because the City did not respond within a reasonable time, or in a prompt and appropriate manner, it did not respond as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 13, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267326</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-007</Title><title>Opinion 00 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268013&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-03-10T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility respond properly to a request for access to various policies and procedures?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2000; Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 21, 2000, IPA received a letter from Joseph Ayuyu. In this letter, Mr. Ayuyu asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility (CCA-PCF.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Hoyt Brill, Warden of CCA-PCF. The purposes of this letter, dated January 28, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for CCA-PCF&apos;s position. On February 2, 2000, IPA received a response from John W. Riches II, staff attorney for CCA-PCF. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ayuyu twice submitted to CCA-PCF written requests to inspect various policies and procedures adopted by Corrections Corporation of America. Mr. Riches responded, both times citing various provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, as the basis for denying access to Mr. Ayuyu.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Riches wrote: . . . CCA/PCF is a private corporation and not a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system subjected to [Chapter 13]. . . . Thus [Mr.] Ayuyu&apos;s request is outside the scope of [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ayuyu asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility respond properly to a request for access to various policies and procedures?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.01, subdivision 3, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in state agencies, statewide systems, and political subdivisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, as the Commissioner noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267857#/detail/appId/1/id/266403&quot; title=&quot;99-041&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-041&lt;/a&gt;, which also addressed an issue relating to CCA-PCF:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Depending upon the terms of the contract under which CCA-PCF provides correctional services to DOC, CCA-PCF itself may be required to comply with Chapter 13 requirements. In general, private enterprises such as CCA-PCF are not subject to Chapter 13. However, if a private person has a contractual relationship with a government entity, there are certain situations in which the private entity itself, or the data created/collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations, may be subject to Chapter 13. Several provisions in Chapter 13 address specific situations involving government entities and parties they contract with. (See sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5.) Also, the standard State of Minnesota purchase agreement makes data generated under the contract subject of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It should also be noted that the 1999 Minnesota Legislature amended Chapter 13 to require that certain language be part of any contracts entered into between government entities and private persons. The new language, which is codified at section 13.05, subdivision 11, went into effect on August 1, 1999, and provides that when a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the terms of the contract shall state explicitly that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Riches stated that CCA-PCF is a private corporation and not subject to Chapter 13 regulation. However, in his responses to Mr. Ayuyu, he cited various provisions of Chapter 13 as the basis for his refusal to provide Mr. Ayuyu access to the information he requested. It may well be that CCA-PCF is not subject to Chapter 13 regulation. The Commissioner has not been provided information to conclude otherwise. If that is indeed the case, Mr. Riches could simply have told Mr. Ayuyu what he told the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ayuyu is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility is not an entity subject to regulation under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and as such, was not obligated to provide access to various policies and procedures.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 10, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268013</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-006</Title><title>Opinion 00 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267523&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-03-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does St. Louis County&apos;s requirement of a subscription agreement and fee of $600 to gain access, via the Internet, to inspect certain real property and property tax data hamper, infringe, or violate the requestor&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 2000; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 11, 2000, IPA received a letter dated January 6, 2000, from Mark Weir. In his letter, Mr. Weir asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Mr. Weir&apos;s access to certain data that St. Louis County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julie Brunner, Administrator of St. Louis County. This January 13, 2000, letter served to inform her of Mr. Weir&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On January 25, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Lindsay Jones, Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Weir wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                St. Louis County offers a Subscriber Agreement...which allows access through the Internet to certain real property and property tax data bases. The Agreement does not allow one to copy, download, store, publish, etc. the data. Rather, the Agreement allows access to the records, through the Internet system, merely for the purpose of inspection. The County charges the subscriber $600.00 for a six (6) month term for access to these records. Access is obtainable only during regular business hours.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Jones wrote that the County&apos;s management of electronically stored information is currently developed and organized to provide limited and regulated access via electronic data retrieval to certain County databases. He stated that access via electronic data retrieval falls into two categories - Internet/web page technology based retrieval, and County Auditor and County Recorder data retrieval. Of the Internet/web page technology, he wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The general public has free and unlimited access to the County&apos;s public web page on the Internet. This web page has general information on the various departments and their directories. Technically, this access is achieved through a direct electronic pathway from the public user&apos;s personal computer to the County&apos;s web page via the Internet. Public users may print data displayed on the County&apos;s web page. There is currently no data maintained on or linked to the web page which would require a public user to use a download procedure. The public user is sealed off by the County&apos;s system firewall from accessing the County&apos;s mainframe and minicomputer servers (ES 9000 and AS 400), where critical intra and inter-departmental applications are maintained.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Of the County Auditor and County Recorder data retrieval, Mr. Jones wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A limited and regulated access is available for viewing electronic data maintained by the County Auditor&apos;s Office and the County Recorder&apos;s Office on the County&apos;s mainframe and minicomupter servers (ES 9000 and AS 400). This access is further organized into two distinct categories, remote and onsite.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In describing the remote access, Mr. Jones stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The current remote access is only partially Internet based, to the extent that the user, through a subscribed access code, passes through the County&apos;s system firewall via the Internet to interface with the County&apos;s web connector. After this access, the user is operating within the County&apos;s system firewall and not on the Internet. Upon accessing the web connector the subscriber must provide a password and one of two access codes, which directs the user to either the ES 9000 or the AS 400...Upon accessing one of these servers, the user must provide another confirmation password. Once authorization is confirmed, the web connector serves as a terminal emulator to allow the user to view on his or her own computer terminal, data in the form of green screens from the County Recorder and County Auditor databases stored on the ES 9000 and the AD 400, respectively. The data retrieval manipulation is complicated by the emulation application, which requires the user to have knowledge of special command terms, and limits searches to specific canned queries within specific fields. None of these data retrieval procedures, beyond accessing the web connector, are based on Internet technology.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Weir asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does St. Louis County&apos;s requirement of a subscription agreement and fee of $600 to gain access, via the Internet, to inspect certain real property and property tax data hamper, infringe, or violate the requestor&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that an individual has the right to request and gain access (inspection and copies) to public government data. Also pursuant to subdivision 3, government entities must provide inspection of government data free of charge. Clause (b) of subdivision 3 further clarifies inspection. It states, in relevant part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In the case of data stored in electronic form and made available in electronic form on a remote access basis to the public by the government entity, inspection includes remote access to the data by the public and the ability to print copies of or download the data on the public&apos;s own computer equipment. Nothing in this section prohibits a government entity from charging a reasonable fee for remote access to data under a specific statutory grant of authority. A government entity may charge a fee for remote access to data where either the data or the access is enhanced at the request of the person seeking access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Jones described the ways in which individuals may gain access to the data at issue in this opinion. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Remote access&lt;/strong&gt;, via electronic data retrieval, is made available only in limited fashion to private real estate industry users as a prototype technology initiative....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Onsite access&lt;/strong&gt;, via electronic data retrieval, is made available for free to the general public at certain County locations on designated public user terminals....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In either instance, remote or onsite, the available access, via electronic data retrieval through terminal emulation, does not allow for downloading or printing from the accessible databases. Simply, the software applications and technologies currently in place, do not have the systems capacity to provide remote access to the general public or the ability to download or print data stored in electronic form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summation, Mr. Jones wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    As noted above, the general public has free access to inspect public data in these offices during regular business hours, either through visual inspection of paper documents or by viewing the data on public emulation terminals. Mr. Weir, a private attorney, sought to enhance his personal private business access through means of remote access, a type of access which St. Louis County has not yet made available to the general public for lack of technological capacity. Mr. Weir contracted with St. Louis County for this enhanced access at a subscriber rate of $100 per month ($50.00 per each database), as opposed to utilizing the available options for free onsite access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, section 13.03, subdivision 3 (b), provides that government entities may charge a fee for remote access to data where either the data or the access is enhanced at the request of the person seeking access. When the Legislature enacted this provision during the 1999 Legislative Session, while it provided that inspection of government data, via remote access, is free of charge, it also clarified that a government entity could charge a fee for remote access in situations where the entity has enhanced the data or the access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, it is clear from this provision that something more than mere remote access to records, during business hours, must be provided before a government entity can charge a fee for the access. Either the data retrievable or the access itself must be enhanced. The Commissioner is not prepared at this time to determine with certainty what will be an enhanced feature in all cases. However, in this case it is clear that there is no enhancement to the data or access whatsoever. The subscriber merely has the ability to gain remote access to the green screens, during business hours, in the form in which they are maintained by the County for general purposes. The subscriber is not permitted any additional opportunities to copy, download or otherwise manipulate the data. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner must conclude that provisions of section 13.03, subdivision 3 (b), have not been met in this case and that the fee is not authorized under law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In his opinion request, Mr. Weir also asked the Commissioner to discuss the Subscriber Agreement, which Mr. Jones did not address in his response. The Agreement is problematic for the following reasons. First, it states that the County may charge a reasonable fee for providing access to data bases having a commercial value. There is no provision in Chapter 13 that permits such a charge. Section 13.03, subdivision 3 (d), provides that an entity may charge a reasonable fee if a person requests &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt; of public data that have commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds. The County is not providing Mr. Weir with copies; therefore, a charge based on commercial value is not allowable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is also troubled by the licensing language in the Subscriber Agreement. It states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Neither the data nor any portion thereof may be copied, downloaded, stored, published, transmitted, transferred, sold or otherwise used, in any forms or means, except (1) as expressly permitted herein; (2) with the County&apos;s prior written permission; or (3) if not otherwise expressly prohibited by this Agreement, as allowed by the Fair Use Provision of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 107, and the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issues arising from situations in which government entities claim copyrights, or enter into agreements with private entities that grant intellectual property rights in government data to the private parties, are nascent. The Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion on December 4, 1995, that addressed a situation in which a government entity wanted to exercise intellectual property rights in some of the data it maintained. That opinion reads, in part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     [Government entities] may not assert copyright ownership to deny members of the public &lt;u&gt;their right to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places under [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.&lt;/u&gt;] [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on this opinion, the County can control use but not access. Gaining access to data includes both inspecting data and obtaining copies of data. In this case, it appears the County is restricting Mr. Weir&apos;s right to make copies of the data, whether the data is obtained remotely or onsite. This is in violation of his rights under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Weir is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, inspection of public government data is free of charge. However, if the government entity, via remote access, provides enhanced access or enhanced data (above and beyond the fact that the access is via remote), it may charge a reasonable fee. In this case, St. Louis County did not demonstrate that it is providing Mr. Weir with either enhanced access or enhanced data. Therefore, the County&apos;s requirement of a subscription agreement and fee of $600 to gain access, remotely, to inspect certain real property and property tax data violates Mr. Weir&apos;s rights under Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 10, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267523</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Enhanced data</Title><Id>266319</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remote access</Title><Id>266320</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Subscription fees</Title><Id>266745</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data, email</Title><Id>266726</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intellectual property (See also: Proprietary information)</Title><Id>266703</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remote access</Title><Id>266320</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:35:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-005</Title><title>Opinion 00 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266940&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-02-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in the &quot;Notice of Deficiency?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 29, 2000; School District 2758 (Redwood Falls)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 11, 2000, IPA received a letter from James E. Knutson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Independent School District 2758, Redwood Falls. In this letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A Notice of Deficiency was given to a District teacher. In the first paragraph, the Notice stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 This letter shall constitute a &lt;u&gt;Notice of Deficiency&lt;/u&gt;, which is made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 125.12, Subdivision 6, setting forth deficiencies which require your immediate attention and correction. Your failure to correct them may be grounds for disciplinary action up to, and including, termination of your continuing contract rights with Independent School District No. 2758. [Emphasis provided.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The last paragraph provided, in relevant part:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Your attention is specifically directed to the deficiencies and directives listed above. You must do whatever is necessary to correct them. Failure to do so could result in further disciplinary action including the termination of your employment with the District. [Emphasis added.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Knutson, the Notice was issued pursuant to section 125.12, subdivision 6, which is now codified at section 122A.40, subdivision 9. Mr. Knutson stated that the Notice is not the final disposition of a disciplinary action pursuant to [section 122A.40, subdivision 9].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in the Notice of Deficiency? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 2758 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5), provides that the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b) provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The final paragraph of the Notice informs the teacher that failure to comply with the deficiencies and directives could result in &lt;u&gt;further disciplinary action including&lt;/u&gt; the termination of your employment with the District. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the Notice of Deficiency constitutes disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Knutson stated that the Notice of Deficiency is not final disciplinary action within the meaning of section 122A.40, subdivision 9. Mr. Knutson did not comment about whether there has been final disciplinary action pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). However, the classification of the data in question depend upon whether there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action pursuant to section 13.43, as noted above, not section 122A.40. (Section 122A.40, subdivision 9, provides grounds for termination. From the information provided by Mr. Knutson, the Commissioner assumes that the teacher in question is still employed by the District.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner was not provided sufficient information to determine whether the disciplinary action is final for purposes of section 13.43. Mr. Knutson did not state if the teacher has/had a right to appeal the disciplinary action, and, if so, if the teacher elected to do so within the time frame allowable. If the Notice contains data that document the reasons for and basis of disciplinary action that is final for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), then those data are public. If an arbitration proceeding is pending, those data are private until the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Knutson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the data contained in the Notice of Deficiency are classified as private or public, depending upon (1) whether the data provide the specific reasons for, and/or document the basis of, disciplinary action, and (2) whether the disciplinary action is final, within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: February 29, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266940</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-004</Title><title>Opinion 00 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267701&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-02-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data in the following document: the Office of Crime Victims Ombudsman Critical Report #9900029?
To the extent that any of the data in the Report are classified as private or confidential, would the rights of the subjects of those data be violated if the Ombudsman&apos;s Office released the Report to &quot;the governor, the legislature and any of its committees, the press and others who may be concerned?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 2000; Minnesota Office of the Crime Victims Ombudsman</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 30, 1999, IPA received a letter from Laura Goodman-Brown, Crime Victims Ombudsman. In this letter, Ms. Goodman-Brown asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of the data contained in the Office of Crime Victims Ombudsman Critical Report #9900029. Ms. Goodman-Brown&apos;s request required clarification and additional information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Goodman-Brown&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peter Ginder, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, and Ann E. Walther, an attorney for the Minneapolis Police Federation, and to two of the Minneapolis police officers who were principal subjects of the report. The purposes of these letters, dated December 27, 1999, were to inform them of Ms. Goodman-Brown&apos;s request and to ask them to provide comments. In addition, Ms. Walther was invited to comment on behalf of any of the other officers named in the report, or to solicit comments from them. On January 5, 2000, and January 12, 2000, IPA received responses from Mr. Ginder and Ms. Walther. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Office of Crime Victims Ombudsman (OCVO) received a complaint concerning the treatment by Minneapolis police officers of a juvenile victim of criminal sexual assault. Pursuant to section 611A.74, subdivisions 2 and 3, the OCVO investigated the complaint and produced a report. The OCVO requested and received a copy of the internal affairs investigative file from the Minneapolis Police Department. In addition, the OCVO collected data from public documents, and conducted its own interviews of Minneapolis police officers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their responses to the Commissioner, Mr. Ginder and Ms. Walther stated that the data in the Report about Minneapolis police officers are private personnel data, pursuant to section 13.43, as there was no disciplinary action taken against the officers. They stated that it would violate the officers&apos; rights under Chapter 13 if the Report were released to the public in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Goodman-Brown asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data in the following document: the Office of Crime Victims Ombudsman Critical Report #9900029?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;To the extent that any of the data in the Report are classified as private or confidential, would the rights of the subjects of those data be violated if the Ombudsman&apos;s Office released the Report to the governor, the legislature and any of its committees, the press and others who may be concerned?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Report contains data that the OCVO received from Minneapolis, data that the OCVO collected from public sources (i.e., newspaper articles), and data that the OCVO created. Most of the data on individuals the OCVO obtained from Minneapolis are private personnel data, under section 13.43. (See section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) Section 13.03, subdivision 4, provides the general rules that control the classification of data that travel from one government entity to another. Of relevance here are two provisions of that subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), [t]o the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems by another state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, pursuant to subdivision 4 (a) of that section, [t]he classification of data in the possession of an agency &lt;u&gt;shall change if it is required to do so to comply&lt;/u&gt; with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or &lt;u&gt;with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the statute that specifically applies to the OCVO governs the classification of the data in the Report. Pursuant to section 611A.74, subdivision 2, [t]he ombudsman&apos;s files are confidential data . . . during the course of an investigation or while the files are active. Upon completion of the investigation or when the files are placed on inactive status, they are private data on individuals . . . . Accordingly, the data on individuals in the Report are private, given that the OCVO investigation into the matter is complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, there appears to be an inconsistency within the OCVO&apos;s own statute. Pursuant to subdivision 3 (b) of section 611A.74:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The ombudsman may request and shall be given access to information and assistance the ombudsman considers necessary for the discharge of responsibilities. The ombudsman may inspect, examine, and be provided copies of records and documents of all elements of the criminal justice system and victim assistance programs. The ombudsman may request and shall be given access to police reports pertaining to juveniles and juvenile delinquency petitions, notwithstanding section 260B.171 or 260C.171. &lt;u&gt;Any information received by the ombudsman retains its data classification under chapter 13 while in the ombudsman&apos;s possession&lt;/u&gt;. Juvenile records obtained under this subdivision may not be released to any person. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, that inconsistency does not affect the classification of most of the data in question. Most of the data Minneapolis provided to the OCVO are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4. However, the OCVO may want to seek clarification on the point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second issue, section 611A.74, subdivision 5 (c), provides the following: [t]he ombudsman may publish conclusions and suggestions by transmitting them to the governor, the legislature or any of its committees, the press, and others who may be concerned. The Commissioner does not believe that language constitutes the authority, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a), for the OCVO to, in effect, change the classification of data from private to public through publication of the entire Report. The OCVO is authorized to publish only conclusions or suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One further note is in order. There is some dispute as to whether the Minneapolis police officers were given proper notice of their rights under section 13.04, subdivision 2, commonly known as a Tennessen Warning. Mr. Ginder does not agree with Ms. Goodman-Brown that the officers interviewed by the OCVO were given proper Tennessen Warnings. In addition, Ms. Walther stated that Minneapolis did not inform the officers that the data they provided to the City during the internal affairs investigation could be disseminated to the OCVO. Neither the OCVO nor Minneapolis provided the Commissioner with a copy of the Tennessen Warnings administered in connection with this matter. However, if it did not, Minneapolis should have included in its Tennessen Warning to the police officers that the data they provided in the course of the internal affairs investigation would be provided to the OCVO upon its request. The OCVO, if it did not, should have included in its Tennessen Warning to the police officers that data they provided to OCVO that formed part of its conclusions or suggestions might be disseminated to the governor, the legislature or any of its committees, the press, and others who may be concerned. (For more in-depth discussion of the Tennessen Warning requirement, see also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-028&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267797&quot; title=&quot;98-042&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-042&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Goodman-Brown is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.74, subdivision 2, the data on individuals that identify Minneapolis police officers in the Office of Crime Victims Ombudsman Critical Report #9900029 are classified as private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The rights of the subjects of the data in the Report would be violated if the Ombudsman&apos;s Office released the entire Report to the governor, the legislature and any of its committees, the press and others who may be concerned.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267701</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Crime Victims Ombudsman</Title><Id>266675</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities authorized to receive data</Title><Id>266881</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-28T18:26:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-003</Title><title>Opinion 00 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267223&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-02-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would X&apos;s rights be violated if the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) disseminated to the public, data about him/her contained in the following documents: 1) an Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 24, 1998; 2) an Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 25, 1998; and 3) an Objection to the Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment filed with DOLI (received on October 6, 1998) by the data subject&apos;s attorney?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 2000; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently issued &lt;em&gt;Westrom v. Minnesota Dept. of Labor&lt;/em&gt;, 686 NW 2d 27 (Minn. 2004) about the issues raised in this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 17, 1999, IPA received a letter dated December 15, 1999, from X. In his/her opinion request, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding whether the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) had violated X&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gretchen Maglich, Commissioner of DOLI, in response to X&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 17, 1999, were to inform her of X&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DOLI&apos;s position. On January 11, 2000, IPA received a response, dated January 7, 2000, from Nancy Leppink, Director of Legal Services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In September 1998, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 176.181, DOLI issued to X an Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment (Order) and an Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment (Amended Order). Section 176.181 requires that most Minnesota employers carry workers&apos; compensation insurance. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Order notified [X&apos;s company] and the Amended Order notified [another of X&apos;s companies] that the Commissioner had determined that they had violated Minn. Stat. section176.181, subd. 2, ordered them to obtain workers compensation insurance and to refrain from employing any person until they had obtained insurance and assessed penalties. Finally, the orders notified [the two companies] of their right to contest the orders.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In October 1998, X&apos;s attorney filed an Objection to the Order and to the Amended Order. One part of the objection is that X did not direct or control the activities of any employees and should be dismissed as an individual respondent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In his/her opinion request, X wrote that data contained in the Order, the Amended Order, and the Objection to the Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment appeared in press releases dated October 23, 25, and 26, 1998, and subsequent newspaper articles. X stated, I believe that DOLI is responsible for the release of this confidential information. X also asserted that DOLI staff and others had advised him/her that the data in the documents are currently classified as confidential pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39, and that an Assistant Minnesota Attorney General had written a letter to X&apos;s attorney advising him that the data were protected. IPA staff faxed a copy of this letter to DOLI on December 22, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would X&apos;s rights be violated if the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) disseminated to the public, data about him/her contained in the following documents: 1) an Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 24, 1998; 2) an Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 25, 1998; and 3) an Objection to the Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment filed with DOLI (received on October 6, 1998) by the data subject&apos;s attorney?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see 13.06).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance to this opinion is section 13.39, which classifies as not public those data collected by government entities as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation becomes inactive, the data become public upon the occurrence of any of the following: 1) the entity or its chief attorney determine not to pursue the civil action; 2) the statute of limitations expires; or 3) either party exhausts its rights of appeal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In September of 1998, DOLI issued to X the Order and the Amended Order. In October of 1998, X&apos;s attorney filed an Objection to the penalty assessed. X asserted that although DOLI had advised him/her that data contained in these documents were not public, some of those same data appeared in press releases dated October 23, 25, and 26 of 1998, and subsequent newspaper articles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Leppink acknowledged that DOLI had released the data. She wrote, [n]o data subjects&apos; rights under [Chapter 13] were violated when [DOLI] released the Order, Amended Order and Objection in response to a data practice request. Ms. Leppink asserted that the data in question are public, and that the data are not the type that can be classified as civil investigative data. She also wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[e]ven if [DOLI] had determined that the protections set out in Minn. Stat. section 13.39 should be applied to these documents, it could have utilized its discretion to disclose the documents because it determined disclosure would aid the law enforcement process. Minn. Stat. section 13.39, subd. 2 (1998).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Leppink added, It is the position of the Department that data described in Minn. Stat. section 13.39 does not include Orders to Comply and Penalty Assessments issued by the Department and Objections filed by employers and therefore the protections set out in Minn. Stat. section 13.39 were not asserted. DOLI did not provide a copy of this policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Ms. Leppink, on behalf of DOLI, made very clear legal arguments, she did not inform the Commissioner how and under what circumstances DOLI released to the public the data in question. Instead of stating that DOLI released the data because the investigation was no longer active or because DOLI was exercising its discretionary authority, Ms. Leppink provided legal arguments only as to how the data might have been made public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, Ms. Leppink&apos;s description of DOLI&apos;s position regarding the treatment of the data in question runs contrary to X&apos;s actual experience with DOLI staff and one of its attorneys. X wrote that DOLI staff and others had advised him/her that the data were confidential pursuant to section 13.39. In addition, an Assistant Attorney General wrote to X&apos;s attorney in April of 1999 regarding DOLI&apos;s response to [X&apos;s company&apos;s] settlement offer. The assistant attorney general wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As I understand [Chapter 13], all documents maintained by a state agency during an active investigation or while a matter is pending&apos; is protected nonpublic data&apos; in the case of data not on individuals or confidential&apos; in the case of data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The statute allows agency discretion, however, to make any data classified as confidential&apos; or protected nonpublic&apos; available to the public if access will aid the law enforcement process, promote public health or safety or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.&apos; Minn. Stat. section 13.39, subd. 2. (1998). At this time, I do not foresee invoking that discretion. If you [sic] client&apos;s confidentiality is of great concern, you may want to seek a protective order barring the agency from responding to a data practice request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.39 is intended to operate as a microcosm of the general operation of Chapter 13; it functions as a balance between an individual&apos;s right to privacy, the public&apos;s right to know, and a government entity&apos;s need for confidentiality to protect the integrity of a civil investigation. The interests of each party to a confidential investigation are served as follows. The government entity&apos;s investigation is protected by not having to disclose its data to either the subject of the investigation or the public until the law that regulates various civil legal processes dictates release of the data. The individual data subject is protected because data of an unproven nature, which the individual has not been afforded the opportunity to contest in a legal forum, is not public until the process reaches a conclusion. The public interest is protected because much of the data eventually become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, this careful legislative balancing of interests was upset. The process had not yet reached a conclusion but DOLI still released data about X while his/her appeal was pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, DOLI created the data in the Order and Amended Order on September 25 and September 24, 1998, respectively. DOLI received the Objection from X&apos;s attorney (dated October 1, 1998) on October 6, 1998. According to X, DOLI staff advised him/her that the data contained in the documents were not public pursuant to section 13.39. Someone in DOLI who had access to the data released them sometime prior to October 23 (the date of the first of three press releases containing information from the documents). An attorney for DOLI wrote in a letter dated April 28, 1999, that the data were not public pursuant to section 13.39. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that DOLI violated X&apos;s rights when DOLI released the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) violated X&apos;s rights by releasing data about him/her contained in the following documents: 1) an Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 24, 1998; 2) an Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment dated September 25, 1998; and 3) an Objection to the Amended Order to Comply and Penalty Assessment filed with DOLI (received on October 6, 1998) by X&apos;s attorney.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 15, 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267223</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 00-002</Title><title>Opinion 00 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267768&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>2000-01-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: the local phone numbers dialed from a particular employee&apos;s work phone?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 31, 2000; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 14, 1999, the Commissioner received a letter dated November 29, 1999, from Maureen Devine, the designated responsible authority for Anoka County. In her letter, Ms. Devine asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the County maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Devine is as follows. She wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have received a request to disclose data which details the phone numbers called by an employee of the County from his/her work phone....This data is collected because the person is an employee of the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Devine added that the County retains phone logs containing the telephone numbers its employees call. She further stated, The classification of long distance telephone records is not within the scope of this request as those types of records are classified by statute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Devine asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data that Anoka County maintains: the local phone numbers dialed from a particular employee&apos;s work phone? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06.) The treatment of personnel data (section 13.43), however, runs contrary to the general presumption. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is...an employee of...a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In the case of this opinion, the data in question are the telephone numbers that a particular Anoka County employee dials from his/her work telephone. The County states and the Commissioner agrees that the County collected these data because the individual making the calls is an Anoka County employee. Therefore, the data are personnel data and are classified by section 13.43. The data in question here are not subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes section 10.46, which classifies long distance telephone bills as public, because these are data about &lt;u&gt;local&lt;/u&gt; phone calls.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public. The data in question, i.e., telephone numbers that an employee calls, are not included in the list of public personnel data. Therefore, they are private and not available to members of the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Devine is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The following data that Anoka County maintains are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43: the local phone numbers dialed from a particular employee&apos;s work phone. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 31, 2000
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267768</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Phone records</Title><Id>267007</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:34:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-048</Title><title>Opinion 99 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267756&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-12-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) properly comply with a request for copies of written appointment orders (see Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 2)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 1999; School District 11 (Anoka Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 8, 1999, IPA received a letter dated November 6, 1999, from Joe Mac. In his letter, Mr. Mac asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Mac&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 10, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Mac&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 19, 1999, IPA received a response, dated November 18, 1999, from Paul Cady, District Legal Counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. On October 29, 1999, Mr. Mac wrote to Mr. Giroux and requested copies of the written appointment orders&apos; for appointing Ms. Judy Sutter, Ms. DeAnn LaValle and Mrs. Mary Olson designees for certain data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated November 1, 1999, Mr. Cady responded by providing a copy of the School Board policy designating the Superintendent of Schools as responsible authority.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Mac then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Mac asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) properly comply with a request for copies of written appointment orders (see Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 2)? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16, the responsible authority in a school district is the individual designated by the governing body of that district who is responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 1, the responsible authority has authority to appoint designees, who shall be members of the staff of the entity. Pursuant to subpart 2, The appointment order shall be in writing and copies of the order constitute public data on individuals...
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the District&apos;s responsible authority, Dr. Giroux, apparently appointed at least three designees. Mr. Mac requested a copy of the written appointment orders. Mr. Cady responded, on behalf of the District, by providing Mr. Mac with a copy of the School Board policy designating the superintendent as the responsible authority. Mr. Cady wrote, As setforth in the policy, the responsible authority may delegate activities to other administrators, which is consistent with the appointment order provisions of Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1100, subpart 2. The relevant section of the policy states, [In carrying out the duties and responsibilities, the superintendent:] May delegate certain activities relating to student records to administrators and/or counselors.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady reiterated the District&apos;s position. He wrote, The District acknowledges that while the August 25, 1975, policy is ripe for revision, it nevertheless complies with [Chapter 13&apos;s] requirements for written designation of the responsible authority, as well as, setting forth an appointment order.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Cady. The School Board&apos;s policy serves only to affirm that which is set forth in the Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1100, subpart 1, i.e., that the superintendent may delegate responsible authority activities. The Board&apos;s policy does not constitute the appointment order prescribed in subpart 2. The Rules require government entities to issue written appointment orders so that individuals know to whom they should direct data requests. In this case, the District did not provide Mr. Mac with the information he requested. Therefore, it has not complied with his request. In order to be in compliance, the District should create and officially act on appointment orders and do so promptly.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Mac is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) did not properly comply with an individual&apos;s request for copies of written appointment orders (see Minnesota Rules, part 1205.1100, subpart 2). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 23, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267756</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee appointed by Responsible Authority</Title><Id>266421</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment in writing</Title><Id>266422</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-047</Title><title>Opinion 99 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267856&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-12-09T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the City of Appleton respond appropriately to a September 16, 1999, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 9, 1999; City of Appleton</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 21, 1999, IPA received a letter dated October 18, 1999, from Joseph Ayuyu. In the letter, Mr. Ayuyu requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the City of Appleton.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Thompson, City Coordinator for the City of Appleton, in response to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 8, 1999, IPA staff contacted Mr. Thompson&apos;s office whose staff advised that he would not be responding to the Commissioner&apos;s letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Ayuyu wrote that on September 16, 1999, he requested access to the following reports submitted by the warden at Prairie Correctional Facility :
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. Monthly warden&apos;s report, containing an overview of each department&apos;s operation in either narrative or statistical forms.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                2. Quarterly report containing narrative or statistical description of major development in each department, major incident, population data, assessment of staff and inmate moral (sic), and major problems and plans for solving them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                3. Policies/procedures governing the health Care Services, Inmates trust funds, and Inmates Commissary.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated September 23, 1999, Roger Swenson, an attorney representing the City of Appleton, responded to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Ayuyu then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ayuyu asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the City of Appleton respond appropriately to a September 16, 1999, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06). Government data are defined as all data collected, created, &lt;u&gt;received&lt;/u&gt;, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7.) In the case of this opinion, the City of Appleton received the data in question from the Prairie Correctional Facility.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Swenson made two statements in his September 23, 1999, letter. He first wrote that Appleton had previously provided some information to Mr. Ayuyu, specifically the assignment and delegation of [Appleton Economic Development Authority] duties and responsibilities to CCA. (The Commissioner assumes this means the Community Corrections Act.) It appears to the Commissioner that this information is not part of what Mr. Ayuyu requested on September 16, 1999.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Swenson also stated, All of the other documents requested are not public information as either proprietary information protected from disclosure by Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.37 Subd. 1(b), or corrections and detention data protected from disclosure by Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.85.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner finds Mr. Swenson&apos;s comments problematic. First, the fact that data are proprietary does not, in and of itself, mean that they are protected from disclosure by section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), trade secret data. As the Commissioner has stated in several previous advisory opinions, to be considered trade secret under section 13.37, government data must satisfy four elements that comprise the statutory definition: 1) they must be a collection of information; 2) that were supplied by the affected individual or organization; 3) that are the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy; and 4) that, a) derive independent, i.e., on their own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a government entity is refusing to disclose data on the basis that they are classified as not public pursuant to section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), the entity must be able to demonstrate that all four criteria are satisfied. In this case, Mr. Swenson did not provide any information to support his assertion that the data are trade secret. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that the data are presumed public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Swenson also argued that the City cannot release the data in question because they are not public pursuant to section 13.85, corrections and detention data. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the City&apos;s position. Mr. Ayuyu asked to inspect reports that he asserted the warden of the Prairie Correctional Facility had disseminated to the City. From Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s description of these reports, they appear to be statistical or narrative in nature. It does not appear that they would contain identifying data. Therefore, because section 13.85, subdivision 1, applies only to data on individuals, the City cannot use it as a basis for denying Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ayuyu is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Appleton did not respond appropriately to a September 16, 1999, request for access to data. First, the City did not establish that the data in question satisfy the requirements prescribed in section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b). Second, section 13.85 applies only to data on individuals, and not to data that are narrative or summary in nature, as in this case. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 9, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267856</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Corrections and detention data (13.85)</Title><Id>266453</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:14:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-046</Title><title>Opinion 99 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267381&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-12-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to an April 14, 1999, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 9, 1999; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 4, 1999, IPA received a letter dated September 29, 1999, from Rebecca Hamblin, on behalf of her client, the University Education Association (UEA), the exclusive representative for faculty employed at the University of Minnesota - Duluth (UMD). In her letter, Ms. Hamblin asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her client&apos;s access to certain data maintained by UMD.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, in response to Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 1999, were to inform her of Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the UMD&apos;s position. On November 1, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mary Ann Bernard, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a memo dated April 14, 1999, UEA staff, on behalf of X, one of its members, requested access to certain data. UEA made this request under authority of Section 105.100 of the 1997 - 2000 Agreement between the Regents of the University of Minnesota and the [UEA] in anticipation of filing a claim of discrimination.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a memo dated April 26, 1999, UMD staff responded that Dean Anderson would soon be responding to the request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a memo dated April 27, 1999, Dean Anderson notified UEA staff that she had requested that the Office of Equal Opportunity initiate an investigation. She added, Since the appropriate university investigation into this matter is already underway, it is our position that this process should be completed before addressing your request for information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 7, 1999, Ms. Hamblin wrote to Dean Anderson. She asked Dean Anderson to treat the April 27, 1999, UEA request as a data practices request, pursuant to Chapter 13. Ms. Hamblin wrote, [X and his/her authorized UEA representative] are entitled to all public data requested, as well as data classified as private&apos; in which [X] is the subject of the data. She further stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                To the extent that UMD contends that the data sought is either (1) private or confidential data in which [X] is not the subject of the data, or (2) confidential data in which [X] is the subject of the data, please specify the data requested and the specific statutory basis for not providing this information requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Dean Anderson responded in a letter undated but received by Ms. Hamblin on May 17, 1999. Dean Anderson wrote that UMD has designated Judith Karon, Director of UMD Department of Human Resources, as the officer responsible for requests for information under [Chapter 13]. Dean Anderson then stated that she was transferring Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request to Ms. Karon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a memo to Ms. Karon dated May 31, 1999, UEA staff summarized the sequence of events following the original April 14, 1999, request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a memo to Ms. Hamblin dated June 16, 1999, UEA staff advised that they had gained access to some, but not all, of the requested data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Hamblin then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03 and 13.04, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to an April 14, 1999, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On April 14, 1999, UEA made a request for information pursuant to its agreement with the Board of Regents. On May 7, 1999, Ms. Hamblin clarified that UEA&apos;s request was a request for data pursuant to Chapter 13. Sometime around May 17, 1999, UMD forwarded the request to its responsible authority, Ms. Karon. On June 9, 1999, UEA staff inspected some of the requested data. The Commissioner has decided to focus his discussion in this opinion on the data that UEA had not gained access to at the time of Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request. Further, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that UEA&apos;s request did not become a Chapter 13 request until May 7, 1999.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    At the outset, it is important to point out that the Commissioner&apos;s authority under section 13.072 (the advisory opinion authority) extends only to issues involving government data. Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity regardless of physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. Upon a thorough review of UEA&apos;s request, it appears that some of the questions are not requests for government data, i.e., they are not requests to inspect or copy information that exists in a recorded form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, it appears that as part of its request, UEA was asking UMD to take existing public data and format it in a particular manner. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data, but rather to provide access (inspection or copies) to data currently in existence. In situations where an entity has been asked to create new data, the request is not technically a data practices request, and the provisions of Chapter 13 do not apply. Previously, the Commissioner has advised that, in such instances, the entity and the requesting party work together to determine an appropriate charge. Further, if an individual&apos;s request is such that a government entity will need to create new data to respond, the government entity needs to clarify that with the requestor before moving forward.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is, however, one question that UEA asked that appears to be a request for government data, assuming UMD maintains such data. It is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [UEA] requests copies of Dr. Hershey&apos;s and Dr. Hicks&apos; records at the 4 1/4 year mark AND at the time the department evaluation of their files led to a RECOMMENDATION FOR TENURE (NOT at the time they achieved promotion) in:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    1) Total peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals,
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    2) Total peer-reviewed publications, in reputable publications, in reputable journals, for which the work was partially or in whole done at UMD.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    3) The number of EXTERNAL (Not from the University of Minnesota) grants held by each as a Principal Investigator. If there is/are Co-Principal Investigator(s), their names.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    4) The magnitude of dollars awarded for each grant listed in 3) along with the amount allotted to Hershey or Hicks if there are Co-Principal Investigators.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    5) Indirect Costs attached to each of the grants listed in 3).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    6) The dates of initial hire, tenure, and promotion to Associate Professor for Hershey and Hicks.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response, Ms. Bernard wrote that the requested data are private personnel data about the two individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Personnel data are classified at section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 states that other personnel data are private (not accessible to the public). Of the data requested about Professors Hershey and Hicks, it appears that most of the data, with the exception of clause (6), are not public. However, given that UMD never provided a response to this particular question and that section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, require government entities to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time, respectively, UMD did not respond appropriately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hamblin is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Only one of the questions asked of UMD in the April 14, 1999, request for information falls under the purview of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Pursuant to section 13.03, UMD did not respond appropriately. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 9, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267381</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Property Data</Title><Id>514332</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-045</Title><title>Opinion 99 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266906&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-12-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency properly deny access to certain data about complaints made concerning the City of Northfield wastewater treatment plant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 8, 1999; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 27, 1999, IPA received a letter from Maren Swanson, an attorney representing the City of Northfield. In this letter, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Northfield&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA.) Ms. Swanson&apos;s request required additional information and clarification with IPA staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Swanson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Studders, Commissioner of The MPCA. The purposes of this letter, dated October 12, 1999, were to inform her of Ms. Swanson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the MPCA&apos;s position. On October 14, 1999, IPA received a response from Gordon E. Wegwart, Assistant Commissioner of the MPCA. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the MPCA dated June 9, 1999, Scott Neal, the Northfield City Administrator, requested the following information related to its wastewater system: [a] list of the specific odor complaints received by the MPCA, including the nature, time, date, and location of the alleged odor problem, as well as the identity (if known) of the person or persons making the complaint. Mr. Neal repeated his request to the MPCA in a letter dated June 14, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the MPCA dated July 1, 1999, Ms. Swanson requested copies of the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The names and addresses of any persons who have complained to or otherwise contacted the MPCA or any agent or employee thereof regarding odor problems associated with the Northfield wastewater treatment facility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. The details of all such complaints, including but not limited to the nature, date, time and location of all alleged odor problems.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The dates and times all such complaints were received by the MPCA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. The results of air quality tests conducted by MPCA staff at the Northfield facility in May of this year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 7, 1999, the MPCA transmitted the following data to Mr. Neal: a copy of the complaint information received by the Rochester Office of the [MPCA] between the weeks of March 14th and June 27th. . . .[and] a copy of the one air monitoring reading taken. . . . The complaint data consisted only of the number of calls received per week for the time period indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 8, 1999, Mr. Neal wrote to the MPCA: [w]hile I appreciate your attempt to fulfill my request, the information you enclosed . . . relating to your logs of odor complaint calls is insufficient and is not an acceptable response to my requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 9, 1999, Rodney E. Massey, South District Manager for the MPCA, wrote to Ms. Swanson that the information [provided to the City] was presented in a format designed specifically to protect the identity of the complainant (section 13.44) . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency properly deny access to certain data about complaints made concerning the City of Northfield wastewater treatment plant?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.44 provides: [t]he identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Swanson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the City&apos;s interpretation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.44 that complaints . . . concerning the use of real property&apos; does not include and could not reasonably have been intended to include complaints concerning odors allegedly produced by a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Rather, the statute is meant to shield the identity of persons who complain to a government agency regarding concerns such as health hazards or nuisances maintained on real property by someone who might seek retribution against the complainant, such as a landlord or neighbor. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Wegwart stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The MPCA does not agree with the arguments advanced by Northfield. First of all, the MPCA notes that Minn. Stat. section 13.44 is unambiguous and makes no exceptions to the requirement to protect complainant identity. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The MPCA has some sympathy for Northfield&apos;s argument in that it needs to know the exact location and time of the complaint in order to ascertain whether the complainant correctly identified the wastewater treatment facility as the odor source. However, the MPCA believes that the summary data and other public information provided to Northfield . . . were adequate to meet its needs. . . . . The MPCA must take precautions to ensure that complainant identity cannot be discovered through comparison of the summary data to other information. See Commissioner of Administration &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267565&quot; title=&quot;94-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Op. 094-009&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.44 obliges government entities to protect the identities of individuals who complain about alleged violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Swanson correctly stated the primary reason that section 13.44 was enacted, namely, to protect identities of complainants who may be subject to retaliation. However, as Mr. Wegwart stated, section 13.44 does not except data about complaints made about publicly owned real property from that requirement. Accordingly, the data that Northfield is seeking from the MPCA that identify or could identify a complainant must be protected. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data the MPCA provided to Northfield about specific complaints contained none of the detailed data requested, such as the nature, date, time and location of alleged odor problems, or the dates and times all such complaints were received by the MPCA. The Commissioner was not provided the complaint data from which the MPCA prepared summary data in response to Northfield&apos;s request. However, it appears that the MPCA could provide Northfield with at least some of the additional data requested, e.g., the nature, date and time of the complaint, and the date and time the complaint call was received by MPCA, while still protecting the complainants&apos; identities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Swanson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency properly denied access to data that identify, or could identify, individuals who made complaints concerning the City of Northfield wastewater treatment plant. It appears that the MPCA should provide Northfield with at least some of the data it requested, while still protecting the complainants&apos; identities.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 8, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266906</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Property complaint data (13.44)</Title><Id>266466</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-044</Title><title>Opinion 99 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266972&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-29T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a February 12, 1999, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1999; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 5, 1999, IPA received a letter dated September 29, 1999, from Rebecca Hamblin, on behalf of her client, the University Education Association (UEA), the exclusive representative for faculty employed at the University of Minnesota - Duluth (UMD). In her letter, Ms. Hamblin asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her client&apos;s access to certain data maintained by UMD.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 6, 1999, were to inform her of Ms. Hamblin&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On November 2, 1999, IPA received a letter dated October 29, 1999, from Mary Ann Bernard, Associate General Counsel for the University.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated February 12, 1999, staff of UEA made a data request on behalf of one of its members who is an employee of UMD. Attached to the letter was a copy of a release signed by the UMD employee. The release included the following language:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                I hereby request copies of any and all documents in the possession of the University of Minnesota which are classified as public or private pursuant to [Chapter 13] in which I am the subject of the data pursuant to [section 13.04, subdivision 3].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also in his/her release, the data subject authorized UMD to release the data to UEA staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 25, 1999, UEA staff again requested access to the data. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                At this point I have not received any information or any request for an extension of the state mandatory timeline pursuant to [section 13.04, subdivision 3]. The University must comply immediately or at the most within five days. It has now been over a week.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 5, 1999, UEA staff again requested access to the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 15, 1999, UMD sent a letter to UEA staff. In relevant part, the letter states:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We have the documents you have requested. They number approximately 1,200-1,500 pages. I have not completed the task of reviewing them to redact non-relevant information, especially e-mails that contain information on other individuals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                If you would like to review the documents prior to deciding on whether or not you want copies, please call [staff] in our office, and she will arrange a time to do so.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her opinion request, Ms. Hamblin wrote that UEA staff was able to review about one-half of the 1,200 to 1,500 pages of materials and that UMD has not yet informed UEA that the remaining materials are available.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, did the University of Minnesota respond appropriately to a February 12, 1999, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, a data subject is entitled to inspect or obtain copies of government data of which s/he is the subject. Subdivision 3 of section 13.04 states that the government entity must allow inspection or provide copies immediately or within five working days. If the entity is unable to respond within the first five days, it must so notify the requestor and may then take an additional five working days to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (The Commissioner notes that as of August 1, 1999, section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that a government entity must respond immediately or within ten working days. The language requiring notification after five days no longer exists. See Minnesota Laws Chapter 227, section 2. However, in the case of this opinion, because the data request was made prior to August 1, 1999, the old statutory language applies.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    UEA made its initial request for data on February 12, 1999. Twenty working days later, UMD responded by advising UEA that UMD had located the relevant documents but that redaction of private data in those documents had not yet been completed. Further, as of the date that Ms. Hamblin submitted her opinion request, UEA staff had been able to inspect only approximately one-half of the documents in question. Ms. Hamblin wrote, [UEA staff] has never been informed that the remaining materials are available for his review.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Bernard wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It is the University&apos;s position that its response has been appropriate....There is no allegation that [the UMD employee] has been denied access to [his/her] personnel file or any other similar document. At issue instead are all the e-mails contained on University servers that mention [his/her] name. At its insistence, UEA&apos;s representative was able to review approximately one-half of the 1200 - 1500 pages of such materials (with names and identifiers of University students and other University employees redacted in early March.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    UEA&apos;s suggestion that it had a right to obtain these e-mails within the ten-day statutory timeline is without legal basis. This right exists only when the individual is the subject of stored data. Typically, [the UMD employee] is one of many subjects of this data. Neither the statute nor the regulations contain a ten-day time limit, or any other time limit, in a situation where substantial redactions are necessary in order to delineate the private data on one individual from the private data on others in documents which have multiple data subjects.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Bernard added that since receiving notice that UEA wants to review the remaining data, UMD has been redacting the remaining e-mails. She stated that the redacted copies would be available to UEA the week of November 1, 1999.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Bernard. On behalf of one of its members, UEA requested all data - regardless of where or in what documents the data exist - that UMD maintains about this person. Pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, UMD was required to respond, i.e., provide access to the data, immediately or within five to ten working days. This did not happen. UMD took approximately twenty days to send a letter advising that the data had been located but were not yet ready for inspection or copying. Further, when Ms. Hamblin submitted her opinion request, UEA had not yet gained access to the remaining data. UMD did not meet its requirements under section 13.04 and should immediately provide UEA with access to the remaining data if it has not done so already.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, Ms. Bernard seems to suggest that the access rights section 13.04 confers upon a data subject do not apply to situations in which the documents, e.g., e-mail, etc., contain data about the data subject as well as data about other individuals. The Commissioner again respectfully disagrees. Section 13.04 entitles individuals to gain access to data of which they are the subject, regardless of the type of medium containing the data or the fact that the medium contains data about the data subject and other individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hamblin is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the University of Minnesota did not respond in a timely manner to a February 12, 1999, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 29, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266972</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-043</Title><title>Opinion 99 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267969&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is an Independent School District 2711 School Board member an &quot;employee&quot; for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are data maintained by Independent School District 2711 on a School Board member public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1999; School District 2711 (Mesabi East)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 4, 1999, IPA received a letter from John M. Roszak, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Independent School District 2711. In this letter, Mr. Roszak asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The District&apos;s School Board is reviewing allegations relating to certain reimbursement claims submitted by a Board member. The School Board has received inquiries from the public regarding the Board member&apos;s conduct.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rosak asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is an Independent School District 2711 School Board member an employee for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, are data maintained by Independent School District 2711 on a School Board member public data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, data created, collected, and maintained by government entities are government data, which are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law. (See section 13.02, subdivision 7, and section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The classification of data about a school board member is therefore dependent upon whether or not the board member is an employee of the District for purposes of Chapter 13. If so, then data about the Board member are classified under section 13.43. If the Board member is not an employee of the District, then the data in question are subject to the general presumption that all government data are public unless specifically classified otherwise under state or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Roszak:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The School Board asserts that its School Board is neither an advisory board nor a commission. It is a governing board vested with the care, management, and control of the School District. Minn. Stat section 123B.09, subd. 1. Although members of the School Board perform services for the District, they are compensated for those services and, thus, cannot be deemed to perform services on a voluntary basis. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minn. Stat. 123B.09, subd. 12 (authority of board to fix compensation.) Moreover, School Board members are neither hired nor fired, and they do not otherwise fit the traditional profile of an independent contractor or an employee of the School District. Rather, School Board members are elected officials. &lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Minn. Stat. section 123B.09.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Roszak further stated: School Board members cannot be treated the same as employees because School Board members are, in effect, the employer and generally cannot be held accountable to a superior other than the public. If data on School Board members were private, then no mechanism for accountability to the public would exist and one of the overall objectives of the [Minnesota Government Data Practices] Act would be frustrated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to Mr. Roszak, the School District does not consider School Board members to be employees, but rather elected officials without employee status. The Legislature did not provide a definition of employee in section 13.43. &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary - Second College Edition&lt;/i&gt;, Houghten Mifflin Company, 1985, definition of employee as a person who works for another in return for compensation is inconclusive.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A review of several statutes relating to public employees also appears to be inconclusive. Elected officials are considered employees for purposes of worker&apos;s compensation, but not for unemployment compensation or eligibility under the Public Employee Labor Relations Act. (See section 176.011, subdivision 9 (6), section 268.035, subdivision 20 (12), and section 179A.03, subdivision 14 (a).) Pursuant to section 471.61, subdivision 1, a school district (among other government entities) may elect to offer group life, health and/or accident insurance to its officers and employees. According to Mr. Roszak, the District has so elected. In addition, under the same statute, a school district (among others) may determine that a person is an officer or employee if the person receives income from the governmental subdivisions without regard to the manner of election or appointment . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, it is the District&apos;s position that School Board members are not District employees, and ultimately it is up to the District to make that determination. The Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the District to reach the conclusion that School Board members are not employees, particularly in light of Mr. Roszak&apos;s comments concerning public accountability concerns. Accordingly, absent any statute or federal law that provides otherwise, data maintained by the District about any of the School Board members, including data relating to the School Board&apos;s deliberations about the allegations against the Board member, are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should be noted that there are provisions in Chapter 13 which regulate data about elected officials. Section 13.33 provides that correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. Section 13.60 provides that certain financial disclosure statements of elected or appointed officials are public data on individuals. Those sections do not appear to be applicable to the data in question here.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rozak is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                An Independent School District 2711 School Board member is not an employee for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, data maintained by Independent School District 2711 on a School Board member are public data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 29, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267969</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-042</Title><title>Opinion 99 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267623&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Human Rights complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $.30/page for copies of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 1999; Minnesota Department of Human Rights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 16, 1999, IPA received a fax, dated same, from L. In his/her letter, L asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding fees the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (DHR) assessed L for copies of government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Janeen Rosas, Commissioner of DHR, in response to L&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 4, 1999, were to inform her of L&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On October 15, 1999, IPA received a response, dated October 13, 1999, from Commissioner Rosas.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. The DHR maintains data about L. L sought copies of some of the data. DHR staff informed L that the Department charges $.30/page. L then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, L asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Human Rights complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $.30/page for copies of government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of &lt;u&gt;searching for and retrieving&lt;/u&gt; (emphasis added) the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the DHR maintains data that are about L. DHR staff advised L that s/he would be charged $.30/page for copies of data. In her response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Rosas wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The Department last addressed this issue in June of 1993...&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; attached state memorandum and fee scale. These instructions set forth the Department of Human Rights&apos; $0.30/page copy fee, based on a computation of staff time. The Department has not raised this fee since its inception six years ago. Please note that in compliance with Minnesota Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4, staff time includes only the cost of labor required to prepare copies. It excludes staff time spent reviewing information for data privacy implications.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The DHR document Commissioner Rosas referred to in her comments is entitled File Searches and Information Requests. In relevant part, it includes charges in situations when the requestor is the charging party (L is a charging party) and is making a routine request for copies from his/her own file:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    A. Charging Party, Respondent (or Representative of either)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    1. Routine Requests for Copies from own File
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    a. First-time request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No Charge
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    b. Same information previously supplied . . Actual Costs
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    THRESHOLD 10 pages of 1/4 hour of staff time*
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    MINIMUM CHARGE $5.00
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    (Waivable upon request by Directory of Enforcement)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    *Staff time includes only the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies. The current staff member responsible for preparing copies has a salary of $19.06.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Another possibly relevant part of the document is entitled Possible Charges. It states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    F. Possible Charges
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    1. Staff time (except the services listed below). . . . $25.00/hour
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    2. Filing and Photocopying . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . $.30/page
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    3. Retrieval from state Records Center (Archives) . .$3.50/file
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    4. FAX Transmission
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    a. Local . . . . . . . . . . . . $.30/page
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinionquoteinquote&quot;&gt;
                    b. Long Distance . . . . . . $.50/page
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The DHR document seems ambiguous. On the one hand, it states that the charge for filing and photocopying is $.30/page, which is the fee that DHR staff quoted to L. On the other hand, the document also states that for first time requests, copies are free, and that for same information previously supplied requests, there is a minimum charge of $5 and the threshold is 10 pages or 1/4 hour of staff time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears, however, based upon the information that DHR submitted, that DHR is charging L a flat fee of $.30/copy. This would be consistent with the entry on the DHR document for filing and photocopying under possible charges. However, such a charge seems inconsistent with the charge information set forth under routine requests for copies from own file in the same document.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If DHR is charging L a flat fee of $.30/page, DHR has not provided sufficient information for the Commissioner to determine whether the charge is allowable under Chapter 13. In particular, Chapter 13 does not allow government entities to assess minimum charges, or fees based on a threshold number of copies or staff time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One additional point regards the part of the policy that states there is no charge for first time requests. If L is making a first time request for the data, according to the policy, it would seem that s/he should not be charged anything.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by L is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights may charge L only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. If the Department is charging a flat fee of $.30/page, the Department must demonstrate that this fee represents the actual costs of providing the data to L. Further, the Department may not charge L a minimum fee, or a fee based on a threshold number of copies or staff time.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 18, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267623</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minimum charge not allowed</Title><Id>266919</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-041</Title><title>Opinion 99 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266403&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond properly to two requests for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 1999; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 7, 1999, IPA received a letter from Joseph Ayuyu. In this letter, Mr. Ayuyu asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC.) Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request required clarification with IPA staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Commissioner of DOC. The purposes of this letter, dated October 1, 1999, were to inform her of Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DOC&apos;s position. On October 6, 1999, IPA received a response from Commissioner Ramstad Hvass. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Ayuyu is an inmate at Corrections Corporation of America-Prairie Correctional Facility (CCA-PCF.) According to Mr. Ayuyu, he wrote two letters to Commissioner Ramstad Hvass, in which he requested access and inspection of policies and procedures adopted by the Commissioner establishing the minimum standards relating to custody, supervision, care treatment, programs, health, safety, and classification of inmates at [CCA-PCF]. Mr. Ayuyu did not provide the Commissioner with copies of his requests to Commissioner Ramstad Hvass.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Greg Carlson, a DOC inspector, responded to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s requests on behalf of Commissioner Ramstad Hvass. In letters dated August 2, 1999, and August 12, 1999, Mr. Carlson told Mr. Ayuyu that a policy manual that is utilized to operate [CCA-PCF] should be in the law library for your use. Mr. Carlson also stated: [i]t is CCA-PCF policy to not allow inmates to have knowledge of certain specified policies for operational and security reasons. They have previously indicated to me that there is a Table of Contents available that lists those policies that are available to you. This is within their scope of authority to make the decision to provide you only limited access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Carlson also wrote to Mr. Ayuyu: [i]n reference to the rules that are utilized to license the facility [DOC] agreed to allow CCA-PCF to seek American Correctional Association (ACA) accreditation and use the standards as defined in the ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions 3rd Edition&apos; as the basis to meet this requirement. . . . . A copy of these standards is also available for your review in the PCF library.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Ramstad Hvass stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is also the policy of CCA-PCF to allow inmates only limited access to those policies which are utilized for the management/operation of the facility. Sound correctional practice dictates that many policies are not accessible to inmates for safety and security reasons.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In summary, Mr. Ayuyu has access to the minimum standards adopted by the commissioner and limited access to operating policies of CCA-PCF. As such, the DOC responded properly to Mr. Ayuyu in that he was provided with information and direction on how to answer his question. It should also be noted that CCA-PCF is a private business and not a governmental agency.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ayuyu asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond properly to two requests for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. Upon request, a responsible authority must provide for inspection and copying of public government data at reasonable times and places. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to Mr. Ayuyu&apos;s request, DOC referred him to information located in the CCA-PCF library. Under usual circumstances, that would not be an acceptable response per the requirements of Chapter 13. However, in this case, the requestor is confined to a correctional facility. Therefore, it is reasonable for DOC to refer him to the reference materials containing the data, which, in this case, are located at the prison library.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Ayuyu was told that some of CCA-PCF&apos;s policies were not accessible to him, for safety and security reasons. DOC did not cite a specific legal basis for that position, but said that it was within the scope of CCA-PCF&apos;s authority to make that determination. Commissioner Ramstad Hvass noted that CCA-PCF is a private business, not a government entity. However, if Mr. Ayuyu asked Commissioner Ramstad Hvass to provide the specific legal basis for denying access to some of the data he requested, she should have done so under the requirements of section 13.03, subdivision 3 (e).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Depending upon the terms of the contract under which CCA-PCF provides correctional services to DOC, CCA-PCF itself may be required to comply with Chapter 13 requirements. In general, private enterprises such as CCA-PCF are not subject to Chapter 13. However, if a private person has a contractual relationship with a government entity, there are certain situations in which the private entity itself, or the data created/collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations, may be subject to Chapter 13. Several provisions in Chapter 13 address specific situations involving government entities and parties they contract with. (See sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5.) Also, the standard State of Minnesota purchase agreement makes data generated under the contract subject of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should also be noted that the 1999 Minnesota Legislature amended Chapter 13 to require that certain language be part of any contracts entered into between government entities and private persons. The new language, which is codified at section 13.05, subdivision 11, went into effect on August 1, 1999, and provides that when a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the terms of the contract shall state explicitly that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ayuyu is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Corrections responded properly to two requests for access to data. Given that the data requestor is a prison inmate, it was reasonable for the DOC to refer him to reference materials in a prison library that contain the data he requested.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 16, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266403</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-040</Title><title>Opinion 99 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266539&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-15T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of New Brighton respond appropriately to a September 10, 1999, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 1999; City of New Brighton</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 24, 1999, IPA received a letter from Dennis Guldan. In this letter, Mr. Guldan asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of New Brighton.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Guldan&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Matt Fulton, Manager of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated September 29, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Guldan&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On October 8, 1999, IPA received a response from Mr. Fulton. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In September 1999, Mr. Guldan requested from the City manager access to the following data, in simple PC readable electronic format: (1) all financial transactions for the years 1995-1999; (2) all council and commission meeting minutes for the same time period; and (3) a list of current commission members and the number of years each has served in her/his current position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The copy of the letter Mr. Guldan submitted to the Commissioner was dated September 10, 1999. In his opinion request, Mr. Guldan stated: I was told by phone on September 17th by the New Brighton City Manager (though I requested a response in writing) that the material I requested would take a large amount of city staff time and I would be required to pay for the staff time. I refused to pay for what I believe should be public information, which should be free and available. I have no problem paying a few dollars for CDS or disks. Mr. Guldan did not indicate whether he had received access to any of the data he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Fulton noted that the copy of the letter he received from Mr. Guldan on September 13, 1999, was dated September 17, 1999. He also stated: [a]lthough it is not mentioned in Mr. Guldan&apos;s letter [to the Commissioner], I followed up [voice mail messages] with a letter to Mr. Guldan on September 17, which is attached for your review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that letter to Mr. Guldan, Mr. Fulton told him that the data he requested about commission members would be sent to him via electronic mail. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Fulton stated that those data were transmitted via e-mail to Mr. Guldan on September 17, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to Mr. Guldan&apos;s request for historical City Council and Commission minutes, Mr. Fulton wrote to Mr. Guldan:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;. . . we have hard copy minutes that are readily available for your review dating back to 1995. Some of our older electronic records of these meetings are kept on floppy disks along with other retained city information. . . . . In order to fulfill your request to provide this information in an easily readable electronic format, my staff would need to spend the time in gathering all of the departmental data files and copying files onto a floppy disk for your use. This effort would be extensive, involving several hours of staff time. Pursuant to our policy, it is the type of request that would justify a charge for the staff effort. However, I will be sending to you via e-mail Council minutes back to 1995. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Fulton stated that all historical council minutes had been provided to Mr. Guldan via e-mail on September 21, 1999. Mr. Fulton reiterated that commission minutes are maintained in paper form. He wrote: Mr. Guldan&apos;s request for electronic copies of commission minutes requires searching and assembling all historical electronic copies kept on floppy disk, the recreation of electronic copies where only paper form exists, and organizing/copying all minutes onto floppy disks. To date, over 14 hours of staff effort has been put into attempting to meet Mr. Guldan&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to Mr. Guldan&apos;s request for an electronic copy of historical financial transactions, Mr. Fulton stated to him: [i]t would require an extremely extensive amount of programming work to reformat our financial records into an understandable and readable electronic format for your use. The City&apos;s financial records are maintained on a computer system separate from the City&apos;s overall network system. I welcome you to review all of our paper copies of historical financial information . . . . [which are] readily available for your use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Fulton stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of New Brighton utilizes a proprietary financial software system which resides on a mid-frame computer system. The City&apos;s financial transactions are recorded and maintained within this system in multiple financial software packages. This system provides various reports which have been programmed by an outside consultant. Information can be easily generated in paper form or by viewing it on a computer screen within our offices. Any modification to the current reports requires additional programming. It is not possible to make an electronic copy of the information requested by Mr. Gulden [sic] without additional programming. . . . . This effort would be extensive, particularly given the fact that Mr. Gulden [sic] is requesting information regarding multiple years. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neither Mr. Guldan nor Mr. Fulton discussed the specific charges that the City proposed. Therefore, the Commissioner will assume, for purposes of this opinion, that Mr. Guldan objects to any charge for the staff time involved in fulfilling his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Gulden asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of New Brighton respond appropriately to a September 10, 1999, request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. According to that same subdivision, [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (c), [i]f a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, &lt;u&gt;including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data&lt;/u&gt; or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the City may properly require Mr. Guldan to pay the reasonable costs of the staff time involved in responding to his request. (It does not appear from the information provided that any of the data in question are maintained or accessible to the public on-line. If they were, then 1999 amendments to section 13.03 would apply. See Laws for Minnesota 1999, Chapter 227, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City maintains some of the data Mr. Guldan requested in electronic format, and some in paper form. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, provide that government entities must grant prompt, appropriate, convenient and reasonable access to public government data. However, those provisions of statute and rule do not provide members of the public the right to dictate the specific forms in which the data to which they seek access are provided. The fact that Mr. Guldan may disagree with the standard provided in statute is something for which the City may not be held responsible. Mr. Guldan may reasonably prefer a different accommodation than that provided by the City, but it is not required to provide him with copies of data in electronic format at no charge, if the City does not maintain the data in that form. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267440&quot; title=&quot;95-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-037&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267428&quot; title=&quot;96-032&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-032&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided, it is possible that decisions made by the City in its financial records system design may have resulted in an inability to provide, in Mr. Guldan&apos;s view, convenient access to the data. However, questions relating to a government entity&apos;s specific obligations to design computer systems to provide convenient access involve issues not currently addressed in statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as the Commissioner noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267428&quot; title=&quot;96-032&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-032&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Chapter 13 imposes an obligation on all government entities to maintain government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) To meet this obligation, government entities must, when designing their filing systems (both manual and electronic), make efforts to ensure that the government data contained in those systems are easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This language places an affirmative duty on government agencies to design data storage, data retrieval and filing systems in such a way that those systems will assist and not hinder the public in gaining access to government data. This language was first enacted by the Legislature in 1941, and codified at Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the Official Records Act. (See Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, Chapter 553, Section 4.) Virtually all of the modern record-keeping and management information systems, both manual and electronic, that have come into existence in the State in the last fifty years have been subject to the requirement that they be designed and implemented so that the data contained within them are easily accessible for convenient use by the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Gulden is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of New Brighton responded appropriately to a September 10, 1999, request for access to data. The data the City maintains in paper form are readily accessible, and the City promptly provided electronic copies of the data it maintains in electronic form.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266539</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Organization of data, in general</Title><Id>266538</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-039</Title><title>Opinion 99 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267812&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-15T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Metropolitan Airports Commission complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $.25/page for copies of government data?
Has the Metropolitan Airports Commission complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L &quot;$142.78 to copy 21 pages of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 1999; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 16, 1999, IPA received a fax, dated same, from L. In his/her letter, L requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding fees the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) assessed L for copies of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Anderson, General Counsel of the MAC, in response to L&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 1999, were to inform him of L&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On October 13, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Gregory Bistram, an attorney representing the MAC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by L is as follows. L wrote that s/he is a data subject under [Chapter 13]. L stated that in May of 1999, the MAC charged him/her $142.78 for 21 copies of government data. L also stated that previously, the MAC has charged him/her from $0.25/page to a $0.50/page for copies of data. L asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the appropriateness of these charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her request for an opinion, L asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has the Metropolitan Airports Commission complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $.25/page for copies of government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has the Metropolitan Airports Commission complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $142.78 to copy 21 pages of government data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would first like to point out that the permitted charge for copies of government data is greatly dependent upon whether the requestor is or is not the data subject. If the requestor &lt;u&gt;is not&lt;/u&gt; the subject of the requested data, the government entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. (See section 13.03, subdivision 3.) However, if the requestor &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the first issue of this opinion, L asked the MAC for copies of data about him/her and was charged $.25/page. Mr. Bistram, in his comments to the Commissioner, stated that this charge is consistent with the MAC&apos;s Chapter 13 policy. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As set forth in Section VI A of the Policy, the MAC charge of $.25 a page is for documents in the possession of the MAC. This charge is inclusive of several costs in addition to actual copying costs, including MAC staff retrieval time, preparation of a request for the MAC copy center to produce the copies, envelopes and postage. The Policy reflects MAC&apos;s reasonable allocations based on its experience of costs incurred in retrieving, producing and delivering documents under [Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner examined Section VI (Charges for Providing Information) of the MAC&apos;s Chapter 13 policy - Mr. Bistram attached a copy to his comments). Section VI A sets forth the standard cost per page. It reads:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;MAC charges $.25 per page for black and white copies of information (both one and two sided) and $.60 per page for color copies. This charge is &lt;strong&gt;inclusive&lt;/strong&gt; of time spent by MAC staff to locate and gather the requested information, the time and expense to photocopy the information, and the regular postage incurred in forwarding the information to the requesting party.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that the MAC&apos;s policy does not account for situations in which a data subject is seeking copies of data about him/herself, as is the case in this opinion. When an individual is seeking access to public data of which s/he is &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt; the subject, Chapter 13 provides that the entity may include, in its charge, the cost of searching for and retrieving the data. However, the government entity may not charge for searching and retrieving when the data subject is obtaining copies of data about him/her.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the MAC&apos;s policy does not clearly establish how the MAC arrived at a standard fee of $.25/page. Specifically, there is no documentation indicating the actual costs associated with preparation of copies, including labor and associated expenses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, L asked for copies of data about him/herself. Based on Mr. Bistram&apos;s comments, it appears that the MAC, in arriving at the $.25/page standard fee, included costs associated with searching for and retrieving the data - this is not allowable under Chapter 13. In addition, the MAC has not demonstrated in sufficient detail whether its standard per page fee is allowable under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue before the Commissioner is whether the MAC&apos;s charge of $142.78 for 21 pages of data is allowable under Chapter 13. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Bistram wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[M]AC has retained W.D. Schock Company ( Schock ) as a consultant with regard to certain noise abatement, land acquisition and relocation programs ( Programs ). Schock is required under its agreement with the MAC to provide or maintain certain information for the MAC. Schock charges MAC for actual staff time incurred in retrieving documents requested under [Chapter 13]. There is no indication in the record that Schock did not incur the actual costs charged to L for retrieving the requested documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Section VI B (2) of the Policy covers costs billed to the MAC by consultants such as Schock for costs incurred in responding to [Chapter 13] requests with regard to documents subject to [Chapter 13] that are in the possession of consultants. Schock bills its actual costs for retrieval time plus copying expenses related to [Chapter 13] requests to the MAC. These actual costs are billed to MAC and then passed on to the requesters. MAC&apos;s intention under the Policy is to cover only the costs it or its consultants incurs in responding to [Chapter 13] requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bistram went on to explain that three Schock employees were involved in responding to L&apos;s request. He stated that Schock arrived at the per page cost by dividing the number of copies into the total amount of Schock consultant time expended in locating and gathering the copies. The per page fee was $6.49.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In situations where a private party, e.g., Schock, is acting as the government entity&apos;s agent (in this case via a contract for services) by housing/maintaining government data, the rights of the individual seeking data have not changed. In other words, the requestor has the right to obtain copies of data; also, any fee either the government entity or its agent assesses must fall within the parameters prescribed in Chapter 13. Therefore, in this case, as the Commissioner discussed in relation to the first issue of this opinion, because L asked for data about him/herself, pursuant to section 13.04, the MAC may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data. It appears that this nevertheless occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the fact that Schock maintains data that L requested does not mean that L should pay unreasonably high charges simply because the data are in the possession of Schock. While the level of reasonableness may vary on a case-by-case basis, in this case, a charge of $6.49/page seems excessive and unreasonable. The Commissioner cannot determine if the fee charged L for copies was higher because Schock rather than MAC employees responded to L&apos;s request. An individual should not have to pay significantly and unreasonably higher charges for copies of data because a government entity has contractually agreed that the data in question are held by a private entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by L is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Airports Commission has not complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $.25/page for copies of government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Metropolitan Airports Commission has not complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in charging L $142.78 to copy 21 pages of government data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 15, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267812</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266613</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data held by private contractor</Title><Id>266614</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Searching and retrieving</Title><Id>266273</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-15T15:25:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-038</Title><title>Opinion 99 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267343&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to a June 3, 1999, request for access to attorney bills related to &quot;Y?&quot;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to a November 23, 1998, request for access to educational data about Y?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to an August 25, 1999, request for access to a videotape of a meeting to discuss Y&apos;s IEP?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 1999; School District 11 (Anoka - Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 20, 1999, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District #11, Anoka-Hennepin.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, the District&apos;s Superintendent and Responsible Authority. The purposes of this letter, dated September 28, 1999, were to inform him of X&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 11, 1999, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X&apos;s minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In his request to the Commissioner, X stated that s/he disagrees with the District&apos;s responses to X&apos;s various requests for access to data about Y. Each issue is addressed in detail below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to a June 3, 1999, request for access to attorney bills related to Y?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to a November 23, 1998, request for access to educational data about Y?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) respond appropriately to an August 25, 1999, request for access to a videotape of a meeting to discuss Y&apos;s IEP?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated June 3, 1999, and delivered to the District on that date, X wrote to Dr. Giroux and requested photocopies of all past/current attorney bills (from both law firms that were involved) relating to [Y]. On June 11, 1999, X delivered to the District a second copy of that request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated June 14, 1999, Mr. Cady responded, stating that he had asked the District&apos;s law firms to provide the District with copies and/or summaries of all past and current attorney bills. On receipt from the law firms, I will forward that information to you.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In letters dated June 22 and June 24, 1999, X&apos;s attorney, Sonja D. Kerr, wrote to Mr. Cady, and reiterated X&apos;s request. Mr. Cady responded to Ms. Kerr in a letter dated June 25, 1999, in which he enclosed the information that your clients requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated July 23, 1999, X wrote again to Dr. Giroux, and stated that s/he had not received copies of all of the relevant attorney bills. X stated: [w]e did not receive a copy of the itemized bill for [one of the law firm&apos;s] work on the MDCFL complaint prior to 5-4-99. I assume that they charged the district for their response?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated July 26, 1999, Mr. Cady wrote to Ms. Kerr, and stated that he enclosed copies of two billings that were inadvertently omitted in my June 25, 1999 letter to you.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The request for attorney data, specifically attorney bills, is subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subds. 2 and 3, which requires a responsible authority to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner and within a reasonable time. In order to insure that private or confidential data contained within the relevant attorney bills did not get inappropriately released, it was necessary for the District to review the bills to insure that private or confidential data not requested or accessible by X&apos; be redacted.. . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The response, within 22 calendar days, was appropriate and within a reasonable time period. On or about July 23, 1999, X&apos; informed the District that copies of two bills had been omitted. On July 26, 1999, the District immediately forwarded the copies of the bills that were inadvertently omitted in the earlier response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District provided X copies of the data requested (with two exceptions) 16 working days after receiving the request. In X&apos;s request to the District, X stated that attorney bills appear to be public data. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated that the District responded to X&apos;s request within the statutory time frame for public data, as set forth at section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the data in question are public data, then the Commissioner agrees with Mr. Cady, that the District&apos;s response was prompt. It is unfortunate that two of the bills X requested were inadvertently omitted from the District&apos;s response, but that in itself does not constitute a violation of the requirements of section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the nature of X&apos;s request, i.e., data that specifically relate to attorneys&apos; involvement with Y, suggests to the Commissioner that the data may more appropriately be treated as educational data, which are private under section 13.32 and federal law, because they are data that relate to a student. (See section 13.32, subdivision 1(a) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1232g.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If that is the case, then the District did not comply with the then-applicable statutory requirement as set forth at section 13.04, subdivision 3, which required government entities to comply with a data subject&apos;s request for data within five working days, or, with written notice, within ten working days. (This requirement was amended in 1999. As of August 1, 1999, government entities must comply with a data subject&apos;s request within ten working days. See Laws for Minnesota 1999, Chapter 227, Section 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter to Y&apos;s District case manager dated November 23, 1998, and delivered on November 24, 1998, X wrote that X disagreed with how Y&apos;s progress or needs were characterized, and stated that s/he would like to see any data that forms the basis for those conclusions. X stated that s/he would appreciate receiving this information within the timelines of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District&apos;s response, in a letter dated December 2, 1998, stated that the District suggested that X make an appointment to review Y&apos;s records, to determine which records X wanted copied.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated December 10, 1998, X requested copies of all of [Y&apos;s] files. X stated [w]e do not have the time to sit and be supervised while we go through all of [Y&apos;s] records. On December 22, 1998, X delivered to the District a second copy of that request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated December 28, 1998, the District stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    We are also in receipt of your second request for a copy of the records under the Government Data Privacy [sic] Practices Act; the district once again encourages you to schedule a time to review the records. The records in the files on [Y] are estimated at 3,000 pages; much of which you have already been provided. We believe it would be most effective if you reviewed the files indicating data you want to have copied.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to X&apos;s contemporaneous notes, X began reviewing Y&apos;s records on January 7, 1999. Files maintained by some District staff, which might have contained additional data on Y, were not available for X&apos;s review until January 14, 1999.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to X&apos;s notes, on several occasions between January 7, 1999, and February 8, 1999, X received originals rather than copies of some of the records s/he flagged for copying, or received defective copies, or didn&apos;t receive copies of several pages requested. As of February 8, 1999, X had copies of everything s/he requested, except one record X was told was missing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [a]s noted in the December 2nd and December 28th, 1998, correspondence to X&apos; the District had been involved with X&apos; regarding [Y] . . . throughout the calendar year of 1998. Throughout that process, much of the approximately 3,000 pages in [Y&apos;s] files which would include data responsive to the November 23, 1998 request had been provided to X.&apos; Mr. Cady stated that the District met its statutory obligation under section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her/his request delivered to the District on November 24, 1998, X asked to see the data the District relied upon to characterize Y&apos;s progress or needs at her/his Periodic Review. The District responded, four working days later, by suggesting that X review Y&apos;s file, as it comprised approximately 3000 pages, in order for X to determine what pages s/he wanted copied. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District was obligated, within five or ten working days, to make available for X&apos;s inspection the specific data requested, namely, the data the District used as a basis for its assessment of Y at Y&apos;s Periodic Review. The District did not do so. Instead of responding to X&apos;s specific request, the District essentially counter-offered an alternative.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subsequently, in a letter dated December 10, 1998, X asked for copies of Y&apos;s entire files. At that point, the District was required to provide X with copies of all educational data about Y within five days of that request. Again, the District did not do so. Nearly two months after requesting copies of all data about, and one month after X started inspecting Y&apos;s files and making repeated unsuccessful requests for copies, X finally had copies of most, but not all, of Y&apos;s records. The District did not meet its obligation to X under Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 3
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated August 25, 1999, and delivered to the District on that date, X wrote to Dr. Giroux and requested a copy of the videotape of [Y&apos;s] IEP [Individualized Education Program] meeting held on August 24, 1999 (which the district taped). This videotape is private data, but would be considered educational data. This appears to be public data under . . . Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District provided a copy of the videotape with a letter dated September 10, 1999. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The videotape requested by Respondent constitutes data on individuals including personnel data subject to the provision of Minn. Stat.section 13.03, subd. 3 and educational data on Y&apos; subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd.3. Following a review of the videotape as well as arranging for a copy, the District responded to the request within 12 days, which satisfies the requirement of Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3. The nature of the videotape does not provide the convenience of culling only the educational data separate and apart from other data. As such, the District&apos;s response was appropriate and reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Cady appears to suggest that the videotape contains both private educational data on Y, and public personnel data, which are classified as either private or public, under section 13.43. He concludes that the District&apos;s response was appropriate under section 13.03, which sets forth the statutory time frame requirements for responding to a request for public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner disagrees. The nature of the videotape, i.e., data about Y&apos;s IEP meeting, are data that relate to Y. As such, those data are educational data, which are private under section 13.32 and FERPA, and the appropriate time frame is that provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3. The District provided X a copy of the videotape 15 working days after receiving X&apos;s request. It was required to do so within ten working days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Issue 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) responded appropriately to a June 3, 1999, request for access to attorney bills related to Y if the data are public data. However, if the data are private educational data about Y because they are data that relate to Y as a student, then the District did not comply with X&apos;s request within the statutory time frame in effect at the time of X&apos;s request.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                            Issue 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) did not respond appropriately to a November 23, 1998, request for access to educational data about Y. The District should have made the specific data requested, i.e., data that formed the basis for certain conclusions, available for X&apos;s inspection within five working days following its receipt of the request.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             Issue 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District #11 (Anoka-Hennepin) did not respond appropriately to an August 25, 1999, request for access to a videotape of a meeting to discuss Y&apos;s IEP. The District should have provided X a copy of the videotape within ten working days after receiving X&apos;s request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 15, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267343</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney bills</Title><Id>266711</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>IEP (Individual Education Plans)</Title><Id>266338</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photos, videotapes</Title><Id>266317</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-037</Title><title>Opinion 99 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267332&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-11-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities properly withhold from &quot;M&quot; data concerning complaints made about M?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 15, 1999; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 13, 1999, IPA received a letter from Christina Clark, an attorney, on behalf of her client, M. In this letter, Ms. Clark asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding M&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities ( MnSCU ). Ms. Clark&apos;s request required clarification with IPA staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Clark&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Morris Anderson, Chancellor of MnSCU. The purposes of this letter, dated September 21, 1999, were to inform him of Ms. Clark&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MnSCU&apos;s position. On September 30, 1999, IPA received a response from Tomas L. Stafford, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of MnSCU. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                M was an instructor at one of the member colleges of MnSCU. M requested copies of personnel and any inactive civil investigative data about her/himself, in the form of a consent to release data dated May 21, 1999, and submitted to Mr. Stafford. The heading on the form stated that the Authorization was for the release of public and private data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, which is codified at Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. In the consent to release, M authorized the release to her/himself, made reference to data in M&apos;s personnel files and records, and stated that the specific records s/he was requesting were unknown to me.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a cover letter submitted with M&apos;s consent, Ms. Clark stated to Mr. Stafford [b]y the time I got your message about having [M] simply write and request that the data be sent to [M], I had already modified the release and forwarded it to [M]. Accordingly, I&apos;m using the release instead of your suggestion. However, I assume the modified release achieves the same result as your suggestion. In response, M received certain data from MnSCU.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Clark, M requested the data in order to prepare for a grievance arbitration, which was brought against MnSCU on M&apos;s behalf by the United Technical College Educators (UTCE). During the arbitration hearing, a MnSCU employee testified that she had received complaints against M, . . . and that she had documented these complaints and maintained them in a file in her office . . . [and during her testimony, she read from those documents.] The documents detailing those complaints were not included in the data MnSCU provided to M in response to her/his May 21, 1999, data request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Clark asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities properly withhold from M data concerning complaints made about M? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data are data about an individual that are collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation. According to section 13.39, subdivision 3, inactive civil investigative data are public, unless the release of the data would jeopardize another pending civil legal action, and except for those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law. Private data are accessible to the subject of the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Stafford stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The request was unusual in form, because, instead of simply requesting personnel data relating to himself, [M] signed a form release intended to be used to permit the release of employee data to a third party. Nonetheless, the college accepted the document and proceeded to comply with [M&apos;s] request. Because [M] used a form intended for the release of information to a third party, [M&apos;s] request for data was confusing. Furthermore, [M] did not specifically describe the personnel data that [s/he] wished to review. . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The college administrator who responded to [M&apos;s] request understood it as a request for inactive civil investigative data and for [M&apos;s] official personnel file, as defined by the UTCE contract and maintained pursuant to the terms of that contract. The college did not maintain inactive investigative data on [M]. . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    According to Ms. Clark&apos;s letter [to the Commissioner requesting this opinion], [M] intended to provide the documents to UTCE to prepare for a grievance arbitration. [M] did not indicate to the college that [s/he] intended to use the documents in [M&apos;s] grievance proceeding. In fact, [M] did not indicate to the college what use [s/he] intended to make of the documents requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Stafford further stated that because MnSCU had provided UTCE with copies of M&apos;s official personnel file prior to M&apos;s request, that UTCE should have known that MnSCU had understood [M&apos;s] request as a request for his official personnel file. Mr. Stafford also wrote: [g]iven the lack of specificity in [M&apos;s] request, it was incumbent upon [M] to contact the college to explain that the scope of [her/his] request extended beyond [M&apos;s] official personnel file to all personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Stafford stated that MnSCU does not dispute that the data in question are available for M&apos;s review, subject to possible redaction of private student data pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner agrees that it was unusual for M to make her/his data request in the form of a consent to release data to her/himself. It is perhaps understandable that MNSCU was confused by M&apos;s request. However, the request form refers to private and public personnel data and references section 13.43. M clearly requested access to personnel data maintained about her/him by MnSCU pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 13, not data in the official personnel file as defined by the employment contract. M stated in her/his request that s/he did not know the specific data MnSCU maintained about M, which M presumably would have been able to identify if her/his request had been limited to the data specified in the contract to be included in the official file.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    MnSCU should not have interpreted M&apos;s request as being limited to the official file, and MnSCU should have provided M with all the private or public data it maintains about M, with appropriate redactions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, in order to avoid the confusion that arose in this instance, MnSCU might establish specific procedures for access by a data subject to public or private data, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 8. It then could rely upon those procedures to clarify an otherwise confusing request for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Clark is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities withheld from M data concerning complaints made about M, which it was required to make available. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 15, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267332</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-036</Title><title>Opinion 99 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267524&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-26T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 16D.06, subdivision 1, and 201.091, subdivision 4, may the Minnesota Secretary of State disseminate the entire voter registration file to the Minnesota Collection Enterprise division of the Minnesota Department of Revenue?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 26, 1999; Minnesota Secretary of State</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 2, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mary Kiffmeyer, Minnesota Secretary of State. In this letter, Secretary Kiffmeyer asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether certain data maintained by her Office may be disseminated to a division of the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Secretary Kiffmeyer&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Minnesota Revenue Commissioner Matthew Smith. The purposes of this letter, dated September 9, 1999, were to inform him of Secretary Kiffmeyer&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for Revenue&apos;s position on the issue. On September 24, 1999, IPA received a response from Commissioner Smith. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Minnesota Secretary of State maintains data about every registered voter in the State. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 201.091, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules Part 8200.6400, the Secretary maintains a public information list that contains the following data elements: voter&apos;s name, address, telephone number (if provided by the voter), party choice in the preceding presidential primary election, and the voter&apos;s record of voting in elections during the previous five calendar years. According to Secretary Kiffmeyer, date of birth data are also included.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Minnesota Collection Enterprise (MCE), a division of the Department of Revenue, is charged with recovering money owed to the State of Minnesota. According to Secretary Kiffmeyer, MCE has asked her to provide it with access to the entire voter registration file, so that it may use telephone numbers and date of birth information contained therein, as part of its efforts to locate debtors.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Secretary Kiffmeyer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 16D.06, subdivision 1, and 201.091, subdivision 4, may the Minnesota Secretary of State disseminate the entire voter registration file to the Minnesota Collection Enterprise division of the Minnesota Department of Revenue? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. In general, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, access to public data shall be provided to any person, without regard to the nature of that person&apos;s interest in the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An exception to that general Rule is found at section 201.091, subdivision 4, which provides that an individual may neither inspect nor get a copy of the voter registration list unless s/he first states in writing that the data will be used only for certain purposes, none of which is applicable to MCE. In relevant part, that subdivision provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     The secretary of state may provide copies of the public information lists and other information from the statewide registration system &lt;u&gt;for uses related to&lt;/u&gt; elections, political activities, or in response to a law enforcement inquiry from a public official concerning a failure to comply with any criminal statute or any state or local tax statute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;Before inspecting&lt;/u&gt; the public information list or obtaining a list of voters or other information from the list, the individual shall provide identification to the public official having custody of the public information list and shall state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law enforcement. Requests to examine or obtain information from the public information lists or the statewide registration system must be made and processed in the manner provided in the rules of the secretary of state. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, MCE has broad authority to gain access to not public or restricted data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16D.06, subdivision 1:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;Notwithstanding chapter 13 or any other state law classifying or restricting access to government data&lt;/u&gt;, upon request from the commissioner [of the Department of Revenue] or the attorney general, state agencies, political subdivisions, and statewide systems shall disseminate not public data to the commissioner or the attorney general for the sole purpose of collecting debt. &lt;u&gt;Not public data disseminated under this subdivision is limited to financial data of the debtor or data related to the location of the debtor or the assets of the debtor&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In order to determine whether MCE may gain access to data in the voter registration file is dependent upon whether section 201.091, subdivision 4, constitutes a state law restricting &lt;u&gt;access&lt;/u&gt; to government data. The Commissioner is of the opinion that it is. While on its face, section 201.092, subdivision 4, appears to place restrictions upon use of the data, not access, it is also the case that an individual may not even inspect a voter registration file without first stating, in writing, that the data will not be used for any purpose other than those authorized. Therefore, the Commissioner believes that section 201.091, subdivision 4, is a law restricting access to data, within the meaning of section 16D.06, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, MCE may gain access to data in the voter registration file which are data related to the location of the debtor. Secretary Kiffmeyer stated that she agrees that section 16D.06, subdivision 1, provides authority for her Office to disseminate voter registration data to MCE. The extent of the data allowed to be disseminated is at question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    MCE has requested access to the entire voter registration file. The Commissioner does not believe that MCE&apos;s authority to gain access to data under section 16D.06 extends to the entire voter registration file. The statutory authority given to MCE is authority to gain access to data in the voter registration file to locate a debtor. As provided by statute, MCE may gain access only to the data in the file that are related to the location of the debtor. The Commissioner does not believe that MCE requires data about every registered voter in the State in order to locate certain debtors. Further, the Commissioner is of the opinion that MCE may gain access only to those data in the file that could aid in locating a debtor. Clearly, the debtor&apos;s address and telephone number are data that potentially could help to locate her/him. Date of birth data are more problematic in terms of relating to location of a debtor. However, the Commissioner reasonably concludes that the debtor&apos;s date of birth could help MCE in some circumstances identify and locate the debtor. MCE should not gain access to other data in the voter registration file, such as voting history, which are not data that relate to the location of a debtor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Secretary Kiffmeyer and MCE have also asked the Commissioner to address whether, for example, data in the file about all the John Does in Hennepin County, qualify as data related to the location of the debtor John Doe. If so, then MCE would be entitled to gain access to data about individuals with the same name as a debtor MCE is trying to locate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner on that point, Commissioner Smith wrote: [t]hus, the issue is whether the phrase in question - related to&apos; - is broad enough to authorize disclosure of data on the names that are the same as the debtor in that county when MCE cannot locate its debtor? MCE&apos;s view is yes, and that view is supported by the language of the law, the common usage and definition of the term, and by court case law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Smith provided common usage definitions of related, pursuant to section 645.08 (canons of statutory construction), and stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Applying these definitions into section 16D.06, subdivision 1, data related to the location of the debtor&apos; means data connected or associated with locating the debtor. Or it means data connected by reason of established or discoverable relation. Thus, data that provides MCE some connection or association with the location of the debtor, is data that may be disclosed to MCE. Accordingly, when the other will connect MCE to its data, or help MCE locate the right debtor for MCE, that is data related to&apos; the location of the debtor, and thus authorized to be disclosed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Smith continued:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    It must be emphasized that MCE is not proposing it has the right to see anything and everything so long as it is remotely or kind of&apos; related to its work. Of course not. However, based on the guidance of the plain definition of the terms, MCE&apos;s working guideline is that it would have the right to see data that connects, associates, or helps MCE locate the debtor, meaning the right debtor, for MCE. Applying the common definition to the factual situation before us, if there is more than one John Doe in Hennepin County, and there is not a match with an address, MCE would have the right to access the data on the other John Does in that county to locate the right debtor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner disagrees with Commissioner Smith&apos;s position. In enacting the limiting language of section 16D.06, subdivision 1, the Legislature clearly intended, given the extremely broad authority given to MCE, to impose some reasonable limitations on that authority. The Legislature accomplished that limitation by stating that while MCE can gain access to virtually all data maintained by the State and its political subdivisions, the access must be . . . limited to financial data of the debtor or data related to the location of the debtor or the assets of the debtor. To accept MCE&apos;s position would be to accept the proposition, in the example presented, that because MCE is entitled to access to data about debtors, it is also entitled to access to data about individuals who are not debtors, simply because it would facilitate access to information about the debtor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature had the opportunity to include such language in section 16D.06. It chose not to do so. Instead, it limited access in every instance to data relating to the debtor and not to any and all data that could facilitate MCE&apos;s access to data about the debtor. The Commissioner cannot conclude that the grant of authority to MCE extends to any and all data as suggested by MCE.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Secretary Kiffmeyer is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 16D.06, subdivision 1, and 201.091, subdivision 4, the Minnesota Secretary of State may not disseminate the entire voter registration file to the Minnesota Collection Enterprise division of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, but may disseminate only data in the file that are related to the location of a debtor, i.e., address, telephone number and date of birth of an actual debtor. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 26, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267524</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Voter registration files (201.091)</Title><Id>266385</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-035</Title><title>Opinion 99 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267876&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data, compiled by the affected organization and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, classified as not public trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, or any other law: certain data related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 26, 1999; Minnesota Department of Revenue</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 3, 1999, IPA received a letter from Matthew G. Smith, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, in which he asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Revenue. That opinion, 99-009, was issued on May 14, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 21, 1999, Commissioner Smith provided clarification on a factual question relating to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267117&quot; title=&quot;99-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-009&lt;/a&gt;, and asked the Commissioner of Administration either to re-examine the conclusion reached in the earlier opinion, or issue a new opinion based on the additional information provided. After considerable examination and internal discussion, the Commissioner of Administration determined that, in this instance, he would issue a new opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Robert W. Mosford, the data requestor in this case, submitted comments for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Commissioners Smith asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the following data, compiled by the affected organization and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, classified as not public trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, or any other law: certain data related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267117&quot; title=&quot;99-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;v&lt;/a&gt;b:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Revenue is responsible for enforcing the Minnesota Unfair Cigarette Sales Act,&apos; Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30-325D.42. SUPERVALU, a company, submitted cost of doing business&apos; data to Revenue to comply with the requirements of section 325D.32, subdivision 10(c). A Revenue inspector obtained additional information during an on-site review. According to Commissioner Smith, a competitor of SUPERVALU has requested access to all of the data associated with the SUPERVALU filing, including supporting financial details, formulas, methodology, and calculations.&apos; . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The actual information consists of:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A table of individual named employees&apos; salaries, with cost allocations to cigarette sales;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;shipping costs and trucking income attributable to stated volumes of cigarettes shipped;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;inventory and product turnover information;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;warehouse, building, stamping and payroll expenses;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;sales volumes; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;other financial summary information.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SUPERVALU maintains that the data in question, which a Revenue inspector obtained directly from company files, are classified as trade secret under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&apos;Trade secret information&apos; means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under section 13.37, subdivision 2, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267117&quot; title=&quot;99-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-009&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated that, although the record was not clear, it was his understanding that the data in question were compiled by the Department of Revenue, not SUPERVALU. Based on that understanding, the Commissioner concluded that the data did not qualify for trade secret protection under section 13.37. In his May 21, 1999, letter, Commissioner Smith stated: [p]lease be advised that the data in question are, in fact, verbatim copies of data compiled by SUPERVALU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the Commissioner of Administration has reviewed the entire file to determine whether Revenue and/or SUPERVALU have demonstrated, through substantive evidence, that the compilation of data in question qualifies as trade secret under section 13.37. Further, the Commissioner intends, in this opinion, to set forth in greater detail the criteria that must be met for data to be protected as trade secret under section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SUPERVALU&apos;s position is that the data in question are a compilation within the meaning of section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). To be considered trade secret under section 13.37, government data must satisfy four elements that comprise the statutory definition: 1) it must be a collection of information; 2) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization; 3) that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and 4) that, a) derives independent, i.e., on its own, economic value, b) from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by, c) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order for a compilation to be a trade secret within the meaning of section 13.37, the data must be a compilation that, in and of itself, is information that derives independent economic value from not being known to others. A compilation of information which is compiled by the affected organization in its normal course of carrying on its operations, such as a list of employees and their salaries, is not the type of compilation that should qualify for trade secret protection under section 13.37. To be consistent with other items listed in the first element of the trade secret definition, a compilation that qualifies for trade secret protection ought to be a unique kind of compilation, the preparation of which results in some kind in some kind of direct economic gain to the compiler.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Acceptance of the position advocated by SUPERVALU would have significant implications for the treatment of data submitted by private companies to government entities. For example, there is already a considerable body of specific statutory treatment of various types of financial and commercial information submitted by companies seeking loans and other benefits from government entities. The Commissioner is convinced that in allowing compilations to be possible trade secrets, the Legislature must have intended something other than just those ordinary compilations of information that businesses prepare as part of their day-to-day operations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in question, or access to the data, were clearly supplied by SUPERVALU, and therefore satisfy the second statutory element to be trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third element requires that the data in question are the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy. In a 1989 memorandum, Revenue informed cigarette and tobacco distributors, including SUPERVALU, of the following: [p]lease keep in mind that all information submitted to the department under this law [the Minnesota Unfair Cigarette Sales Act] is public. Therefore, after we review the detailed cost data, we will most likely return it to the distributor. There is nothing in the record to indicate that SUPERVALU, having been provided the notice in that memorandum for ten years, made any assertion of trade secret protection for the data it routinely provided to Revenue over the ten-year period until Revenue notified the company that it had received a request for access to the data by a SUPERVALU competitor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is perhaps understandable that SUPERVALU relied upon Revenue&apos;s statement that the data likely would be returned. In the instance of the specific data at issue here, SUPERVALU appears also to have relied upon a promise of confidentiality from the Revenue inspector who reviewed the company records. However, SUPERVALU&apos;s acknowledgment of the 1989 Revenue memorandum raises questions about the extent of the company&apos;s efforts to maintain the secrecy of the data. It is difficult to accept a claim that the data are trade secret given that SUPERVALU has been on notice for nearly a decade that Revenue considered the data to be public and SUPERVALU continued to provide the data to Revenue without making trade secret claims or labeling the data in any way as trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the record before the Commissioner, namely: 1) that he does not know the nature of the verbal promises of confidentiality that a Revenue employee made to SUPERVALU; 2) the clear statement in the 1989 Revenue memorandum that the data are public; and 3) the fact that SUPERVALU apparently took no action for ten years to secure the data, the Commissioner cannot conclude that the third element has been satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is concerned that the 1989 memorandum contains what appears to be a promise to return official government records to regulated companies. In addition, a Revenue inspector may have made promises of confidentiality inconsistent with the statement in the memorandum that the data are public. Any indication made by Revenue that records would be returned, where the records in question document Revenue&apos;s official actions relative to its administration of the cigarette tax laws, had no legal effect. Given the requirements of the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, and the Records Management Act, section 138.163 et. seq., such a promise would be void as against public policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The last element of the definition of trade secret has three sub-elements: 1) the data must have independent economic value from 2) not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, 3) other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. On this point, in their comments submitted in connection with &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267117&quot; title=&quot;99-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-009&lt;/a&gt;, Thomas L. Fabel and Thomas F. Pursell, attorneys for SUPERVALU, stated the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The fact that the information in question is in fact being sought by a SUPERVALU competitor, who cannot obtain it by proper means, says practically all that needs to be said about this final element in the definition of trade secret data. [The data in question] are among the company&apos;s most closely guarded commercial secrets in its cigarette or any other line.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The disclosure of this information to SUPERVALU competitors would give them a ready-made package of insights into the company&apos;s strengths, weaknesses and operations that only SUPERVALU&apos;s management now has. Knowing the identities and salaries of key employees would permit the competitors to raid fully trained and experienced personnel in a labor-tight market. The loss of this work force would be a severe blow to SUPERVALU and a great boon to the company&apos;s competitors. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Commissioner&apos;s view, Mr. Fabel and Mr. Pursell have not provided sufficiently detailed information as to each sub-element to support their position that the compilation of data derives actual or potential independent economic value to a competitor. First, they state that simply because a competitor wants a company&apos;s data, it must mean the data has independent economic value. There are other reasons, having nothing to do with economic value in the data, for a competitor to be interested in data collected as part of a Revenue audit. For example, the competitor may want to see if SUPERVALU is receiving the same treatment from Revenue that the competitor is receiving. Second, Mr. Fabel and Mr. Pursell do not explain how SUPERVALU&apos;s costs for the data described above at page 2 would give a competitor a ready-made package of insights into the company&apos;s strengths, weaknesses and operations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this instance, a simple statement that public access to these data would give a competitor insight into the company&apos;s strengths and weaknesses is not sufficient. What is needed to overcome the strong presumption that the data submitted to Revenue are public is a detailed, specific discussion of why access to the data would give a competitor a distinct economic advantage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided with specific, detailed information about the independent economic value of the data compilation; why it is not generally known and not readily ascertainable to its competitors; and explicitly how a competitor can obtain economic value from the data&apos;s disclosure or use. Therefore, the fourth element of section 13.37 has not been satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order for the Commissioner to make definitive conclusions as to whether data are trade secret, the affected organization or the government agency, which are in the best position to make those determinations, must provide sufficient detailed information to demonstrate that all four elements of the definition of trade secret are satisfied. In this case, neither SUPERVALU nor Revenue has done so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in his comments, Mr. Mosford stated that the data he is seeking from Revenue are merely an extension of the costs reported quarterly and annually to [SUPERVALU&apos;s] stockholders. . . . Mr. Mosford asked how data made public by the company can be considered trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that the best recourse to resolve issues such as those raised by Commissioner Smith is for the Legislature to consider amending Chapter 13 to classify as not public certain financial data provided to government entities by the private sector.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his May 21, 1999, letter, Commissioner Smith also asked the Commissioner of Administration to address the following: whether, if the data in question are determined to be public, the issue of salary information of SUPERVALU employees can be resolved in some way other than a temporary classification, given that the data requestor has agreed to the redaction of employee names.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner observed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267117&quot; title=&quot;99-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 99-009&lt;/a&gt;, it appears that Revenue obtained specific salary information on SUPERVALU employees that would not be protected from public disclosure, and suggested that, if that is the case, Revenue should consider applying for a temporary classification (see section 13.06) to protect the data. Revenue may be able to reach agreement with the data requestor in this case, but would face the same problem if it receives another request for the data from someone not amenable to that solution. Therefore, the Commissioner is still of the opinion that temporary classification is the most appropriate route for Revenue to take, until the Legislature has determined whether it wants to take action on the larger issues described above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Smith raised by is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data submitted by SUPERVALU to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42, are not trade secret pursuant to section 13.37, because the burden of satisfying all four elements required to be trade secret has not been met. Therefore, the data are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 26, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267876</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Promise of confidentiality</Title><Id>267043</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Until Legislature can act</Title><Id>267044</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Independent economic value from not being generally known (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266951</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-034</Title><title>Opinion 99 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267400&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) respond appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: &quot;Copies of the pay stubs for the first four months and the last four months of employment by W. D. Schock, Co.&quot; (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
Did the MAC respond appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: &quot;The resumes, curriculum vitae, job applications, promotional write-ups and any and all of the records given at any time to the MAC as to each employee&apos;s job qualifications.&quot; (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
Is the MAC&apos;s charge of $899 for copies of public government data requested on December 31, 1998, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 22, 1999; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 11, 1999, IPA received a letter dated March 8, 1999, from Dr. Gregory Ide. In his letter, Dr. Ide stated that he wished to appeal denials of his requests for access to data from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). After clarification, IPA and Dr. Ide/Wendy Share (Dr. Ide&apos;s associate) agreed that the Commissioner would address three issues in an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Anderson, General Counsel for the MAC, in response to Dr. Ide&apos;s and Ms. Share&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 10, 1999, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On September 2, 1999, IPA received comments, dated same, from Gregory Bistram, an attorney representing the MAC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts is as follows. On January 4, 1999, Dr. Ide requested the following information from the MAC: (1) Copies of pay stubs for the &lt;u&gt;first&lt;/u&gt; four months and the &lt;u&gt;last&lt;/u&gt; four months of employment by W.D. Schock Co. (a consultant to the MAC), and (2) The resumes, curriculum vitae, job applications, promotional write-ups and any and all other records given at any time to the [MAC] as to each employee&apos;s job qualifications. Dr. Ide asked for the above information as related to a list of 25 Shock employees he provided to the MAC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                MAC staff responded in a letter dated January 19, 1999, by stating, The documents requested are documents which are not retained by MAC. In his opinion request, Dr. Ide argued that the MAC should have retained the pay stub records. Regarding issue number 2, MAC staff stated, Significant staff time and expense will be involved in locating and gathering this information. MAC staff wrote again on January 29, 1999, and stated that a total of 7 copies were located. In his opinion request, Dr. Ide argued that the 7 pages apparently concern only the one or two employees already known to me. Again, the MAC is required to keep employee records sufficient to demonstrate that the workers paid with state and federal funds were qualified to receive them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also at issue in this opinion is a December 31, 1998, request Dr. Ide made to the MAC. He asked for certain information and was advised in a letter dated January 29, 1999, that the total cost for copies would be $899. Dr. Ide objected to the charge and asked the Commissioner to address this issue in an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bistram wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                [t]he MAC notes that W.D. Schock Company, Inc. ( Schock ) is a consultant to MAC with regard to certain noise abatement, land acquisition and relocation programs. The professional services provided by Schock to the MAC are pursuant to the August 16, 1993 Acquisition Consultant Agreement ( Agreement ) which is attached...Schock is obligated under various provisions of the Agreement (and its exhibits) to provide certain documents to the MAC. Other than the documents provided by Schock to the MAC under the Agreement, the MAC does not have any ownership interest in Schock documents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Dr. Ide and Ms. Share asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) respond appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: Copies of the pay stubs for the first four months and the last four months of employment by W. D. Schock, Co. (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the MAC respond appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: The resumes, curriculum vitae, job applications, promotional write-ups and any and all of the records given at any time to the MAC as to each employee&apos;s job qualifications. (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the MAC&apos;s charge of $899 for copies of public government data requested on December 31, 1998, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 17, the MAC is a state agency and is therefore subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Generally speaking, private enterprises, such as Schock, are not subject to Chapter 13. However, if a private entity enters into a contractual relationship with a government entity, the private entity, itself, or the data created/collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations, may be subject to Chapter 13. One possibility is that the contractual relationship fits one of the specific situations accounted for in Chapter 13 (see sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5. None of these apply to the relationship between the MAC and Schock.) Another possibility is that one of the contract provisions subjects the private entity to Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    At this point, the Commissioner would like to point out that on August 1, 1999, a new provision in Chapter 13 went into effect requiring that certain language be included in any contract between government entities and private persons. The new provision states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (See Minnesota Session Laws, 1999, Chapter 250, article 1, section 42.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The MAC and Schock began their contractual relationship on August 16, 1993; therefore, their relationship is not subject to the new provision in Chapter 13. However, Schock, itself, or the related data may be subject to Chapter 13 if the contract between the MAC and Schock so provides.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first issue of this opinion, therefore, regards whether members of the public (in this case, Dr. Ide and Ms. Share) are entitled to gain access to pay stubs of Schock employees pursuant to the terms of the contract between the MAC and Schock. The answer depends upon whether there exists a contractual relationship between Schock and the MAC and, if so, what language the contract contains. The MAC and Schock entered into a contract for services on August 16, 1993; the services to be performed regard the MAC&apos;s Land Acquisition and Relocation Program. Both the requestors and the MAC provided a copy of this contract to the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the contract, there do not appear to be any provisions that subject Schock, itself, to Chapter 13. There is, however, language that requires Schock to provide the MAC with certain information, such as a concise description of the services to be provided, an estimated time table for completion of the services and an itemized break-down of estimated cost for such services (see Article 2). This provision does not specifically mention or appear to imply that Schock must provide pay stub information to the MAC. There is, however, one provision that could be applicable. It states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    At the time of completion or termination of the work, CONSULTANT [Schock] shall make available to the OWNER [the MAC] all maps, tracings, reports, resource materials and other documents pertaining to the work or to the Project. All such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the OWNER or others on extension of the Project or any other project.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If, pursuant to this provision, Schock were to provide the employee pay stubs to the MAC, the information contained in the pay stubs would become government data. However, based on Mr. Bistram&apos;s comments, this does not appear to have occurred. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Dr. Ide was advised by the MAC...that the requested Schock pay stubs were not retained by MAC. This response was correct under [Chapter 13]. Technically, the correct response is that this information is not maintained by the MAC.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The Schock pay stubs are documents strictly internal to Schock. The Schock pay stubs are not government data within the meaning of [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summation, nothing in Chapter 13 (prior to August 1, 1999, and this dispute) requires that the MAC obtain or maintain the pay stubs of Schock employees, and it does not appear that such records are in the possession of the MAC. Thus, the pay stubs requested are not government data and Chapter 13 does not regulate their accessibility. It should be noted that in reaching this conclusion, the Commissioner is not commenting on other state or federal laws that may impact whether the MAC is required to acquire and maintain the pay stub data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue of this opinion is whether the MAC&apos;s response, i.e., providing Dr. Ide with seven pages of Schock employee information, was adequate. Dr. Ide argued that the MAC is required to keep employee records sufficient to demonstrate that the workers paid with state and federal funds were qualified to receive them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bistram wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The MAC has properly responded to this request and quite frankly is puzzled as to why the issue has been presented to the Department of Administration. The request is limited to Schock materials presented to the MAC and, therefore, is properly limited to government data as noted in the MAC response to Issue No. 1 above. The MAC advised Dr. Ide by letter dated January 29, 1999 that seven pages of Schock employee information were found in the MAC records.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the Commissioner discussed in relation to issue one, there does not appear to be any provision in Chapter 13 (prior to August 1, 1999, and this dispute) or in the 1993 contract between the MAC and Schock that requires the MAC to maintain records of Schock employees. (Again, as previously stated, it should be noted that in reaching this conclusion, the Commissioner is not commenting on other state or federal laws that may impact whether the MAC is required to acquire and maintain the Schock employee data.) However, because the MAC is in possession of such data - apparently seven pages worth - it appears those data are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. The MAC provided these documents to Dr. Ide in response to his January 4, 1999, request. Therefore, it appears the MAC responded appropriately.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (The Commissioner also wishes to note that Dr. Ide and Ms. Share did not indicate in their opinion request that they wanted the Commissioner to address the issue of the MAC&apos;s charge for the seven copies.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third issue regards a fee the MAC assessed Dr. Ide for copies of government data concerning the MAC&apos;s Part 150 Land Acquisition and Relocation Project with respect to homes in the vicinity of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data. However, as the Commissioner has stated in numerous advisory opinions, Chapter 13 does not require government entities either to create new data or format data to fit a particular request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, Dr. Ide wrote to MAC on December 31, 1998. He stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Earlier this year I sent the attached Data Practices Request to you. The request was answered by Robert Swenson, an employee of W.D. Schock. I now find that numerous addresses were omitted in the data supplied...could you please update the information supplied with a complete list of ALL the payments made by correct address for:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (1) address
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (2) the MAC appraisal amount
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (3) the second (owner) appraisal amount
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (4) acquisition value
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (5) eligible (rhp) relocation amount
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If the relocation or other payments are being contested, please include any amounts which have so far been determined or paid. Could you also please:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (A) add the date on which item No. 5 was paid for each homeowner,
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (B) in each case in which the entry indicates not eligible for relocation benefit, give the reasons as to why the owner was not eligible.
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (C) in each case in which there were renters, please state whether the renters were related to the owner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In responding to Dr. Ide&apos;s request, the MAC wrote the following to Dr. Ide on January 19, 1999:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    I contacted Bob Swenson at W.D. Schock Company and requested an update of the information he provided to you on February 20, 1998. Updating and supplementing this information may involve significant staff time and expense. Please be advised that under MAC&apos;s Minnesota Government Data Practices Policy, photocopies cost $.25 per page.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a follow-up letter dated January 29, 1999, the MAC wrote to Dr. Ide:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Pursuant to your request of December 31, 1998, an update of the information Mr. Robert Swenson from W.D. Schock provided to you on February 20, 1998 has been completed....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    As you know, it is MAC&apos;s policy to charge $.25 for each photocopy in connection with information requests. The updated chart is comprised of 10 photocopies; therefore, the cost of photocopy expense is $2.50, and is due to MAC prior to receiving the report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Enclosed please find a memorandum from Mr. Swenson to myself dated January 25, 1999, outlining the estimated amount of staff time that may be incurred in producing the additional information requested in your request of December 31, 1998...As you will note, Mr. Swenson states that it may take approximately 16.5 hours for W.D. Schock staff to attempt to locate the information you requested. The information is located off site and is not readily available, and significant staff time and expense will be expended in order to locate the requested information. As you know, it is MAC&apos;s policy to charge for the time spent to locate requested information. Therefore, the estimate for your information request is $899.00, since these costs will ultimately be billed to MAC.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Swenson discussed the copying fee in a memo to the MAC dated January 25, 1999, [The requested] information is not readily available to me and would require significant staff time to retrieve the necessary files along with the research involved with each file. (Emphasis added.) Mr. Swenson then broke down the request into three parts and estimated the time an Administrative Assistant ($43/hour) and Relocation Consultant ($72/hour) would spend responding to each part of the request. The total cost was $899; $230 for the first part of the request, $259 for the second part, and $410 for the third part.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bistram wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The requestors were advised by MAC via letter dated January 29, 1999 that the estimate for responding to their December 31, 1998 request was $899.00 for locating the requested materials plus photocopying expenses. It should be noted that the request would involve going into most, if not all, of the Schock files and retrieving information. Schock provided an estimate of its staff time to satisfy the request. A copy of the Schock memo to MAC dated January 25, 1999 containing this estimate is attached hereto as Exhibit C. As noted in Exhibit C, Schock has identified the cost of its employee time on an hourly rate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the MAC&apos;s response to Dr. Ide and also on Mr. Bistram&apos;s comments, it appears that the MAC considers the data Dr. Ide requested on December 31, 1998, to be government data. The reason for this is not entirely clear to the Commissioner. It could be that the MAC collected the data. It could also be that Schock collected the data in fulfilling its contractual obligations and has provided the data to the MAC. In either of these cases, it appears that Schock is housing these particular government data although the MAC technically owns the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information provided, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Dr. Ide&apos;s request was for data as they currently exist or whether the MAC/Schock, in order to respond to his request, had to reformat existing data (in essence, a creation of new data). In the case of the former, section 13.03, subdivision 3, sets forth the allowable charge, i.e., the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data. (See also Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205.0300, for additional guidance.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the MAC/Schock was required to reformat, i.e., create new data, to respond to Dr. Ide, the provisions of Chapter 13 do not apply. Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data, but rather to provide access (inspection or copies) to data currently in existence. In situations where an entity has been asked to create new data, the request is not technically a data practices request and any charge levied by a government entity to respond to the request is not regulated by state law. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has advised that in such instances, the entity and the requesting party work together to determine an appropriate charge. In addition, if an individual&apos;s request is such that a government entity will need to create new data to respond, the government entity needs to clarify that with the requestor before moving forward.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, if the MAC determined that the data Dr. Ide requested did not exist as he requested them, and responding meant a creation of new data, the MAC should have so advised Dr. Ide. The MAC/Schock and Dr. Ide could have worked out a mutually agreeable charge or, Dr. Ide could have revised his request and inspected (free of charge) the existing public data related to his request, taking notes of or asking the MAC/Schock to make copies of the specific information he was seeking.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Dr. Ide and Ms. Share is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) responded appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: Copies of the pay stubs for the first four months and the last four months of employment by W. D. Schock, Co. (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Chapter 13, it appears that the MAC responded appropriately to a January 4, 1999, request for the following data: The resumes, curriculum vitae, job applications, promotional write-ups and any and all of the records given at any time to the MAC as to each employee&apos;s job qualifications. (Regarding a list of 25 Schock employees whose names the requestor provided to the MAC.)
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Based on the information provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the MAC&apos;s charge of $899 is appropriate. If Dr. Ide&apos;s request was for copies of public data, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, the MAC may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, and for making, certifying, compiling the copies. However, if Dr. Ide&apos;s request was for the creation of new data, any charge levied by the MAC falls outside the purview of Chapter 13.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 22, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267400</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Appropriate response generally</Title><Id>266399</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-033</Title><title>Opinion 99 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267674&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-07T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Human Rights respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to all data maintained about him/her?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 1999; Minnesota Department of Human Rights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 18, 1999, IPA received a fax from L. In the letter, L requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (DHR).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Janeen Rosas, Commissioner of DHR, in response to L&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 23, 1999, were to inform Commissioner Rosas of L&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DHR&apos;s position. On September 7, 1999, IPA received a response, dated September 1, 1999, from Richard Varco, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated August 2, 1999, L wrote to Commissioner Rosas. He stated, I am a subject under [L referred to a file number]. I am now requesting access to all data maintained under my name by the MDHR. Above mentioned file was just closed recently...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The DHR responded in a letter dated August 4, 1999. Staff responded, As requested in your letter of August 2, 1999, and as we discussed on August 3rd, I am enclosing a copy of all documents to which you are entitled access for the above-referenced charge. Additional documents may be available to you with a court order.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In L&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Human Rights respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to all data maintained about him/her? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be no dispute that L filed a charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and that the file is now closed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data that the MDHR collects, creates, maintains, etc., are classified at Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363. Data subjects&apos; rights to gain access to investigative data are outlined in two sections. Section 363.06, subdivision 8, provides that the charging party may review the answer of the respondent. Section 363.061, subdivision 3, classifies data contained in closed files:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, human rights investigative data contained in a closed files are private data on individuals or nonpublic data. The name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, the statute under which the action is brought, the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on a person other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner&apos;s memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    b) The Commissioner may make human rights investigative data contained in a closed case file inaccessible to the charging party or the respondent in order to protect medical or other security interests of the parties or third persons.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (The Commissioner assumes clause (b) is not at issue in this opinion because the MDHR has not asserted that medical or security interests are a factor in determining which data are accessible to L.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, subdivision 4 of section 363.061 states the charging party is entitled to gain access to data comprised of materials and documentation provided by a charging party that is part of an open or closed file.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In L&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote, On August 4, 1999, the Commissioner for MDHR made a partial response to my request and informed me to go to court for additional documents. L further stated, MDHR has provided only the documents supplied by me. They have told me that they have many documents provided to them by...but they will not release those documents without a court order.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Varco wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [L] is not entitled to all of the data in the Department&apos;s closed...file. [L] is not entitled to private data on any individual other than [him/herself]....[L] is unable to have access to any nonpublic data in the Department&apos;s closed investigative file other than that to which [s/he] is the subject....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [L] is entitled to certain data in the closed...file...Minn. Stat. section 363.06, subd. 8 (1998), for example, allows [L] to review the answer to the charge submitted by the respondent. Furthermore, Minn. Stat. section 363.061, subd. 4 (1998) provides that materials and documentation provided by [L] to the Department are accessible pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3. The Department has provided [L] with copies of all materials [s/he] submitted to it.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Varco added that certain data in a closed investigative file are public (see section 363.061, subdivision 3) and therefore accessible to L. Mr. Varco wrote, The Department has provided [L] with copies of all public data in the closed...file. In answering L&apos;s charge that the MDHR had not provided L with certain data, Mr. Varco stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [The MDHR] is...willing to continue to examine the documents in its enclosed [the Commissioner believes Mr. Varco meant closed ] investigative file; to provide [L] access to those documents to which [s/he] has statutory access; and to work with [L] to explain to [him/her] those documents which are available for review, those which are not, and the reasons for that availability or nonavailability.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    L requested access to all data about him/her. Pursuant to section 363.06, subdivision 8, L is entitled to review the respondent&apos;s answer. Further, pursuant to section 363.061, subdivision 3 (a), L is entitled to gain access to data of which s/he is the subject. In addition, L is entitled to gain access to the public data in the closed file (name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, the statute under which the action is brought, the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on a person other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner&apos;s memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown). Finally, pursuant to section 363.061, subdivision 4, L is entitled to gain access to the materials and documentation L submitted as part of his/her charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although not entirely clear, it appears there may be some disagreement between the parties as to which data the MDHR provided to L. A further complication is that the Commissioner cannot clearly discern from Mr. Varco&apos;s comments which data the MDHR asserts it provided to L. L stated that in response to his/her request, the MDHR provided L with only those data L had submitted as part of the charge. Mr. Varco stated that the MDHR provided L with 1) copies of all the materials L submitted and 2) copies of all public data in the closed file. In addition, although Mr. Varco discussed the fact that L is also entitled to private data of which s/he is the subject and to the respondent&apos;s answer, Mr. Varco did not explicitly state that the MDHR had provided such data to L.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner does not know the exact content of the data in the closed file or which specific data the MDHR provided to L. Therefore, he cannot state with certainty whether the MDHR responded appropriately. However, pursuant to Chapter 363 and sections 13.03 and 13.04, L is entitled to gain access to the following data: any private data of which s/he is the subject (not limited to that contained in L&apos;s submissions); any public data, including data contained in his/her submissions; and, the respondent&apos;s answer. If L has not yet gained access to those data, the MDHR should provide them to him/her forthwith.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final point is in order. Given the broad scope of L&apos;s request, i.e., access to all data the MDHR maintains about him/her, if the MDHR has any data about L other than those that make up the investigative file, the MDHR should also be responding to that aspect of L&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue L raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot state, with certainty, whether the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) responded appropriately to L&apos;s - charging party - request for access to all data maintained about him/her. However, Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 363 provide clear guidance as to which data from a closed investigative file L may gain access. Those data include: the public data (name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, the statute under which the action is brought, the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on a person other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner&apos;s memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown); any private data, no matter the source, of which L is the subject; the respondent&apos;s answer; and, materials and documentation that L submitted. If the MDHR has not provided any such data to L, it should do so promptly. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 7, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267674</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Human rights data (Chapter 363A / 363)</Title><Id>266463</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-032</Title><title>Opinion 99 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267770&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department: a security camera tape obtained from a hotel that the Department used in a criminal investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 1999; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 17, 1999, IPA received a letter dated August 11, 1999, from Gregory Roehl, Captain of the Brooklyn Park Police Department. In his letter, Captain Roehl requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Police Department. Also on August 17, 1999, IPA received comments from the Sleep Inn of Brooklyn Park regarding Captain Roehl&apos;s request for an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as Captain Roehl presented them is as follows. In October of 1998, the Police Department was called to the Sleep Inn to investigate a death. As part of the investigation, the Police Department took a video tape from the hotel&apos;s security camera system. A member of the media has asked for a copy of the video tape when the investigation becomes inactive and the investigative data therefore become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Captain Roehl wrote, Is the video tape evidence, property of the hotel to be treated as any other material evidence, such as weapons, or clothing etc. or is it government data which would subject it to [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13]?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Captain Roehl also asked if perhaps the video content is such that it be classified as not public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 5: Photographs which are part of inactive investigative files and which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Captain Roehl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department: a security camera tape obtained from a hotel that the Department used in a criminal investigation?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 5. These data, criminal investigative data, are not public while the investigation is active. When the investigation becomes inactive, the data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The word data is defined as Information, esp. information organized for analysis or used as the basis for a decision. (See &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition&lt;/em&gt;, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1985.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of its investigation, the Brooklyn Park Police Department collected and is maintaining the videotape. The tape is a form of government data because it contains information stored and recorded in a specific medium; as such, it is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, section 13.82, subdivision 5, provides that criminal investigative data are not public during the active phase of an investigation. However, those data, with a few exceptions, become public when the investigation is deemed inactive. Thus, if the Police Department is still investigating the crime, the hotel videotape and any copies thereof are not public. When the case is no longer active, the videotape and any copies are public, unless the tape contains any data classified as not public by other provisions in section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Captain Roehl discussed the possible applicability of language in section 13.82, subdivision 5, that classifies as not public those photographs which are part of inactive investigative files that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities. Captain Roehl described the videotape as depicting a near death man being dragged by the waist into a hotel room where he is left to die. The Commissioner discussed the clearly offensive to common sensibilities language in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267738&quot; title=&quot;94-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-030&lt;/a&gt;. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When the legislature was discussing the implications of a possible decision to have most inactive criminal investigative data classified as public, the effect of such a decision on photographs appearing in inactive data was actively discussed. The discussion of the status of data in photographs focused heavily on photographs involving death scenes, pictures of a sexual or what might be perceived to be a sexual nature and pictures illustrating physical violence. Much of the discussion about these types of photos was concerned with photos of deceased individuals. At the end of that discussion, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 which, in part, states that all inactive investigative data, which implicitly includes photos, are public data. The legislature did create an exception by stating that photographs that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It seems clear from the language of the statute that when a request for access to inactive criminal investigative data is made, and those data include photographs, the appropriate response from the law enforcement agency should be to examine the content of each photograph to determine if the content is clearly offensive to common sensibilities. A policy, such as the one adopted by the City, that states that all death scene photographs are not public, does not accomplish what Section 13.82, subdivision 5 requires.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As noted above, the legislature actively discussed concerns such as those raised by the City about release of photos to the public. The legislature concluded that photographs are to be treated as not public only if their content is clearly offensive to common sensibilities. The City&apos;s policy, that holds that all death scene photographs are inherently offensive, and are therefore not public, does not comply with the treatment accorded to photographs in inactive criminal investigative data by the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the Police Department determines that the videotape, or portions thereof, is such that it is clearly offensive to common sensibilities, the Department is required to treat it as not public. However, Captain Roehl&apos;s description of the contents of the tape does not suggest that the contents are particularly violent in nature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner would also like to address the ownership issue of the original videotape. Although the tape is clearly subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, it is also clearly the property of the hotel. The Commissioner does not foresee any problem with the Department returning the original tape as long as the Department keeps a copy to fulfill its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17. Subdivision 1 of 15.17 requires that government entities make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. In this case, assuming the Police Department relied on the contents of the videotape in determining the outcome of the investigation, the Department needs to maintain a copy of the tape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Captain Roehl is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Brooklyn Park Police Department obtained a security camera tape from a hotel as part of a criminal investigation. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the classification of the tape and any copies thereof is as follows: 1) if the investigation is active, the contents of the tape are not public; 2) if the investigation is inactive, the contents of the tape are public unless the Police Department determines the contents of the tape are clearly offensive to common sensibilities.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 7, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267770</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data, defined</Title><Id>267103</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs/videotapes (See also: Law enforcement - Booking photos)</Title><Id>266525</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Official Records Act (15.17) See also: Records management</Title><Id>266369</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Videotapes</Title><Id>266402</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-031</Title><title>Opinion 99 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267423&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-10-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Fairmont Police Department: data contained in the Master Name and Incident Listing?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 1999; City of Fairmont</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 16, 1999, IPA received a letter from Elizabeth W. Bloomquist, City Attorney for the City of Fairmont. In this letter, Ms. Bloomquist asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data contained in the Master Name and Incident Listing (MNI) maintained by the City. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Bloomquist, the MNI is the central repository for information collected by the Martin County Sheriff&apos;s Department and the Fairmont Police Department on requests for service and other law enforcement contacts with citizens.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A sample entry from the MNI submitted by Ms. Bloomquist contains various data about an individual such as name, address, telephone number, physical description, date of birth, Minnesota driver&apos;s license number, associates, and dates and descriptions of previous incidents involving law enforcement. According to the abbreviation key provided by Ms. Bloomquist, the MNI may also contain data about, inter alia, victims, witnesses, and handgun permits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Blomquist asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Fairmont Police Department: data contained in the Master Name and Incident Listing?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.06.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in the MNI are law enforcement data under section 13.82, i.e., data collected or created by a law enforcement agency. Section 13.82 provides that certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, contain descriptions of types of data and associated data elements that are always classified as public. However, the data described in those subdivisions are not the only public data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Those data elements were specified in order to ensure that those data could not be protected as active criminal investigative data under section 13.82, subdivision 5. The general presumption of section 13.03, that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law, applies to law enforcement data. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267710&quot; title=&quot;97-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-023&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267539&quot; title=&quot;97-024&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-024&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Certain law enforcement data are never public. For example, under section 13.82, subdivision 10, the identities of undercover agents, informants, certain witnesses and victims (under certain conditions), and victims of criminal sexual conduct, among others, are never public. Some law enforcement data, i.e., active criminal investigative data, are not public while an investigation is active, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 5. When the investigation is no longer active, criminal investigative data, with certain exceptions as provided in subdivisions 5 and 10, are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the data contained in the MNI are classified as public except for the following: active criminal investigative data, under section 13.82, subdivision 5; other data related to allegations of child abuse that are protected under subdivisions 5a and 5b; data protected under subdivisions 5c and 5d related to allegations of maltreatment of vulnerable adults; and the identities of individuals protected under section 13.82, subdivision 10.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, there may be data contained in the MNI that are classified as not public under other statutes outside Chapter 13. For example, certain data on juveniles are classified as not public under sections 260B.171 and 260C.171; data about traffic accidents are not public under section 169.09, subdivision 13; data pertaining to permits to carry firearms are not public under section 13.36; and individual Social Security numbers are not public pursuant to section 13.49.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Bloomquist is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.82 and 13.03, data contained in the Master Name and Incident Listing maintained by the City are classified as public, unless otherwise classified, as discussed above, under section 13.82 or other statutes.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 7, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267423</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Firearms (13.87, subd. 2 / 13.36)</Title><Id>266698</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Master name index (MNI)</Title><Id>266699</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-030</Title><title>Opinion 99 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266794&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-09-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is School District 196 - Rosemount, Apple Valley, and Eagan - required to release, as public data, the specific reasons and underlying data concerning a complaint or charge against a current employee where no disciplinary action was taken?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 15, 1999; School District 196 (Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 27, 1999, IPA received a letter dated July 26, 1999, from Mark Porter, Director of Legal Services, School District 196 - Rosemount, Apple Valley, and Eagan. In his letter, Mr. Porter asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In 1998, a parent made a complaint to the District about a teacher. Mr. Porter wrote, The School District conducted a prompt and thorough investigation of this complaint. It was concluded that no disciplinary action toward the teacher was appropriate, and the School District submitted a letter to the teacher containing only directives as to future conduct, with no disciplinary response.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Porter added that the District has received requests for data concerning the alleged incident. The District&apos;s position has been to acknowledge the existence and status of the [1998] complaint but to release neither the specific reasons for the action nor data documenting the basis of the action. The requestor disagreed with this determination, prompting the District to request an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Porter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is School District 196 - Rosemount, Apple Valley, and Eagan - required to release, as public data, the specific reasons and underlying data concerning a complaint or charge against a current employee where no disciplinary action was taken? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data on individuals about current and former government employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which provides a listing of the public types of personnel data and classifies most other personnel data as private. Private data are not public but are accessible to the data subject and those individuals within the government entity whose work assignments reasonably require that they gain access to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to subdivision 2 (a) of section 13.43, the following personnel data are public:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b) provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, the classification of data relating to the final outcome of complaints or charges against a public employee depends upon whether a final disposition of any disciplinary action has occurred. If there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action, only limited data regarding the incident are public, i.e., whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of any such complaint or charge. If there has been a final disposition, additional data become public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the District stated it did not take disciplinary action against its employee. Therefore, the fact that a complaint was made against the employee and the status of that complaint are public; any of the remaining data regarding the incident that are about the teacher are classified as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Porter is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 196 - Rosemount, Apple Valley, and Eagan - received a complaint about one of its employees. The District stated it did not take disciplinary action against the employee; therefore, it is not required to release, as public data, the specific reasons and underlying data concerning the complaint or charge. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 15, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266794</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-029</Title><title>Opinion 99 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267410&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-09-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota properly withhold from the public certain data contained in a report entitled &quot;Outside Counsel&apos;s Report: Interference in Investigations of Alleged Criminal Sexual and Domestic Misconduct By Student-Athletes at the University of Minnesota&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 10, 1999; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 22, 1999, IPA received a letter from Eric E. Jorstad, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Star Tribune Company, publisher of the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Jorstad asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data redacted from a report issued by the University of Minnesota. Mr. Jorstad enclosed a copy of the redacted report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Jorstad&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University. The purposes of that letter, dated July 28, 1999, were to inform her of Mr. Jorstad&apos;s request, and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. In that letter, the Commissioner asked the University to submit an unredacted copy of the Report with its response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 30, 1999, Ms. Smith said that the University would respond to Mr. Jorstad&apos;s request, but would not provide the Commissioner with an unredacted copy of the Report. Ms. Smith wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of the extraordinarily personal nature of the information contained in this sexual misconduct report and the assurances given to students and sexual assault victims, the University must decline voluntarily to release the unredacted Report. In addition, because the character of the Report and the appropriate application of law to it are evident from the public version, disclosure to the Commissioner of the unredacted version is unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 9, 1999, IPA received the University&apos;s response from Ms. Smith. A summary of the detailed facts that give rise to this opinion follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In March of 1999, various allegations of rules violations were made against the University of Minnesota Men&apos;s Intercollegiate Athletics Department. In the March 26, 1999, retainer agreement between University General Counsel Mark B. Rotenberg and outside counsel, the University charged the outside counsel with investigating allegations of violations of NCAA rules, Big 10 Conference rules and University rules in the University of Minnesota Men&apos;s Intercollegiate Athletics Department. The outside counsel was not asked to examine the merits of the underlying criminal charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a May 21, 1999, &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; article, the newspaper alleged a pattern of interference by University personnel in investigations of criminal sexual misconduct charges against male student-athletes. In a letter to the outside counsel dated May 24, 1999, University Chief of Staff Tonya Moten Brown confirmed that the scope of the outside counsel&apos;s duties would include exploration of those allegations within the context of your ongoing investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In July 1999, the University released to the public a report entitled Outside Counsel&apos;s Report: Interference in Investigations of Alleged Criminal Sexual and Domestic Misconduct By Student-Athletes at the University of Minnesota. Attached to the Report was a memorandum stating that private or confidential data were redacted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32, 13.39, 13.43 and 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The redacted copy of the Report consists of 110 pages. There were several pages, 41-48, and 94, missing from the copy provided to the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;. Of the 101 pages provided, approximately 75 are completely or substantially redacted. In addition, 45 of 54 subheadings in the Table of Contents were redacted. The Appendix consists of some 121 pages, of which approximately 57 are completely or substantially redacted. In addition, 26 of 50 headings in the Table of Contents to the Appendix were redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Jorstad wrote: [w]e believe the University has improperly withheld public data by overbroad redactions from the Report. We cannot specify or prove the improper redactions because of the very nature of the University&apos;s action; we do not know what was withheld.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Jorstad asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the University of Minnesota properly withhold from the public certain data contained in a report entitled Outside Counsel&apos;s Report: Interference in Investigations of Alleged Criminal Sexual and Domestic Misconduct By Student-Athletes at the University of Minnesota ?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before analyzing the merits of the University&apos;s position with respect to the data in question, it is important to note that the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Smith&apos;s assertion that the appropriate application of the law [to the Report is] evident from the public version . . . . There are numerous instances in the redacted Report when data on consecutive pages have been substantially or entirely redacted, and it is therefore impossible, without the full context, for the Commissioner to determine whether each deleted data element has been properly classified. (See, for example, Report pages 23-38.) Thus, it would have been most helpful, for purposes of issuing a more instructive opinion, had the University provided the Commissioner with an unredacted copy of the Report. Mr. Jorstad&apos;s point is well taken; in a case like this, the public cannot ascertain the propriety of the government entity&apos;s action in withholding data. However, the Commissioner will provide as much specific comment and guidance as possible under the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Smith, the redacted data are classified as not public under one or more provisions of Minnesota Statutes, namely sections 13.39 (civil investigative data), 13.32 (educational data), 13.43 (personnel data) and 13.82 (law enforcement data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jorstad disagrees that sections 13.32, 13.39 and 13.43 classify any of the data in question as not public. Mr. Jorstad&apos;s position is that most of the data are inactive law enforcement data that may be redacted only as authorized under section 13.82, subdivision 10(b), which protects the identities of victims or alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Smith, [t]he University redacted the detailed factual findings and analyses of specific incidents because they constitute active civil investigative data [under section 13.39]. . . . As the sexual misconduct report is part of the University&apos;s active, ongoing investigation of alleged misconduct in athletics, the investigative data in the Report are confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In order for government data to be classified as not public under section 13.39, the data must be collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. (See section 13.39, subdivision 2(a).) Under subdivision 1, a pending civil legal action&apos; includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. &lt;u&gt;Whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the [government entity&lt;/u&gt;]. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith enclosed a copy of a memorandum dated March 18, 1999, in which Mr. Rotenberg stated: [a]s chief attorney and General Counsel of the University of Minnesota, I confirm that a civil legal action is pending regarding alleged violations of NCAA rules in connection with past and current student-athletes. The provisions of Minn. Stat. section 13.39 therefore apply to the University&apos;s investigation into this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner has stated in numerous advisory opinions, whether data may be classified as civil investigative data is substantially the discretion of the government entity&apos;s chief attorney. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267726&quot; title=&quot;94-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-006&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267837&quot; title=&quot;95-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-048&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267385&quot; title=&quot;98-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-017&lt;/a&gt;.) (Also, in 1993, the Minnesota Supreme Court did place some boundaries around what may constitute civil investigative data. See &lt;em&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/em&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the University&apos;s chief attorney made the determination required under section 13.39; accordingly, the University may redact from the Report data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action. Without viewing the data in question, the Commissioner cannot determine if all of the redactions made by the University were proper; however, the University has broad discretion in its application of section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the application of section 13.32, Ms. Smith wrote: [a]part from the confidentiality provisions of section 13.39, much of the redacted Report was not subject to public release because it contained educational data about University students which are classified as private data under section 13.32, and also classified as not public under federal law, namely the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. section 1232g ( FERPA ).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Smith stated: [a] university&apos;s investigation of its own treatment of students, conducted by outside private attorneys, is not a law enforcement record. Ms. Smith further stated that the University of Minnesota Police Department ( UMPD ) did not conduct the investigation or write the Report, and that the University released all public law enforcement data contained in the Report, namely six police reports, or portions thereof, included in the Appendix. (The University redacted the identities of sexual assault victims or alleged victims from the police reports, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 10(b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.32, subdivision 1(a), Educational data&apos; means data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, according to the same subdivision:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Records of a law enforcement unit of a public educational agency or institution which are maintained apart from education data and are maintained solely for law enforcement purposes, and are not disclosed to individuals other than law enforcement officials of the jurisdiction are not educational data; provided, that education records maintained by the educational agency or institution are not disclosed to the personnel of the law enforcement unit. The University of Minnesota police department is a law enforcement agency for purposes of section 13.82 and other sections of Minnesota Statutes dealing with law enforcement records. Records of organizations providing security services to a public educational agency or institution must be administered consistent with section 13.861.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERPA contains similar provisions governing records of law enforcement units of educational institutions. (See 34 C.F.R., section 99.8.) Both state and federal law acknowledge that there are law enforcement units of educational institutions, and provide that as long as those units maintain their records separately from the educational institution, they are not regulated either by section 13.32 or FERPA. In this case, records of the UMPD, if they meet the requirements of section 13.32 and FERPA, are regulated under section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Jorstad does not agree that section 13.32 applies to the data in the Report. He wrote: [b]ecause the Report&apos;s purpose is to evaluate alleged criminal sexual and domestic misconduct,&apos; we assume that all incidents described (and redacted) in the Report in fact involved UMPD or other units of the University involved with law enforcement. Thus, under the terms of section 13.32, the requested records are law enforcement data subject to the disclosure requirements of section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as Ms. Smith stated, the investigation that produced the Report was conducted not by the UMPD, but by outside counsel. Furthermore, she stated: the fact that the Report by its terms does not examine the merits of the underlying charges,&apos; Report at 1, further confirms that the Report is not a law enforcement record, as examining the merits of criminal allegations is precisely what law enforcement agencies do. The Commissioner concurs with Ms. Smith that as a whole, the Report does not constitute law enforcement data. The data in the Report that relate to students are properly classified under section 13.32, and as such, the relevant data are private under subdivision 3 and FERPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Smith also discussed the provisions of state and federal law that prohibit the disclosure of private data on individuals and personally identifiable information about students. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 4, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b)(1), and 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.) Ms. Smith stated: [i]n accordance with these standards, the University reasonably redacted certain information that could reveal the identity of the involved students. Given the particular circumstances surrounding the Report, the likelihood that a student&apos;s identity could be traced from details is quite high. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, without viewing the unredacted Report, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the extent of the University&apos;s redaction is appropriate. However, it is reasonable for the University, in this circumstance, to apply a stringent standard when exercising its judgment to prevent the release of data that could identify a particular student. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267862&quot; title=&quot;94-016&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-016&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-025&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Ms. Smith stated: [a]gain, apart from the confidentiality provisions of section 13.39, portions of the Report also were legally required to be redacted because they contain private personnel data under Minn. Stat. section 13.43. . . . . In this case, the University was investigating the conduct of its own personnel . . . . Ms. Smith stated that investigative reports of employee conduct are private unless they contain data that document the basis for final disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(5).) She cited Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267430&quot; title=&quot;93-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;93-010&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267679&quot; title=&quot;95-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-026&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267806&quot; title=&quot;99-008&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-008&lt;/a&gt;, in support of her position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 and 4, certain data about public employees are public and all other personnel data are private. Ms. Smith stated that the University did not redact public personnel data from the Report. Ms. Smith further stated that much of the data about employees also contains data about students. The Commissioner has noted in previous opinions that even in employee discipline cases, certain data about students are private. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267430&quot; title=&quot;93-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;93-010&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267679&quot; title=&quot;95-026&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-026&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267687&quot; title=&quot;97-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-018&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, the extent of redactions make it impossible for the Commissioner to conclude that the data are properly classified. Given the nature of the Report, i.e., an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct, it is reasonable for the University to take the position that significant portions of the Report are private personnel data. However, if any of the data document the basis of final disciplinary data, or fall under the requirements of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) (data related to a complaint or charge against a public official), those data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the Commissioner is of the opinion that given the nature of the Report, i.e., part of an ongoing investigation into serious allegations of rules violations by University personnel, including interference in investigations of student misconduct, it is reasonable for the University to take the position that portions of the Report are not public data pursuant to sections 13.32, 13.39, 13.43 and 13.82. However, without viewing the Report in its entirety, the Commissioner is not able to determine that each redacted data element was properly classified by the University, and therefore properly withheld from the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Jorstad is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.32, 13.39, 13.43 and 13.82, the University of Minnesota has stated reasonable and legal grounds to withhold from the public certain educational, civil investigative, personnel and law enforcement data contained in a report entitled Outside Counsel&apos;s Report: Interference in Investigations of Alleged Criminal Sexual and Domestic Misconduct By Student-Athletes at the University of Minnesota. The Commissioner was not provided an unredacted version of the Report; therefore he cannot determine whether each specific data redaction was proper.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 10, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267410</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data included (See also: Personnel data - educational data)</Title><Id>266436</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-028</Title><title>Opinion 99 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267247&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-09-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Minnetonka:
The identity of people, either directly or as the contact person for an organization, who reserve, and pay for, use of the ice sheets at the City&apos;s ice arena;
The identity of people who reserve, and sometimes pay for, use of rooms in the City&apos;s community center and shelters in the City parks;
The identity of people who get permits to use City parks, but do not pay for the use;
The identity of people who get season passes to use the City-operated public beaches;
The identity of people who purchase memberships at the City&apos;s recreation center; and
The identity of people who apply for and receive scholarships for participation in recreation programs, and their supporting documentation of need?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 3, 1999; City of Minnetonka</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 21, 1999, IPA received a letter dated July 19,1999, from Desyl Peterson, an attorney representing the City of Minnetonka. In her letter, Ms. Peterson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Peterson stated that the City&apos;s Recreation Services Department has questions about the classifications of certain data it collects and maintains from people who use the City&apos;s parks, beaches, recreation center, ice arena, etc. Ms. Peterson wrote, We looked at Minn. Stat. section 13.57, and could not determine conclusively whether any of this information would qualify as private data by the city for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs. . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Peterson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Minnetonka:
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people, either directly or as the contact person for an organization, who reserve, and pay for, use of the ice sheets at the City&apos;s ice arena;
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people who reserve, and sometimes pay for, use of rooms in the City&apos;s community center and shelters in the City parks;
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people who get permits to use City parks, but do not pay for the use;
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people who get season passes to use the City-operated public beaches;
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people who purchase memberships at the City&apos;s recreation center; and
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            The identity of people who apply for and receive scholarships for participation in recreation programs, and their supporting documentation of need?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.57, classifies as private certain data collected and maintained by political subdivisions for the purpose of enrolling individuals in recreational and other social programs. Those data are as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    the name, address, telephone number, any other data that [identify] the individual, and any data which [describe] the health or medical condition of the individual, family relationships and living arrangements of an individual or which are opinions as to the emotional makeup or behavior of an individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the key phrase in section 13.57 is for the purpose of enrolling individuals. &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary - Second College Edition&lt;/i&gt;, Houghten Mifflin Company, 1985, defines enroll as to enter the name of in a register, record, or roll. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of section 13.57 is that it classifies as private certain information about individuals who are registering or signing up for recreational or other social programs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Applying this analysis to the specific examples Ms. Peterson cited, it appears that none of the first five examples are situations in which individuals are enrolling in programs: reserving and paying for ice time; reserving, and sometimes paying for, space in the community center and the parks; obtaining permits for using the parks; obtaining season passes for using the beaches; and purchasing memberships at the City&apos;s recreation center. Therefore, the City cannot use section 13.57 to classify as not public the data Ms. Peterson referred to in numbers 1 through 5.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The sixth scenario, however, is one in which data are apparently being collected about someone registering or signing up for programs. Ms. Peterson wrote, Scholarship applications are not required for everyone enrolling in programs, but they are part of the enrollment process because the individuals who need scholarships could not enroll without the funding assistance. The Commissioner&apos;s understanding from Ms. Peterson&apos;s statements is that some people registering for programs also supply scholarship information. Thus, because the purpose of collecting the data is to enroll individuals in recreational and other social programs, the data are classified pursuant to section 13.57. In other words, the name; address; telephone number; any other data that identify the individual; and any data that describe the health or medical condition of the individual, family relationships and living arrangements of an individual or which are opinions as to the emotional makeup or behavior of an individual are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Peterson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data described in numbers 1- 5 are not classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.57, and are therefore public (see section 13.03, subdivision 1).
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             The data described in number 6 are classified as private pursuant to section 13.57 to the extent that the data are as follows: name; address; telephone number; any other data that identify the individual; and any data that describe the health or medical condition of the individual, family relationships and living arrangements of an individual or which are opinions as to the emotional makeup or behavior of an individual. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 3, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267247</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Social recreational data (13.548 / 13.57)</Title><Id>267116</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:16:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-027</Title><title>Opinion 99 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267169&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-08-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) appropriately deny access to a June 7, 1999, request for access to the staff meeting minutes of its consultant?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 20, 1999; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 22, 1999, IPA received a letter from L. In this letter, L asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding L&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Anderson, General Counsel for the MAC, in response to L&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 1, 1999, were to inform him of L&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On August 2, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Gregory Bistram, an attorney representing the MAC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated June 7, 1999, L wrote to Mr. Anderson. L stated, I am interested in examining the WDSCO&apos;s [MAC&apos;s consultant - W. D. Schock Company] Staff meeting Minutes&apos; held its [sic] above-mentioned offices from July 31, 1996 to present.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated June 17, 1999, a MAC paralegal responded. She stated, Please be advised that any and all documents prepared by W.D. Schock regarding internal staff meetings are not government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                L then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In L&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) appropriately deny access to a June 7, 1999, request for access to the staff meeting minutes of its consultant? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 17, the MAC is a state agency and is therefore subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Generally speaking, private enterprises, such as the W.D. Schock Company, are not subject to Chapter 13. However, if a private person has a contractual relationship with a government entity, there are certain situations in which the private entity, itself, or the data created/collected by the private entity as part of fulfilling its contractual obligations may be subject to Chapter 13. Several provisions in Chapter 13 address specific situations involving government entities and parties they contract with; however, none apply to the case at hand. (See sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue specific to this opinion is whether the public is entitled to gain access to staff meeting minutes that Schock Company created. The answer depends upon whether there exists a contractual relationship between Schock and the MAC and, if so, what language the contract contains. The MAC and Schock entered into a contract for services on August 16, 1993; the services to be performed regard the MAC&apos;s Land Acquisition and Relocation Program. The requestors provided a copy of this contract to the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the contract, it appears there is no language that makes Schock, itself, subject to Chapter 13. There are, however, several provisions that require Schock to provide the MAC with certain information, such as core borings, probings and subsurface explorations, environmental assessment and impact statements, property descriptions, etc. None of these contract provisions specifically mention or appear to imply that Schock must provide staff meeting minutes to the MAC. Another of the provisions states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    At the time of completion or termination of the work, CONSULTANT [Schock] shall make available to the OWNER [the MAC] all maps, tracings, reports, resource materials and other documents pertaining to the work or to the Project. All such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the OWNER or others on extension of the Project or any other project.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If, pursuant to this provision, Schock were to provide its staff meeting minutes to the MAC, those minutes would become government data. However, based on Mr. Bistram&apos;s comments, this does not appear to have happened. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     Schock is obligated under various provisions of the Agreement (and exhibits) to provide certain documents to the MAC. The Schock staff meeting minutes are not required to be maintained or provided to the MAC under the Agreement or applicable law or regulations. The Schock staff meeting minutes have never been provided to the MAC. The MAC does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; receive or have any ownership interest in the Schock staff meeting minutes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The Schock staff meeting minutes are documents strictly internal to Schock....Information contained in the Schock staff meeting minutes that relates to MAC programs is also contained in other documents which are subject to the requirements and restrictions of [Chapter 13]. The Schock staff meeting minutes are not government data within the meaning of [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summation, the Schock meeting minutes do not appear to be government data and therefore L cannot gain access to them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner would like to add the following note. The 1999 Legislature amended Chapter 13 to require that certain language be part of any contracts entered into between government entities and private persons. The new language went into effect on August 1, 1999, and is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (See Minnesota Session Laws, 1999, Chapter 250, article 1, section 42.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by L is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, it appears that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) appropriately denied access to a June 7, 1999, request for access to the staff meeting minutes of its consultant, the W.D. Schock Company. No provision in the contract between the MAC and Schock required that Schock, itself, or the data Schock collected, created, maintained, etc., in fulfilling its contractual duties be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. In addition, the meeting minutes did not become government data because Schock did not provide them to the MAC.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 20, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267169</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consultants</Title><Id>266758</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-026</Title><title>Opinion 99 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267934&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-08-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority respond properly to a request for public access to the so-called &quot;Dale Martin Report&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 17, 1999; Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 29, 1999, IPA received a letter from Dale Lucas, an attorney, on behalf of a client, G. In his letter, Mr. Lucas asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding G&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth (DHRA.) Mr. Lucas enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Lucas&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard W. Ball, Executive Director of DHRA. The purposes of this letter, dated June 30, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Lucas&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for DHRA&apos;s position. On August 11, 1999, IPA received a response from Bryan N. Anderson, attorney for DHRA. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;G requested access to a copy of a report known as the Dave Martin Report. DHRA initially denied access to the Report. In a letter dated February 25, 1999, Mr. Lucas requested access to the Report on G&apos;s behalf. In a letter dated March 19, 1999, Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Lucas, stating that portions of the Report are not public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which classifies data about public employees. Mr. Anderson wrote: [DHRA] would be willing to prepare a summary of the report or to deliver portions of the report after expunging private data, both as contemplated under 13.05, Subdivision 7, at [G&apos;s] expense, we would guess that such a project would take at least one hour and would be chargeable at $85.00 per hour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 19, 1999, Mr. Lucas replied to Mr. Anderson, and cited the provision of section 13.03 that states that government entities may not charge for separating public from not public data. Mr. Lucas stated that he was renewing his request for access to the Report. Mr. Lucas wrote to Mr. Anderson again, in a letter dated June 4, 1999, in which he stated that he had not received a response to his letter of April 19, and repeated his request. In a letter dated June 25, 1999, which Mr. Lucas received after he submitted his opinion request, Mr. Anderson reiterated that the data requested were not public, and offered to prepare a summary, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 7. Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Lucas that section 13.03 is not applicable to the data and stated: [DHRA] is neither obligated nor willing to go through the exercise of editing non-public documentary data at its own expense.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Anderson stated that a consultant was retained to meet with the staff of [DHRA] in candid, purportedly confidential sessions to discuss organizational issues. . . . From his meetings, he compiled notes and made a summary presentation to the Authority&apos;s Board of Commissioners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anderson stated that certain of the data the consultant compiled are clearly public; however, Mr. Anderson also wrote: a significant amount of the data is such that specifically, in context, allows identification of the subject of the data . . . . which is not allowable under section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lucas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority respond properly to a request for public access to the so-called Dale Martin Report ?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Anderson, the data constituting the so-called Dave Martin Report are data compiled by a consultant, Mr. Martin, about the operations of the Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which may include data that identify DHRA employees. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain data about public employees are public, and all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Anderson stated that some of the data in question are clearly public, and some of the data are private. Under the requirements of Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, government entities are required, upon request, to make public data available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner discussed an issue very similar to the one presented here in Advisory Opinion 98-002. In that case, Clay County hired a consultant to assist with conflict resolution and personnel management issues in the County Attorney&apos;s office. After conducting interviews with the County Attorney and his staff, the consultant prepared a report. According to &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267204&quot; title=&quot;98-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-002&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Upon review of the consultant&apos;s report, it is evident that it contains both public and private data. Some of the data in the report are not data on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) For example, the consultant&apos;s description of her methodology, and list of interview questions, are not data that identify an individual. The Commissioner is unaware of any provision of state or federal law that would classify those data as nonpublic; therefore, the data are public (see Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Some of the data in the report are in the form of observations and comments about the operation of the County Attorney&apos;s office, from which an individual employee may or may not be identified. To the extent that those data do not or could not identify an individual employee, those data are also public. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The balance of the data in the report appear to be private personnel data. For example, most of the data constitute comments about the County Attorney. Those data are not the type of data classified as public under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. An exception would be if any of the data reflected complaints or charges against an employee, or are data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action taken against an employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The last page of the report is the County Attorney&apos;s office Proposed Action Plan. That page contains data about specific employees and general statements or descriptions of the operation of the office. To the extent that the data are performance-related data about an employee - for example, numbers 1 and 2 in the first section of the plan - the data are private. To the extent the data describe the general operation of the office - for example, number 3 in the first section - those data are not personnel data and are therefore public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Commissioner was not provided with a copy of the data at issue here. However, the same reasoning applies: data that identify, or could identify, a DHRA employee, that are not of the type listed in section 13.43, subdivision 2, are private data. All other data appear to be public, and must be made available to Mr. Lucas.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Mr. Lucas made clear that he was requesting access to the public data associated with Mr. Martin&apos;s review of DHRA, not summary data (see section 13.05, subdivision 7), as Mr. Anderson proposed. The Commissioner acknowledges that redaction of private data in a case like this may be difficult. Nonetheless, it is DHRA&apos;s responsibility to do so, and, according to section 13.03, subdivision 3, it . . . may not charge [Mr. Lucas] for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lucas is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Duluth Housing and Redevelopment Authority did not respond properly to a request for public access to the so-called Dale Martin Report. DHRA must provide access to the public data by separating, at its own expense, the public from the not public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 17, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267934</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-025</Title><title>Opinion 99 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267472&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, will the data subject&apos;s rights be violated if other University of Minnesota employees are allowed access to his Social Security number?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 1999; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 14, 1999, IPA received a letter dated May 26, 1999, from Gary Schiff. In his letter, Mr. Schiff requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding a potential inappropriate dissemination of data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel of the University, in response to Mr. Schiff&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 16, 1999, were to inform her of Mr. Schiff&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On July 9, 1999, IPA received a response, dated July 7, 1999, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Schiff is as follows. Mr. Schiff is an undergraduate advisor at the University of Minnesota. He stated that he recently attended an introductory training seminar for University personnel regarding the University&apos;s development of a new central database. Mr. Schiff wrote, The PeopleSoft system will soon consolidate over 800,000 records from over 30 University offices - mostly student service offices. At that training I was informed that the University&apos;s human resources database will also be integrated.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Schiff further wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                By entering the name of a staff member or student, I was told that users (hundreds and possibly thousands of University of Minnesota staff and student employees) will access a main view-screen that provides demographic information about the student or employee they are seeking information about. The view-screen includes information such as student identification number, birthday, home address, phone numbers, race, marital status, gender, veteran status and social security number. As an advisor to an academic department, I will have access to the system so that I may verify students&apos; status and academic records. As an employee, my social security number and other personnel data will be in the system and easily seen by anyone else.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Schiff added that if he were to enter a name, such as Mark Yudof, he would be able to access President Yudof&apos;s social security number. He stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                As a low-level employee, I have no reason to know Mark Yudof&apos;s social security number (nor that of any employee) should I need to use the system. Likewise, I am concerned that my social security number will be available to other employees at the University who have no need to know it and that the numbers could be easily stolen for illegal purposes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Schiff asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, will the data subject&apos;s rights be violated if other University of Minnesota employees are allowed access to his Social Security number? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number is subject to requirements of both state and federal law. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data. When a government entity asks an individual, like Mr. Schiff, to supply private data, such as his Social Security number, the entity is required to give the individual a notice. This notice, commonly referred to as the Tennessen Warning, must advise the data subject of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; 2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; 3) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, the federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires a government entity to provide a disclosure statement when the entity asks an individual to supply his/her Social Security number. In this statement, the government entity must explain how the Social Security number will be used, whether providing the information is mandatory or voluntary, and under what statutory or other authority the number is being requested. (See 5 USC 552a, (note).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The only way, therefore, to answer Mr. Schiff&apos;s question is to determine whether the University&apos;s plan for using the data in the new database is consistent with what it communicated to Mr. Schiff via the Tennessen Warning and federal Privacy Act notice.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith&apos;s response to the Commissioner focuses primarily on which University employees will have access to the database. She wrote that authorized users must have both departmental and central approval for access, that approval is dependent upon the employees&apos; job duties, and that authorized employees are personnel who perform human resource and student services functions. Ms. Smith added that by University policy, authorized users are granted access to the database only to facilitate their job activities and that users must agree to abide by all relevant policies, as well as federal, state, and local laws in using the system. She also stated that over 80 security profiles exist within the database, meaning that authorized users have varying levels of access to private data depending on their security clearance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Ms. Smith&apos;s response demonstrates that the University takes seriously its obligations under section 13.05 (safeguard private data) and Minnesota Rules, subpart 1205.0400 (restrict access to private data to those employees whose work assignments reasonably require access), she did not comment on the Tennessen Warning issue. The Commissioner does not know, therefore, what the University communicated to Mr. Schiff, at the time he was first asked to provide his Social Security number, regarding how it would use his Social Security number. Without this information, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Mr. Schiff&apos;s Chapter 13 or federal Privacy Act rights will be violated if, and under what circumstances, other University employees gain access to his Social Security number.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Schiff is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner does not know what the University communicated in a Tennessen Warning and federal Privacy Act notice to Mr. Schiff regarding the uses of his Social Security number. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether Mr. Schiff&apos;s Chapter 13 rights will be violated if the University makes his Social Security number available to other employees. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 9, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267472</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment requires access</Title><Id>266518</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-024</Title><title>Opinion 99 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267560&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-08-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Transportation&apos;s charge of $92.68 for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 4, 1999; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 13, 1999, IPA received a letter dated same from Leon Boyd. In his letter, Mr. Boyd requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of copying charges assessed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner of MnDOT, in response to Mr. Boyd&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 17, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Boyd&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On July 13, 1999, IPA received a response, dated July 9, 1999, from Joseph Lally, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. On February 27, 1999, Mr. Boyd, in relevant part, requested a Copy of the Engineering Study that justifies the restricted weight limit for the bridge that accesses the City of Excelsior from Highway 7 west bound. He added, If there is a charge for this information, please advise charges BEFORE providing the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr Boyd renewed his request in a letter dated May 4, 1999.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 14, 1999, Mr. Boyd asked for an analysis of the assessed charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 20, 1999, MnDOT responded by breaking down the fee into three categories: copies (8 black and white at $.06/page, 17 color at $1.29/page), plus sales tax; postage ($1.43); and labor (Bridge Inspection Engineer, 1 hr at $28.59/hour, times 1.512 Overhead and Preliminary Design Engineer, laquo; hr at $31.95/half hour, times 1.512 Overhead).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Boyd asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Transportation&apos;s charge of $92.68 for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may charge for copies of public government data. Specifically, the statute states that an entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A related provision requires government entities to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (See section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lally wrote that in response to Mr. Boyd&apos;s request, a bridge inspection engineer and a preliminary design engineer reviewed multiple files and identified three documents - a July 1991 report, a September 1991 memo, and a 1994 report. He wrote, This review was necessary in order to accurately and fully respond to Mr. Boyd&apos;s request for documents which justify the bridge&apos;s restricted weight limit. Mr. Lally further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Boyd requested documents which justify the policy decision to place a weight restriction on the bridge. As no single, easily identifiable, readily available document could properly respond to this request, MnDOT personnel with the ability to identify the appropriate documents searched, retrieved, identified, and copied documents. This process involved two different engineers. . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Lally also reviewed the assessed charges. He wrote, MnDOT identified a total of 25 copies, 8 black and white copies at six cents each, and 17 color copies at $1.29 each. As a result, the copying charge was $22.41. Postage for these copies was $1.43. Mr. Lally continued: Labor associated with file search, retrieval, review, identification, compilation, reproduction and mailing for the responsive documents involved one hour by a bridge inspection engineer (at $28.59 per hour) and one half-hour by a preliminary design engineer (at $31.95 per hour).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In February, Mr. Boyd asked for a Copy of the Engineering Study that justifies the restricted weight limit for the bridge that accesses the City of Excelsior from Highway 7 west bound. Mr. Boyd also asked to be notified regarding any charges before MnDOT provided the information. In May, because he had not received a response from the Department, he asked for information on the bridge into Excelsior from Highway 7 Westbound. He also referred to the data as the information that justifies the reduced weight (study or other documentation). The Department&apos;s response on May 20, 1999, stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The information we have available is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. A bridge inspection report for bridge #5323 dated July 18, 1991 recommending posting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. A memorandum dated September 17, 1991 to the Metro District from the Bridge Office recommending posting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. The Report of the 1994 In-Depth Fracture Critical Inspection for Bridge #5323.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The primary problem with the Department&apos;s analysis is that, except for postage, which is self explanatory, it does not adequately account for the charges and how they relate to the language in section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For instance, the Department does not explain the copies charge, i.e., does it include the cost of labor and/or materials and why is a color copy more expensive than one that is black and white? In addition, it appears that the labor charge includes the engineers&apos; time involved in searching and retrieving the documents, and also for copying the documents. If this is the case, it does not appear to be reasonable for engineers, at $28.59/hour and $31.95/half-hour, to perform the copying service. Finally, what constitutes Overhead? It should also be noted that Chapter 13 does not provide for government entities to include a sales tax as part of copying charges. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/266635&quot; title=&quot;95-053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-053&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, the Department may charge Mr. Boyd the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. The Department asserted that it needed two engineers to identify the information Mr. Boyd requested. Chapter 13 does permit an entity to charge employee time for searching and retrieving; however, if MnDOT were meeting its obligation to keep data easily assessible for convenient use, it is not clear why it took two engineers to locate the documents, particularly in light of how clearly Mr. Boyd identified the information he was seeking. In addition, the Department did not provide any explanation as to why it charged Mr. Boyd for overhead or sales tax.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that according to Mr. Lally, the Department did lower the $92.68 fee to $68.40 by removing the sales tax and overhead charges. (This apparently occurred sometime after Mr. Boyd requested this opinion.) Mr. Lally wrote, Mr. Boyd still objects to the adjusted amount. On the basis of the above analysis, the Commissioner finds his objection reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Boyd is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Transportation did not meet the burden of establishing that a copy charge of $92.68 represents the actual cost, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03 for copying government data. The Department, initially, included some costs (overhead and sales tax) that are not allowable, under statute or rule.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 4, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267560</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Overhead</Title><Id>266618</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sales tax excluded</Title><Id>266254</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:34Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-023</Title><title>Opinion 99 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267844&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-07-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources respond appropriately to a request for access to muskellunge data contained in public reports and surveys?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 28, 1999; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 16, 1999, IPA received a letter from Stephen J. Boe. In his letter, Mr. Boe asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Mr. Boe enclosed copies of related correspondence. Mr. Boe&apos;s initial request required clarification and additional information regarding the issues that the Commissioner is able to address in this opinion, which involved subsequent correspondence and conversation with IPA staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Boe&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Allen Garber, Commissioner of DNR. The purposes of this letter, dated June 3, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Boe&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for DNR&apos;s position. On June 21, 1999, IPA received a response from Roger Holmes, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Division of DNR. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Beginning in October of 1998, Mr. Boe made several requests to various DNR staff for access to muskellunge data. Mr. Boe received access to some of the data. At issue here is the response DNR made to two specific requests made by Mr. Boe in letters dated October 29, 1998, and January 16, 1998. In the first letter, Mr. Boe requested access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Leech Lake creel information about the muskellunge fishery, from each year that summer creel surveys were conducted: total estimated catch; total estimated harvest; total estimated release; total estimated pounds harvested; and length frequencies of muskellunge caught/harvested/released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Boe requested any summaries of data for only anglers seeking muskellunge. DNR did not respond to Mr. Boe&apos;s request dated October 29, 1998.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 16, 1998, to DNR, Mr. Boe repeated his earlier request and also requested access to additional muskellunge data from three more lakes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DNR replied, in a letter dated January 25, 1999, that the information Mr. Boe requested in his January 16, 1999, letter will take a considerable amount of time to assemble and copy. DNR said Mr. Boe could expect a reply in six to eight weeks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 3, 1999, DNR apologized for not having responded to Mr. Boe&apos;s October request, stating that the letter was probably lost when the DNR official to whom it was sent moved his office. DNR also stated that it appears that most if not all of the information you requested can be provided in the form of published survey reports, which constitute 420 pages of information. DNR said the cost of the copies, at $.20 per page, was $84.00.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Boe replied to DNR in a letter dated February 20, 1999, in which he stated that he believed the information he requested was contained in a few pages of each report, and that it was not necessary for DNR to copy the entire reports. Mr. Boe, who resides in a distant state, wrote: [i]t may be more convenient to have someone come to your office with forms to record the data on. This should make for minimal effort (just providing the documents or data) on your part. If you agree, I will make arrangements for this.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 17, 1999, DNR replied to Mr. Boe&apos;s letter of February 20, and to two other requests made to DNR that are not at issue here. DNR reiterated the costs (at $.20 per page) of copying the complete reports that contain the data Mr. Boe requested. DNR also stated that some of the data were contained in electronic media, and that the cost to provide these data include the hourly wage of the staff person assigned to assemble the information plus fringe. DNR stated that to retrieve Leech and Cass Lake data from its creel survey database would take approximately two hours of staff time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that same response, DNR stated: [i]f you do not wish to receive the entire report you may visit the regional office in Bemidji where this information can be made available to you for viewing. You can then identify the selected pages you wish to have copied, and we can copy the reduced amount of material for you at $.20 per page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Boe questioned DNR&apos;s requirement that he pay for copies of entire reports, when the data he requested is contained in a few tables of each report. He also questioned DNR&apos;s estimation that it would take two hours of staff time to retrieve the data he requested from the creel database. Mr. Boe stated that as a former DNR employee, he had observed how quickly information could be queried for individual lakes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Holmes stated that the various requests from Mr. Boe (only two of which are at issue here) varied from very specific to open-ended. Much of the information that Mr. Boe requested does not exist as stand-alone tables, figures, or computer files. Rather than expend significant staff time in attempting to selectively extract the information, we chose to offer Mr. Boe the option of viewing the documents and identifying selected pages from each report. Mr. Holmes also stated: [t]he creel survey data is stored in 10 separate files in the database. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Holmes further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It should be noted that the DNR has a long history of dealing with information requests from Mr. Boe and he has criticized our agency in the past for not providing all of the information he requested. For this reason, we felt it was better to provide him with full access to all of the information rather than interpret and unintentionally narrow his information requests. Further, it is our understanding of [the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] that we are not required to organize or sort data according to the desires of a particular requestor, or to create data that does not already exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Boe asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources respond appropriately to a request for access to muskellunge data contained in public reports and surveys?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Holmes stated that Mr. Boe&apos;s data requests were both very specific and open-ended, and DNR was therefore unwilling to interpret and unintentionally narrow Mr. Boe&apos;s requests. Some of the data to which Mr. Boe requested access from DNR are very specific muskellunge data from certain lakes. In his opinion request, Mr. Boe stated that the tables in the reports that contain the data are easily recognized from the tables of content in each report. Mr. Holmes is correct that DNR is not obligated under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to organize or sort data, or to create data that do not exist. However, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, DNR is obligated to search for, and retrieve government data. If some of the data Mr. Boe requested is contained in statistical tables that can be identified from tables of contents of written reports, then DNR should search for and retrieve those tables of data, and not require Mr. Boe to pay for copies of the entire reports. However, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, DNR may require Mr. Boe to pay for its actual cost to search for, and retrieve the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to the data contained in the databases, Mr. Boe and DNR disagree as to the relative ease of retrieval. Mr. Holmes stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Boe is correct in stating that certain queries can be performed rather quickly. This is the case when query criteria are clearly delineated. His request for data from the creel survey database lacked the type of specificity needed to conduct an expeditious query. We estimated that it would take two hours staff time to extract muskellunge data contained in each of the ten catch files from historical creel survey data collected on Cass and Leech lakes. If this cost is unacceptable to Mr. Boe, he still has the option of selecting pages for copying out of the respective completion reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear to the Commissioner why Mr. Boe&apos;s request lacked the specificity to make an expeditious query of the creel database. If DNR was not clear about some aspect of Mr. Boe&apos;s request, it should clarify that with Mr. Boe. If the issue is that the database is not set up to handle Mr. Boe&apos;s request as easily as others, DNR should communicate that to Mr. Boe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, both DNR and Mr. Boe suggested that he, or his agent, inspect the data to determine which portions of the written reports satisfied his requests. An attempt should be made to make such arrangements. Clearly, it would be in the best interest of both parties for Mr. Boe or his agent to inspect the data and more clearly identify the specific data he wants copied. That is particularly the case in situations like this one, when the data requestor resides at some distance from the government entity that maintains the desired data. As the Commissioner has opined in previous opinions, it is incumbent upon the government entity to find a mutually agreeable resolution. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267640&quot; title=&quot;96-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-028&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267268&quot; title=&quot;99-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;99-020&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Boe is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources did not respond appropriately to a request for access to muskellunge data contained in public reports and surveys. DNR should not require the requestor to pay for copies of entire reports; rather it should search for and make available the tables of data requested. The Commissioner cannot determine whether the time estimated to retrieve data from the creel survey databases is reasonable; however, DNR should clarify the request to the extent necessary to perform the queries. In this situation, it appears that the best solution is for Mr. Boe or his agent to inspect the data and more clearly identify the specific data he wants copied.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 28, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267844</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity responsibility</Title><Id>266668</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-022</Title><title>Opinion 99 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266760&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-07-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 375.86, did Hennepin County respond appropriately to the Star Tribune&apos;s request for access to a copy of a computer program?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 16, 1999; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On June 1, 1999, IPA received a letter dated May 27, 1999, from Dan Browing of the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Browing asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data maintained by Hennepin County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sandra Vargas, Administrator of Hennepin County, in response to Mr. Browning&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 3, 1999, were to inform her of Mr. Browning&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On June 25, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from David Hough, Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Hough provided the following facts:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This represents the third year that the StarTribune has requested Hennepin County employee data. Each year the StarTribune has requested this data in a computer disk form. In order to accommodate the StarTribune, Hennepin County has modified a computer program to extract only the public data fields requested by the StarTribune. The end product is a diskette which is machine readible [sic] by the StarTribune&apos;s computer. Each of the three years that Hennepin County has modified the program, it has charged the StarTribune the actual expenses incurred in producing the computerized information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                This year the StarTribune requested Hennepin County employee data. Once again, the StarTribune asked that the data be on a computer disk....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The StarTribune has questioned and challenged Hennepin County&apos;s costs in developing this program....In addition, the StarTribune has demanded that Hennepin County provide the computer program used to obtain the requested data. The StarTribune has asserted that it is entitled to the program as its production is a commissioned work .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 375.86, did Hennepin County respond appropriately to the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request for access to a copy of a computer program? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 375.86, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    County software product programming source code, object code, and all material relating to product or system development and distribution is trade secret information for purposes of classification under section 13.37, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies trade secret information as private (data on individuals) and/or nonpublic (data not on individuals).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In the case of this opinion, the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested a copy of a program that the County wrote to extract certain payroll information from its payroll system. Mr. Browning, in his opinion request, wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [the reporter] requested the payroll information last fall. The county and I spent the ensuing months trying to ascertain the legitimate cost for producing the data. Ultimately, I became skeptical that it took as much time as the county claimed to write the program. We have been asking for the data every year, so the program should already have existed. However, this year, we made a very minor modification. The county claimed it took four hours for its programmer to make the modification. I agreed to pay the county&apos;s stated cost, but I also asked for a copy of the program. I want a copy so the county can no longer charge me to write the program in future years.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Browning further asserted:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The code I requested can do nothing except extract information from the county&apos;s own computer system. It is not an application, software product or computer system. It cannot be used to duplicate, copy, create or otherwise mimic the county&apos;s computer system. It is a query, nothing more; a question that is put to the computer. Furthermore, I commissioned the writing of it...I should have a right to inspect the work I commissioned to evaluate the county&apos;s claim that it took a certain number of hours to produce.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Hough, on behalf of the County, wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [F]or the past several years, Hennepin County has been responsive to and accommodated the requests of the StarTribune for the production of employment data in a compatible computer readable form. This data can be generated in a paper and copy form by Hennepin County.... [Chapter 13] does not state that a requestor is entitled to information in a particular form....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Hennepin County has developed...a state-of-the-art computer system. This system contains public, private, confidential, non-public and protected non-public data. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.05, Subd. 5, Hennepin County has established appropriate safeguards for all records contained in the Hennepin County computer system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The Hennepin County computer system includes the software product programming source code, object code and all other material related to product or system development and distribution. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 375.86 this is trade secret information and is classified as nonpublic data or private data under Minn. Stat. section 13.37, Subd. 2....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Hough added that the County claims a proprietary interest in its computer software program or components. Therefore, he asserted, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 5, the software is trade secret information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The issue in this opinion is whether the County appropriately denied access to the computer program the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested. The County argues that the program, which Mr. Hough described as a modification created to extract only the public data fields requested by the StarTribune, is classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 375.86, and is therefore not accessible to the newspaper. Although Section 375.86 is somewhat vague, its coverage is quite broad and appears to include the requested computer program. Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the County&apos;s position is correct; the program is protected.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As to Mr. Browning&apos;s argument that he ought to be able to inspect the work for which he paid, it appears that such an examination was not part of the agreement between the County and Mr. Browning. The fact that the County created the program specifically to respond to the newspaper&apos;s request does not negate the not public classification legislated by section 375.86. Mr. Browning would be well advised in his future dealings with the County to assure that receipt of a copy of government data, which is only created in response to his specific request and upon payment by him or his employer of the full cost of creating the data, is part of the agreement with the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Browning is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, and Minnesota Statutes, section 375.86, it appears that Hennepin County appropriately denied access to the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request for access to a copy of a computer program. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 16, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266760</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification generally</Title><Id>266759</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-021</Title><title>Opinion 99 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268034&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-07-07T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Metropolitan Airports Commissioner responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data about him/her?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 7, 1999; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 3, 1999, IPA received a letter dated June 4, 1999, from L. In this letter, L asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding L&apos;s access to certain data about L that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) maintains.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Anderson, General Counsel for the MAC, in response to L&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 9, 1999, were to inform him of L&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On June 18, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Anderson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by L is as follows. In a letter dated May 20, 1999, L wrote to Mr. Anderson, It appears to me that MAC has several files under my name. I would like to have access to each file and examine the documents myself.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, L wrote, More than 15 days have gone by and I have not heard from the General Counsel&apos;s office. I also called his office twice this week and they have not answered my calls.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                L then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his/her request for an opinion, L asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the Metropolitan Airports Commissioner responded appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data about him/her? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, a data subject is entitled to inspect or obtain copies of government data of which s/he is the subject. Subdivision 3 of section 13.04 states that the government entity must allow inspection or provide copies immediately or within five working days. If the entity is unable to respond within the first five days, it must so notify the requestor and may then take an additional five working days to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, L asked to inspect data in a May 20, 1999, letter. As of June 4, 1999, L wrote that MAC had not responded to his/her request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anderson, on behalf of MAC, wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [L] stated...that more than 15 days have gone by since his request and that he has not heard from our office. For your information, a copy of MAC&apos;s response, dated June 17, 1999, to [L&apos;s] request of May 20, 1999 is enclosed. It is MAC&apos;s practice to respond in an appropriate and timely manner to all requests for data....However, the content and complexity of [L&apos;s] request dated May 20, 1999 has precluded MAC from responding within this timeframe. In addition, the individual who has prepared MAC&apos;s responses to [L&apos;s] requests was sick and on vacation for a number of days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anderson disputed L&apos;s assertion that the MAC had not returned L&apos;s calls during the week of May 31, 1999. Mr. Anderson stated, We did not receive any phone calls in our department from [L], nor do we have any record of receiving any voicemail messages from [L]. He added, If we had received a phone call or voicemail message from [L], [L&apos;s] call would have been returned in an expedient manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To his response, Mr. Anderson attached a copy of the June 17, 1999, letter to L. In this letter, Mr. Anderson stated that two files are responsive to [L&apos;s] request and that L should contact MAC to arrange a mutually convenient time to look at the data. Mr. Anderson wrote that other data maintained by MAC about L are not available to L pursuant to section 13.30, attorney data, and section 13.39, civil investigative data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    L requested access to data in a letter dated May 20, 1999. Pursuant to section 13.04, if the MAC could not respond immediately or within the next five working days, it needed to so inform L. The MAC neither gave L any notification nor provided L with a response until June 17, 1999, approximately 17 working days later. This was not timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue L raised is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Metropolitan Airports Commission did not respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s May 20, 1999, request for access to data. The MAC did not provide access to the data or the notice required by section 13.04. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 7, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268034</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:33Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-020</Title><title>Opinion 99 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267268&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-07-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Have Mr. Plisner&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, been violated if the City of Little Canada requires him to inspect public government data in the presence of a City employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 7, 1999; City of Little Canada</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 24, 1999, IPA received a letter dated May 23, 1999, from Simcha Plisner. Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights to gain access to data the City of Little Canada maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joel Hanson, Administrator of Little Canada, in response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 2, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On June 11, 1999, IPA received a response, dated June 8, 1999, from Michael Budka, an attorney representing Little Canada.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Plisner sought to inspect all data regarding the sump pump inspection program. According to a letter from Mr. Plisner to Mr. Hanson, part of the City&apos;s response was that staff would be present during Mr. Plisner&apos;s inspection of the data. Mr. Plisner objected and in another letter to Mr. Hanson he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;May I suggest that I sit at the far end of the council table where I will review the requested data. Your agent, I suggest, can sit or stand at the door entry to the council chamber protecting the data security without being able to monitor exactly what I am doing, reading, or writing. He/she will have full view so as to be able to secure the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Hanson responded, The records are (and have been) available for your inspection at ciy hall. I will accompany you during your review. Please call to arrange a time to conduct your review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Plisner then requested an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Have Mr. Plisner&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, been violated if the City of Little Canada requires him to inspect public government data in the presence of a City employee?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, individuals have the right to inspect and obtain copies of public government data. Further, pursuant to section 13.04, individuals have the right to inspect and obtain copies of public government data of which they are the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, when a government entity grants access to data, it must take measures to protect and preserve those data. Subdivision 1 of section 15.17, the official records act, states, All officers and agencies of the state, counties, cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. When read together, section 15.17 and section 13.03 impose an obligation upon government entities to preserve records used to conduct public business so those records will be available for public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, Mr. Plisner requested access to sump pump inspection data. Mr. Budka, on behalf of Little Canada, stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It is the City of Little Canada&apos;s position that a City employee be present as Mr. Plisner reviews the records he has requested. As the responsible authority, the City of Little Canada must ensure the security and integrity of government data, as well as provide access to government data at reasonable times and places.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The City of Little Canada is responsible for the preservation of all government records held for and maintained for operation. It is the City&apos;s duty to carefully protect and preserve government records from deterioration, mutilation, loss, or destruction. Minn. Stat. section15.17, Subd. 2. Based upon this duty, the City sets guidelines for review and/or duplication of government documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner addressed a somewhat similar situation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267640&quot; title=&quot;96-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-028&lt;/a&gt;. She wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In this case, K&apos;s rights to have access to the private data about him/her must be balanced with DHS&apos; obligation to protect the security of those data. It would seem K is correct in asserting that if K wishes to discuss the data with her/his designee, the security guard would then have access to the private data about K. However, if DHS staff believe the security of the data are threatened, or if DHS staff are not comfortable explaining the data to K in the absence of a security guard, then DHS is justified in finding some way to meet its obligation to Chapter 13 and to its staff....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;However, DHS bears the ultimate responsibility for finding some way to accommodate, if at all possible, these two clear obligations, which in this instance appear to be heavily in conflict.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Possible ways for K and DHS to resolve this dilemma include the following: requiring K to inspect documents in the presence of a designee with a security guard posted outside the door; positioning a security guard in such a way that the guard could observe K&apos;s inspection of the data without being able to overhear any questions discussed by K and the designee; providing K with copies of the documents so that the physical integrity of the original data would not be an issue; and/or allowing K to inspect copies of the documents outside the presence of a security guard with telephone communication to a designee for any explanations that might be required. Undoubtedly, there are other possible ways for DHS and K to accommodate each other&apos;s interests. Given the obligations of Chapter 13 and other public information policy requirements, the responsibility rests on DHS, to, if at all possible, find a mutually acceptable solution. However, this will be possible only if K is willing to cooperate with DHS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, Mr. Plisner has the right to gain access to the data and Little Canada is obligated to protect and secure those same data. Somehow, Mr. Plisner and Little Canada will have to find a way to resolve this dispute. If Mr. Plisner is concerned that the City&apos;s staff person will observe every document he reads or every word in each note he takes, perhaps the staff person could position him/herself far enough away from Mr. Plisner to avoid seeing what Mr. Plisner is looking at or copying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267640&quot; title=&quot;96-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-028&lt;/a&gt;, it is the government entity that bears the responsibility of finding a mutually acceptable solution. However, to arrive at that solution, both parties must be willing to cooperate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, Mr. Plisner&apos;s right to gain access to data must be balanced with the City of Little Canada&apos;s obligation to preserve and protect those data. It appears neither prudent nor appropriate for the City to place a representative such that the representative can observe Mr. Plisner&apos;s review of individual documents or note taking, or overhear Mr. Plisner&apos;s oral remarks. The responsibility to determine a proper balance rests with the City; however, both parties must be willing to cooperate.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 7, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267268</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-019</Title><title>Opinion 99 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267554&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-07-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the Waterville Police Civil Service Commission disseminate private personnel data about an employee under its jurisdiction to the Waterville City Council?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 7, 1999; City of Waterville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 27, 1999, IPA received a letter from Jeff McFarland, Chair of the City of Waterville Police Civil Service Commission. In his letter, Mr. McFarland asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Commission. In response, IPA requested clarification and additional information. On May 19, 1999, IPA received a letter from Terrence J. Foy, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Waterville Police Civil Service Commission was established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 419. Pursuant to section 419.05, [t]he commission shall have absolute control and supervision over the employment, promotion, discharge, and suspension of all officers and employees of the police department of such city and these powers shall extend to and include all members of the police department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                An employee under the jurisdiction of the Commission has been placed on administrative leave. According to Mr. McFarland, [m]embers of the Waterville City Council, representing the City as the actual employer, have requested that the Commission provide them with private personnel data regarding the underlying basis . . . . for the leave.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Foy, [c]ertain of the private personnel data regarding the employee&apos;s placement on administrative leave consists of medical data relating to whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Other private personnel data consists of data relating to a complaint or charge against the employee.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. McFarland asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the Waterville Police Civil Service Commission disseminate private personnel data about an employee under its jurisdiction to the Waterville City Council? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Certain data about public employees are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Of relevance here, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, and the fact that an employee is on administrative leave for medical reasons. The specific reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave are private data. Accordingly, members of the City Council may gain access to public data about the employee, as could any member of the public, including the fact that there is a complaint or charge made against the employee, its status, and the fact that the employee is on an administrative leave for medical reasons.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data may be disclosed to individuals within a government entity, i.e., city council members, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 3: [t]he responsible authority shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, if the responsible authority for the City has made the determination that Council members&apos; work assignments reasonably require access to the data, the City Council members may gain access to private data about the reasons for the employee&apos;s leave, and details about the complaint or charge made against her/him. (See Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.) The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the written procedures required by Rule, or details about the Council&apos;s relationship with the Commission. Thus, it is difficult for the Commissioner to make that determination. The Commissioner can envision circumstances under which the Council members&apos; work assignments in providing direction to City operations would require them to have access to the kind of data described by Mr. Foy. However, that requires a specific determination by the responsible authority for the City. The Commissioner has not been provided any information that states that the responsible authority has made that determination.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One further note: Mr. Foy stated that some of the private data relate to whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. That suggests that the City might need to explore possible implications of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act when making its determination regarding dissemination of the data in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. McFarland is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, the Waterville Police Civil Service Commission may disseminate private personnel data about an employee under its jurisdiction to the Waterville City Council if the Council members&apos; work assignments reasonably require access to the data. The responsible authority for the City must make that determination, in accordance with the written procedures required under Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 3. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 7, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267554</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)</Title><Id>267254</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment requires access</Title><Id>266518</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-018</Title><title>Opinion 99 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267635&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-06-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Independent School District 15, St. Francis, properly respond to a public request for information regarding its evaluation of the performance of a District employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 30, 1999; School District 15 (St. Francis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On May 11, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;i&gt;Anoka County Union&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the response to a request for access to data that the &lt;i&gt;Union&lt;/i&gt; received from Independent School District 15, St. Francis. Mr. Anfinson enclosed a copy of the minutes from a District School Board meeting.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James L. Smith, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated May 12, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 19, 1999, IPA received a response from Paul C. Ratwick, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 1, 1999, the District School Board held a closed meeting for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the District superintendent. According to Mr. Anfinson, [a]t the conclusion of the closed meeting, the chair of the school board, Kim Hirsch, stated simply that the board discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the superintendent.&apos; The minutes of the Board meeting contain the same statement. The Board did not provide any further details about the performance evaluation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 According to Mr. Anfinson, [a &lt;i&gt;Union&lt;/i&gt; reporter] challenged this statement on the grounds that it did not comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. section 471.705, subd. 1d(d). . . . In response to the &lt;i&gt;Union&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request, Ms. Hirsch stated that the District&apos;s attorney had advised her that the statement read into the minutes fulfilled the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, and that she could say no more because it would violate data privacy.&apos;
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwick stated that the School Board could not have released additional information, pursuant to section 13.43. Mr. Ratwick cited Minnesota case law in support of the District&apos;s position that no additional information could be made public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Independent School District 15, St. Francis, properly respond to a public request for information regarding its evaluation of the performance of a District employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Certain data about public employees are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Data relating to the performance evaluation of a public employee are private data. However, pursuant to section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. &lt;u&gt;At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation&lt;/u&gt;. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 471.705, subdivision 1d(a) provides, in relevant part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this section without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson stated that the above-cited provisions of section 471.705, subdivision 1d, explicitly provide for the disclosure of a summary of the evaluation data discussed at a meeting closed to evaluate the performance of the superintendent. Mr. Anfinson contends that the statement that the Board discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses does not constitute an adequate summarization of the Board&apos;s conclusions regarding the superintendent&apos;s performance. Mr. Anfinson wrote: . . . it is difficult to see how the legislature intended that such useless generalities as announced by Ms. Hirsch would meet the statutory mandate to provide a report on the conclusions after a closed evaluation session.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwick cited Minnesota case law in support of the District&apos;s position that additional data about the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation could not be released. However, the Minnesota Legislature amended both the Open Meeting Law and Chapter 13 subsequent to the issuance of cases cited by Mr. Ratwick.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In a 1989 Minnesota Supreme Court case, the Court, &lt;i&gt;inter alia&lt;/i&gt;, established the principle that governing bodies could close any and all meetings to discuss not public data. (See &lt;i&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/i&gt;, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989).) The Supreme Court also invited the Legislature to take action if it did not like the conclusions the Court reached in &lt;i&gt;Annandale&lt;/i&gt;. In response, the Legislature amended the Open Meeting Law in 1990. (See Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.) The intent of those amendments was to harmonize the relationship between the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As a part of those amendments, the Legislature addressed the high public interest in the performance of certain public employees, and, in particular, employees about whom personnel decisions are made by governing bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Legislature authorized governing bodies to close meetings to discuss personnel data about public employees, including performance evaluations, subject to certain limitations. However, the Legislature also clearly required that once a public body completed its closed-meeting evaluation of an employee subject to its authority, the body must, at its next public meeting, summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. (See section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d), and Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, according to section 13.03, subdivision 11, [n]ot public data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 471.705, subdivision 1d. (See Laws of Minnesota 1994, Chapter 618, article 1, section 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, the District was required to provide a summary of its conclusions regarding the superintendent&apos;s performance evaluation at its next meeting open to the public. The Commissioner does not agree that the statement made by the Board chair, and reflected in the meeting minutes, that the Board discussed the superintendent&apos;s strengths and weaknesses, constitutes a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 15, St. Francis, did not properly respond to a public request for information regarding its evaluation of the performance of a District employee. Pursuant to section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d), the School Board should have provided a summary of its conclusions regarding its evaluation of the superintendent&apos;s performance.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 30, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267635</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:28:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-017</Title><title>Opinion 99 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267221&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-06-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the St. Cloud State University Human Resources Office impose the fees indicated on its &quot;Request for Public Personnel Information from SCSU&quot; form?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 21, 1999; St. Cloud State University</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 29, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud State University Chronicle&lt;/em&gt;, the student newspaper at St. Cloud State University (SCSU). In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the propriety of SCSU&apos;s fees for public personnel data. Mr. Anfinson enclosed a copy of SCSU&apos;s data request form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bruce Grube, President of SCSU. The purposes of this letter, dated May 11, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for SCSU&apos;s position. On May 21, 1999, IPA received a response from Annette R. Wilson, Special Assistant to the President/General Counsel. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Chronicle&lt;/em&gt; received an announcement from the SCSU Human Resources Office concerning its fees for copies of public personnel data. The &lt;em&gt;Chronicle&lt;/em&gt; interpreted the new data request form, entitled Request for Public Personnel Information from SCSU, to be a departure from SCSU&apos;s previous policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson characterized the contents of the request form as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First, certain public personnel data (those listed in the top portion of the form) are available for viewing . . . at no charge.&apos; The minimum charge for copies is $1.00 plus 10rsaquo; per copy page.&apos; I assume that this means that one may look at personnel data on the first list without charge, but that copies of the computer printout cost $1.00 plus 10rsaquo;/page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Second, all [o]ther personnel information&apos; (as listed on the lower portion of the form) is available on request for a minimum charge of $5.00 paid at the time of request, and a 10rsaquo; per copy page&apos; fee. All of the information listed in the second section also appears to be public personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, the form states, If your request requires a computer printout, the minimum charge will be $25.00.&apos; While the scope of this requirement is somewhat ambiguous, our guess is that it covers only the public personnel data listed on the lower half of the form that is, presumably the $25.00 fee applies only to a computer printout containing those data. However, we are not clear how this fee differs from the $5.00 fee referred to earlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s description of what the data request form appears to state about charges for viewing or receiving copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Wilson stated that the form was new but the policy was not. According to Ms. Wilson, the purpose of updating the form was to clarify which public personnel data are available for public inspection at two SCSU locations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wilson stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The cost we charge for copying has not changed for several years even though the actual costs have risen. At the time the cost was set, for copied information that did not require a computer printout, the cost was based on a calculation of a prorated portion of the salary of the lowest paid office employee who would be doing the copying for an estimated minimum amount of time plus the cost of copier use, paper, toner, etc. Computer printouts are generally necessary only for voluminous, extensive requests and the cost is based on the prorated portion of the salary of the lowest paid computer technician who must write the program to retrieve the information and run the computer, plus the cost of the computer use, paper, print, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the St. Cloud State University Human Resources Office impose the fees indicated on its Request for Public Personnel Information from SCSU form?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in question are classified as public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In relevant part, section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, in order to determine a reasonable copying fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;A. the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;B. the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;C. any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of operations;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;D. any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based record keeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;E. mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides, in relevant part: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Wilson did not explain why SCSU has different minimum charges of $1.00 or $5.00, depending upon which specific data elements are requested. She also did not explain how the $25.00 minimum charge for a computer printout relates to the $5.00 minimum charge, or how any of the minimum charges reflect SCSU&apos;s actual cost to produce copies of public personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that SCSU has designed a data retrieval system that allows for easy and convenient access to some, but not all, of the public personnel data it maintains, contrary to section 13.03, subdivision 1. SCSU did not meet the burden of establishing that its copying fees comply with the requirements of section 13.03, subdivisions 1 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4. (The Commissioner has addressed the issue of computing costs for copies of government data in numerous previous advisory opinions. See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267216&quot; title=&quot;94-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-028&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267402&quot; title=&quot;94-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267741&quot; title=&quot;94-059&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-059&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267781&quot; title=&quot;95-044&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-044&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267240&quot; title=&quot;95-051&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-051&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267414&quot; title=&quot;96-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-014&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267345&quot; title=&quot;97-012&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-012&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267866#/detail/appId/1/id/267813&quot; title=&quot;97-013&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-013&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. Wilson emphasized that SCSU charges only for copies of data. However, one can reasonably conclude from the data request form that free inspection is available only for those data listed in the top portion of the form. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may not charge any fee for inspection of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the St. Cloud State University Human Resources Office may charge only the actual cost to produce copies of public personnel data. SCSU did not meet the burden of justifying the fees indicated on its Request for Public Personnel Information from SCSU form.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 21, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267221</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minimum charge not allowed</Title><Id>266919</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-016</Title><title>Opinion 99 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267831&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-06-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) appropriately deny access to data based on section 13.39, civil investigative data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 18, 1999; Minnesota State College and University System</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA, and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 26, 1999, IPA received a letter dated April 23, 1999, from Carol Ellingson, an attorney representing the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO) and its member M, a staff person at St. Cloud State University (SCSU). In her letter, Ms. Ellingson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding M’s access to certain data maintained by SCSU, which is part of the Minnesota State College and University System (MnSCU). Pursuant to 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules section 1205. 0200, subpart 15, MnSCU’s chancellor is the responsible authority for SCSU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Morris Anderson, Chancellor of MnSCU, in response to Ms. Ellingson’s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 1999, were to inform him of Ms. Ellingson’s request and to ask him to provide information or support for MnSCU’s position. On May 14, 1999, IPA received comments, dated May 12, 1999, from Gary Cunningham, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In March of 1999, the Dean of SCSU sent a memo to M stating, “the reprimand stands as an oral reprimand and will be reported to your personnel file.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In April of 1999, M made a written request for “a copy of the information resulting in my oral reprimand.” In a memo dated three days later, Annette Wilson, President of SCSU, responded that the data are “investigative data pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.39 and cannot be accessed until after a final disposition of any disciplinary action.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shortly thereafter, according to Ms. Ellingson, “a grievance was initiated under the grievance procedure of the applicable collective bargaining agreement between IFO and MnSCU regarding the discipline of [M].” Ms. Ellingson added that the IFO “has not yet requested arbitration.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Ellingson then requested this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Ellingson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) appropriately deny access to data based on section 13.39, civil investigative data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about current and former government employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which provides a listing of the public types of personnel data and classifies most other personnel data as private. Private data are not public but are accessible to the data subject and those individuals within the government entity whose work assignments reasonably require that they gain access to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 (a) of section 13.43, the following personnel data are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, &lt;u&gt;a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement&lt;/u&gt;. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the classification of data relating to the final outcome of complaints or charges against a public employee depends upon whether a “final disposition” of any disciplinary action has occurred. If there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action, only limited data regarding the incident are public, i.e., whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of any such complaint or charge. If there has been a final disposition, additional data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, SCSU disciplined M. SCSU is part of a statewide system known as MnSCU. M is a member of IFO and is covered under a collective bargaining unit. Ms. Ellingson wrote, “a grievance was initiated under the grievance procedure of the applicable collective bargaining agreement between IFO and MnSCU regarding the discipline of [M].” Ms. Ellingson added that the IFO “has not yet requested arbitration.” Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of MnSCU wrote, “[The] grievance is currently pending.” Therefore, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, a final disposition of the disciplinary action has not occurred and only the following data are public: M’s name; the fact that a complaint exists; and the status of that complaint. Any of the remaining data in question that are about M or other government employees are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, private data are accessible by the data subject. However, one exception to this general rule occurs in situations when the government entity determines that the data are civil investigative data. (See Section 13.39.) Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 13.39 provide that when the chief attorney acting for an entity determines that a civil legal action is pending, the following data are confidential: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See section 13.39, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Ellingson wrote, “IFO understands that the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office serves as the chief legal officer for campuses of the State University System and that Annette R. Wilson, author of [memo denying access to data], does not serve as chief legal officer for St. Cloud State University.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Cunningham wrote, &quot;The chief attorney for MnSCU has determined that grievance proceedings pursuant to the IFO contract are &apos;pending civil legal actions until there is a final disposition.&apos; Since the grievance process is pending, the investigatory documents are confidential pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.39, subd.2 (1998).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One part of Mr. Cunningham&apos;s argument is problematic; he did not clearly identify MnSCU&apos;s chief attorney. Ms. Ellingson asserted that the Minnesota Attorney General&apos;s Office, not Ms. Wilson, is the chief attorney for SCSU/MnSCU and Mr. Cunningham neither confirmed nor denied her statement. Identifying the person who serves in this capacity is important because if Ms. Wilson is not the chief attorney, she cannot make the determination that a civil legal action is pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Ellingson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39, if MnSCU&apos;s chief attorney determined that a civil legal action was pending, the data subject&apos;s request was appropriately denied. If, however, the chief attorney did not make the determination, the response was not appropriate; the data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and accessible by the data subject.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 18, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267831</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Identification of chief attorney</Title><Id>267243</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-11-03T14:43:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-015</Title><title>Opinion 99 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267611&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-06-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, or its agents inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student Y and/or Y&apos;s parents to the public which then appeared in a newspaper article published in January of 1997?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, or its agents inappropriately disseminate private educational data about sibling students X and Y and/or their parents to the public which then appeared in a newspaper article published on February 3, 1999?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did a School District 273, Edina, middle school teacher inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student X and/or X&apos;s parents to an elementary school teacher who then disseminated the data to his/her elementary school principal?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 8, 1999; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 18, 1999, IPA received a letter dated February 10, 1999, from the Ws, a married couple. In their letter, the Ws asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion about their and their children&apos;s rights regarding certain data maintained by School District 273, Edina. The Ws&apos; request required clarification and additional information. The Ws raised several issues in their request; the Commissioner agreed to address three of them in this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kenneth Dragseth, Superintendent of the District, in response to the Ws&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 1999, were to inform him of the Ws&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 13, 1999, IPA received comments, dated May 12, 1999, from Ann Goering, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. The Ws&apos; children, X and Y, attend school in the District. Accordingly, the District maintains data, most of which are private, about the Ws and X and Y. Over the past several years, the Ws and the District have been involved in a number of disputes. Some of the disputes involved one of Y&apos;s former teachers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In October of 1995, the aforementioned teacher filed in district court for a restraining order against one of the Ws. As a result, additional documents were filed in court and there was a hearing. Later, in April of 1996, the same teacher filed in district court a lawsuit against the Ws, the District, and the teacher&apos;s labor union. Whether or not the court filings are public is determined by court-established rules. In this case, the Commissioner knows that many of the court filings are public record; his representative has inspected them. (See Rule 4, Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 1997 and 1999, two newspaper articles were published which contained information about the Ws and their children. The Ws requested an advisory opinion alleging that the District had released private educational data to the public which then ended up in the articles. The Ws also alleged that District employees had disseminated private data about one of their children to persons within the District who had no need to know of that specific information&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, the Ws asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, or its agents inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student Y and/or Y&apos;s parents to the public which then appeared in a newspaper article published in January of 1997?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did School District 273, Edina, or its agents inappropriately disseminate private educational data about sibling students X and Y and/or their parents to the public which then appeared in a newspaper article published on February 3, 1999?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did a School District 273, Edina, middle school teacher inappropriately disseminate private educational data about student X and/or X&apos;s parents to an elementary school teacher who then disseminated the data to his/her elementary school principal?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about students and their parents are classified at Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data are private and not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The background giving rise to this opinion is as follows. The teacher, the teacher&apos;s union, the Ws, and the District all filed documents in court which contain detailed information about the Ws, X, and Y, and their disputes with the District. Once these documents were filed, pursuant to court rules, many, if not all, of them became part of the public court record and are accessible to anyone. (The Commissioner cannot say for certain whether all of the documents filed in court are part of the public record. However, for purposes of this opinion, it is important only that the documents that are public contain substantial amounts of detail regarding the situation.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the first two issues of this opinion, the Ws alleged that the District violated their rights and the rights of X and Y when the &quot;data was published in [each of the two articles].&quot; The Ws asserted that the reporters who wrote the articles could not have obtained the information from any public documents. They wrote, &quot;There are no public documents...from which [these articles] could have been written.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as part of the District&apos;s response, Ms. Goering wrote that other than any public directory information (see section 13.32, subdivision 5), &quot;No other information about the students was released to the public outside of the Court system...&quot; Attached to her response were copies of filings relating to the restraining order and one of the filings relating to the civil law suit. Of the civil suit, she wrote, &quot;Enclosed please find a listing of the court filings...which the Department of Administration may review at the Hennepin County Government Center, but which are too voluminous to be reproduced here.&quot; She added, &quot;These documents include numerous affidavits and memoranda containing detailed factual allegations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Representatives of the Commissioner reviewed the newspaper articles, the court documents that Ms. Goering submitted, and additional court documents (roughly six inches of paper) that Ms. Goering referred to in her response. The articles contain substantial amounts of detail about the Ws&apos; disputes with the District. The Ws are mentioned by name and although their children are not, they are described in such a way that they could be identified. The court files consist of numerous documents, many of which contain highly detailed descriptions of the relationship between the teacher and the Ws and also information about Y and X. In addition, the incidents leading up to the various legal battles are depicted in great detail. Upon comparing the data contained in the newspaper articles to the data in the public court filings, it is possible the reporters obtained some of the information by reading the court documents. However, there is no way for the Commissioner to determine, with absolute certainty, from where the data published in the articles originated, be it public court records, school district personnel, or other members of the public, e.g, other students or parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Commissioner can conclude only that if any of the data in the newspaper articles came directly from interviews/discussions with district personnel, and those personnel released private educational data about the Ws and their children, the Ws&apos; rights were violated. If however, the articles were based solely on information obtained from the public court records, the Ws&apos; rights have not been violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the third issue, the Ws alleged that a District middle school teacher disseminated, without consent, several documents containing private educational data about X and the Ws to an elementary school teacher. The elementary school teacher then disseminated the information to his/her school principal. The Ws objected to this dissemination because X was a middle school student, not an elementary school student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both state and federal law set forth standards regarding access to private data by employees of a school district. Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400 states that private data may be disseminated to those persons within the entity, e.g., the District, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the private data. 34 CFR 99.31(a)(1), of the rules implementing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), provides that education records may be disclosed to other school officials, including teachers, within the institution whom the institution has determined to have a legitimate educational interest in the record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, 34 CFR 99.7(a)(3)(iii) states that if a District has a policy of disclosing records under 99.31(a)(1), the district must include in its annual notification to parents a specification of criteria for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes a legitimate educational interest. In the case of this opinion, the District did not provide the Commissioner with any information as to how the District, in its policies and procedures, makes decisions and guides its employees on how to make those determinations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is not possible for the Commissioner to say definitively whether the elementary school teacher and/or his/her principal needed the data in question to perform their work responsibilities or whether they had a legitimate educational interest in obtaining the data. The Commissioner does not know the District&apos;s position on this issue because Ms. Goering did not address it in her response. The Commissioner does know that the District should have provided detailed guidance to its employees on issues of access to educational data. (See federal rules cited above.) The District&apos;s failure to provide a copy of the federally required specifications raises the possibility that the District has not met its obligation under federal law. However, without further information, the Commissioner cannot make a definite determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by the Ws is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1: If any of the data in the newspaper articles came directly from interviews/discussions with district personnel, and those personnel released private educational data about the Ws and their children, School District 273, Edina, violated the Ws&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. If however, the articles were based solely on information obtained from the public court records, the Ws&apos; rights have not been violated.
&lt;p&gt;2: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, if the elementary school teacher and his/her principal had work assignments requiring their access to the private educational data and/or had legitimate educational interest in the data, the District did not violate the Ws&apos; rights. However, if no legitimate educational interest and/or work assignment necessity existed, the District did violate the Ws&apos; rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 8, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267611</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court records (See also: Judicial branch)</Title><Id>266571</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-014</Title><title>Opinion 99 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267697&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-06-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data generated by the Arrowhead Library System in response to a complaint made about one of its employees: an investigative report and related notes?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 1, 1999; Arrowhead Library System</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 5, 1999, William Sample requested an advisory opinion on behalf of the Arrowhead Library System. He asked the Commissioner to determine the classification of certain data maintained by the Library System.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. An employee of the Library System complained that another employee had harassed him/her. In response, the Library System contracted with an outside agency that investigated the allegations and issued a report. The Library System did not take disciplinary action against the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Library System requested an advisory opinion upon receiving a data request from the employee against whom the complaint was made&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sample asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data generated by the Arrowhead Library System in response to a complaint made about one of its employees: an investigative report and related notes?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data on individuals about current and former government employees are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, which provides a listing of the public types of personnel data and classifies most other personnel data as private. Private data are not public but are accessible to the data subject and those individuals within the government entity whose work assignments reasonably require that they gain access to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 (a) of section 13.43, the following personnel data are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee; regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b) provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the classification of data relating to the final outcome of complaints or charges against a public employee depends upon whether a final disposition of any disciplinary action has occurred. If there has been no final disposition of a disciplinary action, only limited data regarding the incident are public, i.e., whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of any such complaint or charge. If there has been a final disposition, additional data become public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, the Library System did not take disciplinary action against its employee. Mr. Sample wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the conclusion of that investigation, the independent investigative agency provided a report to the System describing the facts identified during the investigation but without any conclusions regarding the merits of the claim or recommendations regarding any discipline or corrective action that might be appropriate....It has been determined that there will be no discipline as a result of the allegations made by the complaining employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, because the Library System will not be taking disciplinary action, the fact that a complaint was made against the employee and the status of that complaint are public; any of the remaining data in question that are about government employees are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the investigative report and related notes, it appears they contain data about multiple data subjects. Thus, to respond appropriately to the data request, the Library System is obligated to 1) provide that employee with access to the data about him/her and 2) not release private data about any other employees. For more guidance regarding separating information about multiple data subjects, see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267430&quot; title=&quot;93-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;93-010&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267392&quot; title=&quot;97-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-010&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267687&quot; title=&quot;97-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-018&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One additional note regards section 13.43, subdivision 8, harassment data. Mr. Sample stated that the complaint was one of harassment. Subdivision 8 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. subject the complainant or witness to harassment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the Library System&apos;s responsible authority determines that the release of identifying data about the complainant and/or witnesses would subject the complainant or other witnesses to harassment or threaten personal safety, the Library System is obligated to protect that information. However, given the facts of this particular situation, the Library System may reasonably conclude that the data protected by subdivision 8 are data about other employees and are not accessible to the complainant because they are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sample is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, the following data contained in an investigative report and related notes generated by the Arrowhead Library System in response to a complaint made about one of its employees are classified as public: the name of the employee; the existence of the complaint; and the status of the Library System&apos;s handling of the complaint. The remaining data are classified as private.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 1, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267697</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-013</Title><title>Opinion 99 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266869&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-05-28T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor properly deny public access to individual legislator&apos;s survey responses?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 28, 1999; Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 23, 1999, IPA received a letter from Marjory E. Aldrich. In her letter, Ms. Aldrich asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor. Ms. Aldrich enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James R. Nobles, the Legislative Auditor. The purposes of this letter, dated May 11, 1999, were to inform him of Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the Auditor&apos;s position. On May 25, 1999, IPA received a response from Mr. Nobles. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Legislative Auditor&apos;s Office sends a one-page survey each year to legislators. The survey form identifies topics under consideration for program evaluation studies by the topic selection subcommittee of the Legislative Audit Commission. Legislators are asked to indicate their level of interest in the topics, and to return the form. The survey results are used by the subcommittee in making its recommendations as to its priorities for the year&apos;s evaluations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Mr. Nobles dated April 20, 1999, Ms. Aldrich requested copies of the individual survey responses submitted to the Legislative Auditor&apos;s Office by legislators. In response to an earlier request for the data, the Auditor&apos;s Office had provided Ms. Aldrich with a summary of the survey responses. In her letter to Mr. Nobles, Ms. Aldrich stated that she was seeking access to the individual results, which Mr. Nobles&apos; Office had denied her.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request, Mr. Nobles wrote: [o]n advice of Senate Counsel, we have established an office policy to consider these documents to be private data under the provisions of Minn. Stat. section13.33. . . . which classifies correspondence between individuals and elected officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Aldrich stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We take the position that survey results which establish the direction the legislative audits will go does not meet the definition of correspondence&apos; because it is a process or procedure required by law as part of this selection process to be discussed at public meeting and on which the final selections for audit will be based. We take the position, because this data is a record of our elected legislators&apos; position with which the constituency may or may not agree, and, because it is the basis for the survey data which is supposed to represent the opinions of our elected legislators, it must be considered public data&apos;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nobles wrote, [o]ften, legislators hand write on the survey forms additional notes or comments about the topics. Given the nature of some of the comments, they often do so with the presumption of privacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nobles stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;This provision of law [section 13.33] recognizes the need for a zone of privacy&apos; in which elected officials can communicate freely with staff, citizens, and other public officials, often about extremely sensitive matters. As I am sure you are aware, legislators have long claimed the prerogative to engage in protected communications with their various staff, including staff in the Revisor&apos;s Office, Senate Counsel, House Research, as well as in executive branch agencies. Communication between legislators and the Legislative Auditor&apos;s Office should not be an exception.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nobles further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Finally, as you consider the proper classification of this survey document, please keep in mind that the Legislative Auditor receives other forms of communication (letters, phone calls, emails, etc.) from legislators and other public officials requesting audits and investigations. This communication often contains allegations and other sensitive information, and it is typically sent to the Legislative Auditor with an expectation of privacy. To not extend privacy protection to the individual survey documents brought into question by Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request would have serious implications for the protection of these other forms of communication. That would, in my view, seriously undermine the ability of the Legislative Auditor&apos;s Office to perform its audit and investigative functions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Aldrich asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor properly deny public access to individual legislator&apos;s survey responses?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.33 provides: [c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has previously opined that section 13.33 applies only to correspondence between members of the public and elected officials. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267991&quot; title=&quot;97-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/268026&quot; title=&quot;97-014&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-014&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266366#/detail/appId/1/id/267360&quot; title=&quot;98-052&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;98-052&lt;/a&gt;.) Accordingly, section 13.33 does not apply to completed survey forms transmitted from legislators to the Legislative Auditor. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.03, the individual survey responses are presumed to be public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges Mr. Nobles&apos; statements regarding the problems he foresees from that result. The Office of the Legislative Auditor has a unique status. It is a legislative agency that is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. (See section 3.97, subdivision 9.) However, the way to address the difficulties Mr. Nobles envisions is to ask the Legislature to reclassify the data at issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Aldrich is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor improperly denied public access to individual legislator&apos;s survey responses. Section 13.33 does not apply here; accordingly, pursuant to section 13.03, the survey responses are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 28, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266869</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-012</Title><title>Opinion 99 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267515&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-05-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program respond properly to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program improperly disseminate data about R?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 28, 1999; Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 22, 1999, IPA received a letter from R, in which R asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion about R&apos;s rights regarding certain data maintained by the Minnesota Health Professionals Services Program (HPSP). R&apos;s request required clarification and additional information. R raised several issues in her/his request; the Commissioner agreed to address two of them in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to R&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas J. Barrett, Program Director of HPSP. The purposes of this letter, dated April 12, 1999, were to inform him of R&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for HPSP&apos;s position. On May 4, 1999, IPA received a response from Mr. Barrett. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 214.31, HPSP provides services for licensed health professionals impaired by illness. R was referred to HPSP by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for evaluation. As part of the evaluation process, a physician interviewed R. According to Mr. Barrett, the purpose of the interview was to determine the need for and level of monitoring R required. Following the evaluation, R signed a Participation Agreement and Monitoring Plan. R is currently an HPSP program participant.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                R requested access to all data about her/him maintained by HPSP. HPSP staff initially told R that s/he would have to sign a release form to gain access to the data. According to Mr. Barrett, the following day, December 18, 1998, HPSP provided R with some of the private data HPSP maintains about R, without a signed release. At that time, HPSP did not provide R with copies of case notes generated by HPSP staff. On January 11, 1999, HPSP gave R copies of all case notes generated from the date R signed the Participation Agreement and Monitoring Plan.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Barrett, [t]his is because, at that point, [R] was in the program&apos; within the meaning of section 214.35, and entitled to all monitoring data since they are classified as private. Mr. Barrett stated that R was not entitled to a copy of the Participation Agreement or the physician&apos;s evaluation, because they are not monitoring data and are therefore classified as confidential under section 214.35.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                R alleges that an HPSP staff member improperly disseminated private data about R to one or more individuals in another state. HPSP denies the allegation. As the Commissioner understands the situation, R applied for licensure in another state. In response to a question on the application form, R asked her/his HPSP case manager if R were required to report her/his participation in the HPSP monitoring program. The case manager didn&apos;t know the other state&apos;s requirements. R and the case manager discussed R&apos;s concerns that, given that the other state has a small population, it was unlikely that there would be more than one individual with R&apos;s credentials moving there from Minnesota. Therefore, R would have trouble asking the questions and remaining anonymous. R did not want to divulge to the other state R&apos;s participation in HPSP if not required to do so. R and the case manager agreed that the case manager would ask the questions for R under the pretext of a conducting a survey of other states&apos; practices. R did not give consent for HPSP to divulge any data about her/him.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The case manager contacted, by telephone, individuals in the other state&apos;s monitoring program and licensing board to try to answer R&apos;s questions. R and HPSP disagree as to whether any identifying data about R were disseminated during those telephone conversations to individuals in the other state.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                R asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program respond properly to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program improperly disseminate data about R?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The data that HPSP maintains about R are classified according to Minnesota Statutes, section 214.35:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    All data collected and maintained and any agreements with regulated persons entered into as part of the program is classified as active investigative data under section 13.41 while the individual is in the program, except for monitoring data which is classified as private. When a regulated person successfully completes the program, the data and participation agreement become inactive investigative data which shall be classified as private data under section 13.02, subdivision 12, or nonpublic data under section 13.02, subdivision 9, in the case of data not on individuals. Data and agreements shall not be forwarded to the board unless the program reports a participant to a board as described in section 214.33, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.41, active investigative data are classified as confidential.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Barrett, the physician&apos;s evaluation of R and any case notes generated during the evaluation and planning process are also not accessible to R, because they are not monitoring data. He wrote: [i]f they were, the statutory distinction would be meaningless: all data in HPSP&apos;s hands would be monitoring data and available to the licensee, a result the Legislature clearly did not intend.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As this evaluation was completed before R became a program participant, it is reasonable for HPSP to conclude that the physician&apos;s evaluation of R is not monitoring data. R&apos;s assumption that s/he is entitled to the physician&apos;s evaluation may stem from the rights of a patient to gain access to data generated by a health professional, as provided at section 144.335. However, section 214.35 is clear: all data, other than monitoring data, are confidential while the individual is in the program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Barrett acknowledges that section 214.35 yields an anomalous result: an HPSP participant is not entitled to a copy of the Participation Agreement s/he entered into, because the Agreement is classified as confidential. According to Mr. Barrett: [t]o deal with this anomaly in the statute, HPSP gives all regulated persons unsigned copies of the participation agreements they sign so the individual has a written record of the Agreement in place. In addition, the signed Monitoring Plan, which is private data, reiterates the essential elements of the Agreement. Again, section 214.35 is clear: any agreements with regulated persons entered into as part of the program are confidential. The Commissioner suggests that HPSP ask the Legislature to reclassify the Agreements to avoid this unwieldy result.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    HPSP should have provided R with access to all private data about R; that is, the monitoring data, within five working days, or with notice, within ten working days of R&apos;s request, according to section 13.04, subdivision 3. HPSP at no time should have required R to provide it with a consent to release data to her/himself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the second issue, R and HPSP have a factual disagreement as to whether any identifying data about R were disseminated during telephone conversations between the HPSP case manager and individuals in the other state. Those telephone conversations were not tape-recorded. The record relies upon the case manager&apos;s recollections of the conversations, and R&apos;s understanding of the case manager&apos;s reports of those conversations. R did provide a transcript of a telephone conversation R had with the case manager about the telephone calls to the other state. However, the Commissioner has determined it is inconclusive.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the HPSP case manager disseminated identifying data about R to individuals in the other state, the dissemination was not proper, pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 4. However, from the information provided, the Commissioner cannot reasonably conclude that HPSP improperly disseminated data about R.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by R is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program did not respond properly to R&apos;s request for access to private monitoring data, according to the requirements of section 13.04. HPSP properly denied R access to the confidential data it maintains, pursuant to section 214.35.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commissioner cannot reasonably conclude that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Health Professionals Service Program improperly disseminated data about R.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 28, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267515</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Health Professionals Service Program (214.35)</Title><Id>266934</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-011</Title><title>Opinion 99 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267721&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-05-24T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul respond properly to an employee&apos;s request for access to data consisting of the results of her/his oral examination for promotion?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 24, 1999; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 2, 1999, IPA received a letter from Brad Jacobsen, President of the St. Paul Police Federation. In his letter, Mr. Jacobsen asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the rights of a Federation member to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of St. Paul. Mr. Jacobsen enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Jacobsen&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Owusu, the St. Paul City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated April 6, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Jacobsen&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On April 15, 1999, IPA received a response from Gerald T. Hendrickson, Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Hendrickson enclosed copies of memoranda from the City&apos;s Human Resources director and staff. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A Federation member applied for a promotion. The Civil Service examination for promotion consists of written, video-taped and oral examinations. According to Mr. Jacobsen, the Federation member requested access to the findings of the oral interview. The City refused the request, on the basis of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34, which classifies testing or examination materials.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Hendrickson, the Civil Service oral examination is conducted by a panel of subject matter experts. Each panelist rates the response of each applicant, using a form provided by the City. This form includes both space for comments and a scoring line. The raw scores are translated in to [sic] scores on a 1-100 point basis by the City&apos;s Human Resources staff. Mr. Hendrickson stated that the director of Human Resources for the City has made the determination that disclosure of oral interviewers&apos; notes, and their identities, would compromise the objectivity, fairness, and integrity of the examination process.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Jacobsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul respond properly to an employee&apos;s request for access to data consisting of the results of her/his oral examination for promotion? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.34:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;Data consisting solely of testing or examination materials, or scoring keys&lt;/u&gt; used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public service, or used to administer a licensing examination, or academic examination, &lt;u&gt;the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process&lt;/u&gt; are classified as nonpublic, except pursuant to court order. Completed versions of personnel, licensing, or academic examinations shall be accessible to the individual who completed the examination, unless the responsible authority determines that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. Notwithstanding section 13.04, the responsible authority shall not be required to provide copies of completed examinations or answer keys to any individual who has completed an examination. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in order to be classified under section 13.34, data must consist of objective examination materials; that is, actual tests and/or scoring keys. According to Mr. Hendrickson, the interviewers&apos; notes include subjective evaluations of an applicant&apos;s responses to interview questions, and additional comments, which are not tests, examination materials, or scoring keys. In addition, the identity of the individuals who conduct the oral examinations are not tests or scoring keys. Accordingly, the data in question may not be properly classified under section 13.34. Pursuant to section 13.43, the interviewers&apos; evaluations are private data, and the identities of the interviewers are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Jacobsen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of St. Paul did not respond properly to an employee&apos;s request for access to data consisting of the results of her/his oral examination for promotion. The data in question do not consist solely of testing or examination materials, or answer keys, and therefore may not be classified under section 13.34. Pursuant to section 13.43, the data subject is entitled to gain access to the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 24, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267721</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interviews</Title><Id>266329</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-010</Title><title>Opinion 99 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267816&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-05-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Were the Js&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, violated when Carlton County disseminated a June 9, 1998, document pursuant to consent to release forms dated May 28, 1998?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 24, 1999; Carlton County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 1, 1999, IPA received a letter dated March 26, 1999, from the Js, a married couple. In their letter they requested an advisory opinion, alleging that Carlton County had violated their rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Wunderlich, Director of Carlton County Human Services, in response to the Js&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 6, 1999, were to inform her of the Js&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On April 30, 1999, IPA received a response, dated April 29, 1999, from Dennis Genereau, Assistant Carlton County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. On May 28, 1998, the Js signed a document presented to them by an adoption agency, the address of which is in Minnesota. The document is entitled CONSENT AND REQUEST FOR HUMAN SERVICES RECORDS and is addressed to Carlton County Social Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In responding to the adoption agency&apos;s release form, the County disseminated a letter addressed to the adoption agency. The letter is dated June 9, 1998, and in it a County social worker provided an assessment of the Js&apos; suitability as adoptive parents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, the Js asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Were the Js&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, violated when Carlton County disseminated a June 9, 1998, document pursuant to consent to release forms dated May 28, 1998? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), a government entity may disseminate private government data to any person or agency if the data subject has given his/her informed consent. Informed consent implies the data subject is aware of or has the ability to find out which specific data s/he is consenting to release. Minnesota Rules section 1205.1400 provides additional information about informed consent. For example, language in subpart 3 states that informed consent means the data subject possesses an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, on May 28, 1998, each of the Js signed identical consent forms that apparently the adoption agency had prepared. In relevant part, the forms state:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     I hereby acknowledge notice that this study will be done and give my consent to any of the above listed (named) agencies, offices and departments to release any data &lt;u&gt;of which I am the subject&lt;/u&gt;, whether such data is private or public. I also consent [sic] the release of records regarding any present or former foster care from designated county or agency.... (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon receipt of the releases, the County disseminated a letter written by a County social worker. The Js object to the release of this letter because it is dated, and was presumably written, on June 9, 1998, twelve days after the Js signed the consent forms. The letter appears primarily to be the social worker&apos;s summation of the Js&apos; relationship with the County, including his opinions and assessment of their suitability as adoptive parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County&apos;s position, as Mr. Genereau presented, is that the County acted appropriately and in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules in disseminating private data on the J&apos;s [sic] to the adoption agency. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), provides that a government entity may disseminate private government data if the entity has secured the data subject&apos;s informed consent. It does not, however, authorize the entity to create new data for the purposes of responding to a release. On behalf of the County, Mr. Genereau wrote that the social worker drafted a letter dated June 9, 1998, in which he provided private data on the Js to the requesting adoption agency. Mr. Genereau is correct that the letter contains private data; however, those data were created after the Js signed the release forms. In this case, because the County apparently created and disseminated new data in response to the release forms, the Js had no way of knowing which data they were consenting to release. Therefore, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by the Js is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Carlton County violated the Js&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it disseminated a June 9, 1998, document pursuant to consent to release forms dated May 28, 1998. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 24, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267816</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Adoption records</Title><Id>267239</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-009</Title><title>Opinion 99 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267117&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-05-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue classified as not public trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, or any other law: certain data related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42?
Should the Minnesota Department of Revenue return the data to the company or destroy it, as requested by the company?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 13, 1999; Minnesota Department of Revenue</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 3, 1999, IPA received a letter from Matthew G. Smith, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. In his letter, Commissioner Smith asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Revenue. Commissioner Smith enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA received a letter on March 8, 1999, from Thomas L. Fabel, attorney for SUPERVALU (the company whose data are at issue), stating that he wished to submit additional comments in support of SUPERVALU&apos;s position that the data are protected. On March 26, IPA received those comments from Mr. Fabel and his associate, Thomas F. Pursell. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Minnesota Department of Revenue is responsible for enforcing the Minnesota Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30-325D.42. SUPERVALU, a company, submitted cost of doing business data to Revenue to comply with the requirements of section 325D.32, subdivision 10(c). A Revenue inspector obtained additional information during an on-site review. According to Commissioner Smith, a competitor of SUPERVALU has requested access to all of the data associated with the SUPERVALU filing, including supporting financial details, formulas, methodology, and calculations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their comments to the Commissioner of Administration, Mr. Fabel and Mr. Pursell wrote that SUPERVALU believes . . . the highly sensitive internal cost data, which it permitted a Department of Revenue inspector to review under conditions of strict confidentiality are classified as not public trade secret data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Fabel and Mr. Pursell:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The data in question consist of four pages of typewritten tables and accounting information. The data appear to have been copied directly and verbatim from tables and notes provided to the Department of Revenue Inspector. These tables and notes were, in turn, taken from internal audit documents, themselves the compiled work product or other SUPERVALU employees and contractors. The actual information consists of:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; A table of individual named employees&apos; salaries, with cost allocations to cigarette sales;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; shipping costs and trucking income attributable to stated volumes of cigarettes shipped;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; inventory and product turnover information;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; warehouse, building, stamping and payroll expenses;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; sales volumes; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;bull; other financial summary information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These data were obtained by a Revenue inspector, who was told by SUPERVALU that the information was confidential. The inspector was permitted to take notes, but was not permitted to take any SUPERVALU documents. The information reflected in the inspector&apos;s notes was apparently copied verbatim out of SUPERVALU documents without the company&apos;s knowledge or consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Smith asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue classified as not public trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, or any other law: certain data related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Should the Minnesota Department of Revenue return the data to the company or destroy it, as requested by the company?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification at Section 13.06.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trade secret information&apos; means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under section 13.37, subdivision 2, trade secret data are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and as private (data on individuals.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in question were collected from SUPERVALU because an official of the Department of Revenue decided that acquiring the data was necessary for the Department of Revenue to determine if SUPERVALU was complying with the statutes regulating cigarette sales. The correspondence from the attorneys for SUPERVALU states that the Company did not willingly supply the data in question but that the data were acquired from documents provided for review by a Department of Revenue inspector. The comments from SUPERVALU indicate that the data in question were taken from certain tables and accounting information to which the inspector was given access by a representative of the Company. It is not clear from the information provided to the Commissioner if the data in question were just copied verbatim by hand from the SUPERVALU files or if the Department of Revenue employee actually prepared a compilation of data based on a review of files at SUPERVALU. The Company did state that the Department of Revenue employee did not take any of the actual documents prepared by the Company. The Commissioner has not been provided with a copy of the actual data at issue in this opinion so as to be able to accurately assess just exactly what data was compiled and who compiled it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Company did state clearly that the Department of Revenue employee was not given copies of actual Company documents. If that is the case, then the data in question appear to be data that were compiled, not by the affected company, but by an official of the Department of Revenue. If that is a correct understanding of the status of this data, it is difficult for the Commissioner to conclude that a compilation of data by a government employee would qualify for trade secret protection under Section 13.37. Part of what makes a compilation of data a trade secret is the effort that goes into the compilation. If it were clear to the Commissioner that the data in question were verbatim copies of data compiled by the Company, then the question of whether that compiled data would qualify as trade secret information would have to be considered. However, the Company&apos;s statements on that issue are equivocal so the Commissioner will not, at this point, consider that question. Given the information provided, the Commissioner must reasonably conclude that these data were not compiled by the Company and therefore cannot qualify as trade secret information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is concerned that specific salary information on SUPERVALU employees may have been acquired by the Department of Revenue that would not be protected from public disclosure. If that is the case, the Department of Revenue should determine if an application for temporary classification may be appropriate to protect the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second question Commissioner Smith asked was whether the SUPERVALU data ought to be destroyed or returned to SUPERVALU. The Commissioner addressed a similar situation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267373&quot; title=&quot;96-057&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-057&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As noted by [former Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI)] Commissioner Bastian, Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, subdivision 1, provides: [a]ll officers and agencies of the state . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. In its comments on Mr. Claypatch&apos;s opinion request, DOLI made no mention of the requirements of the State&apos;s Records Management Statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 138.163 and the following Sections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. (See Section 138.163.) Pursuant to Section 138.17, government entities must seek the approval of the Records Disposition Panel before they may dispose of government records. Pursuant to Section 138.17, subdivision 1, government records are defined to include all . . . data, information, or documentary material . . . made or received by an officer or agency of the state . . . pursuant to state law or in connection with the transaction of public business by an officer or agency . . . . (Emphasis added.) . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Legislature has established a process whereby government records may be properly disposed. Mr. Claypatch makes a valid argument that if DOLI were not required to retain copies of the certified payroll records for at least some period of time, it would not be possible for the public to hold DOLI accountable for its determinations. The public has an interest in reviewing determinations of government entities, regardless of whether or not a violation of law has been found. The public access provisions of Chapter 13, which strongly favor public access to government data, would be frustrated if government entities did not follows Chapters 15 and 138.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided to the Commissioner, it appears that Revenue relied upon the data in question to make its determination regarding whether a cigarette distributor is in compliance with the Minnesota Unfair Cigarette Sales Act. Pursuant to the requirements of sections 15.17 and 138.17, if the data in question are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of its official activities, Revenue should be retaining copies of the data, unless it receives permission from the Records Disposition Panel to do otherwise. If the data supplied by SUPERVALU and other cigarette distributors are not records which fall under the provisions of Sections 15.17 and 138.17, then they need not be retained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the specific nature of the data in question, Revenue may want to attempt to resolve this classification question through the temporary classification process, rather than section 13.37. (See section 13.06.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Commissioner Smith is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue are not classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, or any other law: certain data related to a filing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 325D.30 - 325D.42. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the data are public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to sections 15.17 and 138.17, if the data in question are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of its official activities, Revenue should be retaining copies of the data, unless it receives permission from the Records Disposition Panel to do otherwise. If the data supplied by SUPERVALU and other cigarette distributors are not records which fall under the provisions of Sections 15.17 and 138.17, then they need not be retained.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 13, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267117</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary classification (13.06)</Title><Id>266504</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-008</Title><title>Opinion 99 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267806&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-04-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Were the data subject&apos;s rights, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated when the Minnesota Department of Human Services denied access, citing section 13.39, to data s/he requested on November 17, 1998.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 13, 1999; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 16, 1999, IPA received a letter dated February 12, 1999, from Dorene Sarnoski, on behalf of her client, M, a former employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. In her letter, Ms. Sarnoski requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her client&apos;s access to data maintained by the Department. Although Ms. Sarnoski originally raised two issues, after discussions with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would address only one issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O&apos;Keefe, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Ms. Sarnoski&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 19, 1998, were to inform him of Ms. Sarnoski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On March 15, 1999, IPA received comments, dated same, from Martha Watson, Director of the Department&apos;s Human Resources Division.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Sarnoski is as follows. In the fall of 1997, the Department placed M on investigatory leave. The investigation lasted six months during which time the Department recorded 900 plus pages of transcript and produced a 140-page investigative report. Ms. Sarnoski wrote that throughout this time, M attempted to gain access to the data about her/him but that Ms. Watson denied the requests because the investigation was ongoing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In May of 1998, the Department terminated M&apos;s employment. M filed a grievance; the union attempted an unsuccessful resolution and then declined to arbitrate. In August of 1998, the Department appealed M&apos;s award of reemployment benefits but later withdrew its appeal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Then, in a letter dated November 17, 1998, M requested access to all data collected and maintained about me, including, all disciplinary action, and &lt;u&gt;all data&lt;/u&gt;documenting the basis of that action. In a letter dated November 20, 1998, Ms. Watson denied access because 1) there had not been a final disposition regarding the disciplinary action and 2) the data are classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                M apparently sent Ms. Watson other letters dated November 23, 1998, and December 15, 1998, to which Ms. Watson responded on December 16, 1998. She stated that the requested data are confidential according to section 13.39 and will remain so until the various statutes of limitations on your right to sue us have expired.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Sarnoski then requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Sarnoski asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Were the data subject&apos;s rights, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated when the Minnesota Department of Human Services denied access, citing section 13.39, to data s/he requested on November 17, 1998.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data collected, created, and maintained about employees of government entities. Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of that section, certain personnel data are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private. Private data are accessible to the data subject but not to the public. (See section 13.02, subdivision 12.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 specifically classifies data relating to complaints or charges made against a government employee. If the employer does not take disciplinary action, very few of the data associated with the complaint and/or charge are public. If, however, the employer does discipline the employee, as appears to be have occurred in the present case, and there is a final disposition, the following data become public:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding any data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. (See 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, pursuant to subdivision 2 (b), a final disposition occurs when:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated November 17, 1998, M requested access to all the Department&apos;s data about him/her. Ms. Watson wrote that at that time, the Department denied access to M because a civil legal action was pending and the data were therefore classified as confidential pursuant to section 13.39. She stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [an assistant attorney general and her manager, representing the Department determined] that a pending civil legal action existed for the following reasons: (1) MMA [the union representing M] had not yet decided whether to arbitrate [M&apos;s] termination; and (2) [M&apos;s] Charge of Discrimination, previously filed with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, was pending.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Watson further wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    When [M] made a second request to DOER for data in December 1998, that request was forwarded to DHS. Although [M] had then withdrawn [M&apos;s] grievance with MMA, [M&apos;s] Human Rights Charge of Discrimination continued to be pending (as it currently is). Accordingly, when DHS responded to [M&apos;s] December request for data, that data continued to be classified as civil investigative data, retained in anticipation of pending civil legal action, and thus confidential pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.39 subds. 1 and 2....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Minn. Stat. 13.39, subd. 3 provides that civil investigative data becomes inactive upon the occurrences of any one of several events. In [M&apos;s] case, none of those events have yet occurred. In fact, DHS and its attorneys still wish to defend [M&apos;s] pending human rights charge and any potential claims arising from [M&apos;s] termination; the statute of limitations has not yet expired for [M] to file a civil law suit; and there has not been an exhaustion or expiration of the rights of appeal by either party as to [M&apos;s] Charge of Discrimination or any related legal causes of action arising from the same set of facts and circumstances. Thus, the civil investigative data, arguably, has not become inactive.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The problem with Ms. Watson&apos;s argument is that it disregards action the 1990 Legislature took in response to a 1989 Minnesota Supreme Court decision. In &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989), the Court found that a final decision of a City to discipline one of its employees was not the final disposition of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt; at 29.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature, in an effort to prevent situations in which data about disciplined government employees might remain not public forever or for significant periods of time, enacted language that requires government entities to treat data about a final disciplinary action as public. The language states that a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, it appears there has been a final disposition within the meaning of section 13.43, subdivision (2) (b). M was represented by a union. Therefore, a final disposition occurred at either of two points in time: 1) at the conclusion of an arbitration hearing; or 2) when, according to the collective bargaining agreement, the time had expired for M to elect arbitration. Based on the documentation provided, the Commissioner knows only that M initially decided to pursue a grievance but subsequently withdrew it. Neither Ms. Watson nor Ms. Sarnoski has suggested that M can still elect arbitration. Therefore, the possibility of electing arbitration is no longer a barrier to there having been a final disposition of M&apos;s discipline.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    DHS&apos; position is that it can keep the data about M confidential because there is a possibility that M may initiate a later proceeding or court proceeding. This is exactly what the 1990 Legislature tried to prevent when it enacted the section 13.43 language. Therefore, the following data are public and accessible to M: the final disposition of the disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding any data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges it is possible that some of the data M requested are not the type of data classified as public by section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5). If any such data were collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action or are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, and DHS&apos; chief attorney has determined that a civil legal action is pending, the data are confidential until the investigation becomes inactive. (See section 13.39.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Sarnoski is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2, the following data are public and accessible to the data subject: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding any data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. Because the Department of Human Services has not yet provided M with the data, M&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 have been violated. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 13, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267806</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action data, access</Title><Id>266891</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-007</Title><title>Opinion 99 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267011&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-04-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Carlton County respond appropriately to a September 9, 1998, request for access to data by the data subjects?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 9, 1999; Carlton County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 26, 1999, IPA received a letter dated February 23, 1999, from individuals hereinafter referred to as the J&apos;s. In their letter, the J&apos;s requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data maintained by Carlton County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Wunderlich, Public Health and Human Services Director of Carlton County Human Services, in response to the J&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 26, 1999, were to inform her of the J&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On March 12, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Dennis Genereau, Jr., Assistant Carlton County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 8, 1998, the J&apos;s wrote to Ms. Wunderlich and asked to review the following information: all public and private data maintained about us (and our children) by your agency....We wish to make an appointment to inspect those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 18, 1998, on page one and October 23, 1998, on page two, the J&apos;s attorney, Keith Carlson, wrote to Ms. Wunderlich and, among other things, requested that the County allow my clients access to their social services file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 6, 1998, Ms. Wunderlich wrote to the J&apos;s. She stated she understood that the following had occurred:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Ms. Holden [Supervisor of Social Services] had two meetings with you - one of which was on September 22. At that time, she reviewed all of the information contained in the case file of Carlton County Human Services. I was told that as [sic] she identified the various documents in the file, and that you acknowledged that you had a copies [sic] of the letters, memos or documents she referenced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;I understand there were case notes in the file which were prepared by our Agency Social Worker. However, information contained in these notes were [sic] directed specifically at [X - the J&apos;s adult son] and we are unable to share this data. However, if [X] is willing to sign a release of information, we could review the file again in light of that request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their opinion request, the J&apos;s wrote that they had met with Ms. Holden on September 22, 1998. At the meeting, Ms. Holden kept the file in her lap. The J&apos;s added, As of February 23, 1999; [sic] we have not received access to inspect the file/data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their request for an opinion, the J&apos;s asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Carlton County respond appropriately to a September 9, 1998, request for access to data by the data subjects?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, upon making a request, a data subject has the right to inspect and/or obtain copies of data about him/her. In addition, the government entity must respond to data requests immediately, or within five to ten working days. Also, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent has the right to gain access to data about his/her minor children. (See Minnesota Rules section 1205.0500 for more information and some exceptions.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Genereau confirmed that Ms. Holden did meet with the J&apos;s on September 22, 1998. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At that time Ms. Holden did review all of the information in the case file that had been determined to be private data on the J&apos;s. Ms. Holden did not provide the J&apos;s with access to any data that [the County] considered private data on the J&apos;s adult son [X], but indicated that she would be willing to do so if [X] was willing to sign a release to allow the J&apos;s to review [X&apos;s] private data....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The County] acted properly in not disclosing [X&apos;s] data as it was private data on [X] and not private data on the J&apos;s....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[The County] maintains that it acted appropriately in reviewing the J&apos;s request for data and reviewing with them the data they were entitled access to--data of which they were subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Genereau that the County has complied with the J&apos;s request. As stated above, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the J&apos;s have the right to inspect and/or obtain copies of data of which they are the subject. Based on the J&apos;s statements and Mr. Genereau&apos;s response, the County did not allow the J&apos;s the opportunity to inspect (examine) the data about them. Rather, Ms. Holden remained in possession of the file and discussed the various documents therein; this does not satisfy the County&apos;s obligation to provide access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If some of the data in the file&apos;s documents are not about the J&apos;s but are about their adult child, the County is correct that if X has not signed a release form, the J&apos;s cannot gain access to any such data. However, if certain documents contain data about both the J&apos;s and X, the County is obligated to separate (by redaction) the data so the J&apos;s can gain access to any data about them. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt; for situations regarding impossible separations of multiple data subject data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, since it has been at least six months since the J&apos;s made their request and the County has not yet permitted them to inspect the data, the County should do so immediately.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by the J&apos;s is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Carlton County did not respond appropriately to a September 9, 1998, request for access to data by the data subjects.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 9, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267011</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent access, adult child</Title><Id>267010</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-006</Title><title>Opinion 99 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267433&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-04-02T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a December 4, 1998, request for access to certain workers&apos; compensation data?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 2, 1999; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 15, 1999, IPA received a letter dated same from William Wakeman. In his letter, Mr. Wakeman, of DataLister, Inc, requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gretchen Maglich, Commissioner of DOLI, in response to Mr. Wakeman&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 27, 1999, were to inform her of Mr. Wakeman&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for DOLI&apos;s position. On February 26, 1999, IPA received comments, dated same, from Commissioner Maglich. IPA also received comments regarding Mr. Wakeman&apos;s opinion request from Thomas Harms, on behalf of his client, the Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Insurers Association, Inc.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. William Wakeman is as follows. In a letter dated December 4, 1998, Richard Wakeman, also of DataLister, wrote to William Bierman, of DOLI, and requested a copy of the following workers&apos; compensation insurance information: the policyholder&apos;s name, address, inception date, insurance company, class code, coverage status, and other available public information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Richard Wakeman wrote a second letter dated December 4, 1998, thanking Mr. Bierman for his telephone acknowledgment of our December 4 letter and reiterating his (Mr. Wakeman&apos;s) request for the database.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 30, 1998, Mr. Richard Wakeman again wrote to Mr. Bierman. He stated, This letter constitutes [another] request for the public records referenced in our...earlier letters of demand....Please communicate with us as to when we will be in receipt of this data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In asking for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Mr. William Wakeman wrote that DataLister had requested data on several occasions all with absolutely no definitive response to our request (in fairness to the Agency, Mr. Bierman did call us on one occasion, and was very professional).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wakeman asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a December 4, 1998, request for access to certain workers&apos; compensation data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Central to the issue of this opinion is a very unique set of facts. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 176.185, DOLI is the repository of various types of workers&apos; compensation information. As Commissioner Maglich wrote in her response, [i]t has traditionally been the job of [DOLI] to provide verification that employers indeed have their workers&apos; compensation insurance and to impose penalties on those employers who fail to carry the insurance. In short, subdivision 1 of section 176.185, provides that insurers must provide DOLI with various information regarding the institution and cancellation of workers&apos; compensation insurance coverage. In 1983, the Legislature enacted subdivision 10 of section 176.185, providing that DOLI may contract with other parties regarding the collection of data to assist in meeting the requirements of this section. (Laws of Minnesota 1983, Chapter 290, section 120.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Sometime in the late 1980&apos;s, DOLI contracted with the Minnesota Workers&apos; Compensation Insurers Association, Inc. (MWCIA) to perform the duties prescribed in Section 176.185. In her comments, Commissioner Maglich quoted one of the contract provisions:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[MWCIA is to] Provide to [DOLI] on-line entry to and use of the system database, by means of computer hardware of the department compatible with that utilized by [MWCIA], such entries to include inquiries by insurer and employer name, address and zip code, risk identification codes, and policy year, month and day.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    MWCIA is a data service organization licensed and operating under Minnesota Statutes, sections 79.59 - 62. Mr. Harms wrote, MWCIA is not a state agency and its operations are wholly funded by assessments of its members. Commissioner Maglich wrote that MWCIA performs a function traditionally known in workers&apos; compensation parlance as a state rating bureau. She further stated, The basic coverage information which [DOLI] is required to maintain has also been collected for years by [MWCIA] along with significant additional amounts of data regarding each employer necessary for insurance and rate regulation purposes and utilized by the Department of Commerce.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Sometime after contracting with MWCIA, DOLI adopted rules that govern the filing by insurers of insurance coverage notices under [section 176.185]. Minnesota Rules section 5222.2002 states, All notices required by Minnesota Statutes, section 176.185 shall be filed with the commissioner&apos;s contract designee for this purpose, [MWCIA]. Minnesota Rules section 5222.2201, subpart 2, describes fourteen specific types of insurance information that insurers and insureds must provide. One of the types of data DataLister requested, class code, is not included in the list.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addressing the issue of public access to workers&apos; compensation verification data, Commissioner Maglich described the relationship between DOLI and MWCIA as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In the days when the department kept paper files of the insurance declaration sheets, any person could request the basic coverage information regarding any employer and the department would provide the information. The same is true today. We use an on-line link to the MWCIA computer. We do the same thing except we do it electronically. We use a computer terminal to reach into the data which has been filed with the MWCIA as our designee. The same data we used to keep on the written insurance declaration sheets is available and is available faster. The MWCIA in effect acts as our department&apos;s electronic filing cabinet.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Maglich added:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In accordance with our contract with MWCIA...knowing the name of the employer, we are able to pull the basic coverage information necessary for insurance verification quite quickly....
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            Coverage information for an individual employer or perhaps for a moderate list of employers is readily available.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    DOLI&apos;s position regarding Mr. Wakeman&apos;s request is that DOLI is not obligated to provide the data because DOLI does not possess the data in the form of copies of all insurance filings. Commissioner Maglich also stated, The MWCIA maintains that the insurance verification data, more particularly in the database format required, is the property of the MWCIA and has declined our department&apos;s request to give us the information in that format. Mr. Harms, on behalf of MWCIA, wrote, [DOLI] is merely a contract user of a privately owned database. The Act does not give DataLister rights to that private database nor does it transform a private database into public&apos; data. DataLister&apos;s request for a ruling that this database is public&apos; data should be denied.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the DOLI/MWCIA position. First, it does not take into account Chapter 13&apos;s public access requirements. Commissioner Maglich stated that the contract with MWCIA allows for something very similar to what the department traditionally had in the paper filing system. She wrote, [DOLI] may only access the data on an inquiry basis, just as it had always accessed the paper data. The Commissioner (of Administration) finds these statements problematic. When DOLI was the entity that collected, filed, and maintained the insurance verification information, DOLI would have been able to access all the data in any manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, if an individual requested access to certain public insurance information, DOLI was obligated to provide access to those data. For example, if the individual requested access to all the public workers&apos; compensation information regarding companies located in Rochester, and DOLI did not have the companies filed according to location, the requester would have been allowed to inspect the public data and cull out information on companies located in Rochester. Based on the contractual relationship between DOLI and MWCIA, it appears that an individual requesting access to workers&apos; compensation data today has fewer access rights than s/he had when DOLI maintained the data and the paper system was in effect.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Another problem with DOLI&apos;s position is that it does not appear to take into account the requirements imposed by Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the official records act. Subdivision 1 of section 15.17, states, All officers and agencies of the state...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. When read together, section 15.17 and section 13.03 impose an obligation upon government entities to preserve records used to conduct public business so those records will be available for public inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities, DOLI is required to collect certain workers&apos; compensation data. However, contractually assigning those responsibilities to a private organization does not negate DOLI&apos;s statutory obligation to preserve records and make them available for public inspection. Based on the information Commissioner Maglich and Mr. Harms provided to the Commissioner, it does not appear that DOLI and MWCIA considered DOLI&apos;s obligations under Chapter 13 and section 15.17 when they negotiated the contract. The 1983 amendment to section 176.185 gives DOLI the authority to contract out only data collection duties. It is silent regarding retention of the filings for official records and public accountability purposes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In conclusion, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that pursuant to Chapter 13 and section 15.17, Mr. Wakeman should be able to gain access to those data which DOLI is required to collect pursuant to section 176.185 and Minnesota Rules section 5222.2001, subpart 2. First, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, these data are presumed public and are to be easily accessible for convenient use. Second, pursuant to section 15.17, all officers and agencies of the state...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. If DOLI does not physically maintain the data, and MWCIA, acting essentially as DOLI&apos;s agent, does maintain the data, DOLI is obligated to make arrangements for Mr. Wakeman to obtain those data. Because MWCIA did not argue otherwise, the Commissioner assumes MWCIA is able to provide the data in the format in which they were requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Wakeman also raised the issue of whether DOLI&apos;s response was timely. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules section 1205.0300, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. Mr. Richard Wakeman first contacted DOLI in a letter dated December 4, 1998. Soon thereafter, according to both Mr. Richard Wakeman and William Bierman, of DOLI, Mr. Bierman responded by telephone to Mr. Wakeman&apos;s request. Mr. Bierman advised Mr. Wakeman that DOLI could not provide the data as requested. According to Mr. Bierman, he and Mr. Wakeman had subsequent telephone conversations regarding DOLI&apos;s position. Although the Commissioner disagrees with DOLI&apos;s position regarding Mr. Wakeman&apos;s request, DOLI did respond in a timely manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Fisher is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry&apos;s (DOLI) response to a December 4, 1998, request for access to certain workers&apos; compensation data was timely but not complete. DOLI should make arrangements to provide the data to the requestor. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 2, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267433</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266884</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Workers&apos; compensation</Title><Id>266780</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-005</Title><title>Opinion 99 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267773&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-04-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Douglas County respond properly to a request for access to public data regarding a County employee&apos;s termination?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 2, 1999; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On February 16, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Echo Press&lt;/em&gt;, a newspaper published at Alexandria, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to the reasons for the termination of a Douglas County employee. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christopher D. Karpan, Douglas County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated February 19, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. In that letter, IPA asked Mr. Karpan to forward a copy of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request to M, the terminated employee, asking M to submit any comments s/he might wish. On March 1, 1999, IPA received a response from Mr. Karpan. M did not respond. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson, the County Board held a closed meeting on January 20, 1999. At its conclusion, the Board voted in a public session to terminate M&apos;s employment, effective immediately. The Board did not provide reasons for its action. Later that same day, the County Attorney issued a news release announcing the termination; the only explanation provided for M&apos;s termination was that it was due to continuing unacceptable behavior over an extended period of time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Subsequently, Al Edenloff, editor of the &lt;em&gt;Echo Press&lt;/em&gt;, wrote to Mr. Karpan, and asked a series of questions about the reasons for M&apos;s termination. Mr. Edenloff specifically asked for copies of any complaints or documents reviewed by the board prior to its decision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The questions Mr. Edenloff posed do not amount to a request for access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, subsequent correspondence makes clear that the County viewed Mr. Edenloff&apos;s request as a request for access to public data under Section 13.43. Because technically Mr. Edenloff&apos;s initial requests were not within the purview of Chapter 13, the Commissioner asked Mr. Karpan if he disagreed with the Commissioner&apos;s decision to issue an opinion to Mr. Anfinson. Mr. Karpan stated that he has no objection.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Edenloff, dated January 27, 1999, Mr. Karpan stated that because M was an at-will employee, the County could terminate M&apos;s employment for any reason or for no reason at all, with certain exceptions that do not apply here. Mr. Karpan stated . . . from a liability standpoint, the less said the better. That is why the Board is not commenting on their decision. They are trying to protect the County from having to battle through otherwise avoidable legal proceedings.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Karpan sent Mr. Edenloff copies of two written complaints made against M, which he said were public data under Chapter 13. According to Mr. Karpan, [t]hese documents are the only written documents that we have and the only written documents that Chapter 13 demands that I release. Mr. Karpan continued: [i]t concerns me that, in releasing these, people reviewing them will come to the conclusion that this incident or series of incidents were the sole reason [M] was terminated. I think such speculation would be unwise and probably false. A lot of things may have gone on over the last few years. You&apos;re just not going to hear about them from us.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to Mr. Edenloff dated February 10, 1999, Mr. Karpan stated: [f]urthermore, [Minnesota] case law makes it clear that information contained only in the minds of the commissioners is not data&apos; under Chapter 13 and need not be disclosed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                In our view, the only reasonable interpretation [of Mr. Karpan&apos;s comments quoted two paragraphs above] is that there almost certainly were other, more significant reasons for the termination. . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                We believe that the requirements of 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5) regarding specific reasons for discipline are unambiguous, and that regardless of whether the county board actually wrote down or otherwise recorded the reasons for its decision when it was made, in some fashion the board must - presumably with the help of the county attorney - provide particulars.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Where the statute so clearly mandates that specific information be provided - as opposed to simply being disclosed or protected - the so-called &lt;em&gt;Keezer&lt;/em&gt; rule does not even arise, contrary to Mr. Karpan&apos;s suggestion in his February 10 letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 In our view, the requirement in 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5) for disclosure of specific reasons for discipline operates in a fashion similar to the requirements, for example, of 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4) ( the existence and status of any complaints or charges&apos; against an employee are public), and of 13.82, subd. 2-4 (relating to certain types of law enforcement data). It does not matter whether the specific reasons for discipline, the receipt or the status of a complaint, or the law enforcement data have been documented in writing. These and similar portions of the Data Practices Act would seem to mandate that government data be created (within the meaning of &lt;em&gt;Keezer&lt;/em&gt;), and that the data are public. To conclude otherwise would create a very large loophole allowing the important public accountability function of these sections to be frustrated by the simple device of failing to record the data referred to.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Karpan wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The main concern I have with the paper&apos;s demand for further information is that, if this were required by Chapter 13, that law would no longer be a series of statutes classifying existing government data, but rather a series of statutes now used to force governmental entities to &lt;u&gt;generate&lt;/u&gt; data that they would not otherwise have to generate. . . . . [Emphasis his.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The County is not alleging that it can withhold data&apos; already in its possession regarding complaints or allegations against [M] simply because it may expose the County to additional liability. Only that the County should not be forced to generate further data where none now exists. . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The paper insists that the &lt;em&gt;Keezer&lt;/em&gt; rule would not apply in this situation nor [sic] those when information is demanded regarding the existence of complaints under Section 13.82 Subd. 2 (a)(4). There is no authority for this assertion. . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Douglas County respond properly to a request for access to public data regarding a County employee&apos;s termination? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in 1993 that data must be recorded in physical form in order to be considered government data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See &lt;em&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/em&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In &lt;em&gt;Keezer&lt;/em&gt;, the Court wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] is intended to regulate every aspect of how the government manages the information it collects and records. It is nearly impossible to regulate any function related to data until a record is created somewhere outside the human brain. To give effect to the Act, we conclude that information is not government data&apos; until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner accepts the County&apos;s assertion that it has provided the newspaper with all of the public data it maintains regarding M&apos;s termination. The question then, is whether the County must &lt;u&gt;create&lt;/u&gt; data in response to the newspaper&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson asserts that a provision of section 13.43, which governs data about public employees, requires the County to provide the reasons for M&apos;s termination, even if those reasons are not recorded in physical form. Otherwise, Mr. Anfinson asserts, a government entity could evade public accountability simply by failing to create a physical record of its actions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5), the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Anfinson that this provision requires the County, in response to the newspaper&apos;s request, to create data where none now exist. No provision of Chapter 13 imposes an obligation on government entities to create data in response to a request from the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Karpan asserts that because M was an at-will employee, the County is not obligated to provide any reasons for M&apos;s termination. However, according to the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, subdivision 1, [a]ll officers and agencies of . . . counties . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 15.17, read in concert with section 13.03 (access to public data), imposes an obligation on the County to make and preserve a record of its actions, so that those records will be available for public inspection. In this instance, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), provides some guidance as to what specific data would satisfy the requirements of section 15.17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Karpan stated that he was concerned that if one were to rely solely upon the data the County has made available to the public, one could come to the conclusion that this incident or series of incidents were the sole reason [M] was terminated. I think such speculation would be unwise and probably false. That is one of the situations the County could avoid by providing the public with access to the specific reason for M&apos;s termination. Accordingly, the Commissioner cannot reasonably conclude that the County has met its obligation under section 15.17, that is, to create a full record of its decision to terminate M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Douglas County did not respond properly to a request for access to public data regarding a County employee&apos;s termination, because it did not meet its obligation under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, to make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of [its] official activities. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      David F. Fisher
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 2, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267773</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-004</Title><title>Opinion 99 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267871&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-03-24T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Have A&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, been violated if the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice collected data from A about A and did not supply him/her with a Tennessen Warning notice?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 24, 1999; Minnesota Board of Medical Practice</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 9, 1998, IPA received a letter dated November 5, 1998, from James Ryan. In his letter, Mr. Ryan requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of his client (A)&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Ryan alleged that the Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice violated A&apos;s rights. Although Mr. Ryan originally raised two issues, after discussions with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would address only one issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Leach, Executive Director of the Board, in response to Mr. Ryan&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 3, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Ryan&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On March 3, 1998, IPA received comments, dated same, from Peter Krieser, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Ryan is as follows. Mr. Ryan&apos;s client is a licensed physician. In early 1996, the Board notified A and informed him/her that the Board had received a complaint and that it would be investigating the matter. In the fall of 1996, after completing its investigation, the Board dismissed the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 1997, A was retained as an expert witness by a licensed physician facing possible disciplinary action by the Board. In early 1998, the assistant attorney general representing the Board in the proceeding against another physician, obtained and caused to be served on A, a subpoena directing A to appear as witness in the proceeding against the other physician and to produce a number of documents relating to the allegations(s)/incident(s) that gave rise to the Board&apos;s investigation of A. Mr. Ryan asserted that the data in question are private data about A and should not have been used for any purpose other than that stated in the Tennessen Warning notice. Mr. Ryan asserted that the Board did not give a Tennessen Warning notice to A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ryan asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Have A&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, been violated if the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice collected data from A about A and did not supply him/her with a Tennessen Warning notice?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 13.41, classifies data that the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice collects and maintains in performing its function as a licensing agency. Pursuant to section 13.41, when a licensing agency is investigating one of its licensees, and the investigation is active (ongoing), the related data are confidential. Once the investigation becomes inactive (no longer ongoing), the classification of the data depends upon whether the agency took disciplinary action against the licensee. If the agency took disciplinary action, much of the information becomes public. (See section 13.41, subdivision 4.) If the agency did not take disciplinary action, the inactive investigative data relating to violations of statutes or rules are private. (See section 13.41, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes, section 147.01, subdivision 4, also classifies data maintained by the Board in connection with disciplinary matters: [with a few exceptions] all communications or information received by or disclosed to the board relating to any person or matter subject to its regulatory jurisdiction are confidential and privileged and any disciplinary hearing shall be closed to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current situation, when the Board investigated A, it collected data from and about him/her that were classified as confidential at the time of collection. Thus, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 2, the Board was required to provide A with a Tennessen Warning notice comprised of the following elements: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. Of specific relevance to this opinion is the Board&apos;s explanation of the purpose and intended use of the data it was collecting from A.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Ryan alleged that the Board violated A&apos;s rights because it did not give him/her a Tennessen Warning. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At no time prior to, during, or after the Board&apos;s investigation of [A] was [A] advised or warned:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) that in the future, members of the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General might seek or acquire access to that information for purposes entirely unrelated to the matter under investigation; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) that in the future, the information [A] provided might be used by the Board to attack [A&apos;s] credibility whenever [A] might serve as an expert witness for other licensed physicians facing disciplinary proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments, Mr. Krieser disputed Mr. Ryan&apos;s assertion that the Board had not given a Tennessen Warning to A. Mr. Krieser wrote that the Board&apos;s investigator specifically recalls giving a Tennessen Warning to A. He further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Tennessen Warning that the investigator provides to interviewees contains the following elements: an explanation of why he is requesting information from them, an explanation of how the information will be used, whether the interviewee is required to provide the information, the consequences of providing or refusing to provide the information, and who has access to the information provided. For a physician under investigation, such as [A], the Tennessen Warning includes a disclosure that the information the physician provided would be accessible to staff at the Attorney General&apos;s Office and the Board of Medical Practice and that it may be shared with law enforcement agencies, courts, and other licensing agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, when the Board collected private and/or confidential data from and about A, the Board was required to give him/her a Tennessen Warning. If the Board intended to use some of the data to impeach A&apos;s testimony, a statement to that effect should have been included in the notice. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Krieser identified some of the ways in which the Board might use the data. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Board is charged as a matter of law with policing the physicians it licenses. Past investigations of dismissed complaints are always available to the Board in executing this charge. Here, [A] was noticed as an expert witness in a disciplinary proceeding before the Board. The [Board&apos;s] attorney was acting within her and the [Board&apos;s] charge when she reviewed the records to see if they had any data relevant to [A&apos;s] appearance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Krieser stated that the Board did give a Tennessen Warning notice to A and that the Board&apos;s attorney could gain access to those data. Mr. Ryan stated that the Board neither gave a Tennessen Warning to A nor communicated to A that the data collected about him/her would be used to question his/her credibility. Mr. Krieser did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the Tennessen Warning the Board gave to A when it collected data from A that Mr. Ryan alleges were improperly used.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Commissioner cannot know for certain 1) what the stated uses of the collected data were, 2) if the warning notice was given verbally or in writing, or 3) if it was given. If the Board did not give any notice to A, according to the plain words of the section 13.04, subdivision 2, the Board may not use the data it collected about A from A for any purpose. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-028&lt;/a&gt;.) If the Board did give a notice to A, the Board may use the data it collected from and about A only as was described in the notice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ryan is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice collected private and/or confidential data from and about A, it was required to supply him/her with a Tennessen Warning notice. If the Board did not supply A with a notice, A&apos;s rights were violated. If the Board did supply A with a proper notice, and used data about him in a manner inconsistent with what was contained in the notice, A&apos;s rights were violated.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scott R. Simmons for David F. Fisher
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 24, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267871</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose and intended use of data</Title><Id>267094</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-003</Title><title>Opinion 99 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267583&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-03-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of the Richfield properly deny access to a tape recording of a closed city council meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 8, 1999; City of Richfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 15, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;Richfield Sun-Current&lt;/em&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Richfield. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Prosser, Manager of Richfield. The purposes of this letter, dated January 21, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On February 9, 1999, IPA received a response from Corrine H. Thomson, city attorney for Richfield. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Thomson, on December 16, 1998, the Richfield city council held a meeting to discuss possible litigation against the Metropolitan Airports Commission ( MAC ). The meeting was closed to the public on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, subdivision 1d(e). The City tape-recorded the meeting, although it was not required to do so. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Thomson stated: [t]he tape in its entirety consists of client confidences defined by Rule 1.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, the City and MAC settled their dispute, and the City agreed not to pursue litigation against MAC. The &lt;em&gt;Richfield Sun-Current&lt;/em&gt; then requested access to the tape-recording of the meeting. The City denied access on the basis that the tape contains the attorney-client privileged information, which is exempt from regulation under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, pursuant to sections 13.06, subdivision 6, and 13.30. Ms. Thomson also cited a Minnesota Supreme Court decision, &lt;em&gt;Kobluk v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998) in support of the City&apos;s decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of the Richfield properly deny access to a tape recording of a closed city council meeting?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Thomson agree that the Richfield city council properly closed its December 16, 1998, meeting on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to a provision of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, subdivision 1d(e). The city council closed the meeting to discuss pending litigation with its attorney. For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes that the meeting was properly closed. The Commissioner also accepts Ms. Thomson&apos;s assertion that the entire contents of the tape consists of discussions between the city attorney and her/his city council clients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This situation causes the Commissioner to examine the interplay among Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, 13.30, 595.02 and the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s finding in &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;. Ms. Thomson mentioned Rule 1.6 the Rules of Professional Responsibility; however, that is not at issue here because the request for access to the data was made to the City, not to the city attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City based its denial of access to the tape-recording on provisions of sections 13.03, subdivision 6, and 13.30, as well as &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;. (See Ms. Thomson&apos;s letter to the city administrator, dated December 22, 1998, in response to the original request.) Following is a discussion of some problems with that position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 6:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system &lt;u&gt;opposes discovery of government data or release of data pursuant to court order&lt;/u&gt; on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party that seeks access to the data may bring before the appropriate presiding judicial officer, arbitrator, or administrative law judge an action to compel discovery or an action in the nature of an action to compel discovery. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The presiding officer shall first decide whether the data are discoverable or releasable pursuant to the rules of evidence and of criminal, civil, or administrative procedure appropriate to the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the &lt;em&gt;Richfield Sun-Current&lt;/em&gt; did not request access to the tape-recording under section 13.03, subdivision 6. It made a request for access to what it believed to be public data, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. Subdivision 6 of section 13.03 governs access to data made in the context of litigation or under court order. Therefore, the Commissioner disagrees with the City that section 13.03, subdivision 6 is applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next statutory provision the City relied upon was section 13.30. In relevant part, section 13.30 provides . . . the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for . . . a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility . . . . Section 13.30 does not classify data. Rather, it provides that certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. Generally, the data falling under the section 13.30 exemption are data relating to information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work product. Accordingly, because the City based its denial of access to the tape-recording by citing to section 13.30, it should have cited the appropriate statute or rule that makes the data subject to section 13.30. (See also Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, the City cited the &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt; decision in denying access to the tape-recording in question. It cites &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt; because it asserts that the tape-recording was subject to the attorney-client privilege at its creation. In reaching the result in &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court relied upon the statutory formulation of the attorney-client privilege provided in section 595.02, subdivision 1(b). The statute states: [a]n attorney cannot, without the consent of the attorney&apos;s client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or the attorneys advice given thereon in the course of professional duty; nor can any employee of the attorney be examined as to the communication or advice, without the client&apos;s consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court also relied upon what it termed the classic explication of the privilege, when construing the scope of the privilege:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, 574 at 440, &lt;em&gt;quoting&lt;/em&gt; 8 John Henry Wigmore, &lt;em&gt;Evidence&lt;/em&gt; section 2292, at 554 (McNaughton rev.1961), &lt;em&gt;citing Brown v. Saint Paul City Ry. Co&lt;/em&gt;., 62 N.W.2d 688, 700 (Minn. 1954).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A tape-recording of a conversation between the City (i.e., a client), and its attorney to discuss potential litigation is protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, Mr. Anfinson asserts that because the matter between the City and MAC is settled with no possibility of litigation, the attorney-client privilege no longer applies, and the tape-recording of the closed meeting is now public data. However, he did not cite any statutory or common law basis for his position. Mr. Anfinson also maintains that the City may not properly deny access to the tape-recording based on sections 13.03, subdivision 6, and 13.30, and that in &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, the Minnesota Supreme Court did not rely upon those provisions to reach its conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thomson states that the tape is exempt from production under [sections 13.03, subdivision 6, and 13.30] and [&lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;]. Ms. Thomson asserts that there is no basis in case law for Mr. Anfinson&apos;s position that because the City and MAC have settled their dispute, the tape-recording is no longer protected by the attorney-client privilege. She refers to a recent United States Supreme Court case: [i]n &lt;em&gt;Swidler Berlin v. United States&lt;/em&gt;, 118 S.Ct. 2081 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege survives even after the death of the client, and even where the information is sought in connection with criminal grand jury proceedings. The Swidler Court noted that established law supports the continuation of the privilege and ... a contrary rule would be a modification of the common law.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson asserts that the substance of &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt; is not applicable here. He is technically correct. The problem is that in &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt;, or in any other decision of which the Commissioner is aware, the Minnesota Supreme Court does not specifically address the relationship between the privileges provided by section 595.02, and the classification of data under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 595.02 does not classify data. It addresses the matter of privileged testimony of witnesses in a legal proceeding. &lt;em&gt;Kobluk&lt;/em&gt; addressed this issue in the context of a legal proceeding. However, as noted above, the &lt;em&gt;Richfield Sun-Current&lt;/em&gt; did not request access to the tape in the context of litigation. The Court held that access to data may be denied under Chapter 13 if the data are privileged. However, there is no clearly articulated means by which a claim of privilege under section 595.02 applies to a request for access to privileged data that is not in the context of litigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, the Commissioner believes that it is reasonable for the city attorney to take the position that the tape is exempt from Chapter 13 regulation, pursuant to section 13.30, as it relates to section 595.02. Otherwise, the Minnesota Legislature&apos;s intention to protect certain attorney data, through its enactment of section 13.30, would fail. Without this result, data would become subject to Chapter 13 regulation that otherwise would be exempt based on the attorney-client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of the Richfield properly denied access to a tape recording of a closed city council meeting, during which the council&apos;s attorney provided legal advice. The meeting was properly closed on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to section 471.705, subdivision 1d(e). It is not possible for the Commissioner to conclude that the tape-recording of that meeting is public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scott R. Simmons
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 8, 1999&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267583</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Discovery (13.03, subd. 6; 1205.0100, subpart 5)</Title><Id>267038</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege</Title><Id>266285</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:29:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-002</Title><title>Opinion 99 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267663&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-02-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Freeborn County Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 26, 1999; Freeborn County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 8, 1999, IPA received a letter from Charles H. Thomas, an attorney representing L. In his letter, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding L&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Freeborn County Department of Human Services. Mr. Thomas enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Thomas&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ted Laird, Supervisor of Freeborn County Social Services. The purposes of this letter, dated January 15, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Thomas&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for Freeborn County&apos;s position. On January 22, 1999, IPA received a response from Chris Amdahl, Financial Assistance Supervisor for Freeborn County DHS. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter faxed to Ms. Amdahl on November 30, 1998, Mr. Thomas&apos;s office requested access to all data generated by the County in connection with L&apos;s appeal of the County&apos;s decision to disqualify L from future receipt of public assistance benefits. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 256.045, subdivision 3.) There are references in this letter to earlier requests for access to the data to which the County had not responded. The request for access to all data generated by the County included a specific request for duplicates of any audiotapes or transcripts of the tapes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 1, 1998, Ms. Amdahl responded: [t]his letter is to let you know that we will not be providing you with a transcript of the tape recording (s) that occurred in this matter at this time. A summary was prepared and submitted to you. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter faxed to Ms. Amdahl on December 2, 1998, Mr. Thomas objected to the County&apos;s denial of access to all data it maintains on L and repeated the request. Mr. Thomas further requested, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.03, that the County inform L of whether s/he is the subject of stored data, how those data are classified, and under what specific statutory provision the County is denying L access to the data. Mr. Thomas cited provisions of federal law and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3(c), in support of his position that L is entitled to all data generated by the County in connection with its investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 7, 1998, Ms. Amdahl wrote that she was sending a transcript of one taped interview. She wrote that an earlier interview was not tape recorded. Ms. Amdahl did not provide any other data about L.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Amdahl stated that the County has provided a summary of contacts and conversations in the matter of the investigation of client L&apos; by a Fraud Prevention Investigator. Ms. Amdahl further stated that a transcript of the only tape recording the County maintains was provided in response to Mr. Thomas&apos;s December 2, 1998 request. Ms. Amdahl said that, contrary to her earlier understanding, other tape recordings had been erased or taped over prior to the initial request for data. Transcripts of those recordings were not made and are not available as stored&apos; data. The Agency has no further information which it can be considered to have withheld. According to Ms. Amdahl, the County has instructed its contractor to retain all future tape recordings that are made and that they are to be archived for future use.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Freeborn County Department of Human Services respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, [u]pon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3,
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, upon Mr. Thomas&apos;s request, the County was obligated to cite the specific statutory provision upon which it based its denial of access to data, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In general, data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system [including Freeborn County DHS] are private data. (See section 13.46, subdivision 2.) In some instances, data collected by a welfare department during an investigation that is authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law are confidential. However, those investigative data are required to be disclosed to a party named in a civil or criminal proceeding, administrative or judicial, for preparation of defense. (See section 13.46, subdivision 3 (c).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Thomas was seeking access to all data maintained about L by the County at least in part to prepare for an administrative proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas should have been given access to all of the private data the County maintains on L, as well as the otherwise confidential data generated in its investigation of L&apos;s eligibility to receive public assistance benefits.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Amdahl referred to a summary of certain data that was provided, and otherwise addressed only the issue of L&apos;s right to gain access to a transcript of the audio taped interview. She did state that the County has no other information responsive to L&apos;s request. However, Mr. Thomas questions whether L has gained access to all of the data, including investigative data, that the County maintains about L. L is entitled to gain access to all of the data the County maintains about L, including all data generated in its investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Amdahl stated that a tape recording of interview(s) conducted during the County&apos;s investigation of L were erased or taped over. Chapter 13 does not govern retention of government data, but other provisions of statute do so. Section 15.17, subdivision 1, provides: [a]ll officers and agencies of the state . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Pursuant to Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. (See section 138.163.) Pursuant to section 138.17, government entities must seek the approval of the Records Disposition Panel before they may dispose of government records. Pursuant to section 138.17, subdivision 1, government records are defined to include all . . . data, information, or documentary material . . . made or received by an officer or agency of the state . . . pursuant to state law or in connection with the transaction of public business by an officer or agency . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Amdahl acknowledged that the County should have retained the audiotape, and that it has taken steps to ensure that in the future it will do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Thomas is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Freeborn County Department of Human Services did not respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data. The County was obligated to cite the specific statutory provision upon which it based its denial of access to data, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.03. In addition, if the County has not made available to L all of the data it maintains about L, including all data generated in its investigation, it must do so. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Scott R. Simmons
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Acting Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: February 26, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267663</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed of existence/classification</Title><Id>266499</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigative data</Title><Id>267143</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 99-001</Title><title>Opinion 99 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267889&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1999-01-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul violate the data requestor&apos;s rights by denying him access to the following data: data regarding the MediaOne plan to move into the office that was formerly the Department of Revenue, i.e., contracts, memos, letters and any other documents relating to the building and the efforts to bring MediaOne or other tenants into it?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 20, 1999; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On December 1, 1998, IPA received a letter dated same from Chuck Laszewski, a reporter with the &lt;i&gt;St. Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Laszewski requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to data regarding MediaOne maintained by the City of St. Paul.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Owusu, Clerk of St. Paul, in response to Mr. Laszewski&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 4, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Laszewski&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On December 14, 1998, IPA received a fax from Peter McCall, Assistant St. Paul City Attorney, informing the Commissioner that the data Mr. Laszewski requested were available for him to inspect, because MediaOne consented to its release. IPA contacted Mr. Laszewski who informed staff that he still desired an opinion from the Commissioner. IPA received the City&apos;s comments, submitted by Mr. McCall, on December 21, 1998, in a letter dated same.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 5, 1998, Mr. Laszewski requested the following data from St. Paul, [t]he file regarding the MediaOne plan to move into the office that was formerly the Department of Revenue building. I want to see contracts, memos, letters and any other documents relating to the building and the efforts to bring MediaOne or other tenants into it.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Laszewski stated that on approximately November 18, 1998, Mr. McCall, by telephone, denied access to the data. Mr. Laszewski then requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Laszewksi asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the City of St. Paul violate the data requestor&apos;s rights by denying him access to the following data: data regarding the MediaOne plan to move into the office that was formerly the Department of Revenue, i.e., contracts, memos, letters and any other documents relating to the building and the efforts to bring MediaOne or other tenants into it? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (Section 13.06).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. McCall wrote that MediaOne had applied to St. Paul&apos;s Housing and Redevelopment Authority for economic assistance in connection with the former Department of Revenue building. He wrote, That application for economic assistance has not yet been submitted to the HRA Board for its approval. Mr. McCall asserted that the City denied Mr. Laszewski&apos;s request because the data are classified as not public by Section 13.62, economic assistance data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.62 provides that the following data collected by cities in their administration of the city economic development assistance program are classified as nonpublic:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    1. application data, except company names, addresses, and other data that identify the applicant, until the application is approved by the city;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    2. application data, except company names, addresses, and other data that identify the applicant, that pertain to companies whose applications have been disapproved;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    3. attachments to applications including but, not limited to, business and personal financial records, until the application is approved;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    4. income tax returns, either personal or corporate, that are filed by applicants; and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    5. correspondence between the program administrators and the applicant until the application has been approved or disapproved.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. McCall argued that because Section 13.62 unambiguously applies to all economic assistance data related to any economic development assistance program by cities, the data requested by Mr. Laszewski are not public. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. McCall&apos;s determination of the data classification; Section 13.62 classifies certain data related to a city&apos;s administration of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; economic development asstance program, not &lt;u&gt;any&lt;/u&gt; economic development assistance program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In reseaching Mr. Laszewski&apos;s question, the Commissioner reviewed the legislative history of Section 13.62. It originated in 1984 as a temporary classification request (see Section 13.06) from the City of East Grand Forks and was enacted by the 1985 Legislature. An examination of the application file, which contains public data maintained at the offices of IPA, revealed that the issue East Grand Forks brought to the Commissioner in 1984 regarded data about applicants for City Economic Development Assistance Fund loans and interest reduction under the Federally funded State administered (Department of Energy and Economic Development) Small Cities Development Grant (SCDG) Program. This is not the type of data Mr. Laszewski requested. Therefore, St. Paul cannot use Section 13.62 to deny access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s position is further buttressed by the fact that the Legislature has enacted other provisions that classify municipal economic development assistance data. Sections 13.621 (Two Harbors Development Commission Data) and 13.622 (Moorhead Economic Development Authority Data), both enacted in 1996, classify data businesses submit in the course of seeking financial assistance. If Section 13.62 were meant to apply to all types of municipal economic development assistance programs, the Legislature would not have enacted Sections 13.621 and 13.622.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Laszewski is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the City of St. Paul violated the data requestor&apos;s rights by denying him access to the following data: data regarding the MediaOne plan to move into the office that was formerly the Department of Revenue, i.e., contracts, memos, letters and any other documents relating to the building and the efforts to bring MediaOne or other tenants into it. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Scott R. Simmons
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Acting Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 20, 1999
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267889</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Economic development assistance data(13.594 / 13.62); (13.5951 / 13.621); (13.5952 / 13.622); (13.5953 / 13.671); (13.596 / 13.76)</Title><Id>266930</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data classification&apos;s origin</Title><Id>266468</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:37:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-054</Title><title>Opinion 98 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267668&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-12-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data, maintained by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37: data contained in a proposed Power Purchase Agreement between Northern States Power and the Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 1998; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 30, 1998, IPA received a letter October 27, 1998, from Dennis Ahlers, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General, on behalf of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). In his letter, Mr. Ahlers requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the MPUC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Ahlers wrote that the MPUC received a data practices request from the Minnesota Energy Consumers (MEC) to gain access to the proposed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Northern States Power (NSP) and Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers (MnVAP). The PPA was filed with the MPUC in regard to a request for Biomass Generation Resources. Mr. Ahlers stated, Both NSP and MnVAP have maintained throughout this proceeding before the MPUC that the contents of the PPA are proprietary in nature, and they object to MEC&apos;s data practices request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In requesting an advisory opinion, Mr. Ahlers wrote, In particular, the MPUC wishes the Commissioner to comment on whether any or all of the information contained in the PPA is protected from disclosure under Minn. Stat. 13.37, subd. 1(b) and 2 [trade secret]; and the particular parts of the PPA that can be disclosed to MEC in response to its Data Practices Request. He added that attached to his opinion request were copies of comments each of the involved parties submitted to the MPUC regarding this issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ahlers asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the following data, maintained by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37: data contained in a proposed Power Purchase Agreement between Northern States Power and the Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification at Section 13.06. The issue currently before the Commissioner is whether data in the PPA are classified as not public pursuant to Section 13.37, trade secret. Attorneys for MnVAP (Harold Frederick) and NSP (Michael Krikava) submitted comments to the MPUC asserting that all or some of the data in the PPA are classified as not public by Section 13.37. Attorneys for the MEC (James Bertrand and Mary Schwind) submitted comments to the MPUC asserting that most of the data in the PPA are public.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the Commissioner has opined in previous advisory opinions, the trade secret exemption applies only if the data in question satisfy the four elements set forth in Section 13.37. Subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Trade Secret Information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Any data meeting the criteria outlined in subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37, are classified as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and private (data on individuals) by subdivision 2 of Section 13.37.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The PPA is a very large document, comprised of approximately 155 pages; ninety-six pages of text and fifty-eight pages of appendices. The text includes the following articles: definitions; purchase and sale; conditions precedent; representations and warranties; obligations; prohibitions; coordinating and management committees; force majeure; termination/default/remedies; laws and regulations; effect of PURA (the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978) and EPAct (the Energy Policy Act of 1992); indemnification; dispute resolution; NSP&apos;s option to purchase and right of first refusal; and general.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The PPA also contains twenty-nine appendices; however, thirteen of those are not part of the copy the MPUC submitted to the Commissioner. Some of the document titles of the appendices included in the Commissioner&apos;s copy are Energy Production Guarantee; Buy Down Payment; Dispatch Flexibility Guarantees; Peak Controlled Service Rate Schedule; Milestones, Permits, Approvals; Form of Escrow Agreement; NSP EEO Policies; and Fuel Certification Requirements. The missing appendices are entitled NSP Generation Interconnection Standard, Description, Substation and Transmission System Description, Engineering Specifications, General Plant Specifications, Plant Acceptance Criteria and Capacity Test Requirements, Legal Description of Site, Point(s) of Interconnection, Point(s) of Interchange and Metering, One-Line Diagram(s), two entitled Intentionally Omitted, Major Project Documents, and Project Pro forma.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon an examination of the PPA, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that some of the data do not meet the four requirements of Section 13.37. But, it is possible that some of the data do fit the rigorous definition. However, the Commissioner is unable to make definitive and detailed determinations as to which data qualify as trade secret under Section 13.37. One reason is that she cannot determine classifications of data she has not inspected. Another is that much of the data is very technical in nature.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has issued approximately eight opinions involving the trade secret provision. She has attempted to issue opinions that are helpful and informative to the involved parties. However, there are times when the staff of government entities who know and work with the data must make their own determinations. This is particularly true when determining whether certain data are a trade secret depends heavily on industry standards and detailed technical knowledge of equipment and processes that are used within that industry. In this case, presumably, the MPUC and its staff do have the technical expertise and are in a much better position to determine the appropriate classification of the data in the PPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner does, however, offer the following guidance. First, data considered proprietary by a non-government entity are not protected from public disclosure when those data become government data. As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinions 98-017 and 98-026, she is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, any data that MnVAP or NSP have released to members of the public cannot possibly meet the requirement of Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), that the data are the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. For example, MEC alleged that MnVAP disseminated pricing information in a 1998 newsletter published by the Coon Rapids Regional Energy/Environmental Demonstration Project. MEC provided a copy of some/all of this newsletter to the Commissioner and it appears that staff of both NSP and MnVAP wrote the articles. It may also be relevant that the articles contain information about the alfalfa gasification process.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, it is unlikely that financial data such as pricing provisions and financial projections are a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Although some of the pricing strategies may be formulas or methods, it is not clear to the Commissioner that other competitors would not be able to arrive at those same formulas or methods by proper means. Also important to keep in mind is that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, unlike the federal Freedom of Information Act, does not generally protect from public disclosure commercial or financial information when that information becomes government data. (See 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4).) (See Advisory Opinions 94-037, 95-017, and 98-050.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An additional comment is appropriate. In his comments to the MPUC, Mr. Frederick discussed Minnesota Rules Section 7829.0500 which he described as permitting persons filing documents with the [MPUC] to identify and excise from all but a few copies proprietary and trade secret information contained in the documents. Mr. Frederick stated that in accordance with the Rule, NSP designated portions of its petition and the PPA as proprietary.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules Section 7829.0500 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Subpart 1. Confidentiality protected. Nothing in this chapter requires the public disclosure of privileged proprietary information, trade secrets, or other privileged information.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Subp. 2. Procedure for excision. Persons filing documents containing proprietary information, trade secrets, or other privileged information shall excise this information in all copies but the original and six copies.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Subp. 3. Identification of excised material. When a person classifies an entire document, or a substantial part of a document, as protected information, the person shall file a description of the excised material that includes at least the following information: the nature of the material, its authors, its general import, and the date on which it was prepared.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Subp. 4. Document containing protected information. The first page or cover page of a document containing protected information must be clearly marked in bold print TRADE SECRET INFORMATION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE or with words of similar import. Every page on which protected information appears must be similarly marked and the protected information must be underlined, placed in brackets, or otherwise clearly identified as the information which is to be protected from disclosure.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although NSP, via Section 7829.0500, may have designated certain data it submitted to the MPUC as protected, any such actions were essentially without effect. Section 7829.0200, subpart 2, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;This chapter governs practice and procedure in matters before the commission except when a statute or a rule on a specific topic contains procedural requirements in direct conflict with this chapter. Then, the statute or rule on a specific topic controls insofar as it is in direct conflict with this chapter. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of this opinion, the language of Chapter 13 controls because it is a statute and because it is more specific. Although Section 7829.0500, subpart 1, states that public disclosure of data that are privileged proprietary information or other privileged information, is not required, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumptively public and must be disclosed. Chapter 13 does provide a disclosure exemption for trade secret data but only if those data meet the four elements set forth in Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Moreover, Chapter 13, by omission, provides that Minnesota Rules do not classify data. Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that all government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification. Therefore, NSP, MnVAP, and/or the MPUC cannot rely on Minnesota Rules Section 7829.0500 to classify any data as not public. The Commissioner urges re-drafting of this rule so it does not appear to suggest that data submitted to a government entity, that are public by operation of Chapter 13, should not be disclosed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ahlers is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because the Commissioner has not reviewed the specific data, she cannot determine with absolute certainty whether the following data maintained by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission are classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37: data contained in a proposed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Northern States Power and the Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers. If any of the data in the PPA satisfy all four criteria of Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), they are classified as nonpublic or private. Any of the data in the PPA not satisfying all the requirements of Section 13.37 are not protected by Section 13.37 and are public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 31, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267668</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</Title><Id>266663</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statute supersedes rule</Title><Id>266431</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner&apos;s limited authority</Title><Id>266474</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-053</Title><title>Opinion 98 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267455&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-12-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Central Minnesota Mental Health Center respond appropriately to an October 1, 1998, request by a data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 16, 1998; Central Minnesota Mental Health Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 27, 1998, IPA received a letter from B. In her/his letter, B asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding B&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data about B maintained by the Central Minnesota Mental Health Center (CMMHC.) B enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to B&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Baraga, Director of CMMHC. The purposes of this letter, dated November 3, 1998, were to inform him of B&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for CMMHC&apos;s position. On November 18, 1998, IPA received a response from Mr. Baraga. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to the director of CMMHC dated October 1, 1998, B requested access to data about her/him maintained by CMMHC. According to B, as of October 15, 1998, CMMHC had not responded. B had previously directed her/his request for access to two other CMMHC staff members. In response to those requests, B was allowed to view her/his records, and received a copy of some of the data. B&apos;s request for copies of other records in the file was refused. According to B, the staff member who was the custodian of the records told her/him that the documents were not available to B because they did not originate from that facility.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Baraga stated that CMMHC clients&apos; charts contain data submitted by other entities, as well as data created by CMMHC. According to Mr. Baraga:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When a client requests to review a chart, we first make a determination whether it would be in the best interest of the client to review that chart. . . . . If they want copies of the chart, we will make copies of . . . the chart pertinent to information generated by [CMMHC.] It is our understanding that we are not legally able to forward copies of materials . . . of our chart which is information generated by other agencies.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        In the case to which you have questions, we responded to the request by giving the client the opportunity to review the entire chart and also to receive copies of materials generated by our Center. We then gave the client the option to request from the referral agencies the rest of the information. . . . .
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Very often the information we get from other agencies is stamped confidential and not to be released. We are in no position to know whether release of that information may be in the best interest of the client.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her/his request for an opinion, B asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Central Minnesota Mental Health Center respond appropriately to an October 1, 1998, request by a data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  CMMHC is a government entity that is part of the welfare system, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1 (c).
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.46, subdivision 5:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Data relating to the medical, psychiatric, or mental health of any individual, including diagnosis, progress charts, treatment received, case histories, and opinions of health care providers, that is collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by any agency to the welfare system is private data on individuals and will be available to the data subject, unless the private health care provider has clearly requested in writing that the data be withheld pursuant to section 144.335. Data on individuals that is collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by a private health care provider under contract to any agency of the welfare system is private data on individuals, and is subject to the provisions of sections 13.02 to 13.07 and this section, except that the provisions of section 13.04, subdivision 3, shall not apply. &lt;u&gt;Access to medical data referred to in this subdivision by the individual who is the subject of the data is subject to the provisions of section 144.335&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 144.335 governs access to medical records. Pursuant to Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (a), [u]pon request, a provider shall supply to a patient complete and current information possessed by that provider concerning any diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of the patient in terms and language the patient can reasonably be expected to understand.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (c):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If a provider, as defined in subdivision 1, clause (b)(1), [i.e., an individual provider such as a physician or psychologist] reasonably determines that the information is detrimental to the physical or mental health of the patient, or is likely to cause the patient to inflict self harm, or to harm another, the provider may withhold the information from the patient and may supply the information to an appropriate third party or to another provider, as defined in subdivision 1, clause (b)(1). The other provider or third party may release the information to the patient. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In addition, pursuant to Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (d), [a] provider as defined in subdivision 1, clause (b)(3), [i.e., an institutional provider such as a hospital or clinic] shall release information upon written request unless, &lt;u&gt;prior to the request, [an individual provider] has designated and described a specific basis&lt;/u&gt;for withholding the information as authorized by paragraph (c). (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 13.46 and 144.335, B is entitled to gain access to all of the data CMMHC maintains about B, unless, prior to B&apos;s request, an individual provider has stated, in writing, the specific reasons, based on the criteria provided in statute, for denying B access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Baraga stated that [w]hen a client requests to review a chart, we first make a determination whether it would be in the best psychological interest of the client to review that chart. Mr. Baraga further stated that when CMMHC receives data from other providers, the data are often stamped confidential and CMMHC is in no position to know whether release of that information may be in the best interest of the client.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Baraga&apos;s position is flawed in two respects. First, the statutory standard that must be met in order for data to be withheld from B is as follows. Prior to B&apos;s request for access to medical data, an individual health care provider must have made a specific, detailed written determination that the information is detrimental to B or likely to cause B to harm her/himself or another. That written determination must be on file. CMMHC&apos;s practice to consider whether or not it is in the client&apos;s best psychological interest to view the data is not in accordance with the statutory standard.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, a rubber-stamped label of confidential does not constitute a data classification for purposes of Chapter 13. It also does not constitute the written determination required by Sections 144.335 and 13.46. Pursuant to Section 13.46, data maintained by CMMHC about B are classified as private, and are accessible to B, unless the exception noted above applies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Baraga also stated that data maintained by CMMHC that were created by other entities may not be disclosed to B. The Commissioner disagrees with that position. Pursuant to Section 13.46, subdivision 5, B is entitled to gain access to data, of which B is the subject, that CMMHC &lt;u&gt;collects or maintains&lt;/u&gt;, not just the data that CMMHC creates. Language in Section 144.335, subdivision 3a, prohibits redisclosure of medical data to a third party, not a data subject. Accordingly, CMMHC should have provided B with access to all of the data it maintains about B, regardless of the source of the data, unless an exception provided in Section 144.335 is applicable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One further note is in order. According to B, CMMHC had not responded to B&apos;s request for access to data after ten working days. In most cases, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, government entities may have, at most, ten working days to respond to access to requests for data from data subjects. However, Section 13.46, subdivision 5, provides that the provisions of section 13.04, subdivision 3, shall not apply to the data in question. Instead, access is governed by Section 144.335, which does not provide a time frame other than prompt. (See Section 144.335, subdivision 2(b).) The Commissioner believes that it is reasonable that if a government entity responds within the time frame set forth in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that would constitute a prompt response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by B is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Central Minnesota Mental Health Center did not respond appropriately to an October 1, 1998, request by a data subject. Pursuant to Sections 13.46 and 144.335, B is entitled to gain access to all of the data CMMHC maintains about B, unless, prior to B&apos;s request, an individual health care provider has stated, in writing, the specific reasons, based on the criteria provided in statute, for denying B access to the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 16, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267455</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Includes data not created by maintaining entity</Title><Id>266560</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Access by data subject or parent</Title><Id>266762</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-052</Title><title>Opinion 98 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267360&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-12-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Were The Forum&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 violated because Clay County denied access to data contained in a September 24, 1998, letter written by the Clay County Sheriff to the Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 4, 1998; Clay County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On October 15, 1998, IPA received a letter dated October 12, 1998, from Steven Johnson, an attorney representing the publisher of &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Johnson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to data maintained by Clay County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Vijay Sethi, Clay County Coordinator, in response to Mr. Johnson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 22, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Johnson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On November 2, 1998, IPA received comments, dated November 2 from Ann Goering, an attorney representing the County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 24, 1998, Mr. Johnson requested access to a copy of a letter [Clay County] Sheriff Larry Costello sent to [Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners] John Evert, presumably sometime during the past month.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to Mr. Johnson&apos;s request, Ms. Goering argued that the data in the letter are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33, elected officials/correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the Commissioner&apos;s October 22, 1998, letter to Mr. Sethi, she advised him that in analyzing the issue at hand, it would be helpful for her to review the letter. The County did not provide a copy of the letter to the Commissioner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Were &lt;i&gt;The Forum&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 violated because Clay County denied access to data contained in a September 24, 1998, letter written by the Clay County Sheriff to the Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see Section 13.06). Chapter 13 provides a classification other than public for correspondence between individuals and elected officials; however, as the Commissioner has previously opined, this not public classification applies only if the correspondence in question is between members of the public and elected officials. (See Advisory Opinions 97-002 and 97-014.) Section 13.33 states:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Johnson described the letter. He wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Although we obviously do not have a copy of the letter, we believe the letter clearly pertains to Clay County business, possibly the Clay County Law Enforcement Committee. We are virtually certain that the letter was written by Sheriff Larry Costello on Clay County Sheriff letterhead. We do not believe the letter was written by Sheriff Costello as a private citizen.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    He asserted that because the apparent purpose of Section 13.33 is to protect only correspondence between private citizens and elected officials, the letter in question is public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering disputed Mr. Johnson&apos;s position. She wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            The letter from Sheriff Costello to Board Chair Evert does not constitute correspondence by a government employee doing required work. Without revealing the substance of the letter, it does not report on crime in Clay County or any similar data or information regarding the operation or management of the Sheriff&apos;s Department....
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Sheriff Costello and Board Chair Evert have the same statutory rights as other individuals to correspond with elected officials and express their opinions and concerns, including their political and personal views. This is not a situation of classifying normally public data as private just because the government employee&apos;s supervisor is an elected official.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    As discussed in the Facts section, the Commissioner asked to inspect the letter in question to determine whether or not the Sheriff wrote it in his work capacity. In fact, if, as Mr. Johnson intimated, the letter was written on Clay County Sheriff letterhead, it seems the burden would be on the Sheriff to explain why the content of the letter was not work related. However, the County did not provide the letter. The Commissioner&apos;s comments are therefore limited to the following: if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter as an individual, rather than in his capacity as the Clay County Sheriff, the data can be classified as not public under Section 13.33; but, if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter in his capacity as the Sheriff as part of his work, the data are presumed public unless classified otherwise by statute or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    An additional comment is in order. In Ms. Goering&apos;s response to Mr. Johnson&apos;s request to the County for access to the letter, she asserted:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Advisory opinions are not precedential in nature....While the language of Minn. Stat. 13.072 subd. 2 insulates a political subdivision that relies on an opinion issued to it related to its own data, it does not clearly protect another government entity if it were to rely on an opinion which does not involve its own data and specific circumstances. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Section 13.072 , subdivision 2, states in relevant part, A [government entity] or person that acts in conformity with a written opinion of the commissioner is not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or awards of attorneys fees under section 13.08 or for a penalty under section 13.09.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    The Commissioner disagrees with Ms. Goering; had the Legislature intended for the liability protection to extend only to those entities relying on opinions in which they were involved, Section 13.072 would have so stated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Johnson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Forum&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 were not violated when access to the September 24, 1998, letter was denied if the Clay County Sheriff wrote the letter to the Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners as an individual, rather than in his capacity as the Sheriff. However, if the Sheriff wrote the letter in his capacity as the Sheriff as part his work, the data are presumed public and &lt;i&gt;The Forum&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; rights were violated. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 4, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267360</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity reliance on opinion</Title><Id>266879</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-051</Title><title>Opinion 98 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268015&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-11-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did Hennepin County respond in a timely manner to a request for access to data on August 30, 1996?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 19, 1998; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 23, 1998, IPA received a letter from F dated September 20, 1998. In his/her letter, F requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding access to data maintained by Hennepin County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Sanders, Director of the County&apos;s Children and Family Services Department. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 1998, were to inform him of F&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On October 14, 1998, IPA received comments, dated October 14, 1998, from Vicki Vial-Taylor, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by F is as follows. On August 30, 1996, F requested from Hennepin County, in person, access to data about him/her and his/her children. F&apos;s spouse (also the parent of F&apos;s children) also requested data in a form dated August 29, 1996. Approximately nine working days later, the County mailed a letter to F stating that the data were available. Three working days later, F received the County&apos;s letter; F&apos;s spouse then went to the County and retrieved the requested data. F alleges that the County did not respond to his/her request within the statutorily prescribed time frame.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his/her request for an advisory opinion, F asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did Hennepin County respond in a timely manner to a request for access to data on August 30, 1996? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity shall comply immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, it may take an additional five working days to respond, if the data requestor is so informed.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As part of his/her opinion request, F provided the Commissioner with a copy of a document entitled Hennepin County Request for and/or Consent for Release of Information. According to the form, F requested access to any and all information regarding himself/herself, his/her spouse, and his/her four children. The form is signed and dated August 30, 1996. F&apos;s spouse (also the parent of F&apos;s children) also requested data in a form dated August 29, 1996. F stated in his/her opinion request that s/he was notified, via a letter dated September 13, 1996, that the data were available and the cost would be $14. F did not receive this letter until September 18, 1996 (twelve working days after his/her request).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Vial-Taylor stated that for two reasons, the County was unable to immediately comply with F&apos;s request. She first asserted that the request was ambiguous. Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote that because F signed the line on the form that states I wish to withhold information about [F], the agency was uncertain whether [F] wished to access information about [his/her] family and excluding [himself/herself], or whether [his/her] signature on the withholding&apos; line was inadvertent. She added, Thus, the agency records management staff needed to consult with the active case worker in order to determine the nature of the request. Vagueness of a request does not negate a government entity&apos;s obligation under Section 13.04 to respond within five to ten working days. Furthermore, in this case, if County staff felt F&apos;s request was unclear, they could have asked F for clarification.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second reason the County was unable to immediately comply was that the physical documents in the file were needed by at least three different workers within the agency. Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote, [t]here were a number of separate staff members who needed the same documents on the same days in order to perform their job functions. It simply took some time to coordinate the sharing of the file within the county agency. Pursuant to Section 13.04, the County was required to respond to F&apos;s request within five to ten working days; the fact that the documents were not contained in one central file or that files were needed by separate staff to perform job functions does not absolve the County of its statutory obligation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Ms. Vial-Taylor acknowledged that the County&apos;s response time did not meet the statutory requirement of five days, as there is no documentation that the county agency formally requested an extension. However, she added that although the County inadvertently overlooked the request for an extension, it did respond within ten working days. The problem with Ms. Vial-Taylor&apos;s argument is that technically, under Section 13.04, a government entity can take the additional five days to comply only if it so notifies the requestor. In this case, the County did not notify F that it required the additional time; therefore, it did not respond in a timely manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by F is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Hennepin County did not respond in a timely manner to a request for access to data made on August 30, 1996. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 19, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268015</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-050</Title><title>Opinion 98 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267799&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-11-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Health classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37: certain data submitted to the Department as part of an application for licensure as an Accountable Provider Network (APN) under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62T?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 13, 1998; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 22, 1998, IPA received a letter dated September 14, 1998, from Anne Barry, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). In her letter, Commissioner Barry requested that the Commissioner of Administration issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by MDH.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Community Coordinated Health Care (CCHC) submitted data to MDH as part of an application for licensure as an Accountable Provider Network (APN) under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62T. Keith Halleland, an attorney representing CCHC, identified data in the application which his client believes are classified as not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, trade secret. Commissioner Barry wrote, [MDH] seeks your opinion as to whether any of the data identified by CCHC qualifies for protection as trade secret information under Minn. Stat. 13.37.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Commissioner Barry asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Health classified as trade secret pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37: certain data submitted to the Department as part of an application for licensure as an Accountable Provider Network (APN) under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62T? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification at Section 13.06. Chapter 13 does provide a not public classification for trade secret data; however, as the Commissioner has opined in previous advisory opinions, this exemption applies only if the data in question satisfy the four criteria set forth in Section 13.37. Subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37 states:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Trade Secret Information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 of Section 13.37 classifies trade secret data as nonpublic (data not on individuals) and private (data on individuals).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Keith Halleland, representing the CCHC, divided the data in question into two categories - provider networks and financial information. Data related to provider networks include the following: a list of participating Care Systems; a list of Board of Directors; a list of providers who have signed letters of commitment and copies of the commitment letters; and a provider directory. Data related to financial information include the following: copies of contracts for services between CCHC and other organizations; copies of letters of intent; three years of projected income statements; two years of balance sheet items; three years of estimated income statements; a balance sheet summary; a provider incentive fund worksheet; and a copy of a letter of credit from a bank.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Halleland asserted that the data in question satisfy three requirements of Section 13.37. He wrote that the data were supplied to MDH. He further wrote that neither the financial and budgeting information nor the provider arrangements and identification have been disclosed by CCHC to anyone outside of its organization or outside of the APN application process. Mr. Halleland also wrote that the data derive independent economic value from not being known to or not being readily ascertainable by any third party. He stated:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Further, disclosure of the financial and network information...would be very valuable to competitors in the marketplace, as they would be able to glean information concerning strategy, pricing, geographic focus, benefits, and other aspects of the APN&apos;s proposed operation which would allow such competitors to influence, out bid, or otherwise interfere with CCHC&apos;s provider relationships. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The problem with Mr. Halleland&apos;s analysis is that he does not demonstrate how the data in question meet the remaining requirement of Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), i.e., they are a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process. As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 94-037, because Minnesota courts have not interpreted the elements of the trade secret definition in the context of public access to information provided to the government by outside persons, examination of federal law is helpful. She wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Although the use of the term including in the first sentence of Section 13.37 (b) appears to say that a trade secret may be more than a formula, pattern, and so forth, other laws construing the meaning of the term trade secret provide clearer guidance.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                             For example, the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as interpreted, requires that information claimed to be a trade secret, must be a commercially valuable plan, process, formula or device used for making, preparing, compounding or processing trade commodities. Federal law further requires that the information claimed to be a trade secret must be the product of innovation or substantial effort. (See &lt;u&gt;Anderson v. Department of Health and Human Services&lt;/u&gt;, 907 F. 2d 936 (10th Cir. 1990).)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Halleland also asserted that the data are proprietary and known only to the parties involved. While the Commissioner agrees that this may be the case, as she stated in Advisory Opinion 98-017, she is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public, once those data become government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62T, which provides for the creation of accountable provider networks such as CCHC, was enacted by the 1997 Legislature. As Commissioner Barry wrote in her opinion request, The department has found no statutes referring specifically to an APN...that classify an application as other than public information under Minn.Stat. chapter 13. This leads the Commissioner of Administration to conclude that the Legislature 1) chose not to classify the data as something other than public or 2) did not consider the issue. Given the specific nature of the data in question, MDH may want to attempt to resolve this classification question through the temporary classification process, rather than employing Section 13.37. (See Section 13.06.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Barry is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data submitted by CCHC to the Minnesota Department of Health as part of an application for licensure as an Accountable Provider Network (APN) under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62T are not trade secret data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b) because the data do not satisfy all four criteria outlined in Section 13.37. Therefore, the data are public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 13, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267799</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Formula, pattern, compilation, etc. (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266961</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-049</Title><title>Opinion 98 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267530&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, in light of Minnesota Department of Health Rule 4600.5800 (Commercial Use), can public access to vital records be denied if a member of the public refuses to sign a promise that public vital records&apos; data will not be used for commercial purposes?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 1998; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On September 24, 1998, IPA received a letter from Anne M. Barry, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH.) In her letter, Commissioner Barry asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by MDH. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Commissioner Barry, questions have arisen about whether Minnesota Department of Health Rule 4600.5800 (Commercial Use), is in conflict with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. An individual seeking access to public birth records in Sherburne County was asked by the County to execute an affidavit that he would not use the information for commercial purposes. The individual contends that use of that information is protected commercial speech under the United States Constitution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Barry stated that MDH has been advised by Assistant Attorney General Susan Casey to . . . direct local registrars to disregard the offending rule and to obtain a formal opinion from the Department of Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4600.5800:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The state registrar and local registrars shall not furnish gratis or for purchase information identifying persons recorded in a birth or death certificate to be used for commercial purposes. Publication in official newspapers shall not be considered as a commercial purpose. Neither shall hospital administrators nor funeral directors or morticians use or furnish vital statistics for such purposes.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Commissioner Barry asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, in light of Minnesota Department of Health Rule 4600.5800 (Commercial Use), can public access to vital records be denied if a member of the public refuses to sign a promise that public vital records&apos; data will not be used for commercial purposes?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public, unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see Section 13.06.)
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that vital records, i.e., birth and death certificates, are public data. MDH Rule 4600.5800 restricts only commercial use of those data. However, the Minnesota Legislature has established the fundamental information policy principle that in general, no restrictions may be imposed upon the public&apos;s use of public government data, and the Department of Administration promulgated a Rule to that effect. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, access to public data [shall be provided] to any person, without regard to the nature of that person&apos;s interest in the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The MDH Rule clearly conflicts with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and its implementing Rules. Government entities may not restrict access to public government data because they object to potential uses of the data. Accordingly, the Commissioner concurs with Assistant Attorney General Casey that MDH Rule 4600.5800 should not be enforced.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, a recent Second Judicial District Court case, while not precedential, suggests that the MDH Rule may be unconstitutional. In that case, Judge Kathleen Gearin ruled that provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 10A.02, subdivision 8(e), that prohibit the commercial use of certain public data and impose civil and criminal sanctions for such use, are unconstitutional pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution. (See &lt;u&gt;Legal Ledger, Inc., d.b.a. St. Paul Legal Ledger, v. State of Minnesota, and Minnesota Campaign Finance Public Disclosure Board&lt;/u&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Barry is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, public access to vital records may not be denied if a member of the public refuses to sign a promise that public vital records&apos; data will not be used for commercial purposes, contrary to Minnesota Department of Health Rule 4600.5800 (Commercial Use).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267530</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial use of data</Title><Id>266292</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public data, no restrictions on use</Title><Id>266517</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statute supersedes rule</Title><Id>266431</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-10-13T14:39:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-048</Title><title>Opinion 98 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267494&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-10-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Clay County properly deny public access to copies of internal e-mail messages, letters and/or memos relating to the County Attorney&apos;s decisions about a child abuse investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 1998; Clay County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On August 31, 1998, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt; newspaper of Fargo-Moorhead. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by Clay County. At IPA&apos;s request, Mr. Anfinson clarified his opinion request in a telephone call and a facsimile letter dated September 9, 1998. Mr. Anfinson provided copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Vijay Sethi, Clay County Coordinator. The purposes of this letter, dated September 10, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On September 24, 1998, IPA received a response from Ann Goering, an attorney representing Clay County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In a letter to Mr. Sethi dated June 9, 1998, Karyn Spencer, a reporter for &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt;, requested copies of e-mail conversations from January, February and March between Social Services director Dennis Lien and county attorney Todd Webb regarding a child abuse investigation. . . . . In addition, please provide any letters or memos written to the Clay County commissioners regarding this topic.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson: [i]n conversations with county officials, Ms. Spencer made clear that she did not seek information that would identify either the alleged victim or alleged perpetrators; rather her interest was in comments that Mr. Lien may have made about the county attorney&apos;s response to the allegations. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering stated that data related to child abuse reports and investigations are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.556, 626.558 and 13.46. Ms. Goering wrote: [a]s stated in the response to &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt;, such data cannot be released. Contrary to the implication in Mr. Anfinson&apos;s [opinion request], the data in question contains information which could identify a subject of and/or alleged perpetrator of a child abuse report. No data responsive to &lt;i&gt;The Forum&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request exists which does not contain identifying information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Goering further wrote: [s]econd, even if the data could be redacted in such a way as to remove all identifying information related to the subject(s) of child abuse allegations, the remaining data, which discusses the handling of child abuse reports and/or investigations by the County Attorney, constitutes private personnel data pursuant to Min. Stat. 13.43.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Clay County properly deny public access to copies of internal e-mail messages, letters and/or memos relating to the County Attorney&apos;s decisions about a child abuse investigation? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                   Neither party disputes that data about child abuse allegations and investigations are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556. Pursuant to Section 626.556, subdivision 11, all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency under this section, and reports maintained by any police department or the county sheriff are private data on individuals. However, according to Mr. Anfinson, &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt; was interested in obtaining data about the manner in which the allegation was handled by the County Attorney, not details of the allegation itself.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to information provided to the Commissioner, the Clay County Attorney, an elected official, is an employee of the County. (See Advisory Opinion 98-002.) Data about public employees are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of that Section, certain personnel data are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to Ms. Goering, the data requested by &lt;i&gt;The Forum&lt;/i&gt; that do not identify the subject(s) of child abuse allegations are data about the handling of child abuse reports and/or investigations by the County Attorney, and as such are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Ms. Goering did not provide a specific description of the data that remain in question, which were not provided to the Commissioner for her review. It is possible that some of those data are public, for instance work assignment, under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Another exception would be if any of the data reflected complaints or charges against an employee, or are data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action taken against an employee. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4) and (5), and (b).) That does not appear to be the case here. It is also possible that some of the data may constitute observations or comments about County policies and procedures regarding child abuse allegations. To the extent that those data do not or could not identify an individual employee, those data are also public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, if all the remaining data are comments about how the case was handled by a County employee, i.e., performance related data, then Ms. Goering is correct. Those data are not included in the list of data that are public under Section 13.43, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.556 and 13.43, Clay County properly denied public access to private data contained in internal e-mail messages, letters and/or memos relating to the County Attorney&apos;s decisions about a child abuse investigation. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 30, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267494</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data connection</Title><Id>266470</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Performance data/evaluations</Title><Id>266625</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-047</Title><title>Opinion 98 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267079&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-10-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the University of Minnesota responded in a timely manner to a June 17, 1998, for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 27, 1998; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 2, 1998, IPA received a letter dated August 29, 1998, from James Paddock. In his letter, Mr. Paddock requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota. In a letter dated September 4, 1998, Mr. Paddock clarified his opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 8, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Paddock&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On September 21, 1998, IPA received comments, dated September 18, 1998, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated June 17, 1998, Mr. Paddock requested certain data from the University. Upon receiving no response from the University, he wrote to the Commissioner. Mr. Paddock stated that he had been able to locate some of the information on the internet but that he wished the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the following data from his June 17 request:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The job description of Fred Burnes. The University of Minnesota Duluth Fund raiser. The terms of any agreement settling his dispute with UMD. Work location, work telephone number, payroll time sheets (9/1/97 - 7/17/98/). Actual gross salary, all data pertaining to work schedule, appointments, the amount of money raised for UMD for the past nine months.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The new job description for Dale Race, The UMD Bulldog Club Fund raiser. His actual gross salary, a copy of his new employment contract, benefit package. Also include the terms of any settlement settling any dispute arising out of any employment relationship with UMD.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Paddock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the University of Minnesota responded in a timely manner to a June 17, 1998, for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Regarding the time frame, subdivision 2 of Section 13.03 provides that the entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides further guidance stating that the entity must respond within a reasonable time. If an entity determines that the requested data are not accessible to the requestor, subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 requires the responsible authority to so inform the requestor either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible and to cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Subdivision 3 further states that the responsible authority must provide the reason for the denial in writing if the data requestor so requests.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, Mr. Paddock requested data in a June 17, 1998, letter. As of the date of his September 4, 1998, opinion request, he had not received a response from the University. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The documents requested by Mr. Paddock in June 1998 unfortunately were not on site at the University as they were bound up in a large discovery production in an unrelated lawsuit. The documents were returned to the University within the last couple of weeks, and we regret the delay in providing them to Mr. Paddock.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            To the extent that documents exist that are responsive to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request, they are being provided directly to him by mail.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith then explained that some of the data Mr. Paddock requested are not public because they are classified otherwise pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, personnel data. She stated, These data are all data pertaining to work schedule, appointments, and the amount of money raised for UMD [by Mr. Burnes] for the past nine months.&apos; (The University does not have any payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes&apos; for Mr. Burnes. Minn. Stat. 13.43, subd. 2(a)(8) (1996).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The University took approximately three months to respond to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request for access to data. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that such a lengthy time is neither prompt nor reasonable. Therefore, the University did not meet its statutory obligation under Section 13.03 in responding to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Paddock is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the University of Minnesota did not respond in a timely manner to a June 17, 1998, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 27, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267079</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-046</Title><title>Opinion 98 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267047&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-10-19T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, how are the following data classified: individuals&apos; names, addresses, telephone numbers and specific requests regarding services provided by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 19, 1998; Metropolitan Mosquito Control District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 26, 1998, IPA received a letter from David A. Clark, an attorney representing the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (MMCD). In his letter, Mr. Clark asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the MMCD.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Commissioner received an opinion request regarding the same issue from Mr. James Nobles, the Legislative Auditor, whose Program Evaluation Division is studying MMCD. After receiving the MMCD&apos;s opinion request, IPA contacted the Legislative Auditor, and agreed that the Commissioner would issue one opinion, based upon MMCD&apos;s request. Mr. Nobles asked the Commissioner to consider and possibly incorporate his comments in the opinion. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Clark, the data at issue relate to individuals who have requested the District either to provide or not provide mosquito and other control services on their property. Mr. Clark stated that the District treats the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and specific requests of those individuals as private or nonpublic security information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Clark wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The District&apos;s programs and activities are, with some people, the subject of much controversy and high emotions. The District engages in surveillance and control of vector and other indigenous mosquitoes and biting gnats, and surveillance of Lyme Disease ticks in the metropolitan area. To accomplish its mission, the District utilizes control materials designed to reduce the numbers of both mosquitoes and gnats. Many citizens believe the District&apos;s activities and the materials that it uses are truly beneficial to their own and others&apos; health and enjoyment. There are other citizens, however, that believe that the District&apos;s activities and/or materials that it uses are harmful to themselves and others. The beliefs of some of the people on both sides of that issue are extreme and very firmly held and aggressively championed.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        Given the extreme positions, and sometimes actions, taken and recommended, the District believed that dissemination of the data at question here might place either or both the person who made a particular request or their property at a heightened risk of harm. They knew, for example, that District employees had been threatened with guns, clubs and other forms of physical harm while conducting their duties. Further, representatives of the District had attended community meetings where loud name-calling and seemingly veiled threats were traded between neighbors about the matter of support or lack thereof of the District&apos;s activities. . . . .
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In his comments, Mr. Nobles wrote: [o]ur preliminary research reveals that MMCD staff taking telephone calls do not give citizens the Tennessen warning as required by &lt;i&gt;Minn. Stat.&lt;/i&gt; 13.04. Mr. Nobles questioned whether it was appropriate for MMCD to treat the data in question as security information under Section 13.37.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Clark asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, how are the following data classified: individuals&apos; names, addresses, telephone numbers and specific requests regarding services provided by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), security information means government data the disclosure of which &lt;u&gt;would be likely to substantially jeopardize&lt;/u&gt;the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to subdivision 2 of that Section, security information is classified as nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals, and as private data with regard to data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Accordingly, a government entity&apos;s discretion to withhold data as not public is limited to those situations in which there is a likelihood of &lt;u&gt;substantial jeopardy&lt;/u&gt;to security. In his comments, Mr. Clark stated that in certain situations, the MMCD has reason to believe that dissemination of some of the data in question might place some individuals or their property at risk of harm. In those limited situations, the MMCD may properly treat the data as security information under Section 13.37. However, the protection provided by that Section does not apply to all data collected by the MMCD that relate to its services. Mr. Clark stated that the MMCD takes the position that all data associated with any requests regarding its services are security information, pursuant to Section 13.37. However, the MMCD may treat as security information only those data the disclosure of which is likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, the Commissioner takes note of Mr. Nobles&apos; comments that the MMCD does not provide individuals, upon collection of what it considers to be private data, with the notice required under Section 13.04, subdivision 2, commonly referred to as a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Clark is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the following data are classified as public: individuals&apos; names, addresses, telephone numbers and specific requests regarding services provided by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. If, under limited circumstances, the MMCD has specific reason to conclude that dissemination of some of those data would be likely to substantially jeopardize information, possessions, individuals or property, then those specific data are private or nonpublic, pursuant to Section 13.37. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 19, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267047</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity&apos;s discretion to withhold</Title><Id>266370</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-045</Title><title>Opinion 98 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267589&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-10-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>How are data submitted by an applicant or a licensed school to obtain Minnesota Higher Education Services Office&apos;s (HESO) approval of a proposed program classified under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is HESO allowed to share a copy of the program proposal documentation with anyone other than personnel from the applicant or school?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 19, 1998; Minnesota Higher Education Services Office</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 24, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated August 20, 1998, from Robert Poch, Director of the Minnesota Higher Education Services Office (HESO). In his letter, Mr. Poch requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by HESO.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Poch stated, [HESO] is responsible for the enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 136A.61136A.71[sic], Private Institutions Registration, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 141, Private Business, Trade, and Correspondence Schools. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Private Institutions &lt;u&gt;Registration Program&lt;/u&gt; requires any private postsecondary education institution which is non-profit, grants degrees, or which uses the terms academy, college, institute, or university in its name, &lt;u&gt;to register,&lt;/u&gt; with the Services Office and &lt;u&gt;seek approval to grant degrees&lt;/u&gt; or &lt;u&gt;to use one of those terms in its name&lt;/u&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Private Business, Trade, and Correspondence Schools &lt;u&gt;licensure program&lt;/u&gt; requires schools under the jurisdiction of Chapter 141 &lt;u&gt;to obtain a license&lt;/u&gt; prior to maintaining, advertising, soliciting for, or conducting any course of instruction in Minnesota. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Poch added that an individual recently requested access to documents submitted by a licensed school for a proposed new program. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Individual programs proposed to be offered by an applicant school or proposed to be offered within a licensed school must be approved by this office before a school can offer them. The process and criteria for program approval document provided to applicants and licensed schools describes what is required and must be completed for each program the school plans to offer. Programs must be approved by this office before they are advertised or included in any document used by the school. Proposed new programs can be submitted to the office at any time. Any changes to an approved program must also be approved in advance by this office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Mr. Poch, in his opinion request, discussed HESO&apos;s statutory responsibilities under both Chapter 136A and Chapter 141, it appears the issue he raised relates only to those data HESO obtains pursuant to Chapter 141. This opinion is therefore based on that premise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Poch asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;How are data submitted by an applicant or a licensed school to obtain Minnesota Higher Education Services Office&apos;s (HESO) approval of a proposed program classified under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is HESO allowed to share a copy of the program proposal documentation with anyone other than personnel from the applicant or school?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Poch discussed HESO&apos;s past practice of determining the classification of data submitted for licensure approval and suggested that program approval documents might be classified similarly. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[d]ocuments submitted for licensure approval are treated as private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.41, subd. 2 and not made available to others. Once a school is licensed, information submitted by the applicant for licensure is considered public pursuant to Minn. Stat. sectionsection 13.01, subd. 3 and 13.41, subd. 4, except the information stated in law as private data. For instance, Minn. Stat. section 141.30 specifically prohibits this office from divulging to any member of the public information contained in the financial records of the school. In addition, information submitted by schools can include trade secret information pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.37. &lt;u&gt;Based on past practice, this office would plan to consider program approval documents in the same manner as licensure documents, and, therefore, not make public information related to the proposed new program until (and if) the program has received approval from this office.&lt;/u&gt; [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed public unless classified otherwise by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see Section 13.06). Section 13.41 classifies as private certain data collected, created, or maintained by a licensing agency. Subdivision 1 of Section 13.41 defines licensing agency as any board, department or agency of this state given the statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses. In a previous advisory opinion, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267505&quot; title=&quot;95-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-050&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner examined Section 13.41 and opined that it applies only to &lt;u&gt;state&lt;/u&gt; agencies or departments that possess statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, although HESO meets the criterion the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267505&quot; title=&quot;95-050&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-050&lt;/a&gt; (it is an agency of the state of Minnesota), Section 13.41 does not classify the data HESO collects in licensing private business, trade, and correspondence schools. The reason Section 13.41 does not apply is that it classifies only data about individuals. Although the Commissioner has not seen the data at issue in this opinion, she reasonably assumes they are not about individuals, they are data about whether a proposed program meets the standards set forth in statute. Therefore, HESO cannot employ Section 13.41 to deny access to the requested data. (For more information regarding the distinction between data on individuals and data not on individuals, see Section 13.02, subdivisions 4 and 5. Note that Section 13.41 classifies data as private and confidential. These terms categorize data on individuals, not data not on individuals. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Poch related there are two other statutory provisions that appear to restrict public access to data submitted to HESO for licensure approval. One is Minnesota Statutes Section 141.30. Clause (b) of Section 141.30 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;No agent or employee of the state of Minnesota shall divulge to any person other than a member of the office, or duly constituted law enforcement official, any data obtained from an inspection of the financial records of a school, except in connection with a legal or administrative proceeding commenced to enforce a requirement of law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Poch that Section 141.30 governs the release of any data obtained from an inspection of financial records of a school. However, this provision appears to apply to financial data proactively obtained by HESO staff in fulfilling their responsibilities under Section 141.30; it does not seem to apply to data submitted to HESO by applicants or licensed schools.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other statutory provision Mr. Poch cited is Section 13.37, trade secret data. He stated, [i]nformation submitted by schools can include trade secret information... As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/266664&quot; title=&quot;94-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-037&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267743&quot; title=&quot;95-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-017&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266767#/detail/appId/1/id/267890&quot; title=&quot;96-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-035&lt;/a&gt;), any time a government entity classifies data as not public pursuant to the trade secret provision, the data must meet all four criteria set forth in Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). One of the elements of the trade secret exception is that the organization submitting the data has made efforts to maintain the secrecy of the data. In this case, Mr. Poch did not indicate that any of the schools have claimed trade secret status for any of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Poch is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1, 2. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, because there are no statutory provisions classifying the data submitted by an applicant or a licensed school to obtain Minnesota Higher Education Services Office&apos;s (HESO) approval of a proposed program as not public, the data are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 19, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267589</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data not on individuals</Title><Id>266512</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-044</Title><title>Opinion 98 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267996&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-09-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency respond in a timely fashion to a request by the Star Tribune for access to data?
Did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency violate the Star Tribune&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 if it did not cite the statutory basis for denying the request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 25, 1998; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On July 31, 1998, IPA received a letter dated July 29, 1998, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to data maintained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peder Larson, Commissioner of the MPCA, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 10, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MPCA&apos;s position. On August 19, 1998, the Commissioner received comments dated same from Commissioner Larson. Attached to Commissioner Larson&apos;s comments were copies of several documents that are discussed in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, he wrote that the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested certain information from the MPCA in March 1998 or shortly thereafter. Mr. Anfinson stated that the newspaper requested the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            All reports and summaries of a special MPCA inspection of Koch Refining Company, conducted in April 1997.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            All transcripts of approximately three dozen interviews of Koch employees taken by the MPCA during a six-month investigation in 1997. (MPCA officials have confirmed that Koch officials were present during most if not all of these interviews, that the sessions were taped and the tapes transcribed, and that the transcripts have been provided to the Environmental Protection Agency.)
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Any briefing papers, summaries, or other written records of the 1997 investigation prepared for MPCA staff members.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            All documents associated with negotiations between the MPCA and Koch that resulted in a $6,900,000 penalty, and corrective actions agreed to in a stipulation between the parties and signed on May 18, 1998.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            All correspondence in the MPCA&apos;s files concerning Koch, from January 1, 1997 to the present, related to water quality and hazardous waste, including but not limited to information about wastewater treatment and hazardous waste management.
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Anfinson further wrote that as of the date of his opinion request, the information had not been provided nor had the MPCA given the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; a written description of the agency&apos;s reasons for failing to comply with the request. He added, Although there have been suggestions that the legal basis, at least in part, may be concerns about the application of Minn. Stat. 181.932, subd. 2 (a section of the whistleblower&apos; statute), the newspaper does not know if this is the only reason.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (In a recently issued Advisory Opinion, 98-042, the Commissioner discussed other matters regarding data collected by the MPCA in its investigation of the Koch Refining Company.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                             Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency respond in a timely fashion to a request by the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; for access to data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                             Did the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency violate the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 if it did not cite the statutory basis for denying the request?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Regarding the time frame for responding to requests, subdivision 2 of Section 13.03 provides that the entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides further guidance stating that the entity must respond within a reasonable time. If an entity determines that the requested data are not accessible to the requestor, subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 requires the responsible authority to so inform the requestor either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible and [to] cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Subdivision 3 further states that the responsible authority must provide, in writing, the reason for the denial if the data requestor so requests.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Anfinson&apos;s first question is whether the MPCA responded to the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request in a timely manner. In his comments to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Larson wrote that he disagreed with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s assertion that the MPCA had not responded within the statutorily mandated time frame. He stated that the newspaper first contacted MPCA regarding the Koch investigation in September of 1997. Commissioner Larson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The reporters who contacted the MPCA were informed that the investigative file was not public and would not be available for public review until the investigation was closed. As a result, the reporters did not request review of this file but instead reviewed files related to cleanup [sic] of aboveground storage tank spills and air quality issues [Commissioner Larson wrote that those files were not part of the active investigation].&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In his comments, Commissioner Larson further stated that the MPCA concluded its investigation on May 18, 1998. He stated, Although the MPCA had not received a formal written request from the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; to review the investigation file, the MPCA nevertheless began to organize the documents collected as part of the investigation (literally thousands of pages) in anticipation of requests for public review. Commissioner Larson went on to state that on, or about, June 4, 1998, an attorney for Koch contacted the MPCA and raised the possibility that publicly releasing the documents would violate Minnesota Statutes Section 181.932, the whistle-blower statute. Commissioner Larson wrote that on June 16, 1998, the MPCA faxed a copy of the whistle-blower statute to the newspaper.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Larson added that the MPCA then sent a detailed letter dated, July 2, 1998, to the newspaper. In this letter, MPCA staff wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I understand that [MPCA Public Information Office staff] has had some telephone conversations with you concerning the fact that we were recently made aware of a provision in the state data practices law that appears to restrict the release of information in our files more than we had previously thought. [The letter referenced Minnesota Statutes Section 181.932.]...
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            We have since alerted the Department of Administration of this situation and have asked for urgent resolution at the policy level by them.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            In the meantime, we have no option but to freeze the Koch investigation file (as well as other company files that may contain employee identity as described above) until we can put in place a means to be able to comply fully with the law....
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            We recognize your interest in the files and also that your request has been on hold for some time now. I understand that as an interim solution to your desire for access to certain information in the files, [MPCA Public Information Office staff] is attempting to set up a meeting for you with staff here to more narrowly define the documents in which you have an interest and then perhaps to have those files expunged of employees names and any other pertinent information that might relate to the statute mentioned above....
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Commissioner Larson further wrote that on July 25, 1998, the MPCA received a written request from the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; to review a variety of information. The MPCA&apos;s August 4, 1998, response stated that it would release requested documents with certain exceptions. Commissioner Larson commented on the August 4 letter:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The letter listed the statutory basis for the MPCA&apos;s decision not to release certain documents falling within the scope of the request. The MPCA noted that it had recently responded to a request for an Advisory Opinion from the Commissioner of Administration filed by an attorney representing Koch employees regarding the scope of Minn. Stat. 181.932, and that the MPCA would not be releasing information potentially within the scope of that statute until it had received direction from the Commissioner of Administration. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Larson also noted that item number 4 of the data Mr. Anfinson asserted was requested in March or shortly thereafter refers specifically to the May 18, 1998, settlement. Therefore, asserted Commissioner Larson, those data could not have been requested until after May 18, 1998.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is difficult to determine with any degree of exactness whether the MPCA complied with the requirements of Chapter 13. The main obstacle is that prior to July 2, 1998, apparently neither the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; nor the MPCA documented, in writing, any communications concerning the newspaper&apos;s initial data request(s). Therefore, in terms of the situation prior to July 25, 1998 (when the newspaper made a request in writing), the Commissioner&apos;s knowledge is limited to that provided in Mr. Anfinson&apos;s and Commissioner Larson&apos;s comments: 1) it is not exactly clear which data the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested and when the newspaper requested the data; 2) it is not exactly clear when the MPCA responded to the request and whether the response included the statutory citation upon which the denial was based; 3) it is clear that the MPCA faxed a copy of the whistle-blower statute to the newspaper on June 16, 1998 (after Mr. Corwin had raised the issue that Minnesota Statutes Section 181.932 might affect the release of the data to the public); 4) it is clear that the MPCA sent a detailed letter to the newspaper dated July 2, 1998, denying access to some of the data based on Section 181.932; the text of the letter also indicates that MPCA staff and &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; staff had verbally discussed how Section 181.932 seemed to impact release of certain information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In this case, primarily because there is no written record prior to July 2, 1998, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the MPCA responded appropriately to the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; data request(s) made prior to July 25, 1998. Alternatively, there is no documentation supporting a proposition that the MPCA did not respond appropriately. The history, which is grounded in the mental recall of both parties, is too muddled. This conclusion illustrates the desirability, particularly in complex and sensitive situations, of requestors making their requests in writing and government entities responding to those requests in writing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Regarding the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; July 25, 1998, request, it appears the MPCA&apos;s response was timely and appropriate, i.e., the agency responded in a reasonable time and the agency cited the statutory sections upon which it relied to deny access to some of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                   Regarding the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request(s) for access to data made prior to July 25, 1998, because of lack of documentation, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency&apos;s response was timely (per Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13). However, regarding the July 25, 1998, request, the MPCA&apos;s response was timely.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                   Regarding the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; request(s) for access to data made prior to July 25, 1998, because of lack of documentation the Commissioner cannot determine whether the MPCA violated the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; rights under Chapter 13 regarding the requirement to cite the statutory provision upon which a denial of access is based. However, regarding the July 25, 1998, request, the MPCA did cite the statutory basis for denial and therefore did not violate the &lt;i&gt;Star&lt;/i&gt; Tribune&apos;s rights.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 25, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267996</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-043</Title><title>Opinion 98 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267884&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-09-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a complaint against a City of New Market employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> September 18, 1998; City of New Market</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 29, 1998, IPA received a letter from Roger N. Knutson, an attorney representing the City of New Market. In his letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the City. Mr. Knutson&apos;s initial request required clarification, which involved subsequent correspondence and conversation with IPA staff. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A City employee approached the Mayor with concerns about another employee. According to Mr. Knutson, [t]he Mayor suggested that it might be a good idea [for the employee] to write everything down. . . . . The Mayor did not give [her/him] a Tennessen warning. Since s/he was not the subject of the investigation a Tennessen warning was not required. &lt;i&gt;&lt;u&gt;Edina Educ. V. Bd. Of Educ.,&lt;/u&gt;562 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. App. 1997).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Knutson further wrote: [b]ased in part on the content of the written complaint, the City Council took disciplinary action against the employee who was the subject of the complaint. According to Mr. Knutson, the complaint involved harassment, and the disciplinary action is final, within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The disciplined employee has requested a copy of the written complaint. The author of the complaint requested that the complaint be kept confidential; however, according to Mr. Knutson, the City made no promises of confidentiality.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in a complaint against a City of New Market employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data about public employees are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of that Section, certain personnel data are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), the following data are public: [t]he final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. Mr. Knutson stated that the disciplinary action is final, within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), and stated that even though the complaint involved an allegation of harassment, the City has determined that Section 13.43, subdivision 8, does not provide a basis to deny the subject of the complaint access to the data. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), any data in the complaint that document the basis of the final disciplinary action are public, and are accessible to members of the public, as well as the disciplined employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, if the complaint contains data that do not document the basis of the final disciplinary action, those data are private personnel data about the complainant, the disciplined employee, or both. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 4.) Therefore, the disciplined employee may also gain access to any data in the complaint of which s/he is the subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is, however, a potential complication with this result. The City may have been required, under Section 13.04, subdivision 2, to give the complainant the notice commonly referred to as a Tennessen Warning. According to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to provide private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Knutson stated that, pursuant to a 1997 Minnesota Court of Appeals case, &lt;u&gt;Edina Education Association, et al, v. Board of Education of Independent School District 273 (Edina), et al&lt;/u&gt;, a Tennessen Warning was not required. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Knutson&apos;s reading of the case.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In that case, the Court held that when the District interviewed a school psychologist, the circumstances of the investigation did not require a Tennessen Warning. The court wrote, [the District] was attempting to gather factual information about an incident within the course and scope of [the psychologist&apos;s] employment. As such, the data may have been government data, but it was not data on an employee as an individual. . . . To the degree that the data identified [the psychologist], it was incidental to the factual focus of the inquiry.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Court of Appeals concluded that a Tennessen Warning was not required because the individual raising the issue had not been asked to provide data about herself. In contrast, the New Market complainant provided data about her/himself, as well as data about the other employee. The complainant voluntarily approached the Mayor, who then suggested that the complaint be made in writing. Based on that description of events, the Commissioner cannot determine whether the City asked the complainant to supply data, thus triggering the Tennessen Warning requirement. If s/he was asked to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, then a Tennessen Warning must be provided. If a Tennessen Warning was required, and not provided, then, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, any private data in the complaint, about the complainant, cannot be disseminated for any purpose. (For further discussion of this issue, see also Advisory Opinion 96-028.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fact that the complainant asked for confidentiality has no bearing on the classification of the data, regardless of whether a Tennessen Warning was required. However, it underscores the difficulty that can result when a government entity fails to provide a proper Tennessen Warning. The complainant was not made aware, before providing the data to the City, of the identities of others, i.e., the public, who might gain access to the data. The purpose of the Tennessen Warning requirement is to ensure that individuals are able to make informed choices about supplying data about themselves to the government. If an individual is not notified that certain data s/he is asked to supply may become public, the person cannot make an informed choice. Therefore, in those situations where a government entity reasonably expects that the private or confidential data will, at some future point, become public, the individual should be informed of that eventuality.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Knutson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), data contained in a complaint against a City of New Market employee that provide the specific reasons for or document the basis of final disciplinary action are public. Any data in the complaint that do not document the basis of the final disciplinary action are private personnel data about the complainant, the disciplined employee, or both, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              However, if a Tennessen Warning was required, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, any private data about the complainant may not be made public, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4. The City of New Market must determine, based on its further investigation, whether the complainant should have been provided a Tennessen Warning.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 18, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267884</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266599</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose of notice - informed choice</Title><Id>266773</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-042</Title><title>Opinion 98 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267797&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-09-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 181.932, would the rights of certain Koch Refining Company employees be violated if the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released, to the public, data contained in the employees&apos; statements regarding the MPCA&apos;s investigation of Koch?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle> September 2, 1998; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 6, 1998, IPA received a letter dated July 2, 1998, from Gregg Corwin, an attorney representing approximately 18 employees of the Koch Refining Company. In his letter, Mr. Corwin requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding certain rights of his clients relating to data maintained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). He wrote, I represent these employees with respect to their opposition to release of their voluntary statements by the [MPCA] to various members of the media. At IPA&apos;s request, Mr. Corwin clarified his opinion request in a letter dated July 13, 1998.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peder Larson, Commissioner of the MPCA, in response to Mr. Corwin&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 20, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Corwin&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MPCA&apos;s position. On July 27, 1998, the Commissioner of Administration received a response, dated July 24, 1998, from Commissioner Larson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Corwin is as follows. He stated that his clients gave voluntary statements to the MPCA relative to its investigation of Koch. He added that his clients were asked to provide data both about their own personal conduct and about other employees&apos; conduct relative to the issues of the investigation. Mr. Corwin further stated, As I understand it, the statements may contain &lt;u&gt;data on individuals&lt;/u&gt;as well as &lt;u&gt;data not on individuals&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Corwin also wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;These employees were all given Tennessen Warnings before their voluntary statements were taken by the [MPCA]....There is no question that, in the Tennessen Warning given to my clients, no mention was made of the fact that their statements could be released to the public by the [MPCA]....
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The Minnesota Whistleblower Act at Minn. Stat. 181.932, subd. 2, provides that no public official or law enforcement official shall disclose, or cause to disclose, the identity of any employee making a report or providing information under subdivision 1, without the employee&apos;s consent, unless the investigator determines that disclosure is necessary for prosecution....
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        It is my client&apos;s [sic] position that since their statement [sic] were taken by a public official of the [MPCA] and since those statements were reports or information which may involve violations or suspected violations of federal or state law or rules adopted pursuant to the law, those statements cannot be released to the public.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 (After the Commissioner of Administration received Mr. Corwin&apos;s request, both Commissioner Larson and Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;, also submitted related opinion requests. After negotiations with IPA, in which staff agreed that concerns raised by both Commissioner Larson and Mr. Anfinson would be addressed, Commissioner Larson agreed to withdraw his request and Mr. Anfinson agreed to submit a very limited request.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Corwin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 181.932, would the rights of certain Koch Refining Company employees be violated if the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released, to the public, data contained in the employees&apos; statements regarding the MPCA&apos;s investigation of Koch? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The issue Mr. Corwin raised has three distinct facets as it relates to the rights of his clients. First, any individual who is the subject of private or confidential data has the right to not have those data disclosed to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12.) Second, if the four statutorily-required components of a Tennessen Warning notice (see Section 13.04, subdivision 2) are not accurate and complete, an individual&apos;s rights may be impacted. Third, any individual who receives a Tennessen Warning notice has the right to rely on the statements made in that warning in deciding whether or not to provide private or confidential data to the government.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their communications to the Commissioner, both Mr. Corwin and Commissioner Larson stated that the MPCA conducted an investigation of Koch Refining Company for possible violations of state and federal law. Part of the investigation involved interviewing certain Koch employees. Although the Commissioner has not inspected the employees&apos; statements, based on Mr. Corwin&apos;s and Commissioner Larson&apos;s comments, apparently only few of the collected data are about individuals. The bulk of the data are data not about individuals because they are about the Koch Company - a legal person, not an individual. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 10, defines person as any individual, partnership, corporation, association, business trust, or a legal representative of an organization. Therefore, because the analysis in this opinion is related to data on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivisions 4 and 5), the Commissioner urges careful application of this analysis. (For further discussion about the distinction between data on individuals and data not on individuals, see Advisory Opinions 96-025 and 97-028.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Commissioner Larson stated that the data in the Koch investigation files, including the employee interview transcripts, were not public under Section 13.39 until May of 1998. He wrote, Under Minn. Stat. 13.39, when an investigation becomes inactive, the data in the file generally become public, unless some other provision of [Chapter 13] or other law applies to keep the data protected. Commissioner Larson added:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;On July 1, 1998, the MPCA was notified by counsel for the interviewed Koch employees that Minn. Stat. 181.932 prohibits the release of the employee&apos;s [sic] identities and statements, that the statement read to the employees at the interview was inadequate as a Tennessen Warning, and thus that the interviews should not be released. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 181.932, subdivision 2, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;No public official or law enforcement official shall disclose, or cause to disclose, the identity of any employee making a report or providing information under subdivision 1 without the employee&apos;s consent unless the investigator determines that disclosure is necessary for prosecution. If the disclosure is necessary for prosecution, the employee shall be informed prior to the disclosure. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, subdivision 1 of Section 181.932 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee&apos;s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              the employee is requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation, hearing, inquiry;
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 181.931 defines employee as the following: [a] person who performs services for hire in Minnesota for an employer. Employee does not include an independent contractor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The plain words of Section 181.932 state that when government entities deal with employees in any of the circumstances described in Section 181.932, subdivision 1, the entities must not disclose the employees&apos; identities. The Commissioner acknowledges that this provision is far reaching; government entities cannot release data that typically would become public via the operation of Section 13.39 and it potentially complicates public access to closed investigative files.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their comments, both Commissioner Larson and Mr. Anfinson suggested that to avoid these, and other problematic results, the Commissioner should look beyond the plain language of Section 181.932 and consider whether such an interpretation is absurd. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 645.16 and 645.17, which are statutory sections that provide guidance on how to interpret statutes.) A determination that Section 181.932 does not protect identities would result in more data ultimately becoming public. As stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 645.16, When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 181.932 establishes two situations where the identity of an employee must not be disclosed. These are: 1) the reporting of a violation and 2) participation in an investigation or hearing. Nowhere does the statute contemplate discretion in the application of this prohibition by the public official receiving the data. Although common sense would dictate that an employee disclosure in the presence of his/her employer does not fit with the traditional view of whistle blowing, there is no leeway in the statute for situational interpretation. Therefore, in this situation, the MPCA may not disclose the identity of an employee if 1) that employee reported a violation, or 2) the MPCA requested that the employee participate in the investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 181.932 does not define identity. However, the Commissioner believes it is appropriate to look to the term data on individuals as it is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 5: [a]ll government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is clear from the submissions of both Mr. Corwin and Commissioner Larson that the MPCA maintains identifying data on Koch employees who were approached by the MPCA to participate in an investigation. In this situation the MPCA appeared to comply with a traditional and common sense application of the whistle blower law; however, a straight-forward reading of the statute reaches a contrary conclusion - data that would identify these employees cannot be made public. Clearly, the Legislature needs to revisit the issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The result reached in this opinion also holds in other situations, i.e., reports or investigations, from which the MPCA has collected data which identify employees covered by Section 181.932, subdivisions 1 and 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, another facet of Mr. Corwin&apos;s question concerns the notice requirement set forth in Section 13.04, subdivision 2. When an individual is asked by a government entity to provide private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Larson wrote that in April of 1997, the MPCA received complaints regarding possible violations of state and federal law at Koch. As part of MPCA&apos;s investigation, it interviewed Koch employees in the presence of Koch legal counsel and (in the case of union employees) union representatives. Commissioner Larson also stated that the investigation files, including the employee interview transcripts, were not public until May of 1998, when the MPCA settled with Koch and the investigation was inactive (see Section 13.39).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.39, civil investigative data, classifies as confidential or protected nonpublic those data government entities collect as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action or retain in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation becomes inactive, the data become public, unless release would jeopardize another pending legal action or the data are otherwise classified as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Larson&apos;s comments indicate the MPCA determined that the few data on individuals collected during the investigation were classified as private or confidential pursuant to Section 13.39; therefore, upon collection of those data, the MPCA was required to give Tennessen Warning notices to each of the Koch employees. According to both Mr. Corwin and Commissioner Larson, the MPCA did give warning statements to the employees before they were interviewed. Mr. Corwin characterized the statements as Tennessen Warnings. Commissioner Larson provided the entire statement in his comments to the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Commissioner Larson argued that the MPCA&apos;s Tennessen Warning statement fulfilled the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, the Commissioner of Administration finds that it is missing two elements. It does not list any known consequences from supplying or refusing to supply the data, and it does not specifically identify other persons or entities (outside MPCA) authorized by state or federal law to receive the data when those data become inactive under Section 13.39.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fact that the MPCA&apos;s Tennessen Warning notice was not complete affects how the MPCA may use and disseminate the data on individuals it collected during its investigation. In a prior Advisory Opinion, 95-028, the Commissioner opined that because the employer gave no Tennessen Warning notice, the collected data could not be used against the employee. Applying that conclusion to this situation, the Commissioner opines that any data collected by the MPCA when it asked Koch employees to supply data about themselves can be used and disseminated only in a fashion consistent with what MPCA actually communicated in its notice. This communication is what the employees relied on in deciding whether to provide the data to the MPCA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Initially, Commissioner Larson stated that the data in question were treated as Section 13.39 civil investigative data. He also asserted that because MPCA staff were functioning as law enforcement officers with primary responsibility for investigating environmental crimes or other offenses, the Tennessen Warning requirement did not apply. (See Section 13.04, subdivision 2.) In light of the fact that the MPCA chose to treat the data in question as civil investigative data and did provide the Koch employees with some form of a Tennessen Warning, it is not consistent for the MPCA to also argue that the collected data were criminal investigative data such that a Tennessen Warning was not required. For an entity to meet the obligations set forth in Sections 13.03, 13.05, and Minnesota Rules Sections 1205.0800 - 1205.1500, it should assess the data it collects, creates, and maintains, and determine the classification of those data. Because the MPCA classified the data as civil investigative data and, in fact, denied access to the data based on that statutory provision, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion is that the MPCA was required to provide the Koch employees with complete Tennessen Warnings.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, to comply with the intent of the Tennessen Warning requirement, the actual notice given by a government entity needs to be as complete and accurate as possible. In this situation, the MPCA could reasonably expect that, given the operation of Section 13.39, the data collected from the Koch employees about themselves would, at some future point, change from not public to public. The purpose of the Tennessen Warning is to insure that individuals are able to make informed choices about supplying data concerning themselves to the government. If an individual is not notified that certain data s/he is asked to supply may become public, the person cannot make an informed choice. Therefore, in this situation, where the MPCA could expect that private or confidential data would, at some future point, become public, the employees should have been informed of that eventuality.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of the MPCA&apos;s investigation of Koch, the Commissioner has already concluded that, pursuant to Section 181.932, the identities of the Koch employees cannot be made public. She reaches the same result in analyzing the Tennessen Warning requirement. Because the Koch employees were not informed that the data MPCA collected could be disseminated to the public pursuant to Section 13.39, any data that identify those employees cannot be made public. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Corwin is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, 13.05, and 181.932, the rights of certain Koch Refining Company employees would be violated if the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released, to the public, identifying data on individuals contained in the employees&apos; statements regarding the MPCA&apos;s investigation of Koch. However, any data appearing in the investigative files that are data not on individuals are public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 2, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267797</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen and whistleblower law</Title><Id>266705</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Individual vs. person (13.02, subd. 4, 5 and 10)</Title><Id>266706</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Pollution Control Agency</Title><Id>266707</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement agencies exempt</Title><Id>266708</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Whistleblowers (181.932)</Title><Id>266709</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-040</Title><title>Opinion 98 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267656&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-08-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Hennepin Conservation District respond properly to H&apos;s January 13, 1998, request for access to data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Hennepin Conservation District respond properly to H&apos;s February 9, 1998, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 14, 1998; Hennepin County Conservation District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 22, 1998, IPA received a letter from H (the requestor will be identified by a pseudonym). In H&apos;s letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding H&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Hennepin Conservation District ( HCD ). H enclosed copies of related correspondence. H&apos;s initial request required clarification, which involved subsequent correspondence and conversation with IPA staff regarding issues that the Commissioner is able to address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to H&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Greg Chock, District Manager of HCD. The purposes of this letter, dated June 26, 1998, were to inform him of H&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for HCD&apos;s position. On July 6, 1998, IPA received a response from James P. Michels, an attorney representing HCD. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H is a former employee of HCD. In a letter to Mr. Chock dated January 13, 1998, H requested, in essence, copies of all data about her/him that are (1) maintained by HCD, (2) maintained by certain agents of HCD and (3) maintained by Best Flanagan, Mr. Michels&apos; law firm. In addition, H requested copies of certain public data. Some of the data H requested were at issue in Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 98-001. (H described the data s/he sought in fourteen paragraphs.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to Mr. Chock dated February 9, 1998, H wrote that s/he had received no response to the January 13 letter, and repeated her/his request for copies of data. In addition, H requested access to tape recordings or transcripts of any closed meetings or executive sessions of the [HCD] board, or any tape recorded meeting wherein any comment is made about me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Michels enclosed copies of two letters from him to James Wicka, an attorney representing H. According to Mr. Michels, the first letter, dated January 21, 1998, is HCD&apos;s initial response to H&apos;s January 13 data request. The second letter, dated March 2, 1998, is HCD&apos;s response to H&apos;s February 9 letter. In his responses to the Commissioner and to Mr. Wicka, Mr. Michels asserted that some of the documents H requested contain data about H and other individuals, at least some of whom are employees of HCD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter to Mr. Wicka dated January 21, 1998, Mr. Michels wrote: HCD will comply with [H&apos;s] request, as required by law; however, we require a reasonable amount of time to obtain, review and copy the data. Mr. Michels stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;We will be unable to provide these copies within five days for the following reasons: 1) we need to contact each person to determine whether any such data exists; 2) if such data exists, we must determine whether [H] has already received a copy of the data; and 3) if such data exists, we must determine whether it discusses any other employee of HCD. . . . A response to this request will be provided within a reasonable period of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his March 2, 1998, letter to Mr. Wicka, Mr. Michels stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Copies of all data which is within the scope of the request and subject to disclosure as public data&apos; or private data on individuals&apos; (for which [H] is the only subject of the data), have been made and are available to be released upon receipt of payment for copying. Certain data within the scope of the request also contains references to other staff members who may be subjects of the data.&apos; References to such persons are inexorably intertwined with references to [H]. We are seeking an opinion from the Department of Administration as to the proper classification of this data and whether it may be released. HCD will follow the guidance given by the Department of Administration. Any data of which [H] is the subject disseminated by Best Flanagan to Board members, with the exception of the July 14, 1997 report and copies of responses to the charges filed by [H], is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the additional data to which H requested access in the February 9, 1998, letter, Mr. Michels wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The February Request did not request any additional data that was subject to disclosure ([H] did request tapes of closed sessions of the HCD Board meetings, but all such data are clearly protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and Minn. Stat. 13.30 and 471.705, subd. 1d(e)). Thus, it was decided that the response to the February Request would be made in conjunction with the response to the January Request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her/his request for an opinion, H asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Hennepin Conservation District respond properly to H&apos;s January 13, 1998, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Hennepin Conservation District respond properly to H&apos;s February 9, 1998, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her/his January 13, 1998, data request, H asked for copies of all public or private data of which H is the subject, and certain other data H believed to be classified as public. There are different statutory time frames in which HCD was required to comply with H&apos;s requests for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request from a data subject, the responsible authority shall comply with the request within five working days. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, upon notice to the requestor, the responsible authority may have an additional five working days to comply with the request. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities must comply with requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. When a responsible authority receives a request for copies of public data, the copies shall be supplied at the time the request is made, or as soon as reasonably possible. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H asked HCD to provide copies of data of which H was the subject, and data not about H. H was notified on March 2, 1998, that copies of some of the data requested were available, upon payment of the copying fee. At that time, HCD notified H that some of the data were not available, pursuant to Sections 13.30 and 471.705, subdivision 1d(e), and that HCD was seeking an advisory opinion concerning the classification of documents that contained data about H and other HCD employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Michels stated that H was informed that the total copying cost of the 1378 pages was $340.00, . . . consistent with HCD&apos;s standard copying policy (no charge for first ten pages, 25 cents per page thereafter) . . . . Mr. Michels stated that he had not had any communication with H or Mr. Wicka since his letter of March 2, 1998. H has not challenged the copying costs, and has not picked up the copies of the data that have been made available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Michels wrote: . . . because [H] was not the only subject of some of the data, and because [H&apos;s] request included a request for data not in the possession of HCD, it was impossible for HCD to respond within five days. Nevertheless, HCD did respond promptly to the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to his assertions to Mr. Wicka that HCD would be requesting an advisory opinion from the Commissioner, Mr. Michels wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;At the time I drafted my response to [H&apos;s] requests for data, I treated the requests as though they were made in good faith. Although HCD is under no obligation to request an opinion from [IPA], I indicated in my responsive letter that HCD would proceed with a request for an opinion. . . . . However, when no response to my letter was forthcoming, it appeared to me and to HCD that [H&apos;s] request was not made in good faith but rather was merely more harassment of a nature similar to that which [H] has repeatedly subjected HCD. We determined, therefore, that no further resources would be wasted on finalizing a request for an opinion until [H] made some indication that [s/he] intended to follow through with [her/his] request for data. None has been forthcoming.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Michels&apos; January 21, 1998, letter to Mr. Wicka in response to H&apos;s January 13, 1998, request was made five working days after the date of H&apos;s request. However, HCD did not notify H that any copies of the data s/he requested were available until Mr. Michels wrote to Mr. Wicka on March 2, 1998. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that, at most, a government entity must comply with a request for data from a data subject within ten working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some of the data H requested contain data about other HCD employees as well as about H. Mr. Michels stated: [r]eferences to such persons are inexorably intertwined with references to [H]. Mr. Michels said that HCD would be seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner. As of this date, HCD has not done so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific data about public employees are public, and all other personnel data are private. HCD is obligated to redact data that would result in the dissemination of private data about other data subjects. If, however, HCD is unable to redact data such that other data subjects cannot be identified, HCD may not have the authority to release the data to any of the data subjects. That is a judgment that is HCD&apos;s responsibility to make. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267685&quot; title=&quot;97-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-030&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the data that are maintained by certain agents of HCD, Mr. Michels stated in his January 21 letter to Mr. Wicka that HCD would need more than five days to respond to H&apos;s request, in order to 1) contact persons not within the control of the HCD to see if they possessed any data about H and 2) to request an advisory opinion on whether data which discussed several employees may be released to [H] absent permission of those employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not clear what obligation, if any, HCD had to try to retrieve data from persons outside its control. HCD is responsible only for the data it maintains, or should maintain. The Commissioner was not provided information regarding the agency relationship HCD had with those persons. It is possible that, pursuant to Section 15.17, HCD has a responsibility to maintain the data and to make it available to H. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267464&quot; title=&quot;94-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-035&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/266486&quot; title=&quot;96-037&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-037&lt;/a&gt;.) None of the persons contacted by Mr. Michels had any data about H. In any case, Mr. Michels&apos; decision to contact those persons in response to H&apos;s request does not obviate HCD&apos;s obligation to provide H with access to the data HCD does maintain within, at most, ten working days of receipt of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that the request H made was extensive, and that H apparently has not retrieved the copies HCD has made available. Nonetheless, HCD did not provide H with copies of the data of which H is the subject within the statutory time frame.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the data H requested that are not about H, and are classified as public data, the government entity is required to respond in a time frame which is prompt and reasonable. H requested copies of various completed reports and HCD Board meeting minutes. HCD took approximately six weeks to provide H with copies. Given the nature of the public data H requested, a response six weeks later does not meet the statutory standard. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267434&quot; title=&quot;95-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-006&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267053&quot; title=&quot;96-003&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-003&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Michels asserted that some of the data sought by H are not available pursuant to Section 13.30, which governs data maintained by attorneys working in their professional capacities for government entities. The Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, it is appropriate for HCD to withhold data from H on the basis of a Section 13.30 argument only if it will not relieve a responsible authority of her or his duties under Chapter 13. The Commissioner was not provided with enough information to determine whether HCD is appropriately denying H access to data under Section 13.30. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267759&quot; title=&quot;97-009&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-009&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;HCD&apos;s response to H is problematic for another reason. Mr. Michels wrote to Mr. Wicka:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In [H&apos;s] February 9, 1998 request (the February Request&apos;), [H] alleges that there has been no response from [HCD]&apos; to [H&apos;s] January request. This allegation can only mean that [H] is misrepresenting the truth or that you did not forward to [H] my letter to you dated January 21, 1998 which did timely respond to the January Request. If you have not already done so, please advise [H] that all communication forwarded by [her/him] to HCD is sent to me for response and that I am not permitted to make such responses directly to [H]. To eliminate this confusion, HCD hereby requests that all future communications by [H] be made through you and be directed to me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Michels wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Dating back prior to [H&apos;s] termination from HCD, [H] has retained attorneys who periodically threaten suit against HCD for a variety of claims relating to [H&apos;s] employment. Because of pending administrative actions and the continuing threat of litigation, and because [H] has repeatedly demonstrated to HCD that every communication or contact from [her/him] may result in some sort of contested claim, HCD determined it necessary to take the position that all communications, inquiries and other contacts from [H] be referred to me, as its legal counsel, for response. [H] has repeatedly been advised that all communications to [her/him] will be made by HCD&apos;s counsel. Further, HCD has repeatedly requested that [H] direct all communications to HCD through its counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Because I know that [H] is represented by legal counsel, I am prohibited by Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct from corresponding directly to [H]. Instead, I am ethically obligated to respond to [H] through [her/his] counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner considered the relationship between the Rules of Professional Conduct and Chapter 13 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt;. In that Opinion, the Commissioner opined that a government entity violates an individual&apos;s right to gain access to government data when, in response to a request for access to data, the government entity takes the position that because the requestor has initiated a lawsuit against the entity, the requestor can gain access to the data only by acting through the requestor&apos;s attorney and in compliance with the rules of civil procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s position that HCD may not require [H] to make her/his data requests through an attorney. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 describes in great detail the process and procedures by which a person can make requests for access to government data and nowhere is it written that a person can be required to make her/his requests through an attorney. The implication of accepting HCD&apos;s position, as set forth by Mr. Michels, is that when a person is involved in a legal dispute with a government entity, s/he can no longer gain access to data in the fashion so precisely prescribed by the Legislature in Chapter 13. That person would be required to hire an attorney or resort to asking other parties to request the data on her/his behalf. The fact that an agency chooses to refer a data access request to an attorney should not relieve a responsible authority of her/his duties under Chapter 13. Therefore, any delay in responding to H&apos;s request that is attributable to HCD&apos;s requirement that H request data only through an attorney is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by H is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1, 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Hennepin Conservation District did not respond properly to H&apos;s January 13, 1998, and February 9, 1998, requests for access to data.
&lt;p&gt;HCD did not provide H with copies of the data of which H is the subject within the statutory time frame. HCD did not provide H with copies of the public data which H requested within the statutory time frame.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided with enough information to determine whether HCD is appropriately withholding data from H under Section 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 14, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267656</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for data through attorney</Title><Id>267036</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data involved in litigation</Title><Id>266591</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-039</Title><title>Opinion 98 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267404&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-08-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Department of Public Safety&apos;s charge of $1.50 per page for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 10, 1998; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 6, 1998, IPA received a letter dated June 30, 1998, from Gary Hill of KSTP-TV. In his letter, Mr. Hill requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the Department of Public Safety&apos;s charge for copies of certain government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Davis, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, in response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated July 10, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Hill&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On July 20, 1998, IPA received a response, dated July 17, 1998, from Mr. Davis.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Hill sent IPA a copy of the data request form a KSTP staffer filled out on April 27, 1998. The form is entitled DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MINNESOTA STATE PATROL INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUEST. The requested data are apparently classified as public. The copy charge rate is listed on the request form as $1.50 per page. The information request form indicates that 14 pages were to be copied, and that the total charge was $21.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Hill&apos;s question to the Commissioner is whether the $1.50 per page fee is allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Department of Public Safety&apos;s charge of $1.50 per page for copies of public government data allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data. However, these limitations for cost recovery do not apply to situations in which the data have to be created.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments regarding the opinion request, Commissioner Davis stated that the copy charges for KSTP-TV&apos;s request totaled $136.50. He added, however, that the Department made an error and that the charge should have been $226.62. Commissioner Davis provided a copy of a memo written by Captain Brian Erickson (Budget, Planning and Research staff) that explains the copying charge. In his memo, Captain Erickson wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    An employee of KSTP-TV made a request of the DPS-State Patrol to view copies of school bus accident incident reports and subsequently, requested copies of some of those reports. At the time of the request, the KSTP-TV employee was quoted a per copy rate of $1.50. A total of 91 copies were provided and payment was collected in the amount of $136.50.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The $1.50 per copy rate was collected in error, however. These type [sic] of information requests occur infrequently at this location and our employee used an outdated Information Request Form which listed the incorrect method of calculating cost for copies. The method for calculating cost had been revised to more accurately recover the cost of providing information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The current method requires each information request to be calculated based on actual time, to collect, assemble, copy, and certify the information, multiplied times the wage rate of the individual performing the work plus $0.03 per copy made....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;The State Patrol does not maintain school bus incident records and these records needed to be created for this request&lt;/u&gt;. In this particular instance, 1,439 records were copied, redacted, then copied again to create the incident records to be reviewed. A total of five hours were spent copying the records. The time spent redacting the accident reports to eliminate the private data, approximately eight hours, was not included. The cost of applicable employee time is $137.55. Cost for 2,969 copies made is $89.07. The total cost for this information request should have been $226.62. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Some additional information may be helpful. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, drivers involved in certain serious traffic accidents, and law enforcement officers investigating said accidents, must file a specific report with the Commissioner of Public Safety. The Commissioner of Public Safety maintains copies of these reports; although most of the data in the reports are either private or confidential, some of the data are public (see Sections 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 4; and 169.09, subdivision 13 (d)). Furthermore, Minnesota Statutes Section 169.452 (b) requires Public Safety to collect certain data regarding school bus accidents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s (of Administration) interpretation of Captain Erickson&apos;s memo is that the State Patrol Division of Public Safety does not maintain copies of the bus accident reports. Therefore, the data KSTP-TV requested had to be created. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data to conform to a request. It is the responsibility of both the data requestor and the government entity to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, e.g., appropriate charge, for the entity to create the data as requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Hill is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;A government entity&apos;s fee for creating government data is not subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Therefore, in this case, Chapter 13 does not regulate the State Patrol Division of the Department of Public Safety&apos;s charge to provide data it created in response to a request. The appropriateness of a $1.50 per page copying charge for data requested under Section 13.03 depends on whether that fee represents the actual costs of searching for, retrieving, and making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting copies of the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 10, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267404</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Cost of creating new data</Title><Id>266298</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:50Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-038</Title><title>Opinion 98 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267363&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-07-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 97, Moose Lake, respond appropriately to a May 18, 1998, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 30, 1998; School District 97 (Moose Lake)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 10, 1998, IPA received a letter dated June 9, 1998, from Peter Nickitas, an attorney representing A. In his letter, Mr. Nickitas requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding A&apos;s access to certain data about him/her maintained by School District 97, Moose Lake.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nancy Kaldor, Superintendent of District 97, in response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 11, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On June 23, 1998, IPA received a response, dated June 19, 1998, from James Knutson and John O&apos;Donnell, attorneys representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. A is an employee of the District. In April of 1998, A participated in an alcohol/controlled substance test. In a letter to Ms. Kaldor, dated May 18, 1998, A requested a copy of the test results. At the time of the opinion request, A had not received a copy of the data s/he requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 97, Moose Lake, respond appropriately to a May 18, 1998, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Government data collected, created, or maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Individuals such as A who are the subject of government data are, in most cases, entitled to gain access to those data pursuant to Section 13.04. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.04 states that when a data subject requests access to data about him/her, the government entity must comply with the request immediately or within five to ten working days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, specific to this opinion, Minnesota Statutes Section 181.954, subdivision 2, classifies test result reports and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing process as private data on individuals per Chapter 13. Further, Section 181.953, subdivision 8, states, An employee...has the right to request and receive from the employer a copy of the test result on any drug or alcohol test.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated May 18, 1998, A requested access to the drug/alcohol test results from the District&apos;s Superintendent. In their comments to the Commissioner, Messrs. Knutson and O&apos;Donnell argued that no response to A&apos;s written request was required because the District had already provided the data to A&apos;s union business agent. They cited a clause in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, which states, After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter... Messrs. Knutson and O&apos;Donnell asserted, [t]he School District was not required to respond to any further requests for the same information for six months thereafter and the School District has fully complied with the requirements of [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is correct that pursuant to Section 13.04, when an individual has gained access to private data, the government entity is not required to again disclose the same data to that individual for six months. Messrs. Knutson and O&apos;Donnell argued that because A&apos;s union representative was acting as A&apos;s agent when he (the union representative) requested the information, the effect of the data transaction was as if A had requested the data him/herself. In such a case, if the District wished, it could impose the six-month time restriction. However, if the union representative was not acting in A&apos;s stead (see Minnesota Rules Sections 1205.0200, 1205.0400), but rather was someone to whom A had simply consented that the data be released (pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4), the time limit does not apply. Although the distinction between these two scenarios is subtle, the difference in their effect is significant. In this case, the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine which situation applies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, A&apos;s argument that s/he should have been granted access to the data, and that the six-month limitation imposed by Section 13.04, subdivision 3, should not apply, is further buttressed by additional subdivision language. The second half of the Section 13.04 phrase referenced by Messrs. Knutson and O&apos;Donnell states, [t]he data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter &lt;u&gt;unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending&lt;/u&gt; or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. (Emphasis added.) In this situation, based on Mr. Nickitas&apos; comments, there appears to be a dispute pursuant to the accuracy and/or completeness of the drug/alcohol test data. Mr. Nickitas wrote, [A] is currently seeking to correct [A&apos;s] personnel file and medical records kept by the Moose Lake Community Schools, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 13.04 subd. 4 to expunge all evidence suggesting [A] had failed or refused to provide an adequate sample&apos; for a random controlled substance test. Therefore, A should be granted access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Messrs. Knutson and O&apos;Donnell asserted that disputes over drug testing that involve employees covered by collective bargaining agreements are to be resolved first through the grievance and arbitration proceedings provided by the collective bargaining agreement. They cited Minnesota Statutes Section 181.956, subdivision 1. Such a situation does not preclude either A from requesting access to data about him/her or the District from providing data to him/her.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, it appears that by not responding to A&apos;s request for access to private data of which A is the subject, District 97, Moose Lake, did not respond appropriately. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 30, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267363</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug test data</Title><Id>266361</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-037</Title><title>Opinion 98 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267950&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-07-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statues Chapter 13, is the City of Wanamingo&apos;s charge for copies of public data allowable: $.25 per page plus the cost of the time involved to retrieve, compile and copy documents?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 1998; City of Wanamingo</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 8, 1998, IPA received a letter from Jean Batalden. In her letter, Ms. Batalden asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on two issues regarding her rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Wanamingo. Ms. Batalden enclosed copies of related correspondence. After discussion with IPA staff, one issue was agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Batalden&apos;s request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Susan E. Kyllo, Wanamingo City Clerk/Treasurer. The purposes of this letter, dated June 19, 1998, were to inform her of Ms. Batalden&apos;s request, and to ask her to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 8, 1998, IPA received a response from Ms. Kyllo. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Ms. Batalden made several requests for access to public data maintained by Wanamingo in February, March and April of 1998. The City made various responses to her requests. Of relevance here, in a letter dated April 27, 1998, Ms. Kyllo told Ms. Batalden that the City will be keeping track of all time involved in the retrieving, compiling, and copying of documents. These will be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;u&gt;actual&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; costs plus $.25 per copy. (Emphasis hers.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Batalen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues Chapter 13, is the City of Wanamingo&apos;s charge for copies of public data allowable: $.25 per page plus the cost of the time involved to retrieve, compile and copy documents? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may charge for copies of public government data. Specifically, the statute states that an entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kyllo told Ms. Batalden that the City would charge her $.25 per page plus the actual cost of all time involved in the retrieving, compiling, and copying of documents. Ms. Kyllo did not tell Ms. Batalden what the City charges for that time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Kyllo provided the following breakdown of the City&apos;s $.25 cent charge for photocopies: paper $.03; cost of copy $.10; labor $.12. According to Ms. Kyllo, this does not include the time we spend looking up the information that is requested of us. Some of the requests that Ms. Batalden has asked for has [sic] taken hours to locate the information. Ms. Kyllo did not respond to IPA&apos;s request for additional detailed information documenting the City&apos;s photocopy charges.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City&apos;s response is problematic for two reasons. First, Ms. Kyllo did not provide any information that indicates (1) that the City&apos;s actual cost for paper is $.03 per sheet, or (2) how the $.12 per copy labor cost was derived. Second, there is reference to a cost of copy of $.10, but no explanation of what that cost includes. The paper and labor costs may represent the City&apos;s actual costs, but the $.10 cost of copy does not appear to be an allowable charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, the City has indicated that it will charge Ms. Batalden for the time it takes to search for and retrieve the data she requested. The City may do so, provided the charge represents its actual costs, and the City has met its burden to maintain data so that the data are easily accessible for convenient use. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, as stated above, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that in charging for copies of public government data, the entity may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying and compiling the copies. In this case, based on the lack of detail provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the charge assessed to Ms. Batalden by the City of Wanamingo is in compliance with the provisions of Section 13.03, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Batalen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City has not met the burden of establishing that a copy charge of $.25 per page plus the cost of the time involved to retrieve, compile and copy documents represents its actual cost, pursuant to Section 13.03, for copying government data.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             Based on the lack of detail provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the photocopy charge assessed by the City of Wanamingo is allowable under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 29, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267950</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-036</Title><title>Opinion 98 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267550&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-07-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board fully comply with a February 26, 1998, request for access to data, and was the response timely?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 2, 1998; Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 8, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated May 7, 1998, from Cynthia Thomas. In her letter, Ms. Thomas requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to data maintained by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Fisher, Superintendent of the Park Board, in response to Ms. Thomas&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 18, 1998, were to inform him of Ms. Thomas&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position. On May 27, 1998, PIPA received comments, dated May 22, 1998, from James Michels, an attorney representing the Park Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated February 26, 1998, Ms. Thomas wrote to Superintendent Fisher and asked to review all data that document expenditures by the [Park Board] on the Kondirator project, scrap metal recycling or metal milling machines.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 11, 1998, Mr. Michels responded to her request and stated that he was in the process of identifying information in the Park Board&apos;s possession that is within the scope of [her] request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 2, 1998, Ms. Thomas wrote again to Superintendent Fisher asking when the data would be available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 23, 1998, Mr. Michels replied. With his letter he enclosed free copies of some of the data and denied access to other of the data on the basis of Section 13.30, attorney data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thomas then requested an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Thomas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, did the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board fully comply with a February 26, 1998, request for access to data, and was the response timely?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One part of the issue in this opinion is whether the Park Board responded within the time frame set forth in statute. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires government entities to respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, requires entities to respond within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thomas made her first request in a letter dated February 26. Mr. Michels communicated with her in a March 11 letter, informing her that his law firm was in the process of identifying information in the Park Board&apos;s possession that is within the scope her request. He further added, Upon gathering applicable data, we will notify you as to categories of data which are available for inspection, and, if any, those categories of data which are classified as not available for inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 2, Ms. Thomas wrote again to Superintendent Fisher and asked him when she could expect to gain access to the data she had requested. In a letter dated April 23, two months after Ms. Thomas&apos; original request, Mr. Michels responded. He apparently provided her with copies of data. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he only expenditures by the Park Board with regard to the Kondirator project are for consultants fees and for legal fees. The only documentation with regard to these expenditures are the invoices submitted by the professionals....I have enclosed, free of charge, copies of the invoices from the project consultants....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the invoices for legal fees, Mr. Michels wrote, [t]he invoices include a detailed description of services which contain the thought processes, strategies, and legal theories of the attorneys representing a party engaged in litigation. Mr. Michels cited Section 13.30, attorney data, and stated that the invoices are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. He stated, Although the invoices are not subject to disclosure, the total amount of legal fees is public information. He then provided the total expenditure by the Park Board on legal fees relating to the Kondirator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, Chapter 13 and its accompanying rules require government entities to respond to data requests in a timely manner. The Commissioner has opined in previous opinions that a reasonable time, although not defined in statute, reasonably should correlate with the volume and/or complexity of a request. However, this does not negate an entity&apos;s obligation per Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0900 to be aware of the classification of the various types of data it maintains. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267434&quot; title=&quot;95-006&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-006&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Michels asserted that given the breadth of the scope of the request, the difficulties of the [Park Board] in responding to the request in light of the inaccessibility of the former project manager and...limitations on [Mr. Michels&apos;] time, the Park Board did respond in a timely fashion. While the Commissioner appreciates Mr. Michels&apos; desire to ensure that the response was thorough, accurate and complete in all respects, she cannot agree that a response time of two months is reasonable or prompt. The Park Board did not respond in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second part of the issue Ms. Thomas raised is whether the Park Board complied fully with her request. Mr. Michels asserted that the Park Board denied access to the legal services invoices because such data are protected under the attorney-client privilege and need not be produced pursuant to a subpoena, discovery request or other similar requests for disclosure. Mr. Michels explained that his firm&apos;s invoices to the Park Board contain the following four general types of information: the date of service; the name of the person providing the service; the time spent; and a detailed description of the service provided. Mr. Michels&apos; argument is that the entire invoice is not public. However, Chapter 13 regulates government data at the level of individual items or elements of data. It is very likely that individual data elements contained in a single document, such as a legal services invoice, may be classified differently, depending on the content of the data and how Chapter 13 or other statutes classify the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.30, certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 13. However, the Commissioner has previously opined that Section 13.30 applies only to very limited situations. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267680&quot; title=&quot;95-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-045&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267837&quot; title=&quot;95-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-048&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;.) Generally, the data falling under the Section 13.30 exemption are data relating to information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or data that reveal an attorney&apos;s work product. Regarding the attorney/client privilege, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267022#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-040&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner discussed the fact that Rule 1.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct defines privileged information as a confidence or secret that is shared by a client with her/his attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, it is reasonable that a detailed description of legal services provided might reveal confidences shared between the Park Board and Mr. Michel&apos;s law firm or disclose the work product of individual attorneys. However, it is also possible that the description of certain services provided may not reveal either any confidence of a client or the work product of an attorney. For example, perhaps an invoice contains only the following as the description of a legal service provided: Met with [a public official]. It is not reasonable to conclude that this description of a legal service reveals the confidence of a client or the work product of an attorney. On the other hand, if the invoice indicated that the client met with a certain expert for the purpose of evaluating a legal theory, it is highly likely that such a notation would fall within the attorney&apos;s work product.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other data in the legal services invoices, i.e., dates of service, names of the attorneys, and time spent on particular activities, generally, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Thomas is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board did not respond in a timely manner to a February 26, 1998, request for access to data.
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.30, only those data in the legal services invoices that would reveal confidences shared between the Park Board and Mr. Michel&apos;s law firm or disclose work products of the attorneys are not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 2, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267550</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-035</Title><title>Opinion 98 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266862&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-22T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, inappropriately disseminate private data about C to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 1998; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 23, 1998, from C. C is a former student of School District 272, Eden Prairie. In C&apos;s letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about C from School District 272, Eden Prairie, to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bill Gaslin, Superintendent of the District, in response to C&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 30, 1998, were to inform him of C&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 15, 1998, received comments, dated same, from Patrick Flynn, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by C is as follows. C is a former student of District 272. C alleged that when the District disseminated data about C&apos;s parent (who is a former or current employee of the District) to the Department of Economic Security, some of the data released were about C. C stated that s/he did not give the District consent to release the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the request for an opinion, C asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, inappropriately disseminate private data about C to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), educational data are defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Subdivision 1 (c) of Section 13.32, defines student as an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered at a public educational agency or institution. Pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 13.32, educational data are private data on individuals. Further, if a data subject has not consented to a release of private data about him/her, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9, the data can be disseminated only if express statutory authority exists.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments regarding the opinion request, Mr. Flynn argued that any references to C can be best described and categorized as collateral, unrelated and generally innocuous and incidental in their nature in respect to any data privacy rights of [C]. Mr. Flynn wrote that C was never identified by name; only referred to as the son/daughter of C&apos;s parent. Mr. Flynn further stated that the data about C are not part of C&apos;s educational record but were created and maintained in regard to C&apos;s parent&apos;s employment with the District. He added, [t]he School District denies that [C&apos;s] data privacy rights were in any way violated. Even if, at best, there was a strictly technical violation, it was de minimis and inconsequential.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Flynn&apos;s comments are problematic for the following reasons. First, although it is correct that the data about C (such as an allegation by an unknown individual that C is violating a particular school policy) do not contain C&apos;s name, C is referred to as the son/daughter of C&apos;s parent and, in the documents disseminated by the District to Economic Security, C&apos;s parent is referred to by name. (Although the Commissioner has not identified C in terms of gender, i.e., a son or a daughter, it should be noted that C was identified that way in the District&apos;s documents.) The Commissioner is of the opinion that a phrase identifying C as his/her parent&apos;s son/daughter, in this case, is clearly data on individuals that identify C. Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as data in which the individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the premise that some of the data disseminated from the District to the Department are data about C, the question is whether those data are classified as private. If they are private, dissemination is appropriate only if the subject has given consent or there is express statutory authorization for the release. (See Section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9, and Section 13.32, subdivision 3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, data on individuals maintained by public educational institutions are classified at Section 13.32. Assuming the data released about C are not directory information, which are public (see Section 13.32, subdivision 5), they are private data. Private data cannot be released absent express statutory authority. In this case, no such authority was identified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by C is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;School District 272, Eden Prairie, released private data about C to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the release of private data was not appropriate. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 22, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266862</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition (13.02, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266691</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-034</Title><title>Opinion 98 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267426&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-22T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, inappropriately disseminate private data about A to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 22, 1998; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notes: The conclusion in this opinion has been superseded in part by Minnesota Statutes, section 268.19, subdivision 2(a).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An oversight occurred in the first paragraph of the Discussion section of this advisory opinion. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 does not provide for the release of &lt;u&gt;confidential data&lt;/u&gt; pursuant to the data subject&apos;s having given informed consent. (See sections 13.02, subdivision 3 and 13.05, subdivision 4 (d).) It does not change the outcome of the opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 23, 1998, from A. In the letter, A requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about A from School District 272, Eden Prairie, to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bill Gaslin, Superintendent of the District, in response to A&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 30, 1998, were to inform him of A&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On May 15, 1998, received comments, dated same, from Patrick Flynn, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by A is as follows. A is a former employee of District 272. In his/her opinion request, A wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;On November 3, 1996 I went to the Minnesota Reemployment office...seeking new employment. After filling out all the forms at the reemployment office I was told the Reemployment office would get back with me at a later date....The reemployment office contacted the Eden Prairie School District and they disseminated some 65 pages of personal [sic], private and confidential information about me to the reemployment office. I have sent all of this information to your office for review....I did not give my consent or approval to release this information to anyone...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A provided the Commissioner with approximately 65 documents that A alleged were disseminated by the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the request for an opinion, A asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, inappropriately disseminate private data about A to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 restricts the dissemination of private or confidential data. Private or confidential data can be disseminated when the employee has signed a written consent to release the data (see Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d)). If the subject has not given consent, private and confidential data can be disseminated only if specific statutory authority exists for the data to be disclosed (see Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 9). However, if the private and confidential data to be disseminated were initially collected from the subject and are about the subject (triggering a Tennessen Warning notice - see Section 13.04, subdivision 2), the existence of statutory authority for the release is not sufficient; the Tennessen Warning must have included the identity of the entity/person authorized to receive the data. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-028&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;(Please refer to Note at the top for correction.)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, A was an employee of District 272. Government data collected, created, maintained, etc., because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Section 13.43, personnel data. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A sent approximately 65 pages to the Commissioner, alleging that all the documents had been inappropriately disseminated by the District. Although A stated that s/he went to the Reemployment Office on November 3, 1996, seeking employment, based on documents generated by the Reemployment Office, it appears A&apos;s visit was either additionally or solely for the purpose of seeking reemployment insurance. A document on which the mailing date is November 29, 1996, indicates that A&apos;s claim (account date is listed as November 3, 1996) was disqualified. Therefore, the Commissioner issues this opinion assuming the data disseminated to the Reemployment Office were done so in regard to A&apos;s reinsurance claim. Whether the Reemployment Office disclosed data about A to other divisions in its Economic Security Department is not the issue of this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the documents, the Commissioner concluded that some of the data are public, some are private and required a Tennessen Warning notice upon collection, some are private but did not require a Tennessen Warning notice upon collection (these were data collected about A from other employees, from video surveillance, etc.), and some are such that the Commissioner is unable to determine their classification. It also appears that several of the documents submitted by A were, as Mr. Flynn asserted, created by Economic Security and were not part of any information disseminated by the District. Mr. Flynn also noted that hand written comments appear on some of the documents. He wrote, While we do not know who was the author of these comments, we wish to advise [the Commissioner] that they were not generated by School District officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Flynn asserted that the District released the information in response to a notice and request for information...dated November 7, 1996, advising the School District that [A] had applied for reemployment insurance benefits. Mr. Flynn provided the Commissioner with a copy of the November 7, 1996, letter. Mr. Flynn further wrote, In response to other requests from the Reemployment Office, materials and information related to [A&apos;s] employment and the specific questions raised by the Reemployment Office were provided by the School District pursuant to cover letters dated November 13, 1996 and November 19, 1996. Mr. Flynn provided a copy of those letters to the Commissioner. However, the main thrust of Mr. Flynn&apos;s argument appears to be that because all the data are public, the release of the data is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed above, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Flynn&apos;s assessment that &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; the data released to Economic Security are public. First, some of the documents contain A&apos;s Social Security number. Pursuant to Sections 13.43 and 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data. In addition, while Mr. Flynn is correct that Section 13.43 classifies as public the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action Mr. Flynn did not argue, and the Commissioner is not convinced, that all the data in the documents represent data documenting the basis of any disciplinary action. Mr. Flynn did not describe any specific disciplinary action(s) or how the data document the basis of any such actions. In summation, while the Commissioner agrees that some of the data are public, it appears that other of the data are private, and the classification of some data she cannot, with absolute certainty, determine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because it appears the District released private data about A to Economic Security, the issue is whether the District had authority to disseminate the data. First, it does not appear that A gave his/her informed consent to release the data. Therefore, the dissemination is appropriate only if statutory authority permits the disclosure and, in cases where a Tennessen Warning notice was given or should have been given, the disclosure was included as part of the notice. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267488&quot; title=&quot;95-028&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-028&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As previously stated, Mr. Flynn wrote that the District provided information to Economic Security in response to the Department&apos;s November 7, 1996, notice and request for information and then disclosed additional information attached to a November 19, 1996, letter. The November 7, 1996, letter from Economic Security stated, [w]e need detailed information from you regarding the reasons(s) for the discharge. The letter specifically requested the following information: date of discharge, name and title of person who discharged the employee, reason for discharge (including specific information regarding the incident which led to the discharge), a description of prior incidents which were factors in deciding to discharge the employee, and a list of any prior warnings given to the employee, including date and reason for each warning. It should be noted that the November 7 letter does not provide reference to any statute authorizing Economic Security to collect the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District&apos;s November 13, 1996, response included specific answers to the five questions and apparently included some attachments sent to the Department. The District&apos;s November 19, 1996, letter (apparently in response to an additional request from the Department), stated, Enclosed is the additional information you requested regarding [A]. The Commissioner does not know what specific information Economic Security requested or what information the District provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of Minnesota Statutes Section 268, enabling language for the Department of Economic Security, there does not appear to be express authority, as required by Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 9, for the Department to collect the data. Given that Chapter 268 requires the Department to make a determination regarding benefit eligibility, and that the employer is afforded an opportunity to raise the issue of disqualification, it is possible to infer that the Department needs to collect related information from the employer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Section 13.05, subdivision 3, technically requires that collection of private and confidential data be limited to what is necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. Further, subdivision 9 of Section 13.05, provides that a government entity shall allow another government entity access to not public data &lt;u&gt;only when the access is authorized or required by a statute or federal law&lt;/u&gt;. In the case of this opinion, while the Commissioner is aware that Economic Security routinely collects information from employers, the District did not provide her with a statutory citation authorizing dissemination of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional difficulty, specific to this opinion, is the fact that the Commissioner does not know precisely what information Economic Security requested. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if the District disclosed more data than were requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by A is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, if A did not consent for School District 272, Eden Prairie, to release private data about him/her to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, it appears that the District&apos;s release of any private data is inappropriate. The District&apos;s release of any public data about A is appropriate.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 22, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267426</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Intergovernmental access (13.05, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266387</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266835</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Unemployment compensation</Title><Id>267222</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-033</Title><title>Opinion 98 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267755&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-16T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data in Exhibit No. 1a which have been redacted from the investigation report set forth in Exhibit No. 1b?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in Exhibits Nos. 10, 13-23, and written summaries?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 16, 1998; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 124E.03 (previously section 120.064) was amended in 2009; charter schools are now subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 29, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Paul H. Cady, attorney for Independent School District 11, Anoka Hennepin, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District. In response to Mr. Cady&apos;s request, PIPA staff continued to seek clarification from Mr. Cady until he renewed his request on April 23, 1998. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District conducted an investigation concerning allegations made against the PACT Charter School, which the District sponsors pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 120.064. According to Mr. Cady, the data in question, various exhibits, consists of information relating to individuals who are former employees, current employees, and volunteers of PACT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the data contained in one document relate to a PACT student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Cady asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data in Exhibit No. 1a which have been redacted from the investigation report set forth in Exhibit No. 1b?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in Exhibits Nos. 10, 13-23, and written summaries?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 120.064, subdivision 7, [a] charter school is a public school and is part of the state&apos;s system of public education. Except as provided in this section, a charter school is exempt from all statutes and rules applicable to a school, a school board, or a school district, although it may elect to comply with one or more provisions of statutes or rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, is not one of the statutes with which a charter school must comply. According to information provided to the Commissioner, PACT has not taken any formal action to comply voluntarily with Chapter 13. Had it done so, then, &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt;, data about its employees would be classified as personnel data under Section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the District is a government entity subject to Chapter 13 regulation. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity such as District 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law. Therefore, data maintained by the District, including data about current and former PACT employees and volunteers are subject to Chapter 13, and do not appear to be classified as not public by any provision of state or federal law. Accordingly, the data which have been redacted from the investigative report, i.e., the identities of current and former PACT employees and volunteers, are public, under the presumption provided at Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Exhibit 23 consists of earnings statements of PACT employees, not District employees, which contain Social Security numbers (SSNs) and certain income tax withholding information. Pursuant to Section 13.49, the SSNs are private data. Mr. Cady did not provide any citations to state or federal law that classify as not public tax withholding data maintained by the District, and the Commissioner is not aware of any such provision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to any data in these exhibits that identify and relate to a student, Mr. Cady states that the District believes that data about PACT students are regulated under Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). If the PACT charter school receives funds for which the United States Secretary of Education is responsible, then Mr. Cady is correct that it is subject to FERPA. (See the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Part 99.1.) Under FERPA, data that relate to a student cannot be disclosed without consent, with certain exceptions that do not apply here. In effect, FERPA classifies most data about students as private. Exhibit 10, and some of the interview summaries (for example, Mr. Graham&apos;s interview) contain data about individual students. Those data are private, and must be redacted before the Exhibits and summaries may be provided to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Cady is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the data in Exhibit No. 1a which have been redacted from the investigation report set forth in Exhibit No. 1b are classified as public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, data contained in Exhibit 10 and some of the interview summaries that identify and relate to individual students are private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.49, Social Security numbers contained in Exhibit 23 are private data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 16, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267755</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Charter schools</Title><Id>266570</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Charter schools</Title><Id>266570</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-26T14:28:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-032</Title><title>Opinion 98 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267654&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 16, 1998; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 17, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Jordan Kushner, an attorney, on behalf of his client, C. In his letter, Mr. Kushner asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding C&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC). Mr. Kushner enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Kushner&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to DOC Commissioner Lafleur. The purposes of this letter, dated April 24, 1998, were to inform Commissioner Lafleur of Mr. Kushner&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for DOC&apos;s position. On May 8, 1998, PIPA received a response from Jean M. Whitney, Assistant Commissioner and attorney for DOC. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                C is an inmate at Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights. On August 26, 1997, C was involved in an incident with prison guards, during which C&apos;s nose was broken. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Kushner faxed a request to a prison official for copies of all incident reports, investigatory reports, and other documents related to the incident. A proper release of information was on file at the prison. According to Mr. Kushner, he was referred to Steve Ayers, assistant to the Warden, with whom he had a telephone conversation. Mr. Ayers told Mr. Kushner that he (Ayers) needed to speak with Ms. Whitney before responding. Mr. Kushner did not receive any further response to his request, and so wrote again requesting the data, in a letter to Mr. Ayers dated March 21, 1998. Mr. Ayers responded in a letter dated March 30, 1998, in which he enclosed a document Mr. Kushner already possessed. Mr. Ayers stated that all other data requested by Mr. Kushner will not be released pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Sections] 13.37 and 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Whitney wrote that Mr. Kushner had requested several types of data related to the incident. The document provided to Mr. Kushner was determined to be private data about C. According to Ms. Whitney, the rest of the data that the facility generated about the incident were determined to be either data on employees or not data on individuals.&apos; . . . . In this case, the data on employees was gathered as part of an investigation that did not result in discipline. Accordingly, the only data that is public is the fact that there was an investigation and the final disposition of the investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Whitney stated that the other reports contain either nonpublic security data pursuant to Section 13.37, or confidential or protected nonpublic data pursuant to Section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Kushner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Corrections respond appropriately to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Kushner requested copies of all incident reports, investigatory reports, and other documents related to the incident during which C&apos;s nose was broken. Given the nature of the situation, Mr. Kushner, in effect, asked for data about C, and any other public data about the incident, including any public data about the prison employees who were involved.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request from a data subject to inspect and/or obtain copies of data about him/her, the responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, s/he may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request, if the individual is so informed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Kushner was told by Mr. Ayers in a telephone conversation that he would need to consult with Ms. Whitney before responding to Mr. Kushner&apos;s February 17, 1998 request for copies of data about the incident involving C. Mr. Kushner, after repeating his request, received a response from DOC, including a document containing data about C, in a letter dated March 30, 1998, 29 working days after the date of his first faxed request. At most, with notice, DOC was required to respond to Mr. Kushner within ten working days, with respect to the data that are about C.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As to the data related to the incident that are not about C, a different standard with respect to the time frame applies. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, a government entity must respond to a request for access to public data appropriately and promptly. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination &lt;u&gt;either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible&lt;/u&gt;, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Whitney stated that most of the data sought by Mr. Kushner were data about prison employees or data not on individuals, and were not accessible to C because the data were classified pursuant to Sections 13.43, 13.37 and 13.39.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data are data on current and former employees. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private. Of relevance here, the following personnel data are classified as public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee, and the final disposition of any disciplinary action, including the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Whitney, DOC investigated the incident involving C, and did not take disciplinary action against any employee. Therefore, the only related personnel data that would be available to C are the status of any complaint or charge made against a prison employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (a), [s]ecurity information&apos; means government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. To the extent that the data about the incident involving C meet this definition, then the data are not accessible to C.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Additionally, Section 13.85, subdivision 1, provides: corrections and detention data&apos; means data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities. Pursuant to subdivision 3 of that Section, corrections and detention data are confidential to the extent that release of the data would: (a) endanger an individual&apos;s life, (b) endanger the effectiveness of an investigation authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law, identify a confidential informant, or (d) clearly endanger the security of any institution or its population. Although Ms. Whitney did not refer to this Section, if Section 13.37 applies to the data, presumably so would Section 13.85.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, data collected by a government entity as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic or confidential data. Pursuant to subdivision 1, whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear how Section 13.39 applies to this case. According to Mr. Kushner, the administrative prison disciplinary proceeding against C, including the disciplinary hearing and administrative appeal, are completed. Furthermore, the Commissioner was not provided with information that Ms. Whitney is the chief attorney acting for DOC in this matter. However, if Ms. Whitney, as the chief attorney acting for DOC, has made the determination that there is a pending civil legal action, then, pursuant to Section 13.39, the associated data are not accessible to C. However, it is reasonable to assume that some of the data protected under Section 13.39 are data about C. If that is the case, DOC should have responded to Mr. Kushner regarding those data in five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, according to Ms. Whitney, the remaining data Mr. Kushner requested were not public data, either about prison employees or prison policies and procedures. DOC was required to notify Mr. Kushner that the data were not accessible as soon as possible. Given the nature of the data requested, a response 29 working days later does not meet the statutory standard.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Kusnher is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not respond appropriately to a request for access to data about C. DOC should have responded, at most, within ten working days after receiving the request.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                            To the extent that the data request was either for data about other individuals or data about institutional policies, DOC did not respond appropriately, pursuant to Section 13.03.
                            &lt;p /&gt;
                             Depending on the specific content of the documents requested, the data in question may not be accessible to C, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.37, 13.39, 13.43 and 13.85. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 16, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267654</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Corrections and detention data (13.85)</Title><Id>266453</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-031</Title><title>Opinion 98 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267705&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation responded properly to a January 16, 1998 (later clarified in a letter dated March 31, 1998), request for access to the following data collected/created/received from January 1, 1994, to present:
a version of the Death Review Index that includes the names of the dead persons; and
copies of reports and other documents concerning death cases (those under full or limited review) that were created or compiled by the Ombudsman&apos;s office after the death of the subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 11, 1998; Minnesota Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On April 16, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 14, 1998, from John Borger, an attorney representing The Star Tribune Company. In his letter, Mr. Borger requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/i&gt; access to data maintained by the State of Minnesota Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation. During a subsequent telephone conversation, PIPA staff and Mr. Borger clarified the issue statement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roberta Opheim, Director of the Ombudsman&apos;s Office, in response to Mr. Borger&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 28, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Office&apos;s position. On May 11, 1998, PIPA received comments, dated same, from Andrea Mitau Kircher, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General. On May 12, 1998, PIPA received an improved second edition dated same, from Ms. Kircher. On May 13, 1998, PIPA received additional comments, dated same, from Mr. Borger, a copy of which he apparently copied to Ms. Kircher.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated January 16, 1998, Paul McEnroe, a reporter for the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;, requested access to data from the Ombudsman&apos;s office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 13, 1998, Ms. Opheim responded. She wrote that she could not provide the data Mr. McEnroe requested because the records at issue are either health records (Minn. Stat. 144.335), medical data (Minn, Stat. 13.42 ), welfare system medical data (Minn, Stat. 13.46, subd.5), mental health center data (Minn. Stat. 13.46, subd. 7) or welfare investigative data (Minn. Stat. 13.46, subd. 3), all of which are classified as private data. She stated, Therefore, we are sending summary data for your review.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 31, 1998, Mr. McEnroe limited his request to the following data: [O]mbudsman office reports on all dead vulnerable persons - mentally retarded, mentally ill and chemically dependent - whose cases came under full or limited review by your office&apos;s medical subcommittee. Additionally, I ask for a few other death cases that did not come under your review.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Borger, on behalf of the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;, then requested an opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (It is important to note that in his May 13, 1998, comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Borger stated, [t]he Ombudsman may provide a death index that excludes those whose sole diagnosis was chemical dependency and may exclude diagnoses of chemical dependency from any other listings. The Ombudsman also may redact any discussion of chemical dependency from other records produced to the Star Tribune. )
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation responded properly to a January 16, 1998 (later clarified in a letter dated March 31, 1998), request for access to the following data collected/created/received from January 1, 1994, to present:
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            a version of the Death Review Index that includes the names of the dead persons; and
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            copies of reports and other documents concerning death cases (those under full or limited review) that were created or compiled by the Ombudsman&apos;s office after the death of the subject?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The enabling language for the State of Minnesota Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation is found at Minnesota Statutes Sections 245.91 - 97. As Ms. Kircher stated in her comments, one task of the Ombudsman is to collect data relating to the deaths of clients in facilities that provide treatment for mental illness, mental retardation, or chemical dependency. The Ombudsman&apos;s Medical Review Subcommittee reviews data concerning certain unusual deaths; the purposes of which are to consider whether services can be improved.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In fulfilling her duties, the Ombudsman comes to possess data about decedents through various means. One way is that her office, as it completes a death review, generates data itself. Another way is that her office collects or receives data from health care providers that are subject to Chapter 13. Yet another is that her office collects or receives data from entities not subject to Chapter 13, including private medical providers that must comply with the requirements of Section 144.335. It is important to note that in collecting data from other entities, the Ombudsman&apos;s Office both physically acquires copies of the actual data and verbally acquires the data via telephone conversations.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In situations where the Ombudsman&apos;s Office collects data from other government entities, they are considered traveling data, maintaining the same classification they had in the originating entity. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 4(c).) In other words, if the decedent data are classified as private or confidential in the originating entity, they are private or confidential, respectively, in the Ombudsman&apos;s Office. Similarly, if the data are public in the government entity, they are public in the Ombudsman&apos;s Office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The determination of whether data are considered traveling data is not complicated when the actual physical data are disseminated from one government entity to another. However, in situations where data are disseminated verbally during telephone conversations and the information disclosed is in summary form, it may not be entirely clear that actual data have been released. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, though, that the traveling provision applies if the data transmitted verbally are actual data recorded in the records of a government entity. However, if the government data that are disseminated verbally are unrecorded mental impressions of government employees, and these mental impressions are then recorded by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office, the traveling data provision does not apply. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.App. 1992).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, some of the data in question are collected from entities not subject to Chapter 13 and some are created by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office itself. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, all government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Generally, data about living individuals maintained by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office are classified by Section 13.46, welfare data. (See subdivisions 1 (c) and (d).) Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 7 of Section 13.46, the data are private and not accessible to the public. Then, upon an individual&apos;s death, data about that person that were (prior to the death) classified as private or confidential are classified pursuant to Section 13.10, data on decedents. Data that were private become private data on decedents. Data that were confidential become confidential data on decedents. (See Section 13.10.) In summation, if an entity subject to Chapter 13 possesses private or confidential data about an individual, and that individual dies, those data are then classified pursuant to Section 13.10.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Both Section 13.46 and 13.10 classify data on individuals. The term individual is defined at Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 8, and it refers only to living human beings. Therefore, generally, data collected/created/maintained about individuals after they have died, are not data on individuals. They are, rather, data not on individuals. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 4.) Most of the data at issue in this opinion are data generated/recorded about individuals after their death; therefore, the data are data not on individuals. Pursuant to subdivision 6 of Section 13.46, welfare data that are data not on individuals are public (with a few exceptions, none of which apply to the situation at hand). (See also Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Thus, any data created by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office or collected from entities not subject to Chapter 13 (with the exception of private medical providers - see below) are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comments, Ms. Kircher pointed out that some of the data at issue are collected from entities not subject to Chapter 13, specifically medical records that come from private health providers regulated by Section 144.335. Subdivision 3a of Section 144.335 states that a person who receives health records (in this case the Ombudsman) from a provider, may not release the health records to another person without a signed and dated consent from the patient. Pursuant to Section 144.335, subdivision 1, patient means a natural person or, if the patient is deceased (as is the case in this opinion), the surviving spouse or parents. Thus, any medical data maintained by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office that were collected from a private health care provider subject to the requirements of Section 144.335 are not public. If the method of collection consisted of a private provider summarizing, over the telephone, actual data recorded in a medical record, the data remain not public. However, if the dissemination consisted of mentally summarizing from the actual record and disseminating those data verbally to the Ombudsman, there is no provision classifying those data as not public once the Ombudsman&apos;s Office reduced it to recorded form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. McEnroe requested access to two types of documents generated/compiled by the Ombudsman&apos;s Office. Again, it is important to point out that the Ombudsman does not begin her data collection and compilation until after the subject has died. One of the types of documents Mr. McEnroe requested is a version of the Death Review Index that includes the names of the dead persons. Ms. Kircher provided the Commissioner with a copy of a sample page from the Index. It is comprised of the following information: the name of the facility; the name of the County in which the facility is located; the date when the file was opened; the disability of the subject; the cause of death; the type of review, e.g., limited or full; and the date when the file was closed. Data about the reporting facility are public because there is no statute that classifies those data as not public. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data in the death index about the deceased clients are public because they were created after death, they appear in the death certificate, or they are data that bring the review of these deaths within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman&apos;s Office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The other type of data Mr. McEnroe requested is copies of reports and/or other documents concerning death cases. As discussed above, some of the data contained in the death case reports and documents are collected from entities subject to Chapter 13 and some are collected by private health care providers subject to Section 144.335. Any such data that are either traveling private or confidential data on decedents, or are subject to the consent requirement of Section 144.335, subdivision 3a, are classified as not public. Any other data in the reports and/or other documents are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kircher argued that some of the data Mr. McEnroe requested are not immediately public because of language in Section 245.95. Subdivision 1 of Section 245.95 states, Before making public a conclusion or recommendation that expressly or implicitly criticizes an agency, facility, program, or any person, the ombudsman shall consult with the governor and the agency, facility, program, or person concerning the conclusion or recommendation. First, it appears that some of the data requested by Mr. McEnroe do not constitute a conclusion or recommendation that expressly or implicitly criticizes an agency, facility, program, or any person. But most importantly, Section 245.95 does not classify data as not public; it does not authorize the Ombudsman to refuse to make public any conclusions or recommendations. The intent of this provision is to regulate the Ombudsman&apos;s release of conclusions or recommendations, not to classify data as not public. Therefore, it cannot be used to deny Mr. McEnroe access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Borger is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the following data maintained by the Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation are classified as not public and not accessible to Mr. McEnroe (per his January 16, and March 31, 1998 requests): data collected from other government entities that are classified in the originating entities as private or confidential data on decedents; and health record data collected from private health care providers subject to the consent requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 11, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267705</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents (13.10)</Title><Id>266471</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents</Title><Id>267229</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (245.91 - 245.97)</Title><Id>267083</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No change in classification (13.03, subd. 4(c))</Title><Id>266554</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:47Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-030</Title><title>Opinion 98 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267534&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-04T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does a per page photocopying fee of $0.60 quoted by St. Louis County violate K&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 and Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 4, 1998; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 15, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 14, 1998, from Peter Nickitas, an attorney representing K and K&apos;s minor children. In his letter, Mr. Nickitas requested an opinion regarding several issues surrounding his client&apos;s access to data maintained by St. Louis County. Pursuant to telephone conversations between PIPA staff, Mr. Nickitas, and Clay Odden (Assistant St. Louis County Attorney), one issue (relating to copying charges) was agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julie Brunner, Administrator of St. Louis County, in response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 21, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On May 4, PIPA received a response, dated May 1, 1998, from Mr. Odden.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated March 16, 1998, Mr. Nickitas made a data request on behalf of K. He requested copies of all data of which K and K&apos;s children are the subject.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 19, 1998, Mr. Odden responded by stating that there was a copying fee of $0.60 per page and that the pages requested numbered 400 to 500. He also stated that the charges were payable in advance.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 20, 1998, Mr. Nickitas objected that the copying charge was higher than that prescribed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Mr. Nickitas also noted that pursuant to Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4, his client may be entitled to free copies of some of the requested data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas provided a copy of a document entitled, St. Louis County 1998 Fee Schedule.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does a per page photocopying fee of $0.60 quoted by St. Louis County violate K&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 and Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, data subjects are entitled to obtain copies of data about them. While government entities may charge a fee for these copies, Chapter 13 limits any charge to the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. (Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Further guidance can be found at Minnesota Rules Sections 1205.0300 and 1205.0400. Subpart 4 of Section 1205.0300 states that in determining the amount of a reasonable fee, the government entity shall look to the following criteria (see also Section 1205.0400, subpart 5.):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    1. the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    2. the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    3. any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of business;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    4. any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based record keeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems; and
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    5. mailing costs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments to the Commissioner regarding the County&apos;s $0.60 per page fee, Mr. Odden wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    [a] review of the time spent retrieving private or confidential information, involved not separating public from not-public information, but from the necessity of separating out data subjects....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    In determining an appropriate charge, [County staff], simply estimated the cost of the copier and paper at 5 cents per page and used a sample file from the Social Services to determine the time spent and divided it by the number of pages....That cost resulted in a per copy cost given to the client of 57 cents. The total cost being 62 cents, which was rounded off to 60 cents per page....The Agency has been very careful not to charge individuals for separating public from non-public documents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As provided in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of data about him/herself, a government entity may charge only the the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. However, as Mr. Odden stated, if documents contain data about multiple data subjects, it is the County&apos;s policy to additionally charge for separating those data. While the County is generally prohibited from releasing private and confidential data about one of its clients to anyone else (without consent), Chapter 13 does not contain any provision allowing an entity to recover the cost of separating data about the requestor from private or confidential data about other data subjects.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the remainder of the $0.60 per page fee (the portion not related to separating data about multiple data subjects) is in compliance with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3. However, to the extent the County charged for anything beyond the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, it is out of compliance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas raised another issue. He noted that pursuant to Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, a local agency shall provide to an applicant, recipient, or authorized representative one free copy of each page relating to eligibility for or the assistance payment from the program. In addition, Section 9500.0130, subpart 4, requires a local agency to provide to the person, the person&apos;s authorized representative, or the person&apos;s guardian, one free of each page relating to the person&apos;s medical assistance application and eligibility.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner cannot determine if any of the data requested by Mr. Nickitas, on behalf of his client, are the kind of data described in Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, St. Louis County may charge only for the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies of government data. The County is not allowed to include, in its computation of a $0.60 per page photocopying fee, anything beyond the actual costs, including the cost of employee time to separate data about multiple data subjects. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 4, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267534</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Schedules/calendars</Title><Id>266496</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-029</Title><title>Opinion 98 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267267&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-04T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Commerce respond properly to a March 29, 1998, request for access to the &quot;Commissioner&apos;s Daily Schedule for late September and early October 1997?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 4, 1998; Minnesota Department of Commerce</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 21, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 20, 1998, from Michael Ravnitzky. In his letter, Mr. Ravnitzky requested an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Commerce.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Gruenes, Commissioner of the Department of Commerce, in response to Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 24, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On May 1, 1998, PIPA received comments from Mr. Gruenes in a letter dated April 30, 1998.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated March 29, 1998, Mr. Ravnitzky requested that the Department of Commerce provide him access to the following data:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s Daily Schedule for late September and early October 1997,&lt;/strong&gt; covering the time period when the Commissioner and Commerce Employee Laurie Esau went to Washington, DC to lobby for the tobacco settlement, which was composed in electronic form, printed in hardcopy and posted, and emailed to various people at the Commerce Department, including Laurie Esau, Dee Annisberger and Bary Ryan. (Emphasis provided.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 15, 1998, Commissioner Gruenes responded to Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request for data. He stated that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, appointment calendars are classified as private data. Commissioner Gruenes also cited Advisory Opinion 96-055 in which the Commissioner (of Administration) opined that data in the appointment calendar of the Commissioner of the Human Rights Department were private personnel data and not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ravnitzky asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Commerce respond properly to a March 29, 1998, request for access to the Commissioner&apos;s Daily Schedule for late September and early October 1997?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Government data collected, created, maintained, etc., because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified at Section 13.43, personnel data. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/266731&quot; title=&quot;96-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-055&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote that data in the appointment calendar in question were collected and created because that person is or was a public employee. Therefore, the data are classified pursuant to Section 13.43. Further, because appointment calendar data are not among the types of data classified as public pursuant to subdivision 2 of Section 13.43, those data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same analysis applies to the situation presented by Mr. Ravnitzky. Commissioner Gruenes is an employee of a government entity. The data in the calendar are maintained by the Department because he is a government employee. In commenting on Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s opinion request, Commissioner Gruenes wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First, I maintain a copy of my personal calendar on my computer in my office. This calendar has never been posted in the department. Furthermore, access to this calendar is limited to my personal staff in order to avoid scheduling conflicts and to know my whereabouts in case of an emergency.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided, is appears the data in the appointment calendars are not included in the list of data classified as public at Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, as provided in Section 13.43, subdivision 4, the data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Ravnitzky argued that because the record had been shared with other people in the Department, some of the data were presumably public. This is not necessarily correct. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, private data may be disclosed to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that some of Commissioner Gruenes&apos; staff members needed access to his calendar to do their jobs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ravnitzky is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the Minnesota Department of Commerce responded properly to a March 29, 1998, request for access to the Commissioner&apos;s Daily Schedule for late September and early October 1997. The data are private personnel data and not accessible to the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 4, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267267</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment calendars</Title><Id>266730</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-028</Title><title>Opinion 98 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266958&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-06-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority responded appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 4, 1998; City of St. Cloud</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 9, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Duane Scepaniak, in which Mr. Scepaniak asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Housing Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud (HRA.) Mr. Scepaniak enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Scepaniak&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marshall Weems, Executive Director of the HRA. The purposes of this letter, dated April 14, 1998, were to inform Mr. Weems of Mr. Scepaniak&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the HRA&apos;s position. On May 4, 1998, PIPA received a response from Gerald W. Von Korff, attorney for the HRA. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Beginning in November 1997, Mr. Scepaniak has sought access to the names, addresses, classification and hourly wages of workers on the Paramount Theatre project in St. Cloud, in order to determine compliance with prevailing wage requirements. The HRA is providing some financial support for the Paramount project, and a condition for that support is that the private contractors involved in the project comply with prevailing wage requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to his requests, Mr. Scepaniak was told that the data he requested were not covered by the Data Practices Act, but that under long-standing St. Cloud HRA policy he could get access to the data with names and addresses removed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Scepaniak asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority responded appropriately to a request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity, such as the HRA, which is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public, unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The HRA collects, receives and/or maintains data documenting the names, addresses, classification and hourly wages of employees working on the Paramount Theatre project. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, those data are government data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, those data are public, unless specifically classified otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Von Korff states that the HRA is requiring private contractors on the Paramount project to comply with prevailing wage requirements as a matter of policy and not statutory obligation. Therefore, according to Mr. Von Korff, as there is no statutory enforcement mechanism, it is appropriate for the HRA to treat related data according to its historical practice, which is that . . . names, addresses and wages of private employees working for private contractors are private, not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Von Korff then discusses cases involving the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the federal Privacy Act of 1974 (see 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a). Mr. Von Korff seems to suggest that FOIA applies to the data maintained by the HRA, and appears to urge the Commissioner to use a FOIA analysis to make a determination as to their classification. However, FOIA applies only to federal agencies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to data maintained by a state government entity in Minnesota, as noted above, the data are presumed to be public unless explicitly classified otherwise by the Legislature or by Congress. Federal law may classify data maintained by a Minnesota government entity as not public, if it applies to specific data maintained by the government entity. Mr. Von Korff did not cite any provision of federal or state law that classifies the data in question as not public, and the Commissioner is not aware of any such provision. Accordingly, the data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Scepaniak is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority has not responded appropriately to a request for access to data. Names, addresses, classification and hourly wages of employees working on the Paramount Theatre project are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 4, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266958</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</Title><Id>266663</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-027</Title><title>Opinion 98 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267511&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are photographs of current and past employees of the Blaine Police Department &quot;government data&quot; and/or &quot;personnel data&quot; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43?
If photographs of current and past employees are government data and/or personnel data, what is their classification pursuant to Chapter 13?
Is a &quot;Tennessen Warning&quot; required prior to the taking of employee photographs, regardless of purpose or use for such photographs?
Is &quot;informed consent&quot; of the individual subject (the person photographed) required to display her/his picture, and does it make a difference where in the government facility the picture is displayed before informed consent is required?
If photographs of current employees are taken with their voluntary consent and paid for with other than government funds, are they (the photographs) government data and subject to the provisions of Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 20, 1998; City of Blaine</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 3, 1998, PIPA received a letter from David M. Johnson, Chief of Police for the City of Blaine. In his letter, Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the City&apos;s Police Department ( BPD ). A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Since the mid 1980s, BPD has displayed photographs of current and former employees on an interior wall of the police facility. The photo gallery is located in an area that is always accessible to police staff, and occasionally accessible to the public. Photographs of undercover officers are not displayed. According to Mr. Johnson, [i]t is unclear at this time whether the officers and staff ever consented to the taking and displaying of their pictures.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are photographs of current and past employees of the Blaine Police Department government data and/or personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If photographs of current and past employees are government data and/or personnel data, what is their classification pursuant to Chapter 13?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a Tennessen Warning required prior to the taking of employee photographs, regardless of purpose or use for such photographs?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is informed consent of the individual subject (the person photographed) required to display her/his picture, and does it make a difference where in the government facility the picture is displayed before informed consent is required?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If photographs of current employees are taken with their voluntary consent and paid for with other than government funds, are they (the photographs) government data and subject to the provisions of Chapter 13?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issues 1. and 2. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. Further clarification is provided by Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 4, which states that [d]ata can be maintained in any form, including, but not limited to, paper records and files, microfilm, computer medium, or other processes. The Rule further provides that [a]ll data, in whatever form it is maintained, is data on individuals&apos; if it can in any way identify any particular individual. Accordingly, photographs of government employees are government data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private. Photographs are not included in the list of public data. Therefore, photographs of current or former government employees are private personnel data. In further support of that conclusion, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (c), a government entity may display a photograph of a current or former employee to a prospective witness as part of . . . [an]investigation of any complaint or charge against the employee. If employee photographs were public data, there would have been no reason for that statutory provision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 3. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning. Thus, BPD was and is required to provide its employees with Tennessen Warnings upon collection of their photographs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 4. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4, a government entity may disseminate private data without the individual data subject&apos;s consent only if 1) there is authority in law to do so and 2) the data subject received a proper Tennessen Warning. In addition, according to Section 13.05, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, employees of a government entity may gain access to private data about other individuals only if necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized and their work assignments reasonably require access. Therefore, BPD must secure the informed consent of its employees before displaying their photographs, if any unauthorized person may view (i.e., gain access to) an employee&apos;s photograph.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 5. As discussed above, the photographs of BPD employees are government data because they are data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by BPD. The source of funding for the creation and/or display of the photographs is irrelevant. Even if they were paid for by a private entity, the photographs are still private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Johnson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Photographs of current and past government employees are government data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, and personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Photographs of current and past government employees are classified as private, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                A Tennessen Warning is required prior to the taking of employee photographs, regardless of the purpose or use for such photographs.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Absent a proper Tennessen Warning, the individual subject (the person photographed) must give her/his informed consent for the entity to display her/his picture, if any unauthorized person may gain access to the photograph.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Photographs of current employees taken with their voluntary consent and paid for with other than government funds, are government data and subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 20, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267511</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs of employees</Title><Id>266844</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee photos</Title><Id>266845</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:45Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-026</Title><title>Opinion 98 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267424&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Metropolitan 911 Board: data that &quot;identify the location and coverage of the cell sites of cellular and other wireless carriers?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 19, 1998; Metropolitan 911 Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 18, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 11, 1998, from Penny Steele, Chair of the Metropolitan 911 Board. In her letter, Ms. Steel requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Board. In a letter dated February 23, 1998, the Commissioner wrote to Ms. Steele and requested clarification. In a letter dated March 13, 1998, Jay Arneson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, provided additional information on behalf of the Board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In her letter, Ms. Steele wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Legislation which was passed in 1997 has involved the Metropolitan 911 Board in planning for the integration of wireless telephone service into enhanced 9-1-1 systems. Part of the planning process involves obtaining detailed cell location and coverage information from each of the wireless carriers. The goal is for State Patrol and local government 9-1-1 dispatch personnel to be able to determine the number and nature of 9-1-1 calls which could be expected from each sector, in order to make informed 9-1-1 initial answering point routing decisions. This process has been delayed by a reluctance on the part of some wireless carriers to provide this information, which they consider proprietary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter, Mr. Arneson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 403.08, subd. 7(a), each cellular and other wireless access service provider shall cooperate in planning and implementing integration with enhanced 911 systems operating in their service territories to meet federal communications commission enhanced 911 standards.&apos;...In order for the counties, or in this case the Metropolitan 911 Board on behalf of its member counties, to carry out their responsibilities pursuant to said statute, it is necessary that they receive from the cellular and other wireless carriers data that identifies the location and coverage of each carrier&apos;s cell sites. This data has already been provided to the Metropolitan 911 Board...by two of the affected wireless carriers. The remaining carriers, however, have resisted providing said data due to their concerns that this data, which they consider proprietary might not be deemed to meet the definition of trade secret information pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.37, subd. 1(b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Steele asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Metropolitan 911 Board: data that identify the location and coverage of the cell sites of cellular and other wireless carriers?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, all government data are presumed public unless they are otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case-at-hand, cell site data are being collected by the Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 403.08, subdivision 7, and 403.13 (establishes an orderly method of determining the appropriate initial 9-1-1 answering points for wireless 9-1-1 calls). No provision in either of these statute sections classifies the data being collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Arneson stated that some of the wireless carriers have resisted submitting the data, which they (the companies) consider to be proprietary, because the data might not meet the Chapter 13 definition of trade secret. First, as the Commissioner stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267385&quot; title=&quot;98-017&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-017&lt;/a&gt;, she is not aware of any provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public, once those data become government data. The fact that the wireless carriers believe the data to be proprietary does not, in itself, make the data not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, as the Commissioner has opined in several previous advisory opinions, data are trade secret (and classified as private/nonpublic per Section 13.37, subdivision 2) only if they meet all the criteria set forth in Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[d]ata including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, neither the wireless carriers nor others demonstrated how data relating to the location and coverage of each carrier&apos;s cell sites fit the definition of trade secret in Section 13.37. Specifically, in terms of the physical locations of cell sites, if, as the Commissioner believes, they are marked by the existence of tower structures, it is difficult to conclude that other persons cannot readily ascertain the sites (in a proper manner). Here, the element of the trade secret definition requiring efforts to maintain secrecy cannot be established. Therefore, the cell site location data cannot be trade secret data; those data are public per Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In terms of cell site coverage, no one has argued to the Commissioner how such data meet the criteria of trade secret in Section 13.37. Therefore, pursuant to the general presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the Commissioner concludes that the data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Steele is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, data maintained by the Metropolitan 911 Board that identify the location and coverage of cell sites of cellular and other wireless carriers are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 19, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267424</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Metropolitan 911 Board</Title><Id>266747</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Efforts to maintain secrecy (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266785</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Wireless carriers/telephone service</Title><Id>266786</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-025</Title><title>Opinion 98 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267896&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not provide a timely response to data requested by C in his/her February 11, 1997, letter?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not provide a timely response to data requested by Mr. Nickitas in his September 5, 1997, letter?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not fully comply with data requested by C in his/her February 11, 1997, letter, i.e., a June 19, 1996, letter written by &quot;Mr. Bye&quot; and a letter &quot;of apology?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 15, 1998; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 13, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated March 11, 1998, from Peter Nickitas, an attorney representing C. In his letter, Mr. Nickitas requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding C&apos;s access to certain data maintained by School District 709, Duluth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Myles, Superintendent of District 709, in response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 30, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 22, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Lisa Wilson, an attorney representing the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Nickitas is as follows. In a February 11, 1997, document entitled Requesting documentation in writing, and copied to many different people, C appears to have requested access to various kinds of data. The letter appears to be addressed to three people, whose identities are unknown to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 5, 1997, Mr. Nickitas wrote to Mr. Myles and, among other things, stated, [I]SD 709 has failed to produce the data [C] requested six months ago...[C] reasserts [his/her] demand for these data... Also in his letter, Mr. Nickitas, on behalf of C, requested additional data from the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 15, 1997, Elizabeth Storaasli, an attorney for the District, wrote to Mr. Nickitas that she was attempting to compile the data and would provide it as soon as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In letters dated September 16 and November 12, 1997, Mr. Nickitas wrote to Ms. Storaasli and stated that he and his client were still waiting to receive the requested data (it is not clear whether Mr. Nickitas had received any of the requested information).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not provide a timely response to data requested by C in his/her February 11, 1997, letter?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not provide a timely response to data requested by Mr. Nickitas in his September 5, 1997, letter?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, were C&apos;s rights violated if School District 709, Duluth, did not fully comply with data requested by C in his/her February 11, 1997, letter, i.e., a June 19, 1996, letter written by Mr. Bye and a letter of apology?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, upon request to a government entity&apos;s responsible authority, a person shall gain access to data of which s/he is the subject. If the entity cannot provide access immediately, it may take five working days. If more time is necessary, the requestor is to be so informed and the entity may take an additional five working days. Pursuant to Section 13.03, upon request to a government entity&apos;s responsible authority, a person shall gain access to public data of which s/he is not the subject. The entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, Mr. Nickitas provided a copy of a request for documentation dated February 11, 1997, that had been prepared by C. This document appears to have been addressed to three people described by Ms. Wilson as District employees and copied to additional people and organizations, including Mr. Myles. In the document, C requested access to various information. While some of the requested data are most likely about C and/or C&apos;s children and subject to the requirements of Section 13.04, some of the remaining data may be public data not about C and/or C&apos;s children and subject to the requirements of Section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commenting on the first issue, Ms. Wilson wrote, [C&apos;s] letter was addressed to District employees. [C&apos;s] request was not directed to Mark Myles, Superintendent of the District, and the responsible authority under [Chapter 13]. [C] indicated [s/he] was carbon copying Mr. Myles, but whether Mark Myles ever received a copy of the request dated February 11, 1997 is unknown.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wilson is correct that Sections 13.03 and 13.04 require a data requestor to direct requests to the responsible authority of the involved entity. Both sections state, Upon request to a responsible authority [a person shall gain access to government data]... Ms. Wilson is also correct that C&apos;s February 11, 1997, letter was not directed to Mr. Myles, the District&apos;s responsible authority. However, the documents indicate that C copied the letter to Mr. Myles. Assuming C either mailed or hand-delivered the copy to Mr. Myles, he presumably received it. (Ms. Wilson stated it was not known whether Mr. Myles received his copy.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, a government entity is required to prepare a document containing the name and address of the responsible authority (see Section 13.05, subdivision 1.) In addition, the entity is required to prepare a document that explains the procedure for gaining access to data. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 8.) Although Ms. Wilson points out that C&apos;s letter was not addressed to the responsible authority, it is possible, if the District has not met its obligations under Section 13.05, that C did not know the identity of the responsible authority. C may have believed s/he was sending the correspondence to people who could provide her/him with the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming Mr. Myles did receive the February 11, 1997, correspondence, the District had up to ten working days to respond to the any of the requested data of which C and/or C&apos;s children are the subject. Given there was no response until on or after September 5, 1997, the District did not provide a timely response as prescribed in Section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to any public data not about C and/or C&apos;s children, pursuant to Section 13.03, the District was to respond within a reasonable time. Again, there was no response until on or after September 5, 1997. A response time of approximately seven months is not reasonable and therefore, the District did not provide a timely response as prescribed in Section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue revolves around the September 5, 1997, letter from Mr. Nickitas addressed to Mr. Myles. In this letter, Mr. Nickitas wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a final note, [C] notes that ISD 709 has failed to produce the data [C] requested six months ago of and concerning the [incident regarding C&apos;s child] in February, 1997...[C] reasserts [C&apos;s] demand for these data, pursuant to [Chapter 13]...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[C] makes a second Data Practices Act request for all data in the possession or control of ISD 709 that details all bus schedules, bus rosters, and other transportation arrangements for [C&apos;s] children in the past three academic years - - 1994 - 1995, 1995 - 1996, and 1996 - 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Wilson wrote that Mr. Myles received Mr. Nickitas&apos; request on September 8, 1997. She stated that on September 15, 1997, the District&apos;s attorney wrote to Mr. Nickitas to inform him that she was attempting to compile the requested data. Ms. Wilson further wrote that on September 24, 1997, the District sent C the data regarding the bus schedules and that on December 22, 1997, the District provided copies of all existing documents relating to the request of [C]. She added that also on December 22, 1997, the District sent a letter regarding documents that were related to the bus transfer issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wilson stated that the information C requested included both private and public data. She wrote, Much of the private data were bussing [sic] incidents which included the names of other students. Private educational data about students or their parents cannot be disclosed to other parents or students. Ms. Wilson further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The District...redacted the documents to insure that private data about other students and parents was not improperly disclosed. The District notified [C] that they were working on compiling the data and they produced the data within a reasonable time given the necessity of redacting a lot of the documents. Other parts of [C&apos;s] request were for public data. Bus schedules, bus rosters and transportation arrangements are public data. While students&apos; names are contained in the data, the data is not accessed by the student&apos;s names. Again, the District compiled the data as soon as possible and redacted the data to protect the identity of the other students. The bus schedules, bus rosters and transportation arrangements were provided in a reasonable amount of time (within nineteen (19) days of [C&apos;s] request).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because very few of the data in question were provided to the Commissioner, it is impossible for her to determine, with certainty, the classification of those data. However, based on the documentation provided, it appears that most of the data Mr. Nickitas requested, on behalf of C, are data about C and/or C&apos;s children. Such data are private pursuant to Section 13.32 (educational data), triggering the response prescribed by Section 13.04 (access to data requested by the data subject). Any other data not about C and/or C&apos;s children (that are public), are subject to the time requirements set forth in Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of data about C and C&apos;s children, if the District could not respond immediately, it had up to five working days to reply. If the District needed more time, it was to so inform the requestor and could take up to an additional five working days. Ms. Wilson stated the District did not provide any data to C until on or after September 24, 1997, which is two days past the ten day deadline prescribed in Section 13.04. Therefore, the District did not meet the statutory deadline in responding to any part of the September 8, 1997, request that involved data about C and/or C&apos;s children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The requested data that are not about C and/or C&apos;s children (and are public), required a response within a reasonable time. Based on the documentation submitted to the Commissioner, it appears the District made any such data available to C/Mr. Nickitas on either September 24 or December 22, 1997. While a reply on September 24 is reasonable, it does not seem that a reply on December 22 (three months from the date of the request) is reasonable. Therefore, the District did not respond within the statutory time frame set forth in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, in regard to any data about C and/or C&apos;s children provided on December 22, 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third issue relates specifically to two letters referred to in C&apos;s February 11, 1997, correspondence. The first letter is dated June 19, 1996, and is from the one of the District&apos;s attorneys to C&apos;s attorney. Ms. Wilson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The letter was not created, collected or maintained by the District. The letter was written by the District&apos;s attorney to [C&apos;s] attorney as a result of an inquiry by her on another matter....The District did not have a copy of this letter at the time of her request and a copy was provided to her as a courtesy from this firm&apos;s office on April 16, 1998.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the letter (a copy of which the District provided), it appears to contain data about C&apos;s child. Therefore, the District should have provided it to C immediately or within five to ten working days of the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Wilson also argued that the District did not possess the letter at the time of the request. This is not a valid reason for restricting access to the data. The letter and its data were created by one of the District&apos;s attorneys acting as the District&apos;s agent; therefore, regardless of where the letter is housed, it is government data and accessible to the data subject, i.e., C and/or C&apos;s child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other part of the third issue regards a letter of apology written by the person described by Mr. Nickitas as the assailant. In her comments, Ms. Wilson wrote, The apology note was shown to [C&apos;s child] in 1996 and after [C&apos;s child ] read the note, it was destroyed. At the time of [C&apos;s] Data Practices Request...the note no longer existed. If data do not exist at the time of a request, they cannot be provided to the requestor. It is not clear why the District did not inform C, at the time of his/her request, that the data had been destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;School District 709, Duluth, took seven plus months to respond to C&apos;s February 11, 1997, correspondence. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.04, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, this is not timely.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, it appears C&apos;s rights were violated because School District 709, Duluth, did not respond in a timely manner to the part of the September 5, 1997, request for data about C and/or C&apos;s children.
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, any public data not about C and/or C&apos;s children provided to C/Mr. Nickitas on September 24, 1997, were provided in a timely manner. However, any such data provided to C/Mr. Nickitas on December 22, 1997, were not provided in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 13.04, School District 709, Duluth, violated C&apos;s rights by not providing access to the June 19, 1996, letter. The District did not violate C&apos;s Section 13.04 rights in regard to the apology letter because it did not exist at the time of the request.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 15, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267896</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:44Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-024</Title><title>Opinion 98 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267860&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-14T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, did School District 317, Deer River, respond appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 14, 1998; School District 317 (Deer River)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On March 23, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated March 20, 1998, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Western Itasca Review&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to data maintained by School District 317, Deer River.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ray Pelton, Superintendent of District 317, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On April 8, 1998, PIPA received comments, in a letter also dated April 8, 1998, from Sara Ruff, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Anfinson wrote, On March 16, 1998, [the District&apos;s School Board] adopted a resolution stating in pertinent part that a continuing contract employee employed by the School District is proposed for immediate discharge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 125.12 Subd. 8.&apos; Mr. Anfinson stated that both the newspaper and he requested access to the employee&apos;s name but the requests were denied. He argued that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, a final disposition of a disciplinary action has occurred; therefore, certain information about the employee are public and accessible to the newspaper.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, did School District 317, Deer River, respond appropriately to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides that certain government data about current and former employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, the following data are public: name; the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, both the newspaper and Mr. Anfinson requested the name of the involved employee; the District denied the requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Both Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Ruff discussed the data in question, i.e., name of the employee, in relation to whether a final disposition of the disciplinary action had occurred. However, given the information sought by the newspaper, that point is irrelevant. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (1) and (4), the name of the employee, whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of the handling of the complaint or charge are always public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Ms. Ruff argued that based on &lt;u&gt;Unke v. Independent School District No. 147&lt;/u&gt;, 510 N.W.2d 271 (Minn.App. 1994), rev. den., the name of the employee should not be public. She quoted the court as stating, We conclude that the school district violated the Data Practices Act by elaborating on the nature of the charge against Unke &lt;strong&gt;and failing to restrict its release of information to the existence of a complaint.&lt;/strong&gt; While Ms. Ruff is correct that the court in &lt;u&gt;Unke&lt;/u&gt; found that District 147 released not public data, the data found to be improperly released were data elaborating the charges against the employee, not the employee&apos;s name.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, School District 317, Deer River, did not respond appropriately to a request for access to data. The name of the employee is public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 14, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267860</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Names of employees</Title><Id>266917</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee name</Title><Id>266371</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-023</Title><title>Opinion 98 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267334&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in Exhibits A through E, which relate to an issue involving a City of Barnesville employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> May 14, 1998; City of Barnesville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 3, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 27, 1998, from James Nicolai, an attorney representing the City of Barnesville. In his letter, Mr. Nicolai requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain personnel data maintained by the City. Upon discussions with PIPA staff, the two issues submitted by Mr. Nicolai were combined.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. The City of Barnesville became involved in a dispute with one of its employees. A member of the public then made a request for information relating to the dispute. The City&apos;s question to the Commissioner is whether any or how much of the data related to the dispute must be released to the requestor.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 9, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated March 5, 1998, from Randolph Stefanson, an attorney for the affected city employee. In his letter, Mr. Stefanson argued that because no final disposition has been reached, only very limited data regarding the dispute are public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nicolai asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in Exhibits A through E, which relate to an issue involving a City of Barnesville employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides that certain government data about current and former employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, the following data are public:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 (b), in part, provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The classification of data relating to complaints or charges against an employee is dependent upon whether 1) the entity has taken disciplinary action and 2) there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action. If no disciplinary action was taken, only limited data regarding the incident are public, i.e., the name of the employee, whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of the handling of the complaint or charge. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (1) and (4).) If disciplinary action was taken but there was no final disposition, only the same limited data are public. But, if disciplinary action was taken and there was a final disposition, additional data become public. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present case, a dispute arose between the City and one of its employees. The City initiated action pending further investigation to resolve the dispute but lifted that action two days later and placed the employee on paid medical leave during which certain conditions were to be met.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first issue to be resolved is whether the City&apos;s action constitutes a disciplinary action. Based on language in the 1994 City of Barnesville Personnel Policies, it appears that it does not. Articles 9 and 10 of this document discuss disciplinary action and grievance/appeal procedures, respectively. According to Article 9, if the City had disciplined the employee, it was to have explained, in a written communication to the employee and the Business Supervisor, the circumstances that resulted in the discipline. The City did not provide information to the Commissioner indicating that this had occurred. Therefore, it does not appear the employee was disciplined.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, according to a letter from the City to the employee&apos;s attorney, although disciplinary action against the employee was being contemplated pending further investigation, the City lifted the action two days later and placed the employee on medical leave. Based on this scenario, it does not appear there was a final decision of any disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, because there was no action taken against the employee that falls within the definition of discipline as stated in City&apos;s own personnel policy, and because there was no final disposition of a disciplinary action, only the following data are public: the name of the employee; and the existence and status of the City&apos;s handling of any complaint or charge against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nicolai is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, only the following data that relate to an issue involving a City of Barnesville employee are public: the name of the employee; and the existence and status of the City&apos;s handling of a complaint or charge against the City employee. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 14, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267334</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Defined</Title><Id>266478</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:43Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-022</Title><title>Opinion 98 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267966&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-13T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Independent School District 197 respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s verbal and written requests for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 13, 1998; School District 197 (Mendota Heights)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 19, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Sonja D. Kerr, an attorney, on behalf of her client, L. In her letter, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding L&apos;s rights as a subject of data maintained by Independent School District (ISD) 197, Mendota Heights. Ms. Kerr enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Monson, Superintendent of ISD 197. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 1998, were to inform Mr. Monson of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, and to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On April 2, 1998, PIPA received a response from Mr. Monson. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                L is a former employee of ISD 197. According to Ms. Kerr, on December 3, 1997, L made a verbal request to Anthony G. Massaros, attorney and Supervisor of Human Resources for the District, to review all data the District maintains about her/him and then sent two letters to the District, repeating her/his request. L received no response to either letter. On December 8, 1997, L sent a certified letter that the District received on December 9, 1997. The District did not respond. L sent another letter on January 10, 1998, and received no response. L hired Ms. Kerr in February 1998. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Kerr spoke with Mr. Massaros, and asked that L be allowed to review her/his District employment file. In that conversation, Ms. Kerr also asked that she be sent a copy of L&apos;s personnel file. That same day, Ms. Kerr faxed a release of information to Mr. Massaros. On February 18, 1998, some 75 days after her/his initial verbal request, L reviewed the file. On February 23, 1998, Ms. Kerr received the copy of L&apos;s personnel file. Mr. Massaros has since left the District&apos;s employ.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Monson wrote: [t]he District&apos;s failure to respond to [L&apos;s] initial requests was the inadvertent and unintended result of a combination of circumstances. According to Mr. Monson, Mr. Massaros received the initial requests at a time when he (Mr. Massaros) was fully occupied with numerous tasks, and had limited support staff available. Mr Monson wrote: [a]s the District has gone through the process of finding a replacement for Mr. Massaros it has also restructured and reorganized the responsibilities of the position which he held and the staff support it requires. We are confident that the inconvenience which [L] met will not be repeated in the future.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Independent School District 197 respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s verbal and written requests for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request from a data subject to inspect and/or obtain copies of data about him/her, the responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, s/he may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request, if the individual is so informed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In L&apos;s case, the District made the data available 75 days after L&apos;s initial verbal request. Mr. Monson stated that the delay was inadvertent, and due to a number of circumstances. Nonetheless, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District was required to respond to L&apos;s request within five working days. At most, with notice to L, the District should have responded within ten working days. The District did not meet its statutory obligation to L.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Meeting its statutory obligations includes not just providing data, but also establishing procedures to ensure that data requests are handled appropriately, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 8. Doing so would help the District avoid similar problems in the future.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Independent School District 197 did not respond appropriately to a data subject&apos;s verbal and written requests for access to data. The District should have responded within five working days of the request.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 13, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267966</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-021</Title><title>Opinion 98 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267575&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-05-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services respond appropriately to a request to inspect and obtain copies of government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 13, 1998; Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 17, 1998, PIPA received a fax dated March 16, 1998, from Teresa Graham. In her letter, Ms. Graham requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding access to data maintained by the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marie Ohman, Executive Director of the Board, in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 23, 1998, were to inform her of Ms. Graham&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 31, 1998, PIPA received another correspondence from Ms. Graham. Ms. Graham argued that pursuant to Section 13.41, the data she had requested are public. In a letter dated April 1, 1998, PIPA sent Ms. Ohman a copy of Ms. Graham&apos;s March 31, 1998, letter and invited her to provide any additional comments in response to Ms. Graham&apos;s most recent communication.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 1, 1998, PIPA received comments, dated March 31, 1998, from Michael Paul, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts according to Ms. Graham is as follows. On March 5, 1998, Ms. Graham met with staff at the Board to review public data in a licensure file on an individual licensed since 1988 as a private detective. Ms. Graham apparently was granted access to some of the data and denied access to other of the data. Also on March 5, Ms. Graham requested copies of data. Ms. Graham wrote, [Board staff] refused to provide them on that date and stated that she would first need to do a cost analysis. Ms. Graham further wrote, I have again requested copies of the data I viewed on March 5, 1998. [Staff] has admitted that she routinely charges 97 cents or $1.74 for a similar number of documents...However, she has implied that she will charge me whatever she chooses for these documents that would require a similar amount of time or less to copy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments, Mr. Paul stated that Ms. Graham was denied access to the licensee&apos;s home address and telephone number, as well as the licensees&apos; employees&apos; home addresses and telephone numbers. Mr. Paul argued that such data are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. He did not discuss the issue of the copying charges except to state that Ms. Graham was provided with a free copy of the licensee&apos;s file to review at her leisure.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Ms. Graham asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services respond appropriately to a request to inspect and obtain copies of government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data collected, created, and maintained by the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.41. In his comments, Mr. Paul argued that under his reading of Section 13.41, a licensee&apos;s home address and telephone number are private, unless they are given as the designated contact address.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Paul. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.41, in relevant part, classifies the following data as private: data submitted by license applicants, other than their names and designated addresses. Clause (b) of Section 13.41, subdivision 2, states, in relevant part:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    An applicant for a license shall designate on the application a residence or business address and telephone number at which the applicant can be contacted in connection with the license application.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When the Legislature enacted Section 13.41, its intent was to protect data about applicants, except for names and designated addresses, which are public. Then, as the Legislature provided for in Section 13.41, subdivision 4, only if a person is granted his/her license, do all the data contained in the application become public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no doubt that Section 13.41 is somewhat confusing. Although the Legislature has provided a situation in which an applicant is allowed to designate an address that will be public while s/he is still an applicant, once that person becomes a licensee, the application data also become public. Thus, if an applicant includes his/her home address on the application, those data will become public when the person is granted a license.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present case, as Mr. Paul asserted, applicants to the Private Detective and Protective Agent Board are required to submit their home addresses, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 326.3382, subdivision 1 (1). This creates a situation in which the home addresses of such licensees will always be public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In terms of the home addresses and telephone numbers of the licensee&apos;s employees, the classification of such data depends upon whether the employees are applicants or licensees, or whether the data were collected as part of the original licensee&apos;s application. If the data are part of the original licensee&apos;s application, there is no provision classifying the data as not public. If any of the employees are, themselves, applicants for licensure, the home addresses are public, unless any of the employees have designated other addresses. If the employees are licensees, and the data are included in the applications, the home addresses and telephone numbers are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the issue of a copying charge, Ms. Graham wrote that a Board staff person admitted she routinely charges 97 cents or $1.74 for a similar number of documents that are available...However she has implied that she will charge me whatever she chooses for these documents that would require a similar amount of time or less to copy. In his comments, Mr. Paul wrote that staff provided Ms. Graham with a free copy of the licensee&apos;s file to review at her leisure. Given that Ms. Graham was provided the data free of charge and that it is unclear whether the 97 cents or the $1.74 are per page fees, the Commissioner will not comment on the issue of copying charges. However, as the Commissioner has discussed in previous advisory opinions, Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provide clear guidelines on charging for copies of public government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Graham is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota State Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services did not respond appropriately to a request to inspect and obtain copies of government data; the licensee&apos;s home address and telephone number are public data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 13, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267575</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-020</Title><title>Opinion 98 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267409&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-29T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may ISD #196 release, as public data, multiple sets of summary data regarding students with common student identifiers that would allow for correlation or cross-referencing of the data, where the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of the individual students?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may ISD #196 release, as public data, a copy of a teacher&apos;s grade book (with student names removed), which includes multiple elements of summary data correlated as to each student, where the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of the individual students?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 29, 1998; School District 196 (Rosemount)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 9, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Mark T. Porter, Director of Human Resources and Legal Services for Independent School District (ISD) #196, Rosemount. In his letter, Mr. Porter asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by ISD #196. Mr. Porter enclosed copies of related correspondence. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ISD #196 received a request for access to [t]he percentage grade of each student in a particular class, along with each corresponding student&apos;s GPA prior to the 1997/98 year (summary data only, assign matching identifiers). The District also received a request for a copy of the grade book for the same class. The requestors asked that the District use and match the same identifiers for this data so that it matches the GPA&apos;s of [sic] and student&apos;s percentage grades asked for [above].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Porter asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may ISD #196 release, as public data, multiple sets of summary data regarding students with common student identifiers that would allow for correlation or cross-referencing of the data, where the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of the individual students?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may ISD #196 release, as public data, a copy of a teacher&apos;s grade book (with student names removed), which includes multiple elements of summary data correlated as to each student, where the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of the individual students?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, most educational data, i.e., data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student, are classified as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 19, [s]ummary data&apos; means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16, means data which has been extracted, manipulated, or summarized from private or confidential data, and from which all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. Summary data are accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of summary data derived from data about students, guidance must also be sought from federal law. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 96-025&lt;/a&gt; for a thorough discussion of the requirements of federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Porter wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The school district believes that providing multiple pieces of summary data with matching identifiers that allow for the cross-referencing and/or correlation of data would be in contradiction to the definition of summary data due, to the fact that such data could uniquely identify an individual who is the subject of the data. (See, Minn. Stat. 13.02, subd. 19) Therefore, such data must remain classified as private educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Porter stated that the data requested, without the matching student identifiers, are properly classified as summary data, and the District would be willing to provide those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-266895&quot; title=&quot;96-025&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-025&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner addressed a similar issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Guidance on the issue of whether the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; are summary data, or private data that MDCFL must protect from public disclosure, comes from provisions in the MGDPA, from federal law and from a detailed examination of the data being requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As described earlier, educational data are, in most instances, private data. However, for the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; to be private, the data must be data on individuals. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Data on individuals means all government data in which any individual is identified or &lt;u&gt;can be identified&lt;/u&gt; as the subject of the data. (Section 13.02, subdivision 4.) The Rules of the Department of Administration clarify that data on individuals include all data . . . if it can in any way identify any particular individual. (Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.0200, subpart 4.) If an examination of a set of government data allows the examiner to be able to associate that set of data with a particular individual, then, for purposes of Chapter 13, the data in question are data on individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District believes that the data requested, i.e., each student&apos;s grade point average, linked with the student&apos;s percentage grade, and grade book data, could uniquely identify an individual student. Mr. Porter did not offer any detailed discussion as to how he thinks such identification might occur. Without seeing the data, the Commissioner is not able to overcome the District&apos;s view. In some cases, it seems likely that it would not be possible to identify an individual, and in other cases it might be possible to do so. It is up to the District to make the determination whether the inclusion of matching student identifiers would mean the data are not summary data. Therefore, the data may not be released as requested, i.e., with the matching student identifiers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Porter is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, ISD #196 may not release, as data, multiple sets of summary data regarding students with common student identifiers that would allow for correlation or cross-referencing of the data, if the District believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of individual students.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, ISD #196 may not release, as public data, a copy of a teacher&apos;s grade book (with student names removed), which includes multiple elements of summary data correlated as to each student, if the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of individual students.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 29, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267409</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grade book or testing data</Title><Id>266894</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-019</Title><title>Opinion 98 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267703&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did ISD #196 respond appropriately to a January 20, 1998, request for access to the following data: &quot;[t]he total number of A, B, C, D, F and incomplete letter grades given out in each of the American History classes which Ms. Henderson taught first trimester.&quot;
Are the following copying charges allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13:
(A) $35.90 for two hours of labor to copy two cassette tapes.

(B) $17.95 for one hour of labor to compile grades in three classes.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 29, 1998; School District 196 (Rosemount)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 2, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. G. In their letter, Mr. and Mrs. G asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding their rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District (ISD) #196, Rosemount. Mr. and Mrs. G enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the G&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John T. Haro, Superintendent of ISD #196. The purposes of this letter, dated March 5, 1998, were to inform Dr. Haro of Mr. and Mrs. G&apos;s request, and to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On March 23, 1998, PIPA received a response from Mark T. Porter, Director of Human Resources and Legal Services for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated January 20, 1998, the G&apos;s requested, among other things, the following data: [t]he total number of A, B, C, D, F and incomplete letter grades given out in each of the American History classes which Ms. Henderson taught first trimester.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 1, 1998, the G&apos;s requested copies of audiotapes of a meeting with ISD #196 personnel that took place January 16, 1998.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 6, 1998, ISD #196 responded to the G&apos;s first request with the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Please be advised that the final grading structure for Ms. Henderson&apos;s American History Classes is as follows:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
Grade          Number of Students

             A           12

             B           32

             C           19

             D           13

             F           18

             I            0  

          Total =        94
              &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                A total of one hour was spent aggregating this data. The fee for preparing this data is one hour at $17.95 per hour, or $17.95.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their opinion request, the G&apos;s wrote: . . . we feel we did not receive the data in the way we had requested it. We had asked for this data to be provided for EACH of the three classes, not all lumped together as we received it. (Emphasis theirs.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated February 6, 1998, ISD #196 responded to the G&apos;s request for copies of the audiotapes as follows: [t]he dubbing time for these tapes is a total of two (2) hours and 10 minutes. The charges for this service are two (2) hours at $17.95 per hour, or $35.90.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter wrote, in regard to the G&apos;s first request,
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                . . . it appears that the District believed they were being responsive to the request for the total number of letter grades. I am not aware of whether there was any subsequent communication between the [G&apos;s] and the District concerning clarification of the fact that the request was intended to illicit [sic] a response for each class. I am not aware of any subsequent clarification.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Now that the District is fully apprised of the scope and nature of the request, the summary data requested can and will be provided at no additional cost.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In regard to the cost of the copies, Mr. Porter wrote that the District believes its charges are allowable pursuant to Minnesota Rules Parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0700. According to Mr. Porter, the data requested by the G&apos;s did not exist in the form requested but the District recognized the request as a legitimate request for summary data&apos; and responded accordingly. Mr. Porter wrote that the only copy costs the District sought to recover were the cost of labor associated with the preparation of the data, even though the Rule allows for the recovery of other costs. Mr. Porter stated: [t]he District believes that the two hour charge for the copying of two cassette tapes, and the one hour charge for the compilation of grade data were reasonable and in accordance with Minnesota Rules 1205.0300 and 1205.0700.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. G asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did ISD #196 respond appropriately to a January 20, 1998, request for access to the following data: [t]he total number of A, B, C, D, F and incomplete letter grades given out in each of the American History classes which Ms. Henderson taught first trimester.
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the following copying charges allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13:
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (A) $35.90 for two hours of labor to copy two cassette tapes.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (B) $17.95 for one hour of labor to compile grades in three classes.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Porter, the District did not interpret the G&apos;s request for access to summary data as they had intended. That is, they wanted the breakdown of letter grades for each class, whereas the District provided the grades in aggregate. The District has the responsibility to make sure that it receives sufficient information to respond appropriately to requests for access to data. In this case, it appears the District made a reasonable, response to the G&apos;s request. Once it learned of a misunderstanding, the District said it would make the data the G&apos;s seek available to them at no additional cost. The Commissioner believes that is an appropriate response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. and Mrs. G requested two types of data: a compilation of grades; and a copy of audiotapes of meetings with District personnel about their child. Statute provides different standards for determining appropriate fees for the provision of these types of data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The compilation of grades, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is summary data, i.e., data derived from private or confidential data from which personal identifiers have been removed. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 19, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0700, subpart 7, and Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, the District may recover the cost it incurred to produce summary data. The District may include the cost of materials, labor and any special costs associated with machine-based records. According to Mr. Porter, the District included only the cost of labor in its charge. However, Mr. Porter did not provide the Commissioner with any documentation to support the charge of $17.95 for one hour of labor. Assuming it took one hour to produce the summary data, and the salary of the person who produced it is $17.95 per hour, then the District&apos;s charge is allowable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The audiotapes of a meeting to discuss the G&apos;s child contain private data about the G&apos;s. (See Section 13.32.) Section 13.04 governs access to data by a data subject. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies of the audiotapes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Porter, it took a District employee two hours to copy two audiotapes. Again, Mr. Porter provided no documentation to support that claim. The District may charge a data subject the actual cost of the copies, and, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 5, the fee must be reasonable. The District has not demonstrated that its copy charge is allowable pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. G is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Independent School District #196 made a reasonable response to the G&apos;s request. Once it learned of a misunderstanding, the District said it would make the data the G&apos;s seek available to them at no additional cost. The Commissioner believes that is an appropriate response.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                It appears that the $17.95 charge for producing summary data is allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Independent School District #196 has not established that a copying charge of $35.90 for two hours of labor to copy two cassette tapes is allowable.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 29, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267703</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grade book or testing data</Title><Id>266894</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Costs</Title><Id>266824</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:42Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-018</Title><title>Opinion 98 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267658&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Economic Security violate M&apos;s rights by inappropriately disseminating private data about M?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 23, 1998; School District 15 (St. Francis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 23, 1998, PIPA received a letter from M&apos;s mother. In her letter, M&apos;s mother requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding M&apos;s rights as a subject of government data. M&apos;s mother is the legal guardian of M, an adult. M&apos;s mother enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to M&apos;s mother&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to R. Jane Brown, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (DES). The purposes of this letter, dated February 27, 1998, were to inform Commissioner Brown of M&apos;s mother&apos;s request, and to ask her or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On March 10, 1998, PIPA received a response from Donald E. Notvik, Assistant Attorney General. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to M&apos;s mother, M is a special education student who receives special services from Independent School District #15 (St. Francis.) M&apos;s mother said she was contemplating early withdrawal from ISD #15 contingent upon M&apos;s acceptance into a DES program. M&apos;s mother met with a DES Division of Rehabilitation Services employee on September 11, 1997, to discuss M&apos;s possible needs after leaving school. M&apos;s mother wrote: [w]e agreed to meet with a vocational provider. No releases of information were executed. M&apos;s mother says that she told the employee not to contact ISD #15 about her child given an ongoing litigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The DES case file, provided by Mr. Notvik, contains, in part, the following entry about that meeting: [t]he client&apos;s mother described the need for evaluation/training services other than those offered by St. Francis High School. [M&apos;s mother] would like to look as soon as possible at the programs offered by Opportunity Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to M, the DES employee contacted a school employee on the morning of September 16, 1997. According to the ISD #15 telephone log, the DES employee discussed his meeting with M&apos;s mother on September 11, and said that she was wondering about pulling [M] out of school and going strictly vocational. The DES employee told the school employee that M&apos;s mother had a meeting scheduled with Opportunity Services. The school employee said she could not discuss M with the DES employee because there was no current release of information on file authorizing her to do so.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, M&apos;s mother asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Economic Security violate M&apos;s rights by inappropriately disseminating private data about M? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.791, all data collected and maintained by DES that pertain to individuals applying for or receiving rehabilitation services are private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Notvik wrote: [i]n this case, M.&apos;s mother contends that information &lt;u&gt;pertaining to litigation&lt;/u&gt; was divulged by [DES]. (Emphasis added.) Mr. Notvik asserts that . . . such information would not reasonably fit the definition of data to be protected [pursuant to Section 13.791] since it would not be relevant to the [DES] function of providing rehabilitation services. The Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Notvik&apos;s characterization of the data. M&apos;s mother objects to the DES employee having divulged details of her conversation with him about her plans for M&apos;s future with a school employee. In any case, Section 13.791 classifies &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; data on its rehabilitation clients as private. Simply by identifying M, by name, as a recipient of rehabilitation services, the DES employee disseminated private data about M to the school employee. Whether or not that dissemination was authorized depends upon several factors.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Of relevance to this discussion, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4 and 9, a government entity may disseminate private data to another entity without the individual data subject&apos;s consent only if 1) there is authority in law to do so and 2) the data subject has been so notified at the time s/he was asked to supply the data to the government entity, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The notice requirement in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning. The statute does not require that the notice be written or signed by the data subject, only that the data subject be notified of the elements set forth in Section 13.04, subdivision 2. The fundamental purpose of the Tennessen Warning notice is to enable an individual to make an informed decision as to whether s/he wishes to provide the requested data to the government entity. In this case, as legal guardian of M, M&apos;s mother is the individual, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, federal law also requires a similar notice. The federal rules concerning the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, which DES administers, contain the specific requirements that state agencies must follow. (See the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Part 361.38.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The only exception would be if DES obtained the data from M&apos;s mother in a manner that did not require a Tennessen Warning, i.e., she was not asked to supply the data. However, even in that case, the provisions of the federal rule requiring notice still apply. Of relevance here, pursuant to 34 CFR 361.38 (a) (1) (iii) (D) and (E), M&apos;s mother should have been informed of those situations in which DES requires or does not require her informed written consent before information may be released; and the identification of other agencies to which information is routinely released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, absent M&apos;s mother&apos;s consent, DES was authorized to disseminate data to ISD #15 only if 1) it had specific legal authority to do so and 2) it properly communicated that to M&apos;s mother in a Tennessen Warning and/or federal notice.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Notvik asserts that because federal law requires state rehabilitation agencies to &lt;u&gt;cooperate&lt;/u&gt; with other public agencies in the provision of transition services such as those sought for M, the dissemination of data was authorized:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Any information imparted to the school&apos;s representative indicating that M. was seeking vocational rehabilitation services from [DES] should be viewed, under these circumstances, as an exchange of information as allowed by Min. Stat. 13.05, subd. 9, made necessary by the obligation that [DES] cooperate with the schools in providing transitional services required in federal regulations pertaining both to vocational rehabilitation services and to an individual&apos;s right to a Free Appropriate Public Education.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to 34 CFR 361.38 (b):
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     All personal information in the possession of the State agency or the designated State unit must be &lt;u&gt;used only for the purposes directly connected with the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program&lt;/u&gt;. Information containing identifiable personal information may not be shared with advisory or other bodies that do not have official responsibility for administration of the program. &lt;u&gt;In the administration of the program, the State unit may obtain personal information from service providers and cooperating agencies&lt;/u&gt; under assurances that the information may not be further divulged, except as provided under paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to 34 CFR 361.38 (e) (1), personal information may be released to &lt;u&gt;another agency or organization for its program purposes&lt;/u&gt; only with the informed written consent of the individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears, therefore, that DES was authorized under federal law to disseminate data about M to the school, without consent, only if it was necessary for the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program. The Commissioner cannot make that determination. If, indeed, federal law provides authority for DES to disseminate data to ISD #15 without M&apos;s mother&apos;s consent, then DES properly disseminated data to the school only if M&apos;s mother was so notified in proper Tennessen Warning and/or federal notices. Otherwise, DES needed M&apos;s mother&apos;s consent to discuss M with ISD #15.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by M&apos;s mother is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Economic Security did not inappropriately disseminate data about M to ISD #15 if federal law provides authority to do so without M&apos;s mother&apos;s consent, and M&apos;s mother was so notified in proper Tennessen Warning and/or federal notices. Otherwise, DES violated M&apos;s rights by inappropriately disseminating private data about M. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 23, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267658</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Rehabilitation data (13.791)</Title><Id>266779</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vocational rehabilitation data</Title><Id>266813</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-017</Title><title>Opinion 98 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267385&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Was an individual&apos;s right to gain access to public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated because the City of Eagan denied her access to the following data: appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 17, 1998; City of Eagan</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 20, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 17, 1998, from Bea Blomquist. In her letter, Ms. Blomquist requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data maintained by the City of Eagan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, for the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Hedges, Eagan City Administrator, in response to Ms. Blomquist&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 1998, were to inform him of Ms. Blomquist&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On March 4, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated March 2, 1998, from Michael Dougherty, one of the City Attorneys. Mr. Dougherty and James Sheldon, also referred to in this opinion, are both City Attorneys for Eagan and are employed by the same law firm.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated February 17, 1998, Ms. Blomquist requested access to appraisals that were prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725. In a letter dated February 17, 1998, the City Administrator responded that according to the City Attorney, the requested data are a work product of his office and are considered privileged and confidential. As part of his response, Mr. Hedges also gave Ms. Blomquist a copy of documents relating to a similar data request. These documents included a copy of the request, a response from Mr. Hedges, a memo (dated February 5, 1998), and letter (dated February 3, 1998) from Mr. Sheldon to Mr. Hedges, and a memo (dated January 22, 1998) entitled Pre-Project Appraisals/Requirement of Appraiser to Enter Property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Blomquist asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Was an individual&apos;s right to gain access to public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated because the City of Eagan denied her access to the following data: appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the comments Mr. Dougherty submitted to the Commissioner regarding Ms. Blomquist&apos;s opinion request, he argued that the appraisals are not accessible to her. His first argument was that the appraisals are not government data. He wrote, The appraiser does not provide the City with any report or independent information. He then argued that even if a determination could be made that the appraisals do fall within [Chapter 13], they are not public for the following reasons: they are work product stemming from the attorney/client privilege; they are proprietary; and they are civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Dougherty&apos;s assertion that the appraisals are not government data. Chapter 13 defines government data as data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 7.) In the present case, while it appears the appraisals were physically kept in the office of Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Sheldon, they collected and possessed the data acting as agents of the City. In his February 3, 1998, letter to Mr. Hedges, Mr. Sheldon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre-project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts. The appraiser prepares the appraisal for our office and we in turn share the results of the appraisal with the City. We advise the City of the amount that the City could sustain as a special assessment against the benefited property.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fact that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty, as City Attorneys, are employed by a private law firm that has offices separate from city property does not mean the data they collect and maintain are not government data. Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty were acting as the City&apos;s agent in obtaining and maintaining the appraisals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the Commissioner&apos;s determination that the appraisals are government data, the remaining consideration is their classification. Mr. Dougherty presented three arguments for classifying the appraisals as not public. One argument is that they are work product stemming from the attorney/client privilege. While Chapter 13 does provide that certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity&apos;s attorney are protected (see Section 13.30), the Commissioner has previously opined that Section 13.30 applies only to very limited situations. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267680&quot; title=&quot;95-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-045&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267837&quot; title=&quot;95-048&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-048&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another of Mr. Dougherty&apos;s arguments is that the appraisals are not public because they are proprietary information of the company preparing the appraisals. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Additionally, the appraisal is the work product of an individual or company that in and of itself has value. The assumptions and judgment of the appraiser are proprietary. The engagement of the appraiser is with the understanding that our firm would not be copying and distributing the appraisal, unless or until it was used in connection with the appraiser&apos;s testimony. To do otherwise, would allow someone to obtain a work of value without directly paying the individual who produced it (e.g. court stenographer).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, as Mr. Dougherty suggests, the appraisals are proprietary, the Commissioner is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public, once those data become government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third reason put forth by Mr. Dougherty is that the appraisals are not public because they are Section 13.39 data, civil investigative data. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 13.39 provide that when the chief attorney acting for an entity determines a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See Section 13.39, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Dougherty wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Our office retains the services of an appraiser in circumstances wherein we have determined that the levying of the assessments may result in judicial proceedings following Council action. To be clear, we do not obtain appraisals for all City projects which may be assessed....The appraisals that our office obtains are prepared for litigation purposes....Upon receipt of the appraisal, we provide the City with limited information from the appraisal, that is solely what could be produced through litigation discovery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his February 3, 1998, letter, Mr. Sheldon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre-project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts....To release the appraisals would put the City at a tactical disadvantage in any court proceeding which challenges the City&apos;s special assessments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in his February 5, 1998, memo, Mr. Sheldon wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[i]t seems that some controversy has arisen in regard to obtaining the written appraisals. In an effort to quell concerns, we no longer will ask the appraisers to produce written appraisals for our office unless and until such time as the levied special assessments are legitimately challenged in court. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is actually pending, the appraisal data are classified as not public. The problem is that it is not entirely clear whether Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have made this determination. If they have, Ms. Blomquist&apos;s rights have not been violated because the appraisals are not public and not accessible to members of the public. If Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have not determined that a civil legal action is pending, the data are public and Ms. Blomquist&apos;s rights have been violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An additional point is important. In previous opinions, the Commissioner has discussed the relationship between Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the official records act, and Chapter 13. Subdivision 1 of Section 15.17 requires public officers of this state to [m]ake and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. When Section 15.17 is melded together with Section 13.03 (access to public data), they impose an obligation on government entities to preserve records used to conduct public business so that those records will be available for public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, if the City were to proceed as if the appraisals are not government data or were to cease obtaining written appraisals, it is possible that the City will not have met its obligations pursuant to Section 15.17. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267508#/detail/appId/1/id/267464&quot; title=&quot;94-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-035&lt;/a&gt;.) It is also important to note that Section 13.30, attorney data, refers specifically to Section 15.17. In relevant part it provides, [n]or shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Blomquist is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.39, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is pending, the appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725 are not public while the investigation is active; the City did not violate the individual&apos;s right to gain access to the data.
&lt;p&gt;If, however, the City Attorneys have not made such a determination, the data are public and the individual&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 17, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267385</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Relationship to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266647</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:41Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-016</Title><title>Opinion 98 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267859&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>An employee of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was disciplined. The employee grieved the matter and it went to arbitration. Before the arbitrator rendered a decision, a settlement was reached in which the discipline was rescinded and related records were to be expunged. What is the classification of the Department&apos;s data (investigative files, expunged disciplinary letters, etc.) relating to this matter?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 1998; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 20, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated January 15, 1998, from Jeffrey Bradt, Director, Human Resource Management Development Division, Minnesota Department of Public Safety. In his letter, Mr. Bradt asked the Commissioner to write an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Department. Following telephone conversations with PIPA staff, the issues submitted by Mr. Bradt were combined into one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. DPS disciplined one of its employees. The employee grieved the matter and it went to arbitration. However, a settlement was reached before the conclusion of the arbitration. Mr. Bradt wrote, In the instant case, the employee was disciplined but the discipline was expunged from [his/her] record as a result of the settlement agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bradt asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;An employee of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was disciplined. The employee grieved the matter and it went to arbitration. Before the arbitrator rendered a decision, a settlement was reached in which the discipline was rescinded and related records were to be expunged. What is the classification of the Department&apos;s data (investigative files, expunged disciplinary letters, etc.) relating to this matter?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides that certain government data about current and former employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, the following data are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 (b), in part, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings. &lt;u&gt;In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings&lt;/u&gt;, or upon failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The classification of data relating to complaints or charges against an employee is dependent upon whether there has been a final disposition of any disciplinary action imposed upon the employee. If there was no final disposition, only limited data regarding the incident are public: whether a complaint or charge exists; and the status of any such complaint or charge. ( See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4).) If there was a final disposition, additional data become public. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation presented by Mr. Bradt, DPS began the process of disciplining an employee. The matter went to arbitration, but an agreement was reached and the disciplinary action was lifted before the proceedings concluded. Thus, there was no final disposition of a disciplinary action and only the following data are public: the name of the employee; the fact that a complaint or charge was made; and the status of the complaint or charge, i.e., the matter was resolved without disciplinary action. The specific data described by Mr. Bradt, investigative files, expunged disciplinary letters, etc., are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner notes, however, that terms of any agreement settling the dispute are public, if such terms exist. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (6).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Bradt is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, because a final disposition of a disciplinary action did not occur, only the existence of any complaints or charges (fact that complaints or charges exist), and the status of any complaints or charges (resolved without disciplinary action) are public. However, any terms of an agreement settling the dispute are also public, if such terms exist.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 3, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267859</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement</Title><Id>266555</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-015</Title><title>Opinion 98 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267761&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in two letters dated January 13, 1998?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 1998; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 29, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Gloria Blaine Olsen and Gregory S. Madsen, attorneys representing Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka.) In their letter, Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by ISD 276. Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen enclosed copies of related correspondence. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen enclosed two letters issued by the District to a teacher. The first letter states that it constitutes a disciplinary reprimand, formal notice of deficiency and notice of directives. According to Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen, the teacher has not filed a grievance, and the time within which to do so has expired.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The second letter is a disposition of complaints made against the teacher under the District&apos;s Offensive Behavior Policy. According to Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen, the teacher has neither challenged the written disposition nor filed a grievance, and the time within which to do so has expired.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of data contained in two letters dated January 13, 1998? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 276 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5), provides that the following data are public: the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                     For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, &lt;u&gt;a final disposition occurs&lt;/u&gt; at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or &lt;u&gt;upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement&lt;/u&gt;. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, the two letters contain data that may be either private or public, depending upon (1) whether the data provide the specific reasons for, and/or document the basis of, disciplinary action, and (2) whether the disciplinary action is final, within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first letter to the teacher clearly states that it constitutes a disciplinary reprimand. The teacher did not file a grievance within the time allowed under the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the disciplinary action is final, and the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action, as stated in the letter, are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The letter also contains certain directives, which are in essence, future actions the teacher must follow in order to avoid future disciplinary action. Those data are not data that document the basis, the specific reasons, or the final disposition of this disciplinary action. Therefore, the directives in the letter are private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second letter appears to be documentation required by the District&apos;s Offensive Behavior Policy. The letter informs the teacher of the disposition of the complaints, and states [a]dministrative action appropriate to respond to these conclusions will be taken to conclude the matter. You will be advised of School District action by way of separate correspondence. This letter contains, word-for-word, excerpts of data associated with the disciplinary action in the first letter. As such, the data in the second letter document the basis for the discipline, and are therefore public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Olsen and Mr. Madsen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, data in the two letters that provide the specific reasons for and document the basis and disposition of final disciplinary action taken against the teacher are public. The data in the first letter in the section labeled directives are private. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 3, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267761</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:40Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-014</Title><title>Opinion 98 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267727&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-04-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would it violate a data subject&apos;s rights for a county attorney to disseminate data obtained in juvenile court delinquency and petty offense proceedings to the law enforcement agency whose officer signed the delinquency petition or issued the ticket?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 1, 1998; Stearns County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 9, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Roger S. Van Heel, Stearns County Attorney. In his letter, Mr. Van Heel requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by the County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Van Heel, as County Attorney, he handles various juvenile matters in juvenile court, such as delinquency and petty offense matters. He receives requests from law enforcement agencies, whose officers signed the delinquency petitions or issued the tickets, for information about the juvenile court&apos;s disposition of the matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Van Heel asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would it violate a data subject&apos;s rights for a county attorney to disseminate data obtained in juvenile court delinquency and petty offense proceedings to the law enforcement agency whose officer signed the delinquency petition or issued the ticket? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161 classifies and regulates data about juveniles held by the court system. Pursuant to Section 260.161, subdivision 2, none of the records of the juvenile court shall be open to public inspection or their contents disclosed except under certain circumstances. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 4 and 9, government entities subject to Chapter 13 regulation, including county attorneys, may disseminate not public data if they have specific statutory authority to do so, or a data subject gives consent. There does not appear to be any authority in Section 260.161, subdivision 2, for a county attorney to disseminate the kind of juvenile court system data described by Mr. Van Heel to a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, a county attorney may not disseminate data obtained in juvenile court proceedings to the law enforcement agency whose officer initiated the matter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    NOTE: Realizing the potential impact this result may have on the criminal justice community, representatives of the Commissioner sought, in the 1998 Minnesota legislative session, to add language to appropriate legislation that, if enacted, would allow the dissemination of information contemplated by Mr. Van Heel. (See Senate File 2758, Section 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Van Heel is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161, subdivision 2, it would violate a data subject&apos;s rights for a county attorney to disseminate data obtained in juvenile court delinquency and petty offense proceedings to the law enforcement agency whose officer signed the delinquency petition or issued the ticket. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 1, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267727</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court records (See also: Judicial branch)</Title><Id>266571</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-013</Title><title>Opinion 98 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267498&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-03-20T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State: private keys from key pairs used by state and other government employees to digitally sign electronic messages?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 20, 1998; Minnesota Secretary of State</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 30, 1998, the Commissioner received a letter dated January 29, 1998, from Joan Growe, Secretary of State, State of Minnesota. In her letter, Secretary Growe requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Office of the Secretary of State.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In her letter, Secretary Growe wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 Digital signature technology is authorized in &lt;i&gt;Minnesota Statutes&lt;/i&gt; chapter 325K and is the technological equivalent of an ink signature on a piece of paper. When using digital signature technology, a state employee would possess a private key which is part of the key pair needed to confirm that state employee&apos;s identity. The control of the private key and the preservation of its confidentiality is critical to the success of digital signature technology.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The private key is generally used to sign an electronic message. The message is then sent via the Internet or some other means of telecommunication to the recipient who uses the sender&apos;s public key to verify the sender&apos;s identity and that the message has not been altered since it was signed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Verification occurs by checking a certification authority, licensed by the secretary, to find the public key which has been tied to the sender. The public and private keys are part of a key pair and each set is unique.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Without preserving the integrity of the private key, the entire methodology supporting digital signatures does not work.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Digital signatures are important to government in that they permit many transactions to occur over the Internet or other network in an electronic format. Delivery of documents is quicker and routine transactions such as purchase orders do not need to be committed to paper. Without the certainty that private keys in the hands of government employees are protected under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, there will be reluctance to use this technology.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her request for an opinion, Secretary Growe asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State: private keys from key pairs used by state and other government employees to digitally sign electronic messages? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The enabling legislation for digital signature technology is found at Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325K. The Office of the Secretary of State, in addition to other government entities, might possess private keys. Private keys are integral to securing the electronic transmittal of data; the pairing of a private key with its corresponding public key is used to verify the signature accompanying the data. The Commissioner agrees with Secretary Growe that unless government entities can preserve the integrity of the private keys, the methodology supporting digital signatures will not work.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Chapter 13 does not contain a provision specifically classifying private keys as not public data, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that private keys are security information and are protected under Section 13.37. Subdivision 1 (a) of Section 13.37 defines security information as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information about individuals as private and security information not about individuals as nonpublic.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Private keys are data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information . . . against theft, tampering, improper use . . . Therefore, they are classified as not public data, pursuant to Section 13.37.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Secretary Growe is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Private keys from key pairs maintained by the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State used by state and other government employees to digitally sign electronic messages are private data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 20, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267498</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Digital signature technology (private keys)</Title><Id>266448</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Digital signature technology</Title><Id>267033</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-012</Title><title>Opinion 98 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267408&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-03-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University provide a timely response, to a request for access to data dated November 25, 1997?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 20, 1998; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 12, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated same from Tom Lamphere. In his letter, Mr. Lamphere requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 27, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On February 3, 1998, PIPA received comments, dated February 2, 1998, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 25, 1997, Mr. Lamphere wrote to Ms. Smith of the University and requested access to certain data. He requested access to four separate items.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 20, 1997, Mr. Lamphere wrote again to Ms. Smith. He stated, Four weeks ago I sent you a request for public data . . . I haven&apos;t heard for [sic] you or UMD . . . Also in this letter, Mr. Lamphere discussed another request he had made dated November 26, 1997, which is not the subject of this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 23, 1997, William Donohue, Deputy General Counsel, wrote to Mr. Lamphere. He stated that Ms. Smith had been in trial for the previous two weeks and is anticipated to be in trial for the next two weeks. Mr. Donohue then discussed how Mr. Lamphere could gain access to the data he had requested in his November 26, 1997, letter (not the subject of this opinion). Mr. Donohue did not specifically address Mr. Lamphere&apos;s November 25, 1997, request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lamphere asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University provide a timely response, to a request for access to data dated November 25, 1997? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires that government entities respond to requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, requires that entities respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue here is whether the University responded in a timely manner to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s November 25, 1997, request. The fact that Mr. Lamphere also made a request for data on November 26 confuses the situation. Also confusing is Mr. Donohue&apos;s December 23 letter; although he discussed how Mr. Lamphere could gain access to the data requested on November 26, he did not specifically mention the November 25 request. Further, while Mr. Donohue stated that Ms. Smith has been in trial, it is not clear if Mr. Donohue was offering this as a reason for the University not responding to the November 25 request. Ms. Smith did not discuss her being in trial in the comments she submitted to the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first item of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request was for copies of all existing data and documentation pertaining to the North Star Fund for the years 1993 - 1996. In her response to the opinion request, Ms. Smith wrote, As for documents relating to the North Star Fund for the years 1993-1996, there is no fund by that name for those years. UMD is investigating whether there are responsive documents for another fund which Mr. Lamphere may be asking about.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Not until Ms. Smith submitted comments in relation to the opinion request did Mr. Lamphere learn that the data, as he requested them, do not exist. This is not a timely response; her comments were issued approximately two months after the request and furthermore, Ms. Smith was responding to the Commissioner, not Mr. Lamphere. If certain data requested by an individual do not exist, a prompt and simple response stating that fact will discharge an entity&apos;s duties under Section 13.03. If the University concluded that Mr. Lamphere did not know the correct name of the fund, it is not clear why the University did not ask him to clarify his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second item Mr. Lamphere requested was copies of all existing data and documentation pertaining to any fund that gave scholarships to UMD football players and / or UMD hockey players other than the Rasmussen Fund. In response, Ms. Smith wrote, As for documents relating to other funds, UMD is working on gathering responsive data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, the only communication from the University providing any clear response to the November 25 request was via Ms. Smith&apos;s comments to the Commissioner. In them, she did not explain why the University is still gathering the data. The University&apos;s response was not timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third item Mr. Lamphere requested was copies of all data and documentation showing the recurring funds to support the newly added women&apos;s hockey team. Ms. Smith argued that his request was vague and not susceptible to a response under the Data Practices Act. She asserted that rather than asking for identifiable documents or identifiable classes of documents, Mr. Lamphere asked the University to make a judgments [sic] about the meaning of documents to determine whether documents show[] recurring funds&apos; to support women&apos;s hockey. She further wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The University is investigating whether there are public documents that it can disclose relating to funding for women&apos;s hockey. In light of the fact that the University is involved in two federal lawsuits and is responding to an investigation by the Office of Civil Rights related to women&apos;s sports at UMD, there are attorney-client privileged documents under Minn. Stat. 13.30 as well as active civil investigative data under Minn. Stat. 13.39 that are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, the Commissioner agrees that Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request, as stated, is somewhat vague. However, Mr. Lamphere did make a request for access to data and if the University needed clarification, it should have asked Mr. Lamphere to resubmit his request. The University did not communicate this to Mr. Lamphere.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, although Ms. Smith argued that Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request was vague and not susceptible to a response, it appears the University may be attempting to respond and is considering whether some data are protected under Sections 13.30 and/or 13.39. Per Section 13.03, subdivision 3, if the University determined that the data are not public, the University should have so informed Mr. Lamphere orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon thereafter as possible. In addition, the University is supposed to cite the specific statutory section upon which it based its denial. The University did not provide this information to Mr. Lamphere; the response was not timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The final item Mr. Lamphere requested was copies of all data and documentation of the planning procedures and the thoughtful analysis of costs and benefits that went into the decision to add women&apos;s hockey. Ms. Smith wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Again, this request is vague and does not adequately identify the documents sought. This document asks the University to screen documents according to whether they reflect a thoughtful analysis of a given course of action. A records custodian gathering documents in response to a data practices request is not obligated to make those kind of judgments.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    She added that some data relating to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request may be classified as not public pursuant to Section 13.30 or Section 13.39.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Lamphere asked for copies of data relating to the decision to add women&apos;s hockey specifically, the procedures (if any), and the analysis of costs and benefits (if any). Although Ms. Smith objected to the term thoughtful analysis, it appears Mr. Lamphere chose those words because the Chancellor of UMD used them. In his opinion request he wrote, . . . [the UMD Chancellor, in a letter] said that if the University&apos;s financial situation should change dramatically for the better, the addition of programs will take place through the normal planning procedures so that a &lt;u&gt;thoughtful&lt;/u&gt; analysis of costs and benefits can occur. [Emphasis added.] Mr. Lamphere&apos;s use of thoughtful analysis did not materially change the content of his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, Chapter 13 requires the University to respond to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request promptly and within a reasonable time. Not until Ms. Smith submitted comments to the Commissioner did Mr. Lamphere become aware that some of the data may be not public or that his request was vague. This is not a timely response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lamphere is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the University of Minnesota did not respond in a timely manner to a government data request dated November 25, 1997. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 20, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267408</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sufficiency of request</Title><Id>266398</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-011</Title><title>Opinion 98 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267985&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-03-19T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has Benton County responded appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 1998; Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Robert B. Anderson. Mr. Anderson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Benton County and the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust (MCIT). MCIT is a joint powers organization, created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.59 and 471.981. Mr. Anderson enclosed copies of related correspondence. In subsequent communication with Mr. Anderson, PIPA informed him that two opinions would be issued in response to his request; one dealing with Benton County, the other with MCIT. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/268020&quot; title=&quot;98-010&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-010&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Rhyner, Director of MCIT. The purposes of this letter, dated February 3, 1998, were to inform Mr. Rhyner of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, and to ask him or MCIT&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On February 27, 1998, PIPA received a response from Scott T. Anderson, attorney for MCIT and Benton County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 27, 1997, Mr. R. Anderson wrote to MCIT requesting access to all pleadings and discovery materials, including all depositions, generated during a civil lawsuit involving the County, but not contained in the public court record. At the same time, he also requested those materials from Mr. S. Anderson. The lawsuit involved a former Benton County employee, and was settled in 1997. Mr. S. Anderson was hired by MCIT to represent the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. S. Anderson responded to Mr. R. Anderson&apos;s request, on behalf of MCIT. In his response, Mr. S. Anderson stated: . . . the materials you request are not, within the opinion of MCIT, public documents. The data in issue constitutes either personnel data which is private under Section 13.43 of the Government Data Practices Act, materials privileged according to the attorney-client privilege, and/or materials that are not public under Section 13.30 of the Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. S. Anderson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In regard to the documents maintained by Benton County in the file stemming from this claim, the fact that the claim is concluded does not determine the issue of whether the document [sic] constitute public data. Data can be classified as investigative data under 13.39 of the Data Practices Act and also be classified as private under other sections of the Data Practices Act or other laws. Minn. Stat. 13.39, subd. 3 states that those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law are not public. . . . . Section 13.03, subd. 4, makes it clear that you have to look at the classification of the data in the hands of the entity that disseminates the data to determine whether or not it is private, public, confidential, etc. Thus, and in that regard, the classification the documents in question have in the hands of Benton County would be the same for MCIT. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First and foremost, it is the position of the County that the documents in question constitute private personnel data on individuals. . . . . Specifically, the documents in question were collected because the plaintiff [was a County employee.] . . . . Only the information set forth under subd. 2 of 13.43 are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The materials in question are replete with information not within the parameters of Minn. Stat. 13.43, subd. 2. Examples are the medical records and reports regarding [the plaintiff], information in the Answers to Interrogatories, portions of the deposition of [the plaintiff], the psychological reports on [the plaintiff]. . . . These documents are thus within the definition of personnel data. Perhaps not so clearly within the realm of that definition are things such as the Notice of Taking Depositions, Interrogatory Requests, and the Pre-Trial Notice, schedules, and orders. The fact is, however, that these documents were collected and maintained by the County due to the employment relationship that existed between it and [the plaintiff.] Thus, unless made public under subd. 2 of 13.43, they constitute private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has Benton County responded appropriately to a request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in question were collected as part of Benton County&apos;s defense of a civil legal action, which was subsequently dismissed when the parties agreed to a settlement. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, subdivision 3, provides that, in general, inactive civil investigative data are public, except for those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law. Any civil investigative data presented as evidence in court or made part of a court record shall be public. However, according to Mr. R. Anderson, the discovery materials he sought were not made a part of the public court record. The Commissioner is proceeding with the assumption that Mr. R. Anderson is correct. If that is not the case, this opinion might contain a different result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, data on an individual that were collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity, such as Benton County, are personnel data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided, it appears that most of the data on individuals in question do not fall within the descriptions of public personnel data provided under subdivision 2 of Section 13.43. A possible exception would be if any of the data document the basis for any final disciplinary action taken against a County employee. However, that does not appear to be the case. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, most of the data in question appear to be private. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), the data maintained by MCIT about the former County employee are private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are, however, some documents described in the list provided by Mr. S. Anderson that appear to be data not on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) Entry Number 43 describes the documents as follows: Plaintiff&apos;s response to [Defendant] Request for Production of Documents. Includes documents turned over; the policies for Benton County, Benton County New Employee Handbook, Job Classification and Description, Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Policy, . . . . From that description, those documents are either data not on individuals, or do not appear to contain private personnel data. These data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. R. Anderson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust appropriately denied access to private personnel data. Any data that are not data on individuals appear to be classified as public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267985</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-010</Title><title>Opinion 98 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268020&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-03-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has Benton County responded appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 1998; Benton County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Robert B. Anderson. Mr. Anderson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Benton County and the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust (MCIT). Mr. Anderson enclosed copies of related correspondence. In subsequent communication with Mr. Anderson, PIPA informed him that two opinions would be issued in response to his request; one dealing with Benton County, the other with MCIT. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267985&quot; title=&quot;98-011&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 98-011&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Jesse, Benton County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated February 3, 1998, were to inform Mr. Jesse of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On February 27, 1998, PIPA received a response from Scott T. Anderson, attorney for Benton County and MCIT. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 27, 1997, Mr. R. Anderson wrote to Mr. Jesse and two other County officials, requesting access to all pleadings and discovery materials, including all depositions, generated during a civil lawsuit involving the County, but not contained in the public court record. At the same time, he also requested those materials from Mr. S. Anderson. The lawsuit involved a former County employee, and was settled in 1997. Mr. S. Anderson was hired by MCIT to represent the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. S. Anderson responded to Mr. R. Anderson&apos;s request, on behalf of Benton County. In his response, Mr. S. Anderson stated: . . . the materials you request are not, within the opinion of the County, public documents. The data in issue constitutes either personnel data which is private under Section 13.43 of the Government Data Practices Act, materials privileged according to the attorney-client privilege, and/or materials that are not public under Section 13.30 of the Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. S. Anderson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In regard to the documents maintained by Benton County in the file stemming from this claim, the fact that the claim is concluded does not determine the issue of whether the document [sic] constitute public data. Data can be classified as investigative data under 13.39 of the Data Practices Act and also be classified as private under other sections of the Data Practices Act or other laws. Minn. Stat. 13.39, subd. 3 states that those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law are not public. . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;First and foremost, it is the position of the County that the documents in question constitute private personnel data on individuals. . . . . Specifically, the documents in question were collected because the plaintiff [was a County employee.] . . . . Only the information set forth under subd. 2 of 13.43 are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The materials in question are replete with information not within the parameters of Minn. Stat. 13.43, subd. 2. Examples are the medical records and reports regarding [the plaintiff], information in the Answers to Interrogatories, portions of the deposition of [the plaintiff], the psychological reports on [the plaintiff]. . . . These documents are thus within the definition of personnel data. Perhaps not so clearly within the realm of that definition are things such as the Notice of Taking Depositions, Interrogatory Requests, and the Pre-Trial Notice, schedules, and orders. The fact is, however, that these documents were collected and maintained by the County due to the employment relationship that existed between it and [the plaintiff.] Thus, unless made public under subd. 2 of 13.43, they constitute private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, has Benton County responded appropriately to a request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in question were collected as part of the County&apos;s defense of a civil legal action, which was subsequently dismissed when the parties agreed to a settlement. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, subdivision 3, provides that, in general, inactive civil investigative data are public, except for those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law. Any civil investigative data presented as evidence in court or made part of a court record shall be public. However, according to Mr. R. Anderson, the discovery materials he sought were not made a part of the public court record. The Commissioner is proceeding with the assumption that Mr. R. Anderson is correct. If that is not the case, this opinion might contain a different result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, data on an individual that were collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity, such as Benton County, are personnel data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided, it appears that most of the data on individuals in question do not fall within the descriptions of public personnel data provided under subdivision 2 of Section 13.43. A possible exception would be if any of the data document the basis for any final disciplinary action taken against a County employee. However, that does not appear to be the case. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, most of the data in question appear to be private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are, however, some documents described in the list provided by Mr. S. Anderson that appear to be data not on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) Entry Number 43 describes the documents as follows: Plaintiff&apos;s response to [Defendant] Request for Production of Documents. Includes documents turned over; the policies for Benton County, Benton County New Employee Handbook, Job Classification and Description, Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Policy, . . . . From that description, those documents are either data not on individuals, or do not appear to contain private personnel data. These data are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anderson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, Benton County appropriately denied access to private personnel data. Any data that are not data on individuals appear to be classified as public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268020</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-009</Title><title>Opinion 98 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267163&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-03-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University provide a timely response, to a request for access to data dated October 6, 1997?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 3, 1998; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 22, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated January 16, 1998, from James Paddock. In his letter, Mr. Paddock requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 27, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Paddock&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On February 3, 1998, PIPA received a response dated February 2, 1998, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 6, 1997, Mr. Paddock requested access to all existing data pertaining to the following:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                1. The number of UMD Hockey players receiving athletic scholarships, financial aid, work study hours and housing stipends. Please include the years 1990 to 1997.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                2. All written correspondence between the NCAA and the UMD Athletic Director, pertaining to UMD Hockey violations. Please include any self reported violations to the NCAA pertaining to the Booster Clubs or the UMD Hockey team.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 19, 1997, Susan McKinney, Responsible Authority for the University, wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                I received your voice mail message today regarding the data requests made on October, [sic] 1997. Unfortunately, I misplaced the original requests, and did not get the requests to Duluth in order for them to gather the documents....I am so sorry for the delay. I have faxed the requests to Judith Karon, at the University of Minnesota, Duluth today. Ms. Karon will let you know when the information has been gathered.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Paddock wrote, I have called Susan McKinney on a weekly basis since December 19, 1997. I have not received any data from my request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Paddock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University provide a timely response, to a request for access to data dated October 6, 1997? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner must first address a comment made by Ms. Smith in her response to Mr. Paddock&apos;s opinion request. Ms. Smith stated that she did not have enough time to respond. She wrote, Given that short time frame, I have not had the chance to obtain documents from UMD and my response is therefore necessarily rather general. As Ms. Smith is aware, pursuant to Section 13.072, the Commissioner has authority to extend, by thirty days, the original twenty-day deadline within which opinions are to be issued. If Ms. Smith required more time to respond, the Commissioner would have granted her an extension.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, requires that entities respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the first of Mr. Paddock&apos;s October 6, 1997, requests, Ms. Smith argued that Mr. Paddock requested summary data as that term is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 19. Ms. Smith further stated that because the request was for summary data (see Section 13.05, subdivision 7), the University is permitted to charge Mr. Paddock for the cost of preparing the summary data. She wrote, The University is still exploring the amount of time it will take to compile the summary data as well as the cost of preparing that data. The University will inform Mr. Paddock of the anticipated cost of preparing the summary data as soon as we have that estimate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith is correct that pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, upon written request, a government entity must prepare summary data and the cost of such preparation shall be borne by the requesting party. However, if Mr. Paddock&apos;s request was for summary data as that term is defined in Chapter 13, the University is still obligated to respond within ten days. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0700.) Thus, the University&apos;s response was not timely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second of Mr. Paddock&apos;s October 6, 1997, data requests was for public data. As stated above, pursuant to Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the University is required to respond within a reasonable time. Mr. Paddock&apos;s request was dated October 6, 1997. He stated that he called Ms. McKinney on October 20, 1997, and she said she would call Judith Karon at UMD and ask her about [Mr. Paddock&apos;s] request. However, approximately eight weeks later, in a letter dated December 19, 1997, Ms. McKinney apologized and stated that she had misplaced his original requests and that she had faxed the requests to [Ms. Karon] today. Approximately four weeks later, in a letter dated January 16, 1998, Mr. Paddock requested this opinion and Ms. Smith, in her response, stated, The University is still investigating whether there are any public documents in response to this request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Approximately four months time passed between Mr. Paddock&apos;s request and the time Ms. Smith responded to the Commissioner regarding Mr. Paddock&apos;s opinion request. As of the date of her letter, February 2, 1998, the University had neither provided Mr. Paddock with the data nor advised him that the data are not public and, therefore, not accessible to him. The University did not respond in a timely manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Paddock is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the University of Minnesota did not provide a timely response to an October 6, 1997, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 3, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267163</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:38Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-008</Title><title>Opinion 98 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267542&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-02-25T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University fully comply with the requests and were the responses timely, to requests for access to data dated June 10, 1997, and July 23, 1997?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 25, 1998; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 30, 1997, PIPA received a letter from J. J requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her/his rights as a subject of government data maintained by the University of Minnesota. J enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to J&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel of the University. The purposes of this letter, dated January 9, 1998, were to inform Ms. Smith of J&apos;s request, and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On January 16, 1998, PIPA received a response from Ms. Smith. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J is an employee of the University. In a letter dated June 10, 1997, to Susan McKinney, the University&apos;s responsible authority, J requested any and all complaints against me. J wrote: [p]lease review all records for any and all complaints filed with any executive or administrator, with the EEO office, with Mr. Rottenberg&apos;s [sic] General Counsel Office, or with the University Police Department. Your review of all files should include my past and current supervisors [nine individuals named]. Other administrators should include [three individuals named].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 3, 1997, Ms. McKinney responded to J&apos;s request: I have enclosed copies of all complaints against you that have resulted in actions. The University has not produced data that is private data on individuals under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Ms. McKinney enclosed several documents relating to complaints about J with some data, apparently names of complainants, redacted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 23, 1997, J wrote again to Ms. McKinney. It appears in that letter that J is asserting that Ms. McKinney did not fully respond to J&apos;s June 10 data request, and that J is requesting additional data. J states that s/he is proceeding with a grievance in connection with a suspension, and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2(4)(5), and 8, requested the names of all individuals and copies of their complaints which were used as a basis for the discipline. J also requested the complete data documenting the basis of the action and data from a police report that was filed June 10, 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 20, 1997, Ms. McKinney wrote to J: [t]ypically, AFSCME requests for information regarding grievances are made to the department where the grievance exists. Please send your request for information to that department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith stated that the University responded appropriately to both of J&apos;s written requests. Ms. Smith wrote that Ms. McKinney provided J with copies of all complaints or charges against J, even though Ms. McKinney&apos;s July 3 letter to J refers to all complaints against you &lt;u&gt;that have resulted in actions&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Ms. Smith stated that the names of the individuals who made complaints against J were redacted because they are private data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, J asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University fully comply with the requests and were the responses timely, to requests for access to data dated June 10, 1997, and July 23, 1997?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the issue of whether the University&apos;s responses to J were timely, according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a government entity must respond to a request for access to data by the individual subject of the data within five working days. If the government entity needs more time to provide the data, it may take up to an additional five working days, upon notice to the requestor. The University responded 17 working days after the date of J&apos;s request. Given that J&apos;s letter is dated June 10, 1997, and the University&apos;s response is dated July 3, 1997, it appears unlikely that the University met the statutory requirement for a timely response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to J&apos;s July 23 request, in which s/he asked for all data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action, including the names of complainants, the University responded in a letter dated August 20, 1997, twenty working days later, by directing J elsewhere for access to the data. Again, it appears that the University did not meet its statutory obligation to respond to J within five working days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the substance of the University&apos;s responses to J&apos;s requests, in the letter dated June 10, 1997, J requested access to any and all complaints against me. Ms. McKinney responded by providing copies of all complaints against you that have resulted in actions. The University has not produced data that is private data on individuals under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. That response is insufficient in several respects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. McKinney responded to J by saying that she had enclosed copies of all complaints that resulted in actions. In her comments on J&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Smith states that in fact, J was provided with copies of all complaints. However, there was no way for J to know s/he had received everything, given the wording of Ms. McKinney&apos;s letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Ms. McKinney told J that some of the data related to the complaints were private, and therefore not available to J. Ms. McKinney did not specify the data to which she was denying access, i.e., the names of complainants, and she did not cite the statutory basis for her denial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data about government employees are classified according to Section 13.43, which provides that certain specific personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private. The data in the complaints about J are private data, unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action against J, at which point some of the data become public. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5).) Data subjects have the right to gain access to private data about themselves, but not to gain access to private data about someone else without that individual&apos;s consent. In the situation at hand, some of J&apos;s fellow University employees made complaints involving allegations of harassment against J, which resulted in J&apos;s suspension. The problem in a situation like this has to do with the specific content of the complaint data. When one employee complains about another employee, the associated data may be about both employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When an employee wants to know who complained about her/him, especially when the complainant is another employee, the process ought to be fairly simple. The supervisor, in order to handle the situation, decides in a particular circumstance whether the complained-about employee needs that information. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.) A supervisor may decide not to identify the complainant, particularly in a situation in which the complainant asks not to be identified. In those cases, it is reasonable to treat the data on the complainant as private under Section 13.43. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-002&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267687&quot; title=&quot;97-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-018&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267685&quot; title=&quot;97-030&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-030&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in one specific situation, the Legislature provided additional safeguards because of the nature of the complaint being made. In cases of allegations of sexual or other kinds of harassment, Section 13.43, subdivision 8, governs access to data on the complainant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 8, provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. subject the complainant or witness to harassment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a disciplinary proceedingis initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner opined in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267647&quot; title=&quot;94-018&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-018&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Section 13.43, subdivision 8 amendment was not intended to be new and independent authority for the dissemination of identifying data on complainants and witnesses to public employees in situations involving allegations of sexual or other kinds of harassment. It was intended to deal only with those situations where a responsible authority determines, based on safety or further harassment concerns, that an employee is not entitled to gain access to identifying data about complainants or witnesses. It was also intended, in those situations where a responsible authority determines to withhold access to witness and complainant identifying data, to give the employee the means to gain access to the data if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated and the employee needs the identifying data to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In the particular situation of attempts by Ms. Clark&apos;s client to gain access to data involving the accusations against him, there does not appear to have been a determination by the responsible authority for District 272 that the employee&apos;s access to data about the student complainants would threaten the safety of those complainants or subject them to further harassment. Without that determination by the responsible authority for District 272, the discussion about access by the employee to data about complainants is not a discussion that is guided by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. It is a discussion based on the whether the employee is entitled to access to this data under the District&apos;s collective bargaining agreements with its employees or as may be required to protect the due process interests of the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not know whether Ms. McKinney, as responsible authority for the University, made the determination required under Section 13.43, subdivision 8, to withhold the identities of the complainants from J. If Ms. McKinney made that determination, then J shall have access to the complainants&apos; names &lt;u&gt;as may be necessary to prepare for the disciplinary proceeding&lt;/u&gt;. Whether or not J &lt;u&gt;should&lt;/u&gt; get access to the names is not an issue in front of the Commissioner. Apparently, at the University, determinations about whether or not employees are entitled to gain access to complainants&apos; names, when the underlying allegations against the employee are some kind of harassment, are made within the framework of the collective bargaining agreement. If this is that kind of instance, Ms. McKinney properly directed J to seek access to the data through the grievance process. In fact, even if Ms. McKinney did not make the Section 13.43, subdivision 8, determination, J may still be able to gain access to the names of the complainants through the grievance process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by J is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Regarding the letter dated June 10, 1997: pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the University may not have responded in a timely manner. In addition, it was not clear, from the University&apos;s response, whether J received all of the data requested.
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the letter dated August 20, 1997: pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the University appropriately directed J to seek access to the data through the collective bargaining grievance process, but may not have responded in a timely manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 25, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267542</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-007 </Title><title>Opinion 98 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267818&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-02-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 (subdivision 2), 13.05, 13.43, and 13.49, have the rights of the data subjects been violated because the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission did not provide a Tennessen Warning notice upon collection of the data subjects&apos; social security numbers and because the social security numbers have been disseminated without the data subjects&apos; permission?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 13, 1998; City of Grand Rapids</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 10, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated November 3, 1997, from Mitchell Brunfelt, an attorney representing AFSCME Council 65, which represents employees of the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In his letter, Mr. Brunfelt requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding possible violations of his clients&apos; rights per Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Mattson, Administrator of the City of Grand Rapids, in response to Mr. Brunfelt&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 12, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Brunfelt&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On November 21, 1997, PIPA received a faxed response, dated same, from Steven Fecker, an attorney representing Grand Rapids.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also on November 21, 1997, PIPA received a fax, dated same, from Mr. Brunfelt. In this letter, Mr. Brunfelt stated that he wished to supplement his original request, and he provided some additional documentation. In the interest of fairness, the Commissioner supplied Mr. Fecker with copies of the additional documents and offered him an opportunity to respond. He did so in a letter dated December 10, 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Brunfelt is as follows. He wrote that the PUC&apos;s recent adoption of a drug/alcohol testing policy has created some problems; specifically the PUC&apos;s use of employees&apos; social security numbers as identifiers. The PUC contracted with a private company, the Minnesota Municipal Utility Association (MMUA) to conduct the tests. Mr. Brunfelt stated, First, the individual employees whose Social Security numbers are being used never authorized the use of their Social Security numbers for that purpose, nor did the Grand Rapids PUC ever request authorization from the individual employees to use their Social Security numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He added:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Second, when the employees were told by the PUC that their Social Security numbers were going to be used by and released to the private company responsible for administering the drug and alcohol testing policy, the employees were not given the Tennessen Warning which is required by [Chapter 13] before information of this type can be used for any purpose. Further, the PUC did not provide the employees with the notice required by federal law before it collected the Social Security numbers for purposes of administering the drug and alcohol testing policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Brunfelt asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 (subdivision 2), 13.05, 13.43, and 13.49, have the rights of the data subjects been violated because the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission did not provide a Tennessen Warning notice upon collection of the data subjects&apos; social security numbers and because the social security numbers have been disseminated without the data subjects&apos; permission?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A government entity&apos;s collection, use, and dissemination of an individual&apos;s Social Security number is subject to requirements of both state and federal law. In general, federal law provides the following: 1) no federal, state, or local government entity can lawfully deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law if that individual refuses to disclose her/his social security number, unless the collection is for the administration of any tax, general public assistance, drivers&apos; license or motor vehicle registration, or is otherwise authorized by federal law; and 2) when asked to provide her/his Social Security number, the individual must be informed of the uses to which the number will be put, and whether the disclosure is voluntary or mandatory. (See Public Law 93-579, Section 7, and 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(For a more detailed discussion of federal and state requirements surrounding the collection of Social Security numbers, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267554#/detail/appId/1/id/267344&quot; title=&quot;95-007&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-007&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to state law, Social Security numbers are private data (see Sections 13.43 and 13.49). Therefore, as required by Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked to supply his/her Social Security number, the collecting entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Intertwined with the Tennessen Warning notice is the requirement that the use and dissemination of private and confidential data shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 3.) In other words, as the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, not only must the Tennessen Warning describe which outside entities may be receiving the data, any such disseminations must be necessary for the administration and management of a particular program authorized by federal, state, or local law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, after the initial collection of private or confidential data, another dissemination of the data is authorized, the entity cannot lawfully disclose those data unless the data subject has given a written informed consent to release the data or unless other provisions of Section 13.05, subdivision 4 apply. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1400 for further information about informed consents.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. Brunfelt alleged that Social Security numbers were disseminated to the MMUA and Mr. Fecker affirmed this in his response. He wrote, I am now advised that in August, 1995, the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission did furnish employee&apos;s [sic] social security numbers to the [MMUA] at the time that the GRPUC enrolled in the drug testing consortium administered by MMUA. Employees were not advised at that time that the social security numbers had been provided to MMUA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Fecker, the City did disseminate Social Security numbers of its employees to MMUA. For these disclosures to have been permissible, either of two conditions must have been met: 1) the City had authority to disclose the data and so notified its employees in a Tennessen Warning; or 2) the City obtained informed consents from the employees to release the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is a dispute regarding whether the City gave Tennessen Warnings upon collection of the employees&apos; Social Security numbers. Mr. Brunfelt alleged that Tennessen Warnings were not provided. Mr. Fecker asserted that some Social Security numbers were collected prior to August 1, 1975 (effective date of refinements made to the Tennessen Warning requirement), that new employees are given a Tennessen Warning, and that the numbers of many employees were collected before the advent of federally-mandated drug and alcohol testing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Language in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, provides for situations in which private or confidential data were collected prior to enactment of Chapter 13. It states that the data shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of the collection except in certain situations. One of those situations is provided for in clause (a) of Section 13.04, subdivision 4, which states that data collected prior August 1, 1975, that have been treated as not public may be used, stored, and disseminated for the purposes for which the data [were] originally collected. Thus, in the case of Social Security numbers collected prior to 1975, because they were not collected as identifiers for a drug/alcohol testing program, the City should not have released the numbers for that purpose without the data subjects having consented to the releases.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fecker also seemed to suggest that some of the Social Security numbers were collected between 1975 and 1995, after the date referenced in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, but prior to when the drug/alcohol testing began. Section 13.05, subdivision 4, also provides for situations in which a new use for the data arises after the data were originally collected. Clause (b) of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, states that private data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies specifically authorized access to those data by state, local, or federal law enacted or promulgated after the collection of the data. However, in the case at hand, there is no law specifically authorizing the dissemination of Social Security numbers to the MMUA. Therefore, the Grand Rapids PUC should have gained informed consents before disseminating Social Security numbers collected between 1975 and 1995 to the MMUA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In cases where Social Security numbers have been collected since 1995, a dissemination of those numbers to the MMUA is lawful only if state or federal law authorizes the MMUA to receive the data, and the Tennessen Warning so notified the individual. If the MMUA is not authorized to receive the data, the City must obtain informed consents prior to releasing the data. The Commissioner is unaware of any statute that authorizes the release of Social Security numbers to drug/alcohol testing companies or organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, it appears that even if the City gave Tennessen Warning notices to the employees when their Social Security numbers were collected, those Tennessen Warnings could not have described uses or disseminations of Social Security numbers as identifiers for drug/alcohol testing programs because such uses or disseminations are not authorized by state or federal law. Therefore, before releasing any numbers, the Grand Rapids PUC should have obtained explicit informed consents to release from the employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the issue of whether consents were obtained, Mr. Fecker wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[G]RPUC has supplied social security numbers only for those employees who were advised that social security numbers were used and &lt;u&gt;who consented by not requesting that an alternative number by used&lt;/u&gt;. If a non-consenting employee&apos;s social security number has been used in the last several months, it was an isolated, inadvertent administrative or clerical error on the part of GRPUC. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1400, a valid informed consent is one in which the data subject proactively states in writing that s/he consents that the specified data will be released to the specified entity. Neither documentation submitted nor comments made by Mr. Fecker suggest that the City obtained written informed consents. A consent that is inferred from an employee&apos;s act of not requesting the use of an alternative identifier does not meet the requirements of Section 13.05 or Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1400.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Brunfelt is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 (subdivision 2), 13.05, 13.43, and 13.49, the rights of the data subjects were violated when the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission disseminated the data subjects&apos; Social Security numbers without first obtaining informed consents.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 13, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267818</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data necessary for administration and management of programs (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266359</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen distinction</Title><Id>266360</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug test data</Title><Id>266361</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:01:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-006</Title><title>Opinion 98 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267330&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-02-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University fully comply with the requests and were the responses timely, to requests for access to data dated June 26, 1997, and August 4, 1997?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> February 9, 1998; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 4, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated December 2, 1997, from Eldora Runningen, an advocate working on behalf of O. In her letter, Ms. Runningen requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding O&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota. After subsequent discussions between PIPA staff and Ms. Runningen, one issue was agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, in response to Ms. Runningen&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 19, 1997, were to inform her of Ms. Runningen&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On January 12, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated January 8, 1997, from Barbara Shiels, Associate General Counsel for the University.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. O is an employee of the University who apparently was disciplined. O is apparently seeking access to information regarding the discipline. In a letter dated June 26, 1997, Ms. Runningen, on behalf of O, wrote to the University&apos;s Responsible Authority and requested access to the names of the complainant [sic] of three letters. Ms. Runningen also wrote, Please provide the three letters in their entirety...
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 16, 1997, the University responded by denying access to those data, citing Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 4, 1997, Ms. Runningen wrote again to the University, expressing her disappointment with the University&apos;s determination. She again asked the University to provide the three letters in their entirety and also that the University specify the particular subdivision of 13.43 that the refusal falls under.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Runningen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the University of Minnesota respond properly, i.e., did the University fully comply with the requests and were the responses timely, to requests for access to data dated June 26, 1997, and August 4, 1997? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      At a previous time, O obtained copies of the three complaint documents which are the subject of this opinion. When O received copies of those documents, some of the data had been redacted by the University. O then requested access to the names of the complainant [sic] and also asked for the letters in their entirety. As part of her opinion request, Ms. Runningen submitted copies of the three letters (as redacted) to the Commissioner.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding Ms. Runningen&apos;s June 26, 1997, letter, Ms. Shiels wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      [In a letter dated July 16, 1997, the University denied] access to the requested information on the ground that the identity of the complainants was private data under Minnesota Statutes 13.43....It is apparent from reviewing the complaints at issue...that they were raised by employees at the University...The substance of the complaints is data about [O], and accordingly, it was provided to [O] by the University...However, the identity of the complainants was data about the complainants themselves.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Shiels asserted that pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the identity of a University employee who makes a complaint is private data about the complainant.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Shiels also stated that because the data request was made pursuant to Section 13.03, not 13.04, the University responded within the statutory guidelines by providing the data in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Upon an examination of the complaint letters, it appears that the only data redacted from the letters are data that would identify other University employees. As evident from both the original response from the University and the comments submitted by Ms. Shiels, the University has made a determination that a release of those data would be a release of private data about other University employees. The University has correctly classified the data as private under Section 13.43, subdivision 2, as they were collected, in part, because the complainants are employees of the University.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In responding to the issue of a timely response to Ms. Runningen&apos;s request, Ms. Shiels asserted that the University abided by the statutory guidelines. She wrote that because the request was made pursuant to Section 13.03 (request for public data), not Section 13.04 (request for data by a data subject), the University had more time to respond; the response time for Section 13.03 requests is to be prompt and within a reasonable time and for Section 13.04 requests is to be within ten working days. Ms. Shiels argued that the University&apos;s three week response time falls within the time frame set forth in Section 13.03.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In her initial request for data, Ms. Runningen wrote, As an advocate for [O], I am seeking information under [Chapter 13]. [O&apos;s] signature is provided authorizing my access to this information. In addition, the final sentence of the letter states, I hereby authorize Eldora Runningen, as my advocate, to have access to private data about me held by the University. These statements strongly suggest that Ms. Runningen made her request presuming the data, including names of complainants, were data about her client (O). Thus, assuming the request was made per Section 13.04, the University had ten working days to respond and was required, before expiration of the first five days, to notify Ms. Runningen that the full ten days would be necessary.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Given that Ms. Runningen&apos;s letter is dated June 26, 1997, and the University&apos;s response is dated July 16, 1997, it appears unlikely that the University met the statutory requirement for a timely response. However, because the Commissioner does not know when the University received the request, she cannot be absolutely sure.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Regarding Ms. Runningen&apos;s August 4, 1997, letter, Ms. Shiels wrote:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                      There is no requirement in the Data Practices Act to respond to a letter expressing disappointment with an earlier response. Furthermore, the University satisfied its obligation under the Act by citing in its July 16 letter the section of the statute on which it based its response. The Act requires the responsible authority to cite a specific statutory section , when denying access to data....The act does not require a cite to a specific subdivision of the specific statutory section. Since the University satisfied its obligations under the Act in its July 16 letter, it had no further obligation to respond to Ms. Runningen&apos;s letter of August 4, 1997.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Shiels analysis. The University had already responded to Ms. Runningen&apos;s request for copies of the three letters. Further, there is no requirement in Section 13.04 that the University respond to a request for the particular subdivision under which a denial of access was made. Although it may have helped to resolve the dispute in an expedient manner, the University was under no legal obligation to respond.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Runningen is as follows:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Regarding the letter dated June 26, 1997: pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the University fully complied with the request but may not have responded in a timely manner, depending on the date the University received the letter.
                              &lt;p /&gt;
                               Regarding the letter dated August 4, 1997: pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the University was not required to respond. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 9, 1998
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267330</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-005</Title><title>Opinion 98 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267961&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-02-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Commerce respond appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 3, 1998; Minnesota Department of Commerce</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 11, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Michael J. Ravnitzky. In his letter, Mr. Ravnitzky requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Mr. Ravnitzky enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Gruenes, Commissioner of Commerce. The purposes of this letter, dated December 19, 1997, were to inform Commissioner Gruenes of Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request, and to ask him or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On December 29, 1997, PIPA received a response from Commissioner Gruenes. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 2, 1997, Mr. Ravnitzky wrote to Commissioner Gruenes, requesting access to inspect certain data maintained by Commerce regarding any proposed national tobacco settlement(s), the impending lawsuit by the State of Minnesota against the tobacco companies, or closely related matters. . . . On December 9, 1997, Mr. Ravnitzky received a response from Pamela J. Eftikides, an investigator in the Enforcement Division of Commerce. In that letter, Ms. Eftikides stated: . . .your inquiry is being referred to the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General for a reply, since we have no authority over this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Commissioner Gruenes said that Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request had inadvertently been sent to the Enforcement Division, where it was forwarded to the Attorney General&apos;s Office by mistake. The Attorney General&apos;s Office recognized the error, and on December 10, 1997, re-referred the request to Commerce. Commerce contacted Mr. Ravnitzky to clarify his request, as it appeared that part of his request was misplaced. One week after clarifying his request, Commerce made the data available for Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s inspection.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ravnitzky asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Commerce respond appropriately to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commerce at no time indicated that the data Mr. Ravnitzky requested are not public, and that he is not entitled to inspect them. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data appropriately and promptly. Commerce was forthright in admitting it had made a mistake in its initial response to Mr. Ravnitzky, which it quickly rectified. Mr. Ravnitzky inspected the data one week after Commerce clarified his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ravnitzky is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Commerce erred in its initial response to Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request for access to data. Commerce acknowledged its error and promptly made the data available for Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s inspection. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: February 3, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267961</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-004</Title><title>Opinion 98 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267602&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-01-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in the Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet?
If a Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet contains private data, can the District release the private data to staff, students, and/or parents or guardians?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 30, 1998; School District 2862 (Jackson County Central)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 11, 1997, PIPA received a letter from John M. Roszak and Amy E. Mace, attorneys representing Independent School District #2862, Jackson County Central. In their letter, Mr. Roszak and Ms. Mace requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by ISD #2862. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                ISD #2862 received a Level II Sex Offender Notification pursuant to the Community Notification Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052. According to Section 244.052, subdivision 4, law enforcement agencies are authorized to release information about a Level II offender (see Section 244.052, subdivision 3 (e)) to agencies and groups the offender is likely to encounter, including staff members of public and private schools. According to Mr. Roszak and Ms. Mace, a notification fact sheet may include data on the offender that are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Roszak and Ms. Mace wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;While the statute specifically lists those individuals and agencies that the police department clearly can release information to, the statute is silent as to whether or not a school district should or may release the information to staff, students, or parents. Further, the statute does not declare whether the information contained in the offender fact sheet is private or public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13], or whether the offender fact sheet data continues to carry its [Chapter 13] status from other sections into [Section] 244.052.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rozak and Ms. Mace asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, what is the classification of the data contained in the Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If a Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet contains private data, can the District release the private data to staff, students, and/or parents or guardians?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Mr. Roszak and Ms. Mace have asked how the data in the sex offender fact sheet are classified, and, if the data are not public, to whom ISD #2862 may disseminate those data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052, subdivision 3, end-of-confinement review committees shall assess on a case-by-case basis the public risk posed by sex offenders who are about to be released from confinement. According to Section 244.052, subdivision 3 (f), before the offender is released from confinement or accepted for supervision, the committee shall prepare and forward, to the law enforcement agency having primary jurisdiction over the location where the offender expects to reside upon release, a risk assessment report that specifies the risk level to which the offender has been assigned and the reasons underlying the committee&apos;s risk assessment decision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The committee shall have access to certain private and/or confidential data on a sex offender, classified according to Sections 13.42, 13.46, 13.84, 13.85, 13.87 and 144.335, for the purposes of its assessment. Pursuant to Section 244.052, subdivision 3 (c), data collected and maintained by the committee may not be disclosed outside the committee, except as provided under Section 13.05, subdivision 3 or 4. Therefore, the data in the committee reports are classified as not public data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), data disseminated to a government entity by another government entity have the same classification in the hands of the entity receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. Accordingly, the data in the sex offender fact sheet, which were derived from the committee report and disseminated by the local law enforcement agency to ISD #2862, are classified as not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 244.052, subdivision 4 (a):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The law enforcement agency in the area where the sex offender resides, expects to reside, is employed, or is regularly found, shall disclose to the public any information regarding the offender &lt;u&gt;contained in the report&lt;/u&gt;forwarded to the agency under subdivision 3, paragraph (f), if the agency determines that disclosure of the information is relevant and necessary to protect the public and to counteract the offender&apos;s dangerousness. The extent of the information disclosed and the community to whom disclosure is made must relate to the level of danger posed by the offender, to the offender&apos;s pattern of offending behavior, and to the need of community members for information to enhance their individual and collective safety. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In relevant part, Section 244.052, subdivision 4 (b) (2) provides: if the offender is assigned to risk level II, the agency &lt;u&gt;also&lt;/u&gt;may disclose the information to agencies and groups that the offender is likely to encounter &lt;u&gt;for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution&lt;/u&gt;. These agencies and groups include the staff members of public and private educational institutions . . . . (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to Section 13.05, subdivision 3, [c]ollection and storage of all data on individuals and the use and dissemination of private and confidential data on individuals shall be limited to that necessary for the &lt;u&gt;administration and management of programs specifically authorized&lt;/u&gt;by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. (Emphasis added.) Further, Section 13.05, subdivision 9, provides: a responsible authority shall allow another responsible authority access to data classified as not public only when the access is authorized or required by statute or federal law. For purposes of Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 9, ISD #2862 may rely on the authority provided by Section 244.052, subdivision 4 (b) (2), to disseminate the private data contained in the sex offender fact sheet.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, ISD #2862, as recipient of the data, may disseminate all or parts of the data in the sex offender fact sheet to anyone, including staff, students, parents or guardians, as necessary for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution. The Legislature did not make the data in the fact sheet public under Section 244.052; it authorized dissemination of data for certain limited purposes. The key point here is whether a dissemination of data will help secure or protect an institution or individual under its care from unlawful acts by a sex offender. If a responsible authority reasonably determines that it will, the dissemination is authorized. If a responsible authority does not make that determination, the data may not be disseminated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is important to note that because members of the public are not subject to Chapter 13 regulations, they are not obligated to protect data classified as not public in a sex offender fact sheet that are made available to them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rozak and Ms. Mace is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 244.052, and 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), the data contained in the Level II Sex Offender notification fact sheet disseminated to Independent School District #2862 are classified as not public data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 9, and Section 244.052, ISD #2862 may release any data contained in the notification to anyone, including staff, students, parents and guardians, if the release is for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 30, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267602</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Sex offender</Title><Id>266818</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sex offender</Title><Id>266818</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:36Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-003</Title><title>Opinion 98 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267370&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-01-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, were M&apos;s rights violated when the Minnesota Department of Public Safety collected private data about M and 1) did not provide him/her with a complete &quot;Tennessen Warning&quot; notice and 2) disseminated those data in contrast to what was described in the limited notice?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 1998; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 13, 1997, PIPA received a letter from M. In the letter, M requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of M&apos;s rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Davis, Commissioner of DPS, in response to M&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 24, 1997, were to inform him of M&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On December 12, 1997, PIPA received a response dated same from Commissioner Davis.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. M is an employee of DPS. On or about April 1, 1997, M filled out an application for promotion to State Patrol Lieutenant. On the application form was a section entitled Equal Employment Opportunity Information. This section included a Tennessen Warning-like notice, and asked applicants to provide information related to gender, the racial/ethnic group with which the applicant identified, and disability status. After providing the information requested by this section (which was labeled voluntary and private), M was accused of filing a false application, and received a notice of Intent to Discipline. M was eventually exonerated and DPS took no disciplinary action against M. The charges stemmed from the fact that in the category of with which racial/ethnic group do you identify? M indicated Native American or Alaskan Native.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In M&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, were M&apos;s rights violated when the Minnesota Department of Public Safety collected private data about M and 1) did not provide him/her with a complete Tennessen Warning notice and 2) disseminated those data in contrast to what was described in the limited notice? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, the application form requests data about an individual from that individual. Specifically, the explanation regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Information section, in relevant part, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The information requested below will be used to evaluate our efforts to reach all segments of the population and in reviewing our selection and placement efforts. The information is VOLUNTARY and PRIVATE. It is detached and retained separately from your work history. It is not referred to hiring managers or supervisors....We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to ensure Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity. Any false statement may be punishable by law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In M&apos;s opinion request, M wrote, [DPS Director of Personnel] stated, that because I had claimed to be Caucasian in the past, &lt;strong&gt; he may have to turn this information over to Internal Affairs Div.. He claimed I was filing a false application&lt;/strong&gt;.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     M further wrote, I read to [DPS Director of Personnel] directly from the application, that the information about my [Racial/Ethnic] group is private and voluntary. &lt;strong&gt; The information should not be given to hiring managers and supervisors&lt;/strong&gt;.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Commissioner Davis argued that the application did include a Tennessen Warning notice. He wrote, While the notice indicated that the information would not be referred to hiring managers or supervisors,&apos; the notice did not promise to withhold the fact that M provided false information from supervisors. The Tennessen Warning was complete and provided M with clear and unequivocal notice that a false statement may be punishable by law.&apos;
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Davis also argued there is no showing that M&apos;s racial/ethnic selection was provided to anyone with hiring authority. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The fact that M may have provided false information on his/her application may have been provided to some DPS personnel who had supervisory responsibility over M. M&apos;s actual selection of Native American,&apos; however, was not provided to decision makers....This private data was not used in the hiring process, but pursuant to the Tennessen Warning, was used in the investigation regarding M&apos;s false statements....The data was not used by anyone not contemplated by the original warning, which included DPS personnel concerned with accurate equal employment opportunity information and other DPS personnel associated with investigation of a false statement.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, the Tennessen Warning notice requirement, is comprised of four separate elements. The fundamental purpose of the Tennessen Warning notice is to enable an individual to make an informed decision as to whether s/he wishes to provide the requested data to the government entity. It essentially serves as a form of privacy protection whereby individuals may protect their privacy by deciding not to provide the data to the government.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present case, DPS did provide some type of a Tennessen Warning notice. However, DPS apparently did not clearly communicate all of the intended uses of the equal employment data. As Commissioner Davis asserted, The private data...pursuant to the Tennessen Warning, was used in the investigation regarding M&apos;s false statements. This was not clearly stated in the Tennessen Warning; the notice said only that the information would be used to evaluate our efforts to reach all segments of the population and in reviewing our selection and placement efforts. The fact that the notice includes the statement, Any false statement may be punishable by law, does not, as Commissioner Davis asserted, clearly communicate to the supplier of data that the information will be monitored for accuracies and may be used to discipline an employee. If that is one of the intended purposes and uses, the notice should have so stated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Although the notice on the application form states that the collected information is not referred to hiring managers or supervisors, it appears this may have happened. In his/her opinion request, M wrote, Since a complaint was filed with Internal Affairs, my immediate supervisors...were also made aware of my [racial/ethnic] choice... Moreover, Commissioner Davis alluded to this in his response by stating, The fact that M may have provided false information on his/her application &lt;u&gt;may have been provided to some DPS personnel who had supervisory responsibility over M&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by M is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, it appears that M&apos;s rights were violated when the Minnesota Department of Public Safety collected private data about M and 1) did not provide him/her with a clear, comprehensive Tennessen Warning notice and 2) used those data in a manner different from what was described in the notice.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 27, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267370</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose and intended use of data</Title><Id>267094</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-002</Title><title>Opinion 98 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267204&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-01-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in the Clay County &quot;Staff Assessment and Action Plan?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 23, 1998; Clay County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 8, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Charles (Casey) Brantner, Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners. In his letter, Mr. Brantner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Clay County. Mr. Brantner enclosed a copy of the document in question. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In June 1997, Clay County hired a consultant to assist with conflict resolution and personnel management issues in the County Attorney&apos;s office. After conducting interviews with the County Attorney and his staff, the consultant prepared a report, the Staff Assessment and Action Plan.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Brantner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in the Clay County Staff Assessment and Action Plan? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to information provided to the Commissioner, the Clay County Attorney, an elected official, is an employee of the County, as are members of his staff. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 classifies data about current or former employees of a public entity such as the County. According to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are private, and all other personnel data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the consultant&apos;s report, it is evident that it contains both public and private data. Some of the data in the report are not data on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) For example, the consultant&apos;s description of her methodology, and list of interview questions, are not data that identify an individual. The Commissioner is unaware of any provision of state or federal law that would classify those data as nonpublic; therefore, the data are public (see Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Some of the data in the report are in the form of observations and comments about the operation of the County Attorney&apos;s office, from which an individual employee may or may not be identified. To the extent that those data do not or could not identify an individual employee, those data are also public. The Commissioner is cognizant that it would be helpful to the County if this opinion could identify more specifically which data are public and which are not. However, the Commissioner lacks sufficient information to determine whether or not those data identify an individual employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The balance of the data in the report appear to be private personnel data. For example, most of the data constitute comments about the County Attorney. Those data are not the type of data classified as public under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. An exception would be if any of the data reflected complaints or charges against an employee, or are data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action taken against an employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The last page of the report is the County Attorney&apos;s office Proposed Action Plan. That page contains data about specific employees and general statements or descriptions of the operation of the office. To the extent that the data are performance-related data about an employee - for example, numbers 1 and 2 in the first section of the plan - the data are private. To the extent the data describe the general operation of the office - for example, number 3 in the first section - those data are not personnel data and are therefore public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Brantner is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Clay County Staff Assessment and Action Plan contains both public and private data. Data in the report that identify, or could identify, a County employee are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 23, 1998
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267204</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consultants</Title><Id>266758</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 98-001</Title><title>Opinion 98 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267882&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1998-01-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the District comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when it collected private data from H about H upon his/her being hired in 1991?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, in 1994, did the District inappropriately disseminate data about H to Lori A. Olson Investigations?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District respond properly to an April 5, 1994, request for access to data from the data subject (see Exhibit D, numbers 1 and 4).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the District respond properly to a June 14, 1994, request for access to data? (See Exhibit F.)
Were H&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, violated when s/he sought access to all data about him/herself and was provided access to some but not all of the data? (Specifically, H apparently requested access to the data in October/November 1996 - see Exhibit H - and inspected the data on November 5, 1996. In April of 1997, H received from the District two documents - see Exhibit Q - the dates of which suggest that the District was in possession of these documents prior to the November 5, 1996, inspection.)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did District staff respond properly to a March 26, 1997, request for access to data by apparently stating that certain data were not accessible because the staff person had a law degree and certain materials about H were privileged?
Were H&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, violated when s/he sought access to all data about him/herself and was provided access to some but not all of the data? (Specifically, on March 26, 1997, H apparently requested access to all data about him/her. In a letter dated July 8, 1997 (see Exhibit O), H&apos;s manager informed H that certain documents came into the possession of the District in March of 1997. However, these documents were apparently not provided to H on March 26, 1997.)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District inappropriately disseminate data about H to two consultants?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District respond properly to a June 25, 1997, request for access to the following data: a list of all people who had received H&apos;s personal mail? (See Exhibit N.)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District inappropriately disseminate, to other District staff members, data about H contained in a report dated July 14, 1997? (See Exhibit P.)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 9, 1998; Hennepin County Conservation District</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 21, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated October 12, 1997, from H. In H&apos;s letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation by the Hennepin Conservation District ( HCD ) of H&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Bourey, Administrator of Hennepin County, in response to H&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, November 6, 1997, were to inform him of H&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On December 5, 1997, PIPA received a response dated same from James Michels, an attorney representing HCD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A brief summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. H is a former employee of HCD. H alleges that during the time of her/his employment, actions by HCD resulted in violations of H&apos;s rights under Chapter 13. Because the background and facts portion of the opinion request submitted by H is 14 pages in length and references 17 exhibits, the Commissioner has chosen not to delve into great detail in relaying the pertinent points as described by H. Rather, the Commissioner believes that in the discussion of each of the ten issues, she will be able to sufficiently describe the relevant facts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In H&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the District comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when it collected private data from H about H upon his/her being hired in 1991?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, in 1994, did the District inappropriately disseminate data about H to Lori A. Olson Investigations?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District respond properly to an April 5, 1994, request for access to data from the data subject (see Exhibit D, numbers 1 and 4).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the District respond properly to a June 14, 1994, request for access to data? (See Exhibit F.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Were H&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, violated when s/he sought access to all data about him/herself and was provided access to some but not all of the data? (Specifically, H apparently requested access to the data in October/November 1996 - see Exhibit H - and inspected the data on November 5, 1996. In April of 1997, H received from the District two documents - see Exhibit Q - the dates of which suggest that the District was in possession of these documents prior to the November 5, 1996, inspection.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did District staff respond properly to a March 26, 1997, request for access to data by apparently stating that certain data were not accessible because the staff person had a law degree and certain materials about H were privileged?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Were H&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, violated when s/he sought access to all data about him/herself and was provided access to some but not all of the data? (Specifically, on March 26, 1997, H apparently requested access to all data about him/her. In a letter dated July 8, 1997 (see Exhibit O), H&apos;s manager informed H that certain documents came into the possession of the District in March of 1997. However, these documents were apparently not provided to H on March 26, 1997.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District inappropriately disseminate data about H to two consultants?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District respond properly to a June 25, 1997, request for access to the following data: a list of all people who had received H&apos;s personal mail? (See Exhibit N.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, did the District inappropriately disseminate, to other District staff members, data about H contained in a report dated July 14, 1997? (See Exhibit P.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 1&lt;/em&gt; - Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, requires that when a government entity collects private or confidential data from the data subject about the data subject, the entity must provide a Tennessen Warning notice. The notice is comprised of four elements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present case, H alleges that when HCD collected H&apos;s home address and social security number at the time of her/his hiring, H did not receive a Tennessen Warning notice. In his response, Mr. Michels wrote, HCD has no information available to it to demonstrate whether at the time that [H] applied for employment [H] was given a Tennessen Warning. Mr. Michels further asserted that based on a recent Minnesota Appellate Court case, &lt;u&gt;Manteffell v. City of St. Paul&lt;/u&gt;, ___N.W.2d ___, Ct. File C5-97-696 (Minn. Ct. App. November 18, 1997), a claim for a violation of the Act is barred if it is brought more than six years after the date of the alleged violation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, although an action by H for an alleged violation by the HCD of H&apos;s right to receive a Tennennsen Warning notice may be barred by the result in the &lt;u&gt;Manteffell&lt;/u&gt; case, that result does not preclude the Commissioner from issuing an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, based on the information provided by both parties, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether H&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, subdivision 2, were violated. H states that s/he did not receive a notice and HCD cannot say for sure that H did or did not receive a notice. Because a public employee&apos;s home address and social security number are private data (see Sections 13.43 and 13.49), if H did not receive a Tennessen Warning notice regarding the collection of those data, her/his rights were violated. The factual dispute here demonstrates the importance of documenting the fact that a Tennessen Warning has been given.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 2&lt;/em&gt; - H alleges that the HCD inappropriately disseminated private data address, possibly social security number about him/her to Lori A. Olson Investigations. H provided to the Commissioner documents from the National Credit Information Network indicating that a copy of H&apos;s credit report had been provided in March and April 1994 to Olson Investigations for employment purposes. Both of the documents stated, This report may have been requested in reference to . . . Hennepin Conservation District. H also provided documentation demonstrating that the HCD issued a check to Olson Investigations for $163.48 on May 3, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote there is no evidence that private data were released to Olson Investigations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Mr. Michels correctly asserts there is no demonstrable proof that HCD disclosed &lt;u&gt;private&lt;/u&gt; data about H to Olson Investigations, based on a copy of an April 7, 1997, memo from the [HCD] temporary manager to H, it is clear that some information about H was disseminated. In the memo, the manager wrote, In the course of reviewing the issues raised in your EEOC claim and discussions regarding potential settlement, [the HCD] sought confirmation of the documentation of your academic record provided by you for your personnel file. This was the intended scope of his request to the Lori A. Olson agency... If private data about H were disclosed to the private investigator without H&apos;s consent or in violation of a provision of a Tennessen Warning notice, H&apos;s rights pursuant to Section 13.04 were violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 3&lt;/em&gt; - H alleges that the HCD did not respond properly to a request for access to data on April 5, 1994. In that request, H wrote, I wish for the District to direct the private investigator...and her assigns, to turn over to me all copies and originals of all information her organization collected about me.... H also requested access to all files at the District which regard me. In response to H&apos;s request, in a letter dated April 7, 1994, the HCD manager wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;[t]he District has directed the agency to seal the files and, if you so desire, will request that they be destroyed. The District is not in a position to direct the release to you of any of the results of the investigation which was conducted....The District will certainly make your personnel file...available for your review at any time. I conducted a review of these files with you on April 6 and April 7.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his/her opinion request, H stated, [HCD] denied my request to speak with the Olson Agency, claiming the District was not in a position to direct the Olson Agency to confer with me directly&apos; about my personal information, even though he referred to them as a contractual agent for the District. H also stated that s/he did review the personnel files.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote, The Act does not allow individual subjects of data to demand that originals and copies of data be returned to them. The subjects of data are only entitled to inspect and make copies of the data which they are subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per Section 13.02, subdivision 7, data received by HCD from Olson Investigations are government data. If H is the subject of those data, then the data should be accessible to H. However, H has no rights under Chapter 13 to require HCD either to turn over to him/her or to destroy copies of the data being kept by Olson Investigations. Destruction of some of the data generated by Olson Investigations could by accomplished by a successful data challenge brought by H per Section 13.04, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 4&lt;/em&gt; - H alleges that the HCD never responded to a request dated June 14, 1994, in which H asked to see the letter of agreement between HCD staff and Olson Investigations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote, HCD never had a written contract with the [Olson Investigations]. Thus, there was nothing to be produced to [H].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 provide that requests for access to public government data be responded to in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time. However, there is nothing in Chapter 13 requiring a government entity to create data that do not exist. If the data requested by H did not exist, then HCD could not have provided H with access. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, HCD is required to respond to requests for access to data. A lack of response is not an appropriate response; HCD should have responded that the data did not exist. (For additional information on this issue, see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267396&quot; title=&quot;95-029&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-029&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267855&quot; title=&quot;97-020&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-020&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/266261&quot; title=&quot;97-055&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;97-055&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17 does require government entities to make and keep records documenting their official activities, which would include expenditures of public funds. It is surprising that HCD would expend government funds without a written contract or other documentation explaining that expenditure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 5&lt;/em&gt; - In a letter dated November 5, 1996, H was advised by H&apos;s union business agent we requested that all your files be opened for us under [Chapter 13] and inspected the files. The agent further wrote, We found no discipline, grievances or complaints about you at that time. In H&apos;s opinion request, s/he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In October 1996, the union business agent and I made a request to management that all [my] files be opened for us under the Government Data Practices Act&apos; for our inspection....A week later [from April 1, 1997] the manager sent me four documents about me that I had never seen before, all of which pre-dated the November 1996 request to inspect documents. These documents alleged inappropriate conduct by me...I emphasize again that in November 1996 I had asked for all documents under the custody and control of the District&apos; and was led to believe there were no investigations, grievances, complaints or documentation of any problems.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H submitted an Exhibit Q, which s/he described as documents supplied after November 1996 Inspection. Exhibit Q is comprised of five documents: two are addressed to H from the HCD manager; two are from the manager addressed to File ; and one is addressed to the manager from another HCD staff member. Upon examination of the documents comprising Exhibit Q, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that some of the data in each of the documents are about H. However, some of the data are also about other HCD employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote that HCD staff interpreted H&apos;s request to be for H&apos;s personnel file, not everything about [H]. He also stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Further, the nature of [H&apos;s] claimed violation is unclear in that [H] fails to identify that which was allegedly not provided to [H]. The request is even more confusing by the fact that [H] refers to two documents and then to Exhibit Q, which consists of five documents. To the best of HCD&apos;s ability, it is suspected that the allegations refer only to two of the documents under Exhibit Q, namely the two memoranda from [the manager] to File. These two documents were not part of [H&apos;s] personnel file. They were drafted to and retained by [the manager] in his personal file. They were produced to [H] when [H] specifically requested them. Therefore, while it appears that [H] did not receive access to these documents in November 1996, it was because [H] did not ask for them, not because HCD withheld them from [H].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner does not understand the relevance of the distinction Mr. Michels makes between H&apos;s personnel file and everything about [H]. If some of the data were not disclosed because they are data about another HCD employee, that is the basis upon which access could have been denied. However, that argument is problematic for the following reason. If HCD had made a determination that the data were not accessible to H, why, as Mr. Michels stated, were they later produced to H? (For further information on this issue, see Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267829&quot; title=&quot;94-023&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-023&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267464&quot; title=&quot;94-035&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;94-035&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267512&quot; title=&quot;96-021&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-021&lt;/a&gt; which state that data about employees are available to them upon a proper request regardless of how an employer labels the data or where the employer chooses to store the data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming H&apos;s request was for access to all data about him/her, and HCD was in possession of the documents labeled as Exhibit Q, some of the data in those documents should have been made accessible to H.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 6&lt;/em&gt; - In H&apos;s opinion request, H stated that during a performance review on March 26, 1997, as part of a discussion of staff relations, H wrote there had been no comments or complaints - that everything received from other persons had been shown to H. H wrote, I asked for the basis for his comments. The manager said that the basis for his opinion about me was contained in files he had about me which he said he did not have to show me. He said because he had a law degree, certain materials collected about me were privileged.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote that one problem with this issue is that H does not identify what was requested but not produced. He stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;It appears from [H&apos;s] narrative that [H] is referring to the same documents which are the subject of [Issue 5]....HCD denies that it has ever denied access to [H] for any data requested under the Act on the grounds that they were within the scope of the attorney-client privilege because [the former manager] had a law degree....[t]he documents in question were provided to [H] when [H] specifically asked for them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Michels is correct that it is not entirely clear whether H made a request per Chapter 13 for access to data. In addition, there is a dispute as to whether the HCD manager denied H access to data because he had a law degree or because such data were protected by the attorney/client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, if the HCD did respond in the manner described by H, the response is problematic because no provision in Chapter 13 allows for a denial of access because the person maintaining the data has a law degree. Further, it is unlikely that the type of data relating to H in her/his capacity as an HCD employee could be classified as Attorneys Data under Section 13.30 merely because the person generating or maintaining the data is an attorney. (See Advisory Opinions &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-040&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267680&quot; title=&quot;95-045&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-045&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267750&quot; title=&quot;95-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;95-049&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;.) Thus, if HCD did deny access based on the comments by the manager, such a denial appears to be inappropriate. Alternatively, if the content of the conversation is not as described by H, there is no issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 7&lt;/em&gt; - As discussed above regarding Issue 6, H alleges that at the time of H&apos;s performance review on March 26, 1997, s/he asked if there had been any complaints or grievances or comments from other staff. Later, through a memo dated July 8, 1997, addressed to H from HCD management, H became aware that HCD had come into possession of certain documents in March 1997. H apparently believed these documents should have been made accessible to H when s/he previously requested access to data about him/her. In the July 8, 1997, memo, HCD management wrote, It is my understanding that HCD first came into possession of the documents in March, 1997...These documents evidence acts of insubordination and disloyalty to HCD....The documents are relevant to your demonstrated performance problems, specifically your act of insubordination and disloyalty in...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The correspondence to which [H] refers was a letter written by [H] to [X], an official with Teamsters Local 320, wherein [H] requested that the Union assist [H] in removing [H&apos;s] position from HCD...[Mr. Michels provided the Commissioner with a copy of this letter.] HCD interpreted [H&apos;s] request to mean data about which [H] is the subject. The subject of this data is not [H] but rather, the proposal to transfer certain positions, equipment and budgets from HCD...Because [H] is not the subject of the [letter], the document was not provided to [H] as it was not considered to be within the scope of [H&apos;s] request to review data about [H].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, as stated above in the discussion of Issue 6, it is not entirely clear that H made a data practices request for access to data about him/her. Second, it is also not clear to the Commissioner exactly which documents are the subject of H&apos;s inquiry. Mr. Michels apparently believes that H is referring to only one document. This is confusing because the letter from HCD management dated July 8, 1997, refers to more than one document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In discussing the letter he believes to be the subject of H&apos;s request, Mr. Michels argued that it was not about H; that H was not the subject of the letter. Upon examination of the letter, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees; it appears to her that some of the data may be data about H. For example, H wrote that the bargaining unit has several employees who are hostile to H and that H did not support a pending Decertification Petition. Because these types of personnel data are not listed as public in Section 13.43, subdivision 2, they are private and not accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, if H made a data practices request for access to data regarding any complaints, grievance, or comments of which s/he is the subject, any such data in the possession of HCD should have been made available to H.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 8&lt;/em&gt; - H alleges that data from one of the documents discussed above in Issue 7 were disseminated to third parties (two consultants). H wrote, In that meeting [the manager] quoted from one of my letters and told the consultants he was in possession of my letters. One of the consultants subsequently told me about this conversation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote, Although [H] does not specify what information was allegedly provided to the two consultants,&apos; it appears that the data to which [H] refers is the [letter written by H to the union official]. Mr. Michels added that because the letter is classified as public data, no violation of Chapter 13 occurred if the contents were disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Michels stated, it is not clear to which document H refers. In addition, there appears to be some disagreement as to whether a conversation between HCD management and two consultants took place in which data were disclosed. If such a discussion did occur and private data about H were disclosed, H&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were violated. If no private data about H were disclosed, no violation occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 9&lt;/em&gt; - In a memo dated June 25, 1997, addressed to HCD management, H wrote, I must also insist that...you provide me with an [sic] a list of people to whom my personal mail has been distributed...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;HCD management responded to the June 25, 1997, correspondence in a memo dated July 8, 1997. In what appears to be the relevant part, the manager wrote, To the best of my knowledge,the only persons to whom the documents have been disclosed after they were given to [the previous manager] are me, the Board of Supervisors and the HCD&apos;s attorneys.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote that Chapter 13 does not require HCD to create government data. He added, HCD does not have a list of all people who have received H&apos;s personal mail.&apos; Therefore, the failure to create such a list does not violate the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;H requested a copy of data that do not exist. Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data that do not exist. Therefore, HCD was under no obligation to create a list in response to H&apos;s request. In attempting to name persons whom might have gained access to data about H, HCD went beyond requirements imposed by Chapter 13. However, as part of its response, HCD might also have informed H that the data s/he requested in the form of a list did not exist in that form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Issue 10&lt;/em&gt; - H alleges that data about H contained in a July 14, 1997, report were inappropriately disseminated to other HCD staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The stated purpose of the report, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner, was to review the operations of HCD and to make recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and to improve the working atmosphere in the office. In preparing the report, the authors interviewed staff and other persons who work on a regular basis with HCD. Also included in the 1997 report were references to three 1994 reports regarding problems within the HCD.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Michels wrote that the report is public data; that it was attached to the agenda of the July Board of Supervisors meeting and discussed by the Board during this open meeting. Mr. Michels added that H is not the subject of the 1997 or 1994 reports and that the data cannot, therefore, be classified as private or confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon review of the report, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that some of the data in the 1997 report are about H. There is a fairly detailed discussion about the two factions existing in the office and the extent to which H plays a role in one of the factions. Further, discussion of one of the 1994 reports also contains data about H. For example, it names H and describes him/her in terms of whether s/he is an easy person to work with. Because the data in the report about H are not made public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2, those data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addressing the issue of the report, Mr. Michels also referred to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, the Open Meeting Law, which provides that discussion of certain kinds of data at a meeting required to be open to the public may make the data public. However, for otherwise not public data to be become public by virtue of being discussed at an open meeting, the disclosure must relate to a matter within the scope of the public body&apos;s authority and [must be] reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. (See Section 471.705, subdivision 1d (a).) It is not clear to the Commissioner if these conditions were met when the Board of Supervisors discussed the data about H at a public meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by H is as follows&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, HCD provided H with the Tennessen Warning notice when it collected data about H from H in 1991. If private and/or confidential data were collected at the time of H&apos;s hiring in 1991, a Tennessen Warning notice should have been given.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine with absolute certainty whether HCD disseminated private data about H to Lori A. Olson Investigations in 1994. However, given the documentation provided, it seems likely that a dissemination of private data (which was neither described in a Tennessen Warning provided to H nor authorized in a consent given by H) did occur.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;It appears that HCD, in permitting H to review his/her personnel files, responded appropriately to an April 5, 1994, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming the data requested by H on June 14, 1994, did not exist, HCD is not required to create them. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, HCD is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner to requests for access to data. A lack of response is not an appropriate response; HCD should have responded that the data did not exist.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming H&apos;s November 1996 request was for access to all data about him/her, and HCD was in possession of the documents labeled as Exhibit Q, some of the data in those documents should have been made accessible to H.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If, on March 26, 1997, HCD denied H access to data based on comments by the manager that he had a law degree and certain materials were privileged, such a denial appears to be inappropriate. Alternatively, if the content of the conversation is not as described by H, there is no issue.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If H made a data practices request on March 26, 1997, for access to data regarding any complaints, grievances, or comments of which s/he is the subject, any such data in the possession of HCD should have been made available to H.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If HCD disclosed private data about H to two consultants, H&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were violated. If no private data about H were disclosed, no violation occurred.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because the data requested by H on June 25, 1997, apparently do not exist, HCD is not under an obligation to create those data. However, as part of its response, HCD might have advised H that the requested data did not exist.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;While it appears that some of the data in the report are private data about H, the Commissioner is unable to determine if those data were inappropriately disseminated by HCD to members of the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 9, 1998&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267882</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disclosure or Dissemination of data</Title><Id>266825</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statute of limitations</Title><Id>267061</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employment setting</Title><Id>266492</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:40:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-055</Title><title>Opinion 97 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266261&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-31T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.43, has the University of Minnesota responded properly to an October 13, 1997, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 20, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Odessa Shonoiki. In her letter, Ms. Shonoiki requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota. Ms. Shonoiki enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Shonoiki&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University. The purposes of this letter, dated November 25, 1997, were to inform Ms. Smith of Ms. Shonoiki&apos;s request, and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On December 15, 1997, PIPA received a response from Susan McKinney, Responsible Authority for the University. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter to Ms. McKinney dated October 13, 1997, Ms. Shonoiki requested access to inspect the following data on all University Math Department employees:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(1) For the time period January 1, 1997 to present: name; actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; job title; job description; education and training background; previous work experience; and payroll time sheets.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        (2) The existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action; and the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                As of November 14, 1997, the date of her opinion request, Ms. Shonoiki had not received a response from the University.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. McKinney wrote: [a]s responsible authority under the Data Practices Act, I took Ms. Shonoiki&apos;s request and put it in line with the other data requests that have been received. I have not heard from Ms. Shonoiki since her initial letter of request. At this time, we have not yet finalized gathering the information that Ms. Shonoiki requested. We believe that we are acting in a reasonable time period to gather this data on 209 employees.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Shonoiki asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.43, has the University of Minnesota responded properly to an October 13, 1997, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the data requested by Ms. Shonoiki are public personnel data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. According to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, government entities must respond to requests for access to data, respectively, in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As of November 14, 1997, the date of her opinion request, Ms. Shonoiki had not received any response from the University to her October 13, 1997 request for access to data. According to Ms. McKinney, as of December 4, 1997, the University had not provided Ms. Shonoiki with access to the data she requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. McKinney, Ms. Shonoiki requested data on 209 University employees. Although Chapter 13 does not provide definitions of prompt and reasonable, whether a government entity has responded to a data request in accordance with its statutory obligation must be gauged by the nature of the request. Given the extent of Ms. Shonoiki&apos;s request, it would be appropriate for the University to communicate to her that it would take some time to compile the data she requested, and to give her an approximation of when she might be provided access. Instead, the University has not responded for at least four weeks, and has not provided her with access more than seven weeks after receipt of her request. For those reasons, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the University&apos;s response is neither prompt nor reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Shonoiki is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.43, the University of Minnesota did not respond properly to an October 13, 1997, request for access to data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 31, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266261</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-054</Title><title>Opinion 97 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267673&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue: 1) the Department&apos;s unit valuation detail for the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DM&amp;IR) for property taxes payable in 1997 and 1998; and 2) the Department&apos;s Apportionment Worksheet for determining 1997 market values for the DM&amp;IR for St. Louis County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 1997; Minnesota Department of Revenue</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 12, 1997, PIPA received a letter from James L. Girard, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. In his letter, Mr. Girard requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Revenue. Mr. Girard enclosed copies of related correspondence and other documents. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Revenue received a request for access to data it maintains on the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company ( DMamp;IR. ) DMamp;IR believes that the data are classified as nonpublic, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 270B. Revenue believes the data are not classified according to that Chapter and, pursuant to Section 13.03, are public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Girard asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue: 1) the Department&apos;s unit valuation detail for the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DMamp;IR) for property taxes payable in 1997 and 1998; and 2) the Department&apos;s Apportionment Worksheet for determining 1997 market values for the DMamp;IR for St. Louis County? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    DMamp;IR, in its correspondence with Revenue, contends that the data in question are nonpublic return information under Section 270B.01, subdivision 3. According to Commissioner Girard, [i]t is true that this type of information is normally return information, but it is collected by [Revenue] to enforce the tax laws found in [Minnesota Statutes Sections] 270.80 - 270.88. These laws are clearly not included in the definition of Minnesota tax laws&apos; in [Section] 270B.01, subd 8, and therefore Chapter 270B does not apply to this case.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Chapter 270B classifies Revenue data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other statutes. Pursuant to Section 270B.01, subdivision 3, return information means certain data . . . received by, recorded by, prepared by, given to, or collected by the commissioner [of Revenue] with respect to the determination of the existence, possible existence, or amount of liability of any person &lt;u&gt;under Minnesota tax laws&lt;/u&gt;. . . . (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 270B.01, subdivision 8:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;u&gt;For purposes of this chapter only, Minnesota tax laws&apos;&lt;/u&gt;means the taxes, refunds, and fees administered by or paid to the commissioner under chapters 115B (except taxes imposed under sections 115B.21 to 115B.24), 289A (except taxes imposed under sections 298.01, 298.015, and 298.24), 290, 290A, 291, 297A, and 297H and sections 295.50 to 295.59, or any similar Indian tribal tax administered by the commissioner pursuant to any tax agreement between the state and the Indian tribal government, and includes any laws for the assessment, collection, and enforcement of those taxes, refunds, and fees. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Commissioner Girard, the data in question were collected by Revenue pursuant to the tax laws found in Sections 270.80-270.88. Those sections are not included in the Section 270B.01, subdivision 8, list of Minnesota tax laws for which Chapter 270B is applicable. Accordingly, the data in question are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Girard is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Revenue are public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1: 1) the Department&apos;s unit valuation detail for the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DMamp;IR) for property taxes payable in 1997 and 1998; and 2) the Department&apos;s Apportionment Worksheet for determining 1997 market values for the DMamp;IR for St. Louis County. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 31, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267673</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Railway unit valuation data</Title><Id>266455</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Revenue data</Title><Id>266456</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:18:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-053</Title><title>Opinion 97 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266734&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-23T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Human Rights responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 1997; Minnesota Department of Human Rights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 5, 1997, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from James E. Wilkinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, T. In his letter, Mr. Wilkinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding T&apos;s rights as a subject of data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Mr. Wilkinson enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Wilkinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ken Nickolai, then Deputy Commissioner of Human Rights (he has since left the agency). The purposes of this letter, dated November 10, 1997, were to inform Mr. Nickolai of Mr. Wilkinson&apos;s request, and to ask him to provide information or support for Human Rights&apos; position. On December 5, 1997, PIPA received a response from Dolores Fridge, Commissioner of Human Rights. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Wilkinson&apos;s client, T, filed two separate complaints with Human Rights. Both of those case files are closed. In a letter dated October 20, 1997, Mr. Wilkinson wrote to Human Rights and requested copies of all public and private data concerning [T] and the Department&apos;s investigation and the Department&apos;s decisions in relation to [T&apos;s] complaints . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Department replied, by telephone, that without a court order, T could gain access only to the following: the face sheet of the charge of discrimination, the questionnaire T filled out, the answer by the respondent, T&apos;s rebuttal to the respondent&apos;s answer, and the memorandum and summary of the Department&apos;s decision in this matter. According to Mr. Wilkinson, when a member of his office responded that she already had all of those documents, and she would like all of the investigative data that are solely about T, Human Rights said it would be too burdensome to do so and that their policy and procedures manual states that they are not required to provide this information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Commissioner Fridge wrote that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 363.061, subdivision 3, the Commissioner of Human Rights has the authority to make investigative data from a closed case file inaccessible to either party to a complaint. Commissioner Fridge wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Human Rights cases involve extremely sensitive allegations of personal bias. As a result, statements and documents gathered by the department during its investigation, which contain references to the parties, in some instances, may contain material which could incite an individual to take actions against the maker of the statement. For that reason, every Commissioner of Human Rights since at least the mid-1980&apos;s has taken the position that only the information specifically provided for in Subd. 3(a) would be released. This protects all individuals who provide information to the agency during the investigation from becoming possible victims of a party unhappy with the agency decision. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wilkinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Human Rights responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data collected by Human Rights as a result of a complaint are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 363. Section 363.061, subdivision 3, provides:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, &lt;u&gt;human rights investigative data contained in a closed case file are private data on individuals or nonpublic data&lt;/u&gt;. The name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, the statute under which the action is brought, the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on a person other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner&apos;s memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown are public data.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                             (b) The commissioner may make human rights investigative data contained in a closed case file inaccessible to the charging party or the respondent &lt;u&gt;in order to protect medical or other security interests of the parties or third persons&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Private or nonpublic data are accessible to the subject(s) of the data. (See Section 13.02, subdivisions 12 and 9.) Therefore, according to Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (a), T ought to be entitled to gain access to the data s/he seeks. However, an exception to that general rule is provided in Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (b). If the Commissioner of Human Rights determines that release of investigative data in a closed file is necessary to protect medical or other security interests of the parties or third persons, then the Commissioner of Human Rights may withhold access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Commissioner Fridge asserts that it is, and has been, the standard practice in Human Rights in &lt;u&gt;all cases&lt;/u&gt;to release only those data classified as public pursuant to Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (a). That is an incorrect interpretation of the discretionary authority provided in Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (b). That authority is not blanket authority to withhold access to investigative data in all cases. Access to data may be withheld only to protect the medical or other security interests of persons involved. The Legislature did not classify the data as confidential or protected nonpublic, i.e., as inaccessible to the subject of the data. (See Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 13.) Yet that is the effective result of Human Rights&apos; interpretation of its discretionary authority in Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (b). Therefore, unless Commissioner Fridge determines that &lt;u&gt;in this case&lt;/u&gt;, the release of data about T, to T, would jeopardize T&apos;s or another&apos;s medical or other security interests, T is entitled to gain access to the data requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wilkinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;By invoking the authority to withhold access to private and nonpublic data, provided in Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (b), &lt;u&gt;in all cases&lt;/u&gt;, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has not responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                               T is entitled to gain access to the data Human Rights maintains about her/him, unless Commissioner Fridge determines that &lt;u&gt;in this case&lt;/u&gt;, in order to protect a person&apos;s medical or other security interests, it is necessary to deny T access to the data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 23, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266734</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Human rights data (Chapter 363A / 363)</Title><Id>266463</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-052</Title><title>Opinion 97 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266812&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-23T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has the Minnesota Department of Finance responded appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 1997; Minnesota Department of Finance</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On October 27, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the &lt;i&gt;St. Paul Legal Ledger&lt;/i&gt;, a Minnesota newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his client&apos;s right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Finance. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wayne Simoneau, Commissioner of Finance. The purposes of this letter, dated November 12, 1997, were to inform Commissioner Simoneau of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him or Finance&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On November 21, 1997, PIPA received a response from Commissioner Simoneau. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In a letter dated October 10, 1997, Patrick Boulay, publisher of the &lt;i&gt;Legal Ledger&lt;/i&gt;, wrote to Finance and requested copies of 1998 local government bonding proposals, which we understand have been scored by your office.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, Peggy Ingison, State Budget Director, wrote to Mr. Boulay that the data he had requested were classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.646. Ms. Ingison told Mr. Boulay that the data would be made public on January 15, 1998, pursuant to Section 16A.11.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to PIPA&apos;s letter, Commissioner Simoneau reasserted that the data were classified according to Section 13.646, and would be available to the public as of January 15, 1998. Commissioner Simoneau provided a copy of Finance&apos;s Strategic Capital Budget Plan Policy Manual, which describes the scoring process.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has the Minnesota Department of Finance responded appropriately to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, Section 13.646, subdivision 2, provides: [l]egislative and budget proposals, including preliminary drafts, that are created, collected, or maintained by the state administration are protected nonpublic data. After the budget is presented to the legislature by the state administration, supporting data, including agency requests, are public data. Supporting data do not include preliminary drafts. Pursuant to Section 13.646, subdivision 1, state administration includes the Department of Finance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to Commissioner Simoneau, [t]he sole purpose of the scoring data [the data requested by the &lt;i&gt;Legal Ledger&lt;/i&gt;] is to provide additional information in the budget review process. The capital budget review process, as described in the manual provided by Commissioner Simoneau, is the process by which capital budget request proposals are prepared for consideration by the Legislature. Preliminary scores of capital budget requests are part of the budget proposal. Accordingly, the preliminary scores of capital budget requests are protected nonpublic data until January 15, 1998, when the data become public, pursuant to Sections 13.646, subdivision 2, and 16A.11, subdivision 1. At that time, anyone who so chooses may gain access to the preliminary scores of capital budget requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Finance responded appropriately to a request for access to data. The preliminary scores of capital budget requests are classified as protected nonpublic data until January 15, 1998, when the data become public, pursuant to Sections 13.646, subdivision 2, and 16A.11, subdivision 1. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 23, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266812</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Legislative data/Legislative and budget proposals (13.605 / 13.646)</Title><Id>266811</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-051</Title><title>Opinion 97 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266865&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Valley Action Council improperly release private data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 23, 1997; Minnesota Valley Action Council</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 3, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Nancy Ossenfort Booth, on behalf of her clients, Mr. and Mrs. B. In her letter, Ms. Booth requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her clients&apos; rights as subjects of data maintained by the Minnesota Valley Action Council (MVAC). Ms. Booth enclosed copies of related documents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Booth&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Woodwick, Executive Director of MVAC. The purposes of this letter, dated November 17, 1997, were to inform Mr. Woodwick of Ms. Booth&apos;s request, and to ask him or MVAC&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. On December 3, 1997, PIPA received a response from Bailey W. Blethen, attorney for MVAC. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Booth&apos;s clients applied for and received home improvement and home energy loans through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). The loan applications were made through MVAC, which contracts with MHFA to administer such loans. As part of the process, the B&apos;s provided certain information to MVAC, including their Social Security numbers, credit information and financial information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A dispute developed between the B&apos;s and the owner of Pongratz Construction, the contractor the B&apos;s had hired to perform the home improvements and home energy services. The dispute went to trial in April 1997. According to Ms. Booth:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;During the trial, Mr. Pongratz, through his attorney, . . . introduced the Note and Credit Application. . . . . At trial, Mr. Rob Wolf of MVAC testified that he produced the documents for Pongratz Construction on the Home Improvement Loan Application and Note pursuant to a subpoena. . . . . The transcript does indicate that Wolf produced all documents to Pongratz Construction prior to his testimony. . . . . The [B&apos;s] had not authorized MVAC to release these documents. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Blethen:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The information which MVAC released regarding the [B&apos;s] loan application was delivered to the Blue Earth County District Court pursuant to a subpoena issued by that court. . . . .
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        Ms. Booth asserts that the documents in question were all produced to Pongratz Construction prior to [Rob Wolf&apos;s] testimony.&apos; This is false and is not documented by the reference to the transcript which is cited by Ms. Booth. What happened was that Mr. Wolf brought the subpoenaed files with him to the courtroom, and took them with him to the witness stand. Neither Pongratz Construction Company, nor its attorney (a representative of this office, by the way) had seen or examined the documents prior to the time Wolf sat down in the witness chair.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Booth asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Valley Action Council improperly release private data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be a factual dispute as to how the B&apos;s credit application became part of the court record. However, that is not the issue under consideration in this opinion. The relevant portion of the trial transcript provided by Ms. Booth indicates that Mr. Wolf, an employee of MVAC, at some point provided Mr. Pongratz&apos;s attorney with copies of the home improvement loan note and credit application in response to a subpoena. Ms. Booth and Mr. Blethen disagree about the timing, but it is not disputed that Mr. Wolf provided the information to Mr. Pongratz&apos;s attorney.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0100, subpart 5, provides, in relevant part: [i]n the event of the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for any private or confidential data or a subpoena requiring any agent of an entity to testify concerning any private or confidential data, &lt;u&gt;the court&apos;s attention shall be called, through the proper channels, to those statutory provisions, rules, or regulations which restrict the disclosure of such information&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462A.065, financial data received or prepared by MHFA regarding any agency loan or grant are private data. The data in question are also classified as private according to Section 13.31, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Rule cited above is not explicit with respect to what calling the court&apos;s attention means. Normally, upon receipt of a subpoena for not public data, the attorney acting for the government entity whose data are sought takes the necessary action to ensure that the data are not disseminated without the court&apos;s attention called to those statutory provisions, rules, or regulations which restrict the disclosure of such information. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 6.) It is not known if that happened in this case.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the portion of the trial transcript provided does not indicate that Mr. Wolf called to the court&apos;s attention the fact that in order for him to respond to Mr. Pongratz&apos;s questions, he would have to release private data. In the absence of MVAC&apos;s attorney acting as described above, Mr. Wolf was required to make the response at the time his testimony was elicited, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0100, subpart 5.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Accordingly, in response to the subpoena for private data on the B&apos;s, MVAC was obligated to provide the data &lt;u&gt;to the court&lt;/u&gt;for its review. MVAC was not authorized to divulge private data on the B&apos;s to Mr. Pongratz&apos;s attorney.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Booth is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0100, subpart 5, Minnesota Valley Action Council improperly released private data while giving testimony. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 23, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266865</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Subpoenas</Title><Id>266864</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-050</Title><title>Opinion 97 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267439&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would it be a violation of students&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 if School District #347, Willmar, disseminated (without obtaining either consent or a court order) the following data to law enforcement officials:
data regarding actual or suspected criminal activity by students, such as assault or possession of illegal drugs, which occurs at school, on school property, or at a school-related event;
data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of gang-related actions and/or paraphernalia; and/or
data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of suspected illegal drug or chemical users?
When disclosure of private educational data is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i), can only those data described in Section 13.32, subdivision 8, be disseminated?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 19, 1997; School District 347 (Willmar)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On October 28, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated October 23, 1997, from Patricia Maloney, an attorney representing School District #347, Willmar. In her letter, Ms. Maloney requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the dissemination of certain educational data maintained by District #347 would violate the rights of the data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Maloney stated that the Willmar area has, in recent years, experienced a growth of what law enforcement officials believe to be gang-related activity involving individuals of school age. She wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[t]o better deal with this problem, law enforcement officials have asked Willmar School District officials to provide them with information related both to &lt;u&gt;individually identified students who were suspected of being involved in a gang or criminal activity&lt;/u&gt; and &lt;u&gt;to identify students who exhibited certain hand signals or wore fashions or symbols which law enforcement officials believed were indications of students being involved in a gang&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.] Law enforcement officials have also asked School District officials to identify students who were suspected of illegal drug or chemical usage.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Maloney cited amendments to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 enacted during the 1997 Legislative Session and stated that law enforcement officials believe the new language authorizes the District to disseminate the requested data. She further wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In regard to law enforcement officials&apos; contention that these and similar requests for educational data are authorized under the health and safety emergency exception [of state and federal law], School District officials distinguish between reporting specific criminal activity which has or was suspected to have occurred [sic] at school, on school property or at a school-related event and responding to general requests for information about a particular student or group of students.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Maloney asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Would it be a violation of students&apos; rights under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 if School District #347, Willmar, disseminated (without obtaining either consent or a court order) the following data to law enforcement officials:
&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;data regarding actual or suspected criminal activity by students, such as assault or possession of illegal drugs, which occurs at school, on school property, or at a school-related event;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of gang-related actions and/or paraphernalia; and/or&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of suspected illegal drug or chemical users?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When disclosure of private educational data is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i), can only those data described in Section 13.32, subdivision 8, be disseminated?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
By way of background, provisions of both state and federal law govern data about students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, educational data, incorporates by reference much of 20 U.S.C 1232g (the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act or FERPA ), and its implementing regulations, 34 CFR Part 99.
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.32 provides that most data about students created, collected, and maintained by public educational institutions are classified as private and, subject to certain exceptions, cannot be disseminated without a court order or unless the data subject (in the case of a minor, this includes parent(s), &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.02, subdivision 8) has given informed consent. Likewise, pursuant to FERPA, educational records about students are not public and, in general, cannot be disclosed, subject to certain exceptions, unless consent has been obtained from the student and/or his/her parent(s). (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; 34 CFR Section 99.30.) At issue in this opinion is whether two of the specific exceptions in Section 13.32 provide for release to law enforcement officials of the types of data described by Ms. Maloney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the Section 13.32 exceptions discussed by Ms. Maloney is the health and safety exception (&lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (d)). It provides that private educational data may be disseminated (without prior consent or court order) to disclose information in health and safety emergencies as per FERPA and its accompanying rules. The federal rules, portions of which Section 13.32 adopt by reference, state that an educational institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. The rules also state that the language is to be strictly construed. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; 34 CFR Section 99.36.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request, Ms. Maloney wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;School officials have had a practice of reporting suspected criminal activity involving students which occurred at school, on school property, or at a school related event. Although school officials would have obtained this information about students&apos; alleged criminal activity as a result of the student being in the school setting, and therefore the information relates to a student and is educational data under Minn. Stat. 13.32, a determination was made that suspected criminal activity could be reported to law enforcement officials under the health and safety exception of Minn. stat. 13.32, Subd. (3).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated by Ms. Maloney, one of the sets of data in question is that relating to actual or suspected criminal activity, such as an assault or possession of illegal drugs, which occurs at school, on school property, or at a school-related event. Although the term health and safety emergency is not specifically defined in either state or federal law, it seems reasonable that it involves a crisis-type situation in which a release of data would serve to protect individuals from imminent harm, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to a June 1997 joint report prepared by the United States Departments of Justice and Education, this seems be an accurate interpretation. The joint report states, The health or safety emergency provision is a commonsense acknowledgment that there may be situations when the &lt;u&gt;&lt;em&gt;immediate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/u&gt;need for information to avert or diffuse certain unusual conditions or disruptions requires the release of information. (Emphasis added.) (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; page 7 of &lt;u&gt;Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs&lt;/u&gt;, U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, June 1997. The joint report further states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;For example, on-campus disruptions that constitute criminal acts, particularly those involving weapons and drugs, fall within the scope of the term, as do crisis situations off campus that affect school campuses or the public health or safety. When a health or safety emergency exists, schools may share relevant information about students involved in the emergency with appropriate parties - that is, those whose knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; page 7 of the joint report.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, it seems reasonable that certain data relating to actual or suspected criminal activity which occurs at school, on school property, or at a school-related event, could be released by a school district pursuant to the health and safety emergency provision. Common sense dictates that any data disclosed under this provision be related to a crisis-type situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the release of the other two sets of data described by Ms. Maloney, i.e., data identifying students who exhibit certain hand signals or wear certain fashions, or who are suspected of using illegal chemicals, seems to be a different matter. Such a request by law enforcement does not appear to be related to preventing or dealing with an immediate health or safety issue; rather, it appears law enforcement is attempting to compile a list of students (with the help of school officials) who may be involved in some type of illegal activity or may merely be suspected of being involved in illegal activity. The dissemination of this type of data, in the situation as described by Ms. Maloney, does not appear to be allowable under the health and safety provision of either state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second Section 13.32 exception Ms. Maloney discussed was enacted during the 1997 Legislative Session. The language provides an additional situation in which educational data can be disclosed in cases where informed consent has not been obtained. Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i), states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[data may be disclosed] To appropriate authorities as provided in United States Code, title 20, section 1232g(b)(1)(E)(ii), if the data concern the juvenile justice system and the ability of the system to effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose records are released; provided that the authorities to whom the data are released submit a written request for the data that certifies that the data will not be disclosed to any other person except as authorized by law without the written consent of the parent of the student and the request and a record of the release are maintained in the student&apos;s file;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This new language in state law operates in conjunction with an amendment made to FERPA in 1994. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; 34 CFR Section 99.38.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the 1997 Minnesota Legislature went a step beyond the federal change by enacting additional language which attempts to more narrowly define the types of data that can be released pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i). Section 13.32, subdivision 8, states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Upon request, the following education data shall be disclosed under subdivision 3, clause (i), to the juvenile justice system: a student&apos;s full name, home address, telephone number, date of birth; a student&apos;s school schedule, attendance record, and photographs, if any; and parents&apos; names, home addresses, and telephone numbers.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the 1997 Legislature enacted a provision which defines juvenile justice system. The new language states, Juvenile justice system&apos; includes criminal justice agencies and the judiciary when involved in juvenile justice activities. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (b).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request, Ms. Maloney wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Local law enforcement officials believe that these amendments to Minn.Stat. 13.32 authorize Willmar School officials to respond to their requests for educational data which are broader than those specific categories of information enumerated in [Section 13.32, subdivision 8]. Law enforcement officials believe that the language of Subd. 3 (i) authorizes the School District to release any educational data to the juvenile justice system which would assist the ability of the sysyem [sic] to serve the students whose records are released, including the types of information law enforcement officials are requesting concerning alleged gang activity (i.e. the names of all students who wear fashion or jewelry that are deemed to be gang symbols) or appear to use illegal drugs or chemicals.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, it appears the joint report may provide some general assistance in analyzing the operation of Section 13.32, subdivisions 3 (i) and 8. The joint report states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;If the juvenile justice system seeks the disclosure of information on a student in order to identify and intervene with a juvenile at risk of delinquency, rather than to obtain information solely related to the supervision of an adjudicated delinquent, the juvenile could be classified as a preajudicated delinquent for purposes of this exception. The Secretary of Education believes that each school, working in conjunction with State and local authorities, can best determine whether a release of personally identifiable information from an education record concerns the juvenile justice system&apos;s ability to effectively &lt;u&gt;serve a student&lt;/u&gt;prior to adjudication. [Emphasis added.] Thus, FERPA gives schools flexibility in determining whether an education record of a juvenile may be released without the prior written consent of the parent. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; page 9 of the joint report.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the newly adopted language is meant to give school districts the authority to release data that relate to a specific student who appears to be at risk of becoming an adjudicated delinquent. As stated above, the intended purpose of any release is to effectively serve or provide some benefit or assistance to the involved juvenile. Thus, the data described by Ms. Maloney can be disseminated pursuant to the new language in Section 13.32 only if the purpose of such a disclosure will assist and/or serve the student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, even if a release of the data meets this first criterion, there are two additional requirements that must be met. First, law enforcement officials to whom the data will be released are to be involved in juvenile justice activities. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (b).) Second, only the following types of data about a student can be released: full name; home address; telephone number; date of birth; school schedule; attendance record; and photographs. Further, only the following data about a student&apos;s parent(s) can be released: name(s), home address(es), and telephone number(s). (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the first set of data described by Ms. Maloney, i.e., a student is engaging in actual or suspected criminal activity, the Commissioner has already dealt with the issue of whether Section 13.32 provides the District with authority to release these data. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; pages 3 and 4 of this opinion relating to the health and safety emergency provision.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding a possible dissemination of the second and third sets of data described by Ms. Maloney, i.e., data identifying students who are being targeted for non-criminal behavior, such as wearing certain fashions, using certain hand gestures, and/or appearing to be under the influence of a chemical substance, it does not appear that Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i), provides authority for such a release. It is not clear how a general release of data about students who are suspected of being involved in gang activity or using illegal chemicals will individually serve those students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the school district&apos;s release of a list of students that exhibit certain characteristics would in itself constitute a release of data beyond that contemplated by the Legislature in Section 13.32, subdivision 8. For example, Student A frequently falls asleep in class. Law enforcement officials make a request for data about all students who fall asleep on a regular basis - as an indicator of chemical usage. Student A&apos;s school district determines that a release of these data meets the criteria set forth in Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i). The problem with this scenario is that a release of any information about Student A will also disclose the fact that s/he falls asleep in class; this information is not included in Section 13.32, subdivision 8, and cannot, therefore, be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner believes the Legislature will address this issue and provide some clarification as to its intent in enacting Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Maloney is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (d), School District #347, Willmar, has the authority to disseminate (without obtaining either consent or a court order) the following data to law enforcement officials: data regarding actual or suspected criminal activity by students, such as assault or possession of illegal drugs, which occurs at school, on school property, or at a school-related event.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 does not grant authority for the District to release the following data (without obtaining either consent or a court order) to law enforcement officials: 1) data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of gang-related actions and/or paraphernalia; and/or 2) data that identify students who meet law enforcement officials&apos; description of suspected illegal drug or chemical users.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When disclosure of private edcuational data is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (i), only those data described in Section 13.32, subdivision 8, can be disseminated.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 19, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267439</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement/juvenile justice system</Title><Id>267114</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Health and safety emergency</Title><Id>266840</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data disclosure</Title><Id>267115</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-049</Title><title>Opinion 97 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267322&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-12-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Independent School District 196 complied with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 in denying public access to a copy of the District&apos;s employee e-mail directory?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 10, 1997; School District 196 (Rosemount)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On October 2, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Judy Lindsay. In her letter, Ms. Lindsay requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District #196, Rosemount. Ms. Lindsay enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Lindsay&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. John T. Haro, Superintendent of ISD #196. The purposes of this letter, dated October 23, 1997, were to inform Dr. Haro of Ms. Lindsay&apos;s request, and to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 4, 1997, PIPA received a response from Mark T. Porter, Director of Human Resources and Legal Services for ISD #196. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated October 17, 1997, Ms. Lindsay wrote to Dr. Haro, requesting access to a copy of the district&apos;s directory with employees&apos; e-mail addresses and voice mail numbers as per Minnesota Public Data Law [sic] 13.03. According to Ms. Lindsay, she was provided a copy of the voice mail directory, but ISD #196 denied her request for employee e-mail addresses. Ms. Lindsay wrote that [t]he superintendent says, according to, Chapter 13 Private Data [sic], the district can not release the e-mail directory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter wrote that District employees&apos; e-mail addresses are personnel data, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, and according to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, e-mail addresses are classified as private data, and are therefore not accessible to Ms. Lindsay.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Lindsay asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has Independent School District 196 complied with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 in denying public access to a copy of the District&apos;s employee e-mail directory?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Personnel data are data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as ISD #196, and are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Employer-provided e-mail addresses are data about District employees that are collected, created, and maintained by ISD # 196 because those individuals are employees of the District. Accordingly, those data are personnel data. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.
&lt;p&gt;Employee e-mail address &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt; is not included in the list of specific data classified as public at Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Neither, for that matter, is a United States postal address specified. However, the list of data that are public includes work location. It is not disputed that as part of work location, a public employee&apos;s postal mailing address is public. The Commissioner is of the opinion that in the electronic age, a public employee&apos;s e-mail address is also part of the employee&apos;s work location. An employee&apos;s e-mail address simply provides another means, in a different medium, for the public to communicate with its government. For the Commissioner to conclude otherwise would be absurd. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Lindsay is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, public employees&apos; work-provided e-mail addresses are part of the employees&apos; work location and are therefore public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 10, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267322</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Email addresses</Title><Id>266718</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:26:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-048</Title><title>Opinion 97 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266295&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-11-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office respond appropriately to a June 20, 1997, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 18, 1997; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 29, 1997, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Eugene Begay. In that letter, Mr. Begay described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office (RCSO). Mr. Begay enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Begay&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 1997, were to inform Mr. Fletcher of Mr. Begay&apos;s request, and to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position. PIPA did not receive a response from the Sheriff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. In September 1995, Mr. Begay filed a complaint with the RCSO. According to Mr. Begay, his complaint was investigated during which numerous persons were interviewed. A portion of Mr. Begay&apos;s complaint was upheld.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In June 1997, Mr. Begay wrote to Sheriff Fletcher and requested the release of any and all materials contained within the internal affairs case file related to the investigation of his complaint. In response, Mr. Begay received copies of: 1) his complaint; 2) a letter dated December 29, 1995, from Sheriff Fletcher to Mr. Begay; and 3) a letter dated December 29, 1995, from Sheriff Fletcher to the employee against whom part of Mr. Begay&apos;s complaint was upheld.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Begay wrote to the Commissioner that he believes he is entitled to additional information (for example, any and all interviews conducted during the course of the internal affairs investigation) . . . . pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Begay asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office respond appropriately to a June 20, 1997, request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data about current and former employees of government entities such as the RCSO are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Of relevance to this opinion, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4) and (5), provide that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; and &lt;u&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action&lt;/u&gt;, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, subdivision 2 (b) provides:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to Mr. Begay&apos;s request, he received three documents from Ramsey County: copies of 1) his complaint; 2) a letter dated December 29, 1995, from Sheriff Fletcher to Mr. Begay; and 3) a letter dated December 29, 1995, from Sheriff Fletcher to the employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his letter to Mr. Begay, Sheriff Fletcher wrote An investigation was conducted which included interviews with several Sheriff&apos;s department personnel. In his letter to the employee, Sheriff Fletcher wrote that a complaint was made against the employee, the complaint was investigated, and a portion of the complaint was sustained. Sheriff Fletcher wrote: Accordingly, I am sustaining Mr. Begay&apos;s complaint and issuing you a written reprimand which will be placed in your Sheriff&apos;s Department personnel file.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Sheriff Fletcher provided Mr. Begay with a copy of the letter of reprimand he (Fletcher) sent to the employee. The letter contained information about why the employee was being disciplined, i.e., data which would not be available to Mr. Begay if there were no final disposition of the disciplinary action. Therefore, the Commissioner assumes that there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is clear that disciplinary action, i.e., the letter of reprimand, has been imposed on the employee as a result of Mr. Begay&apos;s complaint, and that there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action. Therefore, in accordance with Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5), any member of the public is entitled to gain access to the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Sheriff Fletcher referred to several interviews with other employees as part of the investigation into Mr. Begay&apos;s complaint. However, none of the data in those interviews was provided to Mr. Begay in response to his request for any and all materials contained within the internal affairs case file related to the investigation of his complaint. Mr. Begay was informed of the reasons for the disciplinary action, but not the data documenting the basis for the action. The RCSO should provide Mr. Begay with access to all data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action taken against the employee, excluding any data that identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Begay is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office may not have responded appropriately to a June 20, 1997, request for access to data. The Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office has not provided the data requestor with access to data it maintains that document the basis of the disciplinary action taken against its employee, excluding any data that identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 18, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266295</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reprimand</Title><Id>266294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-047</Title><title>Opinion 97 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267935&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-11-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, has the Anoka County Metro Regional Treatment Center responded appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 17, 1997; Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 22, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated September 22, 1997, from Simcha Plisner, an attorney representing D. In his letter, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding D&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center, hereinafter RTC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Judith Krohn, CEO of the RTC, in response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 1, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the RTC&apos;s position. On October 20, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Ms. Krohn.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Plisner is as follows. In a letter dated on or about August 7, 1997, Mr. Plisner wrote to Ms. Krohn and asked for copies of certain data about D. Upon receiving no response, Mr. Plisner requested the data again from Ms. Krohn in a letter dated on or about August 24, 1997. In a letter dated August 27, 1997, staff in the medical records department responded by asking for a new release of information form. On August 28, 1997, Mr. Plisner faxed to the medical records staff a copy of a release form. Having heard nothing further, Mr. Plisner wrote again, in a letter dated on or about September 4, 1997. He wrote, I still await receiving the material I requested as counsel for [D] under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act originally back on or about August 7, 1997.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, has the Anoka County Metro Regional Treatment Center responded appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                   In the case at hand, the data created, collected, and maintained about D by the RTC are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.46, welfare data. Private data are accessible to the data subject and individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject (
									&lt;i&gt;see&lt;/i&gt;
									 Section 13.02, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2). Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, government entities are required to respond immediately or within five to ten working days.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Krohn wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Our Medical Records staff did receive a request for charting from Mr. Plisner for his client....[t]he signed release of information did not authorize AMRTC to release the specific information Mr. Plisner requested. A letter was sent to Mr. Plisner stating that a new release form would need to be signed authorizing the specific information he requested and offered to discuss any questions he had about the release with the Medical Records staff.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            A second release of information form was faxed to AMRTC which still was not specific to the information Mr. Plisner was requesting. Some information that Mr. Plisner requested...needs a court authorization to be released...
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            At this point, [the Minnesota Department of Human Services] was contacted for assistance and guidance...AMRTC&apos;s Medical Record department staff wanted clear direction...
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Because Mr. Plisner and the RTC have been involved in a couple rounds of communication, there are essentially two parts to this opinion. The first is whether the RTC responded appropriately to Mr. Plisner&apos;s original request (on or about August 7, 1997) and the second is whether the RTC responded appropriately after Mr. Plisner faxed the second release form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the first part, Mr. Plisner apparently began requesting access to the data about his client on or about August 7, 1997. He then made a second request on or about August 24, 1997. The RTC responded (with a request for an additional consent to release form) on August 27, 1997. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the RTC was required to respond within ten working days. Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine whether the RTC responded to Mr. Plisner&apos;s original request within the time frame required by Section 13.04.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the second part, after faxing a second consent to release form on or about August 28, 1997, Mr. Plisner heard nothing further from the RTC. He then wrote another letter on or about September 4, 1997, to Ms. Krohn but had not received a response when he requested this opinion on September 22, 1997.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that when Mr. Plisner faxed the second release form to the RTC, the statutory clock began to tick. At that point in time, Mr. Plisner presumably assumed that he had provided the RTC with sufficient information to respond to his request. However, it was not until Ms. Krohn responded (on October 20, 1997) to Mr. Plisner&apos;s opinion request that Mr. Plisner was made aware that: 1) the second consent to release was somehow inadequate; and 2) some of the data would not be released unless Mr. Plisner obtained a court order. Because Ms. Krohn did not respond until after ten working days had passed, the RTC did not comply with the time frame requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 (subdivision 3) and 13.46, the Anoka County Metro Regional Treatment Center did not, in part, respond in a timely manner to a request for access to data by the data subject. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 17, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267935</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-046</Title><title>Opinion 97 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267651&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-11-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of St. Paul complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in charging $1,020.60 for copies of public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 1997; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 11, 1997, the Commissioner received a letter dated September 9, 1997, from Dick Senese, DFL State Party Chair. In his letter, Mr. Senese requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the issue of copying charges assessed by the City of St. Paul for copying public government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Fred Owusu, Clerk of the City of St. Paul, in response to Mr. Senese&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Senese&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On September 22, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated September 18, 1997, from Paul McCloskey, Assistant City Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated April 23, 1997, Mr. Senese requested access to the following data:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;ul type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;disc&quot;&gt;
                          An organizational chart or list of employees in the office of the Mayor of St. Paul. This list should include all current and former office holders accompanied by job descriptions, salaries, and office phone numbers from the beginning of your administration. (Also, please identify any new positions that were created following your election as Mayor of St. Paul.)
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;disc&quot;&gt;
                          All travel records for the mayor&apos;s office including expense reports and purpose of travel.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;disc&quot;&gt;
                          All telephone records, including cellular phones for employees who have served in your office.
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 5, 1997, Deputy Mayor, Tim Marx, wrote to Mr. Senese and stated, We intend to comply fully with your request consistent with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and have begun the process of gathering the data....[staff will] provide you with an expected time by which we can comply with the request and an estimate of the charges that will be incurred.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 14, 1997, the Assistant to the Mayor, Roger Curtis, wrote to Mr. Senese&apos;s office with an estimate for the actual costs of retrieving this information. Mr. Curtis further wrote, We are assembling this data on the assumption that you will pay the legally-allowed cost. If this is not the case, please let me know as soon as possible. The estimated charge was $597.65.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Marx wrote again to Mr. Senese on June 26, 1997. Apparently attached to that letter were copies of requested data. Mr. Marx wrote, Your request required many hours to assemble, substantially more that our original estimates. The total cost of &lt;u&gt;$1,070.60&lt;/u&gt;is accounted for in the following summary. He further wrote, You should be aware that your letter of June 25, 1997 [a copy of this letter was not provided to the Commissioner] was received after we completed the work to respond to your data request. Consequently, we cannot accommodate your request to copy the documents yourself, and we believe our duplicating charges presented the most economical option for you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Then, on June 30, 1997, the Mayor&apos;s office apparently faxed, to Mr. Senese, another copy of the June 26, 1997, letter. On this copy of the letter, someone had reduced the duplicating fee from $283.60 to $238.60 (the higher figure was crossed out and the lower number was written in). Further, the original total charge of $1,070.60 was crossed out and the revised fee (based on the reduction of the duplicating charge) was written in at $1,020.60.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Senese asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of St. Paul complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in charging $1,020.60 for copies of public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may charge for copies of public government data. Specifically, the statute states that an entity may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that an entity, in determining a fee, shall be guided by the following: cost of materials; cost of labor; any schedule of standard copying charges; any special costs; and mailing costs.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Intertwined with the standard for copying charges is the requirement in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, which states that the government entity must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case at hand, Mr. Senese requested access to certain data maintained by St. Paul. The City responded with an estimation of the cost of retrieving this information. The estimate included a breakdown according to staff costs (for telephone records, administrative time, travel records, and salary records) and paper/computer costs (for computer time and travel/telephone copies). However, when the data were sent to Mr. Senese, the assessed fee had almost doubled and the new charge was accounted for in a different fashion (staff time for telephone records, staff time for employee salary records, computer processing, two reams of paper, and duplicating costs).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the opinion request, Mr. McCloskey noted that upon further review of the City&apos;s final charge, for the purpose of responding to Mr. Senese&apos;s opinion request, the fee had been increased by $5. He wrote, The correct charge has increased by $5.00 to a total of $1,025.60 due to an arithmetic error contained in our first bill. Mr. McCloskey also wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I submit for your review a document entitled Request for Information - Mayor&apos;s Office&apos; which has been specifically prepared in response to Mr. Senese&apos;s request to your office. It sets forth in detail the wage rates, fringe benefits, job titles and time spent of the city employees involved. Further, it sets forth computer costs and duplicating costs. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. McCloskey summarized the costs. He wrote that total staff time was $645 for retrieving and collecting the data. He wrote that the cost of computer processing and copies ($20.30) increased the total charge to $665.65. He wrote that a secretary had to organize the materials at a cost of $121.35 and that duplicating costs were $238.60. Apparently in relation to the duplicating bill he wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As to this item, attached please find the print shop bill submitted to the Mayor&apos;s office for this work. It totaled $477.27. Because there was a simultaneous request for the same data from the Minnesota Star Tribune, it was decided to split this bill between Mr. Senese and the Tribune....Thus, Mr. Senese has enjoyed a savings and the duplicating costs were only billed at $238.60, which is about half the cost. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In closing, Mr. McCloskey wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The documents enclosed reflect the City&apos;s complete compliance with the language of Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3. It is respectfully suggested in response to Mr. Senese&apos;s September 9, 1997, letter to you that the charge to him is strictly measured by the expansive nature of his request for data. We cannot gauge the expense of such a request until the work is done and we actually track the time and costs involved.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that in charging for copies of public government data, the entity may charge only the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. In the present situation, it is difficult for the Commissioner to determine whether St. Paul complied with the guidelines set forth in statute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, is that Mr. Senese&apos;s original April 23, 1997, request appears to be a combination of a request for copies of existing data and a request for the City to create new data, i.e., creating data that do not exist or organizing or reconfiguring existing data into a different format, such as a chart. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, 96-007, 97-005, 97-026 and 97-031, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data, only to provide access (inspection or copies) to data currently in existence. In situations where an entity has been asked to create new data, the request is not a true data practices request and the amount of any charge levied by a government entity to respond to the request is not regulated by state law. In previous advisory opinions (see above), the Commissioner has advised that in such instances, the entity and the requesting party work out an agreement as to an appropriate charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Senese&apos;s request also appears to be a request for copies of data currently in existence. However, because of the way St. Paul documented the charge, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the assessed fee is allowable under Section 13.03, subdivision 3. According to the information provided by Mr. McCloskey, the employee time involved seven different employees who worked a total of 41.5 hours collecting, retrieving, and organizing, the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Further, it is not clear why seven different staff of the City, whose job titles include Accounting Clerk I, Payroll Clerk, Computer Operator, EDP Programmer, Secretary, Payroll System Tech, and Mayor&apos;s Secretary, and whose salaries range from $15.87/hour to $29.13/hour, were required to respond to a request to provide copies of financial and accounting records of the City. The assignment of seven people to this task also raises a question as to whether the City failed in its duty to keep its records in such a condition as to be easily accessible by the public. (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) However, without more detail, it is difficult to determine how the charges, which appear to amount to $1.42 per copy, represent the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, there is a computer processing charge of $11.20, which Mr. McCloskey did not explain, as well as a copying charge of $9.10, which appears to be for 883 pieces of paper. However, the most confusing part of Mr. McCloskey&apos;s supporting documentation is what he refers to as the duplicating costs of $238.60 from the print shop. Without a guide to the coding used in the print shop invoice, the documentation provided to explain the print shop charges is incomprehensible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In conclusion, based on the lack of detail provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the charge assessed to Mr. Senese by the City of St. Paul is in compliance with the provisions of Section 13.03, subdivision 3. First, while Mr. McCloskey provided information regarding the number of staff hours spent searching and retrieving the data, he did not explain why so many different people spent so much time pulling the data together. Second, the City did not offer an explanation as to why a charge was necessary for computer processing. Third, Mr. McCloskey did not explain why Mr. Senese was charged for two reams of paper when the number of copies appears to be 883. Finally, it is not at all clear how the print shop&apos;s charge of $238.60 (or, for that matter, the original fee of $477.27, which was apparently split between Mr. Senese and the Star Tribune) was calculated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issues discussed in this opinion illustrate the need for individuals making requests to clarify with government entities whether they are requesting copies of data or requesting that the entity prepare new data. One way to do this is for the individual to ask to inspect the data. This situation also points to the need for government entities to ensure that public data are easily accessible and to communicate fully with the public when estimated charges change dramatically, as they did in this case.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Senese is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the City of St. Paul has complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in charging $1,020.60 for copies of public data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267651</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Cost of creating new data</Title><Id>266298</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-045</Title><title>Opinion 97 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267753&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and federal rules regarding the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, did School District #194 inappropriately disseminate educational data about B&apos;s two children?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 1997; School District 194 (Lakeville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 10, PIPA received a letter dated September 3, 1997, from B. In B&apos;s letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by School District #194, Lakeville.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carl Wahlstrom, Superintendent of School District #194, Lakeville, in response to B&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1997, were to inform him of B&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On September 30, 1997, PIPA received a response dated September 26, 1997, from Tom Coughlin, Director of Administrative Services.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. B&apos;s children were apparently seeking transfer from District #194 to District #917. To this end, District #194 was presented with an application form to be filled out about each child. The forms were completed by a District #194 staff person and sent on to District #917. The information provided by the District #194 staff person included details about the preparation, participation, and performance of each child, and also included information relating to the diagnosis and evaluation of possible substance abuse.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                B then requested an opinion on the question of a possible inappropriate dissemination of government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In B&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and federal rules regarding the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, did School District #194 inappropriately disseminate educational data about B&apos;s two children? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Provisions of both state and federal law govern data about students. Minnesota Statutes section 13.32 incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.32 provides that most data about students created, collected, and maintained by public educational institutions are classified as private and, in most cases, cannot be disseminated without the data subject having given informed consent. Likewise, pursuant to FERPA, educational records about students are not public and, in general, cannot be disclosed, subject to certain exceptions, unless consent has been obtained from the student and/or his/her parent(s). (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; 34 CFR Section 99.30.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     One additional consideration regarding the release of the substance abuse data is that those data are further protected by a separate federal law. In general, records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment of any patient that are maintained in connection with the performance of any drug abuse function conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department of the United States (this refers, in most cases, to programs that receive federal funding) are confidential and cannot be released without prior consent. (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; 42 CFR Section 2.2.) For purposes of Chapter 13, the term confidential, as used in the federal rules, translates functionally to a definition of private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case at hand, B&apos;s two children attended school in District #194. The District received an application form (for the purpose of enrolling the children in another school district) that the District was to complete for each of B&apos;s children. In filling out the forms, District #194 provided educational data about each of the children, including some information relating to substance abuse issues. Pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 5, school districts may designate some data about students as public, or directory, information. Upon examination of District #194&apos;s records policy, the majority of the data disseminated to District# 917 vis a vis the forms are not the type of data designated as public. Therefore, most of those data are private educational data about the children. Further, as B stated in her/his letter, There were no consent forms signed for this information to be released nor was there one offered.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Coughlin wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The School District&apos;s Records Policy on Personnel and Students prohibits the release of educational data on students, except to the individual data subject, without the student&apos;s written consent, or in the case of a minor, parental consent...The School District&apos;s administration takes implementation and enforcement of its policy very seriously and has been diligent in training its employees regarding their responsibilities relating to the privacy rights of students...[t]he School District is willing to take reasonable action to rectify the release of the information to the [other school district] about which [B] has objected...Finally, I want to emphasize the School District&apos;s commitment to compliance with its policies and state and federal laws regarding data privacy....We are concerned about the error in the instant case. Please be assured that we will do whatever we can to rectify this error and prevent such errors in the future. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, because District #194 disseminated private educational data about B&apos;s children to District #917 and did not gain prior informed consent, District #194 disclosed the data inappropriately. The District, in fact, readily acknowledges that it erred in releasing the data. The Commissioner hopes District #194 will work to ensure that incidents such as this do not occur again.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by B is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and federal rules regarding the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, School District #194 inappropriately disseminated private data about B&apos;s two children. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 31, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267753</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug treatment records (42 C.F.R. Part 2)</Title><Id>266686</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug treatment records</Title><Id>266692</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-044</Title><title>Opinion 97 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267200&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, has Mower County responded properly to a July 23, 1997, request for access to data about the deceased data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 1997; Mower County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 3, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated August 22, 1997, from Mrs. Wilfred Bissen. In her letter, Mrs. Bissen requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to data maintained by Mower County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Oscarson, Mower County Coordinator, in response to Mrs. Bissen&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 5, 1997, were to inform him of Mrs. Bissen&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On September 22, 1997, PIPA received a response dated September 17, 1997, from Robert Auron, Assistant Mower County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Mrs. Bissen wrote that prior to Mr. Bissen&apos;s death, he had been placed in a special conservatorship arrangement and that Mower County Human Services had jurisdiction over the matter. She further wrote, [Members of the family] have requested, both formally and informally, records of the investigations carried out by [the County]...representatives of the County have...consistently refused our requests. Mrs. Bissen stated that the family contacted an attorney who, in writing, requested access to all of Wilfred Bissen&apos;s records. Mrs. Bissen provided a copy of the County&apos;s July 10, 1997, response (by Mr. Auron). Mr Auron wrote, [w]hile the family may very well be seeking closure&apos;, this is an issue which they are going to have to pursue on their own, as we have no further information to give them and will not be responding directly to them.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mrs. Bissen also provided a copy of a July 23, 1997, request in which she wrote, I am writing to you requesting the files on my husband&apos;s emergency medical conservatorship &lt;u&gt;as soon as possible&lt;/u&gt;. The County&apos;s response to that letter (from Mr. Auron) is dated July 28, 1997. He apparently provided a copy of the petition for special conservatorship and the attachments thereto, along with a copy of the petition for general conservatorship. Mr. Auron then stated, We are unable to supply you with any further information. He wrote, Under Minnesota Statute Section 626.557, Subd. 12(b), data collected by a county social services agency in the course of doing adult protection work is welfare data&apos; under Minnesota Statute Section 13.46. Under Section 13.46, this data is labeled private data on individuals.&apos; He further argued that the data about Mr. Bissen are not accessible because those data are now private data on decedents (see Section 13.10), and will not be available until 2025 and 2026.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mrs. Bissen, disagreeing with his determination, requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Mrs. Bissen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, has Mower County responded properly to a July 23, 1997, request for access to data about the deceased data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                  Note: In the Commissioner&apos;s September 5, 1997, letter to Mr. Oscarson, there was an incorrect statute citation (Section 13.04, subdivision 4, was cited whereas the correct citation is Section 13.04, subdivision 3). In his response, Mr. Auron referred to the mistake and directed his response to the correct statutory section.
                &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In the present case, Mrs. Bissen, as the surviving spouse, requested access to data regarding her late husband&apos;s conservatorship. As stated above, the County responded by providing her with some of the data but stated it was unable to provide further information because the data are private data per Section 13.46. Mr. Auron, on behalf of the County, further argued that because Wilfred Bissen is deceased, private data about him maintained by the County are subject to Section 13.10 and will not become public until 2025 and 2026.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to Mrs. Bissen&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Auron, on behalf of the County, made a somewhat different argument as to why the data are not accessible to Mrs. Bissen. He wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[i]t is my understanding that, between our office and Mower County Human Services, Mrs. Bissen has been provided with all of the information we have, except for the identity of the reporter or the reporters who notified Human Services regarding their concerns for Wilfred Bissen. Mower County has refused to disclose the identity of those reporters to Mrs. Bissen, because we are forbidden to disclose those identities under the vulnerable adult protection act, unless we have consent of the reporter. This is the reason we have withheld that information from Mrs. Bissen. To my knowledge, all of the other data which we have about the Wilfred Bissen case has been provided to her. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Based on the information provided, most of the data collected by Mower County about Mr. Bissen are welfare data and are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.46. In addition, given Mr. Auron&apos;s response to the opinion request, it appears that some of the data about Mr. Bissen may also have been created and collected by Mower County pursuant to Section 626.557, the vulnerable adult reporting statute. Assuming Mower County was a lead agency, most of the data collected and created as a direct result of a maltreatment report are classified as private (&lt;i&gt;see&lt;/i&gt; Section 626.557, subdivision 12b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Private data are accessible to the data subject, or in the case of a deceased data subject, are accessible to the representative of the decedent. (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Section 13.10, subdivision 3.) Regarding this point, Mr. Auron&apos;s July 28, 1997, letter is confusing. He appears to suggest that the County has private data on Mr. Bissen that are not available to Mrs. Bissen until those data become public in 30 years. But, pursuant to Section 13.10, subdivision 1 (c), representative of the decedent is defined as the personal representative of the estate or if none, the surviving spouse. Representatives of decedents have the same rights as those granted the data subject when s/he was alive. Thus, any private data about Mr. Bissen maintained by the County should be accessible to Mrs. Bissen as the representative of the decedent. One clear exception would be any data revealing the identity of the reporter. This information is clearly confidential and would not be available to Mrs. Bissen.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In his July 28, 1997, letter to Mrs. Bissen, Mr. Auron stated that some of the County&apos;s data about Mr. Bissen would not be available until the data became public in 2025 and 2026. (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Section 13.10, subdivision 2.) While Mr. Auron is correct that private and confidential data on decedents become public after a certain period of time, this does not negate the fact that the private data are accessible to the representative of the decedent at any time. Thus, in the case at hand, because Mr. Bissen is deceased, any private data on decedents the County maintains about him are accessible to his widow in her capacity as the representative of the decedent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, there is a dispute as to whether Mrs. Bissen has gained access to the data to which she is entitled. Mr. Auron asserts that the only data she has not received are those revealing the identity of the reporter. Mrs. Bissen appears to believe she is entitled to gain access to more data than she has received. From the information provided, the Commissioner is not able to resolve this factual dispute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In conclusion, the Commissioner opines the following. If the County maintains private data on decedents about Mr. Bissen, Mrs. Bissen, as the surviving spouse, should be able to gain access to the data provided there is no other representative of the decedent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mrs. Bissen is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is unclear whether the County responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, to a July 23, 1997, request for access to data. If, however, the County maintains private data on decedents about the data subject, and his widow, as the surviving spouse, is the representative of the decedent, those data are accessible to her. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 23, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267200</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents (13.10)</Title><Id>266471</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:21:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-043</Title><title>Opinion 97 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267250&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Wadena County comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when, as part of an evaluation, it collected information about the data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 1997; Wadena County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 25, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated August 20, 1997, from H. In his/her letter, H requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion as to whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, Wadena County inappropriately collected data about H.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Sailer, Social Services Director for Wadena County, in response to H&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 29, 1997, were to inform him of H&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On September 9, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated September 4, 1997, from B. Joseph Majors, II, Wadena County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter as presented by H is as follows. H is employed by Wadena County. Following a specific incident involving H, H was required by the County to undergo an evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by Dr. Dieter Zoglauer who was retained and paid for by the county. H further wrote, Acting as an agent for the county [Dr. Zoglauer] asked me very personal questions. At no time did I receive a Tennessen Warning from Dr. Zoglauer.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Attached to H&apos;s opinion request were copies of three documents. First was a letter dated April 23, 1997, from the County to H stating that H was required to participate and complete an evaluation with Dr. Zoglauer. The second document was an unsigned form entitled Authorization for Release and/or Exchange of Information. The third document was entitled Attachment to Authorization for Release of Information. The document stated, The data subject gives permission for Dr. Zoglauer to: (address the following issues). There followed a list of issues that apparently were to be discussed by H and Dr. Zoglauer. The document also stated, The data subject gives permission to convey to Dr. Zoglauer the following documents: 1. Copy of job description 2. Copy of evaluation information 3. Issues/concerns by staff.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his/her request for an opinion, H asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Wadena County comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when, as part of an evaluation, it collected information about the data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning. The statute does not require that the notice be written or signed by the data subject, only that the data subject be notified of the elements set forth in Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Before additional discussion, it is noted that based on documentation submitted by H and the County, the Commissioner relied on the following information in reaching her conclusion in this opinion. First is that H was required by his/her employer to participate in an evaluation conducted by Dr. Zoglauer. Second is that H received a letter from the County, dated April 23, 1997, which informed him/her that failure to adequately and responsibly comply with the directive to undergo the evaluation would result in appropriate and necessary disciplinary action. Third is that there is a copy of an unsigned version of the authorization form, and a signed version of the same form dated July 21, 1997. Fourth is that the meeting between H and Dr. Zoglauer apparently took place sometime prior to July 21, 1997. (This conclusion is reached based on statements made by both Mr. Majors and H. In his response Mr. Majors wrote, Please be aware that Dr. Zoglauer did not provide his report to the County until after the release dated July 21, 1997,...was obtained from [H]. In a letter dated July 21, 1997, H wrote, [Z]oglauer put things in his report that are irrelevant to my job....I am requesting that I receive either a copy of the finished report or am allowed to read the report as I have not seen a finished copy. )
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, Section 13.04, subdivision 2, provides that a government entity must provide certain information to an individual when the entity collects data about that individual from that individual. In the case at hand, during the evaluation which apparently took place prior to July 21, 1997, Dr. Zoglauer, acting as an agent of Wadena County, collected data from H about H. The issue, therefore, is whether H received the required notice from Dr. Zoglauer or some other agent of the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fundamental purpose of the Tennessen Warning notice is to enable an individual to make an informed decision as to whether s/he wishes to provide the requested data to the government entity. It essentially serves as a form of privacy protection. In his response, Mr. Majors wrote, It is clear that the information required to be passed along to the subject of the data by the provisions of Subdivision 2 of the statute was provided to [H] in Mr. Lucca&apos;s letter of April 23, 1997 to [H] and in the proposed release with attachment which was given to [H] on or about April 30, 1997... Mr. Major&apos;s assertion is that the combination of the form and the April 23, 1997, letter is equal to a Tennessen Warning notice. However, his argument is problematic because taken together, the form and the letter, and the timing and circumstances of their presentation to H do not meet the requirements set forth in Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For example, did the County inform H of the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity? While both the letter and the form discuss the fact that there is concern about how the incident involving H might be an indicator of possible future problems at work, there is not a specific statement about how the County might use the data. In other words, might it be used to terminate H from his/her job? Might it be used to require H to participate in counseling sessions? The form states, I have been instructed as to...the purposes and intended uses of the information. However, the Commissioner was not provided with information indicating that H did sign the form agreeing to this statement prior to the evaluation with Dr. Zoglauer and there is nothing else indicating that s/he received any information about the purposes and intended use of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, did the County inform H whether s/he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requesting data? There is nothing in either the form or the April 23, 1997, letter informing H as to whether s/he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Third, did the County inform H about any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply the data? On this point, it appears the County has, at least partially, complied. The final paragraph of the April 23, 1997, letter states, Failure to adequately and responsibly comply with this directive will result in appropriate and necessary disciplinary action. The County has informed H about the consequences of not providing Dr. Zoglauer with information; however, the County did not discuss the consequences of H&apos;s supplying the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Fourth, did the County inform H of the identity of other persons [outside of the County] or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data? The form discusses the fact that Dr. Zoglauer will receive the data. However, the purpose of the fourth element is to identify persons outside of the entity who might gain access to the data. In this case, the County did not provide H with information about persons outside the entity and/or other entities who might receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by H is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Wadena County did not comply with all the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when, as part of an evaluation, it collected information about the data subject. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 20, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267250</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose of notice - informed choice</Title><Id>266773</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-042</Title><title>Opinion 97 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267547&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Hennepin County Medical Center comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in charging a data subject&apos;s representative $19.08 for copies of the data subject&apos;s medical data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 9, 1997; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 4, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated August 4, 1997, from Simcha Plisner, on behalf of his client. In his letter, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the cost assessed by Hennepin County Medical Center, hereinafter HCMC, for copies of government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Bluford, Administrator of the Hennepin County Medical Center. The purposes of this letter, dated August 11, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On August 22, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated August 20, 1997, from Ann Russell, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Plisner is as follows. HCMC maintains data about Mr. Plisner&apos;s client. Mr. Plisner requested copies of his client&apos;s medical records. He wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[My client&apos;s data were] subsequently sent to me by a CopyMed a medical records management company. The data amounted to no more than four or five pages. I also received from copy med a statement of fees which included I [sic] some sort of recall or search charge for $10.00 for retrieval of the documents and I believe $.75 a page for photocopying. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to an invoice from Copymed submitted by Mr. Plisner the total charge was $19.08.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Hennepin County Medical Center comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in charging a data subject&apos;s representative $19.08 for copies of the data subject&apos;s medical data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data collected because an individual is or was a patient/client of a hospital operated by a government entity are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42. Per subdivision 3 of Section 13.42, medical data are available to the subject of the data as provided in section 144.335. Subdivision 5 of Section 144.335 provides specific guidelines for providers to follow upon assessing fees for copies of medical records. In relevant part, subdivision 5 states:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When a patient requests a copy of the patient&apos;s record for purposes of reviewing current medical care, the provider must not charge a fee. When a provider or its representative makes copies of patient records upon a patient&apos;s request under this section, the provider or its representative may charge the patient or the patient&apos;s representative no more than 75 cents per page, plus $10 for time spent retrieving and copying the record, unless other law or a rule or contract provide for a lower maximum charge. This limitation does not apply to X-rays....
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            The respective maximum charges of 75 cents per page and $10 for time provided in this subdivision are in effect for calendar year 1992 and may be adjusted annually each calendar year as provided in this subdivision. The permissible maximum charges shall change each year by an amount that reflects the change, as compared to the previous year, in the consumer price index for all consumers, Minneapolis-St. Paul (CPI-U, published by the department of labor. [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response, Ms. Russell wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[t]his maximum fee [as stated in Section 144.335, subdivision 5] has increased with the cost of living, and currently hospitals are permitted to charge a retrieval fee of $11.29 and a per page fee of $.85. Hennepin County Medical Center moved to this fee level in March, 1997....The fact that Hennepin County Medical Center contracts with a firm that specializes in fulfilling medical record requests is irrelevant because the fees are still appropriate. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Because it appeared that the charge assessed to Mr. Plisner included the annual adjustments allowable under Section 144.335, PIPA staff briefly researched the issue by contacting the Minnesota Department of Economic Security Research and Statistics Office, the local source for the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan statistical area. According to its calculations, based on the CPI-U released in March, 1997, the allowable fees are currently approximately $11.25 per retrieval and $.84 per page.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In an attempt to determine how Hennepin County arrived at a different calculation ($11.29 per retrieval and $.85 per page), PIPA staff contacted Ms. Russell by telephone. She pointed out that even though the statute allows for yearly adjustments, Mr. Plisner was charged the fee that was in effect for calendar year 1992 ($10 for retrieval and $.75 per page).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, while it appears the retrieval and per page fees are allowable under Section 144.335, it is unclear how Hennepin County arrived at a total charge of $19.08. If the retrieval fee is subtracted from $19.08, the remainder is $9.08. That remainder divided by the per page fee of $.75 means that Mr. Plisner should have received approximately 12.2 pages (or at least 13 pages). Based on the information provided, it is not clear how many pages were provided to Mr. Plisner. In his opinion request, he stated, The data to the best of my recollection amounted to no more than four or five pages. Ms. Russell did not make any statement regarding the number of pages.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, 13.42, and 144.335, Hennepin County is allowed to charge, at least, a fee of $10 per retrieval and $.75 per page for a copy of a patient&apos;s medical records. However, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether Hennepin County properly charged Mr. Plisner without knowing how many pages were provided. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 9, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267547</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical data (144.335 / 144.291-144.298)</Title><Id>267272</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-041</Title><title>Opinion 97 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267936&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-03T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, has the University of Minnesota responded to the following request for government data made in a letter dated May 27, 1997: all existing data pertaining to the WCHA Audit?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 3, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 11, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated August 4, 1997, from James Paddock. In his letter, Mr. Paddock requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 11, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Paddock&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On August 25, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated August 21, 1997, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated May 27, 1997, Mr. Paddock requested access to the following data from the University: All existing data pertaining to the WCHA [Western Collegiate Hockey Association] Audit. This is property of the University of Minnesota, which makes it available to the public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 2, 1997, on behalf of the University, Judith Karon responded to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request. She wrote, I have reviewed item 3 where you asked for all the existing data pertaining to the WCHA Audit.&apos; This document, should it exist, would not be the property of the University of Minnesota. I suggest you contact the WCHA directly for information regarding this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Paddock then requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Paddock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, has the University of Minnesota responded to the following request for government data made in a letter dated May 27, 1997: all existing data pertaining to the WCHA Audit? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, upon request, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy government data at reasonable times and places. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the government entity is required to respond, respectively, in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. In addition, if the data are classified so as to preclude the requesting party from gaining access, the government entity is required to so inform the requestor.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to Mr. Paddock&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Smith wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The University of Minnesota at Duluth fully responded to Mr. Paddock&apos;s request on July 2, 1997. If the WCHA has an audit report, it is not government data under Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 7 (1996). The University does not have and has never had such a report. The WCHA is not part of the University, the University did not see or participate in such an audit, and the University did not own any WCHA records that were audited. Contrary to Mr. Paddock&apos;s belief, the WCHA audit, if there is such a document, is not property of the Main University,&apos; and the University does not have a copy of it.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            Under Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3, the requested data was not classified so as to deny the requesting person access,&apos; and the University did not deny&apos; access to the data. The University therefore had no further obligation under [Chapter 13].
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith argued that the University fully responded. While it is correct that the University did send a response to Mr. Paddock, the Commissioner opines that, for two reasons, the response is problematic. First, Ms. Karon&apos;s response did not clearly address the request made by Mr. Paddock. He requested access to data pertaining to the WCHA Audit. Ms. Karon replied, This document, should it exist, would not be the property of the University of Minnesota. However, Mr. Paddock did not ask for a copy of the audit; he asked for access to data pertaining to the audit and Ms. Karon was obligated under Chapter 13 to respond to his actual request. Either those data are government data (see Section 13.02, subdivision 7) or they are not.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, the University did not respond to the request in a timely manner, i.e., the University took over four weeks to respond. As stated above, Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, require that government entities respond promptly and within a reasonable time. The University did not provide any argument as to why a response time of over four weeks was prompt and reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Paddock is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the University did not respond to a May 27, 1997, request for access to data in a prompt manner or within a reasonable time. In addition, the University did not respond to the actual request made by the requestor. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267936</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-040</Title><title>Opinion 97 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266729&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-10-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, has the University of Minnesota responded properly to requests for access to government data made by Tom Lamphere on June 19, 1997, and June 24, 1997?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 3, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 9, 1997, PIPA received a fax dated same from Tom Lamphere. In his letter, Mr. Lamphere requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 12, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. PIPA received a response dated August 21, 1997, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, Mr. Lamphere requested access to certain data from the University. In a letter dated June 24, 1997, Mr. Lamphere made additions to and clarified his previous request for access to data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 7, 1997, Judith Karon of the University sent Mr. Lamphere copies of some of the data he requested in his June 19 letter. She wrote, I will provide additional information as it becomes available.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 1, 1997, Mr. Lamphere wrote to Ms. Smith and stated, I am putting you on notice that if I don&apos;t have all the copies in my possession of all the public data that I requested in my June 19 and June 24, 1997 public data request by August 8, 1997, I will ask for an advisory opinion from the Department of Administration.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Lamphere then requested an opinion in a letter dated August 9, 1997. He wrote, As of August 9, 1997, I have no response from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated August 21, 1997, Ms. Smith responded on behalf of the University to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. She wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;By letters dated August 14, 1997 (attached), the University of Minnesota at Duluth responded to both Mr. Lamphere&apos;s June 19 request and his June 24 request for information. As for Mr. Lamphere&apos;s statement that the University provided only a partial response to item No. 4 in his June 19 letter, University records show that in fact the University had provided all documents it has that are responsive to that request and informed Mr. Lamphere of Jim Malosky&apos;s salary. The University therefore has responded fully to both requests. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lamphere asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, has the University of Minnesota responded properly to requests for access to government data made by Tom Lamphere on June 19, 1997, and June 24, 1997? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.03 provides that the entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 provides that if the entity determines that the data are not accessible to the requestor, the responsible authority must so inform the requestor at the time of the request or as soon thereafter as possible. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides that responses must be made within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Lamphere requested access to data on two separate occasions. His June 19, 1997, letter contained six separate questions. He wrote in his opinion request, UMD&apos;s Judith Karon responded with a July 7, 1997 letter giving data for request #6 and partial data for request #4 of my June 19, 1997 letter. Ms. Karon responded further in a letter dated August 14, 1997. She wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;You have already received the documents for items 4 and 6 of that letter. I have the following documents for you:
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Those which respond to your number 1 consisting of 175 pages.
                                  &lt;p&gt;
                                    Those which respond to your number 2 consisting of 2 pages.
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                    Those which respond to your number 3 consisting of 43 pages.
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Regarding your question 5 about the existence and status of complaints and charges, there are no complaints or charges against John Brostrom, Greg Fox, Scott Hanna, or Ed Lundstrom. A complaint was filed against Jim Malosky, Sr. It was investigated and found to have no merit. Documents which respond to this question regarding Bruce McLeod consist of 6 pages.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 set forth the time frame within which a government entity must respond to requests for access to public data. In the present case, Mr. Lamphere requested data in a letter dated June 19, 1997. He did not receive a response from the University until sometime around July 7, 1997, and that response dealt with two of his six questions. The University did not respond to the remaining questions until August 14, 1997.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Chapter 13 does not define prompt or reasonable. In the case of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s June 19, 1997, request, the University took approximately ten days to respond to numbers 4 and 6 of the request and took approximately two months to respond to the remaining questions. The Commissioner is of the opinion, in this particular situation, that per Chapter 13, while a response time of approximately ten working days may be acceptable, a response time of two months is not. Such a conclusion is more easily reached given that the University did not argue its need to take an extended time to respond.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding Mr. Lamphere&apos;s June 24, 1997, request for access to data, the issues raised by the University&apos;s response are essentially the same. The University&apos;s response, in a letter dated August 14, 1997, was issued approximately 7 weeks after the request had been made. Ms. Karon wrote, This letter is in response to your request for documents under [Chapter 13] dated June 24, 1997. The documents which are responsive to your request consist of 123 pages. You may call my office to arrange a mutually convenient time to view them and there will be no cost to you. Should you wish copies the cost for copying is... Again, the Commissioner is of the opinion that a response time of approximately 7 weeks is neither prompt nor reasonable. Therefore, the University did not respond within the time frame set forth in Section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, in her response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Smith wrote, As for Mr. Lamphere&apos;s statement that the University provided only a partial response to item No. 4 in his June 19 letter, University records show that in fact the University has provided all documents it has that are responsive to that request and informed Mr. Lamphere of Jim Malosky&apos;s salary. The University has responded fully to both requests. Based on the information provided, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the University has provided Mr. Lamphere with all the data he requested in both letters.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lamphere is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, it appears the University may have responded in a prompt and reasonable manner to part of the Mr. Lamphere&apos;s June 19, 1997, request for access to data but did not so respond to the remaining parts of that request.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the University did not respond in a prompt and reasonable manner to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s June 24, 1997, request for access to data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266729</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-039</Title><title>Opinion 97 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267128&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-09-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in the following documents maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Service: documents submitted to the Department by a member of a consulting firm with which the Department has contracted?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 24, 1997; Minnesota Department of Public Service</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 1, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated July 28, 1997, from JoAnn Hanson, Assistant Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Service. In her letter, Ms. Hanson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Ms. Hanson wrote, The attached documents were sent to either the Department of Public Service or its attorney by Bion Ostrander. The Department has contracted with Mr. Ostrander, through his firm Ostrander Consulting, for professional consulting services. Ms. Hanson further stated that a member of the Ostrander Consulting team has requested access to the documents. She wrote, Mr. Ostrander has refused to consent to the release of these documents to [the member of the consulting team]. Ms. Hanson asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of the data in the documents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hanson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in the following documents maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Service: documents submitted to the Department by a member of a consulting firm with which the Department has contracted? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained, and/or disseminated by a government entity. Further, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information provided to the Commissioner, the Ostrander Consulting firm has apparently entered into a contract to provide services to the Department. Through that relationship, the data in question were furnished to the Department and thus became government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. Because there does not appear to be any statute, temporary classification, or federal law providing that the data be classified as not public, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that those data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hanson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the data contained in documents submitted to the Department by a member of a consulting firm with which the Department has contracted are public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 24, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267128</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consultants</Title><Id>266758</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:33:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-038</Title><title>Opinion 97 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268031&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-09-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Lakeville Police Department complied with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in charging a data subject $6.50 ($5 for the first page and $.50 for each additional page) for copies of data concerning the data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 23, 1997; City of Lakeville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 28, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated July 27, 1997, from Simcha Plisner, an attorney representing S. In his letter, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the cost of copies of certain data maintained by the City of Lakeville Police Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Erickson, Administrator for the City of Lakeville, in response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 5, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On August 18, 1997, PIPA received a faxed response, dated August 15, 1997, from Roger Knutson, an attorney representing the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. On behalf of his client, Mr. Plisner requested a copy of a report maintained by the City of Lakeville Police Department. Mr. Plisner was advised that the total charge would be $6.50 ($5 for the first page and $.50 per additional page after). Mr. Plisner stated, The requested fee for the report is $6.50 which seems to be for four pages.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Lakeville Police Department complied with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in charging a data subject $6.50 ($5 for the first page and $.50 for each additional page) for copies of data concerning the data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes that she has addressed the issue of computing costs for copies of government data in numerous previous advisory opinions. For more information, see Advisory Opinions 94-028, 94-040, 94-059, 95-051, 96-014, 97-012, and 97-013.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a government entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides further guidance and states that in determining the fee, the entity shall be guided by the cost of materials used to provide the copies, the cost of labor required to prepare the copies, any schedule of standard copying charges, any special costs necessary to produce the copies, and mailing costs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Knutson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The City did not violate Minn. Stat. 13.04, Subdivision 3. The charge is less than the actual cost of making and certifying the copies. To respond to the request the following took place:
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ul type=&quot;disc&quot;&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              a fax was received making the request.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              the fax was removed from the fax machine and carried to the person assigned to respond to such requests
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              a form was filled out and sent to the requester
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              payment was received and deposited
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              the data was searched for and located. [This, however, is not factored into the charge because the subject of the data requested the data].
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li type=&quot;shape&quot;&gt;
                              the requested data was transmitted by fax or mail to the requester.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Knutson further added, There is a higher charge for the first page because most of the time devoted to the response has nothing to do with the number of pages. Considering payroll cost of [$.33] per minute and the cost of paper and postage, the City believes the charge is less than the City&apos;s actual costs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a government entity may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Based on the information provided by Mr. Knutson, it is not at all clear how Lakeville arrived at a fee of $.50 per page or why the actual cost of making, certifying, or compiling the first page is $4.50 more than it costs to make, certify, or compile the remaining pages. Furthermore, the first four items cited by Mr. Knutson, which he apparently has factored into the $6.50 charge, have no relevance to the actual cost of copying the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, if the first four factors are immaterial and the fifth factor was not used as part of the calculation of the fee (Mr. Knutson stated this in his letter), the only remaining charge cited by Mr. Knutson is that of faxing or mailing the four copied pages. The City, through Mr. Knutson, did not provide documentation that mailing or faxing four pages costs $6.50. Therefore, in the absence of documentation, it appears that Lakeville has not complied with the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It appears that the City of Lakeville Police Department has not complied with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in charging a data subject $6.50 ($5 for the first page and $.50 for each additional page) for copies of data concerning the data subject. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 23, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268031</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:42:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-037</Title><title>Opinion 97 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266652&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-09-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the financial records of the general fund of the City of Lafayette Fire Department Relief Association public data under the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 3, 1997; City of Lafayette</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 18, 1997, the Commissioner received a letter dated July 17, 1997, from William Everett and Becky Thorson, attorneys representing the City of Lafayette Fire Department Relief Association, hereinafter Relief Association. In their letter, Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Relief Association.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson is as follows. A request was made by a member of the public for access to financial data from the Relief Association&apos;s general fund. Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson wrote, The Relief Association...withheld data pertaining to the Relief Association&apos;s general fund&apos; because the statutory classification of this data was unclear. The Association seeks an Opinion from the Commissioner of Administration on the question regarding public access to the Relief Association&apos;s general fund data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the financial records of the general fund of the City of Lafayette Fire Department Relief Association public data under the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  As Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson stated in their request, the Commissioner, in a previous advisory opinion, addressed the issue of whether data maintained by Fire Relief Associations are subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. In Advisory Opinion 94-043, the Commissioner opined, As the Legislature has determined that local fire relief associations of all types are subject to Chapter 13, public data maintained by the Association are accessible by the public in accordance with Chapter 13.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the specific issue at hand, Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson stated that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 424A.001, subdivision 4, the general fund is used for the good and benefit of the Association as determined by the Association by-laws. They added that its resources are non-governmental and include dues, fines, initiation fees, entertainment revenues and any moneys or property donated, given, granted or devised by any person, for unspecified uses. Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson contrasted the general fund to that of the Relief Association&apos;s special fund which is a pension trust fund contributed to by the City of Lafayette and from the two-percent insurance premium tax and amortization aid from the State of Minnesota.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson then discussed the fact that Minnesota Statutes Section 424A.06, subdivision 2, delineates rights of access to records of the general fund but does not provide public access to those records. As they stated, Section 424A.06, subdivision 2, provides that the general fund records shall be open for inspection by any member of the relief association at reasonable time and places. Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The legislature appears to have created a classification for the general fund data that is akin to private data because section 424A.06 provides access only to association &lt;i&gt;members&lt;/i&gt;. The classification of the general fund data under section 424A.06 therefore appears to be nonpublic, and according to section 13.03, subd. 1 of [Chapter 13], is inaccessible with respect to [the member of the public requesting the data]. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson again contrasted the access language relating to the general fund to a similar provision relating to the special fund. The relevant language is found in Section 424A.05, subdivision 2, and states, [The records and bylaws of the relief association&apos;s special fund] shall be public and shall be open for inspection by any member of the relief association, any officer or employee of the state or the municipality, or any member of the public, at reasonable times and places.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When [section 425A.05, subdivision 2, and section 424A.06, subdivision 2] were written, the legislature appears to have been most intent upon delineating very broad rights of access to the special fund (comprised of public monies) as compared to the rather narrow right of access to the general fund (non-governmental funding). The only major difference between the corresponding subdivisions is that the general fund records are not accessible to the public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner agrees with the conclusion reached by Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson. This position is buttressed by a 1996 District Court case, &lt;u&gt;Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association v. The Gray Eagles Association, A.J. DeAntoni and Charles Wolter&lt;/u&gt;, in which the judge found that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 424A.06, subdivision 2, data pertaining to a general fund of the Bloomington Fire Relief Association are not available to the public. The court wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[t]he most logical interpretation of the two provisions of Chapter 424A, when read together, is that public access is available for special fund data but not general fund data. This is the interpretation that best harmonizes and gives effect to both section 424A.05 and section 424A.06....the common sense interpretation of section 424A in the context of [Chapter 13] is that which is not public (the general fund data) is nonpublic, protected nonpublic, private, or confidential. Thus, section 424A establishes an exception to the general access provided by [Chapter 13]. This statutory exception allows for public access to special fund records but not general fund records. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Everett and Ms. Thorson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 424A.06, subdivision 2, financial records of the general fund of the City of Lafayette Fire Department Relief Association are not public data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266652</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire relief associations - subject to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266651</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-08-29T18:46:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-036</Title><title>Opinion 97 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266748&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-08-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, did the City of Corcoran properly respond to a March 7, 1997, request for access to the following data: all written materials received by the Corcoran City Council for purposes of that day&apos;s council meeting?
Did the Corcoran City Council provide appropriate access to the public for all written materials discussed at the April 10, 1997, council meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 20, 1997; City of Corcoran</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 30, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 28, 1997, from Chuck Lymangood. In his letter, Mr. Lymangood requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the City of Corcoran.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jeffrey Carson, Corcoran City Attorney, in response to Mr. Lymangood&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 27, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Lymangood&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 8, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated July 7, 1997, from Mr. Carson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Lymangood is as follows. At a City Council meeting on March 27, 1997, Mr. Lymangood asked to see all the documents the council members had before them. He wrote, I was denied access to these documents and was told I would have to return to city hall the following morning to review copies. Mr. Lymangood stated he believes that the City distributes two sets of council meeting documents; one set goes to the council members prior to council meetings, and the other set (the house copy ), which is significantly abbreviated, is available to the public at the actual meetings.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Lymangood wrote that at a council meeting on April 10, 1997, one of the agenda items related to the Loretta/Corcoran joint water system/tower. He stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;During the discussion of this item Mayor Larkin referred to the letter he had sent to the Mayor of Loretto. Earlier that day I was told the city hall only had a draft version&apos; of that document. However, the councilmembers had a copy of the final version and one member was kind enough to provide me a copy....Neither the draft nor the final version was included in the house copy&apos; which is all the material available to the public on a given evening. Again, the city council did not provide the public, at the beginning of the meeting, with the exact same material they were provided.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lymangood asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, did the City of Corcoran properly respond to a March 7, 1997, request for access to the following data: all written materials received by the Corcoran City Council for purposes of that day&apos;s council meeting?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the Corcoran City Council provide appropriate access to the public for all written materials discussed at the April 10, 1997, council meeting?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 provides that upon request, an individual shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. In addition, subdivision 3 provides that if the requested government data are classified as not public, the entity must so inform the requestor at the time of the request or as soon thereafter as possible.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a situation involving a meeting of a body subject to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, the Open Meeting Law, the government entity has additional statutory obligations regarding the public&apos;s access to data. In part, Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;u&gt;[at] least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items&lt;/u&gt;of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
                                  &lt;p&gt;
                                    (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                    (3) available in the meeting room to all members
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public&lt;/u&gt;while the governing body considers their subject matter. (Emphasis added.)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Lymangood and as reflected in the minutes of the March 27, 1997, council meeting, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner, Mr. Lymangood requested access to copies of all written materials the council members had received for the meeting. The minutes state, [Mr. Lymangood] was handed the House&apos; packet. He also requested copies of what was given to the Council in addition to the packet...He was informed that copies could be provided for him on Friday. (The council meeting was held on a Thursday.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Carson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The City Clerk puts together a house copy of all documents and correspondence sent to each council member in their packets. The house copy is available at the meeting for inspection. There are times that the City Council receives documents during the course of a meeting that would not be found in the house copy. My personal observation (I do not attend all Corcoran meetings) is that any request by a member of the public to inspect or review documents received during a meeting have been honored. I am not aware of any instance where a member of the public has been denied access to such a document upon request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the situation of the March 27, 1997, meeting, the council members apparently possessed data that were not made available to members of the public. When Mr. Lymangood asked for copies, he was informed that copies would be available the next day. Pursuant to Section 13.03, government data are accessible unless those data are classified as other than public. Based on the City&apos;s response to Mr. Lymangood&apos;s request, i.e., that the data would be available the next day, it does not appear Mr. Lymangood was denied access because the data were classified as something other than public. Further, as stated above, the City has additional obligations in providing access to data that are the subject of an open meeting. In this case, pursuant to the specific direction of Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, the City was required to make available at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items. Based on the information provided, the City did not meet this obligation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Mr. Lymangood is very similar to the first issue. The minutes of the April 10, 1997, meeting state, [Mr. Lymangood] then informed the Council that he had requested a copy of a letter Mayor Larkin had wrote [sic] to Mayor Schmidt and was given a draft&apos; copy by the City&apos;s staff instead of a copy of the original letter. He was then handed Councilor Lindsley&apos;s copy of the letter. In addition, Mr. Lymangood provided to the Commissioner a copy of the House packet of the materials for the April 10, 1997, meeting. As Mr. Lymangood asserted in his opinion request, neither the draft version nor Councilor Lindsey&apos;s version of the Mayor&apos;s letter were contained in the House packet.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (In his response, Mr. Carson did not specifically address the second issue of Mr. Lymangood&apos;s opinion request.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As discussed above, pursuant to Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, at an open meeting, the public body is required to provide access to printed materials relating to the agenda items. In this case, according to the minutes, one of the agenda items for the April 10, 1997, meeting was a discussion of the Loretto/Corcoran joint water system/tower. Mayor Larkin&apos;s letter to Mayor Schmidt is regarding the joint water system/tower. Because the data in the letter are public and because the council members apparently possessed their own copies, a copy of the letter should have been available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body [considered the] subject matter. (&lt;i&gt;See&lt;/i&gt; Section 471.705, subdivision 1b.) Although Mr. Lymangood did gain access to this letter, the access was achieved only by way of his making a specific request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Lymangood is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, the City of Corcoran did not comply with a March 27, 1997, request for access to the following data: all written material received by the Corcoran City Council for purposes of that day&apos;s council meeting.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The City of Corcoran did not provide public access, as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, to all written materials discussed at the April 10, 1997, council meeting.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 20, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266748</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Printed materials</Title><Id>266346</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-035</Title><title>Opinion 97 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266820&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-08-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the University of Minnesota responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, to a request for the following data:
Copies of itemized receipts for the &quot;Food Service charge&quot; for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni;
Copies of itemized receipts for the &quot;Twin Ports mailing service&quot; for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni;
Copies of itemized receipts for the &quot;Copying&quot; for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni; and
Copies of all original receipts from the liquor store that supplied the beverages for the November 22, 1996, Glensheen Dinner, including the itemized receipt of all beverages ordered</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 14, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On June 20, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated June 19, 1997, from Tom Lamphere. In his letter, Mr. Lamphere requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel at the University of Minnesota, in response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 24, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On July 25, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated July 23, 1997, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated December 23, 1996, Mr. Lamphere made a request to the University for access to certain data related to two separate events which occurred in 1996. Those data were the subject of a previous opinion issued by the Commissioner, 97-025. (In that opinion, the University responded that the data requested by Mr. Lamphere did not exist.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 24, 1997, Mr. Lamphere wrote to Ms. Smith. He stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Thank you for the time you kindly gave to me on the telephone yesterday. As we discussed my December 23, 1996 data practices request, we were able to clear up some confusion.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        1) My first request was for copies pertaining to the 1996 football brunch. I have enclosed copies of Chancellor Martin&apos;s September 1996 invitation sent to football alumni and their guests. Please be so kind as to supply me with my December 23, 1996 request for information on this event.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        2) My second request was for copies pertaining to the November 22, 1996 function held at the Glensheen Mansion. My original request was in error as I put the date as December 30, 1996. I apologize for my error that caused this confusion. Please be so kind as to correct my error and supply me with my request for this November 22, 1996 event.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Commissioner&apos;s understanding of the situation is that after Mr. Lamphere and Ms. Smith spoke, both parties were in agreement as to the two different events about which Mr. Lamphere was seeking data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 7, 1997, Ms. Smith responded to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. She wrote, Please find enclosed in response to your April 24, 1997, request, documents related to a 1996 football brunch and a November 1996 event at Gleensheen.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated May 12, 1997, Mr. Lamphere wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Thank you for your May 7, 1997 letter and information regarding my December 23, 1996 data practices request....You were very kind in supplying me with these documents but in looking through them, I noticed that UMD left out some public data documents that I requested. Please be so kind by contacting UMD, and asking UMD to fulfill the remainder of my request. I asked for copies of original itemized receipts. UMD didn&apos;t supply me with the following copies... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Lamphere then listed the data stated in the Issue statement below. Having received no response from the University by June 19, 1997, Mr. Lamphere requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his for an opinion, Mr. Lamphere asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the University of Minnesota responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, to a request for the following data:
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Copies of itemized receipts for the Food Service charge for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni;
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Copies of itemized receipts for the Twin Ports mailing service for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni;
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Copies of itemized receipts for the Copying for the 10/19/96 brunch for UMD football alumni; and
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Copies of all original receipts from the liquor store that supplied the beverages for the November 22, 1996, Glensheen Dinner, including the itemized receipt of all beverages ordered
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations to respond to requests for access to public government data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.03 provides that the entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the entity must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the issue raised by Mr. Lamphere, Ms. Smith stated, I responded to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s April 24, 1997, request for data by letter dated May 7, 1997 (copy attached). Judith Karon responded to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s May 12, 1997, request for data by letter dated July 7, 1997 (copy attached). The University has met its obligations under [Chapter 13].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is correct that in a letter dated May 7, 1997, Ms. Smith responded to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s April 24, 1997, request. However, she did not provide all the data he requested. Mr. Lamphere, in turn, made a second request for the remaining data and, a month later, having heard nothing from the University, requested this advisory opinion. The University&apos;s response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s follow-up request was dated July 7, 1997.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, a government entity is required to respond to requests for access to data in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time. In this case, approximately ten weeks passed before the University provided the data in response to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s April 24, 1997, request. The University has not responded promptly or within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lamphere is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the University did not respond in a prompt manner or within a reasonable time to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 14, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266820</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Untimely, generally</Title><Id>266344</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-034</Title><title>Opinion 97 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267378&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-08-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Transportation responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 12, 1997; Minnesota Department of Transportation</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On June 3, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated June 1, 1997, from M. In the letter, M asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her/his access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Denn, Commissioner of Transportation, in response to M&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 24, 1997, were to inform him of M&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position. On July 2, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Cassandra O&apos;Hern, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. On several occasions, M requested information about her/himself from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). In one of her/his requests, dated December 17, 1996, M asked for copies of data you have collected, with me as the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one of the Department&apos;s responses, dated October 2, 1996, staff stated, Your request...has been received and reviewed....Further information...will be provided to the Union Business Agent provided the agent agrees to and enters into a signed stipulation concerning the information provided. In another letter dated January 16, 1997, the Department enclosed some of the requested data and stated that the investigative report would be made available to the Union Business Agent provided the Union enters into and signs a stipulation concerning the information provided. Further, in a letter dated April 18, 1997, Department staff wrote, The other information you have requested cannot be provided to you under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. The department has offered to provide this information to your exclusive representative once a stipulation has been agreed to by them. (A copy of the stipulation was provided to the Commissioner.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
In her/his request for an opinion, M asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Transportation responded properly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, to a data subject&apos;s request for access to data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, an individual, upon request to a government entity, shall gain access to data which are about her/him immediately or within 5 to 10 working days.
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, M requested access to data about her/him maintained by MnDOT. The Department refused to provide M access to some of the data but stated that M&apos;s Union Business Agent could gain access to the data if the Union signed a stipulation relating to future disclosures of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. O&apos;Hern stated, MNDOT has acted properly in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. section section 13.04, 13.43 and 13.39. She went on to state that M&apos;s conduct was the subject of an investigation by the Department. Ms. O&apos;Hern first asserted that M cannot gain access to the data s/he requested because of Section 13.43, subdivision 8, which states that when allegations of harassment are made against an employee, the employee cannot gain access to data identifying the complainant if the entity determines that access would 1) threaten the personal safety of the complainant or witness, or 2) subject the complainant or witness to harassment. Ms. O&apos;Hern wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;As part of the investigation, other MNDOT employees were interviewed. During the course of the investigation, some of the employees stated that they feared retaliation from [M] for their participation in the investigation....In the present case, MNDOT determined that [M&apos;s] access to the data identifying the complainant and the witness would subject them to harassment.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. O&apos;Hern&apos;s second assertion is that M cannot gain access to data classified as confidential by Section 13.39, civil investigative data. She wrote, On November 26, 1996, AFSCME gave notice to MNDOT of its desire to proceed with arbitration regarding [M]. Therefore, Minn. Stat. section 13.39 is also applicable to this case. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.39, data collected as part of an active investigation is confidential in the case of data on individuals...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. O&apos;Hern noted that the Department had provided M with an opportunity to receive the tape recording of an interview M had with the investigator. She also stated that the investigator had provided M with his (the investigator&apos;s) notes from the meeting. She added that M was informed that the investigative report would be available to the AFSCME Union Business Representative after the union executed the stipulation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation Ms. O&apos;Hern wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[M] has been given all the information [s/he] is entitled to under [Chapter 13]. The investigative report is data which is classified as confidential and nonpublic pursuant to Minn. Stat. section section 13.39 and 13.43, subds. 2(5) 8. [M&apos;s] ability to defend [her/himself] in an arbitration has not been interfered with since the information will be available to the Union Business Representative pursuant to an executed stipulation. Further, the witnesses&apos; concern about retaliation is a serious concern which MNDOT cannot take lightly. MNDOT has acted completely within the requirements contained in Minn.Stat. section section 13.04, 13.43 and 13.39.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated above, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, an individual, upon request, has the right to gain access to data about her/him which are maintained by a government entity. If the data about the person are public or private, the person must be given access. If the data about the person are classified as confidential (not accessible to the data subject), the entity is required to so inform the individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of this opinion, M requested access to data about her/himself. While s/he did gain access to the investigator&apos;s notes and was offered a copy of a tape recording, the only other response M received was that a union representative would be able to get a copy of the investigative report upon signing a stipulation. Pursuant to Section 13.04, this is not a proper response. Either the data are available to M or they are not. If the data are not accessible to M because 1) MnDOT has determined the data are harassment data and release of those data would either threaten the safety of the complainant or witness, or subject the complainant or witness to harassment, or 2) MnDOT&apos;s chief attorney has determined that the data are civil investigative data, then the Department should have so informed M at the time of her/his request. Because MnDOT did not provide M with an answer as to why s/he could not gain access to the data, it has not responded properly (&lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; Section 13.04) to her/his request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by M is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the Minnesota Department of Transportation did not respond properly to the data subject&apos;s request for access to data because the Department did not provide M with an answer as to why s/he could not gain access to the data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 12, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267378</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)</Title><Id>266738</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:17:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-033</Title><title>Opinion 97 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267557&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-08-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, have the data subject&apos;s rights been violated if the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA) classifies as public and releases the following data: data contained in the April 1992 report issued by an administrative law judge that relate to action taken on the data subject&apos;s disability case?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 6, 1997; Public Employees Retirement Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On May 8, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 5, 1997, from an individual, hereinafter C. In the letter, C requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her/his rights as a data subject in relation to data maintained by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). After discussion with PIPA staff, one issue was agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mary Most Vanek, Executive Director of PERA, in response to C&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 16, 1997, were to inform her of C&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for PERA&apos;s position. On June 27, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated June 20, 1997, from Jon Murphy, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts is as follows. C filed a disability claim which was the subject of an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) (&lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; Minnesota Statutes Chapter 14). The report from the hearing was then compiled as a part of PERA&apos;s administrative hearing and appeal process pursuant to state law. The report was presented to and considered by the PERA Board of Trustees at a regularly scheduled board meeting and was adopted as the basis upon which C was found to be eligible for disability benefits. C is specifically concerned about the classification of the medical data contained in the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her/his request for an opinion, C asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, have the data subject&apos;s rights been violated if the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA) classifies as public and releases the following data: data contained in the April 1992 report issued by an administrative law judge that relate to action taken on the data subject&apos;s disability case?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Generally speaking, data maintained by PERA, such as the data about C in the OAH report, are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statues Sections 13.43 and 13.691. Based strictly on the language in Section 13.43, subdivision 2a, it appears that except for C&apos;s name, gross pension, and type of benefit awarded, all the remaining data in the OAH report would be not public. The problem, however, is that PERA maintains two copies of the report and one of the copies is apparently part of the record of the Board&apos;s final proceeding and decision.
&lt;p&gt;To explain, Mr. Murphy wrote that PERA is subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705. He wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;By definition, permanent disability must be medically proven and a claim for disability benefits centers upon medical and physical factors. The PERA Board must consider and discuss these factors at an open meeting and cannot rely upon a specific authorization to close its public meeting in order to discuss medical data which might be contained in the OAH report. Minn. Stat. 471.705, subd. 1d(a)(1996) (meetings may not be closed to discuss non public [sic] data.) An exception to the general open meeting requirements is made for the consideration of medical data maintained by governmental institutions. Minn. Stat. 471.705, subd. 1d(b)(3). &lt;u&gt;This exception, while it should, does not encompass medical data maintained by non-government institutions. &lt;/u&gt;The direction of this exception, combined with other statutory and common law protections afforded medical data in general prompted PERA to adopt a policy under which it closes a meeting in order to specifically discuss medical data in detail. It does not extend this policy to the OAH report itself and does not routinely close a [sic] meetings to discuss the contents of an OAH Report. The OAH report, however, is not included in the packet of materials required to be made available to the public at the time of the meeting but is considered to be part of the public record of the Board&apos;s proceedings, documenting the basis for the action taken. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Mr. Murphy discussed, Section 471.705 does provide that when a body subject to the Open Meeting Law discusses certain types of data, e.g., educational, health, medical, or welfare data subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, the meeting must be closed. If, however, there is no legal authority to close the meeting and it is open, a record of the meeting must be public. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Section 471.705, subd.1d (a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, C was a party in a case that was heard by an administrative law judge. As part of the administrative hearing process, medical data about C were discussed and some, possibly all, of those data were included in the report issued by the administrative law judge. PERA then received and is maintaining a copy of the report from OAH. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2a, there are only three types of data about its members that PERA is required to disclose: name; gross pension; and type of benefit awarded. Therefore, any medical data about C in the report are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue, however, is complicated by the fact that the PERA Board, which is subject to the Open Meeting Law, apparently discussed the report while considering C&apos;s claim. The complication comes about because the Open Meeting Law may require that the data be treated as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 471.705, subdivision 1d, provides that a public body must close a meeting when discussing medical data described in Section 13.42, i.e., data collected because C is or was a patient of a hospital, etc., operated by a government entity. As previously stated, some of the data contained in the report are medical data about C. However, it is not clear from the record, nor has C established, that the medical data submitted by C which traveled from OAH to PERA, are the type of medical data described in Section 13.42.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If one assumes that the data about C were not collected because s/he is/was a patient of a public hospital, etc., the meeting at which the PERA Board discussed the OAH report was required to be open to the public. Accordingly, as per Section 471.705, subdivision 1d, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. If a copy of the OAH report is part of the record of the meeting, that particular report and all the data it contains are public. Any other copies of the OAH report maintained by PERA are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2a.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by C is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2a, only the following data about C contained in the OAH report are public: C&apos;s name, gross pension, and type of benefit awarded. However, if a copy of the OAH report, to the extent that the report was discussed at a meeting required to be open by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, is part of the record of an open meeting of the PERA Board, the report and the data - including medical data - it contains are public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 6, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267557</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of administrative hearings OAH</Title><Id>266970</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266287</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Record of meeting</Title><Id>266389</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)</Title><Id>267019</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-032</Title><title>Opinion 97 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267637&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-08-01T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has School District #273, Edina, failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, because it did not provide a Tennessen Warning notice to H and H&apos;s parents upon collection of data in the following situations: 1) upon application for H to participate in the 1996-1997 Buddies program; 2) during a June 5, 1996, meeting with District staff; and 3) during an August 7, 1996, meeting with District staff.
Does the &quot;Edina Buddies Program - Parent/Guardian Expectations&quot; consent to release form utilized by School District #273, Edina, comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d); Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1400; 20 U.S.C. 123g (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A); and 34 CFR 99.30?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 1, 1997; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 1, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 24, 1997, from H&apos;s parents. In their letter, H&apos;s parents requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding their and their child&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as subjects of data. After additional conversations with PIPA staff, two issues were agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kenneth Dragseth, Superintendent of School District 273, Edina. The purposes of this letter, dated June 10, 1997, were to inform him of H&apos;s parents&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the School District&apos;s position. On June 19, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Paul Ratwik, an attorney representing the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. H is a student in the Edina School District. As a student, H has participated in the Buddies program offered by the District. (The Buddies program brings together high school students and younger students in grades 2 - 5.) As a result of H&apos;s parents&apos; dissatisfaction surrounding the handling of some issues connected with the Buddies program, H&apos;s parents met with district personnel on two separate occasions - June 5, 1996, and August 7, 1996. In addition, as part of applying for participation in the Buddies program, H and H&apos;s parents were asked to supply certain information and to sign a consent to release form.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, H&apos;s parents asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Has School District #273, Edina, failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, because it did not provide a Tennessen Warning notice to H and H&apos;s parents upon collection of data in the following situations: 1) upon application for H to participate in the 1996-1997 Buddies program; 2) during a June 5, 1996, meeting with District staff; and 3) during an August 7, 1996, meeting with District staff.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does the Edina Buddies Program - Parent/Guardian Expectations consent to release form utilized by School District #273, Edina, comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d); Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1400; 20 U.S.C. 123g (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A); and 34 CFR 99.30?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the entity must inform the individual of the following: (a) the purpose or intended use of the requested data within the collecting entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This notice requirement is often referred to as a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Data collected, created, and/or maintained by public educational institutions are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 13.32, educational data about students and their parents, in most cases (&lt;i&gt;see&lt;/i&gt; Section 13.32, subdivision 5), are private data. Thus, when a school district requests data from a parent and/or child, the district is required to administer a Tennessen Warning notice.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, H and H&apos;s parents signed up for the Buddies program. The registration form included spaces for information such as: name; teacher&apos;s name; address; grade; city; home phone number; school; name of parent/guardian; the parent/guardian&apos;s day phone number; why the student wishes to participate; and the name of an adult whom the student admires and why that person is admired. The form also listed various activities and the student was asked to indicate which activities s/he would like to do, watch, or try. H&apos;s parents (and H) assert that they should have been given a Tennessen Warning notice upon being asked to fill out the registration form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Ratwik argued that a Tennessen Warning notice is not required because no new data are being collected. He wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The form solicits no private data regarding the student or the student&apos;s family which was not previously within possession of the School District, including the student&apos;s name, the name of his teacher, his address, his grade, his home phone number, the name of his school, the names of his parents, and their day phone number. The balance of the form, in essence, provides information about the Buddies Program and communicates the program&apos;s expectations for elementary students who wish to join. No Tennessen Warning was required because no new data was collected. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.04, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the entity is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. Does this mean that each time the same data are collected from an individual, the entity must provide a Tennessen notice? On this question, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that if an entity is collecting the same data from time to time, it is appropriate for the entity to administer one Tennessen Warning notice that, for instance, might cover all similar collections of data for a stated time period. Thus, if a Tennessen Warning notice was previously given, a second Tennessen Warning might not be necessary if the data being collected were not new and there were no changes relating to the other elements of the Tennessen Warning notice.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, while Mr. Ratwik states that no new data were collected, he has not provided documentation demonstrating that a Tennessen Warning notice was given when the private data were initially collected from H and H&apos;s parents. The Commissioner, therefore, is left to conclude that H and H&apos;s parents did not receive a Tennessen Warning applicable to the data collected for the purpose of registering H for the Buddies program. Thus, based on the information provided, it appears that H and H&apos;s parents should have received a Tennessen Warning upon supplying private data as part of registering for the 1996-1997 Buddies program.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    H&apos;s parents asserted that when they met with District personnel in June and August of 1996, they should have been given a Tennessen Warning. They argued that they were asked by District staff to provide private data about themselves and their child. Of the June meeting, H&apos;s parents wrote that H&apos;s father requested the meeting to discuss [District staff&apos;s] poor handling of our complaint against [another District staff person]. H&apos;s parents wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Instead of discussing &lt;u&gt;only&lt;/u&gt;[District staff&apos;s] poor handling of [sic] complaint/investigation; questions were asked of [H&apos;s father] such as . . . [H&apos;s father] being asked to supply information on how data privacy has violated concerning [sic] his [child], why the [family of other Buddies&apos; participants] at a meeting would violate [H&apos;s] data privacy rights, why [H&apos;s father] thinks [another District staff] violated [H&apos;s] data privacy [sic], what [H&apos;s father] wants for his [child&apos;s] future, questions on [H&apos;s education issues] , etc., etc. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, they stated that at the August meeting many questions were asked of us regarding the slandering of our child, violations of [her/his] data privacy within a school-sponsored program, sharing [H&apos;s] special education information with non-educational personnel, how the Buddies program was administered, the rules of the Buddies program being enforced, and lack of constructive communication between school personnel and parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Ratwik asserted that at neither of the meetings, information was requested of H&apos;s parents. He stated:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The District was not on June 5, 1996 then conducting an investigation. It had, on several previous occasions, informed [H&apos;s parents] through [district staff] that School District personnel had been interviewed and that no need for further investigation was then seen.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            [H&apos;s parents] apparently saw the meeting of June 5, 1996, as an opportunity to restate, in person, the concerns which they had previously expressed in writing. They had the right to do so. The District listened to and subsequently acted upon these concerns. To characterize that meeting as a request for information is, however, an inaccurate statement. No Tennessen Warning was, therefore, required.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            The same conclusion must be drawn with regard to the meeting between [H&apos;s parents] and [a District staff person] on August 7, 1996. The Superintendent had assigned [the district staff person] responsibility by [sic] for investigating [H&apos;s parents&apos;] concerns. The purpose and function of the meeting on August 7, 1996, was to give them an opportunity to express those concerns in whatever detail they wished to provide. That this was the case is absolutely clear from the redacted notes of the meeting which have previously been provided to the [Commissioner] by the parents.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Ratwik also likened H&apos;s parents&apos; meetings with District staff to a 1997 Minnesota Court of Appeals case, &lt;u&gt;Edina Education Association, et al, v. Board of Education of Independent School District 273 (Edina), et al&lt;/u&gt;. In that case, the Court held that when the District interviewed a school psychologist, the circumstances of the investigation did not require a Tennessen Warning. The court wrote, [the District] was attempting to gather factual information about an incident within the course and scope of [the psychologist&apos;s] employment. As such, the data may have been government data, but it was not data on an employee as an individual....To the degree that the data identified [the psychologist], it was incidental to the factual focus of the inquiry.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     There is a factual dispute as to whether H&apos;s parents &lt;u&gt;were asked&lt;/u&gt;by the District to supply data about themselves or whether &lt;u&gt;they volunteered&lt;/u&gt;information without being asked. While notes were taken at both meetings, upon examining those notes, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether H&apos;s parents were asked to supply data. However, if H&apos;s parents were asked to supply data about themselves and/or H, the Commissioner opines, because the data being collected were data about H and H&apos;s parents, that a Tennessen Warning should have been provided at each of the meetings. In the &lt;u&gt;Edina&lt;/u&gt;case cited by Mr. Ratwik, the Court of Appeals concluded that a Tennessen Warning was not required because the individual raising the issue had not been asked to provide data about herself. According to the Court of Appeals, to the degree that the data identified the school psychologist, it was incidental to the factual focus of the inquiry. In contrast, the data discussed at the meetings involving H&apos;s parents and District personnel were data about H and H&apos;s parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by H&apos;s parents is whether the consent to release form they were required to sign upon registering for the Buddies program is in compliance with state and federal requirements. The consent form states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I understand that program administrators need to have access to educational records for my child in order to select an appropriate high school buddy and to determine whether there are special circumstances or needs which program administrators and the high school buddy should be aware of. I give my consent for administrators of the Edina [Buddies] program to confer with my child&apos;s teachers and other professional staff and to their review of my child&apos;s educational records for this purpose.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            I give my consent for administrators for the Edina [Buddies] program to discuss such special circumstances or needs of my child with one or more of the high school buddies in order to select an appropriate buddy for my child and so that the buddy can take any special circumstances or needs into account in carrying out the buddy&apos;s expectations.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the written consent must specify the records that may be disclosed, state the purpose of the disclosure, and identify the party or class of parties to whom the disclosure may be made. &lt;i&gt;(See&lt;/i&gt; 34 CFR 99.30.) Pursuant to Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, the government entity must not coerce the data subject into signing a release, the consent must be in writing, the data subject must be informed of the consequences of consenting to release the data, and the data subject must have the option of consenting to release only a portion of data presented by the government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Ratwik wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The form...sets out the expectations of the School District for participation in the Buddies program. It seeks to advise parents and students of the rules governing the program. Additionally, and in large in a response to the concerns raised by [H&apos;s parents], it seeks to explicitly advise parents of the data practices implications of the Buddies Program....The School District is...interested in receiving any comments or observations which the [Commissioner] may wish to make with regard to the application of the Government Data Practices Act to the program materials [she] has been asked to review. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the consent to release form for the Buddies program, the Commissioner has the following comments. First, the form is not specific in stating exactly which data about the Buddy participants will be released. In signing the form, the parent is, in essence, 1) consenting to release any and all of her/his child&apos;s educational records to program administrators, 2) permitting the administrators to confer with the student&apos;s teachers and other professional staff, and 3) permitting those administrators to discuss data with high school buddies. The question is whether it is the District&apos;s intention to make the student&apos;s entire record available. If not, the District needs to state specifically which types of data are to be released. In addition, the parent must have the option of consenting to release only a portion of the data described in the release form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, it is not clear to whom specifically the data will be released. The form states that administrators of the Buddies program will be able to confer with the student&apos;s teachers and other professional staff. The form also states that those administrators may then discuss data with one or more of the high school buddies in order to select an appropriate buddy. If the parents do not have a better sense of the specific people or positions within the program who will gain access to the data about their child, the parents have not been truly informed as to what they are consenting to release and to whom. In short, the Commissioner urges the District to be more specific in identifying the parties who will be gaining access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the form does not contain a statement indicating the consequences of releasing the data. For example, if the District staff believes they cannot properly operate the Buddies program unless high school buddies have access to certain data, the form could state that failing to consent to the release of the data will make it difficult for staff to find a buddy match so that the program will be a positive experience for both participants.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by H&apos;s parents is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  A. It appears that H and H&apos;s parents should have received a Tennessen Warning upon supplying private data as part of applying for the 1996-1997 Buddies program. Therefore, it appears that School District #273, Edina, has not complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2 (Tennessen Warning notice).
                                  &lt;p&gt;
                                    B, C. It is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the District complied with Section 13.04, subdivision 2, in regard to the meetings which occurred on June 5, 1996, and August 7, 1996.
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  For the following reasons it appears that the Edina Buddies Program - Parent/Guardian Expectations consent to release form utilized by School District #273, Edina, does not entirely comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d); Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400; 20 U.S.C. 123g (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A); and 34 CFR 99.30: 1) it does not state which specific data will be released; 2) it does not state specifically to whom the data will be released; and 3) it does not state the consequences of releasing the data.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 1, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267637</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266266</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Frequency in giving notice</Title><Id>266976</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Volunteering data vs. request to supply data</Title><Id>266619</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-031</Title><title>Opinion 97 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267732&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-07-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has the City of Roseville responded properly to the following requests for access to government data:
&quot;breakdown of 1996 TIF collections by project by district, as requested last spring&quot; (see letters dated January 3, 1997, and May 15, 1997);
&quot;please prepare copies of any insurance policies (contracts) that bear on paying for lawsuits against the City that were in existence from the time Dave Weir (Woodbridge) first filed his lawsuit against the City of Roseville up through April 15, 1997&quot; (see April 15, 1997, fax, and May 15, 1997, letter);
&quot;recap of 1996 TIF activity, overall, and by TIF district, and a recap of TIF fund balances as of December 31, 1996&quot; (see January 3, 1996, letter and May 15, 1997, letter);
&quot;copy of any independent appraisals, if any, that support the resale value of $4,731,661 used in alternative B&apos;&quot; (see May 15, 1997, letter); and
&quot;copy of the 1996 Audited Financial Statements of the City&quot; (see May 15, 1997, letter).</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 30, 1997; City of Roseville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On June 6, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated June 5, 1997, from Al Sands. In his letter, Mr. Sands requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the City of Roseville.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Steve Sarkozy, Manager of the City of Roseville. The purposes of this letter, dated June 10, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Sands&apos; request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On July 17, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Sarkozy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated January 3, 1997, Mr. Sands requested access to certain data from the City of Roseville (see numbers 1 and 3 below). In a fax dated April 15, 1997, Mr. Sands requested access to additional data from the City of Roseville (see number 2 below). In a letter dated May 6, 1997, Mr. Sands wrote to the Mayor of Roseville and advised that he (Mr. Sands) had not yet received responses to his various requests. In a letter dated May 8, 1997, Mayor Wall responded that he had passed on Mr. Sands&apos; letter to Steve Sarkozy for response. Then, in a letter dated May 15, 1997, Mr. Sands wrote to Mr. Sarkozy and again requested the items listed as numbers 1, 2, and 3 below. He also requested two additional pieces of information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 26, 1997, Mr. Sarkozy sent to PIPA a copy of a letter, also dated June 26, 1997, addressed to Mr. Sands. In that letter, Mr. Sarkozy apologized for the delay in responding and updated Mr. Sands on his request. His responded to each of Mr. Sands&apos; requests:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  Work is underway to provide that summary which should be available by the first week in July. [Staff] will contact you with this information when it is available.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  The City is provided liability insurance coverage, including land use claims, through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The Centre Pointe litigation was covered under that policy. The City&apos;s cost of litigation was for the involvement of the City Attorney.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  Mr. Sarkozy wrote that the information is included in the City&apos;s Annual Report which Mr. Sands apparently had previously received.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  The City Attorney has advised that independent appraisals were not required as part of the litigation settlement.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                  Annual audit and report (CAFR) had recently been printed and forwarded to you by [staff].
                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On June 27, 1997, PIPA staff contacted Mr. Sands to see if he wished to proceed with the opinion. He advised that he did wish to continue and also allowed that he had received, on June 25, 1997, the City&apos;s annual report and audit (request number 5). PIPA staff then contacted Mr. Sarkozy and advised him that the Commissioner would be issuing an opinion on the matter raised by Mr. Sands.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 17, 1997, PIPA received a response from Mr. Sarkozy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has the City of Roseville responded properly to the following requests for access to government data:
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            breakdown of 1996 TIF collections by project by district, as requested last spring (see letters dated January 3, 1997, and May 15, 1997);
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            please prepare copies of any insurance policies (contracts) that bear on paying for lawsuits against the City that were in existence from the time Dave Weir (Woodbridge) first filed his lawsuit against the City of Roseville up through April 15, 1997 (see April 15, 1997, fax, and May 15, 1997, letter);
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            recap of 1996 TIF activity, overall, and by TIF district, and a recap of TIF fund balances as of December 31, 1996 (see January 3, 1996, letter and May 15, 1997, letter);
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            copy of any independent appraisals, if any, that support the resale value of $4,731,661 used in alternative B&apos; (see May 15, 1997, letter); and
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            copy of the 1996 Audited Financial Statements of the City (see May 15, 1997, letter).
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, a government entity must respond to a request for access to government data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the responsible authority must respond within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Sands made requests for various types of data from the City of Roseville. Based on Mr. Sarkozy&apos;s response, it appears that some of the data, specifically those items labeled in this opinion as numbers 1, 3, and 5, involve works in progress as part of the annual audit and report. Mr. Sarkozy wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As can be seen from [a summary of work in progress from Roseville&apos;s Finance Director], a number of the specific issues requested by Mr. Sands involve works in progress as part of the annual audit and report. Mr. Sands indicates that the same information was requested in January, March, and April, and it&apos;s clear that the information would be forthcoming in the normal distribution of the City&apos;s Annual Report. [Roseville&apos;s Finance Director] further outlines in his June 20 memo that the work on the Annual Report was nearing completion and available by June 30, 1997. It is my understanding that the availability of the Annual Report in late June was made known to Mr. Sands by [the Finance Director] on a number of occasions. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Sarkozy further explained that the City had recently adopted a revised Tax Increment Policy. He wrote, This new policy is again contained in our Annual Budget and calls for specific reporting data to be included in the budget and Annual Report. Much of the data that Mr. Sands requests is that summary data that is now as a [sic] compiled and formatted standard City report. Mr. Sarkozy further wrote, In short, I believe that the information that Mr. Sands requests is now being provided on a routine basis, and if made available to Mr. Sands when requested, would involve extensive extraordinary work by staff (prior to the preparation of the budget and Annual Report and audit.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, Chapter 13 requires that a government entity respond to requests for access to public data within a reasonable time. If the requested data do not exist, however, there is no requirement that the government entity create new data or create data in a particular format specified by the requestor. It appears Mr. Sarkozy is stating that the data requested by Mr. Sands as numbers 1, 3, and 5, did not initially exist in the format requested by Mr. Sands. However, if the data either did not initially exist or had not yet been created in the format requested by Mr. Sands, the City is still under an obligation to respond to Mr. Sands&apos; requests; the response could have been that the data do not exist or that the City is in the process of preparing the data in the format requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Whether or not the City did respond to Mr. Sands&apos; original requests is under dispute. In his opinion request, Mr. Sands wrote that his requests for information have gone ignored, without any explanation whatsoever. Mr. Sarkozy wrote that he understood the City&apos;s Finance Director had informed Mr. Sands, on a number of occasions that the Annual Report would be available in late June. However, Mr. Sarkozy did not provide any documentation to support his assertion. Thus, regarding Mr. Sands&apos; requests labeled as numbers 1, 3, and 5, if the City did not inform Mr. Sands that the data did not exist in the format in which he had requested, the City did not, pursuant to Chapter 13, respond properly to the requests. But, if the City did inform Mr. Sands that the data would be forthcoming in the format in which he had requested, the City&apos;s response was in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 13. In addition, as soon as the data came into existence, i.e., were formatted and/or created, those data should promptly have been made available to Mr. Sands, regardless of whether the actual report was ready to be released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As a final point, there is nothing in Chapter 13 prohibiting the City and Mr. Sands from negotiating an agreement in which the City would format the data as desired by Mr. Sands. In such an instance, depending on the agreement, Mr. Sands might be required to pay the City for its time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the data requested in numbers 2 and 4, it does not appear that those data were being prepared and formatted as part of an annual report and audit. The data referred to as request number 2 were originally requested in a fax dated April 15, 1997, and the data referred to as request number 4 were originally requested in a letter dated May 15, 1997. It appears Mr. Sands did not receive a response from the City to either of these two requests until sometime around June 26, 1997. In the case of both of the requests, the City has not responded in an appropriate or prompt manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sands is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Requests for data in numbers 1, 3, and 5: If the City did not inform Mr. Sands that the data did not exist in the format in which he had requested, the City did not, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, respond properly to the requests. If the City did inform Mr. Sands that the data would be forthcoming in the format in which he had requested, the City&apos;s response was in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              Requests for data in numbers 2 and 4: It appears the City has not responded in an appropriate and prompt manner or within a reasonable time, as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 30, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267732</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-030</Title><title>Opinion 97 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267685&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-07-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the County&apos;s investigative report public data which may be released to the press?
Is the County&apos;s investigative report private data on the County Employee?
Assuming that the report is private data on the County Employee, does City Employee A have any greater right to have access to the data than the general public?
If City Employee A is the &quot;subject of&quot; government data stored by the County, how is this data classified with respect to this non-employee?
If the answer to either question number 1 or 3 is yes, may the County redact the identity of the County Employee who filed the complaint? May he County redact the identities of the City employees who were interviewed?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 18, 1997; Blue Earth County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 7, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 5, 1997, from Ann Goering, at attorney representing Blue Earth County. In her letter, Ms. Goering requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. A County employee complained about the working atmosphere in the Department in which s/he is employed. This Department is co-located with a Department of the City of Mankato. In investigating the complaint, the County interviewed both County and City employees. During the interviews, the original complainant ( County Employee ) and some City employees all described specific conduct on the part of a City Employee ( City Employee A ). As the County has no authority over City employees, no disciplinary action could be taken by the County. However, the County Administrator wrote to the City Manager, describing the working atmosphere in the Departments and the conduct of City Employee A. City Employee A and the &lt;em&gt;Mankato Free Press&lt;/em&gt; have requested copies of the County&apos;s investigative report regarding the County Employee&apos;s complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering provided PIPA with a copy of the documentation related to the investigation in question. The documents provided included the following: 1) a copy of a report prepared by the County&apos;s Director of Human Resources (most of the data in the report were related to the Director&apos;s interview with the County Employee); 2) a copy of an e-mail message, described as a report prepared by the County&apos;s Director of Human Resources (most of the data in the e-mail were related to the Director&apos;s interview with a city employee; and 3) a copy of a letter dated March 21, 1997, from the County&apos;s Administrator to the City&apos;s Manager regarding the hostile working environment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of a follow-up letter, Ms. Goering provided a copy of a letter dated March 28, 1997, from the City Manager to the County Administrator in which the City Manager asked to review the specific detail of the report issued by [the Human Resources Director] regarding [his/her] investigation of the [joint County/City Department] work environment...In order for the City to determine if specific disciplinary action or further measures to counsel an employee is in order, it will be critical to review the extent of [the Human Resources Director&apos;s] investigation and the statements of the employees that were interviewed during the course of the investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Goering asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the County&apos;s investigative report public data which may be released to the press?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the County&apos;s investigative report private data on the County Employee?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming that the report is private data on the County Employee, does City Employee A have any greater right to have access to the data than the general public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If City Employee A is the subject of government data stored by the County, how is this data classified with respect to this non-employee?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to either question number 1 or 3 is yes, may the County redact the identity of the County Employee who filed the complaint? May he County redact the identities of the City employees who were interviewed?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before proceeding, it is noted that while the issue statements refer to data in a report (singular), it is Ms. Goering&apos;s intention that the Commissioner address the classification of the data in each of the four documents (two reports created by the Human Resources Director, one letter from the County Administrator to City staff, and one letter to the County Administrator from City staff) cited in Facts and Procedures.
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s first question is whether the data in the four documents are public. Per Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless classified otherwise. An examination of the documents reveals that some of the data, especially data in the two reports, are data on individuals about County and/or City employees. In fact, some of the documents contain data about more than one employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data about City and County employees contained in the documents were collected, created, and are maintained by Blue Earth County because those individuals are or were employees of a government entity (in this case, either the City or the County). Therefore, those data in the possession of the County are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private. Thus, as specified by Section 13.43, data in the documents of which County and/or City employees are the subject, are either private or public, depending upon the type of data contained in the documents. Private data in the documents are accessible to the subject(s) of private data but are not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s second question is whether the data in the documents are private data about the County Employee (the original complainant). Upon examination of the documents, the Commissioner is reasonably certain that the February 28, 1997, report contains data about the County Employee and it appears that the March 21, 1997, letter to the Mankato City Manager may contain data about the County Employee, as well. Because the data about the County Employee in the February 28, 1997, letter are not the type of data classified as public per Section 13.43, subdivision 2, those data are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of Section 13.43. Making a determination about the March 21, 1997, however, is problematic. Without more information about the context in which the letter was created, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the data in the letter are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third question is whether City Employee A has a greater right than the general public to gain access to private data in the documents about the County Employee. Generally speaking, the only persons who would be able to gain access to private data about the County Employee are the County Employee him/herself, those persons within the County whose work assignments reasonably require access (&lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2), and other agencies authorized to gain access by state or federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, there are a couple of situations in which the data about the County Employee would become available to City Employee A: 1) pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 8, if the allegations against City Employee A are related to sexual or another type of harassment, and if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding; and 2) if City Employee A is disciplined, the information about the complainant (the County Employee) may, at some point, be available to City Employee A as part of constitutional due process protections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if City Employee A is the subject of some of the private data, s/he can gain access to those data so long as releasing the data does not result in a dissemination of private data about another City or County Employee. However, there may be situations in which release of data to City Employee A about other data subjects is authorized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s fourth question regards the classification of data about City Employee A that were collected and are maintained by the County. As discussed above, any data about an individual collected by a government entity because that individual is or was an employee of a government entity, are classified per Section 13.43. In this case, the data about City Employee A were collected by the County because City Employee A is an employee of the City of Mankato, who, because of the operation of a joint County/City Department, works with County employees. Therefore, the data about City Employee A in the possession of Blue Earth County are classified per Section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Goering&apos;s fifth question is whether the County may redact the identities of the County complainant and/or the City employees who were interviewed. As the Commissioner has already stated, it appears some of the documents contain data about more than one individual. If one of the employees (County or City) who is the subject of data in the documents, requests access to data about him/herself, the County is obligated to redact data that would result in sharing identification or other data about other data subjects. If, however, the County is unable to redact data such that other data subjects cannot be identified, the County may not have the authority to release data to any of the data subjects. (&lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; Advisory Opinion 96-002 for more information.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Goering is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, data in the documents of which County and/or City employees are the subject, are either private or public, depending upon the type of data contained in the documents. Private data in the documents are accessible to the subject(s) of private data but are not accessible to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, some of the data in the documents are private data about the County Employee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If City Employee A is the subject of some of the private data, s/he can gain access to those data as long as releasing the data does not result in a dissemination of private data about another City or County Employee. However, there may be situations in which release of data to City Employee A about other data subjects is authorized.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Data collected, created, and maintained by the County about City Employee A are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If one of the employees (County or City) who is the subject of data in the documents, requests access to data about him/herself, the County is obligated to redact data that would result in sharing identification or other data about other data subjects. If, however, the County is unable to redact data such that other data subjects cannot be identified, the County may not have the authority to release data to any of the data subjects.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Julie Smith Zuidema for Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 18, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267685</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment requires access</Title><Id>266518</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Schedules/calendars</Title><Id>266496</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-029</Title><title>Opinion 97 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266749&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-07-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Anfinson have the right to gain access to the following data maintained by the University of Minnesota from November 1, 1995, to the present: personal calendars maintained by the members and staff of the Board of Regents; and schedules or scheduling records prepared in connection with official activities of the Regents?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 16, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 28, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 2, 1997, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing certain University of Minnesota faculty members. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 4, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On July 3, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Ms. Smith.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. Mr. Anfinson stated that he had requested access to the personal calendars maintained by the members and staff of the Board of Regents during the period from November 1, 1995 to the present, and any schedules or scheduling records prepared in connection with official activities of the Regents during this period. He wrote that the University responded by producing copies of approximately 1,000 pages, purportedly from such calendars. He added that because most everything except for the dates had been redacted, essentially none of the requested information was made available.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson stated that in refusing to release the data, the University was apparently relying upon Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion 96-055 in which the Commissioner opined that appointment calendars maintained by public employees are private personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson argued that the Regents are not employees of the University but rather are members of the governing body designated by the Legislature. He wrote, Thus it would seem that the provisions of Minn. Stat. 13.43 do not apply to them - nor should they.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Anfinson have the right to gain access to the following data maintained by the University of Minnesota from November 1, 1995, to the present: personal calendars maintained by the members and staff of the Board of Regents; and schedules or scheduling records prepared in connection with official activities of the Regents?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, data created, collected, and maintained by government entities are government data, which are public unless otherwise classified. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data maintained about employees of and those providing volunteer services to a government entity are classified specifically by Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue of the classification of appointment calendars of public employees has already been addressed in Advisory Opinion 96-055; the Commissioner opined that the appointment calendar of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights was classified as private personnel data under Section 13.43. She wrote, [i]t appears that the data in the appointment calendars are not data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the data in Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the issue of the personal calendars, Ms. Smith responded that Mr. Anfinson had made a request for data relating to tenure. She stated that in response to his request, the University made available for inspection the appointment calendar entries of Steven Bonsacker [Executive Director of the Board of Regents] and Kim Isenberg [project assistant who worked on tenure issues for the Board] related to tenure.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith further stated that after the University released the appointment calendars of Mr. Bonsacker and Ms. Isenberg, the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinion 96-055. Ms. Smith wrote that the University exceeded its obligations under Chapter 13 in making the appointment calendar entries available. She stated, Under the private personnel data section of the Data Practices Act, and in accordance with the Advisory Opinion issued by the Commissioner on this topic, the appointment calendars of these two University employees were private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith then presented two arguments as to why the personal calendars of the Regents are not public data: 1) because the Regents provide volunteer service to the University, data created, collected, and maintained about them in the course of their volunteer activities are classified as private per Section 13.43; and 2) if the Regents are not, as Mr. Anfinson has asserted, volunteer agents of the University, then the data they create or collect in their private and personal capacity is not government data&apos; subject to [Chapter 13]. Ms. Smith added, Thus, even the University-related entries in their personal calendars would not be government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner is in agreement with the University&apos;s position as submitted by Ms. Smith. In the case of the calendars of Mr. Bosacker and Ms. Isenberg, because they are both employees of the University, based on Advisory Opinion 96-055, the data in the calendars are private personnel data. In the case of the calendars of the Regents, if they are volunteers, the data are private per Section 13.43. If the Regents are not volunteers, the data in the calendars are not government data and are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the other scheduling data requested by Mr. Anfinson, Ms. Smith wrote that the University made available the agendas and minutes of the Board meetings, as well as documents related to tenure that reflected or recorded meetings of the Board or Board members. Ms. Smith stated, The University turned over tenure-related documents because we understood the request to concern tenure. The University did not turn over the weekly calendar sheet because that sheet generally did not reflect the meetings and appointments of the Regents, and we did not think that it was the type of document sought by Mr. Anfinson. She further wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The University&apos;s responsible authority gathered thousands of documents in response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and corresponded with him concerning the request....Until receiving this request for an opinion, the University did not know that Mr. Anfinson was not satisfied with the response....Certainly, the University would have responded as it did in this letter to any further questions by him. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information provided, it is not clear if there continues to be a dispute regarding the additional scheduling data requested by Mr. Anfinson. If Mr. Anfinson desires access to data that were not initially supplied by the University, he should contact Ms. Smith with his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4, the personal calendars of the staff of the Minnesota Board of Regents are private personnel data.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              If the members of the Board of Regents are considered volunteers, the personal calendar data maintained about them in the course of their volunteer activities are classified as private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4. If the members of the Board of Regents are not considered volunteers, the personal calendars maintained about them are not government data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 16, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266749</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment calendars</Title><Id>266730</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-028</Title><title>Opinion 97 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267596&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-07-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, summary data under Minn. Stat. 13.01, subd. 19?
If the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, is not summary data, is it otherwise public?
If the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, is not summary data, must the Department of Children, Families, and Learning prepare a summary version of the database for the Star Tribune?
If the Department does prepare such a summary version of the database, may it require the Star Tribune to pay for the cost of doing so?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 3, 1997; Minnesota Department of Children, Families, Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On April 21, 1997, the Commissioner received a request for an advisory opinion dated April 17, 1997, from Robert Wedl, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, Learning, (DCFL). After discussion and clarification of the issues raised, four issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Commissioner Wedl surrounding this matter is as follows. The &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; has requested access to the Department&apos;s Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System (hereinafter MARSS ) database, excluding individual names and social security numbers. The MARSS database is a database on every individual public school student in the state of Minnesota. Commissioner Wedl wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Included among the many data elements on each student in the MARSS database are such uniquely identifying characteristics as date of birth, racial ethnic background, the school district attended, the school building attended, and if so, whether in or out of the classroom, and what percentage of time if out of the classroom, whether and what kind of disability the student has, whether the student has limited English proficiency, whether the student received limited English proficiency services and identification of every student&apos;s first language.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Samples of the MARSS records were provided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Wedl further wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Because this database contains such a breadth of uniquely identifying data on each individual student, we believe that the database as w hole[sic] is private because it is not summary data as defined in Minn. Stat. 13.01, subd. 19. In addition, we are concerned that releasing the database with only the names and social security number removed could allow the identifies [sic] of many students to be easily traced in violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additional information provided at the request of the Commissioner revealed that prior to Fiscal Year 1997, districts were instructed to include social security numbers as part of the student identifier. Mr. Wedl further stated, This year, schools are instructed to reconstruct all student identifier numbers so as to not include the social security number. At this point in time, it is possible that many students still have their social security number embedded in their student identifier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Wedl asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, summary data under Minn. Stat. 13.01, subd. 19?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, is not summary data, is it otherwise public?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, is not summary data, must the Department of Children, Families, and Learning prepare a summary version of the database for the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the Department does prepare such a summary version of the database, may it require the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; to pay for the cost of doing so?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
For clarification purposes, the discussion of the above issues proceeds under the assumption that if the MARSS database is released, the corresponding legend will also be released.
&lt;p&gt;In addition, it is also acknowledged that while directory information may be a factor in determining the classification of the data in the MARSS database, the Commissioner has no knowledge of which data have been so classified by the Department or by each of Minnesota&apos;s school districts. Therefore, the conclusions in this opinion have been reached without considering the possible effects of any data classified as public pursuant to the state and federal directory information provisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first issue raised by Commissioner Wedl is whether the data requested by the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; (specific data elements about each student without the corresponding names and social security numbers) are summary data, as defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 19, defines summary data as statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristics that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0200, subpart 16, defines summary data as:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[d]ata which has been extracted, manipulated, or summarized from private or confidential data, and from which all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. Summary data includes, but is not limited to, statistical data, case studies, reports of incidents, and research reports. Once it is summarized from private or confidential data, summary data remains summary if the responsible authority maintains any list of numbers or other data which could uniquely identify any individual in the summary data physically separated from the summary data and the responsible authority does not make such list or other data available to persons who gain access to, or possession of the summary data. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As stated, summary data are derived from private and/or confidential data on individuals. Pursuant to Section 13.32, data on individuals collected by a public educational agency that relate to students are classified as private (unless those data are directory information, see Section 13.32, subdivision 5). In addition, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) limits the disclosure (without consent) of personally identifiable information in education records. The definition of personally identifiable includes a personal identifier, such as the student&apos;s social security number or student number, and a list of personal characteristics or other information that would make the student&apos;s identity easily traceable. (See 34 C.F.R. Part 99.3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, based on state statutes and federal regulations, the answer to Commissioner Wedl&apos;s first question depends on whether the release of the MARSS database (minus names and social security numbers) would result in a situation where 1) individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristics that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable (state law); 2) data from which all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed (state rule); and/or 3) the data do not include a personal identifier, such as the student&apos;s social security number or student number, and a list of personal characteristics or other information that would make the student&apos;s identity easily traceable (federal rule).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of the types of data that comprise the database, there appear to be numerous situations in which the release of the database would be likely to identify a student. Some examples are: 1) if an individual school has only one student of a particular race in a particular grade; 2) if a particular school has only two students (one female and one male) in a particular grade receiving special education services; and 3) if a particular school has only one student in a particular grade who has limited English proficiency. In each of these scenarios, the release of the MARSS database would reveal the identity of the students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the only way the Department could deem the MARSS database, minus names and social security numbers, to be summary data, is if, after determining the unique demographics of each school, the Department was reasonably confident that no student could be identified by a dissemination of the database. Based on the information provided to the Commissioner, it is impossible for her to definitely determine whether, in all cases, only summary data would be revealed if the Department disseminated the database without names and social security numbers. However, given the types of data included in the database, it is very likely that, even with student names and social security numbers removed, release of the database could serve as a link to identify specific students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Wedl&apos;s second question is whether the MARSS database, with names and social security numbers removed, is otherwise public data. As in the discussion of the first issue, the answer depends entirely on whether, with the removal of the names and social security numbers, the remaining data identify students, are data from which a student can be identified, or are a list of personal characteristics or other information that would make the student&apos;s identity easily traceable (state and federal law standards). If a student can be identified and the data are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, then the data are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A related issue involving the classification of the data in the database relates to social security numbers. As Commissioner Wedl discussed in his opinion request, it is possible that a student&apos;s identification number is equal to or is comprised of components of his/her social security number. Pursuant to both Section 13.32 and Section 13.39, social security numbers are classified as private data and are not accessible to the public. Therefore, if a student&apos;s social security number was inadvertently released, the Department would be violating the data subject&apos;s rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answers to Commissioner Wedl&apos;s third and fourth questions are answered by the language of Section 13.05, subdivision 7. In relevant part it states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[T]he responsible authority shall prepare summary data from private or confidential data on individuals upon the request of any person if the request is in writing and the cost of preparing the summary data is borne by the requesting person. The responsible authority may delegate the power to prepare summary data (1) to the administrative officer responsible for any central repository of summary data; or (2) to a person outside of its agency if the person&apos;s purpose is set forth, in writing, and the person agrees not to disclose, and the agency reasonably determines that the access will not compromise private or confidential data on individuals. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; makes a written request for summary data from the MARSS database, the Department must either prepare the data itself or delegate the responsibility to a person outside the agency, with a nondisclosure agreement regarding the private data. If the Department prepares the summary data, it may charge the requesting person (see Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0700, subpart 7, for fee guidelines).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Commissioner Wedl is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), it does not appear that the MARSS database, with student names and social security numbers removed, is summary data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), removal of names and social security numbers from the MARSS database will not, in all instances, make the resulting data public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 7, if the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; makes a written request for a summary data version of the MARSS database, the Department must either prepare the data itself or delegate the preparation of the data to a person outside the agency, subject to an appropriate nondisclosure agreement regarding the private data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 7, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0700, subpart 7, the Department, in preparing a summary version of the MARSS database may charge the &lt;em&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; and may request pre-payment.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 3, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267596</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual</Title><Id>266638</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>MARSS (MN Automated Reporting Student System)</Title><Id>266823</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266683</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Costs</Title><Id>266824</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-027</Title><title>Opinion 97 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267236&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-07-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must the School District release the contents of an investigation report, or additional information regarding the complaints which were the subject of the investigation which was received subsequent to the completion of the report, when no disciplinary action has been taken against the employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 2, 1997; School District 347 (Willmar)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 15, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 9, 1997, from Patricia Maloney, an attorney representing School District No. 347, Willmar. In her letter, Ms. Maloney requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Maloney is as follows. The District received a complaint about an employee relating to the fulfillment of his/her extracurricular duties. An investigation was conducted into that complaint and other allegations of misconduct by that employee. A written investigative report was prepared. Subsequently, the District received additional information relating to the complaints that were the subject of the investigation. Ms. Maloney wrote, A decision has been made that this related information does not warrant reopening the investigation. The employee resigned from the extra-curricular assignment in question and no disciplinary action was taken by the School District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Maloney further wrote that the District has received inquiries from members of the public regarding the complaints. She wrote, The School District has confirmed that a complaint had been made against the employee, that the complaint was investigated, that the employee resigned from the duties in question, and that no disciplinary action occurred. She added that members of the public have requested access to the investigation report and related information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Maloney asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Must the School District release the contents of an investigation report, or additional information regarding the complaints which were the subject of the investigation which was received subsequent to the completion of the report, when no disciplinary action has been taken against the employee? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District No. 347 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Several specific provisions in Section 13.43 are applicable to the discussion of this opinion. Subdivision 2 (a) (4) of Section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 (a) (5) of Section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relevant part, subdivision 2 (b) provides:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings....Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present situation, the District received a complaint(s) regarding one of its employees. The District investigated the complaint(s) and a report was prepared. Subsequently, additional information relating to the complaint(s) was received but the District decided not to re-open the investigation. The employee resigned and no disciplinary action was taken.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has discussed similar situations in other advisory opinions. In 96-010, the Commissioner wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Therefore, if no final disposition regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, as defined in subdivision 2 (b), only those data relating to the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public. Further, there cannot be a final disposition of disciplinary action if no disciplinary action has been taken.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            The classification of the data in question depends, therefore, on whether disciplinary action was taken by the District against B, and if so, whether there has been a final disposition of that disciplinary action.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (See also Advisory Opinions 94-050 and 96-045.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the situation at hand, because no disciplinary action was taken, there has been no final disposition of any disciplinary action. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 (a) (6), and 2 (b), the data in question are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Maloney is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Because no disciplinary action was taken, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 (a) (6) and 2 (b), the School District is not required to release the contents of an investigative report, or additional information regarding the complaints that were the subject of the investigation.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 2, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267236</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-026</Title><title>Opinion 97 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267359&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-06-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would the rights of a data subject be violated, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, if a government entity provided access to the following data which appear on payroll checks: date of issue, number of check, name of employee, amount of payment, and endorsements?
Is a government entity required to respond to serial requests for public government data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, where the government entity has provided the requested public data in other formats and there has been no change in the data?
Is a government entity obligated, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to create data in a format that has been specifically requested where the government entity has provided the public data in a different format?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 11, 1997; School District 203 (Hayfield)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 14, 1997, PIPA received a letter, dated April 11, 1997, from Stephen Knutson and John O&apos;Donnell, attorneys representing School District #203, Hayfield. In their letter Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the School District. Pursuant to subsequent telephone conversations between PIPA staff and Mr. Knutson, three issues were agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell wrote that two individuals had, over the past four months, made various requests to gain access to the District&apos;s bank statements and canceled checks. As part of those requests, the individuals sought information specifically relating to data contained in canceled payroll checks.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Would the rights of a data subject be violated, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, if a government entity provided access to the following data which appear on payroll checks: date of issue, number of check, name of employee, amount of payment, and endorsements?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a government entity required to respond to serial requests for public government data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, where the government entity has provided the requested public data in other formats and there has been no change in the data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a government entity obligated, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to create data in a format that has been specifically requested where the government entity has provided the public data in a different format?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The first issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell relates to specific data contained in canceled payroll checks. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, a person&apos;s name and any endorsements (signature and bank account numbers) are data on individuals. This term is defined in Chapter 13 as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0200, subpart 4, states that data are data on individuals if those data identify an individual or if those data can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, data on individuals who are employees of the Hayfield School District are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public and classifies all other personnel data as private. An examination of the list of data in subdivision 2 (a) reveals that an employee&apos;s name is public but that bank account information is private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The other types of data described by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell, i.e., the date of issue (the analysis in this opinion assumes that many checks are issued on the same date), the amount, and check number, are not, independently, data on individuals. In other words, if a government entity disseminated canceled payroll checks that displayed only the amount of each check, it would be impossible to determine which employee received how much pay. Thus, because the data described are not data on individuals, they are data not on individuals and, pursuant to the general presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell involves a situation in which the individual data elements have been requested in conjunction with one another. When the check number and check amount (net pay) on a canceled check are associated with a specific person&apos;s name, (including an endorsing signature), those data become identifying information about that person. Pursuant to Chapter 13, those data have become data on individuals and, as such, are classified pursuant to Section 13.43. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, provides that an employee&apos;s net pay is private personnel data. Therefore, the data subject&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 would be violated if the District were to release the check number, check amount, and/or endorsements in combination with the name of the data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell is whether a government entity must respond to serial requests for public government data where the entity has provided the requested data in other formats and there has been no change in the data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, government entities have an obligation to respond to all requests for access to data. However, if the serial nature of various requests means that the requestor will ultimately come to possess not public data, the entity must be guided by its obligation under Chapter 13 to protect private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An example may be helpful. A data requestor first asks to inspect the number, amount, and date printed on all canceled payroll checks. In such a combination, these data are data not on individuals and are public. One week later the requestor asks to inspect the date and name printed on the same group of payroll checks. Date of payroll check and employee name are data on individuals and are treated as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. One week later the requestor asks to inspect the check number and employee name on all canceled payroll checks. In itself, the fact that a specific individual has been issued a check is not protected data. However, in this example, because the check number, when associated with the specific employee, could result in the data requestor gaining access to the employee&apos;s net pay or endorsements, the check number is private data and should not be released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell&apos;s third question, Chapter 13 does not require a government entity to create data in a format in which those data do not exist. A government entity may choose to do so, but it is not required to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O&apos;Donnell is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The rights of a data subject would be violated, per Chapter 13, if a government entity provided access to the following data appearing on payroll checks: date of issue, number of check, name of employee, amount of payment, and endorsements.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  A government entity is required to respond to all requests for access to public government data. However, in responding to serial requests for the same or associated data, the entity must be mindful of the potential cumulative effect of releasing what appear to be public data so as not to release what are actually private data.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  A government entity is not required, pursuant to Chapter 13, to create data in a format in which those data do not exist.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 11, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267359</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Serial requests</Title><Id>266947</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-025</Title><title>Opinion 97 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267454&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the University of Minnesota responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s December 23, 1996, request for access to data?
Has the University of Minnesota responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s March 12, 1997, request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 30, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On April 10, 1997, PIPA received a letter, dated April 9, 1997, from Tom Lamphere. Mr. Lamphere requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota, or U of M.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota. The purposes of this letter, dated April 11, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. On April 24, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated April 22, 1997, from Tracy Smith regarding one of Mr. Lamphere&apos;s issues. On April 23, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated April 22, 1997, from Anne Lewis, an attorney, regarding the second issue raised by Mr. Lamphere.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter as presented by Mr. Lamphere is as follows. In a letter dated December 23, 1996, Mr. Lamphere requested access to the following data from the University: 1) the University&apos;s policy on the serving of alcohol by the University, on University property, at an official University function; 2) itemized receipts for all items purchased for an October 19, 1996, brunch that Chancellor Kathryn Martin hosted at her home, as well as the name of the caterer, if applicable; and 3) itemized receipts for a November 30, 1996, event held at the Glensheen Mansion, as well as the name of the caterer, the name of the liquor store that supplied alcohol, and the name of the decorating company. Mr. Lamphere also requested an account of all items returned to all venders [sic] involved with this UMD function.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 11, 1997, Mr. Lamphere met with William Donohue, Associate General Counsel, and was assured that the requested information was public and that copies of the data would be forthcoming.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of April 9, 1997, Mr. Lamphere had not gained access to any of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 12, 1997, Mr. Lamphere requested information concerning file # 7 of the University&apos;s audit of the Duluth campus&apos; athletic department. In his opinion request he wrote, This file contains information on three UMD athletic booster clubs (Blueline Club, Hoop Club and Quarterback Club). He further wrote that the University had denied access to file # 7 data because those data are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. Attached was a letter dated March 20, 1997, from Anne Lewis. She stated, As active investigative data, these materials are not available to the public pursuant to Section 13.39 of the Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lamphere asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has the University of Minnesota responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s December 23, 1996, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has the University of Minnesota responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s March 12, 1997, request for access to data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity&apos;s obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.03 provides that the entity must respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 provides that if the entity determines that the data are not accessible to the requestor, the responsible authority must so inform the requestor at the time of the request or as soon thereafter as possible.
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the first issue, Mr. Lamphere made a request at the end of December, 1996, for access to certain data maintained by the University. After numerous phone calls resulting in no action, he met with William Donohue, Associate General Counsel. At that meeting, Mr. Donohue apparently advised Mr. Lamphere that the data he had requested were public and would be made available to him. Eight weeks after the meeting, Mr. Lamphere had apparently heard nothing further regarding those particular data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to Ms. Smith&apos;s response to the Commissioner was a letter, dated April 18, 1997, from her to Mr. Lamphere. With this letter, Mr. Lamphere apparently received a copy of the Alcohol Beverages on Campus Policy of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents. Ms. Smith wrote, With respect to the other items in your request, no event was hosted at the Chancellor&apos;s home on October 19, 1996. There are therefore no documents related to this request. No event was held at Glensheen on November 30, 1996. There are therefore no documents related to this request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith stated, While I regret the delay in responding, I see nothing in the Data Practices Act that requires a state agency to respond to a request when there is no data responsive to the request. Ms. Smith is correct that Chapter 13 does not require government entities to create data that do not exist. The problem in this case is that Mr. Lamphere was advised on February 11, 1997, that the data were public and accessible. Two months later he was advised that the data do not exist. The University&apos;s obligation under Section 13.03, subdivision 3, is to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. If Mr. Lamphere was provided with incorrect information, that is not appropriate, and informing him three and one-half months after his request that the data do not exist is not prompt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, while Mr. Lamphere did receive a copy of the Regent&apos;s policy regarding alcohol at University functions, he received it three and one-half months after his initial request. This is not prompt. Therefore, the University did not respond properly, pursuant to Section 13.03, to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s December 23, 1996, request for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the second issue, Ms. Lewis, described the situation relating to the data in the file numbered 7. She wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The request in question relates to two proceedings involving the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics at the University of Minnesota-Duluth ( UMD ). That department has recently been the subject of an internal audit, requested in 1995 by the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the Duluth campus and conducted by the University&apos;s auditors....[later] the UMD Chancellor appointed a special committee to investigate the issues raised by the media reports and other information brought to the attention of the University....This firm was engaged to serve as special counsel to the committee...
&lt;p&gt;Some of the earliest media reports focusing on the UMD Department of Intercollegiate Athletics raised several questions concerning the charitable gambling activities of The Cloquet Connection, one of the several booster clubs which provide support to UMD athletics....Because of the potential seriousness of the allegations, and the possible involvement of UMD employees and representatives, the special committee was charged with investigating the allegations, and the audit was expanded to include booster club activities....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By the end of August, 1996, the auditors and the special committee issued reports, final and complete with respect to all identified areas of concern except booster clubs...the investigation of the disposition of charitable gambling proceeds apparently intended to benefit UMD is continuing...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All these documents [the two reports] were turned over to [Mr. Lamphere] with the exception of the contents of the file numbered 7, which contains the auditors&apos; working papers to date with respect to the booster club issues...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of this date, the investigation into the questioned booster club contributions is still continuing. Additional information is being collected and requests for specific documentation are pending...efforts are current and ongoing and the investigation is active.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Lewis stated that as chief attorney acting on this matter for the University, she has advised that the data sought by Mr. Lamphere are classified by Section 13.39 as confidential or nonpublic. She wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The investigation seeks to discover whether funds which were intended to benefit UMD may have been diverted elsewhere. There are also questions as to whether UMD employees or others affiliated with the University may have participated in or assisted a diversion of funds, or may otherwise have been involved....Relationships with individuals have been suspended pending completion of the investigation, and its outcome may determine whether civil legal actions occur with respect to those individuals.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She also wrote, Mr. Lamphere was informed that this file contains investigative data which are currently nonpublic under the terms of Minnesota Statutes 13.39. In response to his March 12 inquiry to the undersigned, he was given confirmation of this reason.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.39, subdivisions 1 and 2, provide that when the chief attorney acting for an entity determines that a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See Section 13.39, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, Ms. Lewis stated that she, acting as the chief attorney for the University, has made a determination that a civil legal action is pending. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, data collected by the University that relate to the pending civil legal action(s), i.e., the investigation into the booster club contributions, are confidential until the investigation becomes inactive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Lewis added that the data requested by Mr. Lamphere are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic also pursuant to Section 13.794, internal auditing data. She wrote that because the final report of this aspect of the audit has not been published and because the investigation is continuing, the data can be classified under Section 13.794.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.794, subdivision 1, classifies data, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports created, collected, and maintained by the internal audit offices of state agencies, such as the University of Minnesota, or persons performing audits for state agencies and relating to an audit or investigation. Such data are confidential and/or protected nonpublic until the final report has been published or the audit is no longer being actively pursued. Therefore, because the data in question appear to be internal audit data as defined per Chapter 13, and because the final report has not been published and the audit is still being pursued, it appears that the data are rightly currently classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic pursuant to Section 13.794.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on this issue is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the University did not respond appropriately or promptly to Mr. Lamphere&apos;s December 23, 1996, request for access to data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.39 and 13.794, it appears that the data requested by Mr. Lamphere on March 12, 1996, are currently classified as confidential. It also appears that pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, Mr. Lamphere was properly advised regarding the classification of the data he requested.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 30, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267454</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal audit</Title><Id>266795</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-024</Title><title>Opinion 97 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267539&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-21T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of certain data, other than blood alcohol content of each of the involved individuals, maintained by the City of Winona Police Department relating to the fatal car accident which occurred on March 1, 1997?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 21, 1997; City of Winona</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 7, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated April 3, 1997, from Richard Blahnik, attorney for the City of Winona. In his letter, he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the City of Winona Police Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. On March 1, 1997, an automobile accident occurred in Winona in which the five occupants of the automobile were killed. As a result of the accident, the Winona Police Department collected, created, and is maintaining certain information. Although the Department has released some of the data relating to the incident, Mr. Blahnik has requested an opinion regarding the classification of the remaining data. Mr. Blahnik wrote, It is the City&apos;s position that a portion of the Winona Police Department response or incident data is private or nonpublic data pursuant to M.S. Section 13.82, subd. 4 and M.S. Section 13.83.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (The Commissioner has issued an opinion regarding the classification of the blood alcohol content data collected in relation to the same incident. See Advisory Opinion 97-023.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Blahnik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of certain data, other than blood alcohol content of each of the involved individuals, maintained by the City of Winona Police Department relating to the fatal car accident which occurred on March 1, 1997? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  As part of his opinion request, Mr. Blahnik submitted copies of all the data that are in dispute. Those data include the following: clothing found on the individuals, personal property found on the individuals and in the automobile, Winona Police supplemental reports, Minnesota Department of Public Safety Fatality Report, debriefing notes, information on who identified the bodies of the victims, and the results of additional blood toxicological analyses conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11, data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Winona are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Data collected, created, and maintained by the City&apos;s Police Department are classified specifically in Section 13.82.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On behalf of the City, Mr. Blahnik asserted that the data at issue in this opinion are private pursuant to Sections 13.82, subdivision 4, and 13.83. Subdivision 4 of Section 13.82, classifies as public certain data collected or created per a law enforcement agency&apos;s response to an incident or per actions taken by an agency on its own initiative. Mr. Blahnik has apparently concluded that because the data in question are not specifically listed in subdivision 4, those data must be not public. In addition, as Mr. Blahnik points out, Section 13.83 does classify some types of data collected by medical examiners as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 97-023, both of Mr. Blahnik&apos;s arguments are problematic. First, Section 13.82, subdivision 4, states that certain data regarding an agency&apos;s response to an incident are to be always public. It does not state that other response or incident data are private or confidential. Therefore, none of the data in question can be classified as private pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Furthermore, as the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 97-023, the data in question appear to have been collected by the Winona Police Department, and other law enforcement agencies, as part of an &lt;u&gt;investigation&lt;/u&gt;. into the March 1, 1997, accident. Therefore, these data appear to be more appropriately classified pursuant to subdivision 5 of Section 13.82. Subdivision 5 of Section 13.82, classifies investigative data collected and/or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility. Investigative data are not public while the investigation is active and, except in certain situations not applicable in this case, become public when the case becomes inactive. In the situation at hand, although no one was ultimately charged with a crime, the police investigators initially gathered information and evidence as if they were proceeding with an investigation. The Commissioner concludes that these data are classified pursuant to subdivision 5 of Section 13.82, and are now public because no charges will be pursued and the investigation has become inactive.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Blahnik also made reference to Section 13.83, medical examiner data, as an argument for treating the data as not public. Section 13.83 classifies data created, collected, used, or maintained by a medical examiner in the fulfillment of his/her official duties. As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 97-023, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a), any data disseminated to the Police Department by the medical examiner&apos;s office are also subject to the operation of Section 13.82, subdivision 5, and are classified as public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An additional note is necessary. With one exception, the data described above are public because they are inactive investigative data. The exception is the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Fatality Report. Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09 requires that motor vehicle accident reports be submitted to the Commissioner of Public Safety. All such reports are confidential pursuant to Section 169.09, subdivision 13, except for any data contained in the report that are classified as public as per Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 (request for service data) and 4 (response or incident data).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Blahnik is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, the data in question are public (with the exception of the traffic accident report). If the traffic accident report contains data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 or 4, those data are also public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 21, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267539</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-023</Title><title>Opinion 97 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267710&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, of the following data maintained by the City of Winona Police Department: the blood alcohol content of each of the five individuals who were involved in the fatal accident on March 1, 1997.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 21, 1997; City of Winona</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On March 31, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 28, 1997, from John Borger, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In his letter, Mr. Borger requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the City of Winona Police Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Blahnik, the attorney for the City of Winona, in response to Mr. Borger&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter dated April 7, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Borger&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. Rather than submitting additional comments, Mr. Blahnik stated by telephone to PIPA staff that his opinion on the matter is contained in a memo dated March 18, 1997, to Frank Pomeroy, City of Winona Chief of Police. A copy of this memo was submitted to PIPA by Mr. Borger.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. On March 1, 1997, an automobile accident occurred in Winona in which the five occupants of the automobile were killed. As a result of the accident, the Winona Police Department collected, created, and is maintaining certain information. Following the incident, the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; requested access to all police incident data and all public medical examiner data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In a letter dated March 24, 1997, addressed to Mr. Blahnik, Mr. Borger discussed the specific issue of the blood alcohol content of each of five deceased individuals. He stated that the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; disagreed with Mr. Blahnik&apos;s conclusion that the blood alcohol content data are private. Mr. Blahnik responded in a letter dated March 28, 1997, stating that it was still his opinion that the data in question are classified as private. Mr. Blahnik added that if Mr. Borger remained firmly convinced that the data are classified as public, an advisory opinion might be beneficial.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Borger then requested an advisory opinion. He wrote, Although there may be other questions concerning other information, one specific legal issue that has arisen is the status of data on the blood alcohol concentration of persons in the vehicle... (Subsequent to Mr. Borger&apos;s request, Mr. Blahnik also requested an opinion regarding some additional information relating to the May 1, 1997, accident.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Pursuant to her authority in Section 13.072, the Commissioner contacted the families of the persons involved in the accident and invited each to submit any comments regarding the classification of the data in question. Attorneys for four of the five families responded and each were of the opinion that the data are classified as not public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Borger asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, of the following data maintained by the City of Winona Police Department: the blood alcohol content of each of the five individuals who were involved in the fatal accident on March 1, 1997. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11, data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Winona are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Data collected, created, and maintained by the City&apos;s Police Department are classified specifically in Section 13.82.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The central issue of this opinion is whether the blood alcohol content data in the possession of the Police Department are public or not public. These data include the results of blood alcohol analyses provided to the Police Department by the Medical Examiner and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On behalf of the City, Mr. Blahnik made two arguments as to why the blood alcohol content data are not public. His first assertion is that because of language in Section 13.82, subdivision 4, the data must be private. Section 13.82, subdivision 4 (response or incident data), sets forth specific data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which documents the agency&apos;s response to a request for service...or which describes actions taken by the agency on its own initiative that shall always be public. One of the public data types, set forth in subdivision 4 (m), is the blood alcohol content of each driver. Mr. Blahnik argued that the blood alcohol content data maintained by the Winona Police Department are private because 1) the Police Department lacks evidence to establish conclusively the identity of the driver, and 2) the blood alcohol content of passengers is not specifically listed as a public type of data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Blahnik. First, while Mr. Blahnik is correct that Section 13.82, subdivision 4, does not specifically classify the blood alcohol content of passengers as public, there is no provision that classifies those data as not public. In fact, subdivision 4 of Section 13.82, does not classify &lt;u&gt;any&lt;/u&gt;data as private or confidential. Rather, it states that certain data relating to a response or incident are always to be public. Therefore, if Mr. Blahnik insists that the data in question are classified pursuant to subdivision 4 of Section 13.82, those data have been public since the time they came into the possession of the Winona Police Department. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the public data presumption section.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the blood alcohol content data, as well as all the other data related to the disappearance and, then, discovery of the vehicle and its passengers, do not appear to be the result of the Winona Police Department responding solely to an incident. The data collection appears to be part of an investigation into the disappearance, and, then, death of the five individuals. The investigation continued until the fifth victim was located and a cause of death had been determined. Although no one was ultimately charged with a crime, the police investigators initially gathered information and evidence as if they were proceeding with a possible criminal investigation. Thus, the data appear to be more appropriately classified pursuant to subdivision 5 of Section 13.82, which, in part states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[i]nvestigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Once the investigation is no longer active, those data become public (except in a few situations not applicable in this case.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of the accident which occurred on March 1, 1997, the investigation is no longer active because charges will not be pursued. Thus, presuming the blood alcohol content data were collected as part of an investigation, those data are now public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second argument made by Mr. Blahnik is that the blood alcohol content data are private because those data are classified as such under Section 13.83. Section 13.83 classifies certain data created, collected, used, or maintained by a medical examiner in the fulfillment of his/her official duties. When government data travel from one entity to another, as from the Medical Examiner to the Police Department, the classification of the data in the receiving entity is determined by examining the language in Section 13.03, subdivision 4. In some cases, data disseminated to another entity retain the same classification. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c)). However, in other cases, the classification of the traveled data must change to conform with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the receiving agency. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a)).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, data traveled from the Medical Examiner to the Police Department. Once those data were received by the Police Department, the data became subject to the classification specified for law enforcement data in Section 13.82. Because Section 13.82, subdivision 5, states clearly that inactive law enforcement investigative data are public, the classification of the Medical Examiner data received by the Police Department are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is another reason Mr. Blahnik&apos;s second argument is problematic. The blood alcohol content data created by the BCA and disseminated to the Police Department are classified as public by the operation of Section 13.82, subdivision 5. It would not make sense that the same type of data collected from the Medical Examiner would be private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, the Commissioner sought comments from the families of the five persons involved in the accident. Two attorneys representing three of the families argued that because the driver has not been conclusively identified, the data in question are private pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 4 (m). Another of the attorney responders argued that the City of Winona is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. The appropriateness of Section 13.82, subdivision 4 (m), has been discussed above and there is no dispute that data collected, created, and maintained by the City of Winona Police Department are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 (see Section 13.02, subdivision 11).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Borger is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.82, subdivision 5, and 13.03, subdivision 1, the blood alcohol content data of each of the five individuals are public data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 21, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267710</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical examiner data</Title><Id>266449</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.83</Title><Id>379306</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Coroner data</Title><Id>379305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Blood alcohol content</Title><Id>266450</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-022</Title><title>Opinion 97 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267807&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-12T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office inappropriately disseminate private data (in March of 1996) about a data subject by disclosing the data to a member of the media? (In 1991, the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office had a policy regarding community relations that allowed members of the press to gain access to not public data.)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 12, 1997; Crow Wing County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On February 19, 1997, PIPA received a fax from Richard Olmstead. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding an alleged violation of his rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s office. As a result of subsequent communication between Mr. Olmstead and PIPA staff, one issue was agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dick Ross, Crow Wing County Sheriff, in response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter dated April 3, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request and to ask him or the Sheriff&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position. PIPA received a response, dated April 23, 1997, from Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts, as presented by Mr. Olmstead, of this matter is as follows. On March 15, 1996, Mr. Olmstead was apparently at the Sheriff&apos;s office. A member of the media gained access to data contained in Initial Crime Reports (ICRs) that had been created during the past 24 hours. Mr. Olmstead was denied access to those same data. Mr. Olmstead also stated that in May of 1995, he became aware of a press policy apparently in use at that time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of his opinion request, Mr. Olmstead provided the Commissioner with a copy of a press policy of the Sheriff&apos;s office. This policy was accompanied with a letter dated February 19, 1991, from Sheriff Ross to Mr. Olmstead. In part, Sheriff Ross wrote, Enclosed is a copy of the Sheriff&apos;s Office policy regarding Community Relations and, Cooperation with the Press. It is unclear if this particular press policy was in existence in May of 1995.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, County Attorney Ryan wrote, Please be advised that Crow Wing County will be submitting no further information concerning this specific topic. Crow Wing County will rest on the current contents of your file concerning the same.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office inappropriately disseminate private data (in March of 1996) about a data subject by disclosing the data to a member of the media? (In 1991, the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office had a policy regarding community relations that allowed members of the press to gain access to not public data.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Data created, collected, and maintained by law enforcement agencies, such as the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. Section 13.82 classifies some law enforcement data as public, some as private, and some as confidential.
&lt;p&gt;It is unclear in this situation whether the data contained in the ICRs were classified, in whole or in part, as public, private, or confidential. If the data were &lt;u&gt;public&lt;/u&gt;, anyone who requested access should have been able to gain access, including the media person and/or Mr. Olmstead. (See Sections 13.02, and 13.03, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data were &lt;u&gt;private&lt;/u&gt;, in most cases, only the data subject and those persons within the entity whose work assignments reasonably required them to gain access to the data would have been able to gain access. Thus, if the data were private data about the &lt;u&gt;media person&lt;/u&gt;, only s/he should have gained access. If the data were private data about &lt;u&gt;Mr. Olmstead&lt;/u&gt;, only Mr. Olmstead should have gained access. (See Sections 13.02, 13.04, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data were &lt;u&gt;confidential&lt;/u&gt;, in most cases, only those persons within the entity whose work assignments reasonably required them to gain access to the data would have been able to gain access. Thus, neither the member of the media nor Mr. Olmstead should have gained access. (See Section 13.02, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0600.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue of this opinion is whether Mr. Olmstead&apos;s Chapter 13 rights were violated because data maintained by the Sheriff&apos;s Office were disseminated to a media person but were not disclosed to Mr. Olmstead. Based on the above-referenced statute sections, the only scenario in which the Sheriff&apos;s Office, pursuant to Chapter 13, should have granted access to the media person and denied access to Mr. Olmstead is if &lt;u&gt;all &lt;/u&gt;the data in the ICRs were private data about the media person.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, certain data collected by law enforcement agencies regarding arrests, requests for service, or responses to incidents are always public. Typically, those public data are contained in ICRs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that some of the data in the ICRs were public and should have been accessible to all members of the public, including Mr. Olmstead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data were public, Mr. Olmstead should have been able to gain access. If the data were private and/or confidential data about Mr. Olmstead, the media person should not have been granted access. Furthermore, if a policy in existence in the Sheriff&apos;s Office in 1991 was still in effect in 1995, the likelihood increases that Mr. Olmstead&apos;s Chapter 13 rights were violated. One relevant portion of the Community Relations, and Cooperation with the Press, policy states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;This area [a station at the law enforcement center] will have all current ICR&apos;S (Initial Crime Reports) on a clipboard. This daily upgrated [sic] list of crimes will have all ICR&apos;S attached, however, due to the fact that certain ICR&apos;S have to be held with the strictest of confidentiality, i.e. juvenile cases, unprocessed cases, narcotics and intelligence cases, house watch reports, etc., it is necessary to RED FLAG certain cases which restrict the press from divulging its contents. &lt;u&gt;This means when the press observes this RED FLAG report, they will disinvolve themselves from this particular case and not report its contents.&lt;/u&gt;Any violation of this rule will result in the cancellation of that particular news media&apos;s privilege in the Records Room. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Olmstead is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s Office released private and/or confidential data about Mr. Olmstead to members of the public, Mr. Olmstead&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, were violated. In addition, if public data were released to members of the public but not to Mr. Olmstead, Mr. Olmstead&apos;s rights, pursuant to Chapter 13, were violated.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 12, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267807</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Initial crime report (ICR)</Title><Id>266568</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Media access policy</Title><Id>266569</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-021</Title><title>Opinion 97 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266662&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Fairfax relating to the 1993 Residential/Commercial Rehabilitation Grant: the names of recipients; the dates of receipt; and the amounts received?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 12, 1997; City of Fairfax</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On March 24, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 21, 1997, from Cathy Wolf. In her letter, Ms. Wolf requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to government data maintained by the City of Fairfax.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marcia Pelzel, Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fairfax, in response to Ms. Wolf&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter dated March 25, 1997, were to inform her of Ms. Wolf&apos;s request and to ask her or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. PIPA received a response, dated April 1, 1997, from Thomas W. Van Hon, an attorney representing the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated February 27, 1997, addressed to the Fairfax City Clerk/Treasurer, Ms. Wolf requested access to the following data relating to recent federal and state grants: names of the recipients; dates of receipt; and amounts of the grants. In a letter dated February 28, 1997, Mr. Van Hon responded by informing Ms. Wolf that the requested information is classified as private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 4, 1997, Ms. Wolf narrowed her request and asked for the names and addresses of the recipients of the 1993 Commercial/Residential Rehab Grant (Small Cities Block Grants). She asserted that Section 13.31 classifies those data as public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated March 7, 1997, Mr. Van Hon responded to Ms. Wolf and stated that after a review of the issue, it was still his opinion that the data are classified as private.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Wolf then submitted an opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Wolf asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the City of Fairfax relating to the 1993 Residential/Commercial Rehabilitation Grant: the names of recipients; the dates of receipt; and the amounts received? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The data in question are regarding a Small Cities Development Program Grant provided by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) to the City of Fairfax. The Department provided Ms. Wolf with a breakdown of the total grant. In a letter dated March 3, 1997, William Atkins wrote, Of these funds [$496,726], $209,230 was designated for Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation, $74,970 was designated for Rental Rehabilitation, $194,530 was designated for Commercial Rehabilitation, and $17,996 was designated for General Administration. In his response to the opinion request, Mr. Van Hon wrote:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The City reviewed the request in light of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 and concluded that the data requested was private data on individuals. None of the funds under the residential/commercial rehabilitation grant were used for the purchase of housing. The funds were used for the rehabilitation of residential and commercial properties. It is my understanding that the residential program provided for a grant to repair residential property and was income based. I further understand that the commercial program was provided for a grant and/or loan to rehabilitate commercial properties and financial information was collected in order to assure repayment ability of any portion of the benefit which was a loan. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To determine the classification of the data requested by Ms. Wolf, the Commissioner first looked to the enabling statutory language for DTED. While Minnesota Statutes Section 116J.980 provides that DTED shall be responsible for state administration of the small cities development grant program, there appears to be no specific classification for the data collected as part of that program. The next question is whether, as the City has argued, the data in question are classified pursuant to Section 13.31.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In part, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As used in this section, benefit data means data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, rehabilitation and community action agency, Head Start, and food assistance programs administered by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 of Section 13.31 states that the names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, or assistance through programs administered by a government entity that are intended to assist with the purchase of housing or other real property are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 3 of Section 13.31 states that, unless otherwise provided by law, all other benefit data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In the present situation, it appears that the type of data &lt;u&gt;on individuals&lt;/u&gt;requested by Ms. Wolf are classified by Section 13.31. The individuals in question are recipients of benefits provided under what appears to be a rehabilitation program; owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation, and commercial rehabilitation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Generally speaking, benefit data are private. The exception, as per subdivision 2 of Section 13.31, is if the individual receiving the benefit is purchasing housing or other real property. This does not apply to the current situation because the Residential/Commercial Rehabilitation Grant is related to rehabilitation, not purchasing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One further point is necessary. Section 13.31 refers only to data on individuals. Therefore, if persons who received some of the grant monies were acting in a business capacity rather than as an individual, the information about those grantees is not classified under Section 13.31. Any such data are presumptively public pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Wolf is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, the following data on individuals relating to the 1993 Residential/Commercial Rehabilitation Grant are private: the names of recipients; the dates of receipt; and the amounts received. However, if some of the grantees were acting in a business capacity rather than as individuals, the data relating to those persons are presumptively public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 12, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266662</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:38:25Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-020</Title><title>Opinion 97 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267855&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-07T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the private data about her child?
Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the job description of a District employee?
Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the teaching materials used by teachers at Clara Barton School for grades 1-3?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 1997; School District 0001 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On March 17, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Greta Morrison. In her letter, Ms. Morrison requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain government data maintained by Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peter Hutchinson, Superintendent of Minneapolis Schools, in response to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter dated March 20, 1997, were to inform him of Ms. Morrison&apos;s request and to ask him or the School District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. PIPA received a response, dated April 11, 1997, from James A. Cunningham, Jr., Assistant to the District General Counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Morrison is as follows. In a letter dated December 19, 1996, Ms. Morrison requested the following from Minneapolis Schools: to see all of the education records about her daughter (a former student); a job description for Mr. Russ Thompson (an employee of the District); and to see teaching materials for grades K-3 used by actual teachers at Clara Barton school. In a letter dated February 3, 1997, Ms. Morrison received a response from Harlan Anderson. He wrote that Mr. Cunningham would be responding to her request about her daughter&apos;s school records and the job description. Mr. Anderson further wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In your letter you also requested to see teaching materials used by actual teachers at Clara Barton. I refer you to Mr. Cunningham&apos;s letter of November 14 which included a packet of both policies and regulations dealing with Teaching of Controversial Issues...According to district regulations, &lt;u&gt;review of materials must be preceded by a written request which includes the titles of the learning materials to be reviewed and specific questions about the learning materials&lt;/u&gt;. Your blanket request to see all teaching materials used does not meet the guidelines established by our district policies and regulations. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the time Ms. Morrison addressed her letter to the Commissioner she stated that Minneapolis Schools had not responded to her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Morrison asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the private data about her child?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the job description of a District employee?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the teaching materials used by teachers at Clara Barton School for grades 1-3?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Data maintained by educational institutions about students are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Subdivisions 1 and 3 of Section 13.32 provide generally that data about students are private. Private data are accessible to the data subject (and, in the case of educational data about a minor, the minor&apos;s parents) pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the first issue, Mr. Cunningham asserted that the District&apos;s response was appropriate. He stated that Ms. Morrison requested and was provided with a copy of her child&apos;s entire cumulative file in October of 1996. He noted that Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that after an individual has been shown private data, those data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action related to the data is pending, or additional data on the individual have been collected/created. Mr. Cunningham stated that six months time had not elapsed between Ms. Morrison&apos;s having received access in October and her having requested access again in December. He added that on March 21, 1997, when the six months time had elapsed, Ms. Morrison was sent another copy of her child&apos;s cumulative file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Morrison&apos;s request was to see all of my daughter&apos;s...school records gathered by teachers, administrators, and/or other data collectors. Mr. Cunningham stated that she received access to her daughter&apos;s cumulative file. If the child&apos;s cumulative file is the equivalent of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt;her school records, and no dispute or action related to the data is pending nor has there been any additional collection/creation of data since October 1996, Minneapolis Schools is not required to provide access until April of 1997. However, given the facts as submitted by both parties, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the District has responded appropriately. If Ms. Morrison did gain access to data in October, but she did not see all the data, or a dispute is pending or additional data have been collected/created, Ms. Morrison should have been granted access prior to expiration of the six month time frame.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second issue, Mr. Cunningham responded that while a job description is public data (see Section 13.43, subdivision 2), Minneapolis Schools does not have a job description for Mr. Thompson; in other words, the data do not exist. Chapter 13 does not impose an obligation on government entities to create data that do not exist. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, Minneapolis Schools does have an obligation to respond to requests for access to data in a prompt and appropriate manner. The lack of a response is neither prompt nor appropriate. In his letter dated February 3, 1997, Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Cunningham would respond to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request regarding Mr. Thompson&apos;s job description. To the best of the Commissioner&apos;s knowledge, Ms. Morrison was not notified that the data about the job description do not exist. Therefore, it does not appear that the District responded appropriately to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request regarding the job description.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third issue raised by Ms. Morrison is whether Minneapolis Schools has responded properly to her request for access to teaching materials at Clara Barton School. In his response, Mr. Cunningham stated, [Ms. Morrison] has made numerous visits to Clara Barton School and seen firsthand the materials that are available. This statement is ambiguous and is in conflict with the information provided by Ms. Morrison. Ms. Morrison alleged in her March 1997 opinion request that the District had not responded to her request and, as of the date of this opinion, Ms. Morrison has not provided the Commissioner with information to the contrary. Furthermore, in two written communications to her (dated November 14, 1996, and February 3, 1997), the District stated that Ms. Morrison would be provided access to materials only if she identified those materials by name in her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Cunningham&apos;s letter refers to materials that are available rather than to the &lt;u&gt;teaching&lt;/u&gt;materials requested by Ms. Morrison. This is somewhat confusing given the February 3, 1997, letter from Mr. Anderson to Ms. Morrison. Mr. Anderson referred to the District&apos;s policies and regulations and stated the regulations require that the requestor, prior to reviewing materials, identify, in writing, the titles of the learning materials to be reviewed. He further wrote, Your blanket request to see all teaching materials used does not meet the guidelines established by our district policies and regulations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming this is Minneapolis&apos; policy, it is not in compliance with Chapter 13. Section 13.03 requires that government entities, upon request, provide access to public government data within a reasonable time and in a prompt manner (see Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300). School teaching materials are government data and, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, are presumed public. Therefore, Ms. Morrison, upon request, has the right to inspect or obtain copies of those materials without having to first identify the titles of the materials. Her request was to inspect all teaching materials for grades 1-3. The District&apos;s obligation, under Chapter 13, is to provide her with access to those materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Morrison is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In part, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states, the responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. It is unclear whether Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, responded appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the private data about her child. If Ms. Morrison did gain access to data in October of 1996, but she did not see &lt;u&gt;all &lt;/u&gt;the data, or a dispute is pending or additional data have been collected/created, Ms. Morrison should have been granted access prior to expiration of the six month time frame.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, did not respond promptly and appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the job description of a District employee.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, did not respond promptly and appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to Ms. Morrison&apos;s request for access to the teaching materials used by teachers at Clara Barton School for grades 1-3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 7, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267855</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Curriculum materials</Title><Id>267015</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Requestor must be informed</Title><Id>266299</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-019</Title><title>Opinion 97 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267604&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and/or 13.04, did the University of Minnesota-Duluth respond appropriately to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 7, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On March 18, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 17, 1997, from Albert Burnham. In his letter, Mr. Burnham requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, hereinafter UMD.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On behalf of the Commissioner, PIPA wrote to Dr. Kathryn Martin, Chancellor of UMD, in response to Mr. Burnham&apos;s request. The purposes of this letter dated April 1, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Burnham&apos;s request and to ask her or UMD&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position. PIPA received a response, dated April 17, 1997, from Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel at the University of Minnesota.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In approximately early 1996, Mr. Burnham requested access to a copy of a report which had been compiled by an outside consultant. In a letter dated February 25, 1997, to Vince Magnuson (Vice Chancellor for Academic Administration), Mr. Burnham wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[m]y department and the Industrial Engineering Department took part in a program the stated goal of which was to improve the working environment for women in the two departments in particular and on campus in general....About fourteen months ago I began to make inquiries about the report....When I received the copy all the names were blanked out...When I inquired as to why, [the Director of UMD&apos;s Office of Equal Opportunity] said this was for the purposes of confidentiality. She did not cite any state law to prove her contention...I believe I am entitled to see the full unedited and uncensored report... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Burnham then requested an advisory opinion stating, As of March 17, 1997, Mr. Vince Magnuson... has not responded to my inquiry to him.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Ms. Smith wrote that the report was redacted because it contains private personnel data about other University employees. She noted that in a letter dated April 2, 1997, Mr. Magnuson wrote to Mr. Burnham and explained portions of the report were redacted because they contained not public information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith further wrote that the University should have explained to Mr. Burnham that the data were redacted because they are private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Burnham asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and/or 13.04, did the University of Minnesota-Duluth respond appropriately to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In the present situation, Mr. Burnham requested a copy of a report that was prepared by a consultant for the University of Minnesota-Duluth.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03 provides that upon request, a person shall be permitted to gain access to public government data. If the government entity determines that the requested data are classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the entity shall so inform the requestor and shall cite the specific statutory section on which the determination is based. The response must be made in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information submitted, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether the University responded to Mr. Burnham&apos;s request for a copy of the report within a reasonable time. However, it does not appear that the University fulfilled its statutory obligation to cite the statutory citation upon which the redaction (denial of data) was based. Mr. Burnham has been attempting to determine why portions of the report were redacted. Mr. Burnham stated that at the time he received the report, UMD staff explained that the redaction was for purposes of confidentiality. Pursuant to Section 13.03, the University was required to provide a specific statutory citation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith, on behalf of the University, has acknowledged that UMD did not provide enough information to Mr. Burnham. She wrote, In retrospect, the University should have provided Mr. Burnham with the specific statutory section upon which the denial of the information was based....The specific statutory basis for the denial of the redacted information was Minn. Stat. 13.43 (1996), dealing with private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public and states that all other personnel data are private. Ms. Smith stated that the University, pursuant to its obligation under Section 13.43, has redacted private personnel data about employees other than Mr. Burnham contained in the report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Burnham is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;In part, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states, the responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. The University of Minnesota-Duluth did not respond appropriately to a request for access to data because it did not provide the requestor with the specific statutory citation upon which the denial of his access to data in the report was based.
                            &lt;dd /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 7, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267604</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))</Title><Id>266501</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-018</Title><title>Opinion 97 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267687&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-05T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must School District 278, Orono, disclose to the subject of the complaint the contents of a harassment complaint and its investigation notes detailing the allegations where the District has reason to believe that such a release may result in harassment or harm to the complainant and/or the complainant&apos;s child?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, must District 278 disclose to the subject of the complaint documents believed by the District to be harassment data where the District has reason to believe that such a release may result in harassment or harm to the complainant and/or the complainant&apos;s child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 5, 1997; School District 278 (Orono)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On January 24, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Paul Ratwik and Michelle Soldo, attorneys representing School District #278, Orono. In their letter, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain government data maintained by District 278. As a result of subsequent telephone conversations, two issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo wrote that District 278 received a complaint from a parent alleging that a District volunteer had engaged in harassing behavior toward the complainant and the complainant&apos;s child. District 278 conducted an investigation and determined that it would no longer utilize the volunteer&apos;s services. The volunteer subsequently requested access to various data regarding the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following the volunteer&apos;s request, District 278 received two anonymous letters from individuals who disagreed with the District&apos;s action regarding the volunteer. Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;One such letter purports to be from angry parents and indicates that if the Complainant does not retract [his/her] complaint against the volunteer [s/he] will suffer legal and other consequences. Moreover, the letter threatens that the complainant&apos;s child will not have a comfortable experience in school in the future as a result of the complaint against the volunteer.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo noted that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides for the public classification of certain data relating to the discipline of a public employee/volunteer. However, they further noted that subdivision 8 of Section 13.43 precludes the release of certain data if the complainant may be subject to harm or harassment because of the release of the data. Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo argued:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;...the District has reason to believe that disclosure of the complaint and its interview notes with the complainant and other witnesses may subject the complainant, the complainant&apos;s child and witnesses to harassment or other harm. The District does not assert that the letter was written by the volunteer. However, based on the fact that the letter was unsigned, the District cannot rule out the possibility that it was written by the volunteer or by another individual at the volunteer&apos;s request. Moreover, even if the volunteer is completely unaware of the existence of the letter, the District cannot prevent the volunteer from disclosing this information to individuals who may carry out the threats detailed in the letter.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo also noted that because the District&apos;s decision regarding discipline is final, and because the volunteer&apos;s association with the District was non-contractual, s/he has no appeal rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo also stated, It is the District&apos;s position that where it maintains the data requested by the volunteer...the Act requires that it redact the names of students and any information that readily identifies students from these documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
In their request for an opinion, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must School District 278, Orono, disclose to the subject of the complaint the contents of a harassment complaint and its investigation notes detailing the allegations where the District has reason to believe that such a release may result in harassment or harm to the complainant and/or the complainant&apos;s child?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, must District 278 disclose to the subject of the complaint documents believed by the District to be harassment data where the District has reason to believe that such a release may result in harassment or harm to the complainant and/or the complainant&apos;s child?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Government data maintained by a public employer relating to current or former employees and/or volunteers are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, personnel data. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 1.) Section 13.43 provides that certain data about employees and/or volunteers are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Generally speaking, all data of which an employee and/or volunteer &lt;u&gt;is the subject&lt;/u&gt;, are accessible to that individual. However, one exception to this general rule is found at Section 13.43, subdivision 8, which states:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;(1) threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or
&lt;p&gt;(2) subject the complainant or witness to harassment. If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In specific regard to this opinion, the District volunteer was relieved of her/his responsibilities because s/he allegedly engaged in some harassing behavior. Subsequent to the volunteer making a request for access to related data, the District received two anonymous letters from individuals who disagreed with District 278&apos;s decision to dismiss the volunteer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon review of one of the letters, the Commissioner concurs with the determination reached by Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo. A reasonable interpretation of the letter is that it is meant to serve as a threat to the complainant and her/his child. In addition to the comments cited above in the Facts and Procedural History section, the letter states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;We want you to know that this issue will not go away. If you do not take steps immediately to ask the administration to allow [the volunteer] to be part of [a particular school activity] we will take actions, legal or not, to influence you to do so....[Some people] have already voiced their concerns about you and your involvement with [a particular school activity]. We will make sure that everyone knows the exact kind of people that you are....You, and your family, will find out what the word ostracize really means.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 8 of Section 13.43 precludes a government entity from releasing certain data to the complained-about employee and/or volunteer, if the responsible authority determines that the individual&apos;s access to the data would either threaten the personal safety of the complainant/witness, or would subject the complainant/witness to harassment. In the case of this opinion, based on the contents of the letter, District 278 seems to have made a reasonable determination that releasing information about the complainant to the volunteer might result in harm or harassment to the complainant, her/his child, or others who support her/his position. Therefore, it would appear that pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 8, any data relating to the matter which identify the complainant or other witnesses are not accessible to the volunteer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, as the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267552&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;96-002&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-002&lt;/a&gt;, when Section 13.43, subdivision 8, is read in conjunction with &lt;u&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/u&gt;, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991), a complainant&apos;s identity cannot be protected if that person is a member of the public who does not otherwise enjoy any protections under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at hand, the complainant is a parent; data collected and maintained about her/him by District 278 are classified pursuant to Section 13.32 as private. Thus, data relating to the harassment matter that identify the complainant (and her/his child) are not accessible to the volunteer. The data are not accessible to the volunteer because those data are private educational data pursuant to Section 13.32. (See Section 13.32, subdivisions 2 and 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District also expressed concern that some of the data in question may be about other District 278 employees, students, or parents. A similar issue was addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267392&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;97-010&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 97-010&lt;/a&gt;. The Commissioner wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The answer to [the school district&apos;s] question depends on whom the data in the arbitrator&apos;s report are about. (For additional information regarding similar issues, please see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267447#/detail/appId/1/id/267430&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;93-010&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 93-010&lt;/a&gt;.) In other words, is the subject of the data... a student [and/or parent], or another District 2143 employee?...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, Section 13.32, educational data, provides that data collected, created, and maintained by public educational institutions about students [and/or parents] are private (the main exception being those data which become public through the directory information process, see Section 13.32, subdivision 5). Therefore, if some of the data in the arbitrator&apos;s award are about individual students [and/or parents] and can be identified as such, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.32, then that information needs to be removed from the report. However, if the use of identifiers by the arbitrator means that comments by any one student cannot be attributed to that student, then the data are no longer data about that student [and/or parent] and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same analysis applies to any data in the arbitrator&apos;s award that are about a District 2143 employee other than the disciplined employee. If so, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.43, then the data need to be removed. If, however, removing the names and job titles of those employees creates a result such that any statements or comments cannot be attributed to a particular employee, then the data are no longer data about the other District 2143 employee and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis in Advisory Opinion 97-010 is similar to the situation at hand. If any of the data requested by the volunteer are about other District 278 students (and/or parents), or other District 278 employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private and not accessible to the volunteer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Soldo is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, the following data maintained by District 278 are not accessible to the volunteer: data relating to the harassment matter involving the volunteer that identify the complainant or her/his child. Further, if any of the related data are about other District 278 students (and/or parents) or other District 278 employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, the following data maintained by District 278 are not accessible to the volunteer: data relating to the harassment matter involving the volunteer that identify the complainant or her/his child. Further, if any of the related data are about other District 278 students (and/or parents) or other District 278 employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 5, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267687</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Witness identity or statement</Title><Id>267171</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T22:19:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-017</Title><title>Opinion 97 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267364&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-05-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are health and medical data maintained in the personnel file of a public employee considered medical data within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, or personnel data under Section 13.43?
When a settlement agreement within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), contains private personnel data - whether health and medical or otherwise - concerning a party to the settlement agreement, do the provisions of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) 6), require disclosure of this information, together with the remainder of the settlement agreement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 5, 1997; School District 2071 (Lake Crystal)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On February 10, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated February 7, 1997, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;i&gt;Mankato Free Press&lt;/i&gt; and its news director, Joe Spear. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data maintained by School District # 2071, Lake Crystal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stanley Ries, Superintendent of District 2071. The purposes of this letter dated February 20, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On February 24, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated February 21, 1997, from Steven Rizzi, an attorney representing District 2071.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as submitted by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. Mr. Spear requested from District 2071 certain information concerning a settlement between the District and an employee. Mr. Spear received a written response from Mr. Rizzi in a letter dated January 22, 1997. Attached to the letter was a copy of the settlement agreement; however, significant portions had been redacted. Soon thereafter, Mr. Rizzi explained to Mr. Spear that the redacted data were classified as not public pursuant to either Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, medical data, or Section 13.43, personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson related that he then, in a letter, requested further clarification from Mr. Rizzi. In that letter he apparently asserted that Section 13.42 was not applicable because it classifies only those data collected by medical facilities. Therefore, data of a medical nature maintained in a personnel file would appear instead to be classified as personnel data pursuant to Section 13.43.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson related that he also stated to Mr. Rizzi that if portions of the data redacted from the settlement agreement included personnel data about the employee, whether medical or otherwise, such redactions were not appropriate given the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson further wrote that Mr. Rizzi, upon receipt of the letter, agreed that the best course for resolving the issues raised would be to seek an advisory opinion from the Commissioner.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Rizzi wrote, I believe that Mr. Anfinson and your office have accurately outlined the issue presented by the newspaper&apos;s request. He further wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I would suggest that strong consideration be given to the fact that confidential medical information on an employee accumulated by the political subdivision is Personnel Data that is not specifically determined to be public. Other data is deemed private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, Subdivision 4. Further, I cannot agree with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s argument that the requirements of Section 13.43, Subdivision 2 (a) (6) override the confidential nature of medical information. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an advisory opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following isues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are health and medical data maintained in the personnel file of a public employee considered medical data within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, or personnel data under Section 13.43?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            When a settlement agreement within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), contains private personnel data - whether health and medical or otherwise - concerning a party to the settlement agreement, do the provisions of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) 6), require disclosure of this information, together with the remainder of the settlement agreement?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 2071 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this opinion, certain data about settlement agreements are specifically classified as public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6).
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 (a) (6) of Section 13.43 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[the following data are public] the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123.34, subdivision 9a, paragraph (a), except that the agreement must include specific reasons for he agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Rizzi, on behalf of District 2071, has asserted that some of the data about the employee should remain private, regardless of the specific language in Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6). Mr. Rizzi is concerned about medical information relating to the employee that appears in the settlement agreement and makes arguments as to why such data should remain private. He argued that the data in question are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.42, medical data. He also argued that the provisions of the evidentiary privilege statute (Minnesota Statutes Section 595.02, subdivision 1 (d)) and the Patient&apos;s Bill of Rights (Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651, subdivision 16) require that the data in the possession of District 2071 remain private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    None of the data maintained by District 2071 about its employee are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.42. For data to be classified under Section 13.42, those data must be data collected because a person was or is a patient/client of a hospital, nursing home, medical center, clinic, health or nursing agency operated by a government entity. District 2071 is not a health care provider as per Section 13.42. Further, the data the District collects and creates about its employees are personnel data under Section 13.43. Therefore, the data are personnel data pursuant to Section 13.43 and not medical data under Section 13.42.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Rizzi may be suggesting that the data about the employee are private because the data have traveled from a medical facility subject to Chapter 13 to the District. If so, the effect under Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), would be for the data to keep its classification as private. However, subdivision 4 (a) of section 13.03 states, The classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrativen rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or &lt;u&gt;with a specific statute applicable to the data&lt;/u&gt;in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. (Emphasis added.) In the situation of this opinion, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), applies specifically to the data in the settlement agreement. Thus, if data in the settlement agreement were disseminated to District 2071 by a health facility subject to Chapter 13, those data have been made public by Section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner does not agree that either Section 595.02, subdivision 1 (d) or Section 144.651, subdivision 16, have any relevance to the situation at hand.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Mr. Rizzi argued he could not agree that the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), would override the confidential nature of medical information. However, it seems reasonable to assume that if the Legislature intended for medical data, which are part of a settlement agreement, to remain private, it (the Legislature) would have enacted the appropriate language.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), states that terms of a settlement agreement are public data. If a government entity and an employee choose to include medical data, or data that would otherwise be private, as part of the terms of a settlement agreement, those data must be made public pursuant to Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Medical and/or health data maintained by a public employer about its current or former employees are classified pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 4, and 13.43.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), the following data are public: the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123.34, subdivision 9a, paragraph (a), except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 5, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267364</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Evidentiary privilege (Chapter 595)</Title><Id>266462</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel files</Title><Id>266986</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Medical data</Title><Id>266987</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-015</Title><title>Opinion 97 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267545&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-04-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Were the data collected by Dr. Seymour Gross, a Hennepin County employee, from &quot;X&quot; done in violation of law?
If the answer to number 1 is yes, what may Hennepin County do with the data?
Was the distribution of the data about &quot;X&quot; by Dr. Gross to the Pre-Petition Screening Department done in violation of law?
Was the further distribution of the data about &quot;X&quot; to the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office for the purpose of drafting a commitment petition done in violation of the law?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 4, 1997; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 3, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated January 27, 1997, from Simcha Plisner, an attorney representing X. In his letter, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding possible violations by Hennepin County of X&apos;s rights as a subject of government data. Pursuant to subsequent telephone conversations with PIPA staff, four issues were agreed upon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Seymour Gross, Director of Pilot City Mental Health Care Center, and to Richard Hanson, Director of the Pre-Petition Screening Unit. The purposes of these letters, both dated February 5, 1997, were to inform Dr. Gross and Mr. Hanson of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask them or Hennepin County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for their position. On February 20, 1997, PIPA received a response dated February 19, 1997, from Carolyn Peterson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Plisner is as follows. X is an adult who lives independently. In December of 1996, Dr. Gross and X&apos;s father went to X&apos;s home for the purposes of evaluating [X&apos;s] mental health. Dr. Gross apparently did not initially identify himself. Mr. Plisner wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dr. Gross relates that it is true that he did not identify himself as a mental health professional until well into what was about a two hour conversation. Dr. Gross states that he brought no forms with him as he was fearful that such a formal approach might antagonize [X] and he, Dr. Gross, wished to gain [X&apos;s] cooperation in seeking mental health treatment. Furthermore, no mention was ever made during the two hour conversation that the information which [X] was providing could be used in court proceedings for the purpose of forced hospitalization.
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              Mr. Plisner stated that based upon Dr. Gross&apos; evaluation, X&apos;s parents approached Hennepin County officials for the purpose of committing X.
              &lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Plisner further stated that after the house visit, Dr. Gross sent a letter and psychological evaluation on Pilot City/Hennepin County letterhead to Mr. Hanson. According to Mr. Plisner, this letter contained private government data about X for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation of having a mental health examiner&apos;s statement as part of a petition for civil commitment. (Mr. Plisner added that to the best of his knowledge, the pre-petition screener is legally allowed to review a person&apos;s medical records without the person&apos;s consent only when those records are hospital records of a person currently hospitalized.) (Mr. Plisner also added that he is unaware of any authority which allows an examiner&apos;s statement to be obtained except upon informed consent or through hospitalization under a 72-hour emergency hold.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Plisner stated that the information provided by Dr. Gross was redistributed to the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office and incorporated into a pre-petition evaluation and the body of the commitment petition drafted by the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office. X was subsequently hospitalized.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Peterson did not address the specific issues raised by Mr. Plisner. She stated that X is hospitalized pursuant to court order under the Commitment Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 253B. She also wrote, ...Mr. Plisner is currently contesting [X&apos;s] civil commitment in the District Court and is seeking to obtain [X&apos;s] release from civil commitment. Because this case is currently in litigation, we must decline to comment at this time. Ms. Peterson further stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Further, we would respectfully request that the Commissioner decline to issue an opinion on the questions raised by Mr. Plisner....this matter is currently pending before the District Court-Mental Health Division. Thus, it is more appropriate that the questions that Mr. Plisner poses be addressed in that forum, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 253B, as well as applicable data practices statutes.
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an advisory opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Were the data collected by Dr. Seymour Gross, a Hennepin County employee, from X done in violation of law?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the answer to number 1 is yes, what may Hennepin County do with the data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Was the distribution of the data about X by Dr. Gross to the Pre-Petition Screening Department done in violation of law?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Was the further distribution of the data about X to the Hennepin County Attorney&apos;s office for the purpose of drafting a commitment petition done in violation of the law?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11, Hennepin County is a political subdivision and therefore is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. Dr. Gross, in his capacity as Director of Pilot City Mental Health Center, is an employee of Hennepin County. The data collected about Mr. Plisner&apos;s client are either medical data (see Section 13.42) or welfare data (see Section 13.46). In either case, the data are classified as private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the first issue raised by Mr. Plisner, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked by a government entity to supply private or confidential data about him/herself, the entity is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. This notice must inform the individual of the following: 1) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; 2) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; 3) any known consequences of supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and 4) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given that X was asked by Dr. Gross, apparently acting in his capacity as an employee of Hennepin County, to supply private data about him/herself, Dr. Gross was obligated to provide X with a Tennessen Warning notice prior to collecting any data. If Dr. Gross did not do so, X&apos;s rights as a data subject were violated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the second issue raised by Mr. Plisner, the Commissioner addressed a similar issue in Advisory Opinion 95-028. She wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Legislature, through enactment of [Section 13.05, subdivision 4], sought to provide some substance to the protections provided to individual data subjects in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, so that individuals, having received the Section 13.04 notice, can expect that private or confidential data they provide to a government entity will not be used or disseminated except as described to them at the time they provided the data.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            The Legislature, by connecting the notice requirement of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, with the limitations on uses and disseminations of data established by Section 13.05, subdivision 4, also provided a consequence for government entities which do not meet their statutory obligation regarding the collection of private or confidential data. If a government entity does not administer a Tennessen Warning that meets the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, there are strict limitations imposed on the entity regarding any data it collects without giving the notice required by statute. That is, those data may not be stored, used or disseminated except as provided in Section 13.05,subdivision 4, as cited above. Apparently none of the exceptions that are provided in clauses a-d applies in this case. Therefore, according to the plain words of the statute, the University may not use the data it collected from Ms. Muffett in the auditors&apos; interviews for any purpose.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present case, if the data about X were collected without X having received a Tennessen Warning notice, the data were obtained inappropriately and cannot be used, for any purpose, by Hennepin County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the third issue raised by Mr. Plisner, the answer is similar to that discussed above. If Hennepin County did not provide the proper Tennessen Warning notice to X upon collection of the data about him/her, the data cannot be used by any department of Hennepin County, including the Pre-Petition Screening Department.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the fourth issue raised by Mr. Plisner, as discussed above, private and confidential data may not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated except as provided as Section 13.05. From the information provided to the Commissioner, it appears that X provided private data to Dr. Gross without having received a Tennessen Warning notice. Therefore, according to the statute, Hennepin County should not have disseminated the data about X to the County Attorney&apos;s office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  It appears that private data may have been collected from X by Hennepin County and that X was not given a Tennessen Warning notice as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. Therefore, the collection of the data was apparently in violation of state law.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, is to impose limitations upon government enitites&apos; use and dissemination of private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning. Hennepin County apparently did not give X a Tennessen Warning notice and therefore it may not use or disseminate the data collected from X.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, is to impose limitations upon government enitites&apos; use and dissemination of private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning. Hennepin County apparently did not give X a Tennessen Warning notice and therefore it may not use or disseminate the data collected from X.
                                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                  The purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, is to impose limitations upon government enitites&apos; use and dissemination of private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning. Hennepin County apparently did not give X a Tennessen Warning notice and therefore it may not use or disseminate the data collected from X.
                                &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 4, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267545</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commitment pre-petition screening</Title><Id>266596</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-014</Title><title>Opinion 97 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268026&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-04-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in a letter from the Rice County Attorney to the City of Northfield Police Chief regarding the City&apos;s handling of a recent murder investigation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 1, 1997; City of Northfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On February 3, 1997, PIPA received a faxed letter dated January 30, 1997, from Evelyn Hoover, the Managing Editor of the &lt;i&gt;Northfield News&lt;/i&gt;, a newspaper. In her letter, Ms. Hoover requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the City of Northfield.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Hoover&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Scott Neal, Administrator of the City of Northfield. The purposes of this letter dated February 5, 1997, were to inform him of Ms. Hoover&apos;s request and to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On March 3, 1997, PIPA received a faxed letter dated same from Mr. Neal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Ms. Hoover wrote that the newspaper received information that a letter had been sent by Rice County Attorney Jeffrey Thompson to Northfield Chief of Police Ron Pieri. Ms. Hoover stated, The letter is critical of the Northfield Police Department&apos;s handling of a recent murder investigation. She further wrote that, via telephone, the newspaper had sought access to a copy of the letter. Ms. Hoover stated that the City Attorney, Maren Swenson, in responding to the request, advised the reporter that the letter was protected under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33 as correspondence and that either Mr. Thompson or Mr. Pieri would need to release the letter to the newspaper. Ms. Hoover stated that newspaper made the same request to Mr. Thompson who cited the same statute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The whole of Mr. Neal&apos;s response to Ms. Hoover&apos;s opinion request is as follows:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I am writing to reaffirm the City of Northfield&apos;s position to [staff of the office of the Commissioner] that documents requested recently by the &lt;u&gt;&lt;i&gt;Northfield News&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/u&gt;relating to correspondence between the City&apos;s Chief of Police and the Rice County Attorney&apos;s Office are not public documents pursuant to the Minnesota Data Privacy statutes. On behalf of the City of Northfield, I request a judgement from your office in support of the City&apos;s position.
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hoover asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in a letter from the Rice County Attorney to the City of Northfield Police Chief regarding the City&apos;s handling of a recent murder investigation?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  The Commissioner has not been provided with a copy of the letter referred to by Ms. Hoover; however, the balance of the opinion will proceed under the assumption that the letter does exist.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law. The City of Northfield, alleging that the data contained in the letter in question are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.33, has refused to release a copy of the letter. Section 13.33 states, Correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. The Commissioner assumes the City of Northfield has invoked Section 13.33 by determining that the Rice County Attorney is the elected official and that the Northfield Chief of Police is the individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner addressed an issue of similar nature in Advisory Opinion 97-002. She wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If his logic [that Section 13.33 applies to internal governmental communications between staff and any elected official] were accepted, then it would be possible that no communication between any government employee and any elected official would ever be public, unless one of the parties agreed to its release (or the data were disclosed in a public meeting.) Such a result would have the effect of nullifying much of Section 13.03, the purpose of which is to make government data available to the public to the greatest extent possible. The Commissioner cannot support that result. Government employees are not operating as individuals when they prepare documents, reports and other data as part of their jobs as public servants, but instead are acting as agents of government entities, and ultimately as agents of the citizens of Minnesota.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            [The City&apos;s] interpretation would also create disparate treatment for data prepared by government employees depending upon whether the recipient of the data were an elected official or not. The Commissioner cannot agree that is the result intended by the Legislature when it enacted Section 13.33. The only reasonable interpretation of Section 13.33 is that it applies to correspondence between members of the public and elected officials.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            As further support that Section 13.33 ought not to be interpreted as the City proposes, in 1995 the Legislature enacted Section 13.646, which provides that legislative and budget proposals, communicated between and among the Governor&apos;s office and any state agency that is under the direct control of the Governor, are not public until after the budget is presented to the Legislature. (See Laws of Minnesota for 1995, Chapter 259, Article 1, Section 16.)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            It is possible that a memorandum between the City Administrator and the City Council could contain data that are not public; for example personnel data (see Section 13.43.) However, the data in such a memorandum are presumptively public. Each data element would need to be examined to determine whether any other provision of law classifies it otherwise. The same logic holds with regard to the classification of any attachments to the City Administrator&apos;s communication with the City Council.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  Although the facts of this opinion are slightly different from those presented in Advisory Opinion 97-002 (i.e., the parties involved do not work for the same governmental entity) the conclusion is the same; Section 13.33 does not apply to correspondence between elected officials and government employees doing their required work.
                  
									&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hoover, is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data contained in the letter from the Rice County Attorney to the City of Northfield Police Chief regarding the City&apos;s handling of a recent murder investigation, are presumed public, unless some of those data are specifically classified as not public.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 1, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268026</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-013</Title><title>Opinion 97 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267813&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-03-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Secretary of State&apos;s charge of $2000 for a copy of Minnesota&apos;s voter registration database allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 20, 1997; Minnesota Secretary of State</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On January 21, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated January 15, 1997, from Alan Cox of WCCO-TV. In his letter, Mr. Cox requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of a charge assessed for public data by the Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Cox&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Growe, Secretary of State. The purposes of this letter dated January 23, 1997, were to inform Secretary Growe of Mr. Cox&apos;s request and to ask her or the Secretary of State&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Secretary of State&apos;s position. On February 3, 1997, PIPA received a response of the same date from Secretary Growe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Cox related that in October of 1996, WCCO-TV requested from the Secretary of State&apos;s Office an electronic copy of the state&apos;s voter registration database. He wrote, Personnel in the Secretary&apos;s office informed us that the charge would be $2,000, regardless of the kind or amount of computerized media used to make the copy. We purchased the data at the stated price. Mr. Cox further stated that in December, the station requested an update of the data and was advised that the cost would be $2000. At that point, according to Mr. Cox, the station requested an explanation of how the cost was determined. Regarding, the Secretary of State&apos;s response, he wrote, The response by the Deputy Secretary is included, along with a follow-up letter responding to an oral request for clarification. In their responses, the Secretary of State&apos;s office argued that a charge of $2000 is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her response to Mr. Cox&apos;s opinion request, Secretary Growe wrote that her office uses the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, to assist in determining the fee to be charged. She wrote, ...the price was established after determining the costs for employee time, the media, postage and the computer time to compile and electronically transmit the copy requested. She then produced a breakdown of the charge based on the following: materials, labor, a schedule of charges, computer time, and postage. Secretary Growe further wrote, When all of the amounts for each criteria are totaled, it costs the Office $2,222.90 to produce a copy of the statewide database. We charge purchasers of the statewide database less than our actual costs by charging $2,000. In her response, she also referred the Commissioner to the letters written by her staff in response to the inquiries made by WCCO-TV.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Cox asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Secretary of State&apos;s charge of $2000 for a copy of Minnesota&apos;s voter registration database allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In relevant part, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the &lt;u&gt;actual costs&lt;/u&gt; of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...In determining the amount of the &lt;u&gt;reasonable&lt;/u&gt; fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the following:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A. the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;B. the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of operations;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;D. any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based record keeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems; and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;E. mailing costs. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In defending the $2000 fee, Secretary Growe explained how her Office used the criteria set forth in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;First, she stated that the materials used for providing copies are computer magnetic tapes. Secretary Growe wrote, It takes 19 tapes to make a copy at a cost of $17.60 per tape or a total amount of $334.40. Assuming it does take 19 magnetic tapes to copy the entire state voter registration data base and further, assuming each of those tapes cost $17.60, then a charge of $334.40 seems appropriate for the cost of materials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Second, Secretary Growe stated that the labor of 3 people is needed to process the order and create the copy. For specific details, she directed the Commissioner to examine the January 13, 1997, letter written by Deputy Secretary Voss. In that letter, Ms. Voss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Administrative charges on VR [voter registration] orders are averaged at one hour at $18.50....This includes a Clerk Typist 2 in Fiscal Services who opens and receives the order; the Management Analyst 2 who assists the customer by providing information on products, fees, procedures for obtaining an order and mails the order out; and the Computer Services employee who actually produces the specific VR lists ordered....The time spent by each employee is allocated as 20 minutes each per order, which totals $18.63 per hour.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The relevant language in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provides that a government entity may charge the cost of labor required to &lt;u&gt;prepare the copies&lt;/u&gt;. It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that preparing the copies means just that, the actual act of preparing the copies. Therefore, of the cost-of-labor information provided by the Secretary of State&apos;s office, it appears the only appropriate charge would be that of the computer services employee who actually produces the specific VR lists ordered. According to Ms. Voss&apos; letter, that person&apos;s salary and benefits total $13.52 per hour. Thus, if it takes that employee 20 minutes to produce the order, the cost would be approximately $4.51 (20 minutes of time at $13.52 per hour).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Third, Secretary Growe wrote, The Office has established a schedule of charges for copies of all or a portion of the voter registration system to make our reproduction effort more efficient. The schedule is based on the actual cost of producing each product. The Commissioner is not clear as to the meaning of this statement. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 states that a government entity shall be guided in assessing its copying fees by any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the entity in is normal course of operations. If the Secretary of State&apos;s office it basing its $2000 fee on a schedule of standard copying charges already established, no such information was provided to the Commissioner. However, any previously established standard charges would still have to be proposed in compliance with Chapter 13 and with Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Fourth, Secretary Growe wrote that there are special costs because the electronic copy is produced from a machine based record keeping system. She stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4, specifically provides that the cost of the computer may be part of the cost determination, if it applies to the copy to be produced. In the case of voter registration products, the computer is used to retrieve, compile and copy the data. The original documents which provide the data are maintained in each of the 87 counties. Without the centralized database operated by the Secretary, a statewide list of information like the one WCCO received would not be possible. The database is operated by the Secretary in support of the election administration functions performed by the counties. No voter registration functions are performed internally by the Secretary using the database and the computer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Secretary Growe again referred the Commissioner to the January 13, 1997, letter. She wrote, The cost to operate the computer is $186 per hour. It takes 10 hours of computer time to retrieve, compile and copy the statewide database.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the January 13, 1997, letter, Ms. Voss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Computer time is charged at $186.00 per hour. This fee was established by taking the total operating costs $1,624,853 and dividing that number by the total operating hours 8,736. The operating hours are calculated by multiplying 364 days by 24 hours.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The operating costs are as follows:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rent (Computer Room):                29,605&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Utilities:                                       36,000&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Computer Supplies:                      12,880&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Computer Insurance:                     4,800&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Computer Phone Lines:                  3,672&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Computer Maintenance Contracts:     229,000&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Software Licenses:                         2,500&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Offsite Tape Storage:                     12,000&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Loan payment:                         1,034,372&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Staffing:                                     236,784&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other related costs (Office space; workstations and equipment depreciation, training): 8,620&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TOTAL:&lt;/strong&gt; 1,624,853.00&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Secretary of State&apos;s office appears to partially justify the $186 per hour figure based on the special costs language of Rule 1205.000. Secretary Growe appears to assert that because the copies are produced by a machine-based record keeping system, the special costs provision unquestionably applies. However, the rationale behind the special costs language is that it is reasonable for government agencies to recover, as part of their copy charges, any special costs associated with making copies of data from a machine-based, i.e. computer, record keeping system. Special costs might include writing or modifying a computer program to format data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this case, Secretary Growe has not provided information sufficient enough to clearly show that special costs are involved in the copying of the voter registration tapes. The fact that the copying entity is a computer rather than a copy machine is not, in itself, sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Fifth, Secretary Growe stated that the mailing costs for a statewide database on tape is $10.00 via UPS. Assuming this is correct, the only other issue is whether parties, such as WCCO-TV, would rather pick up their copies. In such cases, the Secretary of State&apos;s Office should not include mailing charges as part of the total fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, although not entirely clear, it appears that Secretary Growe makes an additional argument in support of the $186 per hour computer fee. She wrote, The database is operated by the Secretary in support of the election administration functions performed by the counties. No voter regestration functions are performed internally by the Secretary using the database and the computer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Secretary Growe, on behalf of her Office, seems to assert that the charge is justifiable because the Secretary of State&apos;s Office does not utilize the voter registration database as part of its normal business operations. It appears that the Secretary Growe argues that this database is maintained primarily for use by the public, political parties, etc. However, given that providing access to public government data, either through inspection or by providing copies at reasonable cost, is a duty of all government entities (see Section 13.03), and that the Secretary of State&apos;s Office is statutorily required to provide a central database containing voter registration information, and to make data available to the public for election, public, political, and law enforcement purposes (see Sections 210.022 and 201.091, subdivision 5), this line of argument is disingenuous.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The language of Section 201.091 is especially pertinent. Subdivision 5 of Section 201.091 states, ...the secretary of state shall provide paper copies of the public information lists and may provide the lists in some other form to any voter registered in Minnesota within ten days of receiving a written request accompanied by payment of the &lt;u&gt;cost of reproduction&lt;/u&gt;.... (Emphasis added.) The phrase cost of reproduction does not seem to apply to all of the charges included by the Secretary of State&apos;s Office in its calculation of the total cost of a copy of the voter registration database.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Cox is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, 210.091, and 201.091, the $2000 fee assessed by the Secretary of State for a copy of Minnesota&apos;s voter registration database is not justified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: March 20, 1997&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267813</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mailing</Title><Id>267175</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Special costs (1205.0300)</Title><Id>266939</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-10-31T21:12:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-012</Title><title>Opinion 97 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267345&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-03-19T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Chapter 13, may the St. Bonifacius &amp; Minnetrista Public Safety Department charge a set fee of $25 in addition to the cost of copies of the photographs?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, is it appropriate for St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista Public Safety Department to require a consent to release authorization as described by Mr. Curtiss? 
NOTE: In the January 22, 1997, letter sent to Chief Anderson, PIPA mistakenly included an issue that the Commissioner did not intend to address in this opinion. Mr. Everett did not address that issue in his response.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 19, 1997; City of St. Bonifacius &amp; Minnetrista Public Safety Department (&quot;SBMPSD&quot;)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 16, 1997, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Wynn Curtiss, an attorney, on behalf of a client. In that letter, Mr. Curtiss clarified an earlier opinion request, and described his efforts to gain access to certain data maintained by the St. Bonifacius Minnetrista Public Safety Department ( SBMPSD ). Mr. Curtiss enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Curtiss&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig A. Anderson, Chief of the St. Bonifacius Minnetrista Public Safety Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 22, 1997, were to inform Chief Anderson of Mr. Curtiss&apos;s request, to ask him or the SBMPSD&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 7, 1997, PIPA received a response from William J. Everett, attorney for the SBMPSD. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Curtiss&apos;s client was involved, as a driver, in an automobile accident in the City of Minnetrista. Following a law enforcement investigation, a decision was made not to file charges against either party to the accident. According to Mr. Curtiss, he requested copies of photographs taken by the SBMPSD after learning from the prosecutor that no charges were to be filed and thus, the requested data was inactive investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Curtiss, he initially requested copies of the photographs by telephone. At that time, he was told that he could receive copies, conditional upon (1) payment in advance of a flat fee of $25; (2) provision of an authorization signed by his client or the other party to release the photographs; and (3) payment of the additional actual cost to reproduce the photographs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, Mr. Curtiss wrote to Lori Brazil, the Administrative Assistant to whom he was told to direct his request. In that letter, dated November 11, 1996, Mr. Curtiss questioned the propriety of the SBMPSD&apos;s first two conditions as set forth above. Mr. Curtiss asserted that the $25 flat fee was not allowable because, as the subject of the data, his client was required to pay only the actual cost to reproduce the photographs, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Mr. Curtiss also asserted that given that the investigation was closed and no charges were to be filed, the photographs he requested were public data, and a release was not required.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, Ms. Brazil wrote to Mr. Curtiss, in a letter dated November 13, 1996:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In reference to your concerns, our $25 fee for such requests is based on ...certifying, and compiling of data.&apos; encompassing administrative time to compile&apos; the necessary information to respond to your request. This is a set Department fee based on the average preparation time to process such a request and thus, is charged up front. Once the reprints are received, they are submitted with an invoice for exact cost of the reprints to the party paying the initial fee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Ms. Brazil stated: [w]hen contacting our City Attorney&apos;s office today, I learned a decision was very recently made that no charges will be filed in this case. Therefore, the release signed by an involved party is no longer required, although Department policy requests one be submitted.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Everett stated that the $25 fee is based on the actual costs incurred by the SBMPSD in providing photographic reprints. Mr. Everett provided detailed information which support that position. The SBMPSD has no in-house photographic reproduction capability, and is located eight miles from the nearest commercial facility. In its calculation of the cost to provide copies of photographs, the SBMPSD included the costs of labor, mailing and transportation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In sum, Mr. Everett stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The SBMPSD has fully complied with [Minnesota] Rule 1205.0300, subp. 4 and Minn. Stat. [Section] 13.04, subp. 4 [sic] in establishing a fee for providing photo reprints. The department has established a scheduled fee of $25 in the normal course of its operations for providing photo reprints in precisely the manner envisioned by the Commissioner&apos;s administrative rule. This fee is calculated based on the agency&apos;s experience with the actual costs to the department of providing photo reprints. There is no basis for finding this fee to be in violation of the data practices act.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In regard to the issue of whether the SBMPSD properly requested that Mr. Everett provide a written authorization in order to gain access to the photographs, Mr. Everett disagreed with Mr. Curtiss about the status of the photographs at the time Mr. Curtiss first requested access. According to Mr. Everett, [a]t the time Mr. Curtiss began requesting reprints of the accident scene photographs, the data he was requesting was confidential or protected non-public [sic] data. Once it became public data, the SBMPSD offered it to Mr. Curtiss without a release. Mr. Everett stated that the photographs constituted criminal investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, and as such were classified as confidential or protected nonpublic until the determination was made by the prosecuting authority on November 10, 1996, not to file criminal charges. (See Section 13.82, subdivision 5
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Everett further stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Mr. Curtiss (and his client) had no right under [Chapter 13] to obtain photo reprints from the SBMPSD at any time prior to the date of [the prosecutor&apos;s] decision that no charges would result from the investigation of the traffic accident. Prior to [the prosecutor&apos;s] position, Mr. Curtiss could have gone directly to [the prosecutor] to seek photo reprints if Mr. Curtiss felt his client was a crime victim [pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 6]. . . .&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
According to Mr. Everett, Mr. Curtiss first requested copies of the photographs by telephone on November 8, 1996. In a letter dated November 10, 1996, Mr. Curtiss&apos;s client was informed that no criminal charges would be filed in the case. Mr. Everett stated that when Mr. Curtiss repeated his request in his November 11 letter to the SBMPSD, Ms. Brazil responded that . . . a release would no longer be necessary to obtain reprints of the photos.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Curtiss asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, may the St. Bonifacius Minnetrista Public Safety Department charge a set fee of $25 in addition to the cost of copies of the photographs?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Chapter 13, is it appropriate for St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista Public Safety Department to require a consent to release authorization as described by Mr. Curtiss?
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;NOTE: In the January 22, 1997, letter sent to Chief Anderson, PIPA mistakenly included an issue that the Commissioner did not intend to address in this opinion. Mr. Everett did not address that issue in his response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Mr. Everett acknowledged that a flat fee for providing copies of data may be looked upon with suspicion. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, responsible authorities may require subjects of government data to pay the &lt;u&gt;actual costs &lt;/u&gt;of making, certifying, and compiling copies of the data. (Emphasis added.) In this case, the SBMPSD is able to justify the inclusion of a flat fee because the fee reflects the actual cost incurred by SBMPSD to provide copies of &lt;u&gt;photographs&lt;/u&gt;.
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 5, provides that the responsible authority may charge a data subject a reasonable fee for copies of data about her/himself and refers responsible authorities to Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, for guidance in determining the amount of the reasonable fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the information provided by Mr. Everett, the SBMPSD has complied with the guidelines set forth in Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4. Pursuant to the Rule, labor, transportation and mailing costs may be charged to the data requestor. In addition, that subpart provides that responsible authorities may be guided by any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of operations. Mr. Everett provided detailed information which documents the SBMPSD&apos;s costs, on average, for providing copies of photographs, in addition to the photo processing costs. The $25 fee is appropriate pursuant to statute and rule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the second issue, Mr. Curtiss and Mr. Everett disagree on the timing of Mr. Curtiss&apos;s request. According to Mr. Curtiss, at the time he made his first request for access to the photographs, he had learned from the prosecuting authority that no charges would be filed. In that case, the photographs were inactive investigative data and were public, and the SBMPSD ought not to have required a consent to release them. (Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, photographs which are inactive investigative data and which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data. That does not appear to be the case here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Everett, at the time Mr. Curtiss made his initial request for the photographs, the prosecutor had not determined whether criminal charges would be filed. In that case, the photographs were active investigative data, and were classified as confidential or protected nonpublic data. Therefore, the SBMPSD could not release the photographs to Mr. Curtiss with or without his client&apos;s consent. (See Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 13.) Mr. Everett stated that when Ms. Brazil learned that the investigation was no longer active, she informed Mr. Curtiss that the photographs were accessible without his client&apos;s consent. In her November 13, 1996, letter to Mr. Curtiss, Ms. Brazil stated: the release signed by an involved party is no longer required, although Department policy requests one be submitted. Although it is not necessary to do so, the SBMPSD may &lt;u&gt;request&lt;/u&gt;a consent to release for public information, but it may not &lt;u&gt;require&lt;/u&gt;it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided information which allows her to determine whether the investigation was active or inactive at the time of Mr. Curtiss&apos;s initial request. However, in either case, the SBMPSD was not authorized to require a written release from Mr. Curtiss&apos;s client, because the data were either public, and therefore subject to release without consent of the data subject, or confidential or protected nonpublic, and therefore not accessible to Mr. Curtiss or his client.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Curtiss is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, the St. Bonifacius Minnetrista Public Safety Department may charge a set fee of $25 in addition to the cost of having copies of photographs prepared by a photo processing company.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The SBMPSD was not authorized to require a written release from Mr. Curtiss&apos;s client, because at the time of Mr. Curtiss&apos;s initial request, the data were either classified as public, and therefore accessible without consent of the data subject, or confidential or protected nonpublic, and therefore not accessible to Mr. Curtiss or his client.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 19, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267345</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs/videotapes (See also: Law enforcement - Booking photos)</Title><Id>266525</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T21:54:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-011</Title><title>Opinion 97 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267435&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-03-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has MSU complied with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to a request for access to data made by the data subject on May 15, 1996?
Has MSU improperly disseminated private educational data about the data subject to the responsible authority&apos;s &quot;designee&quot;?
Has MSU infringed upon the rights of the data subject by allegedly not including information regarding its responsible authority in a public document, as required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1?
Has MSU infringed upon the rights of the data subject by allegedly not preparing a public document which sets forth the rights of data subjects pursuant to Section 13.04, and the specific procedures established by MSU for access to data by a data subject, as required by Section 13.05, subdivision 8?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 1997; Moorhead State University</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated December 2, 1996, from Margaret Jakobson. In her letter, Ms. Jakobson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data maintained about her by Moorhead State University, hereinafter “MSU.” Ms. Jakobson also requested that the opinion address other issues regarding her rights as a subject of data. After subsequent telephone conversations with Ms. Jakobson, four issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Ms. Jakobson’s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roland Barden, President of MSU. The purposes of this letter dated January 14, 1997, were to inform President Barden of Ms. Jakobson’s request and to ask him or MSU’s attorney to provide information or support for MSU’s position. On February 12, 1997, PIPA received a response dated February 10, 1997, from President Barden.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. Ms. Jakobson wrote that on May 15, 1996, she had requested access to all educational data maintained about her by MSU. She further wrote that after data access appointments had been scheduled by President Barden’s office, some of those meetings were subsequently canceled. Ms. Jakobson also wrote that she had been advised that her requests should be made to Sara Gullickson, who had been hired as an independent contractor to serve as a public information officer. Ms. Jakobson objected to the fact that Ms. Gullickson has access to her (Ms. Jakobson’s) private educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, Ms. Jakobson wrote that Ms. Gullickson is not listed in a public document as a “designee” of the responsible authority, and that MSU has not complied with Minnesota Statutes by providing information about the rights of data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response, President Barden argued that Ms. Jakobson had received access to all the data she requested on May 15, 1996. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Gullickson, as public information officer, has authority under Chapter 13 to gain access to private educational data about Ms. Jakobson. Further, he argued that MSU has complied with both Section 13.05, subdivisions 1 and 8, in providing information about MSU’s responsible authority and the rights of data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Jakobson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has MSU complied with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to a request for access to data made by the data subject on May 15, 1996?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has MSU improperly disseminated private educational data about the data subject to the responsible authority’s “designee”?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has MSU infringed upon the rights of the data subject by allegedly not including information regarding its responsible authority in a public document, as required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has MSU infringed upon the rights of the data subject by allegedly not preparing a public document which sets forth the rights of data subjects pursuant to Section 13.04, and the specific procedures established by MSU for access to data by a data subject, as required by Section 13.05, subdivision 8?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;There is no dispute that MSU maintains data about Ms. Jakobson because she is a current or former student. Such data are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Generally speaking, Section 13.32, educational data, provides that data collected, created, and maintained by public educational institutions about students are private; the main exception being those data that become public through the directory information process. (See Section 13.32, subdivision 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 3, sets forth the rights conferred upon data subjects when they request access to data of which they are the subject. This provision states that upon request, a person shall be shown the data without any charge. The government entity must comply with a request within five working days, unless additional time is required to respond. If the entity intends to take more time, five additional working days are allowed, but the government entity must so notify the data subject. Regarding the first issue, it is not disputed that Ms. Jakobson made a written request dated May 15, 1996, addressed to President Barden. In her data request, a copy of which was provided to PIPA, Ms. Jakobson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...I herein request ACCESS, under M.S. 13.04, Subd. 3, as to a “DATA SUBJECT” and 34 CFR § 99.10 as to a “STUDENT” to inspect and review (possibly requesting copies) to all education records AND data in Moorhead State University’s Affirmative Action Office and the President’s office or to whatever office said records have been transferred to -- since Dr. Wheeler stated that your office has received all the education records and data formerly in the Speech Communications/Theatre Arts Department...Additionally, because from time-to-time I have been given every reason to believe that some of my education records, documents, information gathered on the data subject (myself), and/or data created on the data subject (myself) has found its way to the institution’s attornies’[sic] offices, including the MnSCU offices...I shall expect to see those records, documents, information and data also....I shall be coming directly to your office, please establish a time...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Jakobson stated that President Barden’s office scheduled several appointments at which she would be provided her “access rights.” Apparently, some of these appointments were then canceled. Ms. Jakobson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;By May 15, 1996, a follow-up request had been arranged with Dr. Barden. Ms. Ahles provided “supposed access” on May 15, 1996, as aforementioned, to all Ms. Seiler’s [MSU’s Affirmative Action Officer] “supposed”data on the data subject; and President Barden provided “supposed” access on May 17, 1996....Additional appointments were made that Maxine Pianka, Administrative Assistant/Secretary to MSU’s President Barden canceled on specific dates and times that were scheduled in advance for providing my access rights....Ms. Pianka called on the 22nd of May just twenty minutes (20 min.) prior to my appointment at [MSU] . . stating MSU needed to consult with “counsel” regarding my access rights. On June 10, 1996, when my mother and I arrived at President Barden’s office “on time,” Ms. Pianka stated that Dr. Barden was “not available” at the pre-scheduled time and she took my mother and myself to an office to inspect and review my records/data where student workers were present . . and, therefore, the office and my records /data were not secure. July 1, 1996, Ms. Pianka called to cancel my appointment of July 3, 1996 with Ms. Seiler and Dr. Barden stating that Dr. Barden, MSU’s CEO, would reschedule their appointment.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Jakobson further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On that same day, July 1, 1996, Ms. Seiler stated that she had “a whole ‘nother file’” I had not seen; and I’d have to take that up (access to Ms. Seiler’s investigations and her unproduced “file”) with J.P. Barone in the Attorney General’s Office....Subsequently, Ms. Seiler left from September, 1996 to some time in December of 1996, failing to provide access, reasonable explanations or content and meaning of records, corrections/amendments or to provide a “Record of Disclosures.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It appears, according to Ms. Jakobson’s opinion request, that as of November 8, 1996, she had not received access to all of the data she was seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response, President Barden stated “to the best of MSU’s understanding,” MSU did respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Jakobson’s May 15, 1996, request for access to data about her. President Barden further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The meeting to review records took place on May 17, 1996, only two days after the date of her letter requesting access. This meeting was timely....Because this first meeting did not permit Ms. Jakobson enough time to complete her review, a second meeting was scheduled for May 22, 1996. It was that second meeting that was canceled. After MSU received legal counsel from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Ms. Jakobson was provided with full access....Ms. Jakobson was denied access to the interview notes of Affirmative Action Office Seiler....The Department of Education (“DOE”) issued a decision that those interview notes, believed to be sole possession records, must be disclosed. Despite MSU’s disagreement with the DOE ruling, MSU did comply with DOE’s decision when the decision was issued by producing interview notes to Ms. Jakobson.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As previously stated, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request to a responsible authority, an individual who is the subject of stored public or private government data shall be shown the data without any charge. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.04 also states that the responsible authority shall comply immediately with such a request. If immediate compliance is not possible, the government entity must respond within five working days, or notify the data subject that the entity requires an additional five working days in which to respond. In addition, subdivision 3 of Section 13.04 requires that upon request, an individual shall be informed if that individual is the subject of stored data and whether those data are classified as private or confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the situation at hand, it is not clear whether Ms. Jakobson has gained access to all of the data she is seeking; she says no and MSU says yes. In addition, if Ms. Jakobson has received access to some of the data she is seeking, it is not clear at what point in the five to ten working day time frame she received access. However, if MSU has not yet provided Ms. Jakobson access to the data she requested, MSU has not complied with the statutory time deadline and should provide access immediately. Further, if MSU has determined that some of the data sought by Ms. Jakobson are confidential and not accessible to her, MSU should have so advised her no later than ten working days after her request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The second issue raised by Ms. Jakobson is whether MSU improperly disseminated private educational data about her to Sara Gullickson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Jakobson wrote that she made “repeated” data access requests from May to November of 1996 to President Barden and others at MSU. She then wrote that memos were sent to school officials “stating they were not to answer my requests for my private OR public data, making me the only person that I am aware of whose requests for ‘PUBLIC’ as well as my ‘PRIVATE’ records/data must go to Sara B. Gullickson.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Jakobson further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I obtained a copy of [Ms. Gullickson’s] contract to ascertain if her job description and appointment order (NON-EXISTENT) provided her access to private data and educational records. It does not. Ms. Gullickson continues to be provided access to my education records and private data, despite my informing MSU President Barden, CEO, to “cease and desist” MSU’s disclosures of my private data and education records.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response, President Barden wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...MSU retained Ms. Gullickson as its Pubic Information Officer to: 1) Advise and assist MSU in responding to public information matters arising from Federal and State laws and Board policies; 2) Assist MSU in responding to media in matters involving public information; 3) Prepare protocols to guide MSU in responding to information requests arising from Federal and State laws and Board policies; 4) Assist with educating MSU employees on their responsibilities in responding to information requests from the public....she is not providing legal advice to MSU...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;He asserted that any independent contractor is considered to be a staff member of MSU when working on MSU business. Therefore, he stated, because Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that private data are accessible to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access, Ms. Gullickson is entitled to gain access to private data about Ms. Jakobson. He wrote, “Not only does Ms. Gullickson’s work assignment reasonably require access, access to the data is the very essence of her work assignment. The use of the phrase ‘individuals within the entity’ is much broader than, for example, the word ‘employee.’ The Rule clearly envisions dissemination of private data to someone in Ms. Gullickson’s position.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because MSU is a state agency for purposes of Chapter 13 and a public educational institution receiving federal funds, it is subject to the provisions of state (Chapter 13) and federal (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)) law. Thus, Ms. Gullickson, in her role as chief information officer, should be granted access to private data about Ms. Jakobson (without Ms. Jakobson’s consent) only if her role falls within the parameters set forth in the relevant state and federal statutes and rules. In relevant part, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that private educational data are accessible to “individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access.” FERPA, however, has a stricter standard. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(A), disclosure is permitted to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;have legitimate educational interests&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response, President Barden argued that MSU is complying with state law because Ms. Gullickson’s work assignment requires that she gain access to private data about Ms. Jakobson. However, because the federal law standard is stricter than the state law standard, the real issue is whether Ms. Gullickson’s “need to know” meets the stricter federal standard, i.e., does she have a legitimate educational interest in the private data about Ms. Jakobson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her role as public information officer, Ms. Gullickson is not a teacher, or a counselor, or an MSU administrator. She was not hired to provide legal advice; in fact, her contract specifically stipulates that her duties do not include providing legal services to the state within the meaning of Minnesota Statute Section 8.06. Rather, according to her contract, she assists MSU in handling matters relating to information practices policy, information requests, and procedures for handling those requests. Her role does not appear to require that she gain access to private educational data about students. All this, coupled with the fact that President Barden did not discuss the applicability of the federal standard in his response, leads the Commissioner to conclude that MSU has not established that Ms. Gullickson has a legitimate educational interest in the private data about Ms. Jakobson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, it appears President Barden is suggesting that Ms. Gullickson’s access to Ms. Jakobson’s private data is permissible because she (Ms. Gullickson) is his designee. President Barden referred, in a couple of instances, to Ms. Gullickson as his designee. In his response to Ms. Jakobson’s opinion request, Mr. Barden wrote, “Ms. Jakobson was notified that Ms. Gullickson was my &lt;u&gt;designee&lt;/u&gt;.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, in a letter dated July 3, 1996, President Barden wrote to Ms. Jakobson and stated, “I have secured the part-time services of a very good person to assist the University and this Office in dealing with Public Information matters and the associated compliance with federal and state law and board policy. Ms. Gullickson, my &lt;u&gt;designee&lt;/u&gt;, will be ready to address your concerns in just a few days.” (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If President Barden is stating that Ms. Gullickson should be granted access to Ms. Jakobson’s private educational data because Ms. Gullickson is his designee, the Commissioner does not agree. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1100, “...the responsible authority shall, on deeming it to be in the best interest of the administration and enforcement of the act, appoint designees &lt;u&gt;who shall be members of the staff of the entity&lt;/u&gt;.” (Emphasis added.) Ms. Gullickson’s status is unclear, and the Commissioner therefore cannot conclude the appropriateness of the appointment as President Barden’s designee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The third issue raised by Ms. Jakobson is whether her rights as a data subject have been infringed upon by MSU’s alleged lack of information about its responsible authority in a public document. “Responsible authority” of a state agency or statewide system is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 16, as, “...the state official designated by law or by the commissioner as the individual responsible for the collection, use and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data.” Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 1, the responsible authority shall prepare a public document containing the authority’s name, title, and address. This document must be updated annually and shall be available for public access as provided for in Section 13.03. Further, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1200 requires that the responsible authority also include in this public document the name, title, and address of designees appointed by the responsible authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In her opinion request, Ms. Jakobson wrote that the “Public Accountability” issues “covered in M.S. [sic] 1205.1200” were not addressed in the MSU student handbook and that Ms. Gullickson was not named as a designee. In response to that allegation, President Barden wrote that MSU has listed the “University officer responsible for the storage and security of the [student record information]” in the student handbook, in the MSU catalog, in the MSU newspaper, and in the MSU data access policy. (President Barden provided to PIPA copies of the relevant pages of each of these documents.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, the information published in each of the provided documents is not equivalent to that which is required by Chapter 13 and the Minnesota Rules. Rather, the publications provide the following statement: “Since the University does not maintain a central repository for educational records, inquiries for access to specific educational records should be made to the University office or agency listed below who are responsible for a particular record...” There follows a list of approximately 11 categories of information and the office which presumably maintains that type of information. The following are several examples:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Admissions - Director of Admissions
&lt;br /&gt;
Business - Business Manager
&lt;br /&gt;
Counseling - Director of Counseling
&lt;br /&gt;
Financial Aid - Director of Financial Aid
&lt;br /&gt;
Graduate Studies - Coordinator of Graduate Studies
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This list does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules Section 1200. The name, title, and address of the responsible authority or any designees are not provided. Therefore, Ms. Jakobson’s rights have been infringed upon because MSU has not provided this information. If individuals (either data subjects or members of the public) seeking information from a government entity such as MSU, are not instructed as to how to direct their requests for access to data, their rights have been impaired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The fourth issue raised by Ms. Jakobson is whether her rights as a data subject have been infringed upon by MSU’s alleged lack of preparation of a public document which sets forth the rights of data subjects as well as the specific procedures in effect for access to data by the data subject. Section 13.05, subdivision 8, states, “The responsible authority shall prepare a public document setting forth in writing the rights of the data subject pursuant to section 13.04 and the specific procedures in effect in the state agency...for access by the data subject to public or private data on individuals.” Section 13.04 affords rights to data subjects regarding the collection of private data by government entities, requests by data subjects for access to data, and the challenging of accuracy and/or completeness of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response, President Barden wrote, “MSU established a data access policy which outlines an individual’s access rights to educational records. A copy of the data access policy is attached as Exhibit F.” An examination of Exhibit F reveals that it is MSU’s FERPA policy. Part of the introduction states, “The administrative procedures outlined in this section are to be complied with by University personnel who have or accumulate educational records which are in a personally identifiable form.” While this document sets forth the policies and/or procedures required by FERPA, it outlines neither the rights afforded by Chapter 13 to data subjects nor MSU’s established procedures, pursuant to Chapter 13, for access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The purpose of requiring a public document such as described in Section 13.05, subdivision 8, is so that individuals, such as Ms. Jakobson, are aware of the information policies and/or procedures specific to each government entity. Chapter 13 grants individuals certain rights. If individual government entities do not reveal how those rights can be specifically actualized in a government entity, the granting of those rights has been thwarted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Jakobson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the data subject has gained access to all of the data she requested on May 15, 1996. If the data subject received access to some of the data, it is not clear at what point in the five to ten working day time frame she received access. However, if MSU has not yet provided the data subject with access to all the data, MSU has not complied with the statutory time deadline and should provide access immediately. Further, if MSU has determined that some of the data sought by the data subject are confidential or exempt from disclosure and not accessible to her, MSU should have so advised her within ten working days of her request.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), MSU has improperly disseminated private educational data about the data subject to MSU’s public information officer.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MSU had infringed upon the data subject’s rights by not including information that clearly identifies the responsible authority in the public document required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MSU has infringed upon the data subject’s rights by not preparing a public document required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8, that contains the following: the rights of data subjects pursuant to Section 13.04, and the specific procedures established by MSU for access to data by data subjects.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;March 11, 1997&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267435</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee appointed by Responsible Authority</Title><Id>266421</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-06-27T19:35:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-009</Title><title>Opinion 97 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267759&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-03-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May the University of Minnesota deny access to any of the data, exchanged between the University and the law firm of Hogan &amp; Hartson, which relate to the development of the University Board of Regents&apos; tenure code proposal?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 4, 1997; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 6, 1997, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his clients, members of the faculty of the University of Minnesota. In that letter, Mr. Anfinson described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the University. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University. The purposes of this letter, dated January 10, 1997, were to inform Ms. Smith of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 21, 1997, PIPA received a response from Ms. Smith, who also enclosed copies of related correspondence. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson, beginning in September 1996, he asked the University to provide various data relating to the faculty tenure code revisions proposed by the Board of Regents. Mr. Anfinson was granted access to some of the data he requested. The University denied him access to data, exchanged between the University and the law firm of Hogan amp; Hartson, which relate to the proposed changes in the tenure code. Mr. Anfinson was told by Susan McKinney, responsible authority for the University, that . . . it was the University&apos;s position that all of the exchanges with Hogan amp; Hartson in its capacity as consultant to the Regents in the connection with the development of the [tenure code] proposals were subject to the attorney-client privilege, and that the University was not required to provide copies pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section] 13.30.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith stated that the law firm of Hogan and Hartson was retained by the Board of Regents to provide legal counsel in connection with its proposed revision of the tenure code. According to Ms. Smith, those data are protected from public disclosure . . . by the attorney-client privilege. . . . pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.30.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith cited case law regarding the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and said that the privilege provides that any communication made by the client to the attorney or the attorney&apos;s advice given thereon in the course of professional duty&apos; is privileged. [Minnesota Statutes Section] 595.02, subd. 1(b) (1996).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Applying these principles, the University did not disclose communications exchanged between the University and its outside counsel, Hogan amp; Hartson, when those communications related to legal services and were kept confidential. Specifically, the University invoked its attorney-client privilege for communications between Hogan amp; Hartson and the Board of Regents, the Board&apos;s Executive Director, the Board&apos;s Policy Assistant, and the University counsel. . . .
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The University disclosed communications with counsel when they did not fall within the attorney-client privilege. . . . . In addition, the University redacted documents to permit disclosure of nonprivileged material - where handwritten notes reflected nonprivileged matters as well as confidential communications with counsel, the University redacted the privileged portions and disclosed the remainder.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
              Finally, Ms. Smith described the tenure code-related data to which the University faculty has gained access, and stated: [t]he one narrow category of data to which the faculty does not have access is the category of confidential communications between the Board of Regents and its legal counsel leading to the development of the Regent&apos;s proposed code. The Board was entitled to communicate confidentially with its legal counsel to obtain its advice . . . . These data are not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
            &lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;May the University of Minnesota deny access to any of the data, exchanged between the University and the law firm of Hogan amp; Hartson, which relate to the development of the University Board of Regents&apos; tenure code proposal? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government data are presumptively public unless otherwise classified by state statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law as not public.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Smith, the data sought by Mr. Anfinson can be withheld from disclosure pursuant to Section 13.30 and Section 595.02, subdivision 1(b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.30 provides:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data &lt;u&gt;by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision&lt;/u&gt;shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, &lt;u&gt;nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section15.17&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In Advisory Opinion 96-038, the Commissioner wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The limiting language related to not relieving responsible authorities of their duties under Chapters 13 and 15 was added to Section 13.30 by the legislature in an attempt to ensure that responsible authorities could not evade certain statutory duties by either having those duties performed by attorneys or transferring data associated with the duties to the custody and control of attorneys.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, in order for the University to protect the data pursuant to Section 13.30, two conditions must hold. One, the law firm Hogan amp; Hartson had to generate the data in the course of acting in its professional capacity for the University, and two, Hogan amp; Hartson was not performing duties that are required to be performed by the University&apos;s responsible authority and therefore not relieving the responsible authority of her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 and Section 15.17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner does not have sufficient information to determine whether those two conditions apply in the instance of the data created, collected and maintained by Hogan amp; Hartson. In order to make that determination, it would be necessary for the Commissioner to examine the contractual and other relationships between the University and Hogan amp; Hartson and to actually examine the data generated and held by Hogan amp; Hartson. In order to perform those examinations, the University would have to provide all of the relevant data to the Commissioner which it has not chosen to do. Without that examination, it is not possible to make a final determination that would overcome the University&apos;s claim that these data are exempt from disclosure under Section 13.30.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to claiming that the data in question are exempt from disclosure under Section 13.30, Ms. Smith has also cited Minnesota Statutes Section 595.02, subdivision 1(b), as additional authority for the University to withhold public access to the Hogan amp; Hartson data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is unclear what relationship Chapter 595 has to Chapter 13. Chapter 595 relates to the competency of witnesses; the issue at hand does not involve a court case. The Commissioner addressed a related issue in Advisory Opinion 95-048:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Section 13.30 must be applied in a way that harmonizes its provisions with the requirements of Chapter 13, as well as other provisions of statute and rule. It is not sufficient to argue, for example, that because an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client in a court proceeding, pursuant to Section 595.02, therefore any and all data an attorney uses, collects, stores, or disseminates in the course of her or his representation of a government entity, are protected from disclosure under Chapter 13. Chapter 595 governs who may or may not be compelled to testify in a court proceeding. This opinion addresses an issue of access to data, not an issue of evidentiary privilege. It is crucial that the two not be confused.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                  Accordingly, it does not appear that the University may rely upon Section 595.02 to withhold access to the Hogan amp; Hartson data.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner notes that although the University is not obligated to release these data under Chapter 13, it could choose to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The University of Minnesota may deny access to any of the data, exchanged between the University and the law firm of Hogan amp; Hartson, which relate to the development of the University Board of Regents&apos; tenure code proposal, because these data are covered by Section 13.30, and are therefore not subject to disclosure under Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 4, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267759</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney-client privilege (595.02)</Title><Id>266721</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Evidentiary privilege (Chapter 595)</Title><Id>266462</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-010</Title><title>Opinion 97 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267392&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-03-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in the arbitration award?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 3, 1997; School District 2143 (Waterville-Elysian-Morristown)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity requesting this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 6, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated January 3, 1997, from Kevin Rupp, an attorney representing School District #2143 (Waterville-Elysian-Morristown), hereinafter District 2143. In his letter, Mr. Rupp requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of data contained in an arbitration award.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. Mr. Rupp wrote that the arbitration award involves the discipline of a district employee. He stated, Two separate disciplinary actions were consolidated and submitted to the arbitrator....The arbitrator upheld both disciplinary actions in total. Mr. Rupp further wrote that District 2143, relying on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5), contends that with the exception of data identifying current and former employees and/or data identifying students, the data contained in the arbitration award are public.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in the arbitration award? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 2143 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 (a) (6) of Section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Subdivision 2 (b) further provides:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, state wide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings. &lt;u&gt;In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings&lt;/u&gt;, or upon failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.... (Emphasis added.)
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  In the present situation, according to Mr. Rupp, District 2143 disciplined an employee twice; the first action was a letter of deficiency and a six-day suspension without pay, and the second was a discharge from employment. The arbitrator&apos;s report, a copy of which was provided to PIPA by Mr. Rupp, states:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...The record indicates that pursuant to the notification, the Grievant was suspended for the period [five days] and returned to complete the academic year. However the Grievant submitted a grievance in August 1995 relative to the matter that constitutes the basis for Issue 1...The matter was not settled prior to Fall 1995 when the Grievant returned to start the 1995-1996 school year. However, an Arbitration Hearing was scheduled for March, 1995, but canceled when the Grievant was informed of additional allegations of misconduct and placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by letter from the Superintendent...Subsequently, on [April, 1996] the Grievant was issued a detailed Notice of Proposed Immediate Discharge by the School Board Chairperson...Consequently, the Grievant submitted a grievance that constitutes the basis for Issue 2...
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The arbitrator further wrote, Therefore, given the Parties were unable to resolve the dispute and stipulate to an absence of procedural deficiency, the matter was reduced to writing in accordance with Article XII - Grievance Procedure and appealed to Arbitration. As Mr. Rupp discussed in his opinion request, the arbitrator upheld both disciplinary actions in total.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    The specific issue raised by Mr. Rupp regards the classification of the data contained in the arbitration award. Because it is clear that disciplinary action was taken against the employee by District 2143, the next step is to determine whether a final disposition has occurred. According to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, in this case, a final disposition has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (4), the final disposition of the disciplinary action is public, as are the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. However, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (4), also provides that any data that identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the situation presented by Mr. Rupp, the final disposition relates to two separate disciplinary actions. One of the disciplinary actions is that the employee received a notice of deficiency and a six-day suspension. The second is that the employee was terminated. That information (the actual discipline taken), plus the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions, plus any data documenting the basis of those actions are public. Therefore, any data in the arbitration award that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions, and any data which document the basis of those actions are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Rupp discussed the fact that some of the data in the arbitrator&apos;s award are about other (than the disciplined employee) District 2143 employees and District 2143 students. Of the data about the employees he wrote, The School District believes that it will be complying with the Act by redacting the names and job titles of current and former employees. These individuals will then no longer be identified as the subject of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the data about students, Mr. Rupp wrote, Many students testified during the arbitration, and the arbitrator discusses their testimony in the award. The arbitrator, however, uses letters to identify the students rather that their actual names. The School District believes that the use of letters to identify the students means that individual students are not and cannot be identified as the subject of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The answer to Mr. Rupp&apos;s question depends on whom the data in the arbitrator&apos;s report are about. (For additional information regarding similar issues, please see Advisory Opinion 93-010.) In other words, is the subject of the data the disciplined employee, a student, or another District 2143 employee? Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  For reasons stated above, if the data are about the disciplined employee, those data are public if the data represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action or document the basis of the action. However, if the data are about other District 2143 employees or students, the classification of those data depends on the language of Sections 13.32 and 13.43.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Generally speaking, Section 13.32, educational data, provides that data collected, created, and maintained by public educational institutions about students are private (the main exception being those data which become public through the directory information process, see Section 13.32, subdivision 5). Therefore, if some of the data in the arbitrator&apos;s award are about individual students and can be identified as such, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.32, then that information needs to be removed from the report. However, if the use of identifiers by the arbitrator means that comments by any one student cannot be attributed to that student, then the data are no longer data about that student and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The same analysis applies to any data in the arbitrator&apos;s award that are about a District 2143 employee other than the disciplined employee. If so, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.43, then the data need to be removed. If, however, removing the names and job titles of those employees creates a result such that any statements or comments cannot be attributed to a particular employee, then the data are no longer data about the other District 2143 employee and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Rupp is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5), data in the arbitration award that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions, and any data which document the basis of those actions are public, excluding any data identifying confidential sources who are employees of the body. Further, if any of the data in the report are about students or other District 2143 employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: March 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267392</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arbitrator decision or award</Title><Id>266606</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data)</Title><Id>266980</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:49Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-008</Title><title>Opinion 97 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267858&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-02-25T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, has the City of Minneapolis Police Department responded appropriately to J&apos;s request for access to data about J?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 25, 1997; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On January 3, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated same from J. In the letter, J requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion relating to her/his access to data about her/him from the Minneapolis Police Department. Attached to J&apos;s opinion request were copies of three requests to the Police Department from J as well as copies of two responses from the Department. Because the requests from J were undated, PIPA staff contacted J by telephone to determine those dates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to J&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jim Moore, Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney. The purposes of this letter dated January 10, 1997, were to inform Mr. Moore of J&apos;s request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position. On January 21, 1997, PIPA received a response dated January 17, 1997, from Mr. Moore.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. In a letter which J alleges was dated October 2, 1996, J wrote to Chief John Laux of the Minneapolis Police Department. (Mr. Laux is the most recent former Minneapolis Chief of Police.) In this letter, J first stated that her/his apartment had been raided in February of 1996. J then wrote, My letter is to request information on whether I am the subject of stored data. Under Minnesota Statutes I have the right to view data gathered on me and to know if I am still the subject of investigation....Also, if the information is considered confidential I have the right to know this also. (J provided to PIPA a copy of a certified mail receipt which indicates a letter was mailed to Chief Laux in Minneapolis on October 2, but the year is obscured. The date on the return receipt is illegible.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then, in a letter which J alleges was dated October 18, 1996, s/he wrote to the Minneapolis Chief of Police and asked the following questions: Does the Minneapolis Police Dept. maintain data about me? How is this data classified? If the data is confidential what statute classifies it as such? J again cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 as the basis under which s/he was making the request. J also referred to her/his letter of October 2, 1996, and noted that s/he had received no response. (J provided to PIPA a copy of a receipt for certified mail dated October 18, 1996, which indicates a letter was mailed in Minneapolis to Chief Robert Olson on October 18, 1996.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Next, in a letter which J alleges was dated October 30, 1996, s/he wrote to Mr. Moore. J wrote, I have enclosed two separate letters that I mailed to the Minneapolis Police Department [sic] requesting information as to whether or not The [sic] Minneapolis Police Dept. maintains data about me. Each letter was received but I wasn&apos;t notified as to whether or not I was the subject of stored data. (J provided to PIPA a copy of a return receipt which indicates a letter was received by Mr. Moore&apos;s agent on October 31, 1996. The date of the mailing of the letter is unclear.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 5, 1996, J received a response from Assistant City Attorney Allison Baskfield. She wrote, There is a police report documenting the [February 1996] execution of a search warrant on your home. That report, along with any other data not classified as &apos;confidential&apos; is available to you....You can obtain a copy...There is a nominal copying fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 11, 1996, J received a response from Sheila Isaacson, Supervisor of the MPD Criminal History/Records Unit. Ms. Isaacson wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;We currently have two reports, listed under your name, in our system....Both reports may be purchased by you for a total cost of $6....Only one case, depending on the outcome of your violation ticket, would be considered public data. In the case from 1993, you were listed as a suspect, and this would not be classified as public data. However, since you are the suspect, showing proper identification, would allow staff to sell you personally a copy of the report.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In his response to the opinion request, Mr. Moore first addressed the issue of a timely response. He first stated that although he is unable to locate [the October 2, 1996] letter in our files, the Department did not respond in timely fashion to J&apos;s October 18, 1996, letter. However, Mr. Moore further stated that the response received by J regarding his/her October 31, 1996, letter was timely.
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Moore went on to address whether the responses received by J were deficient in content. Mr. Moore argued that because Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, classifies active criminal investigative data maintained by law enforcement agencies as confidential, the MPD was not required to answer J&apos;s inquiries about whether s/he is the subject of confidential data. Mr. Moore wrote, The purposes of Minn. Stat. section13.82 would be completely undermined if individuals could, by simply asking, be advised whether or not they are the subject of an active investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Moore also addressed Ms. Isaacson&apos;s November 6, 1996, letter. He wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;...[her letter was an] attempt to advise [J] that the full report related to that incident was not available on the public access computer terminal in Room 30, City Hall, because the alleged crime was never solved. Nevertheless, because of its age and status, the Police Department was not currently claiming that it was confidential under Minn. Stat. section13.82, Subd. 5. Thus, access to the report was available upon request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, J asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, has the City of Minneapolis Police Department responded appropriately to J&apos;s request for access to data about J?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that upon request, an individual shall be informed whether that individual is the subject of stored data and whether those data are classified as public, private or confidential. The individual also has the right to inspect those data, free of charge, and/or may request and be given copies of the data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.04 also states the government entity must respond to a request within five working days, or notify the data subject that the entity requires an additional five working days in which to respond.
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, J made at least two written requests for access to data about her/him maintained by the MPD. J specifically asked the following questions: Does the Minneapolis Police Dept. maintain data about me? How is this data classified? If the data if the data [sic] is confidential what statute classifies it as such? Some of the data collected, created, and maintained by law enforcement agencies, such as the MPD, are classified in Section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the first response from the MPD, Ms. Baskfield advised J that a police report existed which documented the February 1996 execution of a search warrant on his/her home. She further wrote, That report, along with any other data not classified as &apos;confidential&apos; is available to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the second response, one day later, from the MPD, Ms. Isaacson wrote that the Department had two reports listed under J&apos;s name. She also stated that both reports could be purchased by J. In addition, she wrote, Only one case...would be considered public data. In the case from 1993, you were listed as a suspect, and this would not be classified as public data. However, since you are the suspect, showing proper identification, would allow staff to sell you personally a copy of the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to J&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Moore wrote that although Ms. Isaacson&apos;s letter was not as clear as it could have been, the collective response given by the City was appropriate and not violative of [J&apos;s] rights. In response to J&apos;s specific question about whether s/he is the subject of confidential data, Mr. Moore wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Of course, Minn. Stat. section13.82 is designed to exempt the Police Department from answering that very question. If there is in fact an ongoing investigation within the meaning of Minn. Stat. section13.82, subd. 5, that data is confidential....The purposes of Minn. Stat. section13.82 would be completely undermined if individuals could, by simply asking, be advised whether or not they are the subject of an active investigation. Answering the question for individuals who are not the subject of an investigation would lead to the presumption that a refusal to answer the inquiry means that there is an ongoing investigation and enable criminal [sic] to avoid arrest. Thus, it is clear that the police department is within its rights in refusing to answer the question whether or not there is an ongoing investigation.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached by Mr. Moore. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a person shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Thus, if J&apos;s request to the MPD is regarding whether J is the subject of confidential data, the MPD must answer the question. Section 13.04 is clear on this point. There is no provision in Section 13.82 that relieves any law enforcement agency of its statutory obligation to respond to a request such as J has made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the response from the MPD should have contained the following elements. One, J should have been advised whether s/he is the subject of data maintained by the Police Department. Two, J should have been advised as to the classification of any data about him/her maintained by the MPD. Three, if J is the subject of either public or private data, s/he should be given access to those data; either for the purposes of inspection (free of charge, see Section 13.04, subdivision 3), or in the form of copies (the MPD may charge only for the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, see Section 13.04, subdivision 3). Because the MPD&apos;s response did not contain these elements, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the response was not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, government entities must respond to requests for access to data within five working days. Requests must be responded to within five working days. If the entity cannot meet its obligation within those five days, it must so notify the requestor and may then take an additional five working days to respond.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, J alleges that s/he made requests for access to data in 1996 in letters dated October 2, October 18, and October 30. While Mr. Moore cannot locate the letter dated October 2, he acknowledged that the MPD did not respond in a timely fashion to the October 18 letter. However, he also stated that the response to the October 30 letter was timely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There appears to be a dispute regarding the receipt of the October 2 letter. Although the Commissioner received a copy of a letter J allegedly sent to the MPD, Mr. Moore was not able to verify that such a letter was received by the MPD. Furthermore, the additional certified mail information provided by J does not prove that this particular letter was actually mailed and/or received. Given that the receipt of this letter has been placed into question, the Commissioner cannot address the issue of whether the MPD responded within the statutorily prescribed time frame.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the October 18 letter, Mr. Moore stated it was received on October 21, 1996. He acknowledged the MPD had not responded in a timely fashion and wrote, This letter should have been responded to within the timeframe provided by Minn. Stat. section13.03, but no response was mailed until November 5, 1996. He further wrote, The City conducts routine training of its employees with regard to the requirements of the statute. It is unclear to me why J&apos;s letter was not responded to in accordance with statutory requirements. I am requesting that Chief Olson remind his administrative employees about the City&apos;s obligations under the law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the October 31 letter, Mr. Moore stated that on November 6, 1996, he left a message on J&apos;s answering machine advising J that the City maintained police reports and that [J] could view those reports at Room 31, of City Hall and that the Police Records Department would follow-up with him. Mr. Moore added, A letter was sent to [J] by Ms. Sheila Isaacson of the Minneapolis Police Department Records Unit that same day. It is my belief that the City&apos;s response to the third letter complies with the requirements of Minn. Stat. section13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the MPD did not respond to the October 18, 1996, letter within the time frame prescribed by Section 13.04, subdivision 3. In addition, although Mr. Moore is correct that a response to the October 30, 1996, letter appears to have been issued to J within the five day deadline, that response was not substantively complete, i.e., J was not provided with the data s/he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by J is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City of Minneapolis Police Department did not respond appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to J&apos;s request for access to data about her/him.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 25, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267858</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Subject&apos;s right to know</Title><Id>266498</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed of existence/classification</Title><Id>266499</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-007</Title><title>Opinion 97 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267522&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-02-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did personnel of the City of Menahga Police Department inappropriately disseminate data about Y, a minor?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 12, 1997; City of Menahga</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 23, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from the parents of Y, a minor. In that letter, Y&apos;s parents described a dissemination of information by personnel of the City of Menahga Police Department. Mr. and Mrs. Y enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. and Mrs. Y&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Char West, Clerk-Treasurer-Administrator, City of Menahga. The purposes of this letter, dated December 30, 1996, were to inform Ms. West of Mr. and Mrs. Y&apos;s request, to ask her or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On January 9, 1997, PIPA received a response from Ms. West.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. and Mrs. Y, their child (Y), who was fifteen at the time, was involved in a traffic accident. Y was taken to a hospital, where apparently [s/he] was placed under arrest. Mr. and Mrs. Y enclosed a copy of an Implied Consent Advisory that states that Y was placed under arrest for driving, operating, or controlling a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Y was charged with (1) driving under the influence of alcohol, (2) minor consumption of alcohol, and (3) reckless driving.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Shortly after the accident, a local newspaper, the &lt;u&gt;Review Messenger&lt;/u&gt;, printed a photograph of the accident scene. The caption included Y&apos;s name and age. When questioned by Mr. and Mrs. Y, the newspaper reporter said that he had received the information from the police.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                During the course of the City Police Department&apos;s investigation, Officer Dan Stacey is alleged to have made comments to, or in the presence of, friends of Y. Those comments included that [Y] will probably lose [her/his] license until [age] 21 and that [Y] had been thrown from the car. When Mrs. Y asked Officer Stacey about one of those incidents, he responded that he and Gary were just talking about the accident.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Ms. West stated: [t]he only dissemination of information was made to the newspaper regarding the traffic accident, as permitted under MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 4. I do not believe that the information released to the newspaper on this individual would be restricted under MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 10 and as no arrest was made, I do not feel there was a violation of MN Stat. 13.82, subd.2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did personnel of the City of Menahga Police Department inappropriately disseminate data about Y, a minor? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 and Section 260.161 provide guidance on the handling of data concerning juveniles involved in incidents requiring law enforcement services. An examination of those statutory provisions reveals the following.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.82, subdivision 2, lists a number of elements of data associated with an arrest that are public data. In the case of juveniles who are cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty, only the juvenile&apos;s age and gender are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.82, subdivision 3, provides that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document requests for law enforcement services are always public data. Section 13.82, subdivision 4, provides that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document an agency&apos;s response to requests for service or that describe actions taken by an agency on its own initiative are also public data. This subdivision also provides means by which the identities of certain individuals may be protected. The data elements specified in these subdivisions either do not by their nature identify juveniles, or if the data are about juveniles who are victims or witnesses, the data are to be treated the same as data on adult victims or witnesses. (See also Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.82, subdivision 10 and 260.161, subdivision 3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In determining the classification of data on juvenile offenders, the provisions of Section 13.82, must be read in conjunction with Section 260.161. Section 260.161 classifies and regulates data about juveniles held by the court system and by law enforcement agencies. Subdivision 3 specifies, subject to certain exceptions, that law enforcement records on children, who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts, are private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 260.161, subdivision 3 (d) provides, in relevant part:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Identifying information on juveniles who are parties to traffic accidents may be disclosed as authorized under section 13.82, subdivision 4, and accident reports required under section 169.09 may be released under section 169.09, subdivision 13, &lt;u&gt;unless the information would identify a juvenile who was taken into custody or who is suspected of committing an offense that would be a crime if committed by an adult, or would associate a juvenile with the offense, and the offense is not a minor traffic offense under section 260.193&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                   Thus, data about juveniles involved in &lt;u&gt;minor traffic offenses&lt;/u&gt;are public as authorized under Section 13.82, subdivision 4. Section 290.193 does not provide a definition of minor traffic offense. However, Y was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, which is defined by Section 260.193, subdivision 1 (c) (2), as an adult court traffic offense, which is not a minor traffic offense. It then follows that the data be treated as provided in Section 260.161, subdivision 3 (d), i.e., as private. In Y&apos;s case, Section 13.82, subdivision 4, is not applicable.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. and Mrs. Y and the City disagree about whether or not Y was placed under arrest. However, the classification of the data is determined by Section 260.161. Whether an arrest was involved is not relevant.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. and Mrs. Y also raised the question of dissemination of data about Y by City employees to persons other than the media. Ms. West did not address that issue directly; however, Menahga Chief of Police James H. Killmer did so in a letter to Ms. West. In that letter, Chief Killmer said that the investigating officer conducted a normal follow-up to a traffic accident. Chief Killmer also stated that the individual Officer Stacey spoke with on one of the occasions mentioned by Mr. and Mrs. Y, Gary, . . . was Gary Ryhti, another police officer from my department. Gary was at the accident scene and assisted in removal of the vehicle. I find nothing unusual about police officers discussing information about this accident or any other accident. . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 5, provides that Responsible Authorities . . . establish appropriate security safeguards . . . . for all data on individuals. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that access to private data within a government entity is limited to those whose work assignments reasonably require access. Therefore, Officers Stacey and Ryhti were authorized to discuss Y&apos;s accident. However, by definition, private data are not accessible by the public. In situations in which government agents are disseminating not public data, those agents are obligated to take reasonable measures to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of those data are afforded the protections provided by statute. Any other conclusion would vitiate those protections.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From the information provided, the police officers may have discussed private data about Y in a manner that allowed access to those data by unauthorized persons. The City had an obligation to ensure that such an event did not occur.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner acknowledges that the interrelationships among the various statutory provisions that regulate data about juveniles involved in traffic accidents are confusing.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Y is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 260.161, the data about Y&apos;s accident that identify Y are private data. It appears that personnel of the City of Menahga Police Department inappropriately disseminated data about Y to the newspaper reporter. It also appears that private data about Y were inappropriately disseminated to, or in the presence of, other persons who were not authorized to gain access to the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: February 12, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267522</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-006</Title><title>Opinion 97 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266475&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-02-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of data which document the specific reasons for and basis of the disciplinary action taken by School District #280 against an employee who failed a drug test?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 3, 1997; School District 280 (Richfield)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 12, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Minnesota Sun Publications (MSP), publisher of several Twin Cities area newspapers. In that letter, Mr. Anfinson described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Richfield Independent School District #280. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence and news articles.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lowell D. Larson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 18, 1996, were to inform Mr. Larson of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (PIPA subsequently learned that Barbara Devlin is now the superintendent.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 6, 1997, PIPA received a response from Karen A. Janisch, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for MSP learned that a District school bus driver had been disciplined, apparently because he had failed a drug test. The reporter requested access to the specific reasons for the discipline, and the data documenting the discipline, pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2]. In response, the District expressed concern that disclosure of the requested data might conflict with other state and federal laws relating to dissemination of information relating to drug tests on employees.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her responses to Mr. Anfinson and the Commissioner, Ms. Janisch stated that the District interprets the Federal Department of Transportation Regulations Governing Alcohol and Drug Testing, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 382, and Minnesota Statutes Sections 181.950-181.957 as requiring that the data be treated as private data on individuals and treated confidentially. Ms. Janisch enclosed a copy of the federal regulations.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Janisch stated: [i]f state law requires release of this information, resolution of the federal preemption issue is essential. . . . [The federal regulations] expressly preempt state law when compliance with both state law and the federal regulations is not possible or where compliance with state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment of any requirement of the federal regulations. 49 C.F.R. [Section] 382.109(a).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of data which document the specific reasons for and basis of the disciplinary action taken by School District #280 against an employee who failed a drug test? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 classifies certain data about public employees as public, including the final disposition of any disciplinary action taken against an employee, the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 181.954, subdivision 2 provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Test result reports and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing process are, . . . with respect to public sector employees and job applicants, private data on individuals as that phrase is defined in chapter 13, and may not be disclosed by an employer or laboratory to another employer or to a third-party individual, governmental agency, or private organization without the written consent of the employee or job applicant tested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Assuming there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action in the case of the District school bus driver, the relevant provisions of Sections 13.43 and 181.954 appear to be in conflict. However, Ms. Janisch asserted that a provision of federal law preempts any conflicting provisions of state law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a): [e]xcept as required by law or expressly authorized or required in this section, no employer shall release driver information that is contained in records required to be maintained under [Section] 382.401 [which include records related to a driver&apos;s test results&apos;].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    PIPA staff, in attempting to determine whether the language except as required by law in 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a), might mean that the relevant provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 determine the classification of the data in question, contacted the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carrier Standards and Research. That office faxed PIPA its May 23, 1996, interpretation of the federal regulations. Pursuant to that interpretation:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    The term as required by law&apos; in [Section] 382.405(a) means Federal statutes or an order of a competent Federal jurisdiction, such as an administrative subpoena. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, and the implementing regulations in Part 382, require that test results and medical information be confidential to the maximum extent possible. (Pub. L. 102-143, Title V, Sec. 5(a)(1), 105 Stat. 959, codified at 49 USC 31306) In addition, the Act preempts inconsistent State or local government laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, or orders that are inconsistent with the regulations issued under the Act.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The confidentiality provision of 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a), is further buttressed by 49 C.F.R. Section 382.109(a), which provides:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part preempts any State or local law, rule, regulation, or order to the extent that:
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    (1) Compliance with both the State or local requirement and this part is not possible; . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, pursuant to federal law, the data relating to the results of the employee&apos;s drug or alcohol tests are private data, and may not be disclosed by the District to MSP without the employee&apos;s written consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Pursuant to Part 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 382, data relating to the results of the employee&apos;s drug or alcohol tests are private data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: February 3, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266475</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug test data</Title><Id>266361</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-005</Title><title>Opinion 97 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267700&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-01-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is it appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, for Carver County to charge a fee for inspection of public data?
Has Carver County responded to a request for access to public data within the time frame requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3?</ShortDescription><Subtitle> January 31, 1997; Carver County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter of the same date from Ann Walther, an attorney representing Teamsters Local 320 in an arbitration with Carver County over the termination of a Carver County employee. In her letter, Ms. Walther, requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the Teamster&apos;s access to certain data maintained by Carver County. As the result of telephone discussions between Ms. Walther and PIPA staff, two issues were agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Stolz, Administrator of Carver County. The purposes of this letter, dated December 10, 1996, were to inform Mr. Stolz of Ms. Walther&apos;s request and to ask him or Carver County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position. On December 31, 1996, PIPA received a response dated December 19, 1996, from Peter Bergstrom, an attorney representing Carver County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. In a letter dated October 31, 1996, James Michels, an attorney employed by the same law firm as Ms. Walther, made a request to &lt;u&gt;inspect&lt;/u&gt; the following data maintained by Carver County:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;1. The name and job title of each person employed by the Carver County Sheriff&apos;s Department from January 1, 1990 to the present date (this includes persons no longer employed by the Sheriff&apos;s Department but who were so employed at any time during the stated period).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;2. With regard to each person within the scope of request number 1: each complaint or charge of misconduct made against the employee (or former employee) since January 1, 1990.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;3. For each complaint or charge within the scope of request number 2: the nature of the complaint or charge, the status of the complaint or charge, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in disciplinary action, and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and the data documenting the basis of the action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;4. If any dispute relating to a complaint or charge of misconduct against an employee within the scope of request number 3 was resolved by an agreement: the terms of the agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 16, 1996, Mr. Bergstrom responded to Mr. Michels&apos; request. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The County does not have the data requested in a readily available form....we estimate that it will take approximately 145 hours to view the files and 10 hours to review the payroll records for a total of 155 hours....It is estimated that your request will require 155 hours of research at $20/hour for a total of $3,100.00....we estimate that it will take approximately eight work weeks to assemble this data. The calendar weeks needed to assemble the data will be greater because of the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years holiday schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 18, 1996, Ms. Walther wrote to Mr. Bergstrom (apparently prior to receiving his November 16, 1996, letter) as a follow-up to a telephone conversation with Carver County staff regarding the status of Mr. Michels&apos; request. In her letter, Ms. Walther stated that County staff was surprised by her call given that Mr. Bergstrom was to be responding to the request and that County staff advised Ms. Walther that the County could charge for inspection of the requested data. In her letter, Ms. Walther stated, ...the County may not charge us to compile the documents which we wish to inspect....As you are aware, the County is required to respond to this request within a reasonable time&apos;....We have heard nothing from the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 20, 1996, Ms. Walther wrote again to Mr. Bergstrom reiterating that the County could neither charge for assembling the data requested nor segregating public from private or confidential data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to Ms. Walther&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Bergstrom first wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The status of this case as subject to current litigation requires that the Department of Administration, if it chooses to issue an opinion in this matter, coordinate that opinion with the rights and responsibilities of the parties under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the Uniform Arbitration Act, the Public Employment Labor Relations Act and the court order in this matter. It is also essential that the Department not allow the Data Practices Act to be utilized as a weapon to harass a party in litigation or to interfere with the strong public preference for arbitration as a quick and cost effective method to resolve disputes between an employer and its employees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bergstrom next stated, No request for data to be released by the Data Practices Act has been made. He wrote, ...[the Carver County employee] has requested that the County assemble a list of employees and former employees base [sic] upon criteria that he has selected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Mr. Bergstrom stated that the County did respond within a reasonable time to Mr. Michels&apos; request. He wrote, Given the amount of preliminary leg work that the County had to perform, just to get a handle on the scope of this request, the amount of time taken to respond is not unreasonable. Further, the appropriateness of the request, in light of current and former litigation, has to be determined by review of the applicable statutes and rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bergstrom also stated that in regard to Mr. Michels&apos; first request, the County does not maintain a list of the departments in which all employees are employed. In addition, he noted that Chapter 13 does not list an employee&apos;s department as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Next, Mr. Bergstrom asserted that Mr. Michels&apos; request for data on all employees over a period of time is not in compliance with Chapter 13 and is overly broad.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Bergstrom&apos;s final point was that because the data request is a discovery request related to [the Carver County employee&apos;s] grievance with the County, the request must be processed in accordance with the applicable rules and statutes and may not be circumvented by use of the Data Practices Act. He further wrote, In addition Minn. Stat. 13.30 indicates that data assembled for litigation should be released in accordance with the applicable rules rather than under the Data Practice [sic] Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, Mr. Bergstrom wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...[the request] is outside the scope of the Data Practices Act. The request requires the County to assemble data for [the Carver County employee], not just reveal data already assembled, according to criteria that he has designated and that are outside the requirements of the Act. It is therefore not only reasonable, but mandatory, that the County preserve taxpayer funds and charge [the Carver County employee] for the time and effort necessary to meet his personal demands. More importantly the request made by [the Carver County employee] relates to his/her on going [sic] litigation with the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is it appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, for Carver County to charge a fee for inspection of public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Has Carver County responded to a request for access to public data within the time frame requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before discussing the issues raised by Ms. Walther, the Commissioner must respond to Mr. Bergstrom&apos;s comments regarding the current status of [the Carver County employee&apos;s] apparent dispute with Carver County. According to Mr. Bergstrom, the matter is currently awaiting another arbitration hearing under a Court Order. Mr. Bergstrom wrote, [the Carver County employee&apos;s] request is a discovery request related to his grievance with the County.....In addition Minn. Stat. 13.30 indicates that data assembled for litigation should be released in accordance with the applicable rules rather than the Data Practice [sic] Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267779&quot; title=&quot;96-038&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 96-038&lt;/a&gt; , there is nothing in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 which prevents a person from requesting and gaining access to data just because that person is involved in litigation with the government entity maintaining the requested data. Furthermore, Ms. Walther has not been told she cannot gain access to the data. Rather, she was advised that pre-payment is required before data inspection will be allowed and that a response to the request will take at least eight weeks. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Carver County&apos;s employee&apos;s current legal dispute with Carver County has no effect on his/her, or his/her legal counsel&apos;s, ability and right to request and gain access to government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first issue raised by Ms. Walther is whether Carver County can charge a fee for inspection of public data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states, If a person requests access [to public government data] for the purpose inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data requested by Mr. Michels, on behalf of the Carver County employee, are data about current and former employees of Carver County, specifically employees of the Sheriff&apos;s Department. Such data are classified in Section 13.43. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43 sets forth the various types of data about current and former employees that are public. Generally speaking, the remainder of data collected about current and former employees are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, with a few exceptions, the majority of the types of data requested by Mr. Michels are public. First, Mr. Michels has requested access to each complaint or charge of misconduct. Technically, unless a final disposition regarding the complaint and/or charge has occurred, only the &lt;u&gt;existence&lt;/u&gt; of any complaints and the status of those complaints are public. (See subdivision 2 (a) (4).) Second, in regard to each complaint and/or charge, Mr. Michels has requested information regarding whether or not the complaint resulted in disciplinary action. Subdivision 2 (a) (4) states, [these data are public] the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, &lt;u&gt;regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;&lt;/u&gt; (Emphasis added.) Therefore, unless the complaint resulted in disciplinary action, Mr. Michels cannot be informed as to whether disciplinary action occurred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The thrust of Mr. Bergstrom&apos;s argument is that Mr. Michels has requested data in a format that requires Carver County to assemble data for [the Carver County employee], not just reveal data already assembled, according to criteria that he has designated and that are outside the requirements of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is correct that no provision in Chapter 13 requires government entities to create new data or to present existing data in a format prescribed by the data requestor. In fact, the Commissioner has so stated in several previous advisory opinions. However, in the situation at hand, Mr. Michels appears to have requested data, most of which are classified as public, regarding certain employees of Carver County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Carver County does not have the requested data sorted or formatted according to the specific years that employees worked for the County, then it may be necessary for Mr. Michels to inspect data relating to all current and former employees and make the employment-date determination himself. Mr. Michels should be granted access to such information because the date of first and last employment are public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (3). Further, if Carver County does not format or sort its personnel data according to the specific departments in which the various employees have worked, it may again be necessary for Mr. Michels to sort through data about all employees. Presumably, Mr. Michels would be able to determine which employees worked at the Sheriff&apos;s department because the job title and job description of all public employees are public data pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (2). In conclusion, most of the data requested by Mr. Michels are public. If those data exist, then Carver County must find a way to make them available for Mr. Michels&apos; inspection, free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 provides guidance for handling requests such as the one made by Mr. Michels. First, Section 13.03, subdivision 1, requires Carver County and other government entities to keep their records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Second, in instances where the practical and operational realities of government record keeping mean that public data are intermixed with not public data, Chapter 13 requires that public data be made available for public inspection and that any costs associated with separating public from not public data not be imposed on the public. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If it will be necessary for Mr. Michels to examine through extra data to locate the public information he is seeking, and he determines he would rather pay the County to format the data in a mutually agreeable fashion, it would certainly be appropriate for Mr. Michels and Mr. Bergstrom to work out some type of fee schedule.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue raised by Ms. Walther is whether Carver County responded to Mr. Michels&apos; request within the time frame requirements of Section 13.03, subdivision 3. Subdivision 3 requires that government entities respond to requests for access to public government data within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current situation, although Mr. Bergstrom&apos;s response time of approximately two weeks appears to have been timely, the response itself was not appropriate given the request. His response was that Mr. Michels would need to make a prepayment of $3,100.00 and that the County would need at least eight weeks to assemble and copy the data. Mr. Michels did not ask for copies of data. Rather, he asked the County to make public data available for his inspection. A proper response would have been for the County to inform Mr. Michels how soon, within a reasonable time, the data would be available for inspection. Given the nature and volume of Mr. Michels&apos; request, the County must be given a reasonable amount of time in which to provide access to the public data. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Mr. Michels made the data request in a letter dated October 31, 1996. As of December 4, 1996, approximately five weeks later, neither Ms. Walther nor Mr. Michels had received access (in the form of inspection) to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Walther is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, Carver County may not charge a fee for inspection of public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Carver County did not respond to Mr. Michels&apos; request for access to public data within the time frame requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 31, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267700</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Prepayment</Title><Id>266407</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data involved in litigation</Title><Id>266591</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-004</Title><title>Opinion 97 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266689&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-01-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission: the names and addresses of the 149 homeowners whose houses were blower door tested since October of 1995?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 21, 1997; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On October 29, 1996, PIPA received, via fax, a letter from Karen Youso and Donna Halvorsen of the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt;. In their letter, Ms. Halvorsen and Ms. Youso requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, hereinafter, MAC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Youso&apos;s and Ms. Halvorsen&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Anderson, General Counsel of the MAC. The purposes of this letter dated November 4, 1996, were to inform Mr. Anderson of Ms. Youso&apos;s and Ms. Halvorsen&apos;s, and to ask him or the MAC&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the MAC&apos;s position. On November 13, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Mr. Anderson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. In a copy of a memo dated October 14, 1996, to Tom Brown, of the MAC, Ms. Halvorsen and Ms. Youso requested access to, among other data, the names and addresses of the 149 homeowners whose houses were blower door tested since last October. In a copy of a telecopy transmittal dated October 17, 1996, Mr. Brown responded, According to MAC Legal Counsel, under the Data Practices Act, MAC cannot release names and addresses associated with blower door test data that MAC provided to you on October 1.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a copy of a memo to Mr. Brown, dated October 23, 1996, Ms. Halvorsen and Ms. Youso again requested the data and asked Mr. Brown to cite the portion of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 upon which the legal counsel was relying.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a copy of a memo dated October 25, 1996, Mr. Anderson responded by stating that the MAC was denying access to the data based on Section 13.31. He wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Under the benefit data statute, the names and addresses of persons who receive benefits through the [MAC&apos;s housing insulation program] are public, all other data is private. We are able to provide you with the names and addresses of the homeowners who are part of the Part 150 Program, but cannot release information specifying the particular benefits&apos; (e.g. a blower door test) received by any particular individual.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In his response to Ms. Youso&apos;s and Ms. Halvorsen&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Anderson argued that the data requested by the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; should be classified pursuant to Section 13.31. He noted that under Section 13.31, only the names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, assistance, are public data. All other benefit data are classified as private. Therefore, he asserted, a release of those data describing which persons&apos; homes had been blower door tested would be in violation of the statute.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their request for an opinion, Ms. Youso and Ms. Halvorsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission: the names and addresses of the 149 homeowners whose houses were blower door tested since October of 1995? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless those data are classified otherwise in a Minnesota statute, federal law, or by a temporary classification. Therefore, because the data sought by the &lt;i&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/i&gt; are government data, those data are public unless otherwise so classified.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed by Mr. Anderson, the MAC has taken the position that names and addresses of the 149 homeowners whose houses were blower door tested since October of 1995 are not public because such information is classified under Section 13.31, benefit data, as private. The issue, then, is whether the data are benefit data. In part, Section 13.31, subdivision 1, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    As used in this section, benefit data means data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, rehabilitation and community action agency, Head Start, and food assistance programs administered by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 of Section 13.31 states that the names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, or assistance through programs administered by a government entity that are intended to assist with the purchase of housing or other real property are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 3 of Section 13.31 states that, unless otherwise provided by law, all other benefit data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his letter, Mr. Anderson stated that the MAC administers a federally-funded housing insulation program called the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. He wrote:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                    Under the program, MAC may make a number of changes to a home located near MSP Airport in order to reduce interior noise levels. These changes may include reconditioning of existing windows, addition of acoustical exterior storm windows, baffling of attic and roof vents, wall and attic insulation, storm door replacement and central air conditioning. These items are provided at no cost to the homeowner, pursuant to an agreement with the homeowner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anderson argued that data relating to the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program are classified under Section 13.31 because all data regarding the individual homeowners is collected or created because they are a recipient of the program benefits. In conclusion, he wrote, If MAC were to release the names and addresses of homeowners who have received particular benefits or services, it would be the equivalent of releasing the actual benefit data and revealing the benefits or services received by those homeowners. The intent of the statute is to keep all data other than the names and addresses of applicants or participants private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is difficult to agree with the MAC&apos;s stated position that it is required to treat this data as private under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 because it does not appear that the MAC has consistently treated the data in question as private. In his letter, Mr. Anderson justifies the disclosure of the names and addresses of some program participants by stating that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 2, makes the name and address data public. However, Section 13.31, subdivision 2, makes public only the names and addresses of individuals who are participating in programs that are intended to assist those individuals . . .&lt;u&gt;with the purchase of housing or other real property.&lt;/u&gt; (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 2, emphasis added.) The Part 150 Sound Insulation Program is not such a program. Thus if, as Ms. Youso and Ms. Halvorsen have stated, the MAC has released data which identify some of the participants in the program without gaining the informed consent of those participants, and the MAC believes it must treat the data in question as private Section 13.31 data, then those releases of data have violated the rights of the data subjects.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given this analysis of the requirements of Section 13.31 and the MAC&apos;s treatment of the names and addresses of some participants as public data, the Commissioner finds it difficult to conclude that the MAC would want to expose itself to possible liability that would result from agreeing with the MAC&apos;s position. Exposure to needless liability would be the result if the Commissioner agreed with the MAC&apos;s position that the data on Part 150 participants are private benefit data. It is more consistent to conclude that as the MAC has treated these data as public in the past, it should treat the data as public for purposes of responding to the request of Ms. Youso and Ms. Halvorsen.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      My opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Youso and Ms. Halvorsen is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The following data maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission are public: the names and addresses of the homeowners whose houses were blower door tested. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 21, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266689</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:48:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-003</Title><title>Opinion 97 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267412&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-01-17T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in a report relating to the resignation of Larry Barnhardt, former president of St. Cloud Technical College?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 17, 1997; St Cloud Technical College</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 22, 1996, PIPA received, via fax, a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;em&gt;St. Cloud Times&lt;/em&gt;, a newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the paper&apos;s access to certain data maintained by St. Cloud Technical College which is a part of the Minnesota State College and University System, hereinafter MnSCU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Judith Eaton, Chancellor of MnSCU. The purposes of this letter dated December 2, 1996, were to inform Chancellor Eaton of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request and to ask her or MnSCU&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for MnSCU&apos;s position. On December 17, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Steven Liss, Assistant Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. Mr. Anfinson wrote that in November of 1996, Dr. Larry Barnhardt, the president of St. Cloud Technical College, submitted his resignation. Mr. Anfinson further wrote, In June of this year [1996], the faculty at the college adopted a no-confidence vote on Dr. Barnhardt. Subsequently, the chancellor of the MnSCU system, Judith Eaton, ordered an investigation into the allegations against him. It appears that the investigation has now been completed and a report issued by the investigator appointed by Ms. Eaton.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson further wrote that the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), requested from MnSCU a copy of the investigative report. According to Mr. Anfinson, this request was denied based on the following: 1) no complaint or charge within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e) existed; and 2) the procedure ordered by Chancellor Eaton was really an evaluation rather than an investigation of Dr. Barnhardt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request was a copy of a letter dated June 25, 1996, to Gary Mohrenweiser, chair of the MnSCU Board of Trustees, from the college faculty describing the numerous, specific complaints involving D. Barnhardt. Also attached were copies of three stories published in the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; describing the controversy surrounding Dr. Barnhardt&apos;s resignation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Liss described the situation in the following manner:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;In June, there was 93% vote of no confidence in the President by the faculty and staff. The Chancellor felt obliged to do what she could to improve the climate on the campus and suggest ways to repair the rift that existed between the administration and the faculty....With the support of both the President and the faculty senate, the Chancellor asked Dr. John Davis to assist her in her examination of faculty concerns at the College...Dr. Davis was charged by the Chancellor to determine the status of administrative/faculty/staff relations at St. Cloud Technical College.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss continued that after Dr. Davis conducted approximately 85 interviews and typed up his general impressions of the interviews, he met with Chancellor Eaton to discuss his impressions of the situation on campus. Mr. Liss further wrote, After her conversation with Dr. Davis, Chancellor Eaton determined to conduct an evaluation of the President. The materials presented by Dr. Davis as they related to the President became part of the evaluation. Before the evaluation was completed, President Barnhard [sic] resigned from his position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss went on to argue that the materials created by Dr. Davis and maintained by MnSCU are personnel data on the President and certain College vice presidents. He further stated, The information is about these individuals and was collected because the individuals were employed by the College. Therefore, he asserted, unless the exception under Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), applies, the data are private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Mr. Anfinson asserts that the information is public because it is the result of an investigation of a complaint or charge against the President within the meaning of section 13.43, subd. 2(c). This assertion is mistaken, however, because the Chancellor&apos;s evaluation of the campus, and Dr. Davis&apos; role in that evaluation, was not an investigation of a complaint or charge against the President.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data contained in a report relating to the resignation of Larry Barnhardt, former president of St. Cloud Technical College?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson, the data in dispute were collected by Dr. Davis and presented in written form to Chancellor Eaton in her role as Chancellor of MnSCU. The data were collected following a no confidence vote by 93% of the St. Cloud Technical College Faculty Senate regarding the decision making and leadership of Dr. Barnhardt. After a meeting with some of the senate members, Chancellor Eaton, in a letter dated August 15, 1996, wrote to Dr. Davis and stated, As a result of this meeting, I agreed to undertake an examination of the institution to determine which, if any, of the faculty senate concerns could be documented and which, if any, of the concerns were the result of some misunderstandings or misperceptions that needed to be addressed. The data gathered by Dr. Davis about Dr. Barnhardt were collected because Dr. Barnhardt was an employee of St. Cloud Technical College. Therefore, the data are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The dispute that is the subject of this opinion arose because it is the &lt;em&gt;Times&apos;&lt;/em&gt; assertion that the inquiries made by Dr. Davis about Dr. Barnhardt were in response to complaints made against Dr. Barnhardt. If that is correct, then pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), most of the data relating to the complaint or charge, e.g., most of the data contained in Dr. Davis&apos; report, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...upon completion of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources. For purposes of this paragraph, public official means:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(1) the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(2) members of boards or commissions required by law to be appointed by the governor or other elective officers; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(3) executive or administrative heads of departments, bureaus, divisions, or institutions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This statutory language could be applied to the case at hand because Dr. Barnhardt resigned from his post as president (executive head of an institution) of St. Cloud Technical College.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of MnSCU, Mr. Liss described the faculty senate&apos;s objections of Dr. Barnhardt as generalized concerns. He wrote, A reasonable and appropriate definition of complaint&apos; would require a level of specificity about the conduct that is being complained of. Presumably, a complaint would result from a triggering event that could be articulated in the complaint. He further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;While MnSCU does not assert that a complaint under the Act requires the same formality as a complaint in civil court, it makes no sense to consider a complaint to include any concern expressed by faculty, students, staff, or member of the public. There must be a way for the administration to respond to criticism without opening an investigation every time there is an issue of miscommunication on a campus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss added that the MnSCU Board of Trustees has several established mechanisms for bringing complaints against a president or other employee. He then stated, It is reasonable to look to these established mechanisms to determine if someone has filed a complaint&apos; against a president. Attached to Mr. Liss&apos; response was a copy of what appears to be Board Policy 1B.1, relating to nondiscrimination in employment and education opportunity. In part it reads, The system office, colleges and universities shall develop and implement a complaint process to review complaints of discrimination/harassment or sexual violence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss further wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Under MnSCU guidelines, once a complaint is filed, an investigation is conducted according to established procedure, the investigator issues a report, a decision is reached, and an appeal is provided. The process protects the rights of all parties. In the case of a President, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Equal Opportunity conducts an investigation on behalf of the Chancellor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A copy of these policies/procedures was not attached to Mr. Liss&apos; response. In addition, given that the concerns about Dr. Barnhardt specifically addressed by the Faculty Senate did not appear to be primarily related to discrimination/harassment issues, the relevancy of Board Policy 1B.1 is unclear. Further, based on the following statement in the June 25, 1996, Faculty Senate letter, it appears there is no procedure for evaluating complaints such as those made by the faculty members: ...MnSCU has no evaluation process in place for administrators that allows faculty and staff input. However, the fact that MnSCU has no such evaluation process in place is not relevant in determining whether complaints and/or charges were made against Dr. Barnhardt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, Mr. Anfinson argued, in contrast, that the June 25, 1996, letter from the college faculty to the chair of the MnSCU Board of Trustees described the numerous, specific complaints involving Dr. Barnhardt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that Chapter 13 does not include a definition of either complaint or charge, it is appropriate to seek guidance from a dictionary. In &lt;em&gt;Webster&apos;s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, 1986, complaint is defined, in relevant part, as an expression of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction, something that is the cause of or subject of protest or outcry, or a formal allegation against a party. Charge is defined, in relevant part, as an accusation, indictment and as a statement of complaint or hostile criticism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on those definitions, it appears to the Commissioner that the Faculty Senate&apos;s June 25, 1996, letter to the chair of the MnSCU Board of Trustees does contain complaints and/or charges (protests, outcries, formal allegations, and hostile criticisms). The following statements taken from the letter are examples of the nature of the complaints and/or charges:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;His handling of the terminations of [two St. Cloud Technical College staff] resulted in two lawsuits that cost the college over $500,000 dollars. Statements attributed to him in the news articles at those times embarrassed the college.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;...Dr. Barnhardt&apos;s repeated missing or canceling of meetings has become a joke around the college.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Dr. Barnhardt has had continued difficulty communicating in positive ways with female staff members to a degree that is unacceptable for a college administrator in the 1990&apos;s. Dr. Barnhardt repeatedly criticizes team decisions and endorses TQM [Total Quality Management] only when the outcome is the one he wanted before the process began.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Dr. Barnhardt clearly has favorites in both programs and personnel. He has promoted personnel without posting the positions...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Dr. Barnhardt clearly does not listen to faculty, staff, and students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that many of the statements made in the June 25, 1996, letter by the Faculty Senate are complaints and/or charges made against Dr. Barnhardt. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), upon completion of an investigation of those complaints and/or charges, all data relating to the complaints and/or charges are public, except those data that would reveal confidential sources.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is, however, an additional argument made by Mr. Liss that must be addressed. In his response, he asserted that because the inquiry made by Dr. Davis was not an investigation, there can be no public classification of the data relating to Dr. Barnhardt. Mr. Liss wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;The Davis visits are clearly different from such an investigation. There was a generalized concern on campus and the Chancellor sought to address that concern. Dr. Davis was invited to the campus by the President, as well as the faculty. He spoke with those who sought him out. The process was followed because there was no complaint and, therefore, no investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Liss also provided a copy of a letter dated September 25, 1996, from MnSCU&apos;s Vice Chancellor for Personnel written to a former St. Cloud Technical College administrator. In this letter the Vice Chancellor stated that Dr. Davis&apos; review was not an investigation.&apos; The Vice Chancellor further stated, Since this is not an investigation to review your discrimination allegations, it would be inappropriate to reinstate you pending the conclusion of the review. It is unclear what relevance this letter has to the situation-at-hand. This Opinion is concerned with data collected as a result of complaints and/or charges made by the Faculty Senate, not by the former administrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Was the action undertaken by Dr. Davis an investigation for the purposes of Chapter 13? Again, because investigation is not defined, guidance may be sought from a dictionary. In &lt;em&gt;Webster&apos;s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, Merriam-Webster, 1986, investigate is defined as, to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry, and to conduct an official inquiry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. Davis was hired as a direct result of the Faculty Senate&apos;s issues with Dr. Barnhardt. In her August 15, 1996, letter to Dr. Davis, Chancellor Eaton wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;As a result of this meeting [with members of the Senate Faculty], I agreed to undertake an examination of the institution to determine which, if any, of the faculty senate concerns could be documented and which, if any, of the concerns were the result of some misunderstanding or misperceptions that needed to be addressed....As we have also discussed, this examination will call for your spending some time with any staff members at St. Cloud Technical College who wish to speak to you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that Dr. Davis&apos; act of gathering data relating to the complaints and/or charges made by the Faculty Senate in their June 25, 1996, letter constitutes an investigation (studying by close examination or conducting a systematic and official inquiry) for the purposes of Section 13.43. Dr. Davis, an outsider, was hired by MnSCU to conduct an official inquiry into complaints that were made against the former president of St. Cloud Technical College. Therefore, data in Dr. Davis&apos; report relating to the complaints and/or charges are public. However, if the data reveal confidential sources, the data are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (e), data contained in Dr. Davis&apos; report relating to the complaints and/or charges leveled against Dr. Barnhardt by the Faculty Senate are public, unless access to those data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 17, 1997&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267412</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complaint or charge</Title><Id>266516</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public official · Public personnel data</Title><Id>266873</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-002</Title><title>Opinion 97 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267991&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-01-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Mr. Haatvedt have the right, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to gain access to the &quot;Friday Memo&quot; or &quot;Friday Status Report&quot; and attachments, prepared by the City Administrator and distributed to the Grand Rapids City Council?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 15, 1997; City of Grand Rapids</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 27, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Chad Haatvedt. In that letter, Mr. Haatvedt described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Grand Rapids. Mr. Haatvedt enclosed copies of related correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Haatvedt&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Craig Mattson, Administrator, City of Grand Rapids. The purposes of this letter, dated December 2, 1996, were to inform Mr. Mattson of Mr. Haatvedt&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 10, 1996, PIPA received a response from Steven C. Fecker, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 30, 1996, Mr. Haatvedt requested, from Mr. Mattson, access to . . . the information that you and the City&apos;s Finance Director have provided to the City Council during the past several weeks regarding the 1997 budget.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 31, 1996, Mr. Mattson responded that it was his understanding that the data were not public, because . . . this information falls under the privileged communication status (communication between the City Administrator and the City Council) . . . . Mr. Mattson also stated that he had asked Mr. Fecker for an opinion regarding the classification of the data in question.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his opinion request, Mr. Haatvedt sought access to the following data:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                One set of documents is a weekly series referred to as the Friday Memo or Friday Status Report in which the Administrator provides information about items on Council meeting agendas, attaches reports and communications from other staff members, etc. for Council Review. I have also requested access to those attachments, specifically as they relate to information the Council has received regarding the proposed 1997 City budget.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Fecker stated that the information sought by Mr. Haatvedt is provided by the City Administrator only to the members of the City Council and the City attorney. Mr. Fecker further stated:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is the City&apos;s position that the requested documents are protected private data under [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33] relating to correspondence between individuals and elected officials. The City Administrator, like any individual, is entitled to protection under [Section 13.33] in corresponding with the City Council. . . . . For example, in the October 25, 1996 Friday Status Report . . . the City Administrator provides the Council with his own analysis, both pro and con, of an agenda item which will be considered at a public hearing the day of the Council meeting . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                The Friday Status Memo is data on individuals because it reflects the private opinions and perspectives of the City Administrator.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                It is irrelevant that the Friday Status Memo is prepared by the City Administrator on City time and City letterhead. . . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                Finally, Mr. Haatvedt refers to certain attachments to the Friday Status Memo which may not have been prepared by the City Administrator but which were attached to the correspondence. In the City&apos;s view, such an attachment would also be protected if it was prepared for purposes of correspondence with the City Council. If it was simply a document prepared for other purposes which the City Administrator attached for reference, then such a document would be governed by its own classification status and could be separately accessed. . . .
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Haatvedt asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does Mr. Haatvedt have the right, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to gain access to the Friday Memo or Friday Status Report and attachments, prepared by the City Administrator and distributed to the Grand Rapids City Council? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 provides that government data are presumptively public, unless specifically classified otherwise by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33 provides [c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Fecker, Section 13.33 applies to internal governmental communications between staff and any elected official. If his logic were accepted, then it would be possible that no communication between any government employee and any elected official would ever be public, unless one of the parties agreed to its release (or the data were disclosed in a public meeting.) Such a result would have the effect of nullifying much of Section 13.03, the purpose of which is to make government data available to the public to the greatest extent possible. The Commissioner cannot support that result. Government employees are not operating as individuals when they prepare documents, reports and other data as part of their jobs as public servants, but instead are acting as agents of government entities, and ultimately as agents of the citizens of Minnesota.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Fecker&apos;s interpretation would also create disparate treatment for data prepared by government employees depending upon whether the recipient of the data were an elected official or not. The Commissioner cannot agree that is the result intended by the Legislature when it enacted Section 13.33. The only reasonable interpretation of Section 13.33 is that it applies to correspondence between members of the public and elected officials.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As further support that Section 13.33 ought not to be interpreted as the City proposes, in 1995 the Legislature enacted Section 13.646, which provides that legislative and budget proposals, communicated between and among the Governor&apos;s office and any state agency that is under the direct control of the Governor, are not public until after the budget is presented to the Legislature. (See Laws of Minnesota for 1995, Chapter 259, Article 1, Section 16.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is possible that a memorandum between the City Administrator and the City Council could contain data that are not public; for example personnel data (see Section 13.43.) However, the data in such a memorandum are presumptively public. Each data element would need to be examined to determine whether any other provision of law classifies it otherwise. The same logic holds with regard to the classification of any attachments to the City Administrator&apos;s communication with the City Council.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Haatvedt is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Mr. Haatvedt has the right, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to gain access to the Friday Memo or Friday Status Report and attachments, prepared by the City Administrator and distributed to the Grand Rapids City Council, unless there are data contained in the documents that are specifically classified as not public. Section 13.33 does not apply to internal governmental communications. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 15, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267991</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 97-001</Title><title>Opinion 97 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267592&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1997-01-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has Ramsey County responded appropriately to Mr. Plisner&apos;s October 25, 1996, request for access to public data?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 2, 1997; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 12, 1996, PIPA received a fax dated November 8, 1996, from Simcha Plisner. In his fax, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain government data maintained by Ramsey County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Terry Schutten, Manager of Ramsey County. The purposes of this letter dated November 15, 1996, were to inform Mr. Schutten of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and to ask him or Ramsey County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Ramsey County&apos;s position. On December 5, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Gary Davis, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts presented by Mr. Plisner is as follows. On October 25, 1996, Mr. Plisner contacted the Ramsey County Public Works Department to speak with staff person Terry Noonan. Mr. Plisner was advised that Mr. Noonan had left for the day. At that point, Mr. Plisner contacted the office of the county manager and requested access to all data which showed or demonstrated that Mr. Noonan had a right or lacked the right to take the time off; and if he did have the right to be off, I wished to review the data which indicated that he had followed county procedures concerning making the request for the time-off and that he followed through with all official procedures including any paperwork, etc.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Later that day, Mr. Plisner spoke with someone in the County Attorney&apos;s office who had been asked to respond to Mr. Plisner&apos;s call. Mr. Plisner was advised by this person that he (the County Attorney staff ) would get back to Mr. Plisner. As of November 8, 1996, Mr. Plisner had received no response from Ramsey County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Plisner&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Davis wrote:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                 The [assistant county attorney] attempted to make calls to Mr. T.N. and others to ascertain the facts behind this particular request. He later attempted to contact Mr. Plisner again but Mr. Plisner was not at his office, nor did Mr. Plisner attempt to return the call. The attorney &lt;u&gt;inadvertently&lt;/u&gt; did not contact Mr. Plisner again due to an onslaught of other business that required his immediate attention at the same time as Mr. Plisner&apos;s request was pending.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Davis further wrote that at the time of Mr. Plisner&apos;s request, only private personnel data had been created relating to the employee&apos;s request for time off. However, three days later, the daily time report for payroll purposes was filed for the time off taken by the employee on October 25, 1996. Mr. Davis stated, This document was created as part of the usual timesheet report process and is public data pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.43, Subd. 2 (a) (8). Ramsey is willing to furnish Mr. Plisner with the timesheet report if he desires it....In summation, there was no public data legitimately available to Mr. Plisner on October 25, 1996 that met his request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, has Ramsey County responded appropriately to Mr. Plisner&apos;s October 25, 1996, request for access to public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, certain data about employees of government entities are public. Specific to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request, clause (8) of subdivision 2 (a), sets forth those data relating to the time sheets of public employees that are public. In relevant part, clause (8) states, [the following data are public] payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes, except to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee&apos;s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03 states that upon request, a person shall be permitted to inspect public government data at reasonable times and places. Section 13.03 also states that such requests must be complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. In addition, pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 13.03, if a government entity determines that the data being requested are classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the entity must so inform the requesting person either orally at the time of the request or in writing as soon thereafter as possible. Further, if the data requested do not exist at the time of the request, the government entity should so inform the data requestor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to Mr. Davis, when Mr. Plisner made his data request on October 25, 1996, the only data in existence which related to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request were private data. Public data relating to the request did not become available until three days later. Mr. Davis wrote, The data in existence on October 25, 1996 relating to the employee&apos;s request for time off on October 25, 1996 was not data that are used only to account for employee&apos;s work time &lt;u&gt;for payroll purposes&lt;/u&gt;&apos; and therefore, was private data that would not have been available to Mr. Plisner at the time of his request on October 25, 1996. Thus, it appears that of the data requested by Mr. Plisner, some were private data and some were not in existence. However, Ramsey County staff were aware that additional public data relating to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request would be created in a manner of days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     To fully comply with the requirements imposed by Section 13.03, Ramsey County could have 1) promptly informed Mr. Plisner that some of the data he requested were classified as private, and 2) promptly informed Mr. Plisner that some of the data he requested did not exist. In addition, County staff could have informed Mr. Plisner that public data relating to his request &lt;u&gt;would&lt;/u&gt; be available for inspection within a few days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Plisner and Mr. Davis presented slightly different fact scenarios. According to Mr. Plisner, he received no communication from Ramsey County, except for a telephone conversation on October 25, 1996, in which he informed [the County&apos;s attorney] as to what I was seeking. According to Mr. Davis, an attorney for the County attempted to make calls to ascertain the facts behind the request and later attempted to contact Mr. Plisner again but Mr. Plisner was not at his office, nor did Mr. Plisner attempt to return the call. Mr. Davis further wrote, The attorney &lt;u&gt;inadvertently&lt;/u&gt; did not contact Mr. Plisner again due to an onslaught of other business that required his immediate attention at the same time as Mr. Plisner&apos;s request was pending. Mr. Davis also wrote, To the extent that Mr. Plisner was not informed that he was not entitled to any private data in existence on October 25, 1996...such failure to inform Mr. Plisner was merely inadvertent, caused by the heavy workload of other business...
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although there is some dispute as to whether Ramsey County attempted to contact Mr. Plisner a second time, there appears to be no dispute that Mr. Plisner did not receive a response, i.e., that some data were private and other data did not exist, in regard to his request. Therefore, Ramsey County did not respond appropriately to Mr. Plisner&apos;s October 25, 1996, request for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    On behalf of Ramsey County, Mr. Davis did state that the County is currently in possession of public data relating to Mr. Plisner&apos;s request and is willing to furnish Mr. Plisner with the timesheet report if he desires it. Perhaps Mr. Plisner might, at this point, renew his request for access to all public data relating to Mr. Noonan&apos;s being off of work on October 25, 1996.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Ramsey County did not respond appropriately, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, to Mr. Plisner&apos;s October 25, 1996, request for access to data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: January 2, 1997
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267592</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Time sheets or payroll</Title><Id>266878</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Inappropriate response, generally</Title><Id>266528</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:41:46Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-064</Title><title>Opinion 96 064</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267123&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-31T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Mr. Fiecke entitled to gain access to all public data the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Department maintains about Jerry Werner, an employee of the Department?
Is Douglas County&apos;s photocopy charge of &quot;$.50 per page plus time&quot; allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 1996; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On November 13, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Gerald Fiecke. In that letter, Mr. Fiecke described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Office. Mr. Fiecke enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Fiecke&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Bill Ingebrigtsen, Douglas County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated November 18, 1996, were to inform Mr. Ingebrigtsen of Mr. Fiecke&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA did not receive a response from Douglas County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated August 27, 1996, Mr. Fiecke asked Douglas County for . . . any and all information on Jerry Werner Badge #211. This information would be complaints indictments and any other related information against him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, the County wrote to Mr. Fiecke, in a letter dated August 30, 1996, to clarify the scope of his data request. In that letter to Mr. Fiecke the County stated: [b]e aware that there is a charge for copies of this information which would be fifty cents per page plus time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Fiecke wrote to Sheriff Ingebrigtsen on October 11, 1996, and stated: [a]s I did on 8-27-96 I&apos;m asking for any and all information on &lt;u&gt;Jerry Werner&lt;/u&gt;. There is no charge for this information and copy costs have to be &lt;u&gt;justified&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis his.) According to Mr. Fiecke, he has not had any further response from the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Fiecke asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Mr. Fiecke entitled to gain access to all public data the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Department maintains about Jerry Werner, an employee of the Department?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Douglas County&apos;s photocopy charge of $.50 per page plus time allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Mr. Fiecke requested access to any and all information on Mr. Werner, a County employee. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Mr. Fiecke is entitled to gain access to all public data on the employee.
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision. Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, provide that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Presumably the County maintains some public data about Mr. Werner, to which Mr. Fiecke is entitled to gain access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding Issue 2, it is not clear from the nature of Mr. Fiecke&apos;s request to the County whether he wanted copies of the data about Mr. Werner, or if he just wanted to inspect the data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, Mr. Fiecke is entitled to inspect the data at no charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, the County may charge . . . the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that [t]he responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data. This Part also provides guidance on the kinds of costs that may be included in the copy charge, including materials, labor required to prepare the copies, and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided sufficient information to determine whether the County&apos;s charge of fifty cents per page plus time is allowable pursuant to Chapter 13. It is reasonable for Mr. Fiecke to request that the County provide documentation to justify its copying charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Fiecke is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Mr. Fiecke is entitled to gain access to all public data the Douglas County Sheriff&apos;s Department maintains about Jerry Werner, an employee of the Department.
&lt;p&gt;2. The Commissioner was not provided sufficient information to determine whether the County&apos;s charge of fifty cents per page plus time is allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 31, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267123</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Justification of costs</Title><Id>266537</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-063</Title><title>Opinion 96 063</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267438&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is L entitled to gain access to the medical records of L&apos;s two minor children that are maintained by Southwest Family Services?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 31, 1996; Southwest Family Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On November 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter of the same date from L. In his/her letter, L requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding L&apos;s access to certain data about L&apos;s minor children maintained by Southwest Family Services, hereinafter Southwest. Shortly thereafter, PIPA staff requested additional documentation from L which was provided on November 13, 1996.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Attached to L&apos;s opinion request were copies of several letters. The first, dated June 13, 1994, is from L to Sharon Kanters of Southwest. In this letter, L requested a copy of all records produced during the treatment of my children. The second letter is dated July 1, 1994, and is addressed to Ms. Kanters from David Himlie, an attorney representing L. In this letter, L&apos;s attorney requested a complete copy of your file with regard to your treatment of [L&apos;s children]. The third letter is a note dated November 30, 1994, from Ms. Kanters to L, which apparently accompanied a brief summary of the care of one of L&apos;s children. The fourth letter, dated January 17, 1995, is from L to Ms. Kanters. L wrote, This letter is my request for release of the records for [L&apos;s child]. I am requesting [the] complete file to date...
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to L&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sharon Kanters of Southwest. The purposes of this letter dated November 15, 1996, were to inform Ms. Kanters of L&apos;s request, and to ask her or Southwest&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Southwest&apos;s position. On November 26, 1996, PIPA received a response dated November 22, 1996, from Ms. Kanters.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. As documented, L made written requests for access to the medical records of his/her minor children on at least three different occasions. According to L, in response to his request of July 1, 1994, Ms. Kanters contacted my former [spouse] for [his/her] approval. L further wrote, [L&apos;s spouse] refused. Ms. Kanters then declined release... L did state that Ms. Kanters, in a letter dated November 30, 1994, provided a summary of the care of one of L&apos;s children upon request. However, Ms. Kanters again refused to provide the record pursuant to L&apos;s January 17, 1995, request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to L&apos;s advisory opinion request, Ms. Kanters cited a provision in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, which states that a provider may withhold medical information from the patient if the information is detrimental to the physical or mental health of the patient or is likely to cause the patient to inflict self harm, or to harm another.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kanters also wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In an effort to stay neutral as [the children&apos;s] therapist, I have declined to turn over records directly or indirectly to either parent. In the past, [L] has requested both informal and formal access to [L&apos;s child&apos;s] file. I have honored [his/her] request to review the file together in my office. I declined to turn over my files to [L&apos;s] attorneys...Releasing the file to [L] may lead to a custody evaluation. [L&apos;s former spouse] vehemently has requested that I not release the file stating it will only further litigation and conflict which [L&apos;s former spouse] hopes to keep from the children....I am willing to release this file to another neutral party such as a mediator acting as a parenting coordinator for these parents.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In L&apos;s request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is L entitled to gain access to the medical records of L&apos;s two minor children that are maintained by Southwest Family Services? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In Advisory Opinion 96-053, the Commissioner addressed the very same issue that L has raised in this opinion. In this Opinion, as in 96-053, the entity involved is apparently licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services as a Rule 29 facility. Rule 29 facilities are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 245.69, subdivision 2(f), and Minnesota Rules Section 9520.0750 - 9520.0870. Minnesota Statutes Section 245.69, subdivision 2(f), states, Data on individuals collected by approved clinics and centers, including written minutes of team meetings, is private data on individuals within the welfare system as provided in chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 9520.0800, subpart 7, client information compiled by a Rule 29 facility, including client records and minutes of case review and consultation meetings must be protected as private data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the Commissioner wrote in 96-053:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.072, the Commissioner has authority to issue advisory opinions upon the request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision. Because Children&apos;s appears to be subject to Chapter 13, the issuance of this opinion is authorized under Section 13.072. If Children&apos;s is not subject to Chapter 13, this Opinion shall have no effect. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Assuming Southwest is a Rule 29 facility, all client data maintained by Southwest about L&apos;s minor children are private data subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500, subpart 2 (B), both parents can gain access to private data about their children unless there is a state law, court order, or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. In the present situation, nothing has been presented to suggest that L should be denied access to data about his/her minor children.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kanter&apos;s main argument is based on a provision in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, which allows providers to withhold medical information from patients when the provider determines that releasing the data will cause harm to the patient or cause the patient to harm others. However, in this case, it appears her argument is not germane given that Chapter 13, not Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, controls the classification of, and access to, the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by L is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 249.69, subdivision 2 (f), and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, it appears that L is entitled to gain access (to inspect or to receive copies) to the medical records of his/her minor aged children which are maintained by Southwest Family Services. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 31, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267438</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Social services/welfare data</Title><Id>266688</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Rule 29 facilities</Title><Id>266576</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-062</Title><title>Opinion 96 062</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267349&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, was J entitled to receive a &quot;Tennessen Warning,&quot; at a meeting with J&apos;s supervisors on July 12, 1995?
Does Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, forbid a governmental entity from using for any purpose, private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning?
Did the City of Oakdale violate J&apos;s rights as a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivisions 1d (c) and 1d (d), when it closed a meeting for consideration of allegations or charges against J, when J specifically requested that the meeting be open to the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 26, 1996; City of Oakdale</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 6, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Robert Hill, on behalf of his client J (the client will be identified by a pseudonym). Mr. Hill enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Waldron, Administrator of the City of Oakdale. The purposes of this letter, dated November 8, 1996, were to inform Mr. Waldron of Mr. Hill&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 18, 1996, PIPA received a response from Dayle Nolan, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              J was a part-time, probationary employee of the City, prior to J&apos;s August 28, 1995, termination. According to Mr. Hill, in June 1995, J complained to Mr. Waldron and the City&apos;s Community Development Director, Brent Brommer, about another City employee. Mr. Brommer told J that he was aware of some problems, and that he would investigate the situation.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              J was asked to attend a meeting with Mr. Waldron and Mr. Brommer on July 12, 1995. At that meeting, they asked J . . . questions regarding whether [J] had contacted the Mayor regarding the problems [J] observed . . . . J said s/he did contact the Mayor. According to Mr. Hill, Mr. Waldron responded to J that . . . by doing so, it puts the issues on a whole different level. Mr. Hill did not say whether anything else was discussed at that meeting.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a memorandum dated July 17, 1995, Mr. Brommer wrote to J: [a]s you are aware, recent problems involving [the other City employee] have disrupted production within the department. Meetings have been held with Administration to get all points of view. . . . Further incidence [sic] related to the above will result in suspension and potentially leading [sic] to termination based on the recommendation and authority of the City Administrator.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               In a memorandum dated August 16, 1995, Mr. Brommer and Mr. Waldron informed J that s/he was . . . placed on &lt;u&gt;administrative leave with pay effective immediately&lt;/u&gt;, with the intent to have the Administrator&apos;s recommendation to have you dismissed from employment with the City acted upon at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on August 22, 1995. (Emphasis theirs.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               Further communication between J and the City followed, and subsequently, in a letter dated August 21, 1995, Mr. Brommer wrote to J: [t]he City can &lt;u&gt;close&lt;/u&gt;a meeting for pending litigation. However, we will focus the time for your discussion, thus it is your option if you want it open or closed. (Emphasis his.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter to the City dated August 22, 1995, J wrote: I respectfully opt to choose to request an open meeting . . . . According to Mr. Hill, J&apos;s request for an open meeting was denied, and the Mayor and City Council considered the recommendation for J&apos;s termination at a closed door session at which J was present. According to Mr. Hill, [a]t the conclusion of this closed door session, the Mayor and members of [the] City Council unanimously vote to terminate [J] . . . .
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her response to the first issue to be addressed in this opinion, Ms. Nolan wrote that in the July 12, 1995, meeting J had with Mr. Waldron and Mr. Brommer:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;After receiving confirmation from J that [J] had spoken to the mayor, Mr. Waldron and Mr. Brommer explained that, although J was free to raise [her/his] concerns directly with the mayor, problems could be solved most efficiently by addressing issues within the normal reporting structure. Neither the substance of [J&apos;s] discussion with the mayor nor the basis for [J&apos;s] complaint was discussed . . . . J was not questioned about any private or confidential data concerning [J.] Therefore, [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2,] is inapplicable.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Regarding the second issue, Ms. Nolan wrote: [a]s no private or confidential data was collected from J, it is unnecessary to analyze the application of [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4.]
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the third issue, Ms. Nolan wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Contrary to Mr. Hill&apos;s assertion, the [City Council] meeting which was held on August 22, 1995 was an open meeting, pursuant to J&apos;s request. Although the meeting was not held in the Council Chambers, it was an open meeting. . . . In order to close that meeting, the Council would have had to comply with [Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705] by stating, for the record, the basis upon which the meeting was being closed. As the meeting was conducted as an open meeting, this procedural requirement was never invoked.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, was J entitled to receive a Tennessen Warning, at a meeting with J&apos;s supervisors on July 12, 1995?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, forbid a governmental entity from using for any purpose, private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the City of Oakdale violate J&apos;s rights as a data subject, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivisions 1d (c) and 1d (d), when it closed a meeting for consideration of allegations or charges against J, when J specifically requested that the meeting be open to the public?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                   Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, provides the notice requirement commonly referred to as a Tennessen Warning. When a government entity a&lt;u&gt;sks a data subject to provide private or confidential data about her/himself&lt;/u&gt;, the entity must inform the individual how it intends to use the data, and for what purpose, whether the individual may legally refuse to supply the data, the consequences of providing or not providing the data, and the identity of others who are authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The purpose of the Tennessen Warning requirement is to give sufficient information to an individual from whom a government entity wants to collect data to enable her/him to make an informed choice as to whether s/he wants to provide the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in order to address the first issue, it is necessary to determine whether J was asked to supply the data to the City, and if so, if the data are about J, and if so, if the data are classified as private or confidential. If those conditions apply, the City was required to give J a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, provides that personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision. Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, provide that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to both Mr. Hill and Ms. Nolan, at the July 12, 1995, meeting, J was asked whether s/he had discussed her/his concerns about the other employee with the Mayor. Mr. Hill maintains that the data J was asked to supply were private data. Ms. Nolan disagrees. The Commissioner was provided no detail as to the exact nature and scope of the questions J was asked. If J was asked to provide data about another employee, the City was not required to give J a Tennessen Warning. A Tennessen Warning was required only if J was asked to provide private or confidential data about her/himself. Based on the scant information provided, about which the parties disagree, it appears that J was asked if s/he made contact with the Mayor, which appear to be data about J. From the vague description provided, the data do not appear to be classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, it appears that the data J was asked to supply were private personnel data. If that is the case, J should have been given a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the second issue, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, in relevant part, provides: [p]rivate or confidential data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by political subdivisions, statewide systems, or state agencies for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There are strict limitations imposed on a government entity regarding any data it collects without giving the Tennessen Warning notice required by statute. That is, those data may not be stored, used or disseminated except as provided in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, as cited above. Apparently none of the exceptions that are provided in clauses a-e applies in this case. The City may not use the data it collected from J at the July 12, 1995, meeting for any purpose. That conclusion is based on the assumption that J was asked to supply the City with private data about her/himself, absent a Tennessen Warning. If J was not asked to provide private or confidential data about her/himself, Section 13.05, subdivision 4, is not applicable. (For an in-depth discussion of this issue, please see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-028.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding the third issue, Ms. Nolan questioned the Commissioner&apos;s jurisdiction to render opinions regarding [Section 471.705], the Open Meeting Law. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that it is within her jurisdiction. Please see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-033 for a discussion of that point.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 471.705, subdivisions 1d (c) and 1d (d), provide that when a public body is meeting for either preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against, or the performance of, an individual subject to its authority, the meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    J requested that the August 22, 1995, City Council meeting, at which J&apos;s termination was discussed and decided upon, be open. Mr. Hill and Ms. Nolan disagree about whether the meeting was open or closed. Depending upon how the notice and posting requirements provided in Section 471.705, subdivision 1c, were handled by the City, the fact that the meeting was not held in Council chambers doesn&apos;t mean that the meeting was closed. From the information provided, the Commissioner cannot conclude that the meeting was closed. However, if it was, it should have been open, as J requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Hill is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;dd&gt;
                              1. The data J was asked to supply at the July 12, 1995, meeting do not appear to be classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, the data appear to be private personnel data. If that is the case, J should have been given a Tennessen Warning.
                              &lt;p&gt;
                                2. The City did not give J a Tennessen Warning and, therefore, it may not use the data collected from J at the July 12, 1995, meeting.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                3. From the information provided, the Commissioner cannot conclude that the August 22, 1995, City Council meeting was closed. However, if it was, it should have been open as J requested, pursuant to Section 471.705, subdivisions 1d (c) and 1d (d).
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 26, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267349</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open at employee request</Title><Id>266592</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-061</Title><title>Opinion 96 061</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267562&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-18T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Chisago Lakes Independent School District 2144 violate A&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about A?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 18, 1996; School District 2144 (Chisago Lakes)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated October 15, 1996, from Douglas Sauter, an attorney representing A. In his letter, Mr. Sauter requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the possible inappropriate dissemination of data about A maintained by Chisago Lakes Independent School District 2144, hereinafter ISD #2144. By telephone, PIPA staff contacted Mr. Sauter&apos;s office in an attempt to clarify the issue he had raised in his letter. Subsequently, Mr. Sauter submitted an amended request, dated October 25, 1996, to the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Sauter&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Darrold Williams, Superintendent of ISD #2144. The purposes of this letter dated October 29, 1996, were to inform Mr. Williams of Mr. Sauter&apos;s request, and to ask him or ISD #2144&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On November 15, 1996, PIPA received a response dated November 13, 1996, from Patricia Maloney and Joseph Langel, attorneys representing ISD #2144.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In the spring of 1995, A was a student at a school in ISD #2144. According to Mr. Sauter, during April, A&apos;s mother was contacted by the assistant principal and urged to attend a meeting regarding A&apos;s safety. At the May 1, 1995, meeting, which both of A&apos;s parents attended, several people were present. During the meeting, according to Mr. Sauter, private data about A, which were contained in a report entitled, [A] Behaviors and Interventions 94-95, were disseminated. A copy of this report was provided to the Commissioner. Of particular concern to Mr. Sauter was the dissemination of some of the data in the report data to one of the attendees, W, who apparently had had some interaction with A and whose child also had had some interaction with A. Mr. Sauter stated that in his/her notes regarding the meeting, the assistant principal had written, we tried to show the parents how [A&apos;s] behavior is escalating in the number and variety of sexually inappropriate comments [A] is making to staff and other students. As part of his original opinion request, Mr. Sauter had included statements made by A&apos;s parents that W disseminated the claim that [A] had raped [W&apos;s child] throughout the school which caused [A&apos;s] suspension and made [A&apos;s] return to school impossible.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Sauter argued that, for several reasons, W should not have had access to the data about A. One is that W&apos;s position with the District is that of a paraprofessional that simply supervises the in-school-suspension (ISS) program which is a position that is at the bottom of the hierarchy of employees in a school setting....[W&apos;s] job is to supervise and assist students with their regular homeroom activities who have violated a school rule in their homeroom. Mr. Sauter further wrote that W was never involved in any staffing or other meetings involving A, prior to the meeting in May of 1995. In addition, Mr. Sauter noted that in the assistant principal&apos;s notes of the meeting, she wrote, [W] was present to let the parents know about a specific sexual comment (threat) made to [W] January 4, 1995. (A copy of these notes was provided to the Commissioner.) Mr. Sauter commented, It was not the school&apos;s intent for [W] to evaluate [A] for ISS. As a result, and to the detriment of my client, [W] gained access to [A&apos;s] private data at this meeting because of [W&apos;s] presence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In their response, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote first that the Commissioner has no authority to determine whether a statutory violation has occurred. Second, they argued there was no evidence that private educational data was released. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote that the May 1, 1995, meeting was called for the purpose of discussing the discipline of A and that the form of discipline contemplated by the District was suspension from school. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote, [W] is a paraprofessional in charge of the Behavior Room. The Behavior Room is where [some students] are sent in order to serve in-school suspensions. [Some students] given in-school suspensions report to [W], who supervises and assists them while they are away from their regular classrooms. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel further wrote that at the meeting, which they referred to as lasting only five to ten minutes and consisting of A&apos;s parents launching into repeated tirades against the school officials, very little of substance was discussed. They stated, Thus, as a practical matter, [W] was exposed to little or no educational data that [s/he] did not already know about as a result of performing [his/her] job duties.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The third argument made by Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel is that W&apos;s work assignment reasonably required that she gain access to any data that were disseminated. They stated that W was at the meeting to convey to A&apos;s parents the nature of the underlying incidents as well as to assist in illustrating how those incidents were escalating. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel added that W attended the meeting also to explain to A&apos;s parents why an in-school suspension was not an option. They wrote, [W] was at the conference to provide information regarding (1) the need for a suspension and (2) the form of the suspension. [The assistant principal&apos;s] act of requesting [W&apos;s] attendance for those reasons was well within [the assistant principal&apos;s] discretion, as [s/he] was merely trying to assemble the personnel who could best relay the information that needed to be discussed.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sauter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Chisago Lakes Independent School District 2144 violate A&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about A? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  First, the Commissioner must address the statement by Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel that she (the Commissioner) has no authority to determine whether a statutory violation has occurred. The law firm with which Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel are employed, Ratwik, Rozak, amp; Maloney, has asserted this very same argument while representing other government entities that have been involved in previous advisory opinions. Each time the argument has been made, the Commissioner&apos;s position has been that the Legislature has conferred upon her sufficient authority to address that issue. (For further information, please see Advisory Opinions 93-004, 95-029, and 95-052.) In regard to this Opinion, her position has not changed.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, all data maintained about students by a public educational institution are educational data. Generally speaking, educational data are private data and are accessible only to the data subject (and his/her parents if the subject is a minor, see Section 13.02, subdivision 8), and those persons within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require that they have access to those data. (See also Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2.) In the present situation, Mr. Sauter has asserted that information discussed (released) at the May 1, 1995, meeting is educational data about A, that the dissemination of those data to W was inappropriate because W&apos;s work assignment did not require that W gain access to those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel argued that private educational data were not released at the meeting. They stated that the meeting was very brief and primarily consisted of [A&apos;s parents]launching into repeated tirades against the school officials. They also wrote, Because of [A&apos;s parents&apos;] outbursts, very little if anything of substance was ever discussed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, based on the following statements, it appears to the Commissioner that some of the discussion about A may have come directly from the Behaviors and Interventions report which was created and maintained by ISD #2144. Mr. Sauter wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...the presence of [W] at this meeting was a violation of state law because [s/he] was present when the material in the Behaviors and Interventions report was discussed. In particular [the assistant principal] notes
                          &lt;h2&gt;
                            we tried to show the parents how [A&apos;s] behavior is escalating in the number and variety of sexually inappropriate comments [s/he] is making to staff and students.
                          &lt;/h2&gt;
                          This was accomplished by disclosing the data that is recorded in the Behaviors and Interventions report as proof that these incidents occurred.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote, ...only two items were even brought up: [A&apos;s] sexually inappropriate comments and...As discussed below, [W] already knew of many of the inappropriate comments... However, regardless of whether W knew about the inappropriate comments, if those data were private government data (created and maintained by ISD #2144 about A) and were then disseminated in W&apos;s presence, a dissemination of private data did occur.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The next question is whether or not W was entitled to gain access to the private data about A. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that access to private data shall be available to those individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access to those data. The Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, section 99.31, states that an educational institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without consent if the disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote that W was invited to the meeting for two reasons. One is that s/he had personal knowledge of a number of incidents that lead to the need for a conference. They wrote, [W] also knew of some of [A&apos;s] past behavior as a result of [his/her] job as a hall monitor....[W] was at the conference to convey to [A&apos;s] parents the nature of the underlying incidents that [s/he] was aware of and to help [an ISD #2144 employee] and the other school officials illustrate how those incidents were escalating, thus evincing the need for a suspension. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel further wrote, This input is consistent with [W&apos;s] job duties, which include helping the professional staff evaluate students. A copy of W&apos;s job description was attached to ISD #2144&apos;s response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second reason for W&apos;s attendance at the meeting was to explain to [A&apos;s parents] why an in-school-suspension was not an option. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote that because of the threats and comments A had directed at W, it would not have been possible for A to be placed in ISS with W as the supervisor. Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel also stated it would not have been feasible for another staff member to take over, or assist with, W&apos;s duties. Therefore, W was needed to explain why an out-of-school suspension was the only alternative.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Sauter argued that W is a paraprofessional that simply supervises the in-school-suspension (ISS) program which is a position that is at the bottom of the hierarchy of employees in a school setting. He further wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[W&apos;s] job is to supervise and assist students with their regular homeroom activities who have violated a school rule in their homeroom. In addition, it is important to note that [W] was never involved in any staffing or other meetings of any nature involving [A] prior to this conference. Furthermore, the notes of the administrative conference state that the presence of [W] at the meeting was for [W] to comment on a specific incident between [W] and [A].
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Did W&apos;s work assignment reasonably require that s/he be entitled to gain access to the private educational data about A? According to the job description provided to PIPA by Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel, W is a paraprofessional employed by ISD #2144 who works with a certain group of children. Most of W&apos;s performance responsibilities are to assist and help the teacher to whom W has been assigned. W&apos;s specific responsibility of supervising the behavior room is not listed as one of his/her responsibilities, but helping to evaluate student&apos;s progress is included in the list.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the information provided by both sides of this dispute, any meeting involving A&apos;s parents and W was going to be emotionally charged. Regardless, ISD #2144 apparently determined it was necessary to bring the parties together to discuss disciplinary action to be taken against A. The key, however, is whether W had a legitimate educational interest or whether his/her work assignment reasonably required access to the educational data about A that was discussed at the meeting.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In their response, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel wrote, ...[W] was at the conference to explain to [A&apos;s parents] why an in-school suspension was not an option. However, the District did not clarify why it was necessary for W to be present to explain that ISS was not an option. This is troubling given the allegations made against A by W, and the reasonable emotions associated with those allegations. Based on the fact that W is a &lt;u&gt;paraprofessional&lt;/u&gt;and most likely did not make the final determination that an in-school-suspension was not a suitable option, it does not appear that W was needed at a meeting at which sensitive private educational data about A would be discussed. Further, since ISS was apparently not an option, it seems that W was not going to be involved in the discipline of A. Thus, doubt is cast on whether W&apos;s presence at the meeting, and the disclosure of private data about A which ensued, was, in actuality, necessary.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The logical follow-up question is as follows. If it was not necessary for W to be physically present at the meeting, would ISD #2144 have disclosed the contents of the Behaviors and Incidents report to W in another setting? In their response, Ms. Maloney and Mr. Langel argued why W&apos;s presence at the meeting was necessary. However, they did not identify any specific reasons that W&apos;s work assignment required access to those data, or that W had a legitimate educational interest in those data. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion, based on the limited information provided, that W should not have been provided access to the data about A.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sauter is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the data disseminated in W&apos;s presence at the May 1, 1995, meeting were contained in the Behaviors and Incidents Report, it appears that Chisago Lakes Independent School District 2144 did violate A&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about A. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 18, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267562</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-060</Title><title>Opinion 96 060</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267994&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-18T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 in response to a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 18, 1996; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated October 24, 1996, from Thomas Casey. In his letter, Mr. Casey requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain government data maintained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, hereinafter MPCA.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Casey&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peder Larson, Acting Commissioner of the MPCA. The purposes of this letter dated November 1, 1996, were to inform Mr. Larson of Mr. Casey&apos;s request, and to ask him or the MPCA&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the MPCA&apos;s position. On November 13, 1996, PIPA received a response dated November 8, 1996, from Mr. Larson.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated August 15, 1996, addressed to Ronald Massey of the MPCA, Mr. Casey requested a copy of
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              all public data&apos;
            &lt;/h2&gt;
             in the possession of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that pertains to the [proposed Lost Lake wetland dredge City of Mound, MN]. In his letter, Mr. Casey also included some of the specific data items to which he was seeking access. In addition, Mr. Casey wrote, This request is deemed continuing. I would appreciate your courtesy in sending me a copy of all subsequent data a&lt;u&gt;t the time the data is generated.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               In a letter dated October 7, 1996, Mr. Casey wrote again to Mr. Massey and stated, It has been &lt;u&gt;over 45 days&lt;/u&gt;and the Pollution Control Agency has still not responded to my request. Also in a letter dated October 7, 1996, Mr. Casey wrote to Mary DeZurik of the MPCA. The content of this letter was similar to that of the letter addressed to Mr. Massey with the following addition: I have been informed that you are the person who is designated to receive formal requests pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.03.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated October 24, 1996, Mr. Casey again wrote to Ms. DeZurik and noted that he had not received any response to his October 7, 1996, request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his November 8, 1996, response to Mr. Casey&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Larson wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;We apologize to Mr. Casey for not following up on his previous requests. Simply stated, our system for handling these types of requests broke down. As for the status of Mr. Casey&apos;s request, we have since express-mailed him out our entire file pertaining to his request and have been in dialogue with him to assure that he has received it, which the now has, and to assist him in getting answers to any questions he may still have regarding the project....In providing Mr. Casey a copy of our entire file on this project, we believe that our obligations under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act have been satisfied and further investigations by [Minnesota Department of Administration/PIPA] on this matter are no longer necessary.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Casey asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 in response to a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                   Because there is no dispute that the data in question are public, the statutory language which addresses the issue raised by Mr. Casey can be found in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. This provision sets forth the requirements imposed upon government entities in responding to requests for access to public government data. In part, Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states that the responsible authority shall establish procedures to ensure that requests for public government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Further, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in part, states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy government data at reasonable times and places...The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public data upon request....If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as 
									&lt;u&gt;reasonably&lt;/u&gt;
									possible. (Emphasis added.)
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Casey made his first request to the MPCA in a letter dated August 15, 1996. He received no response to that request. Mr. Casey made a second request, apparently to the responsible authority&apos;s designee, on October 7, 1996. It appears he received no response to that request until after he requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner. The opinion request was dated October 24, 1996. Based on the fact that Section 13.03 requires responses to be made in a prompt manner and copies of data to be supplied as soon as reasonably possible, the MPCA did not comply with Section 13.03 given that at least 2 months passed before Mr. Casey received any response from the agency. Further, Mr. Larson acknowledged the error when he stated, Simply stated, our system for handling these types of requests broke down.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although the MPCA has made a response to Mr. Casey&apos;s original request for copies of public data, it is still not entirely clear whether the MPCA has supplied to Mr. Casey copies of all the public data he wishes to obtain. Mr. Casey reported to PIPA staff that he has not received access to all the data he originally requested. Mr. Larson noted that the MPCA was not sure that it had satisfied all of [Mr. Casey&apos;s] concerns pertaining to this project. However, he did note that his staff are maintaining a continued dialogue with Mr. Casey and are committed to assist him in obtaining any reasonable requests for information or work products which may not have been established or completed. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, it is Mr. Casey&apos;s right to request and be provided with copies of public data. Therefore, if the MPCA has not provided Mr. Casey with copies of the data he has requested, pursuant to Section 13.03, the MPCA should promptly do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Casey is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency did not comply with the time frame requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 in responding to Mr. Casey&apos;s request for copies of public government data. It is not clear whether Mr. Casey has received copies of all the data he requested. However, if Mr. Casey has not received copies of all the data he requested, the MPCA should promptly furnish him with copies of the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 18, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267994</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Summary data</Title><Id>266511</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-059</Title><title>Opinion 96 059</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267201&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-18T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of summary accident history data contained in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety accident report database?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 18, 1996; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 29, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Donald Davis, Acting Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, hereinafter DPS. In his letter, Commissioner Davis requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the DPS. Commissioner Davis provided some additional information to correct a technical error, and to provide clarification, on December 9, 1996.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Peace officers in Minnesota submit traffic accident reports to the Commissioner of Public Safety, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, subdivision 8. Pursuant to Section 169.09, subdivision 13, the reports, and the data in the reports, are confidential.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The DPS maintains the reports it receives in a computerized database. Periodically, DPS receives requests for summary accident data. According to Commissioner Davis, the computerized reports are . . . available for statistical research, including our need to meet the requirement of [Section] 169.10 that ... the Department of Public Safety shall ... publish statistical information ... as to the number and circumstances of traffic accidents.&apos;
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Commissioner Davis wrote: On the one hand, I feel that the information is confidential and may not be released to the public [pursuant to Section 169.09, and 23 United States Code Section 409] . . . . However, an argument could be made for release of the summary data pursuant to [Section 13.05, subdivision 7], as disclosure of summary data . . . derived from confidential data is permitted. Commissioner Davis further stated: [w]e in Public Safety are very conscious of the law&apos;s protection of the accident report and its individual data as confidential, but we are just as concerned that public information is made accessible, and that legitimate research needs are accommodated.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Davis asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of summary accident history data contained in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety accident report database? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 169.09, subdivision 13, provides that all written reports and supplemental reports required under this Section are confidential and shall be for the use of the Commissioner of Public Safety and other appropriate state, federal, county, and municipal governmental agencies for accident analysis purposes, with certain exceptions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 5, confidential data on individuals are not public data in which an individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, and which are also inaccessible to the individual data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data are defined as statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which &lt;u&gt;individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, [t]he use of summary data derived from private or confidential data on individuals . . . is permitted. Unless classified pursuant to section 13.06, another statute, or federal law, summary data is public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As Commissioner Davis noted, traffic accident reports containing data on individuals are confidential pursuant to Section 169.09, subdivision 13. Confidential data are, by definition, data on individuals, i.e., data in which an individual is or can be identified. Summary data are not data on individuals, i.e., data in which an individual is not or cannot be identified. Thus, summary data derived from confidential traffic accident reports are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The federal law cited by Commissioner Davis does not classify data as not public within the classification system provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 23 United States Code Section 409 provides: [n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings . . . shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In other words, the federal law prevents the discovery or admission into evidence of various types of traffic accident data. (This is similar to the provision in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, subdivision 13 (b), which prohibits the discovery or use as evidence of data in traffic accident reports filed pursuant to that Section.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To interpret the federal law to mean that even summary data are not public would mean that no data whatsoever about traffic accidents, derived from reports filed pursuant to Section 169.09, would be public. The Commissioner concludes that is not a result intended by federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue Commissioner Davis is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, summary accident history data derived from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety accident report database are public data, as long as individuals cannot be identified from the summary data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 18, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267201</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)</Title><Id>266514</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-058</Title><title>Opinion 96 058</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267518&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-11T16:17:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is the entire report about the City of Montevideo Police Department classified as public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 1996; City of Montevideo</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from James E. Norman, City Manager for the City of Montevideo. In his letter, Mr. Norman requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data in a consultant&apos;s report to the City. Mr. Norman enclosed a copy of the report.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Early in 1996, the City retained a consultant to study the City&apos;s Police Department, identify problems, and make recommendations to the City for resolving the problems. The consultant&apos;s report addresses both organizational problems and personnel issues.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Norman, some of the City&apos;s police officers want to discuss the report at an open meeting, and [t]he City is concerned that to the extent the report addresses personnel issues, it is private data and should not be discussed publicly.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Norman asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is the entire report about the City of Montevideo Police Department classified as public? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision. Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, provide that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A review of the report reveals that it contains both general statements about the City&apos;s Police Department, as well as comments that appear to be in the nature of performance evaluations about specific City personnel.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals are all government data in which any individual &lt;u&gt;is or can be identified&lt;/u&gt;as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given that definition, the report contains both data on individuals, and data not on individuals. Therefore, the City must conduct a critical examination of the report to determine whether any of the data identify, or could identify, City employees. The City must then determine whether the data that identify City employees in the report are classified as either public or private, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Performance evaluations and other opinions about the performance of public employees are private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data in the report that are not data on individuals, but are general statements about the Police Department, and other City departments and how these departments operate, are presumed to be public data, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Norman is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The entire report is not public data. Data in the report in which an individual is identified or from which an individual can be identified may be public or private, pursuant to Section 13.43. Data in the report that are not data on individuals are presumed to be public data, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 11, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267518</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consultants</Title><Id>266758</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Performance data/evaluations</Title><Id>266625</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-057</Title><title>Opinion 96 057</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267373&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-11T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is Mr. Claypatch entitled to gain access to copies of the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection, Inc., on the Byrne and Neil elementary school projects?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 1996; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 7, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Stephen Claypatch. In that letter, Mr. Claypatch described his attempts to gain access to certain data he believed to be maintained by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry ( DOLI ). Mr. Claypatch enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Claypatch&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Bastian, Commissioner of DOLI. The purposes of this letter, dated October 11, 1996, were to inform Commissioner Bastian of Mr. Claypatch&apos;s request, to ask him or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 21, 1996, PIPA received a response from Commissioner Bastian. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Claypatch and Commissioner Bastian, in March 1996, the Labor Standards Division of DOLI reviewed the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection, Inc., as part of DOLI&apos;s responsibilities under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 177. In a letter dated March 20, 1996, DOLI wrote to John Sjoberg of Shaw-Lundquist Associates, Inc.: [t]his office has reviewed the certified payroll records in regard to the [Byrne and Neil elementary school projects] and find that, according to the records, Total Fire Protection is in compliance with the requirements of prevailing wage. . . . Your records are returned by separate cover.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated April 30, 1996, Mr. Claypatch asked to view the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection that DOLI relied upon to reach its determination. In response to Mr. Claypatch, Erik K. Oelker, an investigator at DOLI, wrote: . . . those payroll records were the property of Total Fire Protection and were returned to them. The Department did not retain copies. . . . It is impossible for us to allow you access to something which is not in our possession and control regardless of what classification the data would have under Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes, if it were in our possession and control.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Claypatch said he subsequently spoke, met and corresponded with Commissioner Bastian and others in DOLI, and expressed concern that by not retaining copies of the payroll records, DOLI was violating Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17, the Records Management Act. DOLI continued to deny him access to the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his opinion request, Mr. Claypatch wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I believe that Labor and Industry was erroneous in their determination of compliance of payment of wages on the specific projects in question. If the public is refused access to the same information used to make these determinations, then I feel the Department of Labor and Industry, Labor Standards Division, has significant unchallengeable authority. I cannot believe that this agency is exempt from scrutiny from the public.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Commissioner Bastian said when the Labor Standards Division investigates complaints, it requests payroll records from complained-about employers. The Division reviews the records, and if it finds a discrepancy, it prepares a worksheet containing calculations for each discrepancy. According to Commissioner Bastian, if a violation is found, the Division notifies the employer of the violation and the amounts owed to employees. The payroll records are returned to the employer and the Division keeps a record of the worksheet showing the calculations for the discrepancies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              If DOLI determines that no violation occurred, a letter confirming DOLI has not found a violation is sent to the employer. In that case, the Division retains a copy of the letter of confirmation sent to the employer and returns the payroll records, used to make the determination, to the employer.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In reference to DOLI&apos;s practice of returning the payroll records to the employer, and not retaining copies, Commissioner Bastian wrote: [t]he records retention sections of the Minnesota Statutes do not require the department to maintain the records that Mr. Claypatch requests. Commissioner Bastian relies upon provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.05 and 15.17, in support of DOLI&apos;s position. According to Commissioner Bastian, once the Department has completed an investigation, [t]he purpose for collecting and storing these documents has been served. Continued storage of these records in such cases is beyond what is [authorized in Section 13.05, subdivision 3], which provides: [c]ollection and storage of all data on individuals and the use and dissemination of private and confidential data on individuals shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Commissioner Bastian also wrote that the Department has complied with the requirements of Section 15.17, subdivision 1, which provides: [a]ll officers and agencies of the state, . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. According to Commissioner Bastian:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The department keeps and maintains records of its investigations where no violation has been found. Since no violation of our statutes has been found, the department will have no further official activities regarding the payment of wages by the particular employer in question. Thus, all records have been retained which are necessary to provide a full and accurate knowledge&apos; of official activities regarding the particular employer in question. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
            In regard to how the payroll records are classified, Commissioner Bastian wrote:
            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The records Mr. Claypatch is requesting are classified as investigative data when they are in the department&apos;s custody for purposes of reviewing them for possible prevailing wage violations. The data contained in these records is classified as confidential investigative data under Minn. Stat. Section 13.39, Subdivision 2 . . . . Thus, by law the department is not allowed to disseminate to Mr. Claypatch the records he is requesting. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
            Commissioner Bastian further noted that pursuant to Section 13.39, inactive investigative data are classified as public. However, because DOLI returns the payroll records to the employer, . . . the department is not in possession of inactive investigative data which would be available for public inspection.
            &lt;p&gt;
              Both Mr. Claypatch and Commissioner Bastian acknowledged that certified payroll records may contain employee&apos;s Social Security numbers.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Claypatch asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is Mr. Claypatch entitled to gain access to copies of the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection, Inc., on the Byrne and Neil elementary school projects? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  DOLI&apos;s position is that it has no obligation to retain originals or copies of the certified payroll records it reviews in order to determine whether or not an employer has violated provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 177. According to Commissioner Bastian, those records are classified as investigative data under Section 13.39 while they are in DOLI&apos;s possession. Commissioner Bastian stated that those same records would be classified as public after DOLI makes its determination, but, because DOLI doesn&apos;t retain copies of the records, . . . the department is not in possession of inactive investigative data which would be available for public inspection.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Claypatch argues that if DOLI is not obligated to retain the data upon which it relied to determine whether or not a violation of law occurred, and therefore those data are unavailable for public inspection, that DOLI . . . has significant unchallengeable authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As noted by Commissioner Bastian, Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, subdivision 1, provides: [a]ll officers and agencies of the state . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. In its comments on Mr. Claypatch&apos;s opinion request, DOLI made no mention of the requirements of the State&apos;s Records Management Statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 138.163 and the following Sections.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records &lt;u&gt;only as provided by that Chapter&lt;/u&gt;. (See Section 138.163.) Pursuant to Section 138.17, government entities must seek the approval of the Records Disposition Panel before they may dispose of government records. Pursuant to Section 138.17, subdivision 1, government records are defined to include all . . . data, information, or documentary material . . . made or received by an officer or agency of the state . . . pursuant to state law or in connection with the transaction of public business by an officer or agency . . . . (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to DOLI&apos;s record retention schedule on file in the offices of PIPA, DOLI retains rules and records of wage determinations and challenges for three years. According to that same schedule, they are classified as public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The description of the records on the retention schedule, i.e., rules and records of wage determinations and challenges, is so vague that it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine if the certified payroll records are meant to be included.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature has established a process whereby government records may be properly disposed. Mr. Claypatch makes a valid argument that if DOLI were not required to retain copies of the certified payroll records for at least some period of time, it would not be possible for the public to hold DOLI accountable for its determinations. The public has an interest in reviewing determinations of government entities, regardless of whether or not a violation of law has been found. The public access provisions of Chapter 13, which strongly favor public access to government data, would be frustrated if government entities did not follows Chapters 15 and 138.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From the information provided to the Commissioner, it appears that the payroll records are the only records upon which DOLI bases its determination regarding a violation. However, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine if that is indeed the case. Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15.17 and 138.17, if the payroll records are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of its official activities, DOLI should be retaining copies of the certified payroll records, unless it receives permission from the Records Disposition Panel to do otherwise. If the payroll records are not records which fall under the provisions of Sections 15.17 and 138.17, then they need not be retained. If DOLI ought to be retaining copies of the certified payroll records, it should take whatever steps are necessary to obtain copies, and to allow Mr. Claypatch to have access to them. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-035.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Commissioner Bastian stated that the certified payroll records are voluminous, and it would be burdensome to DOLI to retain them. In addition to requiring retention of government records for accountability purposes, the Legislature has provided in Section 138.17 that various storage media for those records are acceptable. Therefore, DOLI is not required to store &lt;u&gt;paper&lt;/u&gt;copies of the payroll records. The Records Management Statute provides DOLI the means to manage public records efficiently, while balancing that efficiency against public accountability.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Bastian also stated that, although the question of the classification of the payroll records is moot because DOLI doesn&apos;t retain copies, nonetheless the data are not available to Mr. Claypatch pursuant to Section 13.39. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with that position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2 of Section 13.39 provides that data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems, as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) or as confidential (data on individuals). Subdivision 3 provides that, with certain exceptions, inactive civil investigative data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to the information provided, DOLI&apos;s Labor Standards Division collects certified payroll records from employers in order to investigate complaints the Division receives. In the case of the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection, no violation was found. Therefore, it does not appear that those records may properly be classified under Section 13.39. Perhaps with a different factual setting, a different conclusion may be reached.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally Commissioner Bastian stated that employers provide DOLI with payroll records . . . with the belief that the information will be used for the purposes for which it was requested. If we began to abuse our power in the handling and use of these records, the trust necessary for the efficient operation of our law enforcement activities would be seriously compromised. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, public access to government data may be denied solely on the basis that the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law. If DOLI believes the certified payroll records ought not to be public, it may apply to the Commissioner for a temporary classification, or seek a different classification from the Legislature.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As acknowledged by both Mr. Claypatch and Commissioner Bastian, the certified payroll records of employers may contain employee&apos;s Social Security numbers. Pursuant to Section 13.49, Social Security numbers are private data, and must be deleted from the data DOLI makes accessible to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Claypatch is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Sections 15.17 and 138.17, if the certified payroll records of Total Fire Protection, Inc., on the Byrne and Neil elementary school projects, are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of its official activities, DOLI should be retaining copies of those records, unless it receives permission from the Records Disposition Panel to do otherwise. If that is the case, Mr. Claypatch is entitled to gain access to copies of the records, absent any private data contained therein. Pursuant to Section 138.17, DOLI should retain copies of the certified payroll records it collects from employers for a period of three years unless some other retention period or disposal method is authorized. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 11, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267373</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor and Industry Department</Title><Id>266544</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records retention schedule</Title><Id>266534</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Schedules/calendars</Title><Id>266496</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-056</Title><title>Opinion 96 056</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267237&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-11T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Browning have the right to gain access to a copy of Mr. McKenna&apos;s appointment book?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 1996; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               On October 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Dan Browning, a reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In that letter, Mr. Browning described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Ramsey County. (In the letter requesting this opinion, Mr. Browning was joined by David Shaffer, another &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; reporter. Mr. Shaffer asked the Commissioner to address a similar issue involving the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, which is the subject of Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 96-055.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Browning&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Terry Schutten, Ramsey County Manager. The purposes of this letter, dated October 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Schutten of Mr. Browning&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              PIPA did not receive a response from Mr. Schutten. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Browning, he has been seeking access to copies of an appointment book maintained by Lou McKenna, a former County employee, since September 20, 1996. Initially, Ramsey County Assistant Attorney Darwin Lookingbill told him that the appointment book did not exist. Subsequently, Mr. Browning learned that the appointment book did exist, but that it had disappeared following his second request for it, which was made September 25, 1996. Mr. Lookingbill indicated to Mr. Browning that he (Lookingbill) had been misled about the existence of the book.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 11, Mr. Browning again asked Mr. Lookingbill for access to the appointment book. According to Mr. Browning, Mr. Lookingbill said he did not consider it a public document. Mr. Browning asked for a written explanation, which he did not receive from Mr. Lookingbill.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Browning wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In casual conversations, Mr. Lookingbill indicated there was a split in his office about whether the document was public. One side argued that it&apos;s personnel data, and as such, would be non-public. The other side argued that it was a county document, and because it&apos;s not explicitly defined as private or non-public, it is presumed to be public. Of course, [I] believe it is the latter.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      Appointment calendars are not personnel data.&apos; Personnel data is defined at the beginning of [Section] 13.43 as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee&apos; of government. Calendars are not collected&apos; for someone&apos;s personnel file; they are records of an employee&apos;s work, not substantially different from telephone records. The calendars are presumptively public under [Section] 13.01 Subd. 3 if not explicitly public under [Section] 13.43 Subd. 2(a)(8).
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Browning have the right to gain access to a copy of Mr. McKenna&apos;s appointment book?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, it is reasonable to determine that the data in an appointment book were collected and created because the individual is or was a public employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When the Legislature enacted Section 13.43, it intended for its operation to be fairly simple. Specific personnel data were classified as public, and all other personnel data were classified as private. (See Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) It is the Commissioner&apos;s view that the data in Mr. McKenna&apos;s appointment book are personnel data, because they were collected and created because Mr. McKenna was an employee of the County. Although the County provided no response, the Commissioner assumes that the data in the appointment book are not data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. (This is consistent with the conclusion the Commissioner reached in Advisory Opinion 96-055.) Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the data in Mr. McKenna&apos;s appointment book are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner acknowledges that, in light of the strong legislative policy of public accountability that underlies much of Chapter 13, this may appear as a puzzling result. However, it is the result dictated by statute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Browning is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              The data in Mr. McKenna&apos;s appointment book are classified as private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Therefore, Mr. Browning does not have the right to gain access to a copy of the appointment book.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 11, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267237</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment calendars</Title><Id>266730</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Schedules/calendars</Title><Id>266496</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-055</Title><title>Opinion 96 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266731&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Shaffer have the right to gain access to a copy of Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 1996; Minnesota Department of Human Rights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Commissioner clarified in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-421826&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 20-003&lt;/a&gt; that employee calendars may also contain public government data.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who that requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On October 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from David Shaffer, reporter for the &lt;em&gt;Saint Paul Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; newspaper. In that letter, Mr. Shaffer described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (DHR). Mr. Shaffer enclosed copies of related correspondence. (In the letter requesting this opinion, Mr. Shaffer was joined by Dan Browning, another &lt;em&gt;Pioneer Press&lt;/em&gt; reporter. Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address a similar issue involving Ramsey County, which is the subject of Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 96-056.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Shaffer&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ken Nickolai, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the DHR. The purposes of this letter, dated October 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Nickolai of Mr. Shaffer&apos;s request, to ask him or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 14, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Nickolai. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Shaffer, on September 20, 1996, he requested copies of DHR Commissioner David Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars. On September 27, 1996, Mr. Nickolai denied Mr. Shaffer&apos;s request, on the basis that the data are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Mr. Shaffer said he suggested to Mr. Nickolai that if certain data in the calendars were not public, those data could be redacted. Mr. Nickolai rejected that suggestion. On October 14, 1996, Mr. Nickolai told Mr. Shaffer that Mr. Beaulieu had removed the calendars from the DHR.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Shaffer:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Appointment calendars are not personnel data.&apos; Personnel data is defined at the beginning of [Section] 13.43 as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee&apos; of government. Calendars are not collected&apos; for someone&apos;s personnel file; they are records of an employee&apos;s work, not substantially different from telephone records. The calendars are presumptively public under [Section] 13.01 Subd. 3 if not explicitly public under [Section] 13.43 Subd. 2(a)(8).&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nickolai stated that Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars were purchased by the DHR, the data in them were created and collected by his secretary from Mr. Beaulieu and other individuals, and . . . the appointment calendars contain information which was collected because Beaulieu was Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Nickolai further stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;None of the listed categories of public data [contained in Section 13.43, subdivision 2] applies to the data in Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars. Of the listed categories, only subd. 2(a)(8) refers to a category of data that is similar to the purpose of [an] appointment calendar. That section refers to payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employees work time for payroll purposes . . .&apos; As the description above reveals, Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars are not used solely in order to account for this time for payroll purposes. The appointment calendars were used by Beaulieu&apos;s secretary to allow her to plan his appointments, to keep a record of them for him, and to assist Beaulieu in avoiding promises to be in two places at one time.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Nickolai concluded that [b]ecause Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars are not described within the definition of public data in [Section 13.43, subdivision 2] the data are private pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Shaffer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Shaffer have the right to gain access to a copy of Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Nickolai described in detail the reasons for, and manner in which, the data in Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s calendars were collected and created. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine that those data were collected and created because the individual is or was a public employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;When the Legislature enacted Section 13.43, it intended for its operation to be fairly simple. Specific personnel data were classified as public, and all other personnel data were classified as private. (See Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) The data in Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars were collected and created because Mr. Beaulieu was an employee of the DHR. From the information provided, it appears that the data in the appointment calendars are not data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the data in Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner acknowledges that, in light of the strong legislative policy of public accountability that underlies much of Chapter 13, this may appear as a puzzling result. However, it is the result dictated by statute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Shaffer is as follows:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in Mr. Beaulieu&apos;s appointment calendars are classified as private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Therefore, Mr. Shaffer does not have the right to gain access to a copy of the calendars.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 11, 1996
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266731</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Appointment calendars</Title><Id>266730</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-08-06T18:41:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-054</Title><title>Opinion 96 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267460&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would the statutory rights of a data subject be violated if, in upholding the obligation to report health information to an agency, a provider did not document the report in the patient&apos;s health record as the report of health information did not constitute a release of the health record or a component of the health record?
Would the statutory rights of a data subject be violated if, in responding to a request via a legal document to provide health information, the provider documented the release by placing a copy of the legal document in the patient&apos;s record?
Does the 1996 change in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a(g), mandate any particular format by which a provider must document a release authorized by law?
Do the provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a(d)(1)-(3), and subdivision 3a(g), apply only when the data subject&apos;s provider is asked to release the subject&apos;s health record, or a component part of the health record, to an entity external to the provider?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 4, 1996; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 15, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated October 14, 1996, from William Flaig, Administrator of Douglas County Hospital, hereinafter Douglas Hospital. In his letter, Mr. Flaig requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the rights of subjects of data in relation to provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Flaig wrote, ...the facility I administer is a political subdivision based on the reading of Minn. Stat. 144.581, subdivision 1. The 1996 Legislature amended Minn. Stat. 144.335, subdivision 3a, relating to the release of health records. I have several questions regarding the amended language.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Flaig asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Would the statutory rights of a data subject be violated if, in upholding the obligation to report health information to an agency, a provider did not document the report in the patient&apos;s health record as the report of health information did not constitute a release of the health record or a component of the health record?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Would the statutory rights of a data subject be violated if, in responding to a request via a legal document to provide health information, the provider documented the release by placing a copy of the legal document in the patient&apos;s record?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does the 1996 change in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a(g), mandate any particular format by which a provider must document a release authorized by law?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do the provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a(d)(1)-(3), and subdivision 3a(g), apply only when the data subject&apos;s provider is asked to release the subject&apos;s health record, or a component part of the health record, to an entity external to the provider?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335 sets forth the statutory provisions under which patients may both gain access to health records and consent to the release of health records. During the 1996 Legislative Session, changes were made to Section 144.335, subdivision 3a, the language which pertains to patients consenting to the release of medical records. One specific change is the addition of the following language: In cases where a provider releases health records without patient consent as authorized by law, the release must be documented in the patient&apos;s health record. (See Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g).)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first issue raised by Mr. Flaig relates to the new language in Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g). Mr. Flaig wrote that various Minnesota laws require public hospitals to report certain data. One example he cited is Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, the child abuse reporting statute. He noted that pursuant to statute, Douglas Hospital must report to the local welfare agency, police department, or county sheriff, knowledge of or a reasonable cause to believe a child is being neglected or physically or sexually abused. He noted that in some cases, these reports are required to be made in certain formats prescribed either by statute or the institution. He also wrote, In all cases, the reports include, at least in part, certain elements of health information concerning a data subject, but may not require the release of a data subject&apos;s heath record or a component part of the health record. He then asked whether, in such an instance, non-documentation on the part of the hospital would violate the rights of a data subject (patient) under Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The essence of Mr. Flaig&apos;s question is whether a release of data from a person&apos;s health record constitutes a release of health records as contemplated by the Legislature in Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g). Section 144.335 does not clearly define health records. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that if the Legislature intended for documentation to occur when partial information out of a person&apos;s health record was released, the Legislature would have so stated. Instead, the Legislature enacted language that describes the release of health records. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the Legislature intended documentation to occur in situations in which a patient&apos;s health record, i.e., complete and current information possessed by that provider concerning any diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of the patient (see Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (a)) is released by the provider.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In the specific case of reporting required by Section 626.556, there is a 1996 appellate court case that appears to answer the question. In &lt;u&gt;Bol v. Cole&lt;/u&gt;, 545 N.W.2d 408 (Minn.App. 1996), the court wrote, Although [Section 144.335] does not specifically define health record,&apos; it is described as the complete and current information possessed by that provider concerning any diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of the patient.&apos; The court found that a child abuse report filed under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, is not a health record and cannot be released as such by health care providers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. Thus, based on the holding in Bol that a child abuse report is not a health record, it does not appear that a provider is required to document, pursuant to Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g), the release of a child abuse report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the second issue raised by Mr. Flaig, the Legislature did not specify what constitutes sufficient documentation of a release of a patient&apos;s health record. However, given that the intent of Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g), is to notify a patient that a release has occurred, it seems reasonable that a provider has met its statutory obligation by placing, in the patient&apos;s file, a copy of the legal document mandating the release. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that a patient&apos;s rights would not be violated if, in responding to a request via a legal document to provide the patient&apos;s health record, the provider documents the release by placing a copy of the legal document in the patient&apos;s record with a notation that the record was, in fact, released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third issue raised by Mr. Flaig is whether Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g), mandates any particular format by which a provider must document a release authorized by statute. As was discussed above, there is no language in Section 144.335 that specifies a format for the documentation required pursuant to subdivision 3a (g). Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that any reasonable format that includes the following data elements would be sufficient: the date of the release, a description of which data were released, the identity of to whom the data were released, and the reason for the release.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fourth issue raised by Mr. Flaig is in regard to Section 144.335, subdivision 3a, clauses (g), and (d) (1) - (3). The latter describe, in detail, the circumstances under which health records may be released to a researcher solely for the purposes of medical or scientific research. Mr. Flaig&apos;s specific question is whether these provisions apply only when the data subject&apos;s provider is asked to release the subject&apos;s health record to an entity external to the provider.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    While Section 144.335 provides to patients the right to gain access to their health records and to exert some control over the release of their health records, it does not change the underlying reality that health care providers control the medical records they generate and maintain.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Nothing in Section 144.335, nor in the 1996 amendments to Section 144.335, suggests that the Legislature intended to give patients control over a provider&apos;s internal use of medical records. If a public health care provider, such as Douglas County Hospital, otherwise complies with Chapter 13 and concludes that internal research use of its medical records is appropriate, then such a use would be appropriate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     There are two additional factors which indicate the Legislature intended these provisions to control only the release of medical records to persons outside the health care provider maintaining the records. First, in ordinary usage, release of information is understood to mean dissemination of that information outside of the originating entity. Second, a dictionary definition of release is, to give up or surrender to someone else. (See &lt;em&gt;Webster&apos;s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition&lt;/em&gt;, The World Publishing Company, 1968.) Given this definition, it seems reasonable to conclude that the release contemplated by the Legislature is from one entity to another. Therefore, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the provisions in Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (d)(1)-(3), and subdivision 3a(g), apply only when the data subject&apos;s provider is asked to release the subject&apos;s health record to an entity external to the provider.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    My opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Flaig&apos;s correspondence is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g), a data subject&apos;s (patient&apos;s) rights can be violated only if a provider fails to document the release of the patient&apos;s health record, as defined in Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (a).
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              2. The statutory rights of a data subject (patient) would not be violated if, in responding to a request via a legal document to provide health information, the provider documented the release by placing a copy of the legal document in the patient&apos;s record, with a notation that the record had, in fact, been released.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              3. Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (g), does not mandate any particular format by which a provider must document a release authorized by law. However, it seems reasonable that any documentation should include the following data: the date of the release, a description of the data that were released, a description of to whom the data were released, and the reason for the release.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              4. The provisions in Section 144.335, subdivision 3a (d)(1)-(3), and subdivision 3a(g), apply only when the data subject&apos;s provider is asked to release the subject&apos;s health record to an entity external to the provider.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 4, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267460</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Health records</Title><Id>267278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Health care record, defined</Title><Id>266469</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-053</Title><title>Opinion 96 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266577&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is L entitled to gain access to medical records about L&apos;s minor child which are maintained by Children&apos;s Health Care of Minneapolis?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 3, 1996; Children&apos;s Health Care of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On October 14, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated October 10, from L. In his/her letter, L requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding L&apos;s access to certain data about L&apos;s minor child maintained by Children&apos;s Health Care of Minneapolis, hereinafter Children&apos;s.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Attached to L&apos;s request were copies of three letters (dated July 12, 1996, August 17, 1996, and August 26, 1996) from L to Children&apos;s requesting access to various portions of the medical record of L&apos;s minor child. Also attached was a copy of Ms. Klein&apos;s September 11, 1996, response, and a copy of L&apos;s fourth request, dated September 22, 1996.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to L&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to both Mark Kirschbaum, Vice President of Information Systems amp; Quality Resources at Children&apos;s, and Kimberly Klein, a psychologist at Children&apos;s. The purposes of this letter dated October 25, 1996, were to inform Mr. Kirschbaum and Ms. Klein of L&apos;s request, and to ask them or Children&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Children&apos;s position. On November 4, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response dated November 1, 1996, from Rebecca Moos, an attorney representing Children&apos;s.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. In letters dated July 12, 1996, August 17, 1996, and August 26, 1996, L requested access to portions of his/her minor child&apos;s medical records. In all requests, L noted that s/he has joint and legal custody of his/her child and that the divorce decree specifically grants L access to the medical records of his/her children.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her September 11, 1996, response to L&apos;s requests for access to data, Ms. Klein wrote, You have asked for photocopies of the data from my evaluation of your [child]...It is unethical for a psychologist to provide copies of such data to anyone other than another psychologist. In L&apos;s September 22, 1996, letter to Ms. Klein, L again requested access to the medical records of his/her minor child.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her response on behalf of Children&apos;s to L&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Moos first asserted that because Children&apos;s is not subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Commissioner has no authority to issue this Opinion. Second, Ms. Moos stated that because L is requesting raw test data, s/he is not entitled to the data. Third, Ms. Moos noted that because L is involved in a custody dispute and because s/he plans on using the data in the custody dispute, the release of such data would be inappropriate because that is precisely the kind of misuse of raw data that the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct is designed to guard against. She wrote, Although those principles allow the release of raw data to patients or clients when appropriate, [L] is not a patient or client.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his/her request for an opinion, L asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                        Is L entitled to gain access to medical records about L&apos;s minor child which are maintained by Children&apos;s Health Care of Minneapolis?
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                The first point to be addressed is whether Children&apos;s is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that Children&apos;s is licensed by the Minnesota State Department of Human Services as a Rule 29 facility. Rule 29 facilities are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 245.69, subdivision 2(f), and Minnesota Rules Section 9520.0750 - 9520.0870. Minnesota Statutes Section 245.69, subdivision 2(f), states, Data on individuals collected by approved clinics and centers, including written minutes of team meetings, is private data on individuals within the welfare system as provided in chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 9520.0800, subpart 7, client information compiled by a Rule 29 facility, including client records and minutes of case review and consultation meetings must be protected as private data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Section 13.072, the Commissioner has authority to issue advisory opinions upon the request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision. Because Children&apos;s appears to be subject to Chapter 13, the issuance of this opinion is authorized under Section 13.072. If Children&apos;s is not subject to Chapter 13, this Opinion shall have no effect.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Assuming Children&apos;s is a Rule 29 facility, all client data maintained by Children&apos;s about L&apos;s minor child are private data subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500, subpart 2 (B), both parents can gain access to private data about their children unless there is a state law, court order, or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. In the present case, L wrote, No action has ever been taken or contemplated by any court to restrict my access to records on my children. In addition, a copy of L&apos;s divorce decree which s/he provided to PIPA states, Each party has the right of access to, and to receive copies of...medical...and other important records and information about the minor children. Further, Ms. Moos presented no documentation to suggest that L can be denied access to data about his/her minor child.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, Ms. Moos did present three arguments which the Commissioner will address. First is her position that because L is requesting access to raw test data those data are not accessible to him/her. Ms. Moos wrote, It is my understanding that the raw test data does not become a part of the patient&apos;s chart and therefore does not fall within Minn. Stat. 144.335 referenced in one of [L&apos;s] letters. However, in this case, Chapter 13 controls the classification of and access to the data , not Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. As stated above, because data on individuals maintained by Rule 29 facilities are private data and private data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data (see Section 13.02, subdivision 12), all data maintained about L&apos;s minor child by Children&apos;s are accessible to L, including any raw test data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   In her second point, Ms. Moos cited a 1996 Minnesota Court of Appeals case in which the court held that a child abuse report filed under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, is not a health record and cannot be released as such by health care providers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. Also in &lt;u&gt;Bol v. Cole&lt;/u&gt;, 545 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1996), the court held that a psychologist was not entitled to immunity when that psychologist released a copy of a child abuse report to someone who was not a designated recipient of such a report. It appears Ms. Moos is arguing that, under Section 144.335, there are situations in which all the data contained in a person&apos;s health record may not be released. However, in this case, her argument is not germane given that the data in question are classified under Chapter 13, not Section 144.335.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Ms. Moos&apos; third argument is that L cannot gain access to the data because [L] plans on using the data in a custody dispute and that such a use would be precisely the kind of misuse of raw data that the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct is designed to guard against. She further wrote, Although those principles allow the release of raw data to patients or clients when appropriate, [L] is not a patient or client. As stated above, the release of data about L&apos;s minor child&apos;s medical record is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. Neither Section 13.46 nor Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that data contained in a medical record cannot be released to a parent of a minor child when those data might be used as part of a custody dispute. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 12, L is permitted to gain access to the data about his/her minor child.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by L is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 245.69, subdivision 2(f), and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, L is entitled to gain access to the medical records of his/her minor aged child which are maintained by Children&apos;s Health Care of Minneapolis.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 3, 1996
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266577</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Rule 29 facilities</Title><Id>266576</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-052</Title><title>Opinion 96 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267723&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-02T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, may N listen, free of charge, to the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by N?

Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, may N view, free of charge, a transcript of the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by an individual other than N?

Pursuant to Chapter 13, is N entitled to gain access to an audio recording of the communication between a 911 dispatcher and the police officers which occurred as a result of N&apos;s 911 call?

Has the Saint Paul Police Department met its time frame obligation under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide N with access to the data referenced above in Issues 1 and 3?

Does $30.00 represent the actual cost, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, to transcribe an audiotape of approximately one-minute?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 2, 1996; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 30, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated September 25, 1996, from N. In N&apos;s letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding N&apos;s access to certain government data maintained by the St. Paul Police Department, hereinafter St. Paul. (After verbal and written discussions were held to clarify the issues N wished to have addressed, five issues were agreed upon.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to N&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Finney, Chief of the St. Paul Police Department. The purposes of this letter dated October 14, 1996, were to inform Chief Finney of N&apos;s request, and to ask him or St. Paul&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for St. Paul&apos;s position. On October 22, 1996, PIPA received a response dated October 21, 1996, from Paul McCloskey, St. Paul Assistant City Attorney.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. During the spring of 1996, N was allegedly assaulted by the private security staff of a Minnesota state agency. N called 911 and two St. Paul police officers responded. In a letter dated June 11, 1996, N made a written request to Chief Finney for various types of data related to the above incident. In a letter dated June 21, 1996, J.P. Neuberger of the Internal Affairs Unit wrote that N could purchase the transcript and taped copy of your 9-1-1 calls for $27.32, pre-paid. Mr. Neuberger wrote, Upon receipt [of the amount due], you will be provided with the above items. N has apparently had other contacts, both verbal and in writing, with St. Paul regarding the issues s/he has raised in this Opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the first issue raised by N, Mr. McCloskey wrote, Of course s/he may [listen free of charge to the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by N]. If [s/he] desires to hear the tape, [s/he] may contact the Internal Affairs Unit at the Police Department.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the second issue raised by N, Mr. McCloskey wrote that N may not view free of charge a transcript of the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by an individual other than him/herself. Mr. McCloskey wrote, The data is private pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3a].
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the third issue raised by N, Mr. McCloskey wrote, Absent something in the exchange between the dispatcher and officer that would be protected by statute, [N] would be entitled to review the tape.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the fourth issue raised by N, Mr. McCloskey wrote, I find that difficult to respond to. He further stated that N has had numerous conversations with Internal Affairs staff and that N&apos;s requests for data changed often. Mr. McCloskey wrote, The point to be made is that there were several time lags and multiple conversations in dealing with [N] and his/her changing requests.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the fifth issue raised by N, Mr. McCloskey wrote that the $27.82 fee represents the one hour it took a police sergeant to access the tape. He wrote, This is a laborious process given the volume of calls that are on a master tape maintained in our communications center. It should be noted that the time of Internal Affairs Staff including the secretary who typed the transcription are not included in the charge.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In N&apos;s request for an opinion, N asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, may N listen, free of charge, to the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by N?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          2. Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, may N view, free of charge, a transcript of the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by an individual other than N?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          3. Pursuant to Chapter 13, is N entitled to gain access to an audio recording of the communication between a 911 dispatcher and the police officers which occurred as a result of N&apos;s 911 call?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          4. Has the Saint Paul Police Department met its time frame obligation under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide N with access to the data referenced above in Issues 1 and 3?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          5. Does $30.00 represent the actual cost, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, to transcribe an audiotape of approximately one-minute?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In regard to first, second, third, and fifth issues raised by N, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, states:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The &lt;u&gt;audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system&lt;/u&gt;for the purpose of requesting service from a law enforcement, fire, or medical agency &lt;u&gt;is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making&lt;/u&gt;the call, except that &lt;u&gt;a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless&lt;/u&gt;it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 10. &lt;u&gt;A transcript shall be prepared upon request&lt;/u&gt;. The &lt;u&gt;person requesting the transcript shall pay the actual cost of transcribing the call, in addition to any other applicable costs provided under section 13.03, subdivision 3.&lt;/u&gt;The audio recording may be disseminated to law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes. The audio recording may be used for public safety and emergency medical services training purposes. (Emphasis added.) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, the data comprising the audiotape of a 911 telephone call placed by N to St. Paul are private. Private data are accessible to the subject(s) of those data. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Therefore, the data comprising the 911 telephone call placed by N are accessible to N. Further, because Chapter 13 confers upon data subjects the right to inspect data without being charged (see Section 13.04, subdivision 3), N may gain access (listen) to the audiotape of his/her 911 telephone call. Thus, the Commissioner is in agreement with Mr. McCloskey that N may listen free of charge to the audiotape of N&apos;s 911 telephone call.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the second issue raised by N, the answer, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, is no. A written transcript, prepared from the audio recording of a 911 call is, in most cases, public data. However, in order for a member of the public to obtain a transcript, s/he must pay the actual cost of transcribing the call. Therefore, N cannot obtain a transcript of a 911 telephone call, in which s/he was not the person making the call, free of charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, even if N were willing to pay for a transcript of a 911 call, there may be some instances in which N, as a member of the public, cannot gain access to a transcript, or portions of a transcript. If data contained in an audio recording were to reveal the identity of an individual otherwise protected under Section 13.82, subdivision 10, then those same data in transcript form, would be private data and would not be accessible to N. In his response, Mr. McCloskey wrote, See Section 13.82, Subd. 10 (f) also. Based on this comment, it appears St. Paul has determined that the written transcript requested by N would reveal the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 10.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (f), gives authority to a law enforcement agency to withhold data when the release of those data would reveal the identity of a person who placed a call to a 911 system and (1) the agency determines that revealing the identity may threaten the personal safety or property of any person, or (2) the object of the call is to receive help in a mental health emergency. Therefore, if the above criteria have been satisfied, a portion of the transcript of the call would be private data on the individual making the call and, thus, would not be accessible to N.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to N&apos;s third issue, the Commissioner agrees with St. Paul&apos;s position. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise so McCloskey wrote, Absent something in the exchange between the dispatcher and officer that would be protected by statute, [N] would be entitled to review the tape.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a letter dated June 11, 1996, N made a request to St. Paul Police Chief Finney for, among other items of data, a transcript of what the dispatcher told [the officers responding to N&apos;s 911 call. It is not clear from the various correspondence between N and PIPA staff whether or when St. Paul responded to this part of N&apos;s request. However, it does appear that St. Paul is willing to provide N with access to any of the public data contained in the dispatch tape.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the fourth issue raised by N, Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                             The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. &lt;u&gt;If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual&lt;/u&gt;, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. (Emphasis added.)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears that N, in a letter dated June 11, 1996, made a request for a transcript of both his/her 911 call to St. Paul, and the related communications between the dispatcher and the responding officer(s). It also appears that St. Paul responded to that request in a letter dated June 21, 1996. Mr. Neuberger of the Internal Affairs Unit wrote, ...if you decide to purchase the transcript and taped copy of your 9-1-1 calls, we will require pre-payment of $27.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.04, subdivision 3, explicitly states that if an entity is unable to comply with a request for access to data (regardless of whether the request is for copies or to inspect) &lt;u&gt;within five working days&lt;/u&gt;, the entity must so inform the data requestor. In the present situation, while St. Paul apparently did respond to N within the 10 day time frame, it does not appear that St. Paul informed N that a response could not be issued within five working days of June 11, 1996. Therefore, in regard to Issue 1, St. Paul has not complied with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The situation is less clear in regard to St. Paul&apos;s response to the data described in Issue 3. Again, it appears that N made his/her request for access to those data in a letter dated June 11, 1996. However, it is not apparent if or when St. Paul issued a response. In his response, Mr. McCloskey wrote, [N] has had numerous conversations with Internal Affairs staff. [N] requests for data often changed....The point to be made is that there were several time lags and multiple conversations in dealing with [N] and [N&apos;s] changing requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, based on the information provided, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether St. Paul responded appropriately to N&apos;s request for data referenced in Issue 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the fifth issue raise by N, Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, provides that a person requesting a transcript must pay the actual cost of transcribing the call, in addition to any other applicable costs provided under Section 13.03, subdivision 3. In turn, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that a person may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the costs of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling...the copies of the data...but may not charge for separating public from not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In arguing that a transcription cost of $27.82 is permissible under the statute, Mr. McCloskey stated, This represented the one hour that it took a police sergeant to access the tape. This is a laborious process given the volume of calls that are on a master tape maintained in our communications center. It should be noted that the time of the Internal Affairs staff including the secretary who typed the transcription are not included in the charge. While Section 13.03, subdivision 3, does provide that government entities may charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, it also provides that government enities may not charge for separating public from private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, St. Paul&apos;s only explanation of the $27.82 charge is that it represents one hour for a sergeant to access the tape. Whether that hour represents the time required to search for data, to separate public from private data, or to conduct other activities is not clear. Therefore, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the charge assessed N is allowable under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by N is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, N may listen, free of charge, to the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by N.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              2. Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, N may not view, free of charge, a transcript of the audiotape of the 911 telephone call placed by an individual other than N.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              3. N is entitled to gain access to the public data contained in an audio recording of the communication between a 911 dispatcher and the police officers, which resulted from N&apos;s 911 call.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              4. In regard to the data referenced in Issue 1, the St. Paul Police Department has met its time frame obligation under Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in responding to N&apos;s data request.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              In regard to the data referenced in Issue 3, it is unclear whether the St. Paul Police Department has met its time frame obligation under Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in responding to N&apos;s data request.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              5. It is unclear whether a charge of $27.82 represents the actual cost, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 3a, to transcribe an audiotape of a 911 call and to recover other actual costs of providing copies of public data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 2, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267723</id><Tag><Description/><Title>911 tape transcript</Title><Id>266459</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>911 audiotape</Title><Id>266460</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-051</Title><title>Opinion 96 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267383&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-12-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Elk River complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject?

Is the City&apos;s photocopy charge to a data subject of $5.00 for the first page, and $.25 for each page thereafter, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 2, 1996; City of Elk River</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On October 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from W. In that letter, W described his/her attempts to gain access to data maintained by the City of Elk River Police Department concerning W&apos;s employment with the City. W enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to W&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas D. Zerwas, Chief of the Elk River Police Department. The purposes of this letter, dated October 15, 1996, were to inform Chief Zerwas of W&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner is required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 29, 1996, PIPA received a response from Dayle Nolan, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 20, 1996, W resigned his/her position as a police officer for the City. At the time of his/her resignation, W requested from Chief Zerwas access to data related to W&apos;s employment by the City. According to W:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I was given a copy of my background investigation file and my psychological evaluation when I arrived at the police department to turn in my resignation. At that time, I asked Sergeant Jeff Mordal if I could have copies of my Field Training Daily Observation Reports. Because Sgt. Mordal was the supervisor in charge of training new officer&apos;s [sic] and maintaining their records, I felt he was the department member to ask for the copies. Sgt. Mordal advised me that he would have to talk to the Chief and obtain his authorization to release them. I was then told by Sgt. Mordal that he would have the Chief get back to me with a reply. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              W stated that his/her next contact with the City was approximately one month later, on March 15, 1996, when he/she spoke with Chief Zerwas. W said that Chief Zerwas told W he would not release the data to W. According to W, . . . because I was hoping for a good recommendation, I decided not to push the issue with Chief Zerwas.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              W repeated the request for access to the data on September 6, 1996. W said he/she made a verbal request of Sergeant Mordal, because Chief Zerwas was not available. W was told to call Chief Zerwas on September 9, 1996. On that date, W called Chief Zerwas, who said he would have to contact the City attorney to determine whether the information could be released. According to W, he/she had heard nothing from Chief Zerwas as of Friday September 13, 1996. W then called Sergeant Mordal, who said he didn&apos;t know about the status of W&apos;s request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              W then wrote to Chief Zerwas, in a letter hand-delivered on September 17, 1996, and requested: . . . copies of all data that the City of Elk River, the Police Department, Police Supervisor&apos;s [sic] and Officers have gathered, acquired, and collected whatsoever, without limitation, during my search for employment with the City of Elk River including data collected while I was employed with the City of Elk River.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              W received no response to his request for data, and on September 25, 1996, hand-delivered to the Elk River Police Department a second letter, in which he repeated his request. According to W, that afternoon Chief Zerwas left a message on W&apos;s home answering machine, saying that he would respond to W&apos;s request when he could, and that he would send W a letter to let W know what the charge for copies would be.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              W was notified on September 27, 1996, that the copies W had requested were ready. On September 30, 1996, W learned from Chief Zerwas that there were 762 copied pages of data, and that the cost was $195.25. Chief Zerwas told W that the copy charge was $5.00 for the first page, and $.25 for each page thereafter.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his opinion request, W stated [a]t no time did I request certified copies of the information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Nolan wrote that there are two principal reasons why the City did not violate W&apos;s rights under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. According to Ms. Nolan,
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The first and foremost reason why the City did not violate [Chapter 13] is that W has never, even to this day, made a request to the City&apos;s responsible authority for such requests. A cursory review of [Chapter 13] reveals that a data subject&apos;s right to have access to information is triggered only by a request to the responsible authority. . . . For the City, the responsible authority&apos; designated by the City Council . . . is Patrick Klaers, the City Administrator. . . . Because W never requested any information from the responsible authority, any failure to provide [him/her] with such information cannot possibly constitute a violation of [Chapter 13.]
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      Second, even if Chief Zerwas were the responsible authority for the type of request made by W in this case, the City substantially complied with [Chapter 13] in responding to W&apos;s request. The key factual inaccuracy in W&apos;s description of the events between February 20 and September 27, 1996 is the characterization of [his/her] conversation with Chief Zerwas on March 15. Although W describes this conversation as a request&apos; for certain information, Chief Zerwas recalls the conversation as an unofficial inquiry as to whether certain information could be made available if [he/she] ever desired to obtain a copy of it. Similarly, . . . [Sergeant Mordal also recalls] that [his conversations with W] were more in the nature of casual inquiries, rather than requests that certain information be immediately provided to him. Accordingly, the first time at which W arguably made an actual request&apos; under [Chapter 13] (albeit to the wrong person) was on September 9, in [his/her] conversation with Chief Zerwas. From that time until the time that the [City&apos;s Police Department] had the information copied and ready for delivery to W was 14 business days.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Nolan acknowledged that the City did not notify W, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that it required an additional five working days to respond to W&apos;s request. Ms. Nolan stated: [a]lthough Chief Zerwas did not notify W that additional time was needed until September 25, 12 business days after the first arguable request, W certainly knew, based on [his/her] past conversations, that producing the requested information within 5 business days might present a problem for the City. Ms. Nolan also listed other extenuating factors, in light of which . . . any possible technical violation of [Chapter 13] would clearly be inconsequential.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In regard to the City&apos;s photocopying charges, Ms. Nolan wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;First of all, the City would like to clarify that it does not charge every data subject these amounts for copies of government information. The amount which is charged in any given case depends on the actual costs of responding to the particular request which has been made. However, the charge in this particular case is not only reasonable, but significantly less than the actual cost of copying, certifying, and compiling the materials requested by W.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      . . . . In the present case, the amount of time expended by various department employees in responding to W&apos;s request, along with the employee&apos;s rate of pay, is reflected below:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Kathy Anderson: 4 hours at $16.01/hour = $64.04
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Sgt. Brad Rolfe: 3 hours at $23.93/hour = $71.79 2 hours at $35.86/hour (overtime) = $71.72
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Chief Tom Zerwas: 2 hours at $30.53/hour = $61.06
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Ms. Anderson&apos;s 4 hours were spent copying documents. Sgt. Rolfe&apos;s 5 hours were spent date stamping the 762 copies made by Ms. Anderson, and copying the date stamped copies. Chief Zerwas&apos; time was spent assisting Sgt. Rolfe in copying the date stamped copies. . . . Thus, the total cost of making, certifying and compiling the documents requested by W was $268.61. In light of this number, it was entirely reasonable and permissible under [Chapter 13] for the City to charge W a total of $195.25 for the copies which [he/she] requested.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In W&apos;s request for an opinion, W asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          1. Has the City of Elk River complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          2. Is the City&apos;s photocopy charge to a data subject of $5.00 for the first page, and $.25 for each page thereafter, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Ms. Nolan is correct that an individual&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 are invoked when the individual directs requests for access to data to the responsible authority of the government entity that maintains the data. In this case, W directed his/her requests to the Chief of the Police Department, not the City Administrator, who, according to Ms. Nolan, is the Responsible Authority for the City of Elk River. Therefore, according to Ms. Nolan, the City had no obligation to respond to W&apos;s requests for access to data about himself/herself. However, in spite of W&apos;s data inquiries, made from February 1996, through September 1996, at no time was W told that he/she had to direct his/her request for data to the City Administrator.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    W&apos;s initial request for copies of data was made to Chief Zerwas, and the copies were provided to W by Police Department personnel. According to W, he/she then asked for access to additional data, and was told that Chief Zerwas would have to determine whether or not to provide W with access to those data. According to the City, Chief Zerwas did not understand W to be asking for access to data. According to W, he/she asked again for the data, in March 1996, and was told by Chief Zerwas that he wouldn&apos;t release it to W. Again the City disputes that W made an actual request for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    W made his/her next requests for the data in September 1996. (According to W, he/she did not press the issue earlier because he/she hoped for a good recommendation from Chief Zerwas.) In a conversation with W on September 9, 1996, Chief Zerwas said that he&apos;d have to consult with the City Attorney before releasing any data to W. Ms. Nolan acknowledges that Chief Zerwas understood from that conversation that W was requesting the data under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    At no time, from February 1996, through September 1996, was W told that he/she had to direct his/her request for data to the City Administrator. In fact, Chief Zerwas provided some data to W in February. It is not reasonable for the City, long after the fact, to argue that it had no obligation to provide W with the data he/she requested just because W did not direct his/her request to the responsible authority. The time to assert that requirement was at the time the City understood W to be making a request for access to data under Chapter 13. According to Ms. Nolan, City personnel were not sure whether W had actually made a Chapter 13 data request until months after W&apos;s requests commenced. The City&apos;s established data practices policies and procedures should provide a method for the City to clarify requests, and to direct a request to the responsible authority or appropriate designee, thus avoiding the confusion and delay that resulted in this case. Had the City provided W with a copy of its data practices policies and procedures, regarding how a data subject may gain access to data about him/herself maintained by the City, and asked W to follow those procedures, complicating factors could have been avoided. These policies and procedures are required to be prepared, in writing, by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request for access to data by a data subject, the responsible authority for a government entity must provide access to the data immediately, if possible, or within five business days. If the responsible authority requires additional time to respond, he/she may have up to an additional five business days if he/she so notifies the individual requesting the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Whether W asked for access to data on February 20, 1996, or September 9, 1996, the City did not meet its obligation to provide W with access to the data W requested within the time limit required by statute, and the City agrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In regard to the second issue, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a data subject may be required to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies of data about him/her. W stated that he/she did not ask for certified copies of data. Therefore, W was responsible for paying the actual cost to the City to &lt;u&gt;make and compile &lt;/u&gt;the copies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, a responsible authority may charge a &lt;u&gt;reasonable&lt;/u&gt;fee for providing copies of data. Pursuant to Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, in determining the reasonable fee, the responsible authority may include the cost of materials and labor required to prepare the copies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Nolan, the City charged W $5.00 for the first copy, and $.25 for each copy thereafter. She indicated that the City&apos;s actual charge for the copies included four hours of labor to make photocopies of 762 pages, and seven hours of labor to date-stamp the photocopies and to photocopy the date-stamped copies. W asked for photocopies, not date-stamped photo copies. The City may charge W only the actual cost to make the photocopies, including a reasonable labor cost.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City has not justified a fee of $5.00 for the first page, and $.25 per page thereafter. If the City&apos;s actual cost to make uncertified photocopies is $.25 per page, then that is the allowable fee for each page, including the first page. The City has not demonstrated that the photocopy charges levied against W are in compliance with Chapter 13. (For further discussion of this issue, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions 94-028 and 94-039.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by W is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;1. The City of Elk River has not complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding W&apos;s right to gain access to data about W.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              2. The City of Elk River has not demonstrated that its photocopy charge to a data subject of $.25 for each page is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. In this case, the City may charge W only its actual cost to make photocopies of the data W requested
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 2, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267383</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee wage/labor cost</Title><Id>267067</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>To responsible authority or designated person, required</Title><Id>266523</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-050</Title><title>Opinion 96 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266673&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-11-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the information the City of Dilworth relied upon in reaching its decision to terminate J&apos;s employment?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 27, 1996; City of Dilworth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 8, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from R. B. McLarnan, attorney for the City of Dilworth. In his letter, Mr. McLarnan requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data maintained by the City about J, an employee of the City. In his opinion request, Mr. McLarnan incorporated, by reference, comments he received from Ellen A. Longfellow, an attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               The City coordinated its opinion request with Steven A. Johnson, attorney for Forum Communications Company, publisher of &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; newspaper, which had requested access to data about J. Both Mr. McLarnan and the Commissioner notified Mr. Johnson and Jason Vendsel, J&apos;s attorney, that the Commissioner was going to issue this opinion, and asked for any comments they might wish to submit. Mr. Johnson submitted comments for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration, which are discussed below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The City of Dilworth recently terminated an employee, J. Apparently J&apos;s employment with the City was not governed by a collective bargaining agreement. However, J is a veteran, and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 197.46, the Veterans Preference Act, J is entitled to a hearing. Under Section 197.46, J will continue to be paid by the City for 60 days beyond the date of the City&apos;s decision to terminate him/her, unless he/she requests a hearing. If J requests a hearing, J will continue to be paid by the City until the hearing board reaches a decision.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               The City received a request from &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; for access to data documenting its decision to terminate J, which prompted this opinion request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. McLarnan asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          What is the classification of the information the City of Dilworth relied upon in reaching its decision to terminate J&apos;s employment?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be no question that the data to which the newspaper seeks access were created because J was employed by a government entity, i.e., the City. Therefore, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, those data are personnel data and are classified under Section 13.43. Section 13.43 provides that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a), in relevant part, provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [and] &lt;u&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action,&lt;/u&gt;excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                             A &lt;u&gt;final disposition&lt;/u&gt;occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its &lt;u&gt;final decision&lt;/u&gt;about the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, the issue of the classification of the data in question is dependent upon whether the City has made its final decision about the disciplinary action, i.e., J&apos;s termination.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her letter to Mr. McLarnan, Ms. Longfellow stated . . . there is a good argument that the final disposition&apos; of the complaint is when the veteran&apos;s preference board makes its decision. The employee is paid by the city until that time and that process is part of the city&apos;s termination process. The Annandale case at the supreme court level supports this analysis.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments, Mr. Johnson wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;It is Forum Communication&apos;s position that there has been a final disposition. Dilworth City Council has voted unanimously to terminate [J.] This is not a case where they simply stated that they will probably fire [J] in the future. There is not [sic] collective bargaining agreement involved and thus no arbitration proceedings will occur. The fact that [J] may at some point in the future request a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act is [of] no consequence. It is Forum Communication Company&apos;s position that the chance of such a hearing occurring in the future simply raises the possibility of later proceedings&apos; which by the express terms of the statute [Section 13.43] do not affect a final disposition.&apos; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Minnesota Supreme Court case Ms. Longfellow referred to is &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989). The Legislature amended Section 13.43 in 1990, following &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;. That case, in relevant part, dealt with the meaning of the terms final decision and final disposition of disciplinary actions as these terms were used in Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, the Court found that a final &lt;u&gt;decision&lt;/u&gt;of the City was not the final &lt;u&gt;disposition&lt;/u&gt;of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;at 29.) Subsequently, in 1990, the Legislature amended Section 13.43, subdivision 2, by adding clause (b), which provides the definition of final disposition of disciplinary action, and includes the language regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Thus, according to the requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting disciplinary action taken against a public employee become public when there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceeding or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. The City has made its final decision; therefore there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, and, regardless of any later proceeding, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act, the data sought by &lt;em&gt;The Forum&lt;/em&gt; about J are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue by Mr. McLarnan is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The City has made its final decision, therefore, there has been final disposition of the disciplinary action taken against J, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. The specific reasons for and data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action are public data, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings, including a hearing under the Veterans Preference Act. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 27, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266673</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Veterans Preference Act</Title><Id>266672</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-049</Title><title>Opinion 96 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267144&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-11-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the Minnesota Fire Information Reporting System (MFIRS) Reports, Numbers 1-4, that are filed with the State Fire Marshal?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 26, 1996; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 1, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Donald Davis, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, hereinafter DPS. In his letter, Commissioner Davis requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by DPS.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Dan Browning, reporter for the Saint Paul Pioneer Press newspaper, submitted comments for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Commissioner Davis, local fire departments are required to investigate all fires which result in property damage in excess of $100.00. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 299F.04, subdivision 1, the local fire departments are required to forward to the State Fire Marshal reports of their investigations (MFIRS 1-4 Reports.) More than 100,000 reports are filed annually.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Commissioner Davis wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Fire Marshal has always allowed statistics generated from the reports to be open to public inspection, as required by Minnesota Statute 299F.04, subd. 3. Indeed, we have generated special statistical reports upon request. For example, we recently generated statistical reports for the media on church fires. However, the Fire Marshal has always withheld from the public the database containing the reports themselves. Individual reports are only released to individual data subjects (e.g., treated as private data&apos;). [Emphasis his.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his comments, Mr. Browning detailed his efforts over the course of two months to gain access to the MFIRS Reports. Mr. Browning emphasized that he seeks access to the Reports only. According to Mr. Browning, DPS personnel first told him that he could gain access to the data he wanted, but eventually said they weren&apos;t sure how the data were classified, and that Commissioner Davis was requesting this opinion. Mr. Browning&apos;s position is that the data are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Davis asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                          What is the classification of the Minnesota Fire Information Reporting System (MFIRS) Reports, Numbers 1-4, that are filed with the State Fire Marshal?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There is a very strong presumption of the openness of government data provided in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Davis cited two provisions of State law, Sections 299F.04 and 299F.28, that he believes are applicable to the classification of the data in the MFIRS Reports.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 299F.04, subdivision 3, provides the requirement, noted above, that fire departments file reports with the State Fire Marshal. According to the language of this Section, which was enacted in 1913, statistics from the records shall be at all times open to public inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 299F.28 provides: [all] records on file in the state fire marshal&apos;s office shall be public, except any testimony, correspondence, or other matter taken in an investigation under the provisions of this chapter, which the state fire marshal may withhold from the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is important to note that the applicable language of both of these statutory provisions was enacted in 1913, thus predating the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, by nearly seventy years. (None of the amendments to Chapter 299F since 1913 relates to data classification.) There was also no general law in effect in 1913 that provided for public access to government records. Therefore, the language in those Sections relating to the classification of records must be interpreted in light of their vintage, and in light of the provisions of the later-enactment of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 1913, Chapter 564, the Department of the State Fire Marshal was established. In the 1913 law, the State Fire Marshal was granted extensive investigative power, including the power to take testimony. One interpretation of the provisions of Section 299F.28, i.e., the reference to data collected in an investigation under the provisions of this chapter could be read to apply only to investigations &lt;u&gt;conducted by the State Fire Marshal.&lt;/u&gt;Pursuant to Section 299F.28, when the State Fire Marshal conducts an investigation, all records generated are public, except any testimony, correspondence, or other matter taken in [the] investigation, which the State Fire Marshal may withhold from the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, another interpretation would also apply the Section 299F.28 provisions to any data collected in an investigation by local law enforcement agencies, including fire departments. (See Section 299F.04.) The application of Section 299F.28 to data collected in investigations conducted by local fire departments would mean that those data reported to the State Fire Marshal, i.e., any testimony, correspondence, or other matter taken in [the] investigation, could be withheld from the public pursuant to Section 299F.28.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A review of the MFIRS Report forms 1-4 establishes that some of the data reported to the State Fire Marshal by local fire departments are classified as public at the local level. (See Section 13.82, subdivision 2-5.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Under the canons of statutory interpretation, if it appears that provisions of two laws conflict, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. Therefore, it would seem to be logical to conclude that data, when submitted to the State Fire Marshal, ought to retain the same classification they have in the local fire departments. The Legislature has also provided for changes in the classification of data as data are disseminated between government entities. Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (d), provides, [i]f a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision disseminates data to another state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision, a&lt;u&gt;classification provided for by law in the hands of the entity receiving the data does not affect the classification of the data in the hands of the entity that disseminates the data&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the language of the 1913 enactment, an interpretation that harmonizes and gives effect to the provisions of both Sections 299F.28, and 13.82, subdivisions 2-5, is to treat certain of the data in the Reports as public at the local level, as required by Section 13.82, and for the local fire departments and the State Fire Marshal to treat as not public the data described in Section 299F.28 as not public. (It is important to note that Section 299F.28 provides some discretion, i.e., the State Fire Marshal may withhold those data from the public.) This interpretation gives effect to the requirements of Chapter 13 and at the same time preserves the legislative treatment of State Fire Marshal data as not public under Section 299F.28.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Also, pursuant to Section 299F.04, statistics generated from the MFIRS Reports are always public. According to Commissioner Davis, DPS routinely makes statistics generated from the reports available to the public, and generates special statistical reports upon request. The summary data provisions of Chapter 13 are also applicable to data maintained by the State Fire Marshal. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 7.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Davis is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 299F.28, the Minnesota Fire Information Reporting System (MFIRS) Reports, Numbers 1-4, that are filed with the State Fire Marshal, are classified as public except for data derived from testimony, correspondence, or other matter taken in the investigation, as described in Section 299F.28, which the State Fire Marshal may withhold from the public. Some of the data in the Reports are also classified as public at the local level, pursuant to Section 13.82. Statistics generated from the Reports are always public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 26, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267144</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire Marshal data</Title><Id>266915</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:50:32Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-048</Title><title>Opinion 96 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267394&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did District 721 violate Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when a District employee disseminated data contained in a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Form about a student and his/her father to the student&apos;s mother? (The disseminations allegedly occurred in February or March of 1995, and in the fall of 1995.)
Did the apparent destruction of educational data (school counselor&apos;s notes) by a District 721 employee violate the rights of access pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, of the student and her/his father?
Did District 721 violate Section 13.04, subdivision 3, by failing to provide the following data about a student and her/his father upon their May 24, 1996, request for access to data: data contained in a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and data contained in a Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification?
Did District 721 violate Section 13.05, subdivision 5, by failing to ensure that data contained in the following documents about the student and her/his father are accurate, complete, and current: the school counselor&apos;s notes, a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, and a Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification?
Did District 721 violate Section 13.04, subdivision 3, by failing to notify the data requestors that the District would require an additional five days to respond to their May 24, 1996, request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 1996; School District 721 (New Prague)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data which are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On September 13, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated September 11, 1996, from Greg Naugle, an attorney representing M and M&apos;s father. In his letter, Mr. Naugle requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding an alleged inappropriate dissemination of data about M and M&apos;s father maintained by the New Prague School District, hereinafter ISD #721. Mr. Naugle also requested that the Commissioner address other issues related to M and M&apos;s father&apos;s access to data maintained by ISD #721.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to Mr. Naugle&apos;s request were copies of several documents:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;a request for access to data from M and M&apos;s father addressed to the record custodian of ISD #721 dated May 24, 1996;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 1 - an affidavit of M&apos;s mother dated October 24, 1995;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 2 - a deposition of E (school counselor) dated October 30, 1995;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 3 - a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report dated October 28, 1992;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 4 - a blank Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 5 - a Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form dated October 29, 1992;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 6 - child protection assessment report;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Exhibit 7 - a court order for the deposition of E.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After discussions between Mr. Naugle and PIPA staff, the issues to be addressed in this opinion were re-stated as below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Naugle&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Stepaniak, Superintendent of ISD #721. The purposes of this letter, dated September 24, 1996, were to inform Mr. Stepaniak of Mr. Naugle&apos;s request, and to ask him or ISD #721&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position. On October 9, 1996, PIPA received a hand-delivered response, dated October 9, 1996, from Marie Skinner, an attorney representing ISD #721.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Between September 1992 and June 1993, M attended 10th grade in ISD #721. During this time, M met several times for counseling sessions with the school counselor, E. One of the topics of the counseling sessions was M&apos;s allegations of abuse by M&apos;s father. E made and kept handwritten notes of these sessions and also apparently filed a suspected maltreatment report, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, dated October 28, 1992. The report was filed with Rice County Social Services (M and M&apos;s father later obtained a copy of this report from Rice County upon a request for access to data). Also pursuant to Section 626.556, M was interviewed on school property regarding the alleged abuse (M and M&apos;s father also obtained, from Rice County, a copy of the form relating to this interview).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In October of 1995, M&apos;s mother and father commenced a marriage dissolution action. As an outgrowth of that action, E was deposed pursuant to an October 25, 1995, court order. The order allowed E to testify regarding private educational data about M, M&apos;s father, and M&apos;s mother. During the deposition, which Mr. Naugle submitted as Exhibit 2, E testified under oath that M&apos;s mother had contacted E two or three times prior to October 30, 1995. During these contacts, E allegedly disseminated private data regarding M and M&apos;s father. According to Mr. Naugle, at the time of the alleged disseminations, M was over the age of 18. Also during the deposition, E testified that s/he had shredded the handwritten notes pertaining to the counseling sessions with M.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 24, 1996, M and M&apos;s father hand delivered a request to the record custodian of ISD #721 for access to all data about them. Shortly after June 7, 1996, (the date of the postmark) M and M&apos;s father received ISD #721&apos;s response in the form of copies of various data. The District&apos;s response did not include copies of the following: the October 28, 1992, Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report; the October 29, 1992, Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form; or E&apos;s counseling session notes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, at some point in time, M and M&apos;s father obtained from Rice County a copy of the October 28, 1992, Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and a copy of the October 29, 1992, Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Skinner agreed that ISD #721 did disseminate private educational data about M to M&apos;s mother. However, she stated that the dissemination of data about an adult former student was justified because of an exception in federal law to the general rule that informed consent must be obtained before releasing educational data about an adult student, or former student, to the student&apos;s parents. Under the federal rule, when a student reaches the age of 18, the student, not her/his parents, controls the dissemination of any educational data. The exception cited by Ms. Skinner states that consent by the adult student is not required if the student qualifies as a dependent student under the Internal Revenue Code definition. The effect of this exception is that a student&apos;s parents can gain access to educational data about that student without the dependent student&apos;s consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the second issue, Ms. Skinner asserted that the school counselor&apos;s notes are records of instructional personnel as defined in Section 13.32 and, therefore, are not government data and can be destroyed at the end of the school year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the third and fourth issues, Ms. Skinner stated the data in the Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and in the Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form do not constitute educational data subject to disclosure by ISD #721.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the fifth issue, Ms. Skinner conceded that while ISD #721 inadvertently failed to notify (M&apos;s father) that it could not respond within the five day period the District substantially complied with the statutory mandates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Naugle asked the Commissioner to address the following issues
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did District 721 violate Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when a District employee disseminated data contained in a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Form about a student and his/her father to the student&apos;s mother? (The disseminations allegedly occurred in February or March of 1995, and in the fall of 1995.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the apparent destruction of educational data (school counselor&apos;s notes) by a District 721 employee violate the rights of access pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, of the student and her/his father?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did District 721 violate Section 13.04, subdivision 3, by failing to provide the following data about a student and her/his father upon their May 24, 1996, request for access to data: data contained in a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and data contained in a Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did District 721 violate Section 13.05, subdivision 5, by failing to ensure that data contained in the following documents about the student and her/his father are accurate, complete, and current: the school counselor&apos;s notes, a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, and a Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did District 721 violate Section 13.04, subdivision 3, by failing to notify the data requestors that the District would require an additional five days to respond to their May 24, 1996, request?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Because this opinion request has arisen out of a set of very complex facts, it may be helpful to first reiterate some of the undisputed points.
&lt;p&gt;One, M met with E for counseling sessions in the fall of 1992 (see Exhibit 2).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two, E made notes that s/he subsequently shredded sometime between the summer of 1993 and October of 1995 (see Exhibit 2).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Three, a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report was filed with Rice County on October 28, 1992 (see Exhibit 5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Four, Rice County interviewed M on school property on October 29, 1992, (see Exhibit 5).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Five, according to the Child Protection Assessment Report, dated October 29, 1992, maltreatment was not determined and no protective actions were needed (see Exhibit 6).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Six, M and M&apos;s father made a request for access to all data about them on May 24, 1996 (copy of request attached to Mr. Naugle&apos;s opinion request).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first issue raised by Mr. Naugle is whether E inappropriately disseminated data about M and M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother. Based on information in both E&apos;s deposition and in M&apos;s mothers&apos; affidavit, it is apparent that E disseminated data about M and M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother. However, it is not absolutely clear whether the data came from E&apos;s notes or from a copy of the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report retained within ISD #721. In the case of E&apos;s notes, because the data contained therein were created and maintained by ISD #721, those data were government data and were, therefore, subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, there is no dispute that E (a mandatory reporter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556) made a report of the alleged abuse. However, there is some question as to whether ISD #721 actually retained a copy of the written Report. Because Ms. Skinner presented no arguments to the contrary, and because the language that appears in the Report was used verbatim by E when s/he gave her/his deposition, the balance of this opinion will presume that E completed, in writing, a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and provided it to Rice County Social Services. Based on that assumption, the data contained in the Report are government data, and, therefore, are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether the source of the dissemination was E&apos;s notes or the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, the disclosure was not appropriate. First, if the source was E&apos;s notes, the data contained therein are private educational data (see discussion relating to Issue 2 of this Opinion) and are, therefore, accessible to the data subject(s). Thus, ISD #721 had no authority to disseminate data about M or M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, if the source was the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 7, the report is confidential. Therefore, none of the data contained in that report are accessible to any of the data subjects. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to this issue, Ms. Skinner is in agreement that the data disseminated to M&apos;s mother about M and M&apos;s father were, indeed, government data collected, created, or maintained by ISD #721. She stated, The School District did not release data contained in a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Form but instead disseminated educational data&apos; about a student or former student.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Educational data are classified pursuant to Section 13.32. Educational data are defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. (See Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a).) In addition, pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), data concerning parents are educational data. Generally speaking, educational data are private data on individuals. In the case of educational data concerning minors, both parents can gain access to those data unless there is a state law, court order, or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500, subpart 2(B).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Skinner noted that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) contains exceptions which give parents the right of access to their children&apos;s educational records, even those children are over the age of 18. She wrote, One exception provides that consent is not required to disclose educational records to parents of dependent students as defined by section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (emphasis added) 1232g(b)(1)(H). As Ms. Skinner discussed, this issue was addressed in Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion 96-009. Ms. Skinner further stated, Therefore the School District was permitted to release educational data about M to either parent without [his/her] consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two problems with Ms. Skinner&apos;s argument. One is she never explicitly stated that M was a dependent child of M&apos;s mother. The fact that ISD #721 could, under federal and state law, disseminate private data about an adult dependent student to his/her parents does not establish that M was a dependent of his/her mother for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code. Two is that neither Ms. Skinner nor Mr. Naugle presented any information to suggest that ISD #721 made any attempt to validate a dependent student status prior to E&apos;s disseminating data about M and M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot agree with Ms. Skinner&apos;s argument that the disclosure of the private data about M was appropriate. In any case, E could not disseminate private data about M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The crux of the second issue of this Opinion revolves around whether, as Mr. Naugle asserts, E&apos;s notes related to M&apos;s allegations of abuse are government data. If those notes are government data, ISD #721 is subject to standards regarding the retention of those data. If the notes are not government data, there are no such obligations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her comments, Ms. Skinner stated that FERPA excludes certain data from the definition of educational records, and, therefore, from government data. She cited 20 U.S.C. Section 1232g(a)(4) which, in part, provides for one such exception: Records of instructional, supervisory and administrative personnel and educational personnel ancillary to those persons that are kept in the sole possession of the maker of the record, and are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a temporary substitute for the maker of the record. Minnesota state law relating to this specific issue is more restrictive than federal law and provides that the same exclusion applies only to the records of instructional personnel. (See Section 13.32, subdivision 1(a).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The key, therefore, appears to turn on whether E, in her/his professional capacity, is considered to be instructional personnel. Ms. Skinner refers to E as a school counselor and E, in his/her deposition, refers to her/himself as a secondary school counselor. It is the Commissioner&apos;s determination that a school counselor is not instructional personnel because a school counselor does not fill an instructional role, as would a teacher. Thus, because the data created by E do not qualify for the exception provided in Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), those data are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Naugle&apos;s original question is whether the rights of access of M and M&apos;s father were violated by the destruction of E&apos;s notes. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. (See Section 138.163.) Further, pursuant to Section 138.17, government entities must seek the approval of the Records Disposition Panel before they may dispose of government records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that E&apos;s notes do not qualify as notes of instructional personnel, the appropriateness of the destruction of those notes depends upon how ISD #721 has met its obligation under Section 138.17. If destruction of those notes was permitted by a records retention schedule prepared and adopted by ISD #721, and approved by the Records Disposition Panel, then the destruction was appropriate. If a records retention schedule covering destruction of these notes was not prepared or adopted, then the destruction was not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If a government entity inappropriately disposes of data which document official activities, the rights of individuals to gain access to those data have been violated. An improper destruction of E&apos;s notes would have made it impossible for M and M&apos;s father to gain access to private data as is their right under Section 13.04.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third issue raised by Mr. Naugle is whether ISD #721 violated Section 13.04, subdivision 3, by not providing M and M&apos;s father access to certain data upon their request. As previously discussed, M and M&apos;s father requested, from Rice County Social Services, data relating to the alleged incident of abuse. Among the documents they received were a copy of the Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and a copy of the Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form. When M and M&apos;s father requested access to data from ISD #721, they did not receive copies of these documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the facts as submitted, it is unclear whether ISD #721 kept a copy of the Report filed by E. If the District is still maintaining a copy, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 7, the Report is confidential. Therefore, ISD #721 has not violated the rights of M and M&apos;s father by not providing them with access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is also a possibility that if ISD #721 kept of copy of the Report, the Report was destroyed before M and M&apos;s father made their request. In such a situation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11c (c), the data can be destroyed only if the agency conducting the investigation has so ordered. It is unclear if Rice County has ordered the destruction of these records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response, Ms. Skinner argued that the data in the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report are not educational data subject to disclosure by ISD #721. She also stated that the Report is a document prepared by Rice County, and that ISD #721 possesses no authority to disseminate the county records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, indeed, ISD #721 does retain a copy of the original Report, Ms. Skinner is incorrect to assert that the data are not educational data. As Section 13.32, subdivision 1, states, all data on individuals maintained by public educational institutions are educational data. While it is necessary to consult Section 626.556 regarding any specific disclosure/dissemination requirements, any data maintained by ISD #721 are still considered to be educational data. Therefore, if Section 626.556 authorizes disclosure, ISD #721 does have authority to release data in its possession.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the issue of the Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form, or data therein, the specific authority to disseminate those data is found in Section 626.556, subdivisions 10 (d) and 11c (c). Subdivision 10 (d) states that although the contents of the notification form are classified as private data, prior to the recipient of the notice being notified, in writing by either the local welfare or law enforcement agency that the investigation or assessment has been concluded, schools officials may not disclose the contents of the notification. Subdivision 11c (c) states that all records regarding a report of maltreatment, including any notification of intent to interview which was received by a school, must be destroyed by the school when ordered to do so by the agency conducting the assessment or investigation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As in the case of the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, is it unclear if ISD #721 is still in possession of a copy of the interview notification form. If the District is in possession of the notification form, and the District was notified by Rice County or the appropriate law enforcement agency that the investigation/assessment was concluded, the data in the notification form are private and are accessible to the data subjects. If ISD #721 is in possession of the notification form, but did not receive notice from Rice County or the appropriate law enforcement agency that the investigation/assessment was concluded, the data in the notification form are confidential and not accessible to the data subjects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If, however, ISD #721 has destroyed the notification form, the destruction was appropriate only if it was so ordered by Rice County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Skinner&apos;s arguments regarding the notification form are the same as she made regarding the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report. (See above.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, if ISD#721 is in possession of the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, the data are confidential and the rights of M and M&apos;s father were not violated by their not having received access. If the District destroyed the Report, and such destruction was appropriate, the rights of M and M&apos;s father have not been violated. If, however, the District destroyed the Report without a notice of destruction under Section 626.556, subdivision 11c (c), the rights of M and M&apos;s father have been violated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If ISD #721 is in possession of the notification form, and the District received notice that the assessment had concluded, the data contained in the form are private and should be accessible M and M&apos;s father. If ISD #721 is in possession of the notification form and did not receive notice that the assessment had concluded, the data are confidential and the rights of M and M&apos;s father have not been violated. If, however, ISD #721 destroyed the notification form prior to having been ordered to do so by Rice County, the District has violated the rights of M and M&apos;s father to gain access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fourth issue raised by Mr. Naugle is whether ISD #721 violated Section 13.05, subdivision 5, in regard to data contained in the following documents: E&apos;s notes, a Rice County Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, and a Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 5, government entities are obligated to establish procedures to assure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which those data were collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to E&apos;s counseling notes which relate to her/his counseling sessions with M, Ms. Skinner wrote, Since the school counselor&apos;s notes are not deemed to be private educational data, the requirements of Minn. Stat. 13.05, subd. 5 do not apply. As per the discussion relating to the Issue 2 of this Opinion, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Skinner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, because E shredded his/her notes, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether ISD #721 did or did not comply with the requirement that it keep its data accurate, complete, and current.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the Rice County Child Abuse/Neglect Report and the Rice County Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form, Ms. Skinner wrote, ...the School District has no duty or obligation to assure that data is accurate which is compiled and maintained by another government agency. It is the obligation of Rice County to govern the accuracy of its own data. The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Skinner. In this instance, the purpose of collecting the data contained in the Report was to communicate that maltreatment had allegedly occurred. The purpose of collecting the data contained in the notification form was to communicate to the District that an interview would be occurring. Because none of the data in either of these two documents can be updated in relation to the purposes for which they were collected, ISD #721 does not bear responsibility for maintaining the accuracy, completeness, or currentness of the data in these documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the fifth issue, it is necessary to consult Section 13.04, subdivision 3, which, in relevant part, states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If &lt;u&gt;unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual&lt;/u&gt;, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Naugle provided to the Commissioner a copy of the written request for access to data made by M and M&apos;s father. The request is dated May 24, 1996, and was undisputedly hand-delivered to ISD #721 on that same day. Mr. Naugle stated that the District&apos;s response was postmarked June 7, 1996, and that ISD #721 did not request an extension of time in which to respond to the requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Skinner conceded that the five day period expired on June 3, 1996, and that ISD #721 provided copies of the documents by mail on June 7, 1996. She wrote, While the School District inadvertently failed to notify [M&apos;s father] that it could not respond within the five day period, it did provide the information on June 7, 1996 within the additional five day period allowed by statute. Therefore, it is clear the School District substantially complied with the statutory mandates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 3, explicitly states that if an entity is unable to comply with a request for access to data (regardless of whether the request is for copies or to inspect) within five &lt;u&gt;working days&lt;/u&gt;, the entity must so inform the data requestor. In the present situation, ISD #721 did not inform M and M&apos;s father that a response could not be issued within five working days of May 24, 1996. Therefore, ISD #721 has not complied with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Naugle is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the source of the dissemination was E&apos;s notes, the data contained therein are private educational data and are, therefore, accessible to the data subject(s). Thus, ISD #721 had no authority to disseminate data about M or M&apos;s father to M&apos;s mother. If the source of the dissemination was the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 7, the report is confidential. Therefore, none of the data contained in the Report are accessible to any of the data subjects.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If destruction of E&apos;s notes was permitted by a records retention schedule prepared and adopted by ISD #721, and approved by the Records Disposition Panel, then the destruction was appropriate. If a records retention schedule covering destruction of these notes was not prepared or adopted, then the destruction was not appropriate. An improper destruction of E&apos;s notes would have made it impossible for M and M&apos;s father to gain access to private data as is their right under Section 13.04.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If ISD #721 is in possession of the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report, the data are confidential and the rights of M and M&apos;s father were not violated by their not having gained access. If the District destroyed the Report, and such destruction was appropriate, the rights of M and M&apos;s father have not been violated. If, however, the District destroyed the Report without a notice of destruction under Section 626.556, subdivision 11c (c), the rights of M and M&apos;s father have been violated.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If ISD #721 is in possession of the notification form, and the District received notice that the assessment had concluded, the data are private and should be accessible to M and M&apos;s father. If ISD #721 is in possession of the form and did not receive notice that the assessment had concluded, the data are confidential and the rights of M and M&apos;s father have not been violated. If, however, ISD #721 destroyed the notification form prior to having been ordered to do so by Rice County, the District has violated the rights of M and M&apos;s father to gain access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In regard to E&apos;s notes, because they were shredded, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether ISD #721 did or did not comply with the requirement that it keep its data accurate, complete, and current.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect Report and the Child Abuse Interview on School Property notification form, because none of the data contained in either of these two documents can be updated in relation to the purposes for which they were collected, ISD #721 does not bear responsibility for maintaining the accuracy, completeness, or currentness of the data in these documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Because ISD #721 did not inform the data requestors that it would take more than five working days to comply with their request, the District has not complied with Section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267394</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complete and current 13.05</Title><Id>266530</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access to data subject</Title><Id>266497</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent of dependent adult student</Title><Id>266428</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Instructional personnel</Title><Id>266531</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notes, &quot;desk drawer notes&quot;</Title><Id>266532</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Records retention schedule</Title><Id>266534</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-12-03T21:56:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Standing requests</Title><Id>266802</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-047</Title><title>Opinion 96 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267805&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-11-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must a government entity honor standing requests for data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, what is the classification of directory information on persons recently discharged from Weiner Memorial Medical Center?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 6, 1996; Weiner Memorial Medical Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated September 16, 1996, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Marshall Independent, a newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the Independent&apos;s access to certain government data maintained by the Weiner Memorial Medical Center, hereinafter Medical Center. The Medical Center is located at Marshall, Minnesota. (Although Mr. Anfinson raised 3 issues, the Commissioner determined that her authority extended to only 2 of those issues.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Jensen, Administrator of the Medical Center. The purposes of this letter dated September 30, 1996, were to inform Mr. Jensen of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, and to ask him or the Medical Center&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Center&apos;s position. On October 7, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Brian Murphy an attorney representing the Medical Center.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his request, Mr. Anfinson stated that the Independent and the Medical Center have recently been engaged in a dispute over access to certain data maintained by the Medical Center. First, Mr. Anfinson noted that the newspaper has sought to make a standing request to the Medical Center for directory information so that repeated requests for the same basic information do not have to be made on a daily or weekly basis. Mr. Anfinson stated, ...the Medical Center has taken the position that a new request must be made every time the newspaper seeks additional directory data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The second issue raised by Mr. Anfinson relates to a change made during the 1996 Legislative Session to Section 13.42, subdivision 2. Mr. Anfinson wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Medical Center contends that this amendment prohibits it from releasing any directory data about a patient who has been discharged from Weiner Medical Memorial, even though the patients there would seldom if ever be committed. I understand that the amendment was adopted principally to protect against disclosure of the fact that a person was a patient at a state-operated treatment center. It would therefore seem improper to apply it to requests for routine directory information about recently discharged local public hospital patients who had not been publicly committed. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In regard to the first issue, Mr. Murphy wrote, in part:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The present policy of the Weiner Memorial Medical Center is that when any person comes to the main desk of the hospital, a hospital employee delivers to them a sheet which contains all the directory information as required by Minnesota Stat. 13.42....I can only assume that they are requesting that we either FAX to the Independent, mail to them, Federal Express to them or some other type of transmission the information so it would be more convenient for their purposes. All that is necessary is that a person stand at the front desk and request the information.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In regard to the second issue, Mr. Murphy wrote, in part:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The 1996 Legislature, as stated in Session Law, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 9, Subd. 2, specifically states that after a person is released the directory information is private on individuals . If the directory information is private on individuals, then the public hospital is bound to treat said data as private and therefore is bound not to release it to anybody....It is the position of Weiner Memorial Medical Center that when a patient has been transferred out of the hospital by either ambulance or helicopter or released to walk home, that any data, including directory data, is now private data and we do not have to release it pursuant to the 1996 Session Law.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must a government entity honor standing requests for data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, what is the classification of directory information on persons recently discharged from Weiner Memorial Medical Center?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In framing the first issue, Mr. Anfinson asserted that the Marshall Independent seeks access to the same basic information on a daily or weekly basis.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Murphy did not directly address the issue as stated. He asserted the Medical Center&apos;s present policy is that when a person comes to the main desk and requests directory information, those data are henceforth delivered. He wrote, All that is necessary is that a person stand at the front desk and request the information. It appears Mr. Murphy is suggesting that the only way for directory information to be accessed from the Medical Center is for requestors to physically make their requests at the front desk. If this, indeed, is the Medical Center&apos;s policy, it is not in compliance with Chapter 13, which does not require that requests for government data be made in person.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The question, however, raised by Mr. Anfinson is whether Chapter 13 imposes upon government entities a duty to respond to standing requests for data. While Chapter 13 does not explicitly address the issue of &lt;em&gt;standing &lt;/em&gt; requests for access to data, it does set forth quite clearly the obligations imposed upon a request to a responsible authority. (See Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3.) Based on the broadness of this language, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that a standing request is similar to a singular request, regardless of whether it arrives, for example, in person, by mail, by fax, or by telephone, and regardless of whether a person makes a standing request or chooses to make her/his requests one at a time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, based on the language in Section 13.03, government entities are required to follow the requirements set forth in Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to standing requests for access to government data. However, in the instance of a standing request, it is reasonable for a government entity to require that there be periodic verification that the requestor is still interested in gaining access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To address the second issue, it is necessary to examine a portion of Section 13.42, subdivision 2. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13.42, subdivision 2, state:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(a) During the time that a person is a patient in a hospital operated by a state agency or political subdivision pursuant to legal commitment, directory information is public data. After the person is released, the directory information is private data on individuals.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            (b) If a person is a patient other than pursuant to commitment in a hospital controlled by a state agency or political subdivision, directory information is public data unless the patient requests otherwise, in which case it is private data on individuals.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As Mr. Anfinson noted in his opinion request, the 1996 Minnesota Legislature amended Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), so that in the case of a person committed pursuant to legal commitment, directory information are public while the person is in the hospital, but the data become private after the person is discharged. The Legislature did not amend Subdivision 2 (b). Mr. Anfinson asserted that the Medical Center&apos;s current policy is to treat all directory information about patients who were discharged as private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Murphy cites the new language in Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), and stated, If the directory information is private on individuals, then the public hospital is bound to treat said data as private and therefore is bound not to release it to anybody. Thus, when the patient leaves the hospital, the data can no longer be released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As Mr. Murphy has asserted, pursuant to Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), directory information on discharged persons who were patients pursuant to public commitment are private data. The remaining issue is the classification of directory information relating to patients who were not publicly committed. As Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (b), states, in the case of patients other than those pursuant to public commitment, directory information on the patient is public unless the patient requests otherwise. The key, here, is the word patient. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that when a person leaves a hospital, s/he is no longer a patient. Therefore, while the person is a patient (or remains hospitalized), directory information about that person is public, unless s/he requests otherwise. Once that person is discharged, the data become private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                In responding to standing requests for access to government data, government entities are required to follow the requirements set forth in Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                If a person is a patient pursuant to public commitment, directory information is public until the person is released. If a person is a patient other than pursuant to public commitment, directory information is public until the person is released unless s/he requests otherwise. After the person is discharged, the data become private.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 6, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267805</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Standing requests for data</Title><Id>266805</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-046</Title><title>Opinion 96 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267706&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-11-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Mr. Shaw have the right to inspect data maintained by the University of Minnesota which document the dollar amounts, including damages awards, paid by the University to settle discrimination claims?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 1, 1996; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 12, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Robert M. Shaw. In that letter, Mr. Shaw described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota. Mr. Shaw enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Shaw&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel, University of Minnesota. The purposes of this letter, dated September 13, 1996, were to inform Ms. Smith of Mr. Shaw&apos;s request, to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 20, 1996, PIPA received a response from Ms. Smith. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Throughout 1996, Mr. Shaw made several requests for access to data maintained by the University concerning settlements of discrimination claims. Mr. Shaw communicated his requests to Mark Rotenberg, University General Counsel; Ms. Smith; and Susan McKinney, Records and Information Manager and Responsible Authority at the University.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Initially, Mr. Shaw asked for the total dollar amount paid by the University over the past ten years to settle discrimination claims, regardless whether the claim was litigated. Mr. Shaw&apos;s subsequent requests were expressed in various ways, but all relate to how the University has settled discrimination claims. According to Mr. Shaw, he originally thought that the University prepared a settlement of claims document for every discrimination case, and that the data were maintained in such a way that they would be easily accessible to members of the public. At a meeting on March 20, 1996, Ms. Smith showed him many shelves of file folders - some of them three, four inches thick, each of which represented a claim against the University. Ms. Smith told him that the data he wanted were contained in those file folders, of which there were thousands. She told Mr. Shaw that no member of the public would be permitted to inspect the files because they contained both public and not public data. Mr. Shaw understood that the fee the University would charge him for copies of the public data in the files would be higher than he was prepared to pay. (Letter from Mr. Shaw to Mark Rotenberg, March 26, 1996.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Shaw acknowledged that the University provided some, but not all, of the information he requested. After several more attempts to gain access to the remaining data, Mr. Shaw wrote again to Mr. Rotenberg in July 1996. In that letter, Mr. Shaw wrote: . . . I would like to make another run at things with a brand new request. Pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03] I would like to inspect public data maintained by your office which documents the dollar amounts, including damages awards, paid by the [University] to settle discrimination suits for the past ten years.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response, Ms. Smith wrote to Mr. Shaw. In that letter, dated July 24, 1996, Ms. Smith wrote: I made available for your review the University&apos;s settlement agreements, but you chose not to review them. Mr. Shaw responded to Ms. Smith: I do not believe, Ms. Smith, that you &apos;made available ... settlement agreements&apos; which I &apos;chose not to review.&apos; On the contrary, you said it would not be possible for me to inspect the files because of the &apos;mixture&apos; (my quotes) of public and non-public documents in the files. (Emphasis his.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Shaw, the University has not provided him with access to the data he requested in his July 1996, letter to Mr. Rotenberg.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The University disagrees with Mr. Shaw. In her response to the Commissioner Ms. Smith wrote: [a]s the University explained to Mr. Shaw, the General Counsel&apos;s Office does not have data for settlements prior to [July 1, 1994], because the tracking system was instituted 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Smith said that the University has provided a wealth of information to Mr. Shaw in response to his requests, including lists of settlements of litigated matters involving discrimination, the total amount of money spent settling discrimination claims, the number of court claims, administrative claims, and internal grievances involving discrimination, and information about the University&apos;s insurance coverage for discrimination claims.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Smith stated that until July 1993, the University . . . had no administrative need to distinguish discrimination from all other types of claims, since discrimination claims were not separately insured. Mr. Shaw assumes that because he has an interest in discrimination, the University must search and organize its data according to his interest. The Data Practices Act does not impose such a [sic] obligation.
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Smith also stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The University explained to Mr. Shaw that the information provided may not be an exact amount of each and every &apos;settlement involving discrimination claims&apos; regardless whether litigation was involved. The University explained that at this large, decentralized institution, there may be relatively small, informal grievances involving a claim of discrimination that have been resolved by individual University departments through payments of backpay, vacation pay, etc. Such payments are not normally tracked or handled by the General Counsel&apos;s Office or the University&apos;s central administrators.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
            Ms. Smith further stated: [i]n addition, the University provided Mr. Shaw access to the General Counsel&apos;s folders of settlement agreements, which contain settlements of litigated matters, including discrimination claims. Mr. Shaw chose not to review those settlements.
            &lt;p&gt;
              Finally, Ms. Smith stated: [t]he University has provided Mr. Shaw all the data at the University&apos;s disposal concerning his request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Shaw asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does Mr. Shaw have the right to inspect data maintained by the University of Minnesota which document the dollar amounts, including damages awards, paid by the University to settle discrimination claims? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The classification of the data in question is not in dispute. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship are public data. Therefore, Mr. Shaw is entitled to inspect those data at no charge, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, Ms. Smith maintains that [t]he University has provided Mr. Shaw all the data at the University&apos;s disposal concerning his request, including an opportunity to inspect the settlement data in its files. Mr. Shaw does not agree that he was afforded that opportunity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This matter is complicated by a number of things. First, Mr. Shaw made numerous requests of the University, and the specific content of those requests, all of which related to discrimination claim settlements, was modified by Mr. Shaw during the months he was trying to get the data. It is therefore understandable that there may be some confusion on the part of Ms. Smith and Mr. Rotenberg as to exactly what data Mr. Shaw is still seeking. However, Mr. Shaw was clear in his last request, that he intended it as a new request, distinct from his previous requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A second complicating factor is that Mr. Shaw, in his requests for data, generally directed those requests to Mr. Rotenberg or Ms. Smith, and referred to University data maintained by Office of General Counsel. In his requests for access directed to Ms. McKinney, he referred both to information relating to discrimination settlements by the University and to information contained in records in the hands of the University&apos;s General Counsel office.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In the request at issue here, Mr. Shaw&apos;s July 1996 request directed to Mr. Rotenberg, he requested access to data maintained by your office. However, in her response, Ms. Smith stated that she had made the &lt;u&gt;University&apos;s&lt;/u&gt;settlement agreements available to Mr. Shaw. In Ms. Smith&apos;s and Mr. Rotenberg&apos;s other responses to Mr. Shaw, they referred both to data maintained by the Office of General Counsel, and to data maintained by the University. They stated that the information they had provided Mr. Shaw may not include every settlement involving discrimination claims, because individual University departments may resolve some grievances informally. According to them, such resolutions are not normally tracked or handled by the General Counsel&apos;s Office or the University&apos;s central administrators.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A third complicating factor is that it is not clear whether Mr. Rotenberg and/or Ms. Smith are acting as the University&apos;s responsible authority and/or designee, or as representatives solely of the University&apos;s Office of General Counsel. When Mr. Shaw wrote to Ms. McKinney, who he understood to be the University&apos;s Responsible Authority, she referred him to Mr. Rotenberg.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If Mr. Rotenberg and/or Ms. Smith were responding to Mr. Shaw as the University&apos;s Responsible Authority and/or Designee, then they needed to provide him with access to the data relevant to his request, regardless whether those data are maintained by the Office of General Counsel. If they were not acting in that capacity, then Ms. McKinney should have responded directly to Mr. Shaw, and made all of the data available for his inspection, regardless where those data are physically stored by the University.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Had the University provided Mr. Shaw with a copy of its data practices policies and procedures regarding how a member of the public may gain access to public data maintained by the University, and asked Mr. Shaw to follow those procedures, complicating factors could have been avoided. It is appropriate for a government entity to require an individual to identify clearly, with a level of specificity, appropriate to the circumstance, what government data the individual is seeking.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to the information provided to the Commissioner, even considering the complications noted above, it does not appear that the University has properly responded to Mr. Shaw&apos;s July 1996 request for access to public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Shaw is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Mr. Shaw has the right to inspect data maintained by the University of Minnesota that document the dollar amounts paid by the University to settle discrimination claims and damage awards.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 1, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267706</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-045</Title><title>Opinion 96 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267502&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-10-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data contained in each of the documents identified by School District 324 as exhibits 1-9? (The documents are copies of correspondence from District 324 to either one or several employees.)
What is the classification of the data contained in the two documents identified by District 324 as exhibit 10? (The documents are (1) a copy of correspondence from an outside entity relating to a District employee and (2) a copy of correspondence from the District to the same employee.)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 30, 1996; School District 324 (Jackson)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 21, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated August 20, 1996, from Kevin Rupp, an attorney representing Independent School District 324, Jackson, hereinafter, ISD #324. In his letter, Mr. Rupp requested an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by ISD #324. The issues submitted by Mr. Rupp were subsequently clarified and re-written as stated below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Rupp asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of data contained in certain documents relating to an ISD #324 employee(s). The first eight documents are described by Mr. Rupp as directives and reprimands given to an employee. He stated, in addition, No grievance has been filed over any of these documents and the time period within which the employee had the right to do so has expired. The ninth document is described by Mr. Rupp as follows: The employee has grieved this reprimand and that grievance has not reached its conclusion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The tenth and eleventh documents are related to one another. One is a letter from [an outside entity] censuring the School District&apos;s employee for violating the [entity&apos;s] rules and the other is a letter from the Superintendent to the employee reprimanding [her/him] for the violation. Mr. Rupp added, The documents were not grieved and the opportunity to do so has expired.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              (In preparing this opinion, PIPA staff requested from Mr. Rupp any information regarding policies and procedures relating to discipline contained in either the employee&apos;s (or employees&apos;) contracts or ISD #324&apos;s general policies. Mr. Rupp responded by forwarding a copy of the 1993-1995 and the 1995-1997 Master Agreements between ISD #324 and the Jackson Education Association. The same language relating to discipline appeared in both documents and was not helpful in reaching a conclusion in this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What is the classification of the data contained in each of the documents identified by School District 324 as exhibits 1-9? (The documents are copies of correspondence from District 324 to either one or several employees.)
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What is the classification of the data contained in the two documents identified by District 324 as exhibit 10? (The documents are (1) a copy of correspondence from an outside entity relating to a District employee and (2) a copy of correspondence from the District to the same employee.)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be no question that the data contained in all eleven documents were created and are maintained because the subject(s) of the data is an employee(s) of a government entity, i.e., ISD #324. Therefore, for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, those data are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 provides that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this Opinion, Subdivision 2 (a) clauses 4 and 5, provide that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action, together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), defines, for the purposes of Chapter 13, the term final disposition as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Thus, if no final disposition, as defined in subdivision 2 (b), regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, only those data relating to the existence and status of any complaints or charges are public. In addition, if no disciplinary action has been taken, there cannot be a final disposition.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                     The answer to Mr. Rupp&apos;s question depends, therefore, on whether disciplinary action was taken by ISD #324 and, if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action. Because Chapter 13 does not specifically define the term disciplinary action it is appropriate to seek further guidance. &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, &lt;/i&gt;Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, in relevant part defines discipline as, To punish or penalize. Action, also in relevant part, is defined as, an act or thing done. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of disciplinary action is an act that either punishes or penalizes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The first document (Exhibit 1) is a copy of a memo dated in November of 1995 addressed to an employee from someone who apparently is in a supervisory position. The memo discusses three situations that need to be addressed. Essentially, the memo informs the employee that s/he should have managed the situations differently and states, ...&lt;u&gt;you must handle students more diplomatically&lt;/u&gt;. The last paragraph of the memo states, Any action which puts any student in an embarrassing situation should not occur. It if does, disciplinary action &lt;u&gt;will&lt;/u&gt;take place. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears the purpose of this document is to serve as a threat of punishment or penalty to the employee; not to set forth discipline being taken by ISD #324. There is no mention of punishment and the document refers to the possibility of future discipline if further problems occur. Therefore, because it appears no disciplinary action was taken regarding the incidents described in Exhibit 1, it is only the following data which are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The second document (Exhibit 2) is a copy of a memo dated in January of 1995 from the same supervisor to an employee. In the memo, which is stated as regarding a &lt;u&gt;Reprimand&lt;/u&gt; (emphasis added), the supervisor states that s/he received a complaint regarding the employee&apos;s language. Also in the memo, the supervisor directs the employee to cease all swearing and other inappropriate comments. The supervisor further states, I am directing you to apologize by [specific date]...Should you choose to disregard this directive, you will be subject to &lt;u&gt;further&lt;/u&gt;discipline which may include dismissal. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of Exhibit 2, it does appear that disciplinary action was taken by ISD #324 against the employee. The employee was punished by being directed to apologize for the use of certain inappropriate comments. Adding credence to the position that discipline has occurred is the supervisor&apos;s statement that if an apology is not forthcoming, the employee might find her/himself subject to further discipline; apparently the supervisor views the act of being forced to apologize as a form of discipline. The Commissioner agrees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, in regard to Exhibit 2, the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists; the status of the complaint (discipline taken); the final disposition of any disciplinary action (directed to apologize); and the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the basis of the action. (In this situation, a final disposition has occurred because, according to Mr. Rupp, no grievance was filed and the time period within which the employee had the right to do so has expired.)
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    The third document (Exhibit 3) is a copy of a memo dated in July of 1994 from the Superintendent to an employee. The memo is in regards to a Building Permit Issue. In the memo, the Superintendent refers to an incident whereby the employee apparently built something without first acquiring a building permit from the City of Jackson. In the memo, the Superintendent states he is asking the employee to do the following: apply for the building permit and pay any fines or fees; turn in any bills for cement work; and turn in quotes for materials and labor. The Superintendent also wrote, In the future, it is critical that you follow all rules that apply. Seek and gain approval before starting a project and follow-up [sic] with the appropriate paper work when completed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of Exhibit 3, it does not appear that any disciplinary action has been taken by ISD #324. Rather, the employee was asked by the Superintendent to take action to further the building project. Although the employee was required to pay any fines levied by the City of Jackson, such action does not constitute discipline imposed by the District. Therefore, only the following data relating to Exhibit 3 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The fourth document (Exhibit 4) is a copy of a memo dated in February of 1994 and is addressed to an employee from the Superintendent. The subject of the memo is Chaining and Padlocking Exit Doors. The Superintendent wrote, It was brought to my attention this morning, that you have chained and padlocked exit doors at the [school event]...&lt;u&gt;Immediately&lt;/u&gt;, the practice of chaining and padlocking exit doors must be discontinued...Any further violations &lt;u&gt;will&lt;/u&gt;[emphasis added] be cause for suspension.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, it does not appear that the ISD #324 employee was punished or penalized as a result of the complaint referenced in Exhibit 4. Rather, the employee was instructed to cease his/her practice of chaining and padlocking certain exit doors. As the case with Exhibit 1, this document refers to disciplinary action being taken in the future if problems continue. Thus, only the following data relating to Exhibit 3 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    The fifth document (Exhibit 5) is a copy of a memo dated in April of 1994 and addressed to an employee from a supervisor. The stated subject of the memo is Notice of Deficiency. The term Notice of Deficiency has evolved out of language in Minnesota Statutes Section 125.12, subdivision 6. Section 125.12, subdivision 6, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A continuing contract may be terminated, effective at the close of the school year, upon any of the following grounds:
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Inefficiency;
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Neglect of duty, or persistent violation of school laws, rules, regulations, or directives;
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Conduct unbecoming a teacher which materially impairs the teacher&apos;s educational effectiveness;
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Other good and sufficient grounds rendering the teacher unfit to perform the teacher&apos;s duties.
                              &lt;p&gt;
                                A contract shall not be terminated upon one of the grounds specified in clause (a), (b), (c), or (d), unless the teacher shall have failed to correct the deficiency after being given written notice of the specific terms of complaint and reasonable time within which to remedy them.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The above language relates to a situation in which a teacher is instructed to correct certain behaviors or face possible termination, not one in which a teacher is disciplined or penalized for acting out certain behaviors. Thus, if a document contains statements considered to be notices of deficiencies it is unlikely those statements will contain data which represent discipline taken by a school district, unless some form of penalty is imposed in addition to the statements directing correction of behavior.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to Exhibit 5, at the beginning of the memo, the Superintendent states, This letter will constitute a notice of deficiency pursuant to Minnesota Statute 125.12, Subd.6. You are requested to correct the following deficiencies:... S/he goes on to list various deficiencies such as, Be very careful... , Be very patient... , use discretion... , Be prepared... , and so on.
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    Thus, because the data contained in this Notice of Deficiency do not represent discipline or punishment taken by ISD #324, only the following data are public: the fact that any complaints exists and the status of those complaints.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The sixth document is a copy of a memo (Exhibit 6) dated in March of 1993 directed to an employee from the Superintendent. Attached to this memo is a copy of minutes from an Athletic Council meeting. According to the minutes, at the meeting there ensued a discussion regarding the problem of the overlapping of winter and spring sports. In the memo, the Superintendent wrote, The action of the Council was that you would work with [other staff] and draft a policy to eliminate this problem. Why wasn&apos;t this done? The memo ends with the following: ...this is just &lt;u&gt;another incident in which you are unwilling to carry out your duties as an&lt;/u&gt;[specific title]. Therefore, the &lt;u&gt;lack of confidence&lt;/u&gt;in your leadership by the [other staff].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, the contents of this document do not appear to indicate that any punishment was taken by the District against the employee. The document discusses a performance problem but does not refer to any penalty regarding that performance. Therefore, only the following data relating to Exhibit 6 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The seventh document (Exhibit 7) is a copy of a memo dated in November of 1989 and is directed to an employee from what appears to be a supervisor. This memo is stated as regarding a Notice of Deficiency. The supervisor wrote, This letter will constitute a notice of deficiency pursuant to Minnesota statute 125.12, Subdivision 6. You are requested to correct the following deficiencies: inefficiency; neglect of duty; persistent disregard to administrative direction and other good and sufficient grounds. The memo then lists nine deficiencies. The supervisor then stated, If appropriate changes are not made by [upcoming date], appropriate disciplinary measures &lt;u&gt;will&lt;/u&gt;be taken. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As is the case with Exhibit 5, because the data contained in this Notice of Deficiency do not represent discipline or punishment taken by ISD #324, only the following data are public: the fact that any complaints exist and the status of those complaints.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The eighth document (Exhibit 8) is a copy of a letter addressed to an employee from a school principal. The letter is dated in May of 1987. In the letter, the principal briefly discussed an incident in which the employee apparently used inappropriate language. The principal wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...That is clearly unacceptable conduct...you have neither an excuse nor a defense for that action....As I noted during our conference this morning, this letter would be one of official reprimand, and would contain the following statement: should additional offenses of this nature occur, disciplinary action appropriate to the nature of the offense would be necessary....You may consider this an official reprimand.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                   In this situation, the key word is reprimand. To reprimand is to rebuke, or to censure severely or formally. (See &lt;i&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, &lt;/i&gt;Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985.) This is a form of penalty or punishment. Thus, in regard to exhibit 8, the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists; the status of that complaint (discipline taken); the final disposition of any disciplinary action (reprimand); and the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the basis of the action. (In this situation, a final disposition has occurred because, according to Mr. Rupp, no grievance was filed and the time period within which the employee had the right to do so has expired.)
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    The ninth document (Exhibit 9) is a copy of a memo addressed to an employee from a Superintendent dated in July of 1996. The stated subject of the memo is Insubordination. The employee apparently engaged in an activity in which s/he had been instructed not to engage. The superintendent wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;This action on your part was a direct violation of what I directed you on two different occasions, &lt;u&gt;not to do&lt;/u&gt;....Consider this letter a reprimand which will be added to your file. Should you choose to counter any administrative directive in the future or deceive other employees, you may face &lt;u&gt;further&lt;/u&gt;disciplinary action which may include suspension with or without pay and/or termination. (Emphasis added.)
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  As is the case in with Exhibit 8, this memo represents a reprimand directed to an ISD #324 employee. However, in this situation, as reported by Mr. Rupp, the employee has grieved the reprimand and the grievance has not yet reached conclusion. Therefore, because a final disposition has not yet occurred, only the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Exhibit 10 consists of copies of two documents; one addressed to the ISD #324 Superintendent from the executive director of an outside entity and the other addressed to an employee from the ISD #324 Superintendent. The first document is dated in December of 1992 and discusses the fact that the entity had censured an ISD #324 employee. The letter states, This letter serves as official sanction, and the appropriate notification of such sanction should be sent to [the employee]. You, as the designated school representative, should inform [the employee] in writing, of the violation....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second letter is a copy of the letter, also dated in December of 1992, from the Superintendent to the employee regarding the above-discussed incident. The Superintendent wrote, The [entity]...voted to issue a censure to you for the above violations. I view this action as a very serious indictment of our school district.... While the Superintendent noted the seriousness of the outside entity&apos;s decision, s/he apparently did not impose any punishment as a result of the entity&apos;s censure. Therefore, while a complaint was lodged, no discipline was apparently taken against the employee by ISD #324. Consequently, only the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It should be noted that if Mr. Rupp had presented Exhibits 1-10 as a documentation of progressive discipline against one employee, the outcome of this opinion might have been different. Take, for example, a situation in which four complaints were made over a period of time about the same employee, and disciplinary action was taken only in relation to the third complaint. When a fifth complaint occurred and disciplinary action was taken, data which originally were private regarding the first, second, third, and fourth complaint might become public in relation to the fifth complaint &lt;u&gt;if those data served to document the basis of the disciplinary action regarding complaint number five&lt;/u&gt;. However, in his request, Mr. Rupp appears to have presented each document on its own, not as part of a succession regarding the same employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rupp is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The following data contained in Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are public: the fact that any complaints exist and the status of those complaints. All other data contained in those documents are private. The following data contained in Exhibits 2 and 8 are public: the fact that any complaints exist, the status of those complaints; the final disposition of any disciplinary action; and the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the basis of the action. All other data contained in those documents are private.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The following data contained in Exhibit 10 are public: the fact that any complaints exist and the status of those complaints. All other data contained in those documents are private.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 30, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267502</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Defined</Title><Id>266478</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reprimand</Title><Id>266294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-044</Title><title>Opinion 96 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267895&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-10-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Mr. Lennes, on behalf of his client Builders Staff Corporation, have the right to gain access to Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry data provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations that relate to Builders Staff&apos;s application for approval of a collective bargaining agreement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 23, 1996; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
            On August 29, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from John B. Lennes, an attorney representing Builders Staff Corporation. In that letter, Mr. Lennes described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry ( DOLI ). Mr. Lennes enclosed copies of related correspondence. PIPA staff contacted Mr. Lennes for clarification and additional information, which PIPA received on September 5, 1996.
            &lt;p /&gt;
            In response to Mr. Lennes&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gary Bastian, Commissioner of DOLI. The purposes of this letter, dated September 12, 1996, were to inform Mr. Bastian of Mr. Lennes&apos;s request, to ask him or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;p /&gt;
            On September 27, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Bastian. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;
            Builders Staff Corporation has applied to DOLI for approval of a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.1812. According to DOLI, as part of the approval process, . . . [DOLI] staff requested and received information from various sources, including the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations. . . .
            &lt;p /&gt;
            When Builders Staff learned from DOLI that the Department had information about the company from California, Builders Staff sought to gain access to those data. The company first requested copies of the data at issue in a letter dated October 24, 1995, from Russell P. Ferry, CEO, to Kevin Gregerson of DOLI. According to Mr. Gregerson&apos;s affidavit, he did not respond to [Mr. Ferry&apos;s] request.
            &lt;p /&gt;
            In letters dated July 9, 1996, and August 5, 1996, Mr. Lennes repeated Builders Staff&apos;s request for access to the data in question. In a letter dated August 14, 1996, William A. Bierman of DOLI responded to Mr. Lennes. In that letter, Mr. Bierman wrote:
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;. . . if we had data in the file from the California Department of Labor, that data would be active civil investigative data as defined in Minn. Stat. 13.39. This statute classifies the data as &apos;protected nonpublic data&apos; with respect to data on entities, such as your client, or &apos;confidential&apos; with respect to data on individuals. In either case the data is not available to the subject.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;Civil investigative data is data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of bringing or defending civil legal action, or retained in anticipation of the same. You have been clear in communicating your client&apos;s intentions of an action and the conditions when that might occur. &lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated August 22, 1996, Mr. Lennes responded to Mr. Bierman:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Department in no way, shape or form has engaged in any active investigation undertaken for the purposes of defending a civil legal action, as you suggest. Rather, the Department seems to have engaged in an unauthorized &apos;active investigation&apos; for reasons which are, and I presume will remain, unstated. This &apos;active investigation&apos; predated Builders Staff&apos;s contemplation of litigation, and ironically is itself the basis for the company&apos;s feeling that a courtroom might be the only place it can turn for justice. [Emphasis his.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his opinion request, Mr. Lennes wrote:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[DOLI] has taken the position that [the data in question] is civil investigative data, collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of bringing or defending a civil legal action or retained in anticipation of same. This is not the case. This is simply data that was aggregated with respect to a request by Builders Staff for approval of an agreement. The Department seems to have anticipated that its actions could precipitate a lawsuit, and has chosen to treat the acquisition of the data in question in that respect. Please be assured that, unless the Department for some reason is anticipating suing Builders Staff, Builders Staff has no intention of suing the Department unless in the process of considering the application they continue to violate the company&apos;s rights. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lennes asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does Mr. Lennes, on behalf of his client Builders Staff Corporation, have the right to gain access to Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry data provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations that relate to Builders Staff&apos;s application for approval of a collective bargaining agreement?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bastian stated reasons for DOLI&apos;s position that the data from California are not accessible to Builders Staff, in addition to the reason cited by Mr. Bierman to Mr. Lennes, i.e. the data are civil investigative data. Mr. Bastian stated:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In California, the data collected by the California Department of Industrial Relations in reviewing alternative workers&apos; compensation programs are confidential and not subject to public disclosure under any California law. California Labor Code section 3201.5(j). . . . . The California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code [Section] 6250 et seq. does not define the term &apos;confidential&apos; and makes no distinction between data available to the public and that available to individual subjects of the data.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            . . . .
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            With respect to the California data, those data are classified by statute as nonpublic [sic]. The bedrock provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. [Section] 13.03, subd.1, provides:
                            &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;All government data collected, . . . by a state agency . . . shall be public &lt;u&gt;unless classified by statute&lt;/u&gt;, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, &lt;u&gt;or federal law&lt;/u&gt;, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic . . . &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                           (emphasis added). Note that the term statute is not qualified by the term Minnesota and therefore does not limit such classifications to those made pursuant to Minnesota law. The statute thereby encompasses classifications made pursuant to the statutes of another state. The legislature&apos;s recognition of the classifications established by laws of another jurisdiction is further evidenced by its explicit recognition of classifications pursuant to federal law. Because the California data are classified as confidential and not subject to disclosure under California law, the data are likewise classified as nonpublic under the MGDPA. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                  The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with DOLI&apos;s interpretation of the meaning of statute as it is used in Section 13.03. While the Commissioner acknowledges that statute is not qualified by Minnesota in Section 13.03, she does not agree with DOLI&apos;s view that the meaning of that Section, or indeed any provision of Minnesota statute which refers simply to statute, ought to be read to include the statutes and court decisions of any other state.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                     As Mr. Bastian noted, the Legislature explicitly provided that if a &lt;u&gt;federal&lt;/u&gt; law classifies data as not public, that classification controls. However, the Legislature made no such provision in Section 13.03 for any other &lt;u&gt;state&apos;s&lt;/u&gt; data classification scheme. In a least one case, the Legislature &lt;u&gt;has made a specific provision&lt;/u&gt; in statute for the kind of situation that DOLI asserts applies generally.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 299L.03, subdivision 11, which governs the Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, provides, in relevant part:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Data provided to the director, by a governmental entity located outside Minnesota for use in an authorized investigation, audit, or background check, has the same data access classification or restrictions on access, for the purposes of chapter 13, that it had in the entity providing it. If the classification or restriction on access in the entity providing the data is less restrictive than the Minnesota classification, the Minnesota classification applies. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                  There would have been no reason for the Legislature to enact the language of Section 299L.03, subdivision 11, if the DOLI were correct in its interpretation of Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that a statute means the statute of any state in the United States.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Further, Minnesota employs a unique system for classifying government data. Most other states use a foia or freedom of information act approach to data classification, but there is no nationwide standard for classifying data maintained by government entities. If DOLI&apos;s interpretation were accepted, it would have the effect in Minnesota of nullifying the classification system of Chapter 13. To accept DOLI&apos;s interpretation would mean that the Minnesota Legislature has delegated to any other legislature in the country the authority to determine how data maintained by Minnesota governmental entities are classified. The Commissioner does not agree that the Legislature intended such a result. Therefore, the classification of data maintained by a Minnesota government entity, regardless what the source of the data is, is determined by Minnesota statute or federal law, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1. The status of the data in question in the originating agency in California is irrelevant.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Department also argued that the data in question are classified under Section 13.39. Subdivision 1 of Section 13.39 provides: [a] &apos;pending civil legal action&apos; includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. &lt;u&gt;Whether a civil legal action is pending shall be determined by the chief attorney acting for the state agency&lt;/u&gt;, political subdivision or statewide system. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.39, subdivision 2 (clause a), provides that data collected by a government entity as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action are classified as protected nonpublic data (data not on individuals) or confidential (data on individuals).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to a sworn affidavit of Mr. Bierman submitted by DOLI, he is . . . an attorney employed by [DOLI] and [has] been designated the attorney at the Department to respond to requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. According to the affidavit, Mr. Bierman learned in September of 1995 that the California Department of Labor and Industry had information which he believed to be relevant to Department&apos;s review of Builders Staff&apos;s application under Section 176.1812. According to Mr. Bierman, I determined at that time, before the California Department supplied any materials, that if this Department would ever utilize the information we thought might come from California to deny the application of Builders Staff in Minnesota, the Department would very likely be sued.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner wishes to note that there are three conditions which must be met when a government entity seeks to classify data as not public pursuant to Section 13.39. The first condition is that there must be a pending civil legal action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The second condition is that the &lt;u&gt;chief attorney&lt;/u&gt; acting for the state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall determine whether, for purposes of Section 13.39, a civil legal action is pending.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third condition is that the data must have been collected by the government entity as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to the information provided by Mr. Lennes and DOLI, it appears that the data from California were collected by DOLI as part of its process of reviewing Builders Staff&apos;s application for approval of a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.1812. It does not appear that Mr. Bierman is the &lt;u&gt;chief attorney&lt;/u&gt; acting for DOLI. It does not appear that the data were collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action. Therefore, in order for DOLI to be able to classify the data pursuant to Section 13.39, it appears that the chief attorney acting for the Department must determine that the data are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, there is a 1993 Minnesota Supreme Court case which must be reconciled. In &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the court held that a notice of claim provided to a political subdivision, had not been collected by the political subdivision in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation and thus, could be disclosed under Chapter 13. The court wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unfortunately, in our view Minn. Stat. curren;13.39, subd. 2 (1990) does not permit a notice of claim to be classified as a nonpublic document. The statute speaks of &apos;data collected by * * * political subdivisions.&apos;...&apos;Collect,&apos; then, requires affirmative action by someone, and pursuant to section 13.39, subd. 2, that someone is a political subdivision...&lt;u&gt;The information contained in a notice of claim is indeed retained by a political subdivision in anticipation of the possible commencement of legal action, but is not &apos;data collected&apos; by the political subdivision as part of an active investigation&lt;/u&gt;. The political subdivision has not taken any affirmative action to gather the information contained in a notice of claim; it is simply a passive recipient of that information. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner discussed the effect of &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt; in advisory opinion 95-040:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;However, the Commissioner does wish to add that she is somewhat puzzled by the holding in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;. It appears that Section 13.39, subdivision 2, when read in full, could certainly be interpreted to mean that data become not public if a government entity either collects the data as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending legal action, &lt;u&gt;or if the government entity retains the data in anticipation of a pending legal action&lt;/u&gt;. Thus, the classification of the data would &lt;u&gt;not be&lt;/u&gt; dependent, as the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt; case suggests, on the method upon which the government entity comes to possess the data. This issue may need legislative clarification.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                             Regardless of the Commissioner&apos;s reluctance to fully accept the conclusion reached in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, there appears to be no other case law on the issue.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lennes is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Given the facts in this case, and the finding in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, it does not appear that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry may deny Builders Staff Corporation access to the data provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations that relate to Builders Staff&apos;s application for approval of a collective bargaining agreement. The data are public under Chapter 13 and should be provided to Mr. Lennes.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 23, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267895</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Other states&apos; laws</Title><Id>266632</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Pending legal actions</Title><Id>266535</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-043</Title><title>Opinion 96 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267683&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-10-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, are the notes made by Officer Johnson regarding his response to the 911 call made by N accessible to N?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 18, 1996; City of St. Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 12, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated August 6, 1996, from N. In N&apos;s letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding N&apos;s access to certain government data maintained by the St. Paul Police Department, hereinafter St. Paul. (After discussions, both verbal and in writing, were held to clarify the issues N wished to have addressed, one issue, for the purposes of this opinion, was agreed upon.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to N&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Finney, Chief of the St. Paul Police Department. The purposes of this letter dated August 30, 1996, were to inform Chief Finney of N&apos;s request, and to ask him or St. Paul&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for St. Paul&apos;s position. On September 16, 1996, PIPA received a response dated September 13, 1996, from Paul McCloskey, St. Paul Assistant City Attorney.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. During the spring of 1996, N was allegedly assaulted by the private security staff of a Minnesota state agency. N called 911 and two St. Paul Police Officers responded. In a letter dated June 11, 1996, N made a written request to Chief Finney for various types of data related to the above incident. In relevant part, N wrote, I also don&apos;t know what the Security people were telling Officer Johnson but he took notes. I need to see the notes that Officer Johnson took and to know what was said to him. In a letter dated August 17, 1996, addressed to the Commissioner, N wrote s/he had requested to see Officer Johnson&apos;s notes but that the request had never been addressed.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response, Mr. McCloskey wrote, In checking with Captain Doug Wills of our Internal Affairs Unit, I am advised that no notes or reports were generated in this matter. The only jotting was Officer Johnson&apos;s recording of [N&apos;s] full name and date of birth for the purpose of radioing our communications center for a warrant check. That jotting was later discarded. In summary, we have no notes or reports on this incident.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his/her request for an opinion, N asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, are the notes made by Officer Johnson regarding his response to the 911 call made by N accessible to N?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as, ...all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.04 (rights of subjects of data), subdivision 3, provides that, upon request to a government entity, an individual has the following rights: to be informed whether s/he is the subject of stored data and how those data are classified; to be provided an opportunity to inspect any such data; and to be provided with copies of any such data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to N&apos;s opinion request, Mr. McCloskey stated that the only data generated in this matter was a jotting of N&apos;s full name and date of birth. Mr. McCloskey further stated that the jotting was later discarded. He wrote, In summary, we have no notes or reports on this incident. Thus, if the data sought by N do not exist, they are not government data and are not accessible to N, or anyone else.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by N is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Assuming the data requested by N do not exist, N cannot gain access to them.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 18, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267683</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data does not exist</Title><Id>266383</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement (13.82)</Title><Id>266461</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-042</Title><title>Opinion 96 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267601&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-09-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Dr. Willard Miller inappropriately gain access to private data about K, a University of Minnesota student?
Did Dr. Willard Miller violate a provision of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (e), by not documenting the disclosure of private educational data on K?
Pursuant to Chapter 13, did Dr. Willard Miller inappropriately disseminate private data about K?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 18, 1996; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 5, 1996, PIPA received a letter from K in which K raised certain issues. PIPA wrote to K, in a letter dated August 9, 1996, asking for clarification as to what it was K was requesting. On August 16, 1996, PIPA received a letter from K requesting this opinion. In that letter, K described what K believed to be a violation of K&apos;s rights by the University of Minnesota. K enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to K&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel, University of Minnesota. The purposes of this letter, dated August 19, 1996, were to inform Ms. Smith of K&apos;s request, to ask her to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 3, 1996, PIPA received a response from Ms. Smith. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              K is a student at the University of Minnesota. According to K, K received a failing grade in a calculus course. K investigated the failure rate among students taking calculus courses at the University, and wrote to University President Nils Hasselmo, via e-mail, to complain. K also wrote a complaint, via e-mail, to United States Representative Gil Gutknecht. After some delay in receiving a response from the University, Representative Gutknecht asked Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson to look into the matter further. K&apos;s letter to PIPA indicates that K was aware that Representative Gutknecht had contacted the Governor&apos;s office. Governor Carlson asked the University to respond to K, and asked for a copy of its response.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Dr. Willard Miller, Associate Dean of the University&apos;s Institute of Technology, and former head of the University&apos;s Mathematics Department, investigated K&apos;s complaint on behalf of the University. According to Ms. Smith, [t]o understand K&apos;s level of preparedness [for the mathematics course], Dr. Miller reviewed K&apos;s transcript.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Following his inquiry, Dr. Miller communicated his findings to K via e-mail. In his response, Dr. Miller stated Governor Carlson has asked me to respond to your e-mail message. . . . Dr. Miller copied that message to Representative Gutknecht via e-mail, and the University provided Governor Carlson with a copy of the response. K then wrote to PIPA, asserting that the University had violated K&apos;s privacy rights in the course of its response to K&apos;s complaint.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Dr. Willard Miller inappropriately gain access to private data about K, a University of Minnesota student?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did Dr. Willard Miller violate a provision of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (e), by not documenting the disclosure of private educational data on K?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Pursuant to Chapter 13, did Dr. Willard Miller inappropriately disseminate private data about K?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Provisions of both state and federal law govern data about students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    NOTE: FERPA refers to education records and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 refers to educational data. For purposes of this opinion, the definitions are similar enough not to warrant distinction.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.32 provides that educational data are data about individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student, and which are classified as private. The University of Minnesota is a state agency under Chapter 13, and a public educational institution that receives federal funds, and as such is subject to regulation under Section 13.32 and FERPA.
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    According to K, Dr. Miller did not have the right to gain access to K&apos;s transcript, because K had not given Dr. Miller written consent to do so. According to Ms. Smith:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In investigating K&apos;s complaint of unfair grading, it was entirely reasonable and permissible for Dr. Miller to consult various records, including K&apos;s student file, as Dr. Miller had a legitimate reason to know the relevant background. Dr. Miller accessed the information in compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, which allows access to private data to individuals &apos;whose work assignments reasonably require access.&apos; Minn. R. 1205.0400, subp. 2. Dr. Miller also complied with applicable federal law which allows personnel who have a &apos;legitimate educational interest&apos; access to student information that might otherwise be protected. 20 U.S.C. [Section] 1232g(b)(1)(A).
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Pursuant to state and federal law, under certain circumstances employees of an educational institution may gain access to private data without the written consent of the data subject. The applicable standards for access to educational data are those described above by Ms. Smith. The University did not provide the Commissioner with documentation of its policy for applying those objective standards to particular cases. It is not clear whether, in order to answer K&apos;s complaint, Dr. Miller needed to gain access to the whole of K&apos;s education record. However, the University has the discretion to make that determination. Absent any other information, it appears that Dr. Miller appropriately gained access to educational data about K.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by K implicates FERPA, by cross reference contained in Section 13.32, subdivision 3 (e). Educational institutions must maintain a record of requests for and disclosures of private education records, with the exception of disclosures to the parent or eligible student, to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in the record, and to those persons to whom disclosures are made with written consent. (See 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b)(4)(A).) According to Ms. Smith:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In this case, Dr. Miller noted on his correspondence to K that the correspondence was also being sent to Representative Gutknecht, the Dean&apos;s office, and the President&apos;s Office. The University has kept all records relating to this complaint and inquiry, including all records documenting that the University responded to the Governor. The University therefore has recorded all communications as required by law, and K is fully aware of all persons who have received educational data about [K] as required by law.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The applicable federal law and rule do not specify the manner in which the record of disclosures must be maintained. According to the information provided by Ms. Smith, it appears that the University has fulfilled its obligation to provide K an opportunity to learn the identity of those persons who have received K&apos;s education record. The University has on file all documents relating to K&apos;s complaint, and has indicated in correspondence with K all persons who received copies. This appears to be a record of disclosures sufficient to inform K.
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third issue is whether Dr. Miller inappropriately disseminated private data about K. According to the copy K provided of Dr. Miller&apos;s e-mail message to K, that message was copied as follows: CC: gil@hr.house.gov, vanvoorh@mailbox.mail.umn.edu, davis@fs1.itdean.umn.edu. The Commissioner was not provided any information which identifies the holders of those e-mail addresses. However, it appears that gil@hr.house.gov is the e-mail address for Representative Gutknecht, and davis@fs1.itdean.umn.edu is the e-mail address for Dean Davis of the University&apos;s Institute of Technology. The Commissioner cannot determine the identity of the holder of the e-mail address vanvoorh@mailbox.mail.umn.edu.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As discussed above, pursuant to state and federal law, private data may be disseminated without the data subject&apos;s consent to persons &lt;u&gt;within&lt;/u&gt;the educational institution whose work assignments reasonably require access to, and who have a legitimate educational interest in the data. According to Ms. Smith, the University determined that the Dean and the President are such persons.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears from the e-mail address that the person addressed as vanvoorh@mailbox.mail.umn.edu is associated with the University. However, if vanvoorh is a member of the University staff, the University provided no information as to whether her/his work assignment reasonably required that she/he gain access to private educational data about K, and that she/he had a legitimate educational interest in the data. Therefore, it is possible that Dr. Miller inappropriately disseminated private educational data about K to someone within the University.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In general, private data may be disseminated to persons &lt;u&gt;outside&lt;/u&gt;the government entity without the data subject&apos;s written consent only as specifically authorized by state statute, federal law or rule. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 4.) K maintains that Dr. Miller inappropriately disseminated private educational data about K to Representative Gutknecht and Governor Carlson, because K had not given written consent to do so. According to Ms. Smith:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As for Representative Gutknecht and Governor Carlson, K authorized them to receive information when [K] enlisted them to contact the University on [K&apos;s] behalf. . . . . A citizen who chooses to involve a government representative on his or her behalf reasonably must believe that the representative will learn the circumstances of the citizen&apos;s particular problem.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Ms. Smith appears to be saying that the University had K&apos;s implied consent to the release of K&apos;s private educational data to Governor Carlson and Representative Gutknecht. Given that K had sought assistance from Representative Gutknecht, who contacted Governor Carlson with K&apos;s knowledge, it is reasonable for the University to take that position. However, a strict reading of state and federal law would lead to the conclusion that private data may be disseminated under this kind of circumstance only with the data subject&apos;s express written consent. The interests of all parties are best protected, and best served, when the government entity secures the written consent of the data subject. However, given K&apos;s actions, it was reasonable for the University to interpret those actions as a form of implied consent.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Again, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether vanvoorh@mailbox.mail.umn.edu is a person outside the University to whom it was appropriate for Dr. Miller to have sent a copy of his message to K. (Persons other than University staff have access to University e-mail accounts, which also contain the umn.edu identifier in the e-mail address.) According to K, that person&apos;s identity is unknown to K. Therefore, it is possible that Dr. Miller inappropriately disseminated private educational data about K to someone outside the University.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, in K&apos;s correspondence to the Commissioner, K stated: I would also like to bring to your attention that [sic] the method in which Willard Miller disseminated that information about my transcript. Dr. Willard Miller disseminated that information through e-mail Ntilde; an unsecured transmission that anyone with access to e-mail could obtain that information. In response, Ms. Smith wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;There is nothing in the law that prohibits the University from using perhaps the most common means of communication on university campuses. K initiated and has continued making [K&apos;s] communications by e-mail. K e-mailed the President and Representative Gutknecht. The University merely responded in kind. (Ironically, in [K&apos;s] letter to PIPA received August 16, K complains that the University used the &apos;unsecured&apos; medium of e-mail, but in the next paragraph [K] asks that PIPA contact [K] by phone, mail, or &apos;e-mail&apos; concerning [K&apos;s] complaint.)
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Ms. Smith is correct that there is nothing in law that specifically prohibits the transmission of private data via e-mail. However, simply because e-mail is widely used does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate for government entities to transmit private data in that manner.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.05, subdivision 5, provides that responsible authorities shall establish appropriate security safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. Therefore, in general, government entities must take adequate security precautions when transmitting private data. It may not be appropriate for government entities to use a communications medium, which is widely known to be subject to unauthorized access, to transmit unprotected private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, in this case, K sent K&apos;s complaints to the University and Representative Gutknecht via e-mail. Through use of that medium, K provided K&apos;s e-mail address (and possibly no other means to contact K) to the recipients of K&apos;s e-mail messages. It is therefore reasonable for the University and Representative Gutknecht to have responded to K using the same medium. In addition, in K&apos;s correspondence with PIPA, K specifically included e-mail as an acceptable means by which PIPA might contact K to discuss K&apos;s opinion request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Nonetheless, all government entities, for their own protection as well as for the protection of data subjects, ought to consider carefully the use of e-mail to transmit private data, in light of their obligations under Section 13.05, and the various provisions of state and federal law which classify government data as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by K is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Dr. Miller appropriately gained access to private data about K, a University of Minnesota student.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Dr. Miller adequately documented the disclosure of private educational data on K.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Dr. Miller appropriately disseminated private data about K to the University President and Institute of Technology Dean, because the University determined that their work assignments reasonably required access and they had a legitimate educational interest in the data. The University reasonably believed it had K&apos;s implied consent to disseminate private data about K to Representative Gutknecht and Governor Carlson, to whom K had taken K&apos;s complaint. However, the interests of all parties would have been better protected if the University had secured K&apos;s express written consent. Further, the status of one person to whom private data about K were disseminated is unknown. Therefore, it is possible that Dr. Miller inappropriately disseminated private educational data about K.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 18, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267601</id><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legitimate educational interest</Title><Id>266339</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email/internet</Title><Id>266605</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Implied vs. written</Title><Id>266400</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Email</Title><Id>267147</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data sharing</Title><Id>266768</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-041</Title><title>Opinion 96 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267817&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-09-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety: the names of individuals whose licenses have been suspended for failure to meet child support and maintenance obligations?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 6, 1996; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the state agency who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 24, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 13, 1996, from Donald Davis, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, hereinafter MDPS. In his letter, Commissioner Davis requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by MDPS. (Commissioner Davis&apos; request was not processed until PIPA received the fee required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, for opinions requested by government entities.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 518.551, subdivision 13, child support obligors who are in arrears on child support and/or maintenance payments may have their driver&apos;s licenses suspended. Further, Minnesota Statutes Section 171.12, subdivision 1 (3), provides that the names of individuals who have had their driver&apos;s licenses suspended, and the reasons for those suspensions, are generally public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) However, generally, data relating to persons paying and receiving child support and/or maintenance are private under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46. Therefore, the issue raised by MDPS is whether the data maintained by MDPS relating to child support and/or maintenance obligors who have had their licenses suspended are public or private.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              It should be noted that after receiving MDPS&apos; request, PIPA wrote to Laura Kadwell, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and requested that she submit any comments on the issue raised by MDPS. On August 13, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated August 12, 1996, from Ms. Kadwell. In part, she wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Although this issue was formally requested by the Department of Public Safety, the Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Human Services is equally concerned about the need to have the classification of these data clarified.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      The legislature has directed Child Support Enforcement to determine which child support obligors meet the qualifications for suspension of their driver&apos;s licenses and to direct the Commissioner of Public Safety to suspend their driver&apos;s licenses. This requires the transfer of data on individuals from what is primarily a private data base, the welfare system, to what is primarily a public data base, licensing data. We are assuming that the data are private in the hands of Child Support Enforcement and that they are private when transferred. However, it is unclear if the data becomes [sic] public sometime after they are transferred to the Department of Public Safety for the purpose of license suspension.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Child Support Enforcement concurs with the classification dilemma as presented by the Department of Public Safety in its request for an opinion. Child Support Enforcement&apos;s main concern is that both state agencies meet their legal responsibilities concerning the protection of the data if they should remain private, or the dissemination of the data if they should be public in the hands of the Department of Public Safety.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Davis asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the following data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety: the names of individuals whose licenses have been suspended for failure to meet child support and maintenance obligations? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  To address the issue raised by MDPS, it is necessary to examine various relevant statutory provisions. First is Minnesota Statutes Section 171.12, subdivision 1, which authorizes and requires MDPS to collect and maintain certain data relating to driving records. Subdivision 1 of Section 171.12, in part, provides that MDPS shall maintain suitable indices containing the name of every person whose license has been suspended, revoked, or canceled or who has been disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle by the department, and after each name the reasons for the action. Generally speaking, the data just described are public because they are not classified otherwise by state or federal laws, or by a temporary classification. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Another relevant provision is Minnesota Statutes Section 518.551, subdivision 13, which provides that a court (upon motion of an obligee) or a public authority responsible for child support enforcement shall order/direct, respectively, the Commissioner of MDPS to suspend the driver&apos;s license of a person who is in arrears in court-ordered child support and/or maintenance payments.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Operating in conjunction with Section 518.551, subdivision 13, is Minnesota Statutes Section 171.186 which authorizes the Commissioner of MDPS to suspend the licenses of persons who are in arrears in their child support and/or maintenance payments. In part, Subdivision 1 of Section 171.186 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The commissioner [of MDPS] shall suspend a person&apos;s driver&apos;s license or operating privileges without a hearing &lt;u&gt;upon receipt of a court order&lt;/u&gt; or &lt;u&gt;notice from a public authority responsible for child support enforcement&lt;/u&gt; that states that the driver is in arrears in court-ordered child support or maintenance payments, or both,...[Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The practical effect of the language in Section 518.551, subdivision 13, and Section 171.186, is that similar data from the court system and from child support enforcement agencies are being provided to MDPS so the Commissioner of MDPS can carry out her/his statutory obligations. The dilemma is that data traveling from child support enforcement agencies to MDPS are private (see Section 13.46, subdivision 2) while similar data on a court order traveling from the court system to MDPS are public. (The Supreme Court Administrator&apos;s Office is not aware of any provision in the Court Rules classifying those data otherwise, unless the data involve juveniles.) Similar data (name of licensee and the reason for the suspension) which already exist at MDPS are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 does provide a method for resolving classification issues when data travel from one government entity to another. Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), states, To the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies...by another state agency...the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. However, in the situation-at-hand, the traveling data provision does not appear to resolve the data classification issue; rather, it creates additional confusion. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), some of the data-in-question at MDPS would be treated as private and some as public, depending upon the original source of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is the existence of one additional provision that leads the Commissioner to believe the Legislature intended for the data in question to be treated as public at MDPS. Section 171.12, subdivision 3b, in relevant part, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...when an order for suspension of a driver&apos;s license issued pursuant to Section 171.186 is rescinded because the license was improperly suspended and all rights of appeal have been exhausted or have expired, the commissioner [of the Department of Public Safety] shall remove the record of that suspension from the computer records that are disclosed to persons or agencies outside the driver and vehicle services division of the department of public safety. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The mere existence of this language suggests very strongly that the Legislature intended for the data collected and maintained by MDPS regarding child support obligors to be public; if the data were private at MDPS, there would be no need for this provision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To buttress this argument, there is language in Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a), which allows for a change in classification of data under certain circumstances. Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a), states, The classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. Although there is no statutory provision which states specifically that private data traveling from child support enforcement agencies become public upon arriving at MDPS, it seems reasonable to argue, in this situation, that the data from child support enforcement agencies must change classification from private to public in order to comply with the statutory provision that MDPS maintain public records relating to driver&apos;s license suspensions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Davis is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on Minnesota Statutes Sections 171.12 and 171.186, the names of individuals whose licenses have been suspended for failure to meet child support and/or maintenance obligations, and the reasons for those suspensions, are public government data.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 6, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267817</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Change in classification 13.03</Title><Id>266433</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:52:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-040</Title><title>Opinion 96 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267783&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-09-04T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does K have the right to gain access to all of the data of which K is the subject, related to K&apos;s child support case, maintained by Olmsted County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>09/04/1996; Olmsted County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from K. In that letter, K described K&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data about K maintained by Olmsted County. K enclosed copies of related correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to K&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Johnson, Data Privacy Designee, Olmsted County Community Services. The purposes of this letter, dated July 18, 1996, were to inform Mr. Johnson of K&apos;s request, and to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 2, 1996, PIPA received a response from Robert W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Olmsted County Attorney. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K is the subject of private data maintained by the child support division of Olmsted County. In a letter dated May 20, 1996, K requested from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) access to all data maintained about K&apos;s two child support cases, including [a]ll records of notes made by case workers, supervisors, and DHS personnel during and after telephone conversations with me regarding my cases. K was advised by DHS that the request ought to be directed to the County. In a fax dated May 25, 1996, K asked Pam Benda, K&apos;s County case worker, to [p]lease provide the information requested in the attached request, which was originally sent to the DHS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 18, 1996, Ms. Benda responded: I have been advised by my supervisor not to release this information to you as it is work product created for the enforcement of your order. It is not information that is attainable by you. K then wrote to Kathleen Needham, then Assistant County Attorney, to ask for the data reflecting K&apos;s telephone contacts with the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Needham responded: . . . it is the position of the Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s office that the case notes the child support officers and the Assistant County Attorney have put out on your case are the work product of Olmsted County and are not discoverable for any reason.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After subsequent correspondence with the County, K was ultimately informed by Mr. Johnson that all actual case notes made by a child support officer or the Assistant County Attorney are classified as &apos;attorney work products&apos; and are privileged/confidential information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the Commissioner, Mr. McIntosh wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Olmsted County&apos;s position is that comments on the [CSES state-wide computer] system by any worker are mental impressions and are not subject to disclosure under the Data Practices Act.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In fact, in Olmsted County, child support attorneys may enter comments or impressions on the CSES subscreen that may be shared with their client, the child support enforcement workers, and are also not subject to disclosure as mental impressions, attorney working papers or work product, or attorney - client privilege&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Does K have the right to gain access to all of the data of which K is the subject, related to K&apos;s child support case, maintained by Olmsted County?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 provides certain rights to individuals who are subjects of government data. One of those rights is the right to gain access to the public and private data about oneself that are maintained by a government entity. (Pursuant to Section 13.46, most data maintained by an agency which is part of the welfare system, such as the child support division of Olmsted County Community Services, are private government data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K was apparently provided access to the County data about K&apos;s child support case, except for those data which document K&apos;s telephone contacts with the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. McIntosh stated that data which document K&apos;s phone contacts, which are logged in by any County employee to the CSES state-wide computer system are mental impressions and are not subject to disclosure under the Data Practices Act. Mr. McIntosh did not offer any legal basis for that position. A 1993 holding by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, that data must be recorded in physical form in order to be considered government data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] is intended to regulate every aspect of how the government manages the information it collects and records. It is nearly impossible to regulate any function related to data until a record is created somewhere outside the human brain. To give effect to the Act, we conclude that information is not &apos;government data&apos; until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system &lt;u&gt;regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data in the system that document K&apos;s telephone contacts exist in physical (i.e., electronic) form, and are therefore subject to the same disclosure requirements as are the other data maintained about K by the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McIntosh stated that K does not have the right to gain access to the telephone contact data because the notes about K&apos;s telephone contacts are also protected from disclosure on the basis that child support attorneys may enter comments or impressions on the CSES subscreen that may be shared with their client, the child support enforcement workers, and are also not subject to disclosure as . . . attorney working papers or work product, or attorney - client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McIntosh again provided no legal basis for that assertion, but Section 13.30 provides:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, &lt;u&gt;nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter&lt;/u&gt; and section 15.17. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267779&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;96-038&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon a close examination of the College&apos;s position, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor can be treated as Section 13.30 data. For one thing, the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor, had they been in existence, would not have been generated by the College&apos;s attorney acting in her professional capacity; rather, the data in question, job postings for a vacant position, would have been created and, presumably, maintained by the College&apos;s human resources department. Therefore, to treat them as Section 13.30 data would discharge the College&apos;s responsible authority who is responsible, among other things, for handling requests for access to public data, from her/his duties in regard to responding to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request and any other requirements of Chapter 13. Based on the language in the last clause of Section 13.30, such a result is plainly prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In K&apos;s case, Mr. McIntosh states that the comments attorneys enter into the CSES computer system are protected from disclosure to K as attorney working papers or work product, or attorney - client privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, according to information provided by K, K has had ongoing contact with the County to resolve what K believes to be inaccuracies in K&apos;s child support payment records. K stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;When I began working with the county and the DHS on straightening out problems with my accounts, I only communicated by phone. I now conduct my business via fax or e-mail or postal letter, and I have records of that. I would like to be able to show that I also had worked with them in good faith to resolve the problems prior to my written history. This seemed to have the potential to show that by providing a record of my phone contacts.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Absent any other information, the Commissioner cannot agree with the County that simply because it assigns County attorneys to discuss child support cases with clients, all the data generated by the attorneys is protected under Section 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If however, the County attorneys enter data in the CSES other than data documenting their telephone contacts with K, it is possible that some of those data qualify for protection under Section 13.30. The Commissioner was not provided access to those data, and therefore cannot make a determination as to whether there are 13.30 data included in the CSES data on K.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by K is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K has the right to gain access to public and private data of which K is the subject, related to K&apos;s child support case, maintained by Olmsted County, including the data entered into the CSES by County social workers. K also has the right to gain access to data in the CSES which document K&apos;s contacts with County attorneys. It is possible that there are data in the CSES about K&apos;s cases, generated by County attorneys, which are protected from disclosure to K pursuant to Section 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: September 4, 1996&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267783</id><Tag><Description/><Title>County attorney</Title><Id>266257</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-08-29T19:29:30Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-039</Title><title>Opinion 96 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267302&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did Hibbing Independent School District 701 violate M&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about M?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 27, 1996; School District 701 (Hibbing)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 6, 1996, from M&apos;s parents. In their letter, M&apos;s parents requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about their child by the Hibbing School District, #701, hereinafter District 701.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to M&apos;s parents&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Willis Schoeb, Superintendent of District 701. The purposes of this letter, dated July 16, 1996, were to inform Mr. Schoeb of M&apos;s parents&apos; request, and to ask him or District 701&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for District 701&apos;s position. On July 25, 1996, PIPA received a response dated July 24, 1996, from Paul Wojciak, Attorney for District 701. (Shortly thereafter,
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Wojciak contacted PIPA and requested additional time so that he could send supplementary materials. PIPA agreed and on August 7, 1996, PIPA received additional information from Mr. Wojciak.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In their request, M&apos;s parents wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;On March 25, 1996, a copy of our [child&apos;s] disciplinary record was given to [an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney], apparently upon [his/her] verbal request. [S/he] did not submit a subpoena to obtain this record. Furthermore, this record was obtained without any educational interest by [the Assistant County Attorney]. We were informed by [the Assistant County Attorney] that [s/he] had obtained [M&apos;s] disciplinary record in a letter dated March 26, 1996 and received March 27, 1996....As for the complaint against Hibbing Schools ISD #701, they provided a copy of the disciplinary record without receiving a subpoena. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his July 24, 1996, response to M&apos;s parents&apos; opinion request, Mr. Wojciak stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...the information provided to the County Attorney&apos;s office...was provided during the course of an investigation and preparation for and prosecution of a criminal offense which occurred on school grounds....[the Assistant County Attorney] asked for and received...a document entitled Conduct Report relating to [M]. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his August 6, 1996, addendum, Mr. Wojciak submitted a copy of the report released by District 701 to the Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, M&apos;s parents asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did Hibbing Independent School District 701 violate M&apos;s rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about M? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Educational data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions are classified by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Pursuant to Subdivision 1 (a) of Section 13.32, educational data are data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. Pursuant to Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32, educational data are private data on individuals and may be disclosed only as specified in Section 13.32. There apparently is no dispute that the data contained in M&apos;s disciplinary report are educational data for the purposes of Chapter 13. Therefore, those data are private and can be disclosed only under very limited circumstances.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    M&apos;s parents stated that District 701 provided a copy of M&apos;s disciplinary record to an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney. M&apos;s parents also stated the attorney had no educational interest in the disciplinary record and that s/he obtained the record without having submitted a subpoena.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Wojciak wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...[the disciplinary report] was provided during the course of an investigation and preparation for and prosecution of a criminal offense which occurred on school grounds. The request for information made by [the Assistant County Attorney] to [a District 701 counselor] was prompted by an inquiry by [M&apos;s parents] as to why the second individual was not being treated in the same manner as [A]. In order to respond to that request, [the Assistant County Attorney] asked for and received a copy...as well as a document entitled Conduct Report relating to [A]...It is my understanding in discussing this matter with [the Assistant County Attorney] that the dissemination of this Conduct Report was limited to the County Attorney&apos;s office and to inclusion in the Juvenile Court file. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on Mr. Wojciak&apos;s comments, it is unclear to the Commissioner why District 701 determined that a release of M&apos;s disciplinary record to the Assistant County Attorney was appropriate and permitted under Chapter 13. As stated previously, there are circumstances under which a dissemination of private educational data is permitted. (See Section 13.32, subdivisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.) However, in his letter, Mr. Wojciak did not suggest that any of the authorizations provided in Section 13.32 apply to the case-at-hand. In addition, based on the documentation submitted by both M&apos;s parents and Mr. Wojciak, the Commissioner is not independently able to find a reason that would make District 701&apos;s release of the private educational data about A, specifically a history of school disciplinary actions, permissible under Chapter 13. Therefore, the Commissioner is left to conclude that the release of M&apos;s disciplinary record was not an authorized dissemination of private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by M&apos;s parents is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided by both M&apos;s parents and District 701, the District violated Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 when it released private educational data about A to an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 27, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267302</id><Tag><Description/><Title>County attorney</Title><Id>266257</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-037</Title><title>Opinion 96 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266486&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are Douglas County&apos;s copying charges of $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 14, 1996; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from S. In that letter, S asked whether the fees charged by Douglas County for copies of data about S are allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. S enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to S&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to F. Michael Marxen, Director, Douglas County Social Services. The purposes of this letter, dated July 2, 1996, were to inform Mr. Marxen of S&apos;s request, and to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 15, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Marxen. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               According to a document signed by S, dated November 22, 1995, Douglas County Social Services charged $.50 per page, and &lt;u&gt;$10.00 per hour preparation fee&lt;/u&gt;for copies of data in its files. In a letter to S dated February 16, 1996, a County social worker stated that the charges for copies of S&apos;s file were $.50 per page, and &lt;u&gt;$40.46 per hour preparation fee&lt;/u&gt;. (Based on other information provided by the County, the Commissioner assumes that the preparation fee quoted to S ought to have been $40.45.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Marxen wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As the material requested by [S] contained names of reporters of maltreatment, minors, and information that is protected by other law, the file had to be reviewed by the social worker and protected information deleted from that file. The hourly cost of social worker time, as determined by the Department of Human Service, is $40.45 per hour (See attachment A).
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      In summary, the review of the file and time spent deleting and compiling the file and information is consistent with [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.]
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The entire contents of Attachment A are reproduced below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
            Douglas County
            &lt;p&gt;
              STAFF PROVIDED SERVICE AVERAGE COST COMPARISON
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              JAN-DEC 1994
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot; cell=&quot;&quot; padding=&quot;20%&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;County&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Statewide&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Metro Co&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Non-Metro Co&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Average&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Average&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Average&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Average&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Staff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;County Staff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;County Staff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;County Staff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cost/Hour&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cost/Hour&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cost/Hour&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cost/Hour&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;-------------- &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-------------- &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-------------- &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-------------- &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;40.45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;73.59&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;78.62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;66.79&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In S&apos;s request for an opinion, S asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are Douglas County&apos;s copying charges of $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  S requested copies of data of which S is the subject. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides, in relevant part: [t]he responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400 provides: [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Marxen asserted that because S&apos;s file contained data not accessible to S, i.e., the name of a reporter of child maltreatment, the file had to be reviewed by the social worker and protected information deleted from that file. The hourly cost of social worker time, as determined by the Department of Human Service, is $40.45 per hour. . . . (Mr. Marxen is correct that the name of a reporter of child maltreatment is confidential. See Section 626.556, subdivision 11, and Section 13.02, subdivision 3.) Mr. Marxen asserted that the County&apos;s copying fees are consistent with Section 13.03, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03 governs access to public data by a member of the public, and does provide that a person requesting copies may be required . . . to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, S&apos;s rights to gain access to data about S are governed by Section 13.04. Section 13.04, read in concert with the applicable Rule, allows a government entity to recover its actual costs of making photocopies, which may include &lt;u&gt;the cost of labor to make the copies&lt;/u&gt;. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, does not allow a government entity to assess a fee for employee time to separate confidential data from public and private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The information provided by Mr. Marxen was not sufficiently detailed to enable the Commissioner to determine if the County&apos;s actual photocopying charges are $.50 per page. However, the County is in error by assessing a $40.46 per hour charge for social worker time to delete confidential data from S&apos;s file. Further, the County provided no explanation for the reason its preparation fee quadrupled in price between November 1995, and February 1996. Mr. Marxen did not provide a reference to the source of the information, i.e., employee cost, contained in Attachment A. Therefore, from the information provided by the County, the County has not demonstrated that its photocopy fees are allowable under Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by S is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Douglas County has not demonstrated that copying charges of $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee, represent its actual costs to provide S with copies of County data about S. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, the County may not charge S for an employee&apos;s time to delete confidential data, or other data not accessible to S, from S&apos;s file.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 14, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266486</id><Tag><Description/><Title>No charge to search/retrieve/redact</Title><Id>266485</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-038</Title><title>Opinion 96 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267779&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has an individual&apos;s right to gain access to government data been violated when, in response to a request for access to public data, a government entity takes the position that, because the requestor has initiated a lawsuit against the entity, the requestor can gain access to the data only by acting through the requestor&apos;s attorney and in compliance with the rules of civil procedure?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 14, 1996; St. Paul Technical College</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On June 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 13, 1996, from Roger O&apos;Connor. In his letter, Mr. O&apos;Connor requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his gaining access to certain data maintained by the St. Paul Technical College, hereinafter College.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donovan Schwichtenberg, President of the College. The purposes of this letter, dated June 25, 1996, were to inform Mr. Schwichtenberg of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request, and to ask him or the College&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the College&apos;s position. On July 11, 1996, PIPA received a response dated July 10, 1996, from Steven Gunn, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated November 30, 1995, (a copy of which was attached to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s opinion request) Mr. O&apos;Connor wrote to Lori Brandmire at the College. In that letter he wrote, I have been told that all teaching vacancies /or positions that come up are posted. Would you send to me a copy of the vacancy and or posting that existed when a Mr. Leonard Livingston, Math Teacher, retired.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request, Mr. O&apos;Connor wrote, They did not respond but, a Mary Ann Bernard of the State Office of the Attorney General, a lawyer, did respond and state that I was attempting to do discovery unilaterally and directly with &apos;my&apos; client....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To his opinion request, Mr. O&apos;Connor also attached a copy of a letter, dated December 28, 1995, from Ms. Bernard to Roger Peterson and Scott Higbee, attorneys representing Mr. O&apos;Connor in a lawsuit against the College. In that letter, Ms. Bernard wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;I understand from President Schwichtenberg of the Technical College that Roger A. O&apos;Connor, your client, is attempting to do discovery unilaterally and directly with my client....I have informed President Schwichtenberg that I believe this is improper, now that we are in litigation. I am writing to specifically request that any and all discovery in this matter be done through counsel and in accordance with the rules of procedure.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In his response to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Gunn wrote, It is the position of the St. Paul Technical College that its attorney&apos;s December 28, 1995, letter to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys did not deny Mr. O&apos;Connor access to data. Instead, the December 28 letter specified reasonable procedures for requesting data in connection with pending litigation.
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn asserted that at the time of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request for access to data, a lawsuit was pending which Mr. O&apos;Connor had brought against the College. Mr. Gunn also stated that upon receipt of Ms. Bernard&apos;s December 28, 1995, letter, Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys did not object to this request. Mr. Gunn further stated, In fact, the next day Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys directed Mr. O&apos;Connor not to contact any employee of the State or the St. Paul Technical College who might have information relevant to his claims. (Mr. Gunn attached a copy of Mr. Higbee&apos;s December 29, 1995, letter to Ms. Bernard. Mr. Higbee wrote, In response to your letter dated December 28, 1995 in this matter, we have directed Mr. O&apos;Connor to have no contact with any employee of the State or Technical College who might have information relevant to his claims. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn then stated that because the litigation between Mr. O&apos;Connor and the College has concluded, Mr. O&apos;Connor is now free to renew his data practices request. Mr. Gunn added, Had he renewed his data practices request, or had his attorneys made such a request while litigation was pending, they would have learned that neither the State nor the St. Paul Technical College has in its possession the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn then argued that the December 28, 1995, letter to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys did not deny Mr. O&apos;Connor access to data. He wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The St. Paul Technical College did not and does not have the data requested. Even if there had been such data in the possession of the College, the December 28 letter would not constitute a denial of access to data. The College&apos;s attorney requested of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys that all discovery be done through counsel and in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The College did not take any independent action to deny the request.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn then cited an unpublished Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion stating, The facts regarding Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s opinion request closely parallel the facts in an unpublished opinion in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that a government entity had not denied access to data when it requested a litigant to make data/discovery requests through counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summation, Mr. Gunn wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;It was reasonable for the College&apos;s attorney to require Mr. O&apos;Connor to make data requests through counsel in light of attorney ethical obligations. Mr. O&apos;Connor was represented by counsel in the pending litigation, and was requesting information which he believed relevant to the pending litigation....It was therefore reasonable under the circumstances that all data practices requests related to the pending litigation be made through the only representatives of Mr. O&apos;Connor that the College&apos;s attorney was permitted to contact: Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. O&apos;Connor asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has an individual&apos;s right to gain access to government data been violated when, in response to a request for access to public data, a government entity takes the position that, because the requestor has initiated a lawsuit against the entity, the requestor can gain access to the data only by acting through the requestor&apos;s attorney and in compliance with the rules of civil procedure?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Mr. Gunn essentially makes two arguments as to why the College&apos;s response to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request for access to data was appropriate. One is that because the data sought by Mr. O&apos;Connor were subject to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.30, the College was not required to follow the procedures outlined in Section 13.03 relating to requests for access to public data. A second argument is that because the College did not take any independent action to deny the request, the act of requiring Mr. O&apos;Connor to make his request through his attorney(s) was not a de facto denial of the request.
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the first argument, Mr. Gunn stated, Under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, the College&apos;s attorney could not contact Mr. O&apos;Connor directly about his data request, and was ethically prohibited from doing through her client what she could not directly do herself....These ethical obligations take precedence over any conflicting provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Minn. Stat. section 13.30 (1994). The College&apos;s position appears to be that because the College&apos;s attorney (acting in her professional capacity) used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor, those data should be treated as Section 13.30 data and, therefore, must be handled pursuant to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Taken a step further, the College&apos;s position is that when a person who is in litigation with a government entity makes a request to that entity for any public data, he/she must make the request through her/his attorney and the entity must deliver its response through its own attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.30 provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, &lt;u&gt;nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before proceeding with an analysis of the College&apos;s argument, it is important to discuss the significance of treating data held by a government entity as Section 13.30 data. When a government entity determines that certain data are subject to Section 13.30, the data in question are no longer government data for the purposes of Chapter 13. The government entity is no longer required to follow any of the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 that relate to government data. In other words, none of the data classifications would apply to those data, none of the rights of access would apply to persons requesting those data, none of the rights of subjects of data would apply to persons requesting those data, and none of the duties of responsible authorities would apply to government entities maintaining those data. Given that a Section 13.30 claim has such an extreme result, it is important that such a claim be critically examined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of this result, the Legislature saw fit to include some limiting language in the final clause of Section 13.30. This provision states clearly that Section 13.30 must not be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from his/her duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13. Therefore, any claim made by a government entity that certain data are subject to Section 13.30 must also be examined to determine if the claim will relieve responsible authorities of their duties under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon a close examination of the College&apos;s position, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor can be treated as Section 13.30 data. For one thing, the data requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor, had they been in existence, would not have been generated by the College&apos;s attorney acting in her professional capacity; rather, the data in question, job postings for a vacant position, would have been created and, presumably, maintained by the College&apos;s human resources department. Therefore, to treat them as Section 13.30 data would discharge the College&apos;s responsible authority who is responsible, among other things, for handling requests for access to public data, from her/his duties in regard to responding to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request and any other requirements of Chapter 13. Based on the language in the last clause of Section 13.30, such a result is plainly prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn&apos;s second argument is that the College&apos;s handling of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request was appropriate because the College never actually denied Mr. O&apos;Connor access to the data; rather Mr. O&apos;Connor was informed he could not make his request directly to the College and would have to go through his attorney(s). Mr. Gunn takes the position that the December 28, 1995, letter from Ms. Bernard to Mr. Peterson was not a denial but rather a statement of the College&apos;s procedures for gaining access to data. He cites Section 13.03, subdivision 2, which states, The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a number of problems with the College&apos;s position. First there is a question as to whether the process described in the December 28, 1995, letter is actually that which is consistently applied to all situations in which the data requestor is involved in litigation with the College, or whether this process was created on an ad hoc basis in relation to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s particular situation. The statutory requirement that government entities create and use procedures reflects a legislative decision that persons requesting public data be advised by government entities, on a consistent basis, what steps must be followed to gain access to public data. Thus, it appears Section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires government entities to establish procedures which are consistently applied to each and every like-request for data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From Mr. Gunn&apos;s comments, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the directions given to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorney represent those which are being consistently applied by the College when a person involved in litigation requests access to government data. If the College has created such procedures, they were not provided to the Commissioner. Based on the language of Section 13.03, if the procedures set forth in the December 28, 1995, letter were created on an ad hoc basis in regard to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s specific situation, it is inappropriate for the College to suggest that they represent the procedures required by Section 13.03. Ad hoc creation of procedures would not communicate to Mr. O&apos;Connor, or anyone else, how, on an ongoing basis, he can gain access to the College&apos;s public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, even if the procedures outlined in the letter do represent those which are being consistently applied by the College, there are additional problems. The procedures required by Section 13.03 must be developed consistently with the language of Section 13.03. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 3.) Section 13.03 states, among other things, that upon request to a responsible authority, a &lt;u&gt;person&lt;/u&gt;shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning. The procedures described in Section 13.03, subdivision 2, are meant to ensure that a &lt;u&gt;person&apos;s&lt;/u&gt;request is complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to make requests through his/her attorney. Nowhere in Section 13.03 does it state that a government entity can require a person to hire an attorney, and incur the resulting expense, so that the attorney can make requests on behalf of the person. Thus, given that the language in Section 13.03 describes a process by which an &lt;u&gt;person&lt;/u&gt;can make requests directly to a government entity, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Legislature did not contemplate a government entity creating procedures which would effectively result in the following: that a request for access to public data by a person would trigger a letter to the person&apos;s attorney advising the attorney to advise his/her client that the client could make requests for public data only through her/his attorney. Such a result contradicts the Legislative policy behind Chapter 13 of making public government data easily and promptly accessible to members of the public. (See Section 13.03.) Therefore, Mr. Gunn&apos;s assertion that the procedures described in the December 28, 1995, letter are appropriate because they are sanctioned by Section 13.03 is not justified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To augment his argument that the College never actually denied Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request, Mr. Gunn cites an unpublished opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, &lt;u&gt;Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs Training&lt;/u&gt;, No. C9-94-2422 (Minn. Ct. App. July 3, 1995) (unpublished). Before discussing this unpublished opinion, it is important to note that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 480A.08, subdivision 3 (c), unpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the case cited by Mr. Gunn is distinguishable. In the &lt;u&gt;Nieszner&lt;/u&gt;case, an individual brought suit against a state agency and, at some point thereafter, requested information from the agency. The agency&apos;s attorney responded by stating that the individual should make requests for information through his attorney. The individual did not object, nor did his attorney contact the agency and state that the agency could correspond directly with the individual. In addition, neither the individual nor his attorney submitted a discovery request. The court found there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the data practices claim. The court wrote, Had appellant made his objection clear, or had he made a discovery request, and then been denied access to data, then he might have had a claim.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Gunn wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s case, as in the &lt;u&gt;Nieszner&lt;/u&gt;case, the government entity has not denied access to data. Like Nieszner, Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys did not object to the government&apos;s letter requesting communication through counsel. Like Nieszner, Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s attorneys did not make a discovery request. The St. Paul Technical College did not deny Mr. O&apos;Connor access to data, and thus did not violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Commissioner acknowledges some similarities between the &lt;u&gt;Nieszner&lt;/u&gt;opinion and Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s situation, a significant difference does exist; although Mr. Nieszner may not have objected to the state agency&apos;s response, Mr. O&apos;Connor, in requesting an advisory opinion, has made known his objection to the College&apos;s response. Therefore, because the court opined that Mr. Nieszner might have had a data practices claim had he made his objection clear, and Mr. O&apos;Connor has voiced his opposition, then it is possible Mr. O&apos;Connor has a data practices claim. Thus, the value of citing the &lt;u&gt;Nieszner&lt;/u&gt;case is severely diminished.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that the College&apos;s act of requiring Mr. O&apos;Connor to make his data requests through an attorney was, in fact, a denial of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 describes in great detail the process and procedures by which a person can make requests for access to government data and nowhere is it written that a person can be required to make his/her requests through an attorney. The implication of accepting the College&apos;s position, as set forth by Mr. Gunn, is that when a person is involved in a legal dispute with a government entity, s/he can no longer gain access to data in the fashion so precisely prescribed by the Legislature in Chapter 13. That person would be required to hire an attorney or resort to asking other parties to request the data on his/her behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. O&apos;Connor is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;An individual&apos;s right to gain access to government data has been violated when, in response to a request for access to public data, a government entity takes the position that, because the requestor has initiated a lawsuit against the entity, the requestor can gain access to the public data only by acting through the requestor&apos;s attorney and in compliance with the rules of civil procedure.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 14, 1996&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267779</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for data through attorney</Title><Id>267036</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Discovery (13.03, subd. 6; 1205.0100, subpart 5)</Title><Id>267038</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-036</Title><title>Opinion 96 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267536&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the Humane Society investigators&apos; reports of farm inspections of two persons currently on probation, and subject to certain conditions of that probation, public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 8, 1996; Carver/Scott County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Pamela J. Finamore. In that letter, Ms. Finamore asked about her rights to gain access to data created by the Carver/Scott Humane Society. Ms. Finamore&apos;s request required clarification with PIPA staff with regard to the issue the Commissioner would address in this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Finamore&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marlys Palmer, President of the Board, Minnesota Federated Humane Societies (an umbrella organization of Minnesota humane societies). The purposes of this letter, dated June 21, 1996, were to inform Ms. Palmer of Ms. Finamore&apos;s request, and to ask her or the Humane Society&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              PIPA did not receive a response from the Minnesota Federated Humane Societies. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to information provided by Ms. Finamore, including copies of sentencing orders, two individuals in Scott County are on probation, having pled guilty to charges of cruelty to animals. One of the terms of their probation is that the Carver/Scott Humane Society must be allowed to make twice-monthly inspections of the individuals&apos; premises. According to Ms. Finamore, the Humane Society investigators write reports of their findings, which may include photographs or videotape. The individuals were sentenced in February 1995. Ms. Finamore initially received copies of the investigators&apos; reports. However, in May 1996, she was told that an advisor to the Minnesota Federated Humane Societies told the Carver Scott Humane Society&apos;s executive director and one of the humane investigators that [they] could be held liable for &apos;public disclosure of private data&apos;, because the Humane Society investigators had given copies of their reports to me and had been in contact with me.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Finamore asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the Humane Society investigators&apos; reports of farm inspections of two persons currently on probation, and subject to certain conditions of that probation, public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, subdivision 1, provides:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As used in this section &apos;court services data&apos; means data that are created, collected, used or maintained by a court services department, parole or probation authority, correctional agency, &lt;u&gt;or by an agent designated by the court to perform studies or other duties&lt;/u&gt;and that are on individuals who are or were defendants, parolees or probationers of a municipal, district or county court, participants in diversion programs, petitioners or respondents to a family court, or juveniles adjudicated delinquent and committed, detained prior to a court hearing or hearings, or found to be dependent or neglected and placed under the supervision of the court. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Carver/Scott Humane Society is acting as an agent to perform other duties, i.e, to monitor the probationers&apos; compliance with a condition of their probation. Therefore, the data in the reports of the Humane Society investigators are court services data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Court services data may be classified as public, private or confidential. Section 13.84, subdivision 6, provides that the following court services data on adult individuals are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(a) name, age, sex, occupation and the fact that an individual is a parolee, probationer or participant in a diversion program, and if so, at what location;
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            (b) the offense for which the individual was placed under supervision;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (c) the dates supervision began and ended and the duration of supervision;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (d) court services data which was public in a court or other agency which originated the data;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (e) arrest and detention orders, orders for parole or probation revocation and the reasons for revocation;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                             (f) &lt;u&gt;the conditions of parole, probation or participation and the extent to which those conditions have been or are being met&lt;/u&gt;;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (g) identities of agencies, units within agencies and individuals providing supervision; and
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (h) the legal basis for any change in supervision and the date, time and locations associated with the change. [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The reports of the Humane Society investigators are court services data, i.e., data which were created, collected, used or maintained by a probation authority, or by an agent designated by the court to perform studies or other duties. The data are described under Section 13.84, subdivision 6 (f), i.e., data which document the extent to which the conditions of probation have been or are being met. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.84, subdivision 6, the reports are public, including photographs and videotapes, and Ms. Finamore is entitled to copies of them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Presumably those reports are filed with the Court, and should be available for public access there. (See Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.) However, regardless where the data are maintained, they are public data, and must be made accessible by the public. (For further discussion of this point, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-035.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Finamore is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data in the Humane Society investigators&apos; reports that document the extent to which the conditions of probation have been or are being met are public data, pursuant to Section 13.84, subdivision 6 (f).
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 8, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267536</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court services data (13.84)</Title><Id>266336</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Humane Society investigation data</Title><Id>266337</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:54:37Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-035</Title><title>Opinion 96 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267890&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-05T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are proposals submitted to School District 284, Wayzata, in response to Wayzata&apos;s Request for Proposal (RFP) for Finance and Student Systems, public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 5, 1996; School District 284 (Wayzata)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person requesting this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 14, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Lee Whitcraft, Director of Operations and Technical Services, Technology and Information Educational Services (TIES). In that letter, Mr. Whitcraft described his efforts to gain access to certain data maintained by School District 284, Wayzata. Mr. Whitcraft enclosed copies of related correspondence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Whitcraft&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul R. Beilfuss, Superintendent, of the Wayzata School District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 19, 1996, were to inform Dr. Beilfuss of Mr. Whitcraft&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Whitcraft and Mr. Beilfuss were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 8, 1996, PIPA received a response dated June 26, 1996, from Natalie J. Malphrus, Executive Director, of the District&apos;s Finance and Business Services. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On March 5, 1996, Mr. Whitcraft wrote to Dr. Beilfuss and requested copies of all proposals submitted by organizations which responded to a District Request for Proposal (RFP) for Finance and Student Systems. TIES was one of three vendors that had submitted proposals to the District. According to Mr. Whitcraft, in his letter to the Commissioner, [t]he proposal was awarded to Skyward to provide school administration software. Their proposal was said to be significantly less than the cost of TIES for similar services. TIES wanted to see the proposal for ourselves to determine if the cost analysis was fair.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Whitcraft&apos;s request, Ms. Malphrus wrote to him, stating that the District&apos;s attorney had advised her that the data were not public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), and would not be released to him. Ms. Malphrus enclosed a copy of a letter from the District&apos;s attorney, Laura Tubbs Booth. In that letter, Ms. Tubbs Booth wrote to Ms. Malphrus:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In our recent discussion, you indicated that two of the vendors who submitted proposals to provide data processing services have indicated to you that their proposals contain proprietary information. . . .
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      We would advise you not to provide the proposals where the vendors have indicated those proposals contain proprietary information. . . . Such data is classified as non-public data and may not be released to TIES in this situation.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Malphrus wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The RFP&apos;s are extremely complex and contain many proprietary items. Obviously, all vendors compete with each other and do this by providing products and services relying heavily on numerous trade secrets.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      Enclosed are two letters I received from each vendor who responded along with TIES to our RFP&apos;s. They express their concerns that the RFP&apos;s are full of proprietary information in which the cost component is derived directly from the detailed RFP&apos;s as outlined by the Wayzata School District thereby, it is impossible to give a cost component without giving the entire RFP.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              One of the two vendors, Olsen Thielen Technologies, Inc., wrote to Ms. Malphrus, in a letter dated June 26, 1996, [t]he information contained in our response to your request for proposal is proprietary information intended for Wayzata Public Schools alone. Cost information, terms and conditions and product functionality responses were in direct response to your request for proposal and are unique to that proposal. The letter also stated that the proposal contains trade secrets. However, Olsen Thielen did not identify the specific data it considers to be trade secret.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The other vendor, Skyward, also wrote to Ms. Malphrus, in a letter dated June 26, 1996, that its proposal contained numerous trade secrets. However, Skyward did not identify the specific data it considers to be trade secret.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Whitcraft asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are proposals submitted to School District 284, Wayzata, in response to Wayzata&apos;s Request for Proposal (RFP) for Finance and Student Systems, public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In its responses to both Mr. Whitcraft and the Commissioner, the District asserts that the proposals in question contain proprietary information and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), they are not public.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), provides the definition of trade secret information :
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&apos;Trade secret information&apos; means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies trade secret data as not public. (The Commissioner has discussed the issue of what data constitute trade secret information in numerous earlier advisory opinions. See Advisory Opinions 94-037, 94-045, 94-047, &lt;!--/a--&gt; 95-017, 95-018, 95-019, 95-040. Those discussions will not be repeated here.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District did not provide the Commissioner with copies of the two proposals, and therefore it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether any of the actual data elements comprising the proposals are trade secret data. However, the Commissioner would like to note that if the District is claiming protection for data which document the proposed prices for services, the Commissioner presumes that those data would not meet the rigorous definition of Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). The implication of following the logic that the proposed prices constitute a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to keep secret, is that the public could be prevented from learning the details of what its government is purchasing, and what its government is spending.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, according to the information provided, it is possible that some of the other data in the proposals are trade secrets. If that is the case, the District is correct to deny public access to those data in any of the proposals that actually meet the definition of a trade secret. (See Section 13.37, and advisory opinion discussions cited above.) However, the District may not deny access to &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt;of the data in the proposals on the basis that &lt;u&gt;some&lt;/u&gt;of the data contained in them are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Further, the District asserts protection for &lt;u&gt;proprietary&lt;/u&gt;information under Section 13.37. The Federal Freedom of Information Act requires federal government agencies to protect proprietary information, i.e., financial and commercial information. (See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).) However, proprietary information is not included in the definition of trade secret information provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37. In their statements to the District, the two vendors also appeared to confuse proprietary with trade secret information. Further, the two vendors who claimed their proposals ought to be protected merely restated the conditions of Section 13.37, they did not clearly identify what data in the proposals they consider to be trade secret.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The vendors need to provide specific rationales for their assertion that their proposals contain trade secrets, and the District needs to make its own determination regarding the appropriateness of those claims. After doing so, the District must make public those portions of the proposals that are not trade secret data, and are therefore available for public inspection and copying, pursuant to Section 13.03. &lt;!--/a--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Whitcraft is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The proposals submitted to the District in response to its RFP may contain data that are not public, pursuant to Section 13.37. If that is the case, those specific data need to be identified clearly by the vendors, and the District must make its independent evaluation of their claim, as provided by Section 13.37. However, the District may not deny public access to the entire proposals on the basis that they contain some not public data. The public is entitled to gain access to the public portions of the proposals.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 5, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267890</id><Tag><Description/><Title>RFP (request for proposals/request for bids</Title><Id>266678</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</Title><Id>266663</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination made by entity</Title><Id>266435</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-034</Title><title>Opinion 96 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266601&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-08-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District 191, Burnsville, improperly disseminate government data about O?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 5, 1996; School District 191 (Burnsville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 14, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from O, a former employee of School District 191 (Burnsville.) In that letter, O described a release of information about O, by a District staff member, which O believed to be in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. O enclosed copies of related correspondence and a local newspaper article.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to O&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. James R. Rickabaugh, Superintendent of School District 191. The purposes of this letter, dated June 19, 1996, were to inform Mr. Rickabaugh of O&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, O and Mr. Rickabaugh were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 10, 1996, PIPA received a response from Anne F. Krisnik, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              O was a probationary employee of the District, whose contract was not renewed after the 1995-1996 school year. Subsequently, the District received requests for information about that decision from members of the public. According to O, the District responded in two ways to those requests. First, in a letter from Mr. Rickabaugh to a member of the public, Mr. Rickabaugh wrote: . . . state law prohibits my providing the details for nonrenewal of the contract of a probationary teacher.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               Second, according to the copy of the (undated) article published in the local newspaper provided by O, &lt;u&gt;Burnsville This Week&lt;/u&gt;, an assistant principal of the District . . . said [O] failed to meet expectations after being notified last year of [O&apos;s] pending ouster. The article also stated that, among other comments, the assistant principal said O had trouble recruiting students and had problems listening to students who would disagree.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              O stated: I did not give permission for any of this information to be given, and both the superintendent and assistant principal have previously declined to give reasons [for the nonrenewal] to the parents of the students I have worked with.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Krisnik stated that in response to numerous requests for information about the District&apos;s decision concerning O, [i]n every instance, the District told parents that the District could not provide details regarding the nonrenewal of the employee&apos;s contract.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Krisnik disputed the accuracy of the newspaper article, stating that the comment about O&apos;s difficulty recruiting students was inaccurately attributed to the assistant principal.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Krisnik further stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;To the extent the Associate Principal discussed more than the [program] and may have shared information relating to the employee, his remarks were without authorization. However, any such comments did not violate the employee&apos;s rights under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                       In order to constitute government data, information must be recorded somewhere. &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992);&lt;i&gt; pet. for rev. denie&lt;/i&gt;d (Minn. February 12, 1993). Information that is not recorded is not &apos;government data&apos; maintained by the District. Therefore, no violation of the Act can occur by virtue of this data being released. . . .
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       As in &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the information shared with the reporter was stored only in the Associate Principal&apos;s mind.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In requesting this opinion, O asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did School District 191, Burnsville, improperly disseminate government data about O? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, provides that personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision . . . . Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of that Section, certain personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private. (See Section 13.02, subdivisions 12 and 15, for the definitions of private and public government data.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to the information provided, O was employed by Burnsville as a probationary employee until this past June, when the District elected not to renew O&apos;s contract. Ms. Krisnik did not assert that the District&apos;s decision not to renew O&apos;s contract was in the nature of disciplinary action. The information provided to the news reporter by the assistant principal are data describing O&apos;s performance as a public employee. Employee performance data maintained by the District are classified as private under Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Ms. Krisnik disputes that some, but not all, of the data attributed to the assistant principal were actually disseminated by him. However, according to Ms. Krisnik, the data in question were stored only in the mind of the assistant principal, and therefore, according to &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the data are not government data for purposes of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the court held that in order for data to be government data, and subject to regulation under Chapter 13, the data must be recorded in some physical form, and cannot exist solely in the mind of a government employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data which document a public employee&apos;s performance are normally maintained by public employers; however, O did not provide documentation which allows the Commissioner to determine that the data exist elsewhere, i.e., among the data on O maintained by the District. Ms. Krisnik asserts that the data disseminated by the assistant principal exist in his mind only, but did not provide information which supports that assertion. Therefore, the Commissioner was not provided sufficient information to determine whether the data existed in physical form at the time they were disseminated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by O is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If the data disseminated to the public exist in physical form, then they are government data subject to regulation under Chapter 13. If the data exist only in the mind of the assistant principal, then, pursuant to Keezer, the District did not improperly disseminate government data about O. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: August 5, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266601</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266381</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-033</Title><title>Opinion 96 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266944&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If an agreement exists which allows members of the media to inspect certain not public government data, does such an agreement violate the rights, provided by Chapter 13, of the subjects of the not public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 29, 1996; City of Brainerd</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 14, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 11, 1996, from Richard Olmstead. Mr. Olmstead is the subject of data maintained by the Law Enforcement Center (which apparently is a joint entity operated by both the City of Brainerd and the Crow Wing County Sheriff), hereinafter LEC. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding whether the LEC&apos;s alleged practice of allowing certain members of the public to view allegedly not public data about Mr. Olmstead violates his rights, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as a subject of those data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to both Frank Ball, the City of Brainerd Police Chief, and Dick Ross, the Crow Wing County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated June 20, 1996, were to inform Chief Ball and Sheriff Ross of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s request, to ask them or Brainerd&apos;s and/or Crow Wing&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Brainerd&apos;s and/or Crow Wing&apos;s position, and to inform them of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Olmstead, Chief Ball and Sheriff Ross were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.) On July 15, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Donald Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, and on July 16, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Daniel Vogt, Brainerd City Administrator.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In Mr. Olmstead&apos;s June 11, 1996, letter, he raised the following issue, Based on present knowledge of an agreement between Law Enforcement and Media representatives is the city of Brainerd in violation of the data practices act in releasing A [sic] confidential ICR #9500688 on May 5, 1995. The arranged agreement would allow certain media people to eye ball proc [sic] protected and confidential data contained on ICRs in the Law Enforcemetn [sic] Center in Brainerd MN. He further stated, On March 15 1996 this writer was with Hugh Phillips [of WJJY radio] at the LEC, Hugh was allowed to see protected a [sic] data but I was not....Ebnclosed [sic] is copy of letter that confirms such arrangement.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Olmstead also enclosed a copy of a letter dated April 11, 1996, from Paul Thiede, Chair of the Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners, to Mike Rhyner, Director of the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust. The pertinent portion of this letter stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;For some time now, we have had a dispute brewing over the Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s handling of Initial Complaint Reports (ICRs)....As you know, we have a shared relationship with the City in the Law Enforcement Center for dispatching and housing of our police department....Briefly, the Sheriff keeps a record of ICRs, notes some of them as protected , and makes that record available to some or all of the media. The protected entries are for information only and are not supposed to be printed until the protected designation is lifted. Questionably, that same information may or may not be available to individual members of the public. There has been an accusation of a book being kept on certain individuals that ostensibly is an internal file but may on occasion, eithin [sic] in part or totally, be leaked to the public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Ryan wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s department has reviewed its policy concerning letting the media review ICR information which the public in general is not allowed to review. The Crow Wing County Sheriff&apos;s department changed that policy and has adopted the procedures suggested by Don Gemberling in his May 3, 1996 responsive letter to Brainerd Police Chief Frank Ball. Crow Wing County agrees that this is the proper procedure for managing of the involved data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              (It should be noted that the City of Brainerd had previously been in contact with PIPA and had requested that Donald Gemberling, Director of PIPA, review and comment on some of Brainerd&apos;s policies and procedures. Mr. Ryan&apos;s reference to Mr. Gemberling&apos;s May 3, 1996, letter is in relation to Brainerd&apos;s request for comments.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In Mr. Vogt&apos;s response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Vogt wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correspondence has been exchanged between my office and Don Gemberling of [PIPA&apos;s] office concerning Mr. Olmstead&apos;s issues revolving around the collection of data at the Law Enforcement Center (LEC) here in Brainerd....In discussing this matter with Chief Ball, he stated to me that there is no agreement now, or has there been one in the past, with the medica to inspect certain data considered not public. Further, the policy relating to the documents that are the subject of Mr. Olmstead&apos;s concerns has been recently clarified.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;If an agreement exists which allows members of the media to inspect certain not public government data, does such an agreement violate the rights, provided by Chapter 13, of the subjects of the not public data?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In the situation-at-hand, Mr. Olmstead has alleged that an agreement exists that allows certain media representatives to view not public data. Further, Mr. Thiede, in his April 11, 1996, letter to Mr. Rhyner, implied that an agreement was in existence at that time. However, Mr. Vogt&apos;s July 16, 1996, response to Mr. Olmstead&apos;s opinion request stated that an agreement such as that alleged by Mr. Olmstead does not exist and never existed. Finally, Mr. Ryan&apos;s July 15, 1996, response does not address the specific issue of an agreement. Based on these differences of opinion, the Commissioner is unable to make a determination as to whether an agreement such as that alleged by Mr. Olmstead is/was actually in existence.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     If, however, an agreement does/did exist which permits/permitted certain members of the public to view not public data, that agreement would be in conflict with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Chapter 13 states the presumption that all government data are public unless those data are specifically classified otherwise in state statutes, federal laws, or temporary classifications. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) In the case of data on individuals collected by law enforcement agencies, those data are classified pursuant to Section 13.82, which does provide for the private and confidential classification/treatment of certain law enforcement data. Section 13.02, subdivision 12, defines private data on individuals as, ...data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) &lt;u&gt;not public&lt;/u&gt;; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. (Emphasis added.) Section 13.02, subdivision 3, defines confidential data on individuals as, ...data which is made &lt;u&gt;not public&lt;/u&gt;by statute or federal law applicable to the data and is inaccessible to the individual subject of that data. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summation, Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12, state explicitly that if certain data are classified as private or confidential, those data are not accessible to the public. Therefore, if an agreement exists which allows for the dissemination of certain private and/or confidential contained in the LEC&apos;s ICRs to members of the public, and those data are then disseminated to members of the public, the statutory rights of the data subjects have been violated.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Olmstead is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12, private and/or confidential data are not public and, therefore, are not accessible to members of the public. If a government entity enters into an agreement which permits members of the public to gain access to private and/or confidential data, and the government entity, on request of those members, then disseminates private and/or confidential data to the requestors, the rights afforded by Chapter 13 to the subjects of the data have been violated.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 29, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266944</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Media access policy</Title><Id>266569</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-032</Title><title>Opinion 96 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267428&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Upon request, must Morrison County provide a computer-readable copy of the real property data sought by World Wide Data, Inc., to the extent that such data are maintained by the County in computer-readable format?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 24, 1996; Morrison County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On May 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney representing World Wide Data, Inc., a Minnesota company. In that letter, Mr. Anfinson described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Morrison County. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of correspondence related to this matter. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s initial request required clarification with PIPA staff regarding the issue that he wanted the Commissioner to address.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Russ Nygren, Morrison County Auditor. The purposes of this letter, dated June 4, 1996, were to inform Mr. Nygren of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Nygren were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 13, 1996, PIPA received responses from Mr. Nygren, and from Elda Mae Johnston, Morrison County Recorder. PIPA also received comments from David J. Zubke, an attorney representing Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative, an interested party. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated March 11, 1996, and addressed to Morrison County, Thomas von Behren, President, World Wide Data, Inc., requested a magnetic copy of &lt;u&gt;all &lt;/u&gt;the data [Morrison County] tracks on each parcel of land and/or property in your county. (Emphasis his.) Mr. von Behren also requested any information the County tracks by specific category: lakefront property, industrial, light industrial, and commercial. Mr. von Behren asked, if it were possible, to obtain the data in IBM compatible - P.C. &apos;tab delimited&apos; format with the corresponding record layouts for each data set. Mr. von Behren enclosed a sample of Ramsey County&apos;s record layout, which he said could be used as a definitive list of the specific data he was requesting. (According to Mr. Anfinson, Mr. von Behren made similar, if not identical requests, to several counties in Minnesota.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 4, 1996, the County responded to Mr. von Behren&apos;s request. (That letter was written on Mr. Nygren&apos;s letterhead, however, on the copy provided to the Commissioner, the signature is obscured.) In that letter, the County wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Morrison County is a member of the Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative (MCCC), which contracts with Business Records Corporation (BRC) to do the ongoing programming and support for our property tax needs. Therefore, we do not employ programmers. Because BRC owns the intellectual property rights to the tax system, we cannot provide you with the data file descriptions needed to understand and use copies of our tax files. MCCC/BRC have plans to develop software this summer that would allow the extraction of certain tax information, but our county has not agreed to purchase that enhancement, since there is a cost of several thousand dollars to obtain it. However, if your company would like to help us fund that expense, plus the normal charges for staff time, media costs, and shipping costs, we may consider purchasing it.
&lt;p&gt;At this time we have the capability of generating reports. However, you would need to provide us with a more specific request for data, so we are able to supply all the data fields you need. This would most likely necessitate printing several different reports for each parcel. The current fee structure is a $5.00 setup fee per report, plus twenty cents per page, plus the actual costs to ship the reports, if you would not be picking them up here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I will forward a copy of your request to the county recorder, so she can respond directly to you as to what she can provide and what their fee structure is.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prior to requesting this opinion, Mr. Anfinson wrote to Fred Logman, Executive Director of MCCC, about the response his client had received from several MCCC-member counties:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;There is evidently some concern that the data file descriptions needed to understand and use the files would enable the recipient to decipher the software and potentially to infringe on the copyright. I am writing to you because we understand that MCCC contracted with BRC to create the program and support the software.
&lt;p&gt;My client does not believe that the position taken by the counties is proper under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.] Under that law, counties do not have the authority to restrict access to a database containing indisputably public government data simply because the information has been recorded by means of a proprietary mechanism. Specifically, such a practice would seem contrary to the requirements contained in [Section 13.03.] Subdivision 1 of that section states that every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it seems extremely unlikely that a recipient of the database-even with the data file descriptions-would be able to replicate the software. Even if this were possible, my client would be more than willing to provide reasonable covenants assuring BRC that no such use would be made of its proprietary interests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Logman responded to Mr. Anfinson, in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;MCCC does not &apos;own&apos; any of the data that we understand is being requested by World Wide Data, Inc., or control access to official county records, the counties do. Therefore, World Wide Data, Inc. must contact each individual county to arrange for access to the county&apos;s real estate records. . . . In addition, any position that a county takes regarding their [sic] interpretation of State Statutes should also be taken up with appropriate officials at each individual county.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for this opinion, Mr. Anfinson noted that due to the County&apos;s arrangement with BRC, the only options available to his client to gain access to the data were prohibitively costly. Mr. Anfinson noted that the County&apos;s fee structure, as described immediately above, would have to be multiplied by the thousands of parcels of real estate . . . . Mr. Anfinson further wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;It seems clear from the responses received by World Wide Data that [Morrison County] could readily provide the copies of the electronic database my client seeks. (Most of the database is apparently stored in what the counties refer to as the &apos;tax system.&apos;) However, they will not do so, because of the intellectual property claims apparently held by a private company, BRC. It does not appear that there is any other feasible access to the data sought than the electronic database. Virtually all of the data are indisputably public government data. This situation therefore appears to be distinguishable from the one described in Advisory Opinion No. 95-037, where the Commissioner concluded that direct electronic access was not mandated, because another collection of the same data-in that case microfilm records-was &apos;easily accessiblefor convenient use,&apos; as required by [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.]Here, given the alternatives described by [Morrison County], only a copy of the electronic database would seem to satisfy this requirement.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nygren wrote, in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The issue is not the format of the data, but rather if the requested data has been made accessible to World Wide Data Inc. Morrison County has made the requested data accessible.
&lt;p&gt;The data being sought by World Wide Data Inc. is not all maintained on Morrison County computers at this time. The data [referenced by Mr. von Behren as a sample of Ramsey County&apos;s record layout] appears to be a combination of ownership and financial interest data maintained by the recorder&apos;s office, as well as property tax data maintained by the auditor&apos;s, assessor&apos;s, and treasurer&apos;s offices. The opinion requested by Mr. Anfinson is focusing on the property tax system and the data it processes. Therefore, the following response only addresses the property tax system and related data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Morrison County uses software licensed by [BRC] to [MCCC] and MCCC member counties for property tax processing. Our software does not have the capability to generate the real property information in a computer-readable format as requested by World Wide Data Inc. Morrison County has offered to provide the information on printed reports and is willing to allow use of our computer terminals during normal county business hours for accessing the tax system. Therefore, Morrison County has responded to World Wide Data Inc.&apos;s request for data to the extent Morrison County is capable as required by statute. [Emphasis his.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Nygren reiterated that BRC owns the intellectual property rights to the software, including all data file descriptions, record layouts, and other similar documentation. Mr. Nygren described the BRC/MCCC Property Tax System at some length, and the costs Morrison County would have to charge World Wide Data, Inc., for its data request. Mr. Nygren stated that those costs, estimated in the thousands of dollars, . . . are very reasonable and may not even cover the cost to the county for producing the reports. Mr. Nygren further stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;County government is not required to expend public resources to provide data to individuals or organizations in a form and manner not readily available, if the county has made the requested data accessible through other means.
&lt;p&gt;In summary, Morrison County believes that it is not required to and cannot legally provide a computer-readable copy of the real property data contained in the BRC/MCCC Tax System, even though this data is maintained in a computer-readable format for county property tax administration purposes. Alternatives have been offered to World Wide Data Inc., for access to the public portion of this data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Johnston referred to Mr. Nygren&apos;s response, stating that it was applicable to her office as well. She further stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The Recorder&apos;s Office has a contract with Tri Min Systems Inc. for a land records management system. It is my understanding that the file layouts, which are an integral part of the system, are copyrighted. If we release this information to World Wide Data Inc., we are in violation of our contract with Tri Min Systems Inc. . . . .
&lt;p&gt;The Morrison County Recorder&apos;s Office stands willing to provide World Wide Data Inc., and any other member of the public with information as required by statute. However, we are not willing to break contract agreements nor [sic] copyright laws to meet the special format requests of a private company.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As for Mr. Zubke&apos;s comments, given the MCCC&apos;s position, as outlined in its May 9, 1996, letter to Mr. Anfinson, that it is not responsible for the data requested by Mr. von Behren, it is not clear why it considers itself an interested party. However, Mr. Zubke&apos;s submission was examined for any information that might be helpful to the Commissioner in issuing this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Upon request, must Morrison County provide a computer-readable copy of the real property data sought by World Wide Data, Inc., to the extent that such data are maintained by the County in computer-readable format?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system &lt;u&gt;regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Mr. von Behren and Morrison County are in agreement that, for the most part, the data he is seeking are public government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 14 and 15.) (In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nygren stated that the files sought by Mr. von Behren contain Social Security numbers, which are classified as private data pursuant to Section 13.49.)
&lt;p&gt;In essence, Mr. von Behren&apos;s request to Morrison County has three parts. First, he asked for an electronic copy of all computerized County property data. Second, as a subset of the first request, he asked for any data on land the County tracks by specific category. Third, Mr. von Behren asked for the corresponding record layouts for each data set, in IBM compatible - P.C. &apos;tab delimited&apos; format if possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Morrison County did not directly respond to Mr. von Behren&apos;s request for an electronic copy of all computerized property data. The County neither agreed to provide him with a magnetic copy of the data, as he requested, nor told him it would not do so. Rather, the County responded that although the data are maintained in computer-readable format for county property tax administration purposes, the copy of the software that he requested, including all data file descriptions, record layouts, and other similar documentation, is protected by BRC&apos;s copyright. Therefore, the County responded, we cannot provide you with the data file descriptions needed to understand and use copies of our tax files. Other than telling Mr. von Behren that the file descriptions and record layouts he requested could not be provided, the County did not directly deal with his request for a magnetic copy of the property tax data itself. The County instead offered to provide Mr. von Behren with paper reports, for the fee discussed above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County&apos;s responses on this point are somewhat confusing. On the one hand, Mr. Nygren stated both that the data sought by Mr. von Behren were not all maintained on Morrison County computers at this time and that the County&apos;s software does not have the capability to generate the real property information in a computer-readable format . (Emphasis his.) On the other hand, Mr. Nygren stated that the data is maintained in a computer-readable format for county property tax administration purposes. For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner will assume that the County has the capability to produce an electronic copy of &lt;u&gt;some&lt;/u&gt;of the data Mr. von Behren requested, in computer-readable format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Morrison County believes that its responses to Mr. von Behren satisfy its obligation to provide him with access to County data. Morrison County further believes that it has offered him other options he may exercise in order to obtain the data in electronic form. Mr. von Behren, however, believes that Morrison County did not appropriately respond to his request. He requested a copy of the data in electronic format, and takes the position that Morrison County&apos;s counter offer of paper copies is prohibitively expensive, as are the costs of the other alternatives offered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner was not provided sufficient information to comment on the County&apos;s counter-offers to Mr. von Behren. Therefore, this opinion will focus on his original request for data, and Morrison County&apos;s response to that request. In his response, Mr. Nygren stated, [t]he opinion requested by Mr. Anfinson is focusing on the property tax system and the data it processes. Therefore, the following response only addresses the property tax system and related data. The Commissioner does not understand how Mr. Nygren arrived at that conclusion, however, this opinion will address Mr. von Behren&apos;s request for access to all County property-related data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the County, at least some, if not all, of the data requested by Mr. von Behren can be reproduced in electronic format. The County has the capability of producing an electronic copy of its property tax data. However, the County&apos;s position is that without the data file descriptions and record layouts, the data in that format would be useless to Mr. von Behren. Apparently, the County has entered into an agreement with a private entity to design a computer system for processing (largely) public data. This agreement grants the private company the copyright to the keys to understanding the County&apos;s property data in electronic format. Because of that arrangement, the County maintains that it is prohibited from providing public access to the data file descriptions, record layouts, and other similar documentation, that enable understanding of the raw data (i.e., the data without the keys ), in electronic format. The task here is to try to reconcile that arrangement with the County&apos;s obligation to provide the public with access to public County data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 imposes an obligation on all government entities to maintain government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) To meet this obligation, government entities must, when designing their filing systems (both manual and electronic), make efforts to ensure that the government data contained in those systems are easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This language places an affirmative duty on government agencies to design data storage, data retrieval and filing systems in such a way that those systems will assist and not hinder the public in gaining access to government data. This language was first enacted by the Legislature in 1941, and codified at Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the Official Records Act. (See Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, Chapter 553, Section 4.) Virtually all of the modern record-keeping and management information systems, both manual and electronic, that have come into existence in the State in the last fifty years have been subject to the requirement that they be designed and implemented so that the data contained within them are easily accessible for convenient use by the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, government data are defined without regard to their storage medium. In the first part of Mr. von Behren&apos;s request, he asked for an electronic copy of the raw property data that exist in magnetic form. Those data, in that form, are, with the exception of Social Security numbers, public government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, specifically allows for receipt of electronic copies of government data. A government entity is only required to provide an electronic copy of government data when the public has requested the data in an electronic form and the government entity has the capability of providing a copy in an electronic medium at the same or less cost to the entity of providing a copy in some other medium such as paper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Morrison County acknowledges its software can produce an electronic copy of its property tax data. However, Morrison County has neither provided Mr. von Behren with an electronic copy of the property data, minus the keys, nor told him it &lt;u&gt;won&apos;t&lt;/u&gt;provide him with a copy. Instead, the County told him that it can&apos;t give him a copy of the keys to understanding and using the raw data in electronic form.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Mr. von Behren has a right to an electronic copy of the raw property data, minus Social Security numbers and any other not public data contained in the files. (Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities may require the person requesting copies of public data to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, &lt;u&gt;but may not charge for separating public from not public data&lt;/u&gt;. Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the second part of Mr. von Behren&apos;s request, he asked for an electronic copy of certain property data the County tracked by specific classification of property. This request requires the same response from the County as Mr. von Behren&apos;s first request. If the County tracks property data by specific category and is capable of making an electronic copy of those data, Mr. von Behren is entitled to an electronic copy of those data that are public. If the County does not track property data by any of the categories of interest to Mr. von Behren, it is not obliged to create those data for him, and Mr. von Behren has not asked it to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the third part of his request, Mr. von Behren&apos;s asked for an electronic copy of the file descriptions, record layouts, and similar documentation, the essential keys to understanding and using the property data in electronic form. This part of his request is the most problematic. There are likely thousands of systems in use today, manipulating public government data in electronic form, in which full public access to the data is routinely provided. In this instance, Morrison County (and, apparently, other counties), for whatever reason, designed a computer system which maintains public data, in an arrangement in which significant control over access to and use of the data is contracted to a private company.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to reemphasize that government entities, when acquiring computerized data systems, should design those systems such that they are able to meet their statutory obligations to provide full, convenient access to the data in those systems. Even though Chapter 13 does not contain specific language that says that government entities shall design their computer systems to accommodate public access, Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that government data shall be maintained in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Commissioner must address this situation as it is presented. The County maintains that it can&apos;t provide World Wide Data, Inc., with access to the file descriptions, etcetera, because to do so would violate its contracts with BRC and others. The County did not cite a specific statutory basis for denying Mr. von Behren access to the data file descriptions and layouts. The County says that these items of data are owned by BRC. In referencing BRC&apos;s ownership of intellectual property rights in the data, presumably the County was relying upon provisions of the Federal Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code. It may also be the case that the data in question are protected as a trade secret pursuant to Section 13.37. The County did not assert the applicability of Section 13.37. However, Mr. Zubke, attorney for MCCC, did so in his comments to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issues arising from situations in which government entities claim copyrights, or enter into agreements with private entities that grant intellectual property rights in government data to the private parties, are nascent. The Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion on December 4, 1995, that addressed a situation in which a government entity wanted to exercise intellectual property rights in some of the data it maintains. That opinion reads, in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[Government entities] may not assert copyright ownership to deny members of the public their right &apos;to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places&apos; under [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.] To the extent the data has commercial value, was developed with a significant expenditure of public funds, and meets the other criteria in the second paragraph of [Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities] may not use copyright ownership to recover fees in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies in an amount more than can be justified in relation to the actual development costs of the data, unless otherwise specifically authorized by statutes.
&lt;p&gt;Our basic conclusion is that, although the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13], generally does not permit state agencies to withhold &lt;u&gt;access&lt;/u&gt;to &apos;public&apos; government data, it does not follow that the MGDPA prohibits state agencies from placing reasonable restrictions on the &lt;u&gt;use&lt;/u&gt;of their &apos;original works of authorship,&apos; consistent with the rights of a copyright owner under the Federal Copyright Act (FCA). [Emphasis his.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the situation at hand, Morrison County is not attempting to exercise its intellectual property rights in its property tax data. The County&apos;s position is that it cannot provide World Wide Data, Inc. with an electronic copy of the file layouts and descriptions because those data are owned by BRC. Morrison County could have hired BRC (or some other company) to design a computer system as a work for hire within the meaning of the Federal Copyright Act. In that case, Morrison would hold the copyrights in the software, and could make the data file descriptions available to World Wide Data, Inc., under terms allowable under Section 13.03, and as described in the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General. However, for whatever reason, Morrison County did not do so. Therefore, the Commissioner sees two ways to address this situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, as suggested by Mr. Anfinson in his letter to Mr. Logman, of MCCC, Morrison County could enter into an arrangement with World Wide Data, Inc., through a license agreement or some other mechanism, to enable World Wide Data, Inc. to get access to an electronic copy of the &lt;u&gt;data&lt;/u&gt;and the file descriptions, etcetera, while at the same time protecting BRC&apos;s copyright in the data. This would satisfy the requirements set forth in the Attorney General&apos;s opinion, that in situations involving copyrights of public government data, the way to accommodate all interests is by controlling &lt;u&gt;use&lt;/u&gt;of those data, not by precluding public &lt;u&gt;access&lt;/u&gt;to them. In this case, in particular, access to the electronic keys to the data is critical to enable meaningful access to the data. Although BRC has no copyrightable interest in the County&apos;s property data, it may assert a copyrightable interest in the software program and associated documentation that enable electronic access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This solution appears to accommodate the interests of all parties involved, including the public interest, when government data are computerized, and government entities contract with private parties to design the computer systems that manage the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A second possible way to address this situation is to conclude that the data file descriptions, record layouts, and other similar documentation are protected from public disclosure by either the Federal Copyright Act, or are trade secrets as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, and are therefore not public data for purposes of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One further note. Mr. Anfinson commented that the issues raised in this opinion are distinguishable from those raised in Advisory Opinion 95-037, which involved Anoka County. In his remarks to the Commissioner, Mr. Zubke disagreed with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s assessment. He wrote, in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;World Wide&apos;s position seems to be that notwithstanding the fact that the property tax data is &apos;easily accessible for convenient use,&apos; Morrison County and other counties must provide data to World Wide in the specified form preferred and requested by it. . . . MCCC concurs with [Advisory Opinion 95-037] and its conclusion that Section 13.03 does not provide members of the public the right to demand access to public data in any particular form, and that, if individuals want certain types of specified access and counties are willing to provide it, they may charge for providing it.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Zubke. In the situation at issue in the earlier opinion, the request for data was, due to the design of the Anoka County property data system, in effect a request for a special compilation of data, which required the County to write a special software program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. von Behren requested access to &lt;u&gt;existing&lt;/u&gt;Morrison County data. Even in the case of the data requested by specific category, Mr. von Behren asked for the data &lt;u&gt;if the County tracked it&lt;/u&gt;. He did not request that the County provide a special data compilation for him. He asked for an electronic copy of existing electronic government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As to the first part of World Wide Data, Inc.&apos;s request that it be provided an electronic copy of the property tax data, the County should provide an electronic copy to Mr. von Behren, who is acting for World Wide Data, Inc., upon his payment of reasonable copying fees as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.
&lt;p&gt;As to the second part of World Wide Data, Inc.&apos;s request, the County should, to the extent that it is able to provide an electronic copy of the data by specific category without special programming, provide Mr. von Behren with an electronic copy upon payment of the copying fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the resolution of the ultimate issue of whether the County&apos;s public property tax data can be provided in a computer readable form, an appropriate method to resolve that issue is for the parties to enter into a negotiation over the issue of the use of the copyrighted keys to the data so that World Wide Data, Inc. can gain full access to the County&apos;s public property tax data even though a private company, not the County, owns those keys.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 24, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267428</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Organization of data, in general</Title><Id>266538</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266884</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Regardless of physical form</Title><Id>266395</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intellectual property (See also: Proprietary information)</Title><Id>266703</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Proprietary information (See also: Intellectual property)</Title><Id>266784</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets (13.37)</Title><Id>266417</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-031</Title><title>Opinion 96 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267633&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-17T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of data about a public employee which relate to a substantiated charge of misconduct for which discipline was imposed, when the same set of facts also lead to a finding of exoneration (no discipline imposed) on another charge, and of unsubstantiated (no discipline imposed) on two other charges?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 17, 1996; City of Red Wing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 22, 1996, from Patricia Kuderer, an attorney representing the City of Red Wing, hereinafter Red Wing. In her letter, Ms. Kuderer requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Red Wing. (On June 14, 1996, PIPA wrote to the employee who is the subject of the data in question, and invited her/him to submit any comments regarding this opinion request. No comments were received from the employee.) (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Kuderer was informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In January of 1996, two individuals filed a complaint, containing several different allegations, against an employee of Red Wing. Red Wing then retained a private investigator who conducted an investigation and issued an investigative report to the Acting Chief of Police. Ms. Kuderer wrote, Thereafter, the Chief reviewed the report and documentation, and issued his own Report, finding the [employee] exonerated of one charge, two other charges not sustained, and one charge sustained. The [employee] was disciplined for the charge that was sustained.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kuderer wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 2, the City released redacted copies of the Chief&apos;s report and the investigative report, keeping certain data confidential on the unsustained and exonerated charges since no disciplinary action was imposed, but releasing the name of the employee complained about, the fact that the complaint was investigated, and the fact that the employing government entity determined that no disciplinary action would be taken. All information pertaining to the fourth, sustained allegation, however, was released to the Complainant... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kuderer then stated the data requestors are requesting release of all data and information arising out of these facts.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Commissioner did receive additional comments from the data requestors as to why they believe they are entitled, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, to the complete report. They wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...the City sustained part of the complaint, and by their definition of exonerated , also sustained another portion. Both portions are significantly and directly related to the complaint as a whole. In addition, the two allegations that were not sustained are specifically addressed in [the employee&apos;s] deposition testimony which we already have in our possession. The investigation and report does not contain confidential information that we, the complainants, are not entitled to. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kuderer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of data about a public employee which relate to a substantiated charge of misconduct for which discipline was imposed, when the same set of facts also lead to a finding of exoneration (no discipline imposed) on another charge, and of unsubstantiated (no discipline imposed) on two other charges? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The applicable statutory section that addresses the issue raised by Ms. Kuderer is Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. This section provides for the treatment/classification of data collected and maintained by a government entity because an individual is or was an employee of that entity.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 provides that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this opinion, Subdivision 2 (a) clauses 4 and 5, provide that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action, together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), defines, for the purposes of Chapter 13, the term final disposition as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, if no final disposition, as defined in subdivision 2 (b), regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, only those data relating to the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public. Further, if no disciplinary action has been taken, there cannot be a final disposition.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kuderer&apos;s question appears to relate primarily to the data contained in the two reports created as a result of the investigation, i.e., the report issued by the private investigator and the report issued by the Police Chief. In the report created by the private investigator, eight separate allegations were discussed. It appears that the Chief, in his report, took those eight allegations and divided them into four categories. He wrote, The allegations of misconduct can be broken down into four (4) main categories... Section I of his report provides an overview and describes the four categories, Section II summarizes the complaint and investigation relating to each category, and Section III discusses the conclusions, and the underlying rationale, reached in each category of alleged misconduct.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information contained in the reports and the written reprimand issued to the employee (a copy of which was provided to PIPA by Ms. Kuderer), it appears that disciplinary action was taken against the employee by Red Wing in relation to only one of the four categories of misconduct. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, the public data relating to that charge are the existence and status of the complaint or charge, the final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action, and data documenting the basis of the action. In regard to the other three categories of misconduct, the investigation of which did not lead to disciplinary action taken by Red Wing, fewer data are accessible to the public; that is, the existence and status of the complaint or charge.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (It should be noted that Red Wing did not discuss whether the elements required for a final disposition have occurred in this situation. However, based on the fact that data have already been released to the public, the Commissioner assumes that 1) Red Wing has made it final decision about the disciplinary action, and 2) any related arbitration proceedings have concluded or the employee failed to elect arbitration within the time frame provided by the collective bargaining agreement, if the employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In comments submitted to the Commissioner, the data requestors, who also happen to be the complainants, appeared to make two separate arguments as to why they should be granted access to all the data in both reports. One is that at least two portions of the complaint are significantly and directly related to the complaint as a whole. While this may be so, Section 13.43, expressly links the public treatment of certain data to the imposition of disciplinary action. In the situation-at-hand, disciplinary action was taken against the employee in relation to only one of the categories of misconduct.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second argument made by the data requestors appears to be that because they already have the information from deposition testimony relating to the two unsustained charges, those same data should be accessible from Red Wing. However, the fact that a deposition has been taken does not necessarily mean it has been filed with a court, or has been entered into evidence (in either and/or both of those scenarios, the information in the deposition would be accessible to the public via the court record keeping system). Furthermore, even if the data are treated as public by the court system, there is no provision in Section 13.43 stating that personnel data made public in a court file are also public in the government entity which maintains the data. In addition, although the data requestors appear to have information from the depositions, they do not have data regarding how the private investigator and the Police Chief used the same and similar information to reach a conclusion that disciplinary action was not warranted.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final note is necessary. Although the data requestors in this situation are also the complainants, and they did provide much of the data used by the Police Chief in reaching his conclusions, the data requestors are, for purposes of Chapter 13, members of the public. Consequently, as complainants, they are not entitled to gain access to private data other than the statement(s) they provided to the law enforcement agency. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (d).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kuderer is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;In regard to the charge of misconduct for which discipline was imposed against the employee, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the following data which relate to that charge are public: the existence and status of the complaint or charge, the final disposition together with the specific reasons for the action, and data documenting the basis of the action. All other data relating to that charge are private.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              In regard to the three other charges of misconduct for which no discipline was imposed, only the following data relating to those charges are public: the existence and status of the complaints or charges. All other data relating to those charges are private.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 17, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267633</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Same data, different entities, different classification</Title><Id>266810</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant access to data</Title><Id>266751</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-030</Title><title>Opinion 96 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267986&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-16T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Mr. Ravnitzky entitled to gain access to data contained in &quot;the list of individuals or organizations [maintained by the State Board of Investment] who are notified of upcoming Board and/or Committee meetings by the sending of an agenda in advance of the meeting&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 16, 1996; Minnesota State Board of Investment</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On May 28, 1996, PIPA received a faxed letter requesting this opinion from Michael J. Ravnitzky. In that letter, Mr. Ravnitzky described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI).
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Howard J. Bicker, Executive Director of SBI. The purposes of this letter, dated May 29, 1996, were to inform Mr. Bicker of Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request, to ask him to provide information or support for the Board&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 7, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Bicker. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Ravnitzky, on May 24, 1996, he made a verbal request of Mr. Bicker (and another SBI staff member) for the list of individuals or organizations . . . who are notified of upcoming Board and/or Committee meetings by the sending of an agenda in advance of the meeting. Mr. Ravnitzky wrote that Mr. Bicker, in response, verbally denied my request for this record on the grounds that this was personal information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bicker stated: [w]hile it is not clear from Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s letter . . . I assume that his request for an advisory opinion relates to the Proxy Committee of the [SBI]. Mr. Ravnitzky has appeared before this Committee twice within the last year and it was the Proxy Committee that was the subject of our phone conversation on May 24, 1996. Mr. Bicker stated that in his telephone conversation with Mr. Ravnitzky on May 24, 1996, Mr. Ravnitzky . . . asked me who was on the mailing list for the Proxy Committee. While I declined to give him any personal information on the list, I read the list of names to him over the phone.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bicker enclosed copies of a letter from him to Mr. Ravnitzky, dated May 30, 1996, and its enclosures. Mr. Bicker stated: [y]ou will note that one of the attachments to the letter is a copy of the mailing list that was used for the May 23, 1996 Proxy Committee meeting. The information I questioned during my phone conversation with Mr. Ravnitzky on May 24, 1996 was deleted from the list before it was mailed to him. Mr. Bicker offered no explanation of his basis for deleting information from the mailing list.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ravnitzky asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Mr. Ravnitzky entitled to gain access to data contained in the list of individuals or organizations [maintained by the State Board of Investment] who are notified of upcoming Board and/or Committee meetings by the sending of an agenda in advance of the meeting ? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 17, the State Board of Investment is a state agency subject to regulation under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are defined as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency . . . .
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that government data are presumed to be public, and therefore accessible by anyone, unless classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (pursuant to Section 13.06), or federal law or rule. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that when data are classified as not public, the responsible authority must so inform the person requesting access to the data, and must cite the specific legal basis for the not public classification.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner was not provided any information which indicates that there is a statute, temporary classification, or federal law or rule which classifies the data requested by Mr. Ravnitzky as not public. Mr. Bicker stated that he had deleted some of the personal information from the Proxy Committee mailing list before making it available to Mr. Ravnitzky, but he did not specify the nature of the personal information, or what legal basis he relied upon to determine the data he deleted are not public. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot determine whether that information was properly withheld from Mr. Ravnitzky. However, Mr. Bicker has a statutory obligation, when responding to a request for access to public data, to cite the specific legal basis for denying access to any of the data requested.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Further, in his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Bicker referred to two separate mailing lists for notices of Board and Proxy Committee meetings. Mr. Ravnitzky stated that he requested access to the SBI&apos;s . . . list of individuals or organizations . . . who are notified of upcoming &lt;u&gt;Board and/or Committee&lt;/u&gt;meetings. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Bicker, in his response, said that he had provided Mr. Ravnitzky with a portion of the information contained on the &lt;u&gt;Proxy Committee&lt;/u&gt;mailing list. There appears to be some misunderstanding between Mr. Ravnitzky and Mr. Bicker with regard to the scope of Mr. Ravnitzky&apos;s request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Ravnitzky requested access to both Board and Committee meeting lists. Mr. Bicker apparently has not provided Mr. Ravnitzky with access to the Board meeting notice mailing list. It may be the case that Mr. Ravnitzky, in Mr. Bicker&apos;s opinion, has not yet requested from him access to the Board (and any other Board committee) meeting notice mailing list. If so, Mr. Ravnitzky needs to make that request, and upon his request, Mr. Ravnitzky is entitled to gain access to all of the public information on that list.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Ravnitzky is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Mr. Ravnitzky is entitled to gain access to data contained in any meeting notice mailing list maintained by the State Board of Investment, unless there is a statute, temporary classification, or federal law or rule which classifies any of the data as not public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 16, 1996
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267986</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-029</Title><title>Opinion 96 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267678&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of certain data (see numbers 1 through 7 of Rose Farley&apos;s April 10, 1996, letter) collected, created, received, or maintained by the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility (Hennepin County Workhouse)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 12, 1996; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note: See note to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-267777&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-031&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On May 23, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 22, 1996, from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of the &lt;em&gt;Twin Cities Reader&lt;/em&gt; and its reporter, Rose Farley. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding Ms. Farley&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility, hereinafter Hennepin County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rosemary Madison, Manager of the Corrections Division at Hennepin County. The purposes of this letter, dated May 29, 1996, were to inform Ms. Madison of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask her or Hennepin County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Hennepin County&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On June 5, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from David Hough, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated March 21, 1996, Ms. Farley wrote to Ms. Madison and requested various types of information related to inmates participating in the Private Sector Work Program. In a letter dated April 3, 1996, Ms. Madison outlined Ms. Farley&apos;s request into 11 separate kinds of data and stated that the data requested in numbers one through seven are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, subdivision 2. She then stated that the data requested in numbers eight and nine are also classified as private. However, she did provide information in relation to numbers 10 and 11 of Ms. Farley&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 10, 1996, Ms. Farley responded to Ms. Madison&apos;s letter, renewing her request for numbers one through seven, and stating her desire for non inmate-specific data in relation to numbers eight and nine. In a letter dated May 1, 1996, Ms. Madison responded by providing general information relating to numbers eight and nine, and again denying Ms. Farley&apos;s request for the data in numbers one through seven.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data requested by Ms. Farley in numbers one through seven is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A list of each inmate at the Hennepin County Workhouse who has been granted work release to Scoville Press, in Plymouth, as part of the Private Sector Work Program since December of 1994;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The date that each inmate participated in the release;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The number of hours each inmate worked under the program;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The inmates&apos; hourly wages;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The inmates&apos; job descriptions;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The inmates&apos; dates of birth; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What the inmates were convicted of that led to their confinement at the Workhouse.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, he wrote, ...Ms. Madison argued that the information sought in categories one through seven was classified as private pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.02, subd. 12, and section13.85, subd. 2 (which classifies corrections and detention data on individuals as private &apos;to the extent that the release of the data would . . . disclose personal . . . information&apos;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He further wrote, Ms. Madison is certainly correct in asserting that section13.85 does not define &apos;personal&apos; information. However, it seems highly unlikely that the Legislature meant to bar access to virtually any information &apos;of or relating to a particular&apos; inmate. We would suggest instead that if this section is construed with other portions of the Data Practices Act that serve comparable purposes, the definition of &apos;personal&apos; data should be considerably narrower.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Hough wrote, Hennepin County reviewed [Ms. Farley&apos;s] requests and was of the opinion that several of the items requested were considered private pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 12, and section 13.85, subd. 2 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act....Clearly the items requested are personal in nature and relate to specific individuals ....Hennepin County requests that the Department of Administration properly weigh the County&apos;s two responsive correspondence of April 3, 1996 and May 1, 1996 in support of the proposition that the data sought by Ms. Farley in numbers 1 through 7 of her April 9, 1996 letter are personal or financial under Minn. Stat. section 13.85 subd 2...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of certain data (see numbers 1 through 7 of Rose Farley&apos;s April 10, 1996, letter) collected, created, received, or maintained by the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility (Hennepin County Workhouse)?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
To address the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson, it is necessary to review Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, which provides for the treatment/classification of data on an individual created, collected, used and/or maintained because of that individual&apos;s lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms, and/or all other correctional and detention facilities.
&lt;p&gt;Of relevance to this advisory opinion, Section 13.85, subdivision 2, states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Unless the data are summary data or arrest data, or a statute specifically provides a different classification, corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose personal, medical, psychological, or financial information or (b) endanger an individual&apos;s life.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In essence, Mr. Hough, on behalf of Hennepin County, argued that release of the data requested by Ms. Farley in numbers one through seven would disclose personal information relating to specific inmates. In addition, Mr. Hough asserted that release of the inmates&apos; hourly wages would also disclose financial information relating to specific inmates. In Ms. Madison&apos;s May 1, 1996, letter she stated, Hennepin County in this situation must give deference to an individual&apos;s privacy rights and believes that this information is protected by the Act. While she acknowledged that Chapter 13 does not specifically define personal, she cited &lt;em&gt;Webster&apos;s II, New Riverside&lt;/em&gt; University Dictionary which defines personal as &apos; [o]f or relating to a particular person.&apos;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In presenting a different perspective, Mr. Anfinson argued that the definition embraced by Hennepin County is much too broad. He wrote, If accepted, it would block access to a wide range of data under section13.85, a result that would seem inconsistent with the Legislature&apos;s intentions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson also wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;...Section 13.43 [personnel data] limits access to various personal data about government employees, but a considerable range of such data of and relating to those employees is nonetheless public. If the inmates in the work release program being examined by Ms. Farley were government employees, for example, most of the information sought in her categories one through seven would be public under section13.43, subd. 2. It seems unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to extend greater personal privacy rights to criminals than to even the lowest-ranking public employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson also asserted:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;We would also argue that in the absence of a specific definition of personal data in section13.85, any interpretation adopted should reflect the presumption on which the Data Practices Act rests, namely, that all data are presumed public unless expressly classified otherwise. Under this approach, a relatively narrow definition of personal data would seem appropriate.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two previous Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinions offer assistance in the interpretation of Section 13.85. One, 95-004, discussed the term personal in reference to whether mug shots are public data. In that opinion, the Commissioner wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;...the legislature has not provided a specific definition of personal, and therefore the dictionary offers guidance. [&lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985] defines personal &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt;, as of or pertaining to a particular person; private; one&apos;s own. A definition this broad must be narrowed in order to be meaningful in this context. Clearly the legislature did not intend for any or all data pertaining to detained individuals to be classified as private, or it would not have included the conditions specified in Section 13.85 (2)(a) and (b). Therefore, in order for the County to make a reasonable argument that mug shots may be classified under this Section, it must be determined that a mug shot falls within a reasonably narrow definition of personal information.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the other Advisory Opinion, 94-031, the Commissioner opined, As to the proper classification of birth date data held by Corrections, the classification of birth date data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85 if [sic] private and therefore birth date data cannot be made available to the public by Corrections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To properly determine the classification of corrections and detention data, it is critical to understand the use of the term personal. However, the Legislature did not explicitly define personal. Therefore, it is appropriate to seek guidance from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 645, which was enacted by the Legislature to help others understand legislative intent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 645.16 lists various factors to consider in determining legislative intent when the words of a law are not explicit. One matter to be considered is the occasion and necessity for the law. In the situation-at-hand, Chapter 13 seeks to create a balance between the need for openness of government and the need for privacy rights of citizens. In striking this balance, the Legislature has stated a strong presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Therefore, in searching for legislative intent to interpret the term personal, and how it relates to the classification of corrections and detentions data, the presumption of public access makes it appropriate to construe the term as narrowly as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another matter to be considered in determining legislative intent is the object to be attained. It certainly appears that the Legislature sought to protect some corrections and detention data from being disclosed. However, given that the language specifically prohibits disclosure of medical, psychological, or financial information in addition to personal information, it seems unlikely that the term personal was meant to include all data pertaining to detained individuals. Therefore, as discussed in Advisory Opinion 95-004, data should be protected under Subdivision 2 only if those data fall within a reasonably narrow definition of personal information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another matter to be considered in determining legislative intent is the consequences of a particular interpretation. In the case-at-hand, if Hennepin County&apos;s interpretation, i.e., data is personal if it relates to a particular person, is carried to its logical end, all data about inmates are personal and, therefore, no data about a particular inmate could ever be disseminated to the public. How, then, for example, would a corrections facility be able to notify the public that an inmate had escaped? Such a consequence seems unintended by the Legislature. Furthermore, if the Legislature had intended for all data about inmates to be private, it would have so stated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A final consequence of accepting Hennepin County&apos;s broad definition of personal is discussed by Mr. Anfinson in his opinion request. He noted that, when compared to the treatment of public employees, Hennepin County&apos;s interpretation of Section 13.85 would lead to an inmate having greater privacy rights than a public employee. Mr. Anfinson concluded that such a result seemed unreasonable and the Commissioner agrees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussion, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the following data requested by Ms. Farley are not personal data about inmates and, therefore, are public:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A list of each inmate at the Hennepin County Workhouse who has been granted work release to Scoville Press, in Plymouth, as part of the Private Sector Work Program since December of 1994;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The date that each inmate participated in the release;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The number of hours each inmate worked under the program; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The inmates&apos; job descriptions.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to Ms. Farley&apos;s request to Hennepin County for the hourly wages of each inmate who is participating in the Private Sector Work Program at Scoville Press, it is the Commissioner&apos;s determination that such data may be appropriately classified as private data pursuant to Section 13.85, subdivision 2. Subdivision 2, in relevant part, states that corrections and detentions data on individuals are private to the extent that a release of those data would disclose financial information about those individuals. Because an explanation of the hourly wages paid to an inmate seems to fall well within the definition of financial information about that particular inmate, it is appropriate that Hennepin County not release those data to Ms. Farley.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the classification of birth date data, the Commissioner addressed this issue in Advisory Opinion 94-031 and determined that such data are private. [See note at top of opinion.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the conviction data requested by Ms. Farley, because such data are clearly public in court records (see Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch, Rule 4), it is difficult to conclude those data, at Hennepin County, are personal, and, therefore, private. Thus, the data are public and accessible to Ms. Farley.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on a narrow reading of the term personal in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, subdivision 2, the following data are public and accessible to Ms. Farley:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A list of each inmate at the Hennepin County Workhouse who has been granted work release to Scoville Press, in Plymouth, as part of the Private Sector Work Program since December of 1994;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The date that each inmate participated in the release;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The number of hours each inmate worked under the program;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The inmates&apos; job descriptions; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What the inmates were convicted of that led to their confinement at the Workhouse.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 12, 1996
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267678</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personal/psychological data defined</Title><Id>266817</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legislative intent (645.16)</Title><Id>267202</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-028</Title><title>Opinion 96 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267640&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is it a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when an individual is required to inspect private government data in the presence of another individual who is not entitled to gain access to the private data being inspected, but who has been instructed by the government entity to be present while the data are being inspected?
Has the Department of Human Services complied with the requirements of Section 13.05, subdivision 1, if the &quot;public document&quot; made available by the Department refers to certain forms but does not include copies of those forms?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 11, 1996; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 21, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 20, 1996, from K. In this letter, K requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding K&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, hereinafter DHS. In an effort to clarify the issues described by K, Don Gemberling, Director of PIPA, contacted K in a letter dated May 30, 1996. Soon thereafter, K, by telephone, informed Mr. Gemberling that the issues, as clarified by PIPA, were satisfactory to K.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to K&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Maria Gomez, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated June 4, 1996, were to inform Ms. Gomez of K&apos;s request, to ask her or DHS&apos; attorney to provide information or support for DHS&apos; position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On June 12, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 12, 1996, from Ms. Gomez.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K stated that s/he had made a request to view data about which K is the subject. K also wished to have a data practices designee available for questions when K reviewed the data. K stated that DHS staff insisted that, in addition to a designee, a security guard be present during the data inspection. According to K, s/he was concerned about asking the designee questions concerning the data when asking those questions and receiving explanations would reveal private data to the security guard.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              K also stated that K had received [from DHS] an incomplete public document, i.e., copies of all the forms DHS uses to collect and maintain private or confidential data were not included with the public document. According to K, this rendered the public document unreadable.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the first issue raised by K in K&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Gomez stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...it is not a violation of the MGDPA for a security guard to merely be present while an individual reviews government data. The security guard&apos;s presence does not mean the security guard will have access to private government data. Moreover, the MGDPA requires the responsible authority to ensure the security and integrity of government data, as well as provide access to government data at reasonable times and places....Based on past dealings with K, DHS deemed it necessary to require the presence of a security guard in our offer to K to review government data. This policy is in keeping with DHS&apos; duties under the data practices act and to provide a secure working environment for DHS staff.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to the second issue raised by K, Ms. Gomez stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;DHS maintains a 76-page document which references the forms used to collect data....The 76-page document also contains the names of DHS divisions which maintain the various forms and designees who may assist an individual in explaining the contents of a form....In addition, DHS has found that directing individuals to DHS divisions for explanation, inspection or copies of individual forms referenced in the 76-page document is more convenient to our clients, more efficient use of staff resources and in compliance with the MGDPA. Therefore, DHS contends that the 76-page document complies with the requirements of the public document required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Gomez also stated, The 76-page document including all forms referenced in the document is more than 4500 pages with portions maintained at several DHS divisions.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is it a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when an individual is required to inspect private government data in the presence of another individual who is not entitled to gain access to the private data being inspected, but who has been instructed by the government entity to be present while the data are being inspected?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Has the Department of Human Services complied with the requirements of Section 13.05, subdivision 1, if the public document made available by the Department refers to certain forms but does not include copies of those forms?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The first issue raised by K is whether her/his Chapter 13 rights will be violated if K is forced to inspect the data about her/him in the presence of a security guard. K argued that if s/he wished to discuss some of the data with her/his designee, the security guard would be privy to those data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and its implementing rules, Chapter 1205, provide certain rights to subjects of data. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a data subject is entitled to inspect and receive copies of data of which s/he is the subject. In addition, the data subject, if s/he so desires, shall be informed of the content of those data. Section 13.05, subdivision 3, provides that the use and dissemination of private and confidential data on individuals shall be limited to that necessary for the administration and management of specific programs. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, limits access to private data on individuals to the following: the subject of the data; individuals whose work assignments reasonably require such access; entities so authorized by statute or federal law; and entities or individuals given access by express written direction of the data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to ensuring an individual&apos;s right to gain access to data about him/herself, a government entity is required, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 5, to provide appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. DHS maintains that, in the present scenario, the security guard&apos;s presence is necessary to ensure the security of government data... DHS further asserted that the security guard&apos;s presence does not mean the security guard will have access to private government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, K&apos;s rights to have access to the private data about him/her must be balanced with DHS&apos; obligation to protect the security of those data. It would seem K is correct in asserting that if K wishes to discuss the data with her/his designee, the security guard would then have access to the private data about K. However, if DHS staff believe the security of the data are threatened, or if DHS staff are not comfortable explaining the data to K in the absence of a security guard, then DHS is justified in finding some way to meet its obligation to Chapter 13 and to its staff.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner acknowledges that this is a difficult issue for both DHS and K. From K&apos;s perspective, K ought to be able to fully and effectively exercise his/her statutory rights to inspect private data and, if necessary, to have those data explained. (See Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) From DHS&apos; perspective, DHS does have the statutory obligation to protect the security of its records containing government data. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 5, and also Minnesota Statutes Sections 15.17 and 138.17.) However, DHS bears the ultimate responsibility for finding some way to accommodate, if at all possible, these two clear obligations, which in this instance appear to be heavily in conflict.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Possible ways for K and DHS to resolve this dilemma include the following: requiring K to inspect documents in the presence of a designee with a security guard posted outside the door; positioning a security guard in such a way that the guard could observe K&apos;s inspection of the data without being able to overhear any questions discussed by K and the designee; providing K with copies of the documents so that the physical integrity of the original data would not be an issue; and/or allowing K to inspect copies of the documents outside the presence of a security guard with telephone communication to a designee for any explanations that might be required. Undoubtedly, there are other possible ways for DHS and K to accommodate each other&apos;s interests. Given the obligations of Chapter 13 and other public information policy requirements, the responsibility rests on DHS, to, if at all possible, find a mutually acceptable solution. However, this will be possible only if K is willing to cooperate with DHS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by K is whether the public document referred to in Section 13.05, subdivision 1, must include certain forms. Section 13.05, subdivision 1, requires that government entities prepare and maintain a public document which contains the following information: name, title, and address of the responsible authority; and a description of each category of record, file, or process relating to private or confidential data on individuals maintained by the government entity. In addition, Section 13.05, subdivision 1, states, Forms used to collect private and confidential data shall be included in the public document.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated by K, and acknowledged by Ms. Gomez, DHS&apos; public document does not, as required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1, contain the forms used to collect private and confidential data. While the Commissioner (of Administration) agrees that 4400 plus forms is a significant number of forms, Chapter 13 states explicitly that those forms are to be included in the public document. Therefore, if those forms are not included in DHS&apos; public document, then DHS is not in compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 13.05, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by K is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                In this situation, the individual data subject&apos;s right to gain access to data must be balanced with the Minnesota Department of Human Services&apos; obligation to protect the security of those data. The responsibility to determine a proper balance rests with DHS but the data subject must also be willing to cooperate.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                By not including, in its public document of data categories, copies of the forms used to collect private and confidential data, DHS has not complied with the requirements of Section 13.05, subdivision 1.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 11, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267640</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-027</Title><title>Opinion 96 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267314&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-07-08T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has Nicollet County met its obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to provide R, through R&apos;s attorney, access to its data about S, R&apos;s minor child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 8, 1996; Nicollet County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 20, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 16, 1996, requesting this opinion from Patrick J. Moriarty, an attorney representing R. In that letter, Mr. Moriarty described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Nicollet County about S, R&apos;s minor child. Mr. Moriarty provided additional information in a letter dated May 17, 1996. Mr. Moriarty enclosed copies of his correspondence with the County detailing his attempts to gain access to the data, and the County&apos;s response to his requests.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Moriarty&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael K. Riley, Nicollet County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated May 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Riley of Mr. Moriarty&apos;s request, to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 31, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Riley. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Moriarty, R&apos;s minor child, S, is the subject of private data maintained by the County. Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County on April 10, 1996, to request access to those data. He enclosed R&apos;s written consent. Having received no response from the County, Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County again, in a letter dated May 3, 1996. In that letter, he referred to his April 10, 1996, request, and asked that the County comply immediately with its obligations under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 3, and 13.02, subdivision 8. (Those Sections provide certain rights to individual subjects of government data, and, in the case of data subjects who are minors, to their parents.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The County did not respond to Mr. Moriarty&apos;s May 3, 1996, letter. On May 13 or 14, 1996, Mr. Moriarty spoke by telephone with County staff. He was told that his April 10, 1996, data request had been referred to Mr. Riley.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Moriarty then wrote to Mr. Riley, in a letter dated May 15, 1996. In that letter, he reiterated his attempts to gain access to County data on behalf of his client. He wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I know of no legal basis for the [County] to decline or delay access of the subject individual [R] or [R&apos;s] designated agent (myself) to the private data. There is certainly no basis to neglect to immediately respond to the inquiries by either giving access, explaining any unavoidable delay in access, or specifying why the private data access requested may be withheld. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response, Mr. Riley wrote to Mr. Moriarty, in a letter dated May 16, 1996:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;On May 15, 1996, I met with representatives of Nicollet County Social Services and requested that they provide me with the file concerning [S] so I may address your request for information. One of the items which needs to be ascertained with respect to this matter is the position of the juvenile and/or any guardian or legal custodian, other than your client, on the propriety of the release of information. Until that information is known, it would be the position of [the County] that Minnesota Statutes section13.02, Subd. 8, provides an appropriate basis for withholding this information, since [the County] deems a release of this information, without full knowledge of the facts and circumstances of [S], as not being in the best interest of [S.]
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      Again, the County is willing to review this in detail and discuss this issue. However, if, in fact, you are making an immediate demand for this information, and do not wish to allow us time to review the situation, we are respectfully refusing to disclose based on the authority set forth in the foregoing statute.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Riley offered speculation as to the purpose of R&apos;s request to gain access to County data about S, and reasons for the County&apos;s concern that release of the data was not in S&apos;s best interests. Mr. Riley also stated that the County maintains both private and confidential data on S, as well as potential data which, if we release, would involve the application of some federal statutes and rules. Mr. Riley did not elaborate on which federal statutes and rules might be involved. Mr. Riley repeated that the County was withholding access to the data requested by R, through Mr. Moriarty, on the basis of Section 13.02, subdivision 8.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              (Mr. Riley enclosed a copy of a letter from Nicollet County to Brown County, in response to Brown County&apos;s request for access to private data on S, as part of his response to the Commissioner. In that letter, Nicollet County offered the same rationale to Brown County as it did to Mr. Moriarty, as its basis for denying access to data on S, i.e., that it would not be in S&apos;s best interests, and that it had authority to base that denial in the aforementioned provision of Section 13.02, subdivision 8.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Moriarty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has Nicollet County met its obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to provide R, through R&apos;s attorney, access to its data about S, R&apos;s minor child? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that a government entity must give a data subject access to the public and private data it maintains about that individual within five working days of the date of the request, if immediate access is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the government entity, upon notice to the individual, may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, individual subjects of private data may give their informed consent to authorize anyone they designate to gain access to private data about them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8,
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&apos;Individual&apos; means a natural person. In the case of a minor or an individual adjudged mentally incompetent, &lt;u&gt;&apos;individual&apos; includes a parent&lt;/u&gt;or guardian or an individual acting as a parent or guardian in the absence of a parent or guardian, &lt;u&gt;except that the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents or guardians, or individuals acting as parents&lt;/u&gt;or guardians in the absence of parents or guardians, &lt;u&gt;upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500 provides further guidance regarding access to private data on minors. Subpart 2(B) provides that parents are presumed to be entitled to gain access to data about their children, unless (1) the Responsible Authority is provided with evidence of a state law, court order or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary, or (2) the minor data subject has requested that the Responsible Authority deny her/his parents access and the Responsible Authority determines that it is in the best interests of the minor to withhold the data from the minor&apos;s parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County did not provide evidence of a state law, court order or legally binding instrument that prohibits R from gaining access to County data about S. (Mr. Riley, in his response to the Commissioner, stated that release of some of the data on S, would involve the application of some federal statutes and rules. However, Mr. Riley did not provide any citations, and the Commissioner is not aware of any federal law that appears to be relevant to this matter.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County also did not assert that S requested that R be denied access to those data. The language of Section 13.02, subdivision 8, is clear. The minor must request that the Responsible Authority deny her/his parents access to data about the minor. Then, and only then, is the Responsible Authority authorized to make a determination as to the best interests of the minor child with regard to the parent&apos;s right to gain access to data about the child. The rationale for that requirement is to protect the rights of both minors and parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In order further to ensure that minors&apos; rights under Section 13.02, subdivision 8, are protected, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 3(A), requires responsible authorities to give minor subjects of private or confidential data notice of their rights to request that parental access to the data be denied. The County did not provide information about whether it gave S proper notice of that right. However, responsible authorities may exercise the discretion to withhold data on minor children from their parents only when the minor child so requests, and the Responsible Authority determines that it is in the minor child&apos;s best interests. Therefore, based upon the information provided, the Commissioner must conclude that the County may not deny R access to data about S on the basis of Section 13.02, subdivision 8.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, the County was obligated to respond immediately, or if that was not possible, within five working days, to Mr. Moriarty&apos;s request for access to data about S. Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County the first time on April 10, 1996. Several letters and telephone conversations later, Mr. Riley finally provided the County&apos;s response in a letter dated May 16, 1996. In that letter, Mr. Riley wrote . . . if, in fact, you are making an immediate demand for this information, and do not wish to allow us time to review the situation, we are respectfully refusing to disclose based on the authority set forth in the foregoing statute [Section 13.02, subdivision 8.] In fact, Mr. Riley had made his request for access to the data five weeks earlier. The County was required by Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to respond to that request immediately, or within five working days thereafter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Moriarty is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Nicollet County has not met its obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to provide R, through R&apos;s attorney, access to its data about S, R&apos;s minor child. The County is not authorized to withhold data about S from R, on the basis of Section 13.02, subdivision 8, unless S asked the County to do so, and the Responsible Authority for the County determined that to do so was in S&apos;s best interests. Also, the County did not respond to R&apos;s request for five weeks, and, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the County was required to respond to R immediately, or within five working days of receipt of R&apos;s request.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 8, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267314</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minor request to withhold data</Title><Id>266941</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-026</Title><title>Opinion 96 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267411&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-06-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Lake City complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205, regarding a request for access to data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 1996; City of Lake City</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 10, 1996, and May 14, 1996, PIPA received letters from Thomas Lindrud. In his May 10, letter, Mr. Lindrud requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the City of Lake City, hereinafter Lake City. In his May 14 letter, Mr. Lindrud appeared to be requesting an advisory opinion. Pursuant to a subsequent telephone conversation with PIPA staff, Mr. Lindrud requested that the concerns raised in both letters be combined and addressed in a single advisory opinion. Mr. Lindrud sent a letter dated May 16, 1996, stating same. (Attached to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s May 10 and May 14 letters were copies of past correspondence with Lake City.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Richard Abraham, Lake City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated May 17, 1996, were to inform Mr. Abraham of Mr. Lindrud&apos;s request, to ask him or Lake City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Lake City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On May 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 24, 1996, from Philip Gartner, Attorney for Lake City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated May 13, 1994, Mr. Lindrud requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner. He stated that he had made three requests for access to data concerning copies of &apos;Certificates of Insurance.&apos; Attached to his opinion request, was a copy of a letter addressed to the Lake City Marina Harbormaster, dated May 13, 1994, requesting the following data:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.) All Certificates of Insurance covering all Marine Service Contractors between January 1982 and April 26, 1994.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      2.) A copy of the Marina Policy governing insurance requirements for marine service contractors working on marina property which was in effect in 1982 just prior to the policy change referred to in paragraphs one (1) and two (2) of your May 5, 1994 letter to the Lake City Marine Dealers Association.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      3.) A copy of the Policy as written reflecting the changes which occurred in 1982. Also referred to in your May 5, 1994 letter to the Lake City Marine Dealers Association.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      4.) A copy of the minutes from the Waterfront Board meeting in 1982 in which these policy changes were written, approved and put into effect.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      5.) A copy of the policy relative to insurance requirements for marine service contractors working on marina property that is in effect on this date, May 13, 1994.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      6.) A copy of the minutes of the Waterfront Boards (sic) meeting in which these current policies were reviewed, approved and put into effect.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Then, in a letter dated June 6, 1994, Donald Gemberling, Director of PIPA, wrote to Mr. Abraham and stated:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;On June 2, 1994, I spoke by phone with Mr. Lindrud to review the situation. He agreed that, as the City had elected to comply with Chapter 13 and to provide him with the public data he had requested, an opinion from the Commissioner of Administration would not be necessary. Therefore, the Department of Administration will be closing the record of this matter and no opinion will be issued. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In Mr. Lindrud&apos;s May 14, 1996, letter, he wrote that on July 19, 1994, he met with Mr. Abraham, the Harbormaster, and the Waterfront Board Vice Chair and was assured that this information would be forth coming. Mr. Lindrud further wrote, To date, not one of these requested items has been furnished, nor have I received any explanation from either the Harbormaster, the Waterfront Board, or the City Administrator&apos;s office as to why they have failed to comply with my legal request for this information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               Attached to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s May 10, &lt;u&gt;1966&lt;/u&gt;, (the Commissioner will assume Mr. Lindrud meant &lt;u&gt;1996&lt;/u&gt;) letter, was a copy of two requests to the Lake City Marina Harbor Administrator, one dated April 16, 1996, and one dated May 2, 1996, for the following data: copies of all slip rental contracts for boats slipped on the 1,000 dock during the years 1992, 1993, and 1994; payment documentation; and Certificates of Insurance that accompany each of the slip rental contracts.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Also attached to the May 10, 1996, letter was a letter dated May 9, 1996, from Bill Chamberlain, Harbor Administrator. In his letter, Mr. Chamberlain stated, At this time, I am waiting on a reply form [sic] City Attorney Phil Gartner, as to what information may be released under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Once this determination has been made, your request will be acted upon.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Also attached to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s May 10, 1996, letter was a copy of a sample slip rental agreement.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Gartner made several assertions. One is that the Certificates of Insurance requested by Mr. Lindrud in May of 1994 are different from the Certificates of Insurance requested by Mr. Lindrud in 1996, and that the Certificates requested by Mr. Lindrud in 1994 have been so disclosed. Mr. Gartner wrote, While in fact Mr. Lindrud did make a request for &apos;Certificates of Insurance&apos; in a letter of May 13, 1994, that matter was resolved with the release of the information then requested which were, in fact, substantively different &apos;Certificates of Insurance&apos; than made reference to in his request dated April 16, 1996. He further stated, ...the &apos;Certificates of Insurance&apos; referred to in [1994] were, in fact, insurance certificates of Marine Service Contractors permitted to do business with and on the premises of the Lake City Municipal Marina.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response, Mr. Gartner also stated, The policies in question referred to on May 13, 1994 were subsequently released as public information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Regarding Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1996 request for access to data, Mr. Gartner wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mr. Lindrud&apos;s request for the Marina Slip Rental Agreements and the Certificates of Insurance related to those Agreements specifically refers to lease contracts with boat owners for dock space for a boating year. The City requires a certain slip contract, i.e., a lease of space, and evidence of the boat owner&apos;s existing insurance on said boat in the form of a Certificate of Insurance or insurance policy. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Gartner argued that, based on a statutory citation that appears in the City General Records Retention Schedule (a document developed to assist cities in complying with Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17, the Records Management Act ), data contained in the rental agreements and the Certificates of Insurance are private data and not accessible to Mr. Lindrud.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              With regard to the payment documentation requested by Mr. Lindrud, Mr. Gartner noted that, in a letter dated May 15, 1996, Mr. Lindrud had made an additional request to the Marina for access to all checkbook ledgers and canceled checks for the Lake City Marina for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. Mr. Lindrud stated the specific date and time he wished to inspect those data. Mr. Gartner attached a copy of his May 20, 1996, response to Mr. Abraham in which he (Mr. Gartner) allowed as to how the checkbook ledgers and canceled checks were public data but that Lake City would have to determine the reasonable date and time for Mr. Lindrud&apos;s inspection of the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Also, in his response letter, Mr. Gartner made two final points. One is that Lake City joins in a request for an opinion relative to a determination of Data Practices classification for the slip rental agreement, and the &apos;Certificate of Insurance&apos; required thereby. Two is that if the classification of those data are determined to be not public, Lake City requests a temporary classification of said documents as nonpublic/private data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lindrud asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Lake City complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205, regarding a request for access to data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  For purposes of organization, the remainder of this advisory opinion will be divided into two sections; the first relating to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1994 requests for access to data, and the second relating to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1996 requests for access to data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provide the time requirements regarding access to public government data. In part, Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and &lt;u&gt;prompt manner&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, states, in part, ...the responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained....In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within &lt;u&gt;a reasonable time.&lt;/u&gt; (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that if a government entity determines that the requested data are classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the data requestor shall be so informed and shall be informed of the statutory section, etc., on which the determination is based.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1994 requests for access to data, there appears to be some disagreement as to whether the data were actually disclosed to him. According to Mr. Lindrud, as of May 13, 1994, he had made three requests for access to data relating to Lake City Marine Service Contractors. Also on May 13, 1994, he requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding his inability to get access to those data. Then, on July 19, 1994, Mr. Lindrud met with the Harbormaster and the Vice Chair of the Waterfront Board and was assured that this information would be forth coming. Apparently based on both that information, and on a letter from Mr. Gartner, Mr. Lindrud withdrew his opinion request on June 2, 1994. Mr. Lindrud now alleges, To date, not one of these requested items has been furnished, nor have I received any explanation from either the Harbormaster, the Waterfront Board, or the City Administrator&apos;s office as to why they have failed to comply with my legal request for this information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Gartner wrote that the Certificates of Insurance requested by Mr. Lindrud in 1994 are different than the Certificates of Insurance requested in 1996. Mr. Gartner asserted that Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1994 request relates to Marine Service Contractors permitted to do business with and on the premises of the Lake City Municipal Marina while the 1996 request relates to lease contracts with boat owners for dock space for a boating year. Mr. Gartner referenced the remainder of Mr. Lindrud&apos;s 1994 request by stating, The policies in question referred to on May 13, 1994 were subsequently released as public information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Lindrud made his initial request for access to data in the spring of 1994. It is now the summer of 1996. Mr. Lindrud states that he has not yet received any of the data which he requested in 1994. Mr. Gartner states that all the data were released to Mr. Lindrud. Based on the information provided, the Commissioner is not able to determine if Mr. Lindrud has or has not received the data he requested in 1994. If Mr. Lindrud has not yet received access to those data, the time frame requirements of Chapter 13 have not been adhered to. If he has actually received the data, then Lake City has met its obligation under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It also appears there may be a dispute or misunderstanding regarding the Certificates of Insurance requested in 1994 by Mr. Lindrud. Mr. Gartner asserts the Certificates data requested in 1994 were related to Marine Service Contractors, other than boat docking contractors, permitted to do business with and on the premises of the Marina, and that those Certificates were released to Mr. Lindrud. Mr. Gartner&apos;s assertion appears to be that Certificates data relating to the Marine Service Contractors are public but that data relating to the Certificates for rental slip agreements are not public. However, it appears that Mr. Lindrud believed his 1994 request related to data about the rental slip agreements. Given the Commissioner does not agree with Lake City&apos;s treatment of the rental slip agreement data as not public (see below), if Mr. Lindrud did, indeed, request access to that type of data in 1994, he should been granted access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s requests in 1996, he has requested access to three types of data for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994: the Marina&apos;s slip rental agreements; the Certificates of Insurance which accompany those agreements; and payment documentation (receipts) for each of the agreements. Mr. Lindrud made his first request in a letter dated April 16, 1996. On May 9, 1996, after his second request, Mr. Lindrud received a response from the Harbor Administrator stating that he was waiting upon a reply from Mr. Gartner as to whether the data could be released.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s request for an advisory opinion, Mr. Gartner asserted Lake City has determined that the first two types of data requested by Mr. Lindrud are not public. Mr. Gartner apparently made this determination based on the fact that the City General Records Retention Schedule states that a lease of real property is nonpublic/private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.51 (assessor&apos;s data). Mr. Gartner argued, Since the rental slip agreement is a lease of City property, i.e., dock space, owned and operated by the City, to a third party and because the Certificate of Insurance relates to a requirement of said lease, that said documentation is not public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s request for documentation of the agreements, Mr. Gartner noted that on May 15, 1996, Mr. Lindrud made an additional request for access to all checkbook ledgers and canceled checks for the Lake City Marina for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. Mr. Gartner provided a copy of a letter he faxed to the Lake City Administrator on May 20, 1996, which stated that Mr. Lindrud should be granted access to those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon reviewing Section 13.51, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that Section 13.51 does not apply to the data in question. Subdivision 1 of Section 13.51 relates to data contained on sales sheets received from private multiple listing service organizations where the contract with the organizations requires the political subdivision to refrain from making the data available to the public. Subdivision 2 relates to data collected from individuals or business entities concerning income properties. Subdivision 3 relates to income information on individuals collected and maintained to determine eligibility of property for classification of 4c under Minnesota Statutes Section 273.13, subdivision 25, paragraph (c). None of the data sought by Mr. Lindrud are classified as not public by the language of Section 13.51.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, given that the data contained in both the slip agreements and the certificates of insurance are public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, Mr. Lindrud should have gained access to those data within a reasonable time of having made the request. Mr. Lindrud made his first request for those data on April 16, 1996, and was still not in possession of the data on May 10, 1996. This does not seem to be a prompt or reasonable response on the part of Lake City.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Furthermore, also under Section 13.03, Lake City is obligated, either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon thereafter as possible, to notify the requestor that the requested data are not public and to cite the specific statutory section, etc., so stating. In this instance, Mr. Lindrud received notification of Lake City&apos;s determination approximately three weeks after making his initial request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, while the Commissioner appreciates the fact that Mr. Gartner has determined that the data requested by Mr. Lindrud on May 15, 1996, (checkbook ledgers and canceled checks for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994) are public and are, indeed, some of the same data Mr. Lindrud requested on April 16, 1996, the real issue is whether Mr. Lindrud has been granted access to those data. To the best of the Commissioner&apos;s knowledge, those data have not yet been made accessible to Mr. Lindrud. Given that Mr. Lindrud made his original request for those data on April 16, 1996, Lake City&apos;s response has not been prompt or reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One final note is necessary. In his response to Mr. Lindrud&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Gartner informed the Commissioner that if data relating to the slip rental agreements and the certificates of insurance were determined to be public data, Lake City wished to request a temporary classification. Such requests cannot be handled as part of an advisory opinion. If, indeed, Lake City does wish to pursue a temporary classification regarding these data, Lake City should notify the PIPA office under separate notice and request the necessary application forms.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Lindrud, is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine if Mr. Lindrud gained access to the data he requested in 1994. If so, then the City of Lake City did comply with the access provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300. If not, then Lake City did not comply with the statutory requirements relating to access to public data.
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              In regard to the data requested by Mr. Lindrud in 1996, Lake City has not complied with the access provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 28, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267411</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Assessor data (13.51)</Title><Id>267072</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary classification (13.06)</Title><Id>266504</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-025</Title><title>Opinion 96 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266895&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-06-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Can the MDCFL provide the data requested by the Star Tribune in a manner that will not violate the rights provided for individual students under state and federal law?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 14, 1996; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the agency that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               On June 6, 1996, the Commissioner and PIPA received a letter requesting an advisory opinion from Bruce H. Johnson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning, hereinafter MDCFL. In that letter, Commissioner Johnson described a request for access to data that had been received by MDCFL from the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt;, a Twin Cities newspaper. Specifically, the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; asked for the basic skills test scores in reading and math . . . for each school in each school district . . . . Commissioner Johnson indicated that the Minnesota Attorney General&apos;s Office had advised MDCFL that the State could face legal exposure under the Data Privacy Act [sic], and the federal law regulating educational records, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Commissioner Johnson then asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion as to whether the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; could be released in a manner consistent with state and federal law.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               Upon receipt of this request, PIPA staff, in a letter to Commissioner Johnson, asked for additional and clarifying information about the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/u&gt; request, and the actual content of the basic skills testing data which are maintained by MDCFL and by the test processing vendor being used by MDCFL. This information was received by PIPA on June 10, 1996.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The data in question are the results of the preliminary basic skills testing that was conducted in school districts across the State. The data generated by the testing process includes detailed scores for each student tested on various aspects of reading and mathematics. Included with these data are the name, date of birth, school, school district, gender and ethnic heritage of each student who was tested. The data for each student have been integrated into a statewide computerized data base which is capable of reporting test results at a variety of levels and in a variety of formats. For example, the number of students scoring less than or more than 70 percent in the tests can be reported for the entire State, for urban, suburban and greater Minnesota, for each individual school district and for each school within any given school district.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Johnson asked the Commissioner of Administration to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Can the MDCFL provide the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; in a manner that will not violate the rights provided for individual students under state and federal law? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter MGDPA or Chapter 13, states a strong presumption that all government data are accessible to the public unless there is a state statute or federal law that provides that certain data are not public. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) This presumption of public access, as supplemented by language in the balance of Section 13.03, places a substantive duty on government entities to make public data fully accessible by the public. However, when a government entity receives a request for access to government data that have been declared to be not public by statute or federal law, the entity has an equally clear duty under Chapter 13 not to disclose the data to the public. Disseminating not public data to the public may expose the government entity to civil liability under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, and may subject employees of the government entity to personnel and criminal sanctions under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.09. The actual classification of the data as public or not public will determine which of these seemingly colliding duties the government entity is required to perform.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In this particular instance, the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; has requested that the MDCFL provide data on the results of the basic skills tests in reading and math for each school building in the state. The MDCFL agrees that the data requested can be provided from the statewide computerized data base that records the test results. However, the MDCFL and its attorney question whether doing so would constitute the release of private data on students, which would be a violation of Chapter 13. They also question if providing the building results to the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; would constitute a release of education records without parental consent in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and hereinafter FERPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     With the exception of directory information about students, which does not include student testing data, Section 13.32 of the MGDPA classifies educational data as private data on individuals. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3.) Educational data are defined as: . . . &lt;u&gt;data on individuals&lt;/u&gt; maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution &lt;u&gt;which relates to a student&lt;/u&gt;. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a).) (Emphasis added.) As a public educational agency, MDCFL cannot disseminate private educational data to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In its request for the data, the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; strongly states its position that the data it is requesting are summary data, the release of which is not proscribed because releasing a building summary is . . . in no way similar to releasing an individual test score. The &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&apos;s&lt;/u&gt;position is that data which summarize the basic skills test results for each school building in the state are not private educational data and are therefore accessible by the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Guidance on the issue of whether the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; are summary data, or private data that MDCFL must protect from public disclosure, comes from provisions in the MGDPA, from federal law and from a detailed examination of the data being requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As described earlier, educational data are, in most instances, private data. However, for the data requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; to be private, the data must be data on individuals. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) Data on individuals means all government data in which any individual is identified or &lt;u&gt;can be identified&lt;/u&gt; as the subject of the data. (Section 13.02, subdivision 4.) The Rules of the Department of Administration clarify that data on individuals include all data . . . if it can in any way identify any particular individual. (Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.0200, subpart 4.) If an examination of a set of government data allows the examiner to be able to associate that set of data with a particular individual, then, for purposes of Chapter 13, the data in question are data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; has requested a building-by-building summary of the basic skills test results. It is possible, depending on the exact nature of the data associated with each building, that the test results are data on individuals because the data themselves can be associated with particular individuals, or the very nature of the data say something about individuals whose identities are easily ascertainable. The probability that the data can be associated with a particular individual or can be used in combination with other data to ascertain the identity of particular individuals increases if, in addition to the test results by building, the public were to gain access to the demographic data for that building, even if the demographic data themselves did not include the names of particular students. As a result, a particular student may be identifiable and the test results for the student will be disclosed because the particular student possesses unique demographic characteristics for that building.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As discussed by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; and the MDCFL, a similar result of disclosing the test results for individually identifiable students may occur when the results for a building state that everyone in a grade level either passed or failed the test. Name, grade level and school attended have been designated as directory information by many school districts and are public data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Combining the public directory data with the test results for a given building, in an instance in which everyone in a grade level in that building either passed or failed, would effectively disseminate private data, i.e., the test results for each student in that grade, to the public. This result clearly would be contrary Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is possible that public access to much of the data being requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; can be provided in a way that does not expose the MDCFL to potential liability under Chapter 13. If the MDCFL can produce test results that are actually summary data as defined by Chapter 13, then the summary data may be disclosed to the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; and to other members of the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 19, and 13.05, subdivision 7.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As it processes the individual testing data with the objective of preparing summary data, the MDCFL is obligated to protect the privacy and other interests of individuals who are identified in the data. This requirement can be met by the MDCFL if it produces summary data in such a way that individuals are not identified, and characteristics which could uniquely identify an individual are not ascertainable from the summary data once the summary data have been produced. A building-by-building summary which does not contain unique demographic data, or which does not disclose that all students assigned to a building either passed or failed, should meet the test of summary data as required by Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In this particular instance, the MDCFL&apos;s decision as to whether it is proper to release the data sought by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; must also be guided by federal law. FERPA regulates, among other things, the disclosure of personally identifiable information from education records by educational agencies and institutions who accept or have accepted federal funds under the various titles of federal law for which the United States Secretary of Education has responsibility. The FERPA Rules define education records to include records that directly relate to a student that are maintained by an educational agency or institution. (34 C.F.R. Parts 99.1 and 99.3.) The MDCFL is an educational agency that accepts federal funds and the records it maintains on students are subject to FERPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     A major objective of FERPA is to limit disclosure of personally identifiable information in education records. With limited exceptions, FERPA requires that parental consent be obtained before personally identifiable information is disclosed from an education record of a minor student. (34 C.F.R. Part 99.30.) If the test results requested by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune &lt;/u&gt;constitute personally identifiable information, then, absent parental consent, their disclosure would be prohibited.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     FERPA defines personally identifiable information to include a list of personal characteristics or other information that would make the student&apos;s identity easily traceable. (34 C.F.R. Part 99.3.) This definition makes it clear that, just as with the MGDPA, FERPA, in its regulation of education records, recognizes that a given set of information maintained by an educational agency or institution, even if it does not contain a name or other unique personal identifier, may by its nature allow for a particular student to be linked to the data in question. In that instance, FERPA requires the consent of a parent before the data could be disclosed. Failure to obtain that consent would be a violation of FERPA and its regulations. To the extent that the building-by-building results sought by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; would present a list of personal demographic characteristics, or would otherwise make a student&apos;s identity easily traceable, then those results constitute data whose disclosure requires parental consent as mandated by FERPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The MDCFL is required by Chapter 13 to meet both the obligation to provide public data to the public, and the obligation to protect private data from public disclosure. Because it is a public educational agency, federal law also limits MDCFL&apos;s disclosure of personally identifiable information about students. MDCFL can meet those seemingly conflicting imperatives by a careful examination of the specific data contained in the basic skills test results for each school building. Those results that can be released in a manner that does not reveal the testing performance of a particular student are public data and are discloseable to the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt;. Any building test results which by the nature of the data could reveal the performance of a particular student on the basic skills test are protected as private data under Chapter 13, are limited in their disclosure by FERPA, and cannot be released to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence and other information provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Johnson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning may disclose the building-by-building test result data sought by the &lt;u&gt;Star Tribune&lt;/u&gt; in those instances where the particular data being disclosed do not contain demographic or other data from which the test results of individual students can be ascertained. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 14, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266895</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grade book or testing data</Title><Id>266894</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-024</Title><title>Opinion 96 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267960&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-06-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Mr. O&apos;Connor entitled to a copy of the District memorandum he referred to in his letter dated April 16, 1996? Is he entitled to a copy of the &quot;nine pages of comments&quot; made by District staff members?
Is Mr. O&apos;Connor entitled to a copy of the &quot;Synoptics Report?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 10, 1996; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On April 1, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting an advisory opinion from Roger A. O&apos;Connor. In that letter, Mr. O&apos;Connor described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by School District # 834, the Stillwater Area School District. Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request required clarification with PIPA staff, with respect to the issues he wanted to be addressed, which Mr. O&apos;Connor provided in telephone calls and additional correspondence. During the time PIPA was clarifying the issues with Mr. O&apos;Connor, he asked the District for access to additional data related to his earlier request. The District&apos;s response to Mr. O&apos;Connor concerning the additional data he requested is also addressed in this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David L. Wettergren, Superintendent, Stillwater Area Schools. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 1996, were to inform Mr. Wettergren of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. O&apos;Connor and Mr. Wettergren were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 8, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Wettergren. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. O&apos;Connor, the District hired a consulting firm, Synoptics, to evaluate the working atmosphere in the District. Synoptics prepared a report of its evaluation. Mr. O&apos;Connor, in a manner unknown to the Commissioner, gained access to copies of the report and certain related District memoranda. According to Mr. O&apos;Connor, when he asked the District for copies of the report and memoranda, the District refused to provide him with copies of either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated April 16, 1996, Mr. O&apos;Connor wrote to the District, asking for access to the report, a District memorandum, and certain other related documents:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In June of 1994 a memo was sent to all Stillwater Area Senior High School Staff regarding the seemingly uncaring and unsafe atmosphere at the Senior High School. Staff were asked to make any comments at the bottom of the memo.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;I would like to request a copy of this memo. I would like also a copy of all of the nine pages of comments made by the staff regarding this memo.
&lt;p&gt;. . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;P.S. I would like to know which Minnesota Statute, rule, law you are citing when you refuse to allow me to get or make a copy of the Synoptics (57 page) report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In response to that request, Mr. Wettergren wrote to Mr. O&apos;Connor, in a letter dated April 17, 1996:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;I have been advised that distribution of [the June 1994 memo Mr. O&apos;Connor referenced in his request] may violate the Minnesota Data Privacy Law, MS 13.43 [sic].&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The Synoptics Report and related material was [sic] never meant for public distribution but for use within and by members of the [District] faculty and administration. You have never been denied the opportunity to read the report. At the request of the staff committee working with the report and in deference to the tenets set forth in MS 13.43, the report was not published for public dissemination. No one who has requested the opportunity to read the report has been denied.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequent to the Commissioner&apos;s notification that she intended to issue an advisory opinion on Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s rights to gain access to copies of the data he requested, the District agreed that the Synoptics report was public, and provided Mr. O&apos;Connor with a copy. PIPA staff asked Mr. O&apos;Connor if he still wanted this opinion to be issued; he said that he wanted Issue 1 (see below) addressed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its response to the Commissioner, the District denied knowledge of the memorandum and staff comments requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor, and, accordingly, stated that it was unable to provide him with access to data it did not maintain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. O&apos;Connor asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Mr. O&apos;Connor entitled to a copy of the District memorandum he referred to in his letter dated April 16, 1996? Is he entitled to a copy of the nine pages of comments made by District staff members?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Mr. O&apos;Connor entitled to a copy of the Synoptics Report?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
As noted above, after receiving notice of Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s opinion request, the District correctly determined that the Synoptics report is public, and provided Mr. O&apos;Connor with a copy. Therefore, the remaining issue to be addressed in this opinion is whether the District is obligated to provide Mr. O&apos;Connor with copies of the memorandum and staff comments he requested.
&lt;p&gt;In the statement of the issues to be addressed in this opinion, in her notice to the District, the Commissioner identified the data in question by reference to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s April 16, 1996, request to the District. In that request, Mr. O&apos;Connor wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In June of 1994 a memo was sent to all Stillwater Area Senior High School Staff regarding the seemingly uncaring and unsafe atmosphere at the Senior High School. Staff were asked to make any comments at the bottom of the memo.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;I would like to request a copy of this memo. I would like also a copy of all of the nine pages of comments made by the staff regarding this memo.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to Mr. O&apos;Connor, Mr. Wettergren stated I have been advised that distribution of this memo may violate the Minnesota Data Privacy Law, MS 13.43 [sic]. Mr. Wettergren did not respond to Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s request for copies of the comments made by staff relating to the memo.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Wettergren wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;u&gt;District Memorandum&lt;/u&gt; : I am unaware of any School District memorandum from June 1994 as described in [the Issue statement above.] The document is referred to as &apos;nine pages of comments made by District staff members.&apos; I have heard rumors that some teacher or teachers may have generated such a memorandum, but it was not generated by my office or the School District administration, and I have never seen such a document.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Accordingly, we would not be in a position to provide a document that we did not generate nor have possession of. [Emphasis his.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. O&apos;Connor provided a copy of the memorandum at issue in this opinion. That memorandum, dated June 10, 1994, on what appears to be Stillwater High School stationery, is addressed to SAHS [Stillwater Area High School] Faculty/Staff from SAHS Administration and the Principal&apos;s Advisory Group. The text of the memo reads in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In recent weeks it has been suggested to the school board and the superintendent that the &lt;u&gt;climate/atmosphere at Stillwater Area High School has been defined as uncaring and unsafe&lt;/u&gt;for some of the people who work here.
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any climate issues or concerns and possible solutions, you are invited to submit them in writing to the members of the 1994-95 Principal&apos;s Advisory Group whose names are listed below. Plese [sic] use the tear-off or other written formats and submit your concerns by the August 30th workshop day.
&lt;p&gt;Submitted items will be compiled and processed by the Principal&apos;s Advisory Group (site-team) which will then create a forum for discussion in the fall. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that Mr. O&apos;Connor sufficiently identified the memorandum he was seeking in his April 16, 1996, request to the District. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Wettergren stated that he was unaware of the memorandum sought by Mr. O&apos;Connor. However, in his original response to Mr. O&apos;Connor, Mr. Wettergren stated that the memorandum was not public, pursuant to Section 13.43 (which governs personnel data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity subject to regulation under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as is the District, are public data, unless there is a statute, temporary classification, or federal law which classifies the data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the information provided, it does not appear that the June 10, 1994, District memorandum is classified as anything other than public. The memorandum does not contain any individually identifying information, other than the names of the members of the advisory group. Therefore, Mr. O&apos;Connor is entitled to receive a copy of that memorandum from the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Wettergren appears to confuse the June 1994 memorandum with the nine pages of District staff comments requested by Mr. O&apos;Connor. He wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;I am unaware of any School District memorandum from June 1994 as described [by Mr. O&apos;Connor in his request to the District.] The document is referred to as &apos;nine pages of comments made by District staff members.&apos; I have heard rumors that some teacher or teachers may have generated such a memorandum, but it was not generated by my office or the School District administration, and I have never seen such a document.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. O&apos;Connor provided copies of the additional data he believes to be at issue. Those copies consist of six pages of questions and answers, headed Stillwater High School/Response To Questions From All Staff Meeting, dated November 8, 1994, and two other District memoranda, dated December 15, 1994, and January 12, 1995. The two memoranda make reference to the Synoptics report, but do not contain staff comments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The six pages of questions and answers relate to the Synoptics evaluation and report. The questions fall into five categories: &lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;QUESTIONS ABOUT SYNOPTICS, FACILITATORS [sic] QUALIFICATIONS AND COSTS.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OVERALL PROCESS&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;QUESTIONS ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WILL RESULT&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;The Commissioner is unable to determine, from the information provided by Mr. O&apos;Connor, whether the District ought reasonably to have been able to identify the data he was requesting from his description of all of the nine pages of comments made by the staff. The District&apos;s position is that it neither created, nor maintains, data which fit Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s description. The District may reasonably have reached that conclusion, based on Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s description of the data he was seeking. However, Mr. Wettergren did not respond to Mr. O&apos;Connor about his right to gain access to the data he requested. Mr. Wettergren should have told Mr. O&apos;Connor what he told the Commissioner, i.e., that the District did not maintain data that fit Mr. O&apos;Connor&apos;s description. Mr. O&apos;Connor would then have had the opportunity to clarify with the District the data he was seeking.
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. O&apos;Connor, the data he sought are the six pages of questions and answers, and the two other District memoranda, described above. It is possible that any comments submitted by District teachers, in response to the District&apos;s June 10, 1994, memorandum, may contain some private data pursuant to Section 13.43. Section 13.43 provides, in part, that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other data on employees not specified as public, are private. However, absent any individually identifying data that are classified as private, any comments received by the District in response to its June 10, 1994, memorandum are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District is obligated to make reasonable efforts to identify data it is requested to supply. The Commissioner does not believe, in the case of the nine pages of comments, that Mr. O&apos;Connor sufficiently identified the data to which he was seeking access. However, if the District were uncertain as to exactly what data Mr. O&apos;Connor was requesting, the District should have made a re_ onable attempt to clarify that with him at the time he made his request &lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. O&apos;Connor is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;According to the information provided, the June 10, 1994, District memorandum appears to be public government data. As such, Mr. O&apos;Connor is entitled to a copy of the memorandum.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to the nine pages of comments, it is not clear whether Mr. O&apos;Connor sufficiently identified the data to which he was seeking access. However, if the District were uncertain as to exactly what data Mr. O&apos;Connor was requesting, the District should have made a reasonable attempt to clarify that with him at the time he made his request. Upon request, Mr. O&apos;Connor is entitled to a copy of any public data contained in comments submitted to the District, by District staff, in response to the June 10, 1994, memorandum, if the District maintains such data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 10, 1996
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267960</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-023</Title><title>Opinion 96 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268033&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-06-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has School District #696, Ely, complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 5, 1996; School District 696 (Ely)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 15, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated April 11, 1996, from Sonja Kerr, on behalf of her client M and M&apos;s mother. In her letter, Ms. Kerr requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding M&apos;s and M&apos;s mother&apos;s access to certain data about M maintained by School District #696, Ely, hereinafter District 696. (Attached to Ms. Kerr&apos;s letter were copies of correspondence between Ms. Kerr and Charles Long, an attorney representing District 696.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Terrence K. Merfeld, Superintendent of District 696. The purposes of this letter, dated April 23, 1996, were to inform Mr. Merfeld of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to ask him or District 696&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for District 696&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On May 4, 1996, PIPA received a response, dated May 3, 1996, from Susan Torgerson and Charles Long, on behalf of District 696. (Attached to the response from Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long was an April 17, 1996, letter to Ms. Kerr from Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long, and a document containing educational data about M.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Kerr described her attempts to gain access to phonetic inventories. She wrote, On March 31, 1996, we requested a copy of documents entitled &apos;phonetic inventories&apos; which are documents/logs to be kept to measure [M&apos;s] progress in [therapy]....We suspect that the phonetic inventories may not exist, but we are not sure. Apparently, on March 28, 1996, Ms. Kerr and M&apos;s mother, along with various other parties, participated in a conciliation conference. In a letter dated March 31, 1996, Ms. Kerr wrote to Mr. Long to summarize our understanding of what occurred at the conciliation conference on March 28, 1996. In her letter, Ms. Kerr wrote, Parent requested copies of all phonetic inventories completed by Denise Dreschler to date.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Then, in a letter dated April 5, 1996, Ms. Kerr wrote again to Mr. Long and stated, We are still awaiting the phonetic charts from the school district, that we requested on March 31, 1996 in writing. The District has violated the MGDPA [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] by not providing same to use within the five day period. Please forward same, right away.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated April 9, 1996, Mr. Long wrote to Ms. Kerr and stated, Documents regarding speech therapy are being compiled and will be forwarded.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated April 11, 1996, Ms. Kerr wrote to Mr. Long and stated, I note that it is now over 10 days from the time that [M&apos;s mother], through counsel, made a written request for the phonetic inventory charts and we have not received same.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long, in part, wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The facts demonstrate that the District has not violated the provisions of the MGDPA. The requested phonetic inventories do not exist, nor have they ever existed....In this case, the parent asked for copies of phonetic inventories completed by the pupil&apos;s [therapist]....The phonetic inventories to which the parent refers are presumably charts like those the student received [in another school district]....The Ely School District, however, does not create charts like those as part of its [therapy program] and has never done so. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long further stated that M&apos;s parents were informed in a letter dated April 17, 1996, that District 696 does not create the phonetic inventory charts. They also wrote that M&apos;s therapist has reviewed her notes and compiled a report of [M&apos;s] progress...This report was completed and forwarded to the parent recently.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has School District #696, Ely, complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  The issue raised by Ms. Kerr is whether District 696 complied, in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to her request for the documents about M entitled phonetic inventories.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Apparently, M is a student of District 696, which is a public educational institution. Data which relate to a student and are maintained by such an entity are defined as educational data in Section 13.32. Pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 3, most educational data are private data on individuals. (There are some exceptions to this general rule, none of which appear to apply in the situation at hand.) Therefore, the data requested by Ms. Kerr are private educational data about M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In general, Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that, upon request to a government entity, an individual has the following rights: to be informed whether s/he is the subject of stored data and how those data are classified; to be provided an opportunity to inspect any such data; and to be provided with copies of any such data. Further, any request made pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, must be complied with immediately, if possible. If immediate compliance is not possible, the government entity must provide the data subject with access to the public and private data it maintains about that individual within five working days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the date of the request. However, upon notice to the individual, the government entity may have an additional five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) within which to comply with the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present situation, Ms. Kerr requested access to certain data about her client which she believed might be in existence. She apparently received no response from the District regarding her requests until April 17, 1996, at which time Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long advised Ms. Kerr, in a letter, that the phonetic inventory charts are not maintained by District 696. This April 17, 1996, response was apparently received by Ms. Kerr approximately 11 to 14 working days after her initial requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long asserted, A school district cannot provide a parent with documents that do not exist. A district is not required to create new information to comply with the Data Practices Act. While this is correct, Ms. Torgerson and Mr. Long did not address the fact that District 696 simply did not respond to Ms. Kerr&apos;s requests. If M was/is not the subject of the phonetic inventory charts because those data did/do not exist, District 696 should have so informed Ms. Kerr immediately at the time of her request, or within five or ten working days thereafter (see above.) Given that the District&apos;s response apparently did not reach Ms. Kerr until after the five to ten day statutory deadline had expired, District 696 has not complied with the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms.Kerr is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
													
                            Given that School District #696, Ely, responded to an individual data subject&apos;s request for data 11 to 14 days after having received the request, the District did not comply with the time frame requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                            
													&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 5, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268033</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-022</Title><title>Opinion 96 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266719&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-05-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Mr. Northrup, the respondent in a Minnesota Department of Human Rights closed case, entitled to gain access to any of the data in the charging party&apos;s rebuttal statement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 30, 1996; Minnesota Department of Human Rights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated April 8, 1996, from Robert Northrup. In his letter, Mr. Northrup requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, hereinafter Human Rights. (Attached to Mr. Northrup&apos;s letter were copies of past correspondence with Human Rights.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Northrup&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Beaulieu, Commissioner of Human Rights. The purposes of this letter, dated April 12, 1996, were to inform Mr. Beaulieu of Mr. Northrup&apos;s request, to ask him or Human Rights&apos; attorney to provide information or support for Human Rights&apos; position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On May 10, 1996, PIPA received a response from Ken Nickolai, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs for Human Rights.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated March 7, 1996, addressed to Mr. Northrup from Commissioner Beaulieu, Mr. Northrup was informed that a charge filed against him had been dismissed. In a letter dated March 21, 1996, Mr. Northrup wrote to Commissioner Beaulieu and requested a copy of the charging party rebuttal statement. In a letter dated March 29, 1996, Mr. Nickolai responded to Mr. Northrup&apos;s request:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 363, does not allow the release of that information. As a closed case, the material in the file must be handled pursuant to Subd. 3 of Section 363.061. That portion of the act classifies the file as private data, with only limited exceptions. The rebuttal statement is not included in one of the exceptions. As a result, we cannot release the information you requested. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Northrup then requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Soon thereafter, in a letter dated April 26, 1996, Mr. Nickolai wrote to Mr. Northrup and provided to him a copy of the rebuttal statement. Mr. Nickolai wrote, Enclosed is a copy of the rebuttal statement given to the Department by the Charging Party...Since we last spoke, the Charging Party requested that the agency re-open this case. After reviewing the matter, the Commissioner then authorized the release of the rebuttal statement and the re-open request to you. The Department has informed the Charging Party that it will not grant [the charging party&apos;s] request that the agency change its original decision in this matter.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner (of Administration), then contacted Mr. Northrup to determine if he wished to withdraw his opinion request. Mr. Northrup advised PIPA that he wished to go ahead with his request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Northrup&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Nickolai, on behalf of Human Rights, wrote:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;After reviewing Mr. Robert Northrup&apos;s request for data, we concluded that the Department initially erred by not releasing the information he requested. As you know, to protect the confidentiality of information provided to us in the course of investigating complaints of Human Rights violations, the legislature has established specific data practice requirements in Minn. Stat. Ch. 363, as well as those in the Data Practices Act. The definitional sections of the latter are incorporated by reference into the former.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      The information Mr. Nothrup [sic] requested was data provided by the charging party about Mr. Northrup&apos;s alleged conduct. As the subject of the data, we should have provided that data to him on first request. We have now corrected our mistake and provided Mr. Northrup with that data and will be reminding all staff about this and other exceptions to the confidentiality provisions of our law.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Northrup asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is Mr. Northrup, the respondent in a Minnesota Department of Human Rights closed case, entitled to gain access to any of the data in the charging party&apos;s rebuttal statement?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Data maintained by Human Rights are classified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 363. In the situation at hand, it appears that Mr. Northrup&apos;s file, at the time of his request for an advisory opinion, was considered to be a closed case file, for the purposes of Chapter 363. Section 363.01, subdivision 7, states, &apos;Closed case file&apos; means a file containing human rights investigative data in which an order or other decision resolving the alleged or suspected discrimination has been made or issued by the commissioner, a hearing officer, or a court, and the time for any reconsideration of or appeal from the order or decision has expired.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 363.061, subdivision 3, classifies data maintained in closed case files. Clause (a) states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Human rights investigative data on an individual contained in a closed case file is classified as &lt;u&gt;private&lt;/u&gt;, with the exception of the following documents: the name and address of the charging party and respondent, factual basis of the allegations, and the statute under which the action is brought, the part of the summary of the investigation that does not contain identifying data on an individual other than the complainant or respondent, and the commissioner&apos;s memorandum determining whether probable cause has been shown. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, defines private data as data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Therefore, because Mr. Northrup&apos;s case file is closed and he is the subject of the data, it appears that any investigative data about Mr. Northrup maintained by Human Rights is accessible to Mr. Northrup. (It should be noted that clause (c) of Section 363.061, subdivision 3, does authorize the Commissioner of Human Rights to make investigative data contained in a closed case file &lt;u&gt;inaccessible&lt;/u&gt;to the charging party or the respondent in order to protect medical or other security interests of the parties or third persons. However, in the present situation, Human Rights apparently never attempted to use clause (c) as a basis for denial of access to the data.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on Mr. Nickolai&apos;s May 10, 1996, letter, Human Rights is apparently cognizant that its initial denial of Mr. Northrup&apos;s request was inappropriate. In his letter, Mr. Nickolai advised the Commissioner that Mr. Northrup was provided with a copy of the data and that Human Rights will be reminding all staff about this and other exceptions to the confidentiality provisions of our law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Northrup is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                            Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 363.061, subdivision 3, data in a closed investigative data are private data. Therefore, unless the Commissioner of Human Rights has made those data inaccessible by invoking the authority granted in Section 363.061, subdivision 3 (c), Mr. Northrup should be granted access to the investigative data of which he is the subject.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 30, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266719</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Human rights data (Chapter 363A / 363)</Title><Id>266463</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:57:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-021</Title><title>Opinion 96 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267512&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-05-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Stillwater complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 regarding the citizen&apos;s request for access to the following data: 1) personnel data relating to the City Attorney, City Development Director, and City Engineer; and 2) premiums paid for property and casualty insurance, and a &quot;loss&quot; run for claims and out-of-court-settlements and any settlements not covered by insurance?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 21, 1996; City of Stillwater</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On April 1, 1996, PIPA received a letter, dated March 28, 1996, from Richard Edstrom. In his letter, Mr. Edstrom requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the City of Stillwater, hereinafter Stillwater. (Attached to Mr. Edstrom&apos;s letter were copies of past correspondence with Stillwater.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Morlie Weldon, Stillwater City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated April 4, 1996, were to inform Mr. Weldon of Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request, to ask him or Stillwater&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Stillwater&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On April 12, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from David T. Magnuson, Stillwater City Attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated September 26, 1995, Mr. Edstrom sent a written request for access to data to Mr. Weldon. Some of the information requested by Mr. Edstrom included: the annual retainer for legal representation; all annual insurance premiums; annual compensation for the City Planner and the City Engineer; all settlements paid as a result of insurance claims and/or legal actions; and, annual retainers paid for planning and engineering consulting. (Mr. Edstrom requested the data be provided to him for the years 1985 through 1995.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated September 28, 1995, Mr. Magnuson responded to Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request by stating that while the data requested by Mr. Edstrom are public, those data are not compiled in any readily available form that can be presented to you in summary. Mr. Magnuson then invited Mr. Edstrom to either make an appointment to inspect the annual audit statements or to request that Stillwater conduct an audit to compile the information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Later, in a letter dated November 10, 1995, Mr. Edstrom again wrote to Mr. Weldon and requested access to the following data: specific personnel data relating to the City Attorney, the City Development Director, and the City Engineer; a documented report of all premiums paid for property and casualty insurance; a loss run for all claims and out-of-court settlements not covered by insurance; and all payments made by the City of Planning/consultant services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated November 16, 1995, Mr. Magnuson responded stating:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;We suggest that you call City Hall for an appointment and they will make the financial statements and audit reports available to you for the years 1988 through the present. These documents should contain the information that you wish to obtain....As I explained in an earlier letter, the information is not available by simply picking it off of a City ledger....Further, I am sending a copy of your letter request to the McGarry Kearney Insurance Agency with a request that Rob McGarry forward to you a report of premiums paid for property and casualty insurance and also that he send you information on claims that were paid by the City and not covered by insurance.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In his opinion request, Mr. Edstrom stated, At this time I have received no information regarding insurance claims and premiums, nor have been given any information regarding personnel data.
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Edstrom&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Magnuson wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The City has maintained that all of the information requested by Mr. Edstrom is public information within the meaning of the Data Privacy Act, but that the information has not been compiled in any readily available form that can be made available to Edstrom in summary....I contacted Rob McGarry from the McGarry-Kearney Agency with regard to our request that Mr. McGarry provide insurance information to Mr. Edstrom. According to McGarry, he talked to Edstrom several times over the winter and told Edstrom that he would be furnishing the information as soon as he had all the information rather than giving it to Edstrom on a piecemeal basis. McGarry indicated that Edstrom was satisfied with that response....the easiest way for Mr. Edstrom to obtain the information that he requests would be to review the annual audit statements since 1985. He should let the City Clerk know when he will be at City Hall and the staff will make the documents available to him....&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Edstrom asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Stillwater complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 regarding the citizen&apos;s request for access to the following data: 1) personnel data relating to the City Attorney, City Development Director, and City Engineer; and 2) premiums paid for property and casualty insurance, and a loss run for claims and out-of-court-settlements and any settlements not covered by insurance?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
The issue raised by Mr. Edstrom is whether Stillwater&apos;s response to his request for access to public data has fallen within the time parameters set forth in Chapter 13 and its implementing Rules, Chapter 1205.
&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute that the data requested by Mr. Edstrom are public. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 provide the time frame within which a government entity must respond. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, in part, requires that individuals be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, be informed of the meaning of the data. Subdivision 3 also states, The responsible authority...shall provide copies of public data upon request. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300 requires that requests for access to data be responded to within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Upon examination of both Mr. Edstrom&apos;s and Mr. Magnuson&apos;s letters, it appears there may have been some confusion as to the kind of access desired by Mr. Edstrom. Specifically, did he want to inspect the data, or did he want copies of the data? In his September 26, 1996, request, Mr. Edstrom wrote, Please provide me with the following historical data....I understand that I will be responsible for a per copy charge and will gladly forward same once the material is delivered. Later, in his November 10, 1995, request, Mr. Edstrom wrote, Please provide...the following data for the years 1988 through and including 1995....It seems to me that a 30 day period for a response is reasonable and I do understand that reasonable cost/copy is in order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Mr. Edstrom did not specifically ask for copies of the data, it appears to the Commissioner that, perhaps, he did desire copies. It also appears to the Commissioner that Stillwater interpreted Mr. Edstrom&apos;s letters as requests to inspect the data. Therefore, the remainder of this opinion will be divided into two parts; the first part will discuss Stillwater&apos;s response in terms of a request to &lt;u&gt;inspect&lt;/u&gt;data, and the second part will discuss Stillwater&apos;s response in terms of a request to &lt;u&gt;obtain copies&lt;/u&gt;of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the &lt;u&gt;inspection&lt;/u&gt;of personnel data by Mr. Edstrom, it appears, based on the information provided by Mr. Edstrom, that Stillwater complied in a timely fashion with both the September 26, 1995, request and the November 10, 1995, request. In both instances,
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Magnuson promptly responded, in letters dated September 28, 1995, and November 16, 1995, respectively, to Mr. Edstrom stating that the information sought by Mr. Edstrom are public but are not maintained by Stillwater in a readily available form that could be presented in summary. However, in both of those letters, as well as in his opinion response, Mr. Magnuson also stated that the data are available in Stillwater&apos;s annual financial statements and audit reports which would be accessible to Mr. Edstrom upon his making an appointment to inspect them at City Hall. In addition, Mr. Magnuson wrote that if Mr. Edstrom desired a compilation of the data in a form other than the financial statements and audit reports, Stillwater would prepare such an audit, for an agreed-upon fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As previously discussed, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, requires that individuals be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places. Further, as the Commissioner wrote in Advisory Opinion 96-007, ...there is no provision in Chapter 13 which imposes a general duty on government entities to create data or to provide data in a particular format specified by a requestor. Therefore, if Stillwater&apos;s record-keeping system is set up so that the data requested by Mr. Edstrom are maintained in Stillwater&apos;s yearly financial statements and audit reports, then Stillwater&apos;s statutory obligation has been met if Mr. Edstrom is permitted to inspect those financial statements and audit reports. In this case, by offering Mr. Edstrom the opportunity to inspect the data, Stillwater has met its Chapter 13 obligation. The next step is for Mr. Edstrom to visit Stillwater and view the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next issue is whether Stillwater&apos;s response to Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request to inspect the insurance premiums/claims paid data complies with Chapter 13. In both of Mr. Magnuson&apos;s 1995 response letters, he wrote that all the data desired by Mr. Edstrom are available in the financial statements and audit reports. But, in his November 16, 1995, letter, he specifically mentioned the insurance information and stated that he was sending a copy of Mr. Edstrom&apos;s letter to the McGarry amp; Kearney Insurance Agency with a request that Rob McGarry forward, to Mr. Edstrom, a report of the insurance premium and non-covered claim data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the location (i.e., at Stillwater or at the insurance agency) of the insurance premium/claims paid data, or whether the data exist in report or raw data form, those data are public and can be accessed by Mr. Edstrom. (Any of Stillwater&apos;s data which are maintained at Stillwater&apos;s insurance agency remain government data and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request was to &lt;u&gt;inspect&lt;/u&gt;the data, Stillwater is statutorily required to provide the existing data to Mr. Edstrom at a reasonable time and place, within a reasonable time frame. If some of the insurance premium/claims paid data are located in the financial statements and audit reports, Stillwater complied with Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request (see above discussion regarding personnel data.) However, in regard to the report maintained by the insurance agency, Mr. Edstrom was not notified by Stillwater as to where and when he could view the data, or how to set up an appointment to do same. Rather, he received notice that McGarry amp; Kearney would send him the data. This is not an appropriate response to a request to inspect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Mr. Magnuson had advised Mr. Edstrom that the data were available for inspection at the insurance agency, and Mr. Edstrom agreed to inspect the data at that location, Stillwater would have met its obligation under Chapter 13. If Mr. Edstrom had not been agreeable to inspecting the data at the insurance agency, the reports should have been acquired by Stillwater and made available for inspection to Mr. Edstrom.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second part of the discussion in this opinion is based on the assumption that Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request was for &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt;of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If Mr. Edstrom was requesting &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt;of the personnel data, Stillwater is required, pursuant to Chapter 13, to provide those copies upon request and within a reasonable time. Since Mr. Edstrom has yet to receive copies of the personnel data he requested, and those requests were made in September and November of 1995, it appears Stillwater has not complied with the requirements of Section 13.03, subdivisions 2 and 3. Mr. Magnuson has stated that the data exist in Stillwater&apos;s financial statements and audit reports. Therefore, Mr. Edstrom should have received copies of the portions of the financial statements and audit reports which contain the personnel data he is seeking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, if Stillwater also maintains data relating to insurance premium/claims paid in the financial statements and audit reports, and Mr. Edstrom was requesting &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt;of those data, Stillwater has failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 13 by not providing Mr. Edstrom with copies of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the data maintained by McGarry amp; Kearney, because of conflicting statements from Mr. Edstrom and Mr. Magnuson, it is unclear if the insurance company has, on behalf of Stillwater, responded to a request for &lt;u&gt;copies&lt;/u&gt;of the insurance premium/claim paid data within the time frame required by Chapter 13. In his opinion request, Mr. Edstrom wrote, At this time, I have received no information regarding insurance claims and premiums. In response, Mr. Magnuson wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I contacted Rob McGarry from the McGarry-Kearney Agency with regard to our request that Mr. McGarry provide insurance information to Mr. Edstrom. According to McGarry, he talked to Edstrom several times over the winter and told Edstrom that he would be furnishing the information as soon as he had all the information rather than giving it to Edstrom on a piecemeal basis. McGarry indicated that Edstrom was satisfied with that response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Commissioner is left to conclude that if Mr. Edstrom has not agreed to a delay in his receipt of copies of the data, it appears Stillwater has not complied within the time frame required by Chapter 13. On the other hand, if Mr. Edstrom and the insurance company have arranged for Mr. Edstrom to obtain copies of the data at some point in the future, it appears Stillwater has responded to this part of Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request within the time requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Edstrom is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request was to &lt;u&gt;inspect&lt;/u&gt;the personnel and insurance premium/claims paid data, Stillwater has met its obligations under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, with regard to the data it maintains. However, Stillwater has not met its obligation under Section 13.03 regarding the report maintained by the McGarry amp; Kearney Insurance Agency.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If Mr. Edstrom&apos;s request was to &lt;u&gt;obtain copies&lt;/u&gt;of the personnel and insurance premium/claims paid data, Stillwater has not met its obligations under Section 13.03, with regard to the data it maintains. In addition, it is unclear whether Stillwater has met its Section 13.03 obligation regarding the report maintained by the McGarry amp; Kearney Insurance Agency.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 21, 1996
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267512</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inspection vs. copying, in general</Title><Id>266356</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-020</Title><title>Opinion 96 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266849&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-04-30T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the resignation agreement between the City and a former City employee public or private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), or any other law?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 30, 1996; City of Northfield</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter from Maren L. Swanson, City Attorney for the City of Northfield, Minnesota, in which she asked the Commissioner to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts of the matter at issue follows. In late 1995, an allegation was made against a City employee. According to Ms. Swanson, [a]n investigation revealed evidence which tends to substantiate the allegation against him, and also evidence which refutes the allegation.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Ms. Swanson, the Northfield City Council considered the allegations, but did not determine that disciplinary action should be taken. Ms. Swanson stated: . . . there was a consensus that it would be desirable to have the employee voluntarily resign from his employment. The employee agreed to resign, and entered into a resignation agreement with the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The terms of the resignation agreement included a payment characterized as reimbursement of expenses incurred by the employee related to the resignation agreement. The resignation agreement also contained a confidentiality provision, which stated that the employee and the City would treat the terms of the agreement as confidential. The confidentiality provision also included the following statement: [a]nything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, Employer may, upon proper request, disclose any data which is public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or other law, or pursuant to court order. (The Commissioner was not provided information as to the meaning of proper request as that term is used in the agreement.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The resignation was approved by the City Council on April 1, 1996. Ms. Swanson stated that a request for a copy of the agreement was made after the City Council meeting at which the agreement was approved. Ms. Swanson stated that the request was denied, and stated the following as the basis of the City&apos;s denial:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The City&apos;s position was that since no finding was made by the Council that the recent allegation against the employee was substantiated and since the Council did not conclude that discipline may have been warranted as a result of that allegation, the subject resignation agreement was not an agreement &apos;settling a dispute.&apos; It resolved an uneasiness which the Council had with this particular employee, which they preferred to resolve by mutually severing the employment relationship rather than by pursuing the recent allegation to any conclusion.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       There &lt;u&gt;was&lt;/u&gt;a dispute which preceded the resignation agreement, namely, whether or not the employee improperly ordered a piece of equipment. But that dispute was between a witness against the employee, on the one hand, and the employee and a witness on his behalf, on the other. It did not evolve into a dispute between the employee and the Council in which the employee said the allegation was false and the Council said it was true or that it warranted disciplinary action. [Emphasis hers.]
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the resignation agreement between the City and a former City employee public or private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), or any other law? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are . . . data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . [a] political subdivision . . . . An allegation was made about a City employee. The City investigated the allegation and, subsequently, entered into an agreement with the employee. The data in the resignation agreement were collected by the City because the person who is the other party to the agreement was a City employee. Therefore, the data in the resignation agreement are personnel data, and are classified as provided in Section 13.43.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), provides that certain personnel data are public, including the following:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (6) the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship or of a buyout agreement, as defined in section 123.34, subdivision 9a, paragraph (a). [Section 123.34, subdivision 9a (a), refers to buyout agreements between school superintendents and school districts.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly, the fact that an allegation or charge had been made against the employee is public, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clause (4). According to Ms. Swanson, the investigation into the allegation did not result in disciplinary action; therefore, clause (5) does not apply.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Swanson asserted that the City did not have a dispute with the employee; rather, the dispute was between . . . a witness against the employee, on the one hand, and the employee and a witness on his behalf, on the other. It did not evolve into a dispute between the employee and the Council in which the employee said the allegation was false and the Council said it was true or that it warranted disciplinary action. According to Ms. Swanson, the resignation agreement the City entered into with the employee resolved an uneasiness the Council had with the employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Accepting, for the sake of argument, Ms. Swanson&apos;s position that there was not a dispute between the City and the employee, the Commissioner does not agree with Ms. Swanson&apos;s conclusion regarding the applicability of Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6). The scope of the language in that statutory provision is not limited to a dispute between an employee and a government entity. The language of that provision encompasses settlements of &lt;u&gt;any dispute arising out of an employment relationship&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, regardless whether the City acknowledges being a party to the dispute, the City investigated an allegation about the employee. The City determined that the employee&apos;s resignation was desirable, and to that end, entered into an agreement with the employee. The agreement involved the payment of public monies to the employee. Based on the information provided, the Commissioner cannot accept the City&apos;s position that the data in the resignation agreement are not governed by Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The resignation agreement is an agreement settling a dispute arising out of the employee&apos;s employment relationship with the City. Therefore, the data are public personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Swanson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The terms of the resignation agreement between the City and the City employee are public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 30, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266849</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-019</Title><title>Opinion 96 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267510&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-04-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the terms of an agreement between the parent of a student and a school district settling a dispute and lawsuit arising out of that student&apos;s special educational program considered &quot;educational data,&quot; as that term is defined by
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, by reason of being &quot;data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student?&quot; The terms of this settlement agreement include information relative to the student&apos;s individual educational program in the School District.

Do the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 in particular, provide a basis for treating the monetary component of a settlement of a lawsuit arising out of the education of a disabled student in a manner different from any other element of educational data maintained by the School District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 29, 1996; School District 876 (Annandale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                 Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter from Paul C. Ratwik, attorney for Independent School District Number 876, Annandale Public Schools, in which he requested this advisory opinion. Mr. Ratwik&apos;s request was held until the $200.00 fee required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, was received by PIPA on April 9, 1996. A summary of the detailed facts of the matter at issue follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Ratwik, in March 1996, the Annandale School Board adopted a resolution which settled a lawsuit brought against the District on behalf of a minor student. The lawsuit involved allegations that the District discriminated against the disabled student, and did not fulfill its obligations to the student under state and federal laws. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the resolution adopted by the Board.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Subsequently, the District received a request from a local newspaper reporter for access to the
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                . . . settlement amount of the out-of-court-settlement the School District came to with [the student and the student&apos;s parent] . . . . ; and . . . information on why the Board decided to offer the settlement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ratwik asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the terms of an agreement between the parent of a student and a school district settling a dispute and lawsuit arising out of that student&apos;s special educational program considered educational data, as that term is defined by
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, by reason of being data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student? The terms of this settlement agreement include information relative to the student&apos;s individual educational program in the School District.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 in particular, provide a basis for treating the monetary component of a settlement of a lawsuit arising out of the education of a disabled student in a manner different from any other element of educational data maintained by the School District?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), defines educational data as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Subdivision 2 (b), provides that data concerning parents are educational data. Subdivision 3 provides that educational data are private data on individuals. ( Directory information is an exception, which is not relevant here. See Section 13.32, subdivision 5.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as all government data in which any individual &lt;u&gt;is or can be identified&lt;/u&gt;as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The simple answer to both of the issues raised by Mr. Ratwik depends, therefore, on whether the data in question are data which identify, or could identify, the student or the student&apos;s parent. Data which identify, or could identify the student and/or the student&apos;s parent are private educational data, and are not accessible to a member of the public, absent the student&apos;s/parent&apos;s consent. Clearly, much of the data in an agreement settling a lawsuit between a District and a student will be data about the student. However, in general, the amount of a monetary payment in a settlement, in and of itself, unless it is associated with data that identify who received the settlement, does not constitute data which identify, or could identify, an individual student.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The discussion of this issue is complicated by the facts as presented by Mr. Ratwik. The reporter, in his request for access to the data, identified the student and the student&apos;s parent. The Commissioner discussed a similar situation in Advisory Opinion Number 95-005:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The answer to the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson revolves around a simple, yet critical and pivotal question: did the Herald reporter request data on individuals or data not on individuals?
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            In his opinion request letter, Mr. Anfinson describes a fact scenario in which the Herald reporter requested certain data allegedly maintained by Chaska. Mr. Anfinson states, ...The newspaper is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could serve to identify, the student.... . . . .
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            However, based on the information provided by Ms. Wallner, the reporter asked specifically for data about the [X] incident, i.e. data about a specific, identifiable student. Rather than asking merely for data about an alleged incident, the reporter asked for data about a student. For that reason, any dissemination of such data by Chaska would be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            The key is that the reporter requested data on an individual. . . . .
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            On the flip side, as Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request states, had the reporter requested data relating to any claims filed against Chaska which did not identify the student involved, such data would clearly be data not on individuals. Data not on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 4, as all government data which is not on individuals. Such data maintained by public educational institutions do not appear to be classified in Chapter 13 as not public. Therefore, based on the presumption established by Chapter 13 that government data are public unless a federal law, state statute, or temporary classification of data provides otherwise, it appears that most data not on individuals maintained by Chaska would be classified as public data.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Had the Herald reporter requested data not on individuals about the alleged claim, it appears those data would be public. However, as soon as the reporter identified the student, he was clearly requesting data on individuals. Except for certain exceptions which are not applicable in this situation, data on students are private data on individuals, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Chaska is obligated to protect private data from public disclosure. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, and 13.05, subdivision 3.).
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The reporter named the student when he requested access to the settlement amount. Therefore, the District could not disseminate any data about the settlement amount to the reporter without disseminating data about a particular student. That dissemination would have been a dissemination of private educational data which is not permitted under Section 13.32. Therefore, in the instance which prompted the District to request this opinion, i.e., the request from the reporter for information on the settlement the District reached with a particular student and parent, the District properly denied access to the data requested by the news reporter, because the data are private educational data under Section 13.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the District is obligated, in general, to provide public access to the public data not on individuals which it maintains. Data which are strictly about dollar amounts of settlements between students and districts are probably public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (Settlement agreements involving students and school districts are treated differently under statute than those involving public employees. The Legislature has made the latter explicitly public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Ratwik is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The terms of an agreement between the parent of a student and a school district settling a dispute and lawsuit, are private educational data, as that term is defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, to the extent the data involved identify, or could identify, the student and/or the parent.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 in particular, do not provide a basis for treating data about the amount of a monetary settlement in a manner different from any other element of educational data maintained by the School District. That is, to the extent that the monetary component of the settlement constitutes data from which a student or parent is, or could be, identified, data about the monetary amount are private data on individuals, pursuant to Section 13.32. If, however, the identity of a student or parent cannot be determined from the data about the monetary amount of a settlement, those data are public data not on individuals.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 29, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267510</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition (13.02, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266691</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-018</Title><title>Opinion 96 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267476&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-04-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Can DHS deny K access to data maintained about K on the basis of the six-month limitation stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when, according to K, a dispute or action is pending that involves the data?
Is K entitled to view all data that DHS maintains as &quot;directory&quot; information as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42?
Is K entitled to view the public document that DHS is required to keep under provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 15, 1996; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 20, 1995, PIPA received a request for a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion from K (a pseudonym), regarding certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). K&apos;s initial request required clarification with PIPA staff, regarding the issues that the Commissioner is able to address, which involved subsequent correspondence and conversation with K. In addition, at the time K submitted this opinion request, the Commissioner was clarifying with K the issues to be addressed in an earlier opinion request from K. (See Advisory Opinion Number 96-011.) Therefore, PIPA contacted K and asked K to approve the postponement of consideration of the issues K raised in K&apos;s second opinion request until after K&apos;s first opinion was issued. K agreed to that postponement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to K&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Maria R. Gomez, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated March 21, 1996, were to inform Ms. Gomez of K&apos;s request, to ask her or DHS&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 29, 1996, PIPA received a response from Ms. Gomez. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This opinion addresses three separate requests by K for access to data maintained by DHS. First, K asked to view all data about K maintained by DHS. K&apos;s request was denied because, according to DHS, K had viewed medical data about K within the last six months. DHS told K that K could not view the data DHS maintains about K until six months had passed since K last viewed the data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. According to DHS, K challenged DHS&apos;s denial of access in a telephone call, at which time DHS requested that K provide more information regarding the nature of the dispute to which K referred.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, K requested access to all directory information, i.e., the public data DHS maintains on all current and former patients at state hospitals. DHS denied K&apos;s request, citing the volume of the data requested, and the fact that the data are maintained by DHS in such a manner that public and private data relating to state hospital patients are inextricably intertwined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problems cited by DHS regarding K&apos;s access to directory information are no longer applicable, pursuant to an amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 1, which became effective on April 11, 1996. Laws of Minnesota, 1996, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 8, amends the definition of directory information as that term is used in Section 13.42. Given the change in law, the discussion in this opinion of K&apos;s right to gain access to Section 13.42 directory information, maintained by DHS, will be limited to the status of those data after the legislative change.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, K requested a copy of the public document DHS is required to produce and maintain, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1200. Apparently, the first response DHS made to that request was in Ms. Gomez&apos;s response to the Commissioner. In her response, Ms. Gomez stated that K is clearly entitled to view the document, and the fact that he has not been provided access is an oversight. According to Ms. Gomez, K&apos;s request for access to that document was, perhaps, lost among the numerous other data practices issues he has raised with [DHS]. Ms. Gomez included a copy of that document in her response to the Commissioner, and stated that it may be provided to K.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Can DHS deny K access to data maintained about K on the basis of the six-month limitation stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when, according to K, a dispute or action is pending that involves the data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is K entitled to view all data that DHS maintains as directory information as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is K entitled to view the public document that DHS is required to keep under provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/strong&gt; In a letter to Ms. Gomez, dated September 8, 1995, K requested to view &apos;all&apos; records upon myself as a data subject. In response, in a letter dated October 2, 1995, Ms. Gomez wrote to K: . . . it is my understanding that you recently requested and were able to review all of your medical records retained by [DHS.] Ms. Gomez cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, which provides, in relevant part, that a government entity may deny a data subject access to data about her/him if the data have been disclosed to the data subject within six months, unless a dispute or action pursuant to that Section is pending, or new data on the individual have been collected or created. Ms. Gomez wrote: [t]herefore, you may not review your medical records at [DHS] for six months from the date when you last reviewed your records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Gomez wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 8, 1995, K requested to view &lt;u&gt;all records&lt;/u&gt; maintained on [K] as the data subject. . . . In that letter, K did not mention that there was a pending dispute or action concerning the data [K] requested to review. On October 2, 1995, K&apos;s request was denied since [K] had recently reviewed all of the &lt;u&gt;medical records&lt;/u&gt; pertaining to [K] which are maintained by [DHS.] . . . . [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K responded to this letter telephonically by alleging that a dispute or action was pending, and [DHS] asked K to provide additional information concerning the nature of [K&apos;s] dispute or action. [DHS restated its request for additional information in a letter to K dated December 7, 1995.] I later received a letter from K dated December 6, 1995, in which [K] implied that the dispute concerned a challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by [DHS.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I would agree that a challenge to the accuracy or completeness of public or private data, made pursuant to [Section 13.04, subdivision 4], constitutes a dispute or action as that phrase is used [in that statutory provision.] The question you asked is whether DHS may deny access to an individual when, according to that individual, a dispute or action is pending. It is reasonable to require the individual to explain the nature of the dispute or action and offer some proof that such a dispute or action is actually pending. In this case, K satisfied that threshold burden with [K&apos;s] letter dated December 6, 1995. [DHS] should have allowed K access to [K&apos;s] records at that point. I note that K did come to [DHS] on March 28, 1996, and was afforded an opportunity to review all of [K&apos;s] medical records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides, in relevant part: [a]fter an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. Section 13.04, subdivision 4, provides individual data subjects the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of government data about them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After DHS denied K&apos;s request, K contacted DHS by telephone and said a dispute involving those data was pending. DHS&apos;s position, that it needs to know that a dispute or action involving data to which a data subject requests access is pending, is reasonable. However, ultimately, it is DHS&apos;s responsibility to keep track of the status of the data it maintains, including whether those data are under dispute. Further, DHS asked K, after being informed that a dispute was pending, to offer some proof of that dispute. A reasonable interpretation of the language of Section 13.04 should not lead to an undue burden being placed on a data subject who is attempting to exercise her or his rights under that Section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, according to Ms. Gomez, K was denied access because K had viewed all of K&apos;s &lt;u&gt;medical&lt;/u&gt; records that are maintained by DHS. However, K requested access to &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; data maintained by DHS of which K is the subject. It is not clear, from the information provided, if K has gained access to all the data K wants to review. DHS may not deny K access to &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; data maintained about K because K has gained access to &lt;u&gt;some&lt;/u&gt; of the data about K.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt; According to K, K requested to see all of the &apos;Directory Information&apos; on all of the individuals in the state hospital system or that have ever been in this system as this is &apos;public data.&apos; On September 27, 1995, this request was denied. . . . (K did not provide the Commissioner a copy of the letter in which K made that request of DHS.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue of the status of directory information maintained by DHS was the subject of a previous advisory opinion, Number 96-011. In that opinion, the Commissioner concluded that directory information data on all current and former state hospital patients were public data. However, as noted above, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 1, was amended, effective April 11, 1996. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1996, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 8, amends the definition of directory information as that term is used in Section 13.42. Pursuant to the new language in Section 13.42, subdivision 1 (a), the following data are now defined as directory information : name of patient, date admitted, and general condition. Pursuant to the new language in Section 13.42, subdivision 2, during the time a person is a patient in a state hospital pursuant to legal commitment, directory information data are public. After the patient is released, directory information data are private. For persons who are patients in state hospitals other than pursuant to legal commitment, directory information data are public, unless the patient requests otherwise, in which case those data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.03, K, as well as any other person, has the right to prompt, reasonable access to the directory information maintained by DHS which are public under Section 13.42.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt; In letters to Ms. Gomez dated October 11, 1995, and December 6, 1995, K requested a copy of the public document that DHS is required to maintain, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1200. According to K, DHS has not provided K with a copy of that document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;DHS does not dispute K&apos;s right to gain access to the public document K requested; however, it appears that Ms. Gomez&apos;s response to the Commissioner contains the first response DHS made to K&apos;s request for access to that document. In her response, Ms. Gomez stated that K is clearly entitled to view the document, and the fact that he has not been provided access is an oversight. Ms. Gomez included a copy of the document K requested in her response to the Commissioner, and stated that it may be provided to K.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by K is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;K has the right to gain access to any private data about K maintained by DHS, including data to which K has gained access within the last six months, if there is a dispute or action pending that involves those data. In addition, K is entitled to gain access to any data about K which have been added since the last time K was provided access by DHS.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, K, as well as any other person, has the right to prompt, reasonable access to the directory information maintained by DHS which are public under Section 13.42.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;K has the right to gain access to the public document DHS is required to maintain, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.1200. It is DHS&apos;s responsibility to provide K access to that document.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 15, 1996
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267476</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limit on frequency of access to data</Title><Id>267014</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>State hospital directory information</Title><Id>266600</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-017</Title><title>Opinion 96 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267885&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-04-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May data specifically documenting the final disposition of a disciplinary action be withheld on the basis of the investigative data exceptions in Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.39 or 13.82, subdivision 5?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 3, 1996; Becker County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On February 13, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark R. Anfinson, an attorney representing Detroit Lakes Printing, publisher of the &lt;u&gt;Detroit Lakes Tribune&lt;/u&gt; and the &lt;u&gt;Becker County Record&lt;/u&gt;, two Minnesota newspapers. In that letter, Mr. Anfinson described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Becker County Sheriff&apos;s Office (County). Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of relevant newspaper articles, and a press release issued by the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Hunt, Becker County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 1996, were to inform Mr. Hunt of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Hunt were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 21, 1996, PIPA received a response from Joseph A. Evans, Becker County Attorney. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the newspaper articles Mr. Anfinson enclosed, in October 1995, three Becker County jailers were suspended after being accused of misconduct. The Becker County Sheriff asked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to investigate. In December 1995, the BCA report was provided to the Sheriff. As a result of the investigation, two of the jailers were fired, and the third resigned. In addition, a criminal complaint was filed against one of the terminated jailers. According to Mr. Anfinson, all three were covered by a collective bargaining agreement; however, none of the jailers elected to file a grievance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Anfinson, the editor of the newspapers subsequently requested the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions taken against the jailers, and all the data documenting the actions, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. According to Mr. Anfinson, [t]he county attorney provided copies of the Notices of Discharge issued by the sheriff&apos;s office. However, the newspapers&apos; request for data documenting the basis for the action, including the BCA report, was refused; the county attorney cited the fact that criminal charges against one of the jailers were pending, and also the possibility of &apos;other charges&apos; related to the terminations. Although not expressly cited, it seems evident that the county attorney and sheriff are relying on [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39 and Section 13.82, subdivision 5.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson asserted that the data sought by the newspapers, i.e., data documenting the basis of disciplinary action taken by the County against the jailers, are public data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Mr. Anfinson wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;. . .the interpretation apparently adopted by the county attorney could be used to deny access in virtually every case of discipline imposed on public employees. It is well known that whenever public employees are disciplined, particularly those covered by collective bargaining agreements, the public employer&apos;s decision is subject to legal challenge. Thus, under the very broad discretion accorded public attorneys by sectionsection13.39 and 13.82, simple concern about the possibility of future claims involving the discipline could eviscerate the disclosure requirements of section13.43, subd. 2, should those sections be given precedence over section13.43. This conclusion also would seem to be expressly reinforced by the requirement in section13.43, subd. 3 (b) [sic] for disclosure &apos;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings.&apos;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Evans stated that he expected that a trial date for the criminal charge against the jailer is expected to be set in mid-March 1996. Mr. Evans wrote [i]t is the position of the Becker County Sheriff&apos;s Department that the data requested by Detroit Lakes Printing is [criminal] investigative data under [Section 13.82, subdivision 5] and, therefore, classified as confidential or protected non-public. The data directly relates to an ongoing criminal prosecution against one of the jailers. Mr. Evans also stated his concerns that if Mr. Anfinson&apos;s position, that the data are public, were accepted, resulting in a release of criminal investigative data prior to completion of a case, it would jeopardize the employee&apos;s and the State&apos;s rights to a fair trial. Mr. Evans relied upon the provisions of Section 13.82, and not Section 13.39, to support the County&apos;s position that the data are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;May data specifically documenting the final disposition of a disciplinary action be withheld on the basis of the investigative data exceptions in Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.39 or 13.82, subdivision 5?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
There is no dispute in this situation that the data in question are a form of government data and are therefore subject to the applicable requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. There is a dispute as to what type of data these are and how they are classified for purposes of Chapter 13.
&lt;p&gt;At issue is whether the data are personnel data, under Section 13.43, or criminal investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82. (The County did not raise the question of the data&apos;s classification under Section 13.39; therefore, that issue is not addressed in this opinion.) Mr. Anfinson argues that the relevant provisions of those two Sections are in conflict, and provides arguments to support the newspapers&apos; position that Section 13.43 ought to prevail. The County argues that the requirements of both Section 13.43 and Section 13.82 must be satisfied before the data can be released to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There appears to be no question that the data to which the newspapers seek access were created because the jailers were employed by a government entity, i.e., the County. Therefore, for purposes of Chapter 13, absent the fact of a pending criminal prosecution, these data are personnel data and are classified under Section 13.43. Section 13.43 provides that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 2 (a), in relevant part, provides that the following personnel data are public:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [and] the &lt;u&gt;final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action&lt;/u&gt;, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b):
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;A &lt;u&gt;final disposition&lt;/u&gt; occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its &lt;u&gt;final decision&lt;/u&gt; about the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 5, provides that investigative data, collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a criminal case, are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data are public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation. Pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, a criminal investigation becomes inactive if: the agency decides not to pursue the case; or the statute of limitations expires, or 30 years have elapsed since the commission of the offense, whichever comes earliest; or all rights of appeal by a person convicted on the basis of the investigative data have expired or been exhausted. Also, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, investigative data presented as evidence in court are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of two of the three jailers, the issue of the classification of the data in question is easily resolved. According to the information provided to the Commissioner, one of the two resigned, the other was fired, and it is not likely that either of them will be prosecuted. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the County appears to have made its final decision regarding disciplinary action, and as neither employee elected to file a grievance within the time requirements, there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action taken against those two jailers. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for any disciplinary action taken against them, e.g., suspension and/or termination, and the data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action, including data in the BCA report, are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third jailer was fired, and now faces criminal prosecution. This employee also did not grieve the disciplinary action. On its face, this case presents a situation in which the provisions of Sections 13.43 and 13.82 might appear to be in conflict. Under Section 13.43, the data would be public; under Section 13.82, the data would be confidential or protected nonpublic until the criminal case is resolved. However, the Legislature amended Section 13.43 in 1990, following a Minnesota Supreme Court decision, &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989). That case, in relevant part, dealt with the meaning of the terms final decision and final disposition of disciplinary actions as these terms were used in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, the Court found that a final &lt;u&gt;decision&lt;/u&gt; of the City was not the final &lt;u&gt;disposition&lt;/u&gt; of the disciplinary action, because the employee had exercised his right under the Veterans Preference Act to have a further hearing on the matter. The Court acknowledged that its interpretation would result in delay of months and even years before disciplinary records could be released to the public. (See Annandale at 29.) Subsequently, the Legislature amended Section 13.43, subdivision 2, by adding clause (b), which provides the definition of final disposition of disciplinary action, and includes the language regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, according to the requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting disciplinary action taken against a public employee become public when there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the possibility of any later proceeding or court proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. As is the case with the jailers who will not be prosecuted, the County has made its final decision regarding disciplinary action of the jailer who will be prosecuted. That employee also did not elect to file a grievance. Therefore, according to the plain words of the statute, there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action, and, regardless of any court proceeding, the data sought by the newspapers about the jailer facing criminal charges are also public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County raised concerns regarding the need to protect investigative data prior to the completion of a case. Clearly, the Legislature, in its enactment of Section 13.82, subdivision 5, recognized that law enforcement agencies, under certain circumstances, need to be able to withhold data from public disclosure in order to protect an active criminal investigation. The Commissioner recognizes that confusion exists regarding the interaction of the relevant provisions of Sections 13.43 and 13.82. However, the effect of the 1990 amendment to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, is that once a government entity makes its final decision regarding disciplinary action of a public employee, and once there has been a final disposition of that disciplinary action, those data are public, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings, including court proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Had the County deferred making its final decision regarding disciplinary action against the jailer until the criminal investigation was completed, there would be no question that the data are classified as not public criminal investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5. However, the County made &lt;u&gt;its final decision&lt;/u&gt; regarding disciplinary action prior to the criminal proceeding, and there has been a &lt;u&gt;final disposition&lt;/u&gt; of that disciplinary action. Therefore, according to the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the disciplinary data in question are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;There has been final disposition of the disciplinary actions taken against the County&apos;s employees; therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the specific reasons for and data documenting the basis of the disciplinary actions are public data, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings, including court proceedings.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 3, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267885</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal charges against employee</Title><Id>266490</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-016</Title><title>Opinion 96 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267798&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-04-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Upon a request for access to data by a data subject, does a government entity have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to require the data subject to provide the following data: date of request; student number; Social Security number; specific location of the data requested; student name; student address; and student telephone number.
When a data subject has inspected or has been informed of data about him/her, does the government entity have authority, pursuant to Chapter 13, to require the data subject to sign a statement that s/he is not satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 1, 1996; Moorhead State University</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, unless classified as not public data, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 9, 1996, PIPA received a faxed letter from Margaret A. Jakobson. In her letter, Ms. Jakobson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data maintained by Moorhead State University, hereinafter MSU.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Jakobson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roland Barden, President of MSU. The purposes of this letter, dated February 16, 1996, were to inform Dr. Barden of Ms. Jakobson&apos;s request, to ask him or MSU&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for MSU&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 7, 1996, PIPA received a response dated March 5, 1996, from Dr. Barden.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Ms. Jakobson related that she went to MSU&apos;s Financial Aid Office on January 10, 1996, to gain access to her financial aid education records. Ms. Jakobson wrote, After giving my Student ID #, producing two picture I.D.&apos;s . . Driver&apos;s License and University ID . . as requested, [MSU staff] casually wrote my Social Security number on &apos;&lt;u&gt;The Form&lt;/u&gt;&apos; without my permission. At that point, staff gave Ms. Jakobson a form entitled Moorhead State University Student Request to Inspect and Review Education Records, hereinafter data request form.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Because the data request form is at the center of the dispute between Ms. Jakobson and MSU, a copy of the form is attached and is made part of this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The data request form is printed on standard 81/2 x 11 paper and appears to be divided into four sections. The first section has a blank line after each of the following words: Date submitted; Student Number; and SSN. Soon thereafter, is the statement To: Record Custodian, which is followed by, I wish to inspect my education record located in the following office(s):. Two blank lines follow. Next in the first section are the following words followed by blank lines: Student Name (Print); Address; Student&apos;s Signature; and Telephone No.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The second section of the data request form will not be discussed in this opinion but appears to be directed to the student (requester) and states, Your request for inspection of your record was received on [blank line] (date). The record will be available at [blank line] (office) on [blank line] (date). There follow two blank lines; one apparently for the date, and the other apparently for the School Official&apos;s Signature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The third section seems to be directed to the record custodian as it begins with the heading To: Record Custodian. The data request form then states, a. I have inspected and/or have been informed of the contents of the requested education record identified above and am satisfied with its accuracy and completeness. There follow two blank lines: one apparently for the date, and the other apparently for the student&apos;s (requestor&apos;s) signature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the middle of the third section, the word or is written followed by another heading of To: Record Custodian. The data request form then states, b. I have inspected and/or have been informed of the contents of the requested education record identified above and am not satisfied with its accuracy and completeness of the following reason(s):, which is followed by a blank line almost the entire length of the page. There follow two blank lines; one apparently for the date, and the other apparently for the student&apos;s (requestor&apos;s) signature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The fourth section of the data request form will not be addressed in this opinion. However, it appears to bind someone to keeping information confidential.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                After having been given the data request form, Ms. Jakobson began to submit information regarding a prior attempt to gain access to some of her student data. Staff apparently did not want that information included on the data request form. Ms. Jakobson wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Having reached this impasse, I asked [MSU staff] for a copy of The Form, so that I could obtain advice relative to The Form, its meaning, ramifications of execution and legality of denial for non-execution of The Form. [MSU staff] had clearly stated that she was not going to allow access to me without executing The Form; and I had seen no other student even being asked to execute The Form. When I got home, I immediately called [MSU staff] to confirm that she had stated I would have to execute the entire form, as would she, if Moorhead State University had provided me access to my Financial Aid records. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Jakobson further wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;During both conversations with [MSU staff] and my conversation with Dr. Steven Butler, Vice-President of Student Affairs, I indicated that I would never execute The Form ; and therefore, I will never receive access to my Financial Aid education record from Moorhead State University.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Jakobson&apos;s opinion request, Dr. Barden stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As a public higher education institution, Moorhead State University&apos;s policies regarding educational records are governed by both the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 (1994). During the past year MSU has taken a number of steps to improve the efficiency and accuracy of its compliance with these laws. A series of workshops were conducted on campus to train MSU employees regarding their responsibilities in handling educational data. The entire record response system at MSU was reviewed and evaluated by comparing MSU&apos;s practices with those at other universities in this area with those recommended in new guidelines published by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Dr. Barden also stated, The student request to review education records form is modeled after a sample contained in the 1995 revised edition of &apos;Guidelines for Post-Secondary Institutions for Implementation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1994 as amended&apos; which is a publication of The American Association Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addressing the first issue, Dr. Barden defended the data request form stating, The use of the form enables MSU to make a thorough and timely response to the request while protecting the privacy interests of other students.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                He further noted that Social Security numbers are required by the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to process federal financial aid. He also noted that the form allows the student to make arrangements to inspect data kept in many different MSU offices by making only one request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addressing the second issue, Dr. Barden stated the form notifies the individual that s/he has a right to contest the accuracy and/or completeness of the data, and also provides a simple and efficient method for the individual to provide the written notification to MSU describing the nature of the disagreement.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (Attached to Dr. Barden&apos;s response was a copy of MSU&apos;s FERPA policy and copies of several uniform compliance forms. )
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2 /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Jakobson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Upon a request for access to data by a data subject, does a government entity have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to require the data subject to provide the following data: date of request; student number; Social Security number; specific location of the data requested; student name; student address; and student telephone number.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            When a data subject has inspected or has been informed of data about him/her, does the government entity have authority, pursuant to Chapter 13, to require the data subject to sign a statement that s/he is not satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before addressing the two issues raised by Ms. Jakobson, it should be noted that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 is generally silent on the issue of whether a request for access to data be in writing. Thus, pursuant to state law, a government entity is neither prohibited from obtaining nor required to obtain a written request.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a government entity&apos;s policy is to require that individuals seeking data about themselves state their requests in writing or fill out request forms, there are certain types of information that the government entity might reasonably require from those requestors. For instance, the government entity would presumably need the name of the requestor and a description of the requested data. In addition, if the requestor desired that copies of the data be mailed to her/his home, it would be necessary for the government entity to obtain the requestor&apos;s address. Furthermore, if the government entity needed clarification and needed to quickly reach the requestor, it might be appropriate for the government entity to obtain the requestor&apos;s telephone number. However, in collecting such data, government entities must recall the provision in Section 13.05, subdivision 3, which limits the collection of all data on individuals to those data necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Aside from government entities collecting data to document and clarify a data request, another reason for requiring information about the requestor may be to verify that the requestor is, indeed, who s/he purports to be. In fact, Chapter 13 requires that responsible authorities establish appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) In addition, pursuant to Section 13.08, government entities can be civilly liable if data about a data subject are released to an unauthorized person.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In an attempt to assist government entities in fulfilling the aforementioned requirements, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3, requires responsible authorities to establish written procedures to ensure that access to private data is gained only by those who are statutorily permitted access. In relevant part, Subpart 3 states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In those procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for reasonable measures to assure, in those instances where an individual who seeks to gain access to private data asserts that he or she is the subject of that data or the authorized representative of the data subject, that the individual making the assertion is in fact the subject of the data or the authorized representative of the data subject. Examples of such reasonable measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A. requiring the person seeking to gain access to appear at the offices of the entity to gain such access, or in lieu of a personal appearance, requiring the signature of any data subject who is unable to appear at the offices of the entity; and
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            B. requiring the person to provide reasonable identification.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, in summation, it appears that MSU&apos;s data request form should require collection of only those data necessary to properly document/clarify the request, or those data necessary to properly identify the data subject or her/his representative.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first blank line on the data request form is for the Date submitted. In his response, Dr. Barden did not specifically address the appropriateness of collecting this data. Nevertheless, the Commissioner does not find it unreasonable for a government entity to require a data requestor to provide the date of the request. Such documentation will presumably benefit both parties for several reasons, one of which is that it should assist the entity in complying with the statutory time frame for responding to requests for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second blank line is for the student number. In his response, Dr. Barden provided no compelling arguments to demonstrate that MSU needs to collect student numbers either for documentation/clarification or for identification purposes. In fact, he did not even discuss the issue of the student number. Rather, he made a very general comment which appears to be that the data request form, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota law, allows access to data while assuring that the privacy rights of students are protected.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Because MSU provided no information regarding the process it uses to document requests for access to data, it is difficult for the Commissioner to state whether collection of student numbers is consistent with that process. Thus, unless MSU can demonstrate that student numbers are a necessary part of documenting/clarifying data requests, the collection of student numbers is not appropriate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Is it necessary for MSU to require collection of student numbers for purposes of identifying the requestor? The simplest way to answer this question would be to examine the procedures MSU has established pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. However, while Dr. Barden&apos;s response included the language of Section 1205.0400, subpart 3, it is unclear if MSU has established any such procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the information provided by Ms. Jakobson, it does appear that MSU has implemented a process of requiring identification of in-person requestors of private data. At the financial aid office, Ms. Jakobson was required to produce two photo IDs. Once MSU staff examined the two photo IDs the reasonable measures standard required by Minnesota Rules was met. Therefore, it does not appear that MSU has the authority to request Ms. Jakobson to provide her student number for purposes of identification.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is one final issue regarding MSU&apos;s collection of the student number. Upon examination of MSU&apos;s FERPA Policy, it does not appear that student numbers have been designated as directory information. Therefore, student numbers are private data. (For a more in-depth discussion of directory information data, please see Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinions 96-007 and 96-015.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the government entity is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.04 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, because the student numbers of MSU students appear to be classified as private data, MSU should provide a Tennessen Warning notice any time a student&apos;s number is collected from that student.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third blank line on the data request form is for the SSN. From Dr. Barden&apos;s comments it is not clear if MSU requires collection of Social Security numbers for either documentation/ clarification or for identification purposes. Dr. Barden did state, The information requested on the form includes the student&apos;s Social Security number in order to reference the request to the student&apos;s financial aid records. Social Security numbers are required by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., in order to process federal financial aid.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The analysis of whether it is appropriate for MSU to require collection of Social Security numbers for either documentation/clarification or identification purposes is similar to the previous discussion regarding the collection of student numbers.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Because MSU provided no information regarding the process it uses to document/clarify requests for access to data, it is difficult for the Commissioner to determine whether collection of Social Security numbers is consistent with that process. On one hand, given that federal law strictly limits the situations in which government entities can require disclosure of Social Security numbers, it would likely be inappropriate for MSU to use the Social Security number as a method of documenting/clarifying requests. However, on the other hand, if, in the instance of financial assistance data, the Social Security number is required by federal law and must be used as an identifier, it might be appropriate for MSU to require data requestors to submit their Social Security number.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If MSU is asking requestors of data to submit a Social Security number for identification purposes, the attempted collection of the Social Security number does not, in a situation where two photo IDs are required, appear to be necessary as a check of identification. In addition, because of the federal law requirements relating to the collection of Social Security numbers, significant issues may be raised if MSU is using Social Security numbers as identifiers in this circumstance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Federal law imposes strict limitations on the collection of Social Security numbers by government entities. In general, federal law provides the following: 1) no federal, state, or local government entity can lawfully deny an individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law if that individual refuses to disclose her/his Social Security number, unless the collection is for the administration of any tax, general public assistance, or drivers&apos; license or motor vehicle registration; and 2) when asked to provide her/his Social Security number, the individual must be informed of the uses to which the number will be put, and whether the disclosure is voluntary or mandatory. (See Public Law 93-597, Section 7, and 42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, because state law classifies Social Security numbers as private data (see Section 13.49, subdivision 1), any such collection must be accompanied by the four components of the Tennessen Warning notice. (For a more detailed discussion of federal and state requirements surrounding the collection of Social Security numbers, please see Advisory Opinion 95-007.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fourth blank line on the data request form is for the specific location of the data requested. According to Dr. Barden, this information is included in the form to allow the student to simply make one request to inspect data that may be kept in many different offices. He also wrote, This process allows the student to make arrangements to inspect data kept in many different MSU offices by only making one request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner agrees that allowing students to request several types of data on one data request form is time-efficient. However, the data request form asks the requestor to identify the office which maintains the particular data sought by the requestor. What if the requestor does not know the location of certain data? Does this mean that the student will be denied access to the data s/he is seeking? By requiring data requestors to fill in the location of the data being sought, MSU places the burden of determining that location on the data requestor. There is no provision in Chapter 13 which requires an individual making a data request to know the location of those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, if, as it appears, MSU is collecting this information for the purpose of documenting/ clarifying the request, it would be much more appropriate to ask data requestors to provide the kind/type of data being requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The final three blank lines on the form (with the exception of one blank line for the requestor&apos;s signature) are for the student name, address, and telephone number. The issue, therefore, is whether MSU requires these data either to document/clarify the request or to identify the requestor. (Dr. Barden did not specifically address the issue of MSU&apos;s collection of the data requestor&apos;s name, address, and telephone number.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    With regards to documenting/clarifying the written request, as previously discussed, it seems appropriate and reasonable that MSU would require the data requestor to provide her/his name. However, the issue of collecting the requestor&apos;s address and telephone number raises some different questions. If the requestor seeks only to view his/her data, it does not appear necessary for the government entity to collect the requestor&apos;s address and telephone number, let alone require it as a condition of viewing the data. In fact, only if the requestor desires that copies of the data be sent to his/her home would it seem appropriate for the government entity to collect an address, and, perhaps, a telephone number.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Jakobson was apparently seeking only to view the data. She did not indicate that she desired copies mailed to her home. Furthermore, if MSU needed additional clarification regarding her request, she could have answered those questions in person. Therefore, while it is appropriate for MSU to collect Ms. Jakobson&apos;s name prior to her gaining access to the data about her, it is not necessary for MSU, in the circumstances of this particular request, to collect Ms. Jakobson&apos;s address and telephone number prior to her gaining access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As the MSU procedure of requiring two photo IDs seems to ensure proper identification, there is no need for collection of the data requestor&apos;s (in this case, Ms. Jakobson&apos;s) name, address, and phone number for purposes of properly identifying the requestor (Ms. Jakobson).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Ms. Jakobson is whether, after inspecting the data or being informed of the contents of the data about her, she is required to sign a statement that she is or is not satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data. Section 13.04, subdivision 4, does provide that an individual subject of the data may contest the accuracy and/or completeness of those public or private data. However, while Chapter 13 does provide a process for challenging data, that process is not statutorily tied to a request for access to data. In part, subdivision 4 of Section 13.04 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate and/or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, it appears Ms. Jakobson went to MSU&apos;s financial aid office only to inspect data about her, not to initiate a data challenge. Yet, Ms. Jakobson was presented with a data request form which appeared to indicate that a condition had been placed on her gaining access to the data; she would be required to make an on-the-spot decision regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Dr. Barden did not discuss the issue raised by Ms. Jakobson. Rather, he presented arguments which appear intended to demonstrate to the Commissioner that the data request form is a good place to collect information about a student&apos;s satisfaction regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data. Dr. Barden wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The part of the form that allows the student to identify whether she or he is satisfied with the accuracy and completeness of the data serves two purposes. First, the statement serves as a method to notify the individual that there is a right to contest the accuracy and completeness of the data. Second, the form provides a simple and efficient method for the individual to provide the written notification to MSU describing the nature of the disagreement.... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner finds Dr. Barden&apos;s goals laudable. However, to actually meet those goals, MSU may wish to consider some additional items. First, if one purpose of including the aforementioned statements on the data request form is to notify individuals of their right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data, then MSU should probably provide more detailed information about the process of initiating a challenge. Part of providing more information should include a citation to Chapter 13 so individuals can become self-informed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, while placement of the aforementioned statements on the data request form may appear to create a simple and efficient method for students to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data, it may also be misleading and, as it has done in this instance, create confusion about the process. For one thing, a student could assume that if s/he signs the statement saying s/he is satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data, s/he forfeits any other opportunity to challenge the data. Such an assumption would be wrong. Another point of confusion could be that a student assumes s/he can initiate a data challenge only by filling out a data request form. Again, such an assumption would be wrong. In addition, if a student chooses to initiate a data challenge using the data request form, s/he may assume that her/his remarks must fit on the single blank line provided on the data request form. Again, such as assumption would be wrong.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, none of the above comments alter the fact that no provision exists which requires a data subject to make a decision regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data immediately after having inspected or having been informed of the data. Therefore, Ms. Jakobson is not required to sign either of the statements in section three of MSU&apos;s data request form.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Jakobson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Based on the documentation provided by both Ms. Jakobson and MSU, it appears that of the specific items referenced in issue number one, MSU, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 13, has authority to require that Ms. Jakobson provide only the date of the request and her name, upon her request for access to data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                When a data subject has inspected or has been informed of the contents of data about her/him, a government entity does not have the authority to require the data subject to sign a statement that s/he is or is not satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of those data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 1, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267798</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266835</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-015</Title><title>Opinion 96 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267173&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-03-29T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the first and last names of Minneapolis Public School students public data?
Are the first and last names of the parents/legal guardians of Minneapolis Public School students public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 29, 1996; School District 001 (Minneapolis)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, unless classified as other than public data, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 20, 1996, PIPA received a faxed letter from Dean Berckes. In his letter, Mr. Berckes requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding Mr. Berckes&apos; access to certain data maintained by School District Number 1, Minneapolis, hereinafter Minneapolis.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Berckes&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peter Hutchinson, Superintendent of Minneapolis. The purposes of this letter, dated February 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Hutchinson of Mr. Berckes&apos; request, to ask him or Minneapolis&apos; attorney to provide information or support for Minneapolis&apos; position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 6, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from James A. Cunningham, Assistant to the District General Counsel.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Berckes stated, Enclosed you will find a copy of request [sic] for public school data made to District #1 Minneapolis Public Schools, by Superior Driving School, Inc. Also enclosed is a letter of denied request from Minneapolis Public Schools.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his data request letter to Minneapolis, dated January 9, 1996, Mr. Berckes wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Enclosed you will find a request for the first and last names of the students and the names of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), in your school district for the
                      &lt;h2&gt;
                        seventh
                      &lt;/h2&gt;
                      through
                      &lt;h2&gt;
                        ninth
                      &lt;/h2&gt;
                       grade for this current school year of 1995/1996. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Dennis Lander, Director of Student Accounting for Minneapolis, responded, in an undated letter, to Mr. Berckes&apos; request. Mr. Lander wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As I mentioned in our conversation of January 9, 1996, we are unable to provide names, address or parent names of students enrolled or previously enrolled in the Minneapolis Public Schools. Minneapolis Public School policy 5350 prohibits us from providing the data as it is not Directory Information as defined by state and federal data practices statute [sic] and law.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Berckes&apos; opinion request, Mr. Cunningham stated that because the data requested by Mr. Berckes are not designated by Minneapolis as directory information, the data are not public and not available to Mr. Berckes. Mr. Cunningham included relevant language from School Board Policy 5350.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Berckes asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the first and last names of Minneapolis Public School students public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the first and last names of the parents/legal guardians of Minneapolis Public School students public data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Mr. Berckes has asked the Commissioner to determine the classification of certain data about students and parents/legal guardians which are maintained by Minneapolis. To make that determination, it is necessary to examine Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, educational data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.32, subdivision 1, states that educational data are data about individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. Subdivision 2 (b) of Section 13.32, states that data concerning parents are educational data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32, states that except as provided in subdivision 5, educational data are private data and shall not be disclosed except in certain circumstances. (Subdivision 3 does go on to list the additional circumstances in which private data may be disclosed. One of those exceptions includes obtaining consent from the data subject.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, it is the language of Section 13.32, subdivision 5, that pertains to the issues raised by Mr. Berckes. Subdivision 5 states, Information designated as directory information pursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, section 1232g and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, section 99.37 which are in effect on July 1, 1993, is public data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In 34 CFR, directory information is defined in Section 99.3 as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...information contained in an education record of a student which would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to the student&apos;s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 99.37 of 34 CFR provides the conditions which apply to disclosure of directory information:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and eligible students in attendance at the agency or institution of:
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(1) The types of personally identifiable information that the agency or institution has designated as directory information;
                                  &lt;p&gt;
                                    (2) A parent&apos;s or eligible student&apos;s right to refuse to let the agency or institution designate any or all of those types of information about the student as directory information; and
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                    (3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does not want any or all of those types of information about the student designated as directory information....
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
                  In summation, the effect of the interaction between state and federal law is that items of information properly designated under federal law as directory information become public data for purposes of Chapter 13. Proper designation means that a school district has performed the steps outlined in the federal code: (1) the district has designated the types of data it intends to treat as directory information; and (2) the district has given public notice to students and parents announcing (a) which data the district intends to treat as directory information, and (b) that students and parents may refuse to let the district treat those data as directory information.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    Even if a school district has said it intends to treat certain data as directory information, those data cannot be released as public unless the district has completed all of the steps outlined in federal law. In addition, if a parent or student notifies the school district that s/he does not wish certain data about that student to be directory information, those data would remain private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present situation, Mr. Berckes has requested access to the first and last names of seventh through ninth grade students and the names of their parents/legal guardians. On the issue of directory information, Minneapolis School Board Policy 5350 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The only pupil information which can be released to the public, community groups, or governmental agencies, is confined to that information which the Minneapolis Public Schools have designated as directory information as follows:
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            1. Name, height, and weight of individual members of athletic teams;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            2. Name of recipient and the name of the award or scholarship;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            3. Names of participants in officially recognized activities.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            All other data collected regarding individuals is private data.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon examination of Policy 5350, it appears Minneapolis has designated only very limited information as directory information, i.e., names of students who participate in officially recognized activities or receive awards or scholarships, or the names, heights, and weights of students who are members of athletic teams. Given the discretion granted to educational institutions under federal law, a designation of limited information is permissible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Therefore, because Mr. Berckes requested access to the names of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt;seventh through ninth grade students, and Minneapolis &lt;u&gt;has not designated the names of all students&lt;/u&gt;as directory information, the data sought by Mr. Berckes are not public. Based on Policy 5350, it appears that had Mr. Berckes requested access to names of students in relation to certain activities, etc., he would have been granted access to those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Berckes also requested access to the first and last names of parents of seventh through ninth grade students. Because that information has not been designated by Minneapolis as directory information, those data are not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Berckes is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Minneapolis has designated, as directory information, the names of certain students who participate in certain activities or who have received certain awards. Because Mr. Berckes requested access to the names of any and all seventh through ninth grade students, the data he requested are not directory information and, therefore, are not public.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Minneapolis has not designated first and last names of parents/legal guardians as directory information. Therefore, those data are not public.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 29, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267173</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-014</Title><title>Opinion 96 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267414&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-03-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Virginia complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject?
Does a copy charge of $.25 per page represent the &quot;actual&quot; costs, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for copying government data?
What is a government entity&apos;s obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, regarding protection of data on individuals?
Is the City of Virginia required, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, to provide a &quot;Tennessen Warning&quot; notice to an individual upon the City&apos;s collection of health insurance/medical data about that individual from that individual?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 29, 1996; City of Virginia</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, unless classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 8, 1996, PIPA received two letters, dated February 5 and 6, 1996, from Peter J. Nickitas, an attorney representing Conchetta Wiedenhoft. In his letters, Mr. Nickitas requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s access to certain data maintained by the City of Virginia, hereinafter City, and the collection of certain data about Ms. Wiedenhoft by the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nicholas Dragisich, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 1996, were to inform Mr. Dragisich of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On February 26, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Thomas Butorac, Attorney for the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (Mr. Nickitas attached copies of several documents to his opinion request. One is a copy of his request, dated January 17, 1996, to the City. Another is a copy of a letter dated January 29, 1996, from Mr. Butorac to Mr. Nickitas in which Mr. Butorac stated that because Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s file was quite large, Mr. Nickitas might wish to view the file to determine if, indeed, Ms. Wiedenhoft desired copies of all the documents. Another is Mr. Nickitas&apos; January 30, 1996, response to Mr. Butorac that Ms. Wiedenhoft still desired copies of all requested data. An additional document is a copy of a letter dated February 1, 1996, from the City to Mr. Nickitas which apparently was attached to the copies of Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s personnel and medical files when they were sent to Mr. Nickitas.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his February 5, 1996, letter, Mr. Nickitas stated that his client, Ms. Wiedenhoft, is employed by the City at the Virginia Regional
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Medical Center Convalescent Center, hereinafter VRMC. Mr. Nickitas discussed that he, on behalf of Ms. Wiedenhoft, made a request for access to data about Ms. Wiedenhoft. Mr. Nickitas wrote, The Data Practices Act request went unfulfilled as of 29 January 1996.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Nickitas also raised an issue about the City&apos;s charge for copying the data. (After formulating the issues to be addressed in this opinion, and sending a copy of those issues to the City for comment, the Commissioner determined that Mr. Nickitas had actually raised a different issue relating to the copying charges. However, because the City responded to the issue as it was formulated by the Commissioner, and because Mr. Nickitas received a copy of the same issues, this opinion will address the issue as it was formulated by the Commissioner, i.e., whether a copy charge of $.25 per page represents the actual costs, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4, for copying government data.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his February 5, 1996, letter Mr. Nickitas also stated, Ms. Wiedenhoft discovered a file in her former supervisor&apos;s office that contained her medical excuse slips...The slips remained in a folder, in an unlocked drawer, available to employees with no need to know of [the information contained in the medical excuse slips].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addition, Mr. Nickitas asserted that Ms. Wiedenhoft did not receive a Tennessen Warning notice when she was asked by the City to provide data regarding the diagnosis and prognosis of her medical condition.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his February 6, 1996, letter, Mr. Nickitas noted that he had received, from the City, 569 pieces of paper which are copies from Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s personnel and medical files and files from the Convalescent Care Center Administrator&apos;s office. Mr. Nickitas stated, The Medical Center never requested an extension under Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd. 3. It would appear that its answer remains untimely.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; concern regarding a timely response by the City, Mr. Butorac wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In reviewing Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, VRMC was unsure as to whether Mr. Nickitas wanted Ms. Weidenhoft&apos;s [sic] entire personnel file copied which is quite lengthy as Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] has been a longtime employee of VRMC....The purpose of my letter to Mr. Nickitas was to inform him of the copying charges and to find out if he wanted to review the file himself or have his client review it and have copies made of what he needed, or if he wanted a copy of the entire file. The purpose of our inquiry was merely to be helpful to Mr. Nickitas and save his client copying expenses. If there was a technical violation of the statute there was no intent by VRMC or its employees to prohibit Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] from reviewing her file....As soon as VRMC became aware of the fact that Mr. Nickitas wanted the entire file copied it was promptly copied and sent to him [on] February 1, 1996. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                With regards to the copying charge, Mr. Butorac wrote that the VRMC&apos;s policy for copying documents within the control of the hospital is $.25 per page.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                With regards to the issue of data security, Mr. Butorac stated that VRMC takes seriously its obligation under Chapter 13 to protect individual data. He wrote, VRMC keeps individual data only accessible to authorized personnel of the hospital. If there were medical slips of Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] in her supervisor&apos;s desk, this is not the usual and customary rule for personnel data....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                With regards to whether the City is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice when collecting data about an individual from that individual, Mr. Butorac wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Human Services Director sent Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] a letter asking for the above information....Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] called the Human Services Director stating that she needed a Tennessen Warning before she would provide any information....VRMC provided the Tennessen Warning before any medical information was provided. At this time Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] has not provided any information pursuant to the request; we are waiting for compliance.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Has the City of Virginia complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does a copy charge of $.25 per page represent the actual costs, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for copying government data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What is a government entity&apos;s obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, regarding protection of data on individuals?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the City of Virginia required, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, to provide a Tennessen Warning notice to an individual upon the City&apos;s collection of health insurance/medical data about that individual from that individual?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before directly addressing the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas, it should be noted that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.01, the City is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first issue to be addressed in this opinion is whether the City has complied with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request for access to data about Ms. Wiedenhoft. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, if immediate compliance is not possible, a government entity must provide a data subject with access to the public and private data it maintains about that individual within five working days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the date of the request. However, upon notice to the individual, the government entity may have an additional five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) within which to comply with the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the current situation, it appears there is no dispute that Mr. Nickitas made a request for access to data in a letter dated January 17, 1996. However, because the Commissioner received no documentation as to when the City received Mr. Nickitas&apos; request or when Mr. Nickitas received the copies of data about Ms. Wiedenhoft, it is difficult for the Commissioner to make a determination as to whether the City&apos;s response did or did not fall within ten days of the City&apos;s receipt of the request. The Commissioner knows only the following: that Mr. Nickitas requested the data in a letter dated January 17, 1996; that Mr. Nickitas informed the Commissioner, in a letter dated February 6, 1996, that he had received the requested copies; that Mr. Butorac stated the copies were sent to [Mr. Nickitas] on February 1, 1996; and that the letter from Stephen Roskoski, Human Resources Manager for VRMC, which apparently was attached to the copies of the data about Ms. Wiedenhoft, is dated February 1, 1996.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, if the City received the request on January 18, 1996, and if the City were in compliance with Chapter 13, Mr. Nickitas should have received copies of the data by February 1, 1996. Or, if the City received the request on January 19, 1996, Mr. Nickitas should have received copies of the data by February 2, 1996. Or, if the City received the request on January 22, 1996, Mr. Nickitas should have received copies of the data by February 5, 1996. Although the Commissioner is unable to make an express determination regarding this issue, it does appear that the City made a reasonable attempt to respond within the statutory time frame.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Butorac&apos;s written attempt to ascertain whether Ms. Wiedenhoft did, indeed, wish to have her entire file copied was certainly appropriate, especially given the large number of documents that were contained within that file. In fact, it would have been suitable for the City to require pre-payment of the copying fee. One potential difficulty of attempting written, as opposed to verbal or faxed, clarification (on either the part of the citizen or the government entity) is that the government entity may have greater difficulty meeting the ten day statutory deadline. However, in the present situation, Mr. Butorac&apos;s January 29, 1996, letter does not appear to have placed the City&apos;s response in jeopardy of being untimely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the City should have indicated to Mr. Nickitas that it intended to take the additional five days to respond to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request. While Mr. Butorac&apos;s January 29, 1996, letter might be so interpreted, pursuant to the statutory language, Mr. Butorac should have stated explicitly the City&apos;s intention to take the additional five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue to be addressed in this opinion is whether a copy charge of $.25 per page represents the actual costs, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for copying government data. In relevant part, subdivision 3 of Section 13.04 states, The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the February 1, 1996, letter, which apparently was attached to the copies of the data about Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s files, Mr. Roskoski wrote, As per your request of January 17, 1996, enclosed please find copies of Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s personnel and medical files. There are
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    464
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  copies from Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s personnel and medical files and
                  &lt;h2&gt;
                    105
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  copies from the VCC, Administrator&apos;s office. Please issue payment to the Medical Center in the amount of
                  &lt;h2&gt;
                    $142.25
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  for a total of
                  &lt;h2&gt;
                    569
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  copies at
                  &lt;h2&gt;
                    $.25
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  per copy.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Butorac stated that the $.25 per page charge was arrived at by the Hospital Commission taking into account cost of making, certifying and compiling the copies. Mr. Butorac further wrote, VRMC believes this is not excessive in that it takes into account all of its cost in producing the copies.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     On its face, a copy charge of $.25 per page does not seem unreasonable. However, such a charge is statutorily permissible &lt;u&gt;only&lt;/u&gt;if it is the true cost incurred by the City in making, certifying, and compiling each copy. Because the City did not include any documentation indicating how the $.25 per page cost was calculated, the Commissioner is unable to determine if such a charge is appropriate. If the City is able to demonstrate that the $.25 per page charge complies with the language of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, then such a charge is appropriate. If the City cannot so demonstrate, then the charge is not appropriate. It is also unclear whether Mr. Nickitas desired certified copies. Perhaps if he did not, and this had been communicated to or ascertained by the City, the cost per copy would have been less.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third issue to be addressed in this opinion regards a government entity&apos;s obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, regarding protection of data on individuals. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 5, government entities are required to establish appropriate security safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. In addition, subdivision 5, of Section 13.05, requires that government entities establish procedures to insure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas stated, Ms. Wiedenhoft discovered a file in her former supervisor&apos;s office that contained her medical excuse slips...The slips remained in a folder, in an unlocked drawer, available to employees with no need to know of [the information contained in the medical excuse slips]. Further on this point, in his January 30, 1996, letter to Mr. Butorac, Mr. Nickitas wrote, She has particular concern for the Medical Center&apos;s practice of keeping her medical file with her personnel file, its practice of leaving her medical data in an unlocked, unsecured location accessible to those without a need to know....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Butorac wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;VRMC has an obligation under Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes to protect every individual&apos;s data which is collected and stored at the hospital. VRMC takes this obligation very seriously. Documents collected on individual personnel of the hospital are kept in a separate area of the hospital. Only hospital employees involved with personnel matters and their immediate supervisors have access to these records. The incident that Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] is referring to is an isolated incident. It is true that her immediate supervisor may have copies of her medical excuse but those copies may be kept by the supervisor in her desk to be readily accessible to the supervisor. If this file had been kept by the supervisor in plain view possibly an argument could be made that VRMC was remiss in its duties to protect the data but this was not the case. VRMC has an obligation to keep the data private and confidential but the obligation must be reasonable. A supervisor having medical slips of an employee under her control in her desk does not violate this obligation. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From Mr. Nickitas&apos; letters, it is not clear if Ms. Wiedenhoft is concerned about a single incident in which she apparently found her medical excuse slips in an unlocked drawer or whether her concern is about ongoing practices at VRMC. From Mr. Butorac&apos;s letter, it appears he believes her concern to be directed toward an isolated incident. Regardless, given the sensitive nature of the data, VRMC would be better able to meet its statutory obligations regarding the safeguarding of data on individuals, if those data were kept in locked drawers or locked offices.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (It is unclear to the Commissioner how Ms. Wiedenhoft came to find her medical excuse slips in her supervisor&apos;s desk. However, the Commissioner wishes to make clear that nothing in this opinion is meant to condone Ms. Wiedenhoft&apos;s actions if she obtained the data in an inappropriate fashion.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The fourth issue raised by Mr. Nickitas is whether the City is required, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, to provide a Tennessen Warning notice upon its collection of medical/insurance data about Ms. Wiedenhoft from Ms. Wiedenhoft. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.04 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  (It should be noted there does not appear to be any dispute that, in this case, the data requested of Ms. Wiedenhoft would, had she supplied them, have been classified as either private or confidential data.)
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Nickitas, Ms. Wiedenhoft received a request for medical data pursuant to a...review of VRMC&apos;s health insurance payments for employees who have availed themselves of over $5,000.00 in health care. Also according to Mr. Nickitas, This request included no advisory pursuant to the Data Practices Act....The facts of the matter indicate with no question at all that if Ms. Wiedenhoft did not demand a &apos;Tennessen Advisory&apos; of her superiors before providing the data, she would have received no advisory at all.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Butorac wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Human Services Director sent Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] a letter asking for the [medical insurance] information. He also talked to Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] about the requested medical data. Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] called the Human Services Director stating that she needed a Tennessen Warning before she would provide any information....VRMC provided the Tennessen Warning before any medical information was provided. At this time Ms. Weidenhoft [sic] has not provided any information pursuant to the request; we are waiting for her compliance.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  While Mr. Butorac may be technically correct in stating that Ms. Wiedenhoft has not suffered damages because she has not provided the requested data, Mr. Butorac&apos;s argument does not negate the fact that the City is required to administer a Tennessen Warning any time private data is requested from Ms. Wiedenhoft. Chapter 13 is clear that the onus of providing the Tennessen Warning notice falls on the government entity; the individual asked to provide the private or confidential data should not have to request that they be given the notice.
                  &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Based on the information provided by the City of Virginia and by Mr. Nickitas, the Commissioner is unable to determine, with exactitude, if the City complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regarding access to data by a data subject.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Based on the information provided by the City and Mr. Nickitas, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether a copy charge of $.25 per page represents the actual costs, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for copying government data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 5, government entities are required to establish appropriate security safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. In addition, subdivision 5, of Section 13.05, requires that government entities establish procedures to insure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Yes. The City is required, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, to provide a Tennessen Warning notice to an individual upon the City&apos;s collection of health insurance/medical data about that individual from that individual.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 29, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267414</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complete and current 13.05</Title><Id>266530</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-013</Title><title>Opinion 96 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267766&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-03-21T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has OEA complied with its obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to provide Mr. Young with access to the following: any and all data, including reports, correspondence, memoranda, etc., which relate to the Compost Utilization Project?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 21, 1996; Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On February 7, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Jeff Young, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA), an agency of the State of Minnesota. Mr. Young enclosed copies of relevant correspondence with OEA. In a telephone conversation on February 8, 1996, PIPA staff clarified with Mr. Young that he believes that OEA has not complied with its obligation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, to provide him with access to the data he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Young&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Edward Garvey, Director of OEA. The purposes of this letter, dated February 8, 1996, were to inform Mr. Garvey of Mr. Young&apos;s request, to ask him or OEA&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Young and Mr. Garvey were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 26, 1996, PIPA received a response from Arthur E. Dunn, Deputy Director of OEA. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Young, he has been seeking access to certain data maintained by OEA since September of 1995. The data relate to OEA&apos;s Compost Utilization Project (CUP). Mr. Young provided information which indicates that he has had numerous contacts with OEA in his efforts to gain access to the data he seeks. According to him, at various times since September 1995, he was told by OEA that the CUP report would be sent to him. Finally, he was told by OEA in December 1995, that the final report would not be available until March 1, 1996.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In December 1995, Mr. Young requested a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion, which related to the same data at issue in this opinion. At that time, in his written requests to OEA, Mr. Young had asked for a copy of the CUP &lt;u&gt;report&lt;/u&gt;. However, according to Mr. Young, in a December 12, 1995, telephone conversation with Dave Benke of OEA, Mr. Benke . . . asked me if I wanted &lt;u&gt;only&lt;/u&gt; Final CUP Reports. At that time I asked Mr. Benke for all reports, whether preliminary or final, and I feel I made myself quite clear on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Young withdrew his advisory opinion request when he was informed by OEA that the &lt;u&gt;final report&lt;/u&gt; would not be available until March 1, 1996. Mr. Young then wrote to Mr. Garvey, in a letter dated January 15, 1996, and requested access to all &lt;u&gt;data&lt;/u&gt; related to the CUP report. He emphasized that his request was not limited to the &lt;u&gt;final report&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Young, in response to that letter, Mr. Garvey called him approximately the last week of January 1996. Mr. Young stated to PIPA staff that he believed, after the telephone call with Mr. Garvey, that OEA was continuing to deny him access to the data he was seeking. Mr. Young then requested this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated February 15, 1996, Mr. Dunn requested additional time in which to respond to the Commissioner. According to Mr. Dunn, OEA&apos;s contractor, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., has responsibility for preparation of the final CUP report, and physically maintains some of the data Mr. Young requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dunn wrote: [u]nder the terms of the OEA&apos;s contract with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. all reports, studies and other documents generated under the contract are the property of the State. Therefore, we believe we are entitled to request, on Mr. Young&apos;s behalf, that Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. make the data in their possession on the CUP available to Mr. Young for his review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In part, Mr. Dunn requested additional time to respond to the Commissioner in order to determine whether Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. intends to comply with the request. We request until February 26, 1996, to inform you of whether we will be required to take additional steps to secure access to the data in the possession of our contractor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dunn added: [a]s to the data in the physical possession of the OEA, Mr. Young has been invited, orally, to make an appointment to review the files. To date, he has not exercised that option. By this letter, we reiterate our agreement that the data in our files is public data and that Mr. Young is entitled to access them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter dated February 26, 1996, Mr. Dunn largely reiterated the content of his letter dated February 15, 1996, including the statement: . . . we believe we are entitled to request, on Mr. Young&apos;s behalf, that Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. make the data in their possession on the CUP available to Mr. Young for his review. Mr. Dunn did not indicate whether or not OEA had, in fact, actually made the request of its contractor that in part necessitated the delay in OEA&apos;s response to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Dunn added: [a]t the time of receipt of your letter [i.e., the receipt on February 14, 1996, of the notification of Mr. Young&apos;s advisory opinion request] the OEA was in the process of responding formally to [Mr. Young&apos;s January 15, 1996 data request to OEA.] The &lt;u&gt;Draft&lt;/u&gt; letter attached offers Mr. Young the opportunity to make an appointment to review the file. (Emphasis added.) The draft letter Mr. Dunn referred to is dated February 16, 1996.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Young asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has OEA complied with its obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to provide Mr. Young with access to the following: any and all data, including reports, correspondence, memoranda, etc., which relate to the Compost Utilization Project?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Clearly, there is no disagreement between Mr. Young and OEA regarding the classification of the data he is seeking. The data are public, and Mr. Young is entitled to gain access to them. Therefore, this is a discussion of whether OEA has met its obligations under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to provide Mr. Young with appropriate access to the data.
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides: [t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and &lt;u&gt;prompt manner&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides: [t]he responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a &lt;u&gt;reasonable time&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question at hand is whether OEA&apos;s response to Mr. Young was in compliance with Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. Specifically, did OEA provide a response to Mr. Young&apos;s request in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time ?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has addressed this general issue a number of times. In Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, the Commissioner wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, the Commissioner wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the circumstance at issue in Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, at least six weeks passed before the data requestor received any kind of a response from the government entity. As the Commissioner stated in that opinion, such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mr. Young&apos;s case, it is possible that when he made his initial request, OEA misunderstood just what information he was requesting. It is possible that OEA thought that Mr. Young wanted only the &lt;u&gt;final&lt;/u&gt;CUP report, and that misunderstanding lasted from September to December of 1995. However, according to Mr. Young, in a December 1995 telephone conversation with Mr. Benke, he clearly stated that he wanted any and all data about the CUP that had been generated to that time, including &lt;u&gt;drafts&lt;/u&gt;of the report. He repeated that assertion in a letter to the Commissioner, dated December 19, 1995. (That letter also served as Mr. Young&apos;s request to withdraw his initial advisory opinion request, and as such was copied and sent to OEA by PIPA as notice that the opinion would not be issued.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In any case, Mr. Young followed up all of his previous requests and clearly requested access to any and all data, not just the final report, related to the CUP, in his January 15, 1996, letter to OEA Director Garvey. Mr. Garvey and Mr. Young spoke by telephone a week or so later. However, Mr. Young does not interpret Mr. Garvey&apos;s message in that conversation to be a provision of access to the data he has been seeking for many months. OEA did not provide information to the Commissioner to support its assertion that it has, in fact, clearly communicated to Mr. Young how and when he may gain access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of February 26, 1996, seven weeks after the date of his January 15, 1996, request, it appears that OEA had neither secured copies of the data held in the physical possession of its consultant Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., nor arranged for Mr. Young to gain access to those data directly from Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Regardless whether certain of the data Mr. Young seeks are in the physical possession of OEA&apos;s contractor, OEA retains the obligation to provide access to those data. (For further discussion of that point, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion Number 94-035, concerning a government entity&apos;s obligation to provide public access to data in a report prepared by a consultant.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OEA also has not provided to Mr. Young any of the data he seeks that are in its possession. The Commissioner accepts on face value OEA&apos;s assertion that it has made an oral invitation to Mr. Young to inspect the data it maintains. However, Mr. Dunn sent the Commissioner a copy of a draft letter to Mr. Young, which contained such an invitation, but provided no information to the Commissioner which indicates that OEA ever sent the letter directly to Mr. Young.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly there is disagreement between OEA and Mr. Young about how OEA has responded to his attempts to gain access to certain of the public data it maintains. However, it is evident that Mr. Young has been seeking access to data relating to the CUP, data which clearly and without dispute are public data, since September 1995. Mr. Young explicitly sought access to any and all data, not simply the final report, in mid January 1996. OEA has not provided information to the Commissioner, which, as a whole, indicates that it has met its obligation under Chapter 13 to provide Mr. Young access to public data in a prompt, reasonable manner. Therefore, based on the information provided, the Commissioner cannot conclude that OEA has made a timely response to Mr. Young&apos;s requests for access to public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Young is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;OEA, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must provide Mr. Young with access to public government data in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Mr. Young was not provided access to all of the data he requested as of seven weeks after his request, which is neither prompt nor within a reasonable time.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 21, 1996&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267766</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Draft documents</Title><Id>266609</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-02-02T14:51:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-012</Title><title>Opinion 96 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267666&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-03-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Mr. Spaulding entitled to gain access to the data he requested?
What is DNR&apos;s obligation under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 to respond to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 14, 1996; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 25, 1996, PIPA received a letter from Greg Spaulding, a citizen who is employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR.) In his letter, Mr. Spaulding requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by DNR. Mr. Spaulding enclosed copies of his related correspondence with DNR.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rodney Sando, Commissioner of DNR. The purposes of this letter, dated February 1, 1996, were to inform Mr. Sando of Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request, to ask him or DNR&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Spaulding and Mr. Sando were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 15, 1996, PIPA received a response from Gail I. Lewellan, Assistant Commissioner for DNR. Ms. Lewellan enclosed a copy of a letter, with a printed date of February 6, 1996, revised by hand to February 14, 1996, and attachments, in which Mr. Sando responded to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request for data. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated December 12, 1995, Mr. Spaulding wrote to Mr. Sando. In that letter, Mr. Spaulding requested access to eleven items of data. (Mr. Spaulding was informed that the Commissioner will address his right to gain access to nine of those items, which are discussed in detail below.) According to Mr. Spaulding, in his letter to Mr. Sando, [w]hen I went through my &apos;chain-of-command&apos; within the [DNR] Division of Enforcement I was ignored or denied access to this public information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In request for this opinion, Mr. Spaulding stated I have not received any correspondence from [Mr. Sando&apos;s] office [in response to his December 12 request for information.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Lewellan, in her response to the Commissioner, [a]s is evident from [Mr. Sando&apos;s February 14, 1996 response to Mr. Spaulding,] many of [Mr. Spaulding&apos;s requests for data] had previously been made and responded to. Ms. Lewellan then addressed each of the nine items, which are discussed in detail below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In conclusion, Ms. Lewellan stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As is evident from the multiple questions asked and the fifty page length of the response, this inquiry was complex and involved research from a number of different people within the Department before a complete response could be made. As is evident from the response, and particularly Appendix 1, 8 and 9, many of the subjects of the December 12, 1995 letter had been previously addressed in writing or orally. These facts affected the amount of time it took to compile a complete answer. Answers have now been given to each of the requests for information.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Spaulding asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is Mr. Spaulding entitled to gain access to the data he requested?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What is DNR&apos;s obligation under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 to respond to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  First, it is clear that Mr. Spaulding and DNR disagree on whether, at the time he requested this opinion, he had previously received access to some or all of the data he requested. In Ms. Lewellan&apos;s response, she stated that Mr. Spaulding, previous to his December 12, 1995, letter to Mr. Sando, had already gained access to some of the data he requested. According to Ms. Lewellan, the rest of the data Mr. Spaulding requested was provided in Mr. Sando&apos;s February 14, 1996, letter (which was sent to Mr. Spaulding two weeks after DNR was notified about this opinion.) However, when Mr. Spaulding requested this opinion, it was his position that he had not been granted appropriate access to any of the data he requested from DNR. To the extent possible, the Commissioner will attempt a determination as to whether, and when, Mr. Spaulding was provided with the data he requested.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issues this opinion addresses concern Mr. Spaulding&apos;s rights to gain access to certain data, and DNR&apos;s obligations to provide him with appropriate access to those data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. In order to address those issues, it is first necessary to determine the classification of the data in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are . . . all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The data requested by Mr. Spaulding are data related to his, and other individuals&apos;, employment by DNR. Section 13.43 defines personnel data as . . . data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by . . . a state agency . . . . Section 13.43 provides that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The following nine items are the data Mr. Spaulding requested, as he described those data in his December 12, 1995, letter to Mr. Sando.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1. On April 24, 1995, you received a letter of complaint from RADM Suzanne Dahlman about my license fraud investigation concerning members of the USPHS Commissioned Officers. I want a copy of your response to her letter or the Departments [sic] response.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            2. Maj. William Spence told Capt. Byron Dyrland and Conservation Officer Tony Cornish he has a complaint from the Governors [sic] office on me. I want a copy of the complaint from the Governors [sic] office about me.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            3. I am requesting data from the last Enforcement Area Supervisors oral test. I want the names of the finalists, their score and rank. I want the data relevant to the criteria for scoring the tests.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            4. I am requesting data from the last Enforcement Area Supervisors written test, the finalists [sic] names, their score and rank. I want the original unrevised rankings and scores before appeals. I want the data relevant to the criteria for scoring the tests.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                             5. I am requesting data from the last Special Investigations Team Leader written and oral tests. I want the names of the finalists, and their &lt;u&gt;education&lt;/u&gt;. I want the data relevant to the criteria for scoring the written and oral tests. [Emphasis his.]
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            6. I am requesting data relevant to letters appointing Scott Fildes and Scott Bradley to Work-out-of-class in positions before their eventual promotion into those jobs. (area supervisor and SIU team leader)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            7. I am requesting data which made the classified position Safety Training Coordinator into an unclassified position.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            8. I am requesting data on the last class study that was performed on the Conservation Officers and/or Area Supervisors positions. Dates started and finished.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            9. I am requesting data on when the last Area Supervisors certified list was abolished.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first two items of data requested by Mr. Spaulding relate to complaints that Mr. Spaulding had reason to believe had been made against him, based on his understanding of comments made to him by DNR staff. He requested a copy of DNR&apos;s response to one, and a copy of the other complaint.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The details of a complaint about a public employee are private data, unless there has been a final disposition of a disciplinary action arising from the complaint. (See Section 13.43, subdivisions 2, 2a, and 4.) According to the information provided, it does not appear that either of these items of data relates to disciplinary action against Mr. Spaulding. Therefore, the question at hand is Mr. Spaulding&apos;s right to gain access to private data about himself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request to a responsible authority, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data shall be provided copies of the private or public data. The responsible authority must respond to a request immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request, if immediate compliance is not possible. The responsible authority may take an additional five working days to respond, if the individual making the request is informed that the additional time is necessary.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to DNR, there are no written data, other than a letter of complaint, which relate to the first two items in Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request. In the first instance, according to Ms. Lewellan, DNR made no response to the letter of complaint against Mr. Spaulding. In the second case, the Governor&apos;s Office made a verbal inquiry of Mr. Sando, and, according to Ms. Lewellan, DNR did not make a written response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Pursuant to a 1993 holding by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, data must be recorded in physical form in order to be considered government data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly, Mr. Spaulding does not have a right to gain access to data which do not exist. If DNR made no written response to a complaint against Mr. Spaulding, response data cannot be produced. However, individuals have the right, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to be informed whether government data about them exist. Mr. Spaulding should have been informed that the data he was seeking did not exist, either immediately upon his request, or within five working days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is disagreement about when Mr. Spaulding was informed that the data he was seeking, in items 1 and 2, do not exist. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Lewellan stated that Mr. Spaulding had been informed prior to his December 12, 1995, letter to Mr. Sando that there was no written response to either complaint or inquiry. However, it is not clear to the Commissioner when and how that was communicated to Mr. Spaulding. Ms. Lewellan stated: Mr. Spaulding had on September 4, 1995 requested a copy of DNR&apos;s written response, and had previously been advised by his supervisor, Capt. Dyrland, that DNR had not sent a written response. Ms. Lewellan then referred to the February 14, 1996, letter to Mr. Spaulding.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to a complaint from the Governor&apos;s Office, Ms. Lewellan stated: [n]o written complaint was received from the Governor&apos;s Office. These facts were verbally communicated to Officer Spaulding by his supervisor, Capt. Dyrland, as indicated in [the attachments.]
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The reference to the attachments, apparently a memo from Major Spence to Captain Dyrland, is confusing. It is not clear to the Commissioner, based on the memo, that Mr. Spaulding was informed by Captain Dyrland that DNR did not have a written complaint on Mr. Spaulding from the Governor&apos;s Office. It appears to the Commissioner that Major Spence informed Captain Dyrland of that fact. It is possible that the Commissioner is mistaken in that interpretation. However, in any event, Mr. Spaulding requested access to the data on September 4, 1995. The memo from Major Spence to Captain Dyrland is dated September 26, 1995. Mr. Spaulding was entitled to learn that the data he sought did not exist within, at most, ten working days of his request, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The remainder of the data listed in Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request are public personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. It appears that the classification of those data is not in contention between Mr. Spaulding and DNR. The relevance of the classification here is that Chapter 13 provides a different standard for public access to data than the standard for access by a data subject to public and private data about her/himself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides: [t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and &lt;u&gt;prompt manner&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides: [t]he responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a &lt;u&gt;reasonable time&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The question at hand is whether DNR&apos;s response to the remaining seven items Mr. Spaulding requested was in compliance with Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. Specifically, did DNR provide a response to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time ? In Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, the Commissioner wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, the Commissioner wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the circumstance at issue in Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, at least six weeks passed before the data requestor received any kind of a response from the government entity. As the Commissioner stated in that opinion, such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In Mr. Spaulding&apos;s case, it is not entirely clear whether, and when, he received the data he requested. The data described in items 3, 5, and 7-9 apparently were not provided to Mr. Spaulding until February 14, 1996. It is not possible to determine, from the information provided, whether all of the data Mr. Spaulding asked for in item 4 were provided to him at an earlier date than February 14, 1996.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his letter to Mr. Spaulding regarding item 6, Mr. Sando said that the letter of appointment for Mr. Bradley to work out-of-class was not available. It is not clear what Mr. Sando meant by not available. If DNR&apos;s reason is that the data are classified as not public, then pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, DNR is obligated to provide Mr. Spaulding with the specific statutory basis for its denial of access to those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears to the Commissioner that DNR took eight weeks to respond to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request, which, in the Commissioner&apos;s view, is not a reasonable or prompt response within the meaning of Chapter 13. In her response, Ms. Lewellan referred to the quantity and complexity of Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request as factors relevant to the amount of time DNR took to respond to Mr. Spaulding. The Commissioner acknowledges that there are times when such factors do result in reasonable delays in the provision of access to data. However, Mr. Spaulding did not receive any response for eight weeks. In the case of Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request for access to public and private data about himself, the response required from DNR was provision of the data or a clear statement that the data he was seeking do not exist. He was entitled to that response immediately, or within five working days of his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request for access to public data, DNR needed to respond promptly, in a reasonable time. DNR made no response to Mr. Spaulding&apos;s request until four weeks after he requested this opinion, eight weeks after he made his request to DNR. Although it is not possible in all instances to determine exactly how DNR responded to each of Mr. Spaulding&apos;s requests, the Commissioner concludes that, for the most part, he was not provided timely access either to public and private data about himself, or to other public data maintained by DNR.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Spaulding is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Mr. Spaulding is entitled to gain access to the data he requested, provided the data exist in physical form.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                DNR, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, must provide Mr. Spaulding with access to public and private government data about himself immediately or within five working days of his request. DNR is obligated to provide access to other public government data in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Mr. Spaulding was not provided access to the majority of the data he requested for nearly eight weeks, which is neither prompt nor within a reasonable time.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 14, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267666</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed of existence/classification</Title><Id>266499</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-011</Title><title>Opinion 96 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267342&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-03-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300, how may DHS use and/or disseminate the data which relate to K&apos;s commitment as a minor, contained on the &quot;master index file card&quot;?
How may DHS use and/or disseminate the data, including K&apos;s Social Security Number, which relate to K&apos;s voluntary hospitalizations/treatment in 1982 and 1983, contained on the &quot;master index file card,&quot; if those data were collected from K without proper notice, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 6, 1996; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On June 5, 1995, PIPA received a request for a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion from K (a pseudonym), regarding certain data maintained about K by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). K&apos;s initial request required clarification with PIPA staff, which involved subsequent correspondence and conversation. (K submitted three letters to PIPA, dated June 4, 1995, August 10, 1995, and December 7, 1995, in connection with K&apos;s opinion request.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K was a patient at Minnesota state hospitals on three separate occasions. The first, in 1962-63, when K was a minor, was due to an involuntary commitment. The second and third hospitalizations, in 1982 and 1983, were voluntary, and K was not a minor at those times. After clarification with K, K&apos;s opinion request involves two issues. The first issue relates to the classification, use and dissemination of data compiled about K during K&apos;s commitment as a minor. The second issue involves the use and dissemination of data collected/created during K&apos;s hospitalizations as an adult.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to K&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Maria R. Gomez, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated January 17, 1996, were to inform Ms. Gomez of K&apos;s request, to ask her or DHS&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, K and Ms. Gomez were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 29, 1996, PIPA received a response from Ms. Gomez. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to K, K was told upon K&apos;s release from the involuntary commitment as a minor that K&apos;s medical records were privileged and confidential and that . . . these records could never be used against me nor to deny me any of my rights, that I never had to tell anyone of this and that no one could ever find out about this [commitment]. K said that [t]his &apos;classification&apos; of the data in question was explained to myself by the administrative, medical, social services and other staff.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to K, when K was hospitalized in 1982, . . . during the intake process [I] was not given to understand nor was [I] informed if [I] had to give [my] name, social security number or any other information and just what purposes this information would be used for . . . . K further stated that had K . . . known that [I] was not required to give the information given upon this admission or a subsequent admission . . . [or that it] would have been used as it was, [I] would not have given any of the information nor admitted [myself] to either facility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to K, in 1992 K wanted to secure a permit to acquire a handgun. K was told by the Anoka County Sheriff&apos;s Office that K had to fill out an application, and sign a release of mental health or &apos;Medical Records&apos;. The form indicated that the sheriff&apos;s office would check for records at DHS. K did not sign the release.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K sought information about what would happen if the sheriff&apos;s office checked with DHS for records about K. According to K, DHS staff told K that it retained data about K that it would divulge to the sheriff, with or without K&apos;s consent. Apparently, the data referred to were certain data contained on the Department&apos;s client master index card, i.e., data about K&apos;s hospitalizations. According to K, staff at DHS indicated that at least some of the data on the index card were directory information, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, and were therefore public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K objected to the Department&apos;s retention of the data, and the possible release of the data to the sheriff&apos;s office. The Commissioner is not certain of all of the actions K took to prevent the release by DHS of data about K&apos;s hospitalizations. However, K did file suit against DHS in District Court. K sought from the Court an injunction prohibiting DHS from treating data about K&apos;s involuntary commitment as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District Court granted DHS&apos;s motion for summary judgment, which the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld, in 1995, in an &lt;u&gt;unpublished&lt;/u&gt; opinion. (&lt;u&gt;K.E.N. v. Department of Administration, Department of Human Services&lt;/u&gt;, File No. C1-94-2513 (Minnesota Court of Appeals September 5, 1995), rev. denied (October 27, 1995).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to Issue 1, Ms. Gomez wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;A response to this issue should be simple, since K has litigated this issue and lost in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. . . . In K.E.N., the court held that if the data contained on K&apos;s client master index card amounts to directory information as defined by [Section 13.42, subdivision 2], then the data is public. The court held that this information is public even if it was not considered public at the time it was collected, and even if K was a minor when it was collected, and even if K has since been discharged from a state facility. The court did not address the classification of other data contained on K&apos;s client master index card which is not considered directory information. However, it is the Department&apos;s position that such data remains private and may be released only in accordance with [Section 13.42, subdivision 3.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to Issue 2, Ms. Gomez stated that the Commissioner ought not to address this issue in an opinion. First, Ms. Gomez stated: [t]here is nothing in the record which was sent to me which demonstrates that any information was collected from K without proper notice, pursuant to [Section 13.04, subdivision 2.] Therefore, according to Ms. Gomez, the Commissioner cannot rely upon facts, but merely upon assumptions if she addresses this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Ms. Gomez stated that the language of Section 13.072, which enables the Commissioner to issue advisory opinions, affords a government entity a reasonable opportunity to explain its decision regarding the data at issue in an opinion. This language clearly contemplates that the individual must first present the issue to the State agency for a determination and second that the agency&apos;s determination is in some way adverse to the individual. The record before you does not establish that either of these requirements have [sic] been met in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in spite of her objections, Ms. Gomez did provide a response to the second issue. Ms. Gomez stated that at the present time, DHS has standard procedures to ensure that patients are informed of their rights under Chapter 13. She also offered some information about the Department&apos;s data practices procedures in 1983, and concluded by acknowledging that even though the Department believes that K did receive a Tennessen Warning in 1983, and that there is some reason to believe that K probably received one in 1982, it is not possible to make that determination with certainty. ( Tennessen Warning is the popular name for the notice required by Section 13.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In K&apos;s request for an opinion, K asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300, how may DHS use and/or disseminate the data which relate to K&apos;s commitment as a minor, contained on the master index file card ?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;How may DHS use and/or disseminate the data, including K&apos;s Social Security Number, which relate to K&apos;s voluntary hospitalizations/treatment in 1982 and 1983, contained on the master index file card, if those data were collected from K without proper notice, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In order to determine how DHS may use and/or disseminate certain data maintained on K as a state hospital patient, it is first necessary to determine the classification of those data. The data in question are data contained on the Department&apos;s client master index card. Apparently, from a facsimile provided by K, the data on the index card include K&apos;s name, Social Security Number, birth date, occupation, dates of admission, and dates of discharge. The first issue addresses the use and dissemination of data on the index card about K&apos;s involuntary commitment, which were collected/created more than thirty years ago. The second issue addresses the use and dissemination of data on the index card related to K&apos;s voluntary hospitalizations/treatment in 1982 and 1983.
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 1(b), medical data are . . . data collected because an individual was or is a patient or client of a hospital, nursing home, medical center, clinic, health or nursing agency operated by a state agency or political subdivision . . . . Subdivision 3 provides that medical data are private, with the exception of directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it appears that most of the data DHS maintains about the three different instances of K&apos;s hospitalization are private medical data. Section 13.42, subdivision 3, provides that medical data are private, and shall not be disclosed to others except:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;(a) Pursuant to section 13.05;
&lt;p&gt;(b) Pursuant to section 253B.03, subdivision 6c;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(c) Pursuant to a valid court order;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(d) To administer federal funds or programs;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(e) To the surviving spouse, parents, children, and siblings of a deceased patient or client or, if there are no surviving spouse, parents, children, or siblings, to the surviving heirs of the nearest degree of kindred;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(f) To communicate a patient&apos;s or client&apos;s condition to a family member or other appropriate person in accordance with acceptable medical practice, unless the patient or client directs otherwise; or&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(g) As otherwise required by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the data relating to K&apos;s hospitalization as a minor, which are the subject of Issue 1, were collected before August 1, 1975, the date of enactment of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the significance, if any, of the date of collection of the data in question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 4, provides, in relevant part, general guidance on the use and dissemination of private and confidential data as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Private or confidential data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by political subdivisions, statewide systems, or state agencies for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision. [Emphasis added.]
&lt;p&gt;(a) Data collected prior to August 1, 1975, and which have not been treated as public data, may be used, stored, and disseminated for the purposes for which the data was originally collected or for purposes which are specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to public health, safety, or welfare.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(b) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies specifically authorized access to that data by state, local, or federal law enacted or promulgated after the collection of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(c) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies subsequent to the collection of the data when the responsible authority maintaining the data has requested approval for a new or different use or dissemination of the data and that request has been specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to carry out a function assigned by law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(d) Private data may be used by and disseminated to any person or agency if the individual subject or subjects of the data have given their informed consent. Whether a data subject has given informed consent shall be determined by rules of the commissioner . . . .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 4, imposes limitations upon the collection, use, dissemination and storage of private or confidential data, collected from an individual about her/himself, to those uses communicated to the individual upon the collection of the data, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2. Exceptions to this limitation are provided in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, clauses (a) through (e). In some instances, the exceptions refer to the time period in which the data in question were collected. The data at issue here were created in 1962-1963.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data collected about K during K&apos;s hospitalization in 1962-63 were not collected in accordance with Section 13.04, subdivision 2, as Section 13.04, in its original iteration, did not go into effect until 1974. (See Laws of Minnesota 1974, Chapter 479, Section 4.) The data collected about the 1962-63 hospitalization were clearly collected prior to August 1, 1975, and are therefore subject to the provision of clause (a) of Section 13.05, subdivision 4.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (a), limits the use, storage and dissemination of data collected prior to August 1, 1975, to the purposes for which the data were originally collected or for other purposes approved by the Commissioner. In enacting this provision, the Legislature was attempting to create protections for data collected prior to 1975, which would be comparable to the protections afforded by the limitations imposed by the language of the main clause of subdivision 4. Just as data collected from individuals, who have received Tennessen Warnings, can be used and disseminated only in a manner consistent with the information provided them in the Tennessen Warning, data collected from individuals prior to August 1, 1975, that have not been treated as public data, can be used and disseminated only in a manner consistent with purposes for which the data were originally collected, unless the Commissioner of Administration approves otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In K&apos;s opinion request, K referred to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300, subpart 2 (C), provides that the responsible authority shall ensure that private or confidential data collected prior to August 1, 1975, shall not be used, stored, or disseminated for any other purpose than was authorized at the time the data were originally collected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data about K&apos;s hospitalization in 1962-63 were not public at the time of collection and the use and dissemination of those data were limited. This includes data about K&apos;s hospitalization that are specifically discussed in Minnesota Statutes Section 246.13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 246.13 (1961), clearly provided that the data DHS collected/created about K&apos;s involuntary commitment were not public:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The commissioner of public welfare shall keep in his office, accessible only by his consent or on the order of a judge or court of record, a record showing the residence, sex, age, nativity, occupation, civil condition, and date of entrance or commitment of every person or patient, in the institutions under his exclusive control, the date of discharge and whether such discharge was final, the condition of such person when he left the institution, and the date and cause of all deaths. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under this provision, the data described in Section 246.13 were clearly not public at the time they were collected, and can be used and disseminated only in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the data were originally collected, or as approved by the Commissioner of Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner has no record of an approval for any use or dissemination of state hospital patient information that is relevant to this opinion. In 1975, DHS, in its predecessor identity as the Department of Public Welfare, did seek approval for dissemination of patient information for purposes of the administration of Minnesota Statutes Section 624.713, the gun control statute. However, this approval was not granted by the Commissioner of Administration. (See application of James J. Hiniker, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Welfare, dated December 5, 1975, and response of Richard L. Brubacher, Commissioner of Administration, dated March 18, 1976.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It would appear, based on this analysis of the language of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, clause (a), and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300, that any information about K&apos;s hospitalization in 1962-63 could not be disseminated to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of the gun control statute, unless K consented to that dissemination or there was other legal authority for dissemination of the data. The Legislature has set forth public policy in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, that tries to protect private and confidential data by limiting their use and dissemination. However, the Legislature has clearly reserved to itself the authority to prescribe different practices for the storage, use and dissemination of data on individuals, regardless when the data in question were actually collected and stored. Section 13.05, subdivision 4, clause (b), states that data may be used and disseminated to individuals and agencies specifically authorized access by state law enacted or promulgated after the collection of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There appear to be at least two instances, relevant to the issues raised by K, in which the Legislature has authorized the release of what would otherwise be private state hospital patient data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, in 1979, the Legislature enacted Section 15.1698, the predecessor to Section 13.42. That Section included the language that defined directory information as name of the patient, date admitted, general condition, and date released. (See Laws of Minnesota 1979, Chapter 328, Section 16.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.42, subdivision 2, directory information, about a person who is a patient in a public hospital pursuant to legal commitment, are public data. If a person is a patient other than pursuant to legal commitment, directory information are public data unless the patient requests otherwise, in which case the data are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly, if a patient has been legally committed, that person does not have the right to request that directory information related to her/his commitment not be made public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, in 1994, the Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes Section 245.041. That Section provides that the Commissioner of DHS shall provide certain data related to civil commitment to local law enforcement agencies, by means of electronic data transfer through the Minnesota crime information system, for the sole purpose of facilitating a firearms background check. The information to be provided is limited to whether the person has been committed under Chapter 253B, and if so, the type of commitment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although that provision was not in effect either at the time the data in question were created, or at the time K went to apply for a permit to acquire a handgun, it appears that Section 245.041 authorizes DHS to disseminate data that document K&apos;s involuntary commitment for the purpose of facilitating a firearms background check. Therefore, if K does apply for a permit to acquire a handgun, it appears that DHS is now authorized to disseminate the data to a law enforcement agency upon request by the agency, in accordance with Section 245.01.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;K objects to DHS treating &lt;u&gt;any&lt;/u&gt; of the data on the index card as directory information. One basis for K&apos;s objection is that because the data were collected/created prior to August 1, 1975, and the data were treated as not public pursuant to Section 246.13, the data cannot ever be public data. K&apos;s reasoning is understandable. K believed the assurances made at the time of K&apos;s release from involuntary commitment, that the data were private and confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the Legislature, on an annual basis, enacts new legislation, and amends and repeals existing statutes. Annually, the Legislature alters the classification of various types of government data. As evidence of its intent, to maintain ongoing control over classification of data, the Legislature enacted Section 13.03, subdivision 9, in addition to the provisions of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, discussed above. Section 13.03, subdivision 9, provides: [u]nless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data &lt;u&gt;at the time a request for access to the data is made&lt;/u&gt;, regardless of the data&apos;s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if the classification of data is changed by the Legislature, those data carry the new classification, regardless what was communicated to a data subject in a Tennessen Warning, or any other conveyance, about the classification and treatment of the data at the time the data were collected/created. K may believe that to be an unfair or even unjust result, but the statutory language on the subject is clear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another basis for K&apos;s objection to DHS treating the data on the index card as directory information lies in the very language which defines directory information. Section 13.42 states that if a person is a patient in a public hospital, pursuant to legal commitment, the patient&apos;s name, date admitted, general condition, and date released are directory information and are public data. K&apos;s position is that those data are public &lt;u&gt;while the person is in&lt;/u&gt; the hospital. Section 13.42 clearly defines medical data as data collected because an individual &lt;u&gt;was or is&lt;/u&gt; a patient or client of a hospital . . . . (Emphasis added.) The language in Section 13.42 which defines directory information is limited to data on a person who is a patient. Therefore, according to K, directory data about K may have been public while K was hospitalized due to involuntary commitment, but as K no longer &lt;u&gt;is&lt;/u&gt; a patient, those data are no longer public. K makes a compelling argument for that position. However, discussion of this issue is complicated by the holding in the Court of Appeals unpublished opinion, referenced above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 480A.08, [u]npublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential. However, unpublished appellate court opinions may be cited as precedent . . . as the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. (See Section 480A.08, subdivision 3 (b).) Given that this issue is the exact issue, involving the exact parties involved in the court case, it is appropriate for DHS to cite K.E.N. in its response, and to rely upon it as its position on this issue. Therefore, for purposes of this opinion only, the Commissioner will defer to the decision in K.E.N. However, it is possible that in a different case, the Commissioner might reach a different result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In K.E.N., the court wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;[K] finally argues that the use of the present tense in [Section 13.42, subdivision 2] means it applies only during the time a patient is in a treatment center. But the listed directory information in [Section 13.42, subdivision 1] includes the date of a patient&apos;s release, which would not be available for patients currently in a hospital. [K&apos;s] interpretation would essentially strike the release date from the definition of directory information. Laws must be construed to give effect to all their provisions. [Section 645.16] Thus, [Section 13.42, subdivision 2,] properly construed, requires that directory information cover both current and former patients.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Gomez stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;A response to this issue should be simple, since K has litigated this issue and lost in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. . . . In K.E.N., the court held that if the data contained on K&apos;s client master index card amounts to directory information as defined by [Section 13.42, subdivision 2], then the data is public. The court held that this information is public even if it was not considered public at the time it was collected, and even if K was a minor when it was collected, and even if K has since been discharged from a state facility. The court did not address the classification of other data contained on K&apos;s client master index card which is not considered directory information. However, it is the Department&apos;s position that such data remains private and may be released only in accordance with [Section 13.42, subdivision 3.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, and by reference, DHS, the Commissioner accepts DHS&apos;s position that directory data about K&apos;s involuntary commitment are public. However, under that same logic, all directory information about all persons who are or were involuntarily committed to a public facility are public data, regardless when the data were collected/created.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to Issue 2, the Commissioner is left with a situation in which there is a factual dispute. Ms. Gomez acknowledges that DHS is not able to ascertain with certainty whether or not K received a proper Tennessen Warning upon K&apos;s hospitalizations in 1982 and 1983. According to Ms. Gomez:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In 1982 and 1983, [DHS&apos;s] practice was to inform the patient of his or her data privacy rights and provide him or her with a copy of data privacy information, but there was no standard form in use requiring the patient&apos;s signature. With such a practice, it may be impossible in some cases to prove that, 14 years ago, a patient was provided with a notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2. However, the medical records pertaining to K&apos;s 1983 hospitalization contain a special form used by the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center entitled, Individual Admission Treatment Plan (enclosed). That document indicates that K was informed of and received a copy of the data privacy information. Although the form did not require K&apos;s signature, [K&apos;s] signature appears on the bottom of that document. Id. Therefore, clearly K was informed of [K&apos;s] data privacy rights in 1983, and I would assume that [K] was informed of and given a copy of [K&apos;s] data privacy rights in 1982, as well.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Gomez provided information which, in her view, points to a conclusion that K was probably given a proper Tennessen Warning in 1982 and 1983. K states that K did not receive a Tennessen Warning either time. After reviewing the information and arguments presented, the Commissioner cannot agree with Ms. Gomez&apos;s assertion that K was clearly informed of K&apos;s data privacy rights in 1983. The Commissioner finds the information provided by DHS to contain sufficient ambiguity that she is unable to reach the same conclusion reached by Ms. Gomez. Although it is possible that K received a Tennessen Warning, it is not possible to make a definite determination. Therefore, this discussion, and this opinion, must consider the implications of either possibility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, if K did &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;receive a proper Tennessen Warning, then pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, DHS may not use or disseminate the data for any purpose. For further discussion of this issue, see Commissioner Advisory Opinions Number 95-007 and Number 95-028.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the inclusion of K&apos;s Social Security Number on the index card further complicates the issue with the requirements of federal law. For further discussion of those implications, see Commissioner Advisory Opinion Number 95-007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If K &lt;u&gt;did&lt;/u&gt;receive a proper Tennessen Warning, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, then DHS is limited in its use or dissemination of the data to what was communicated to K in the Tennessen Warning, unless any of the exceptions on that limitation, which are provided by Section 13.05, subdivision 4, applies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, when the provisions of Sections 13.04 and 13.05 are read together, it is clear that a government entity may use and disseminate private data only as stated to an individual in a Tennessen Warning at the time of collection, unless one of the exceptions noted above applies. If the entity fails to give a Tennessen Warning, then the data may not be used for &lt;u&gt;any&lt;/u&gt;purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by K is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1300, DHS may use and/or disseminate the data which relate to K&apos;s commitment as a minor, contained on the master index file card in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.05, 13.42, and other applicable statutes.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If K did receive a proper Tennessen Warning, then the data, including K&apos;s Social Security Number, which relate to K&apos;s voluntary hospitalizations/ treatment in 1982 and 1983, contained on the master index file card, may be used or disseminated by DHS as provided pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4. If K did not receive a Tennessen Warning, then, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, DHS may not use or disseminate the data for any purpose.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 6, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267342</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification at time of request, controls access (13.03, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266595</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commitment pre-petition screening</Title><Id>266596</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Firearms background check</Title><Id>266597</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Authority to regulate data practices</Title><Id>266598</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266599</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>State hospital directory information</Title><Id>266600</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-010</Title><title>Opinion 96 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267864&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-02-14T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the data in the letter, dated December 18, 1995, sent by the District to B?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 14, 1996; School District 720 (Shakopee)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 8, 1996, PIPA received a letter from Gloria B. Olsen, an attorney for Independent School District Number 720, Shakopee, in which she asked the Commissioner to issue this opinion. Ms. Olsen enclosed several documents with her opinion request. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Olsen was informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts of the matter follows. B (a pseudonym), a teacher and former assistant coach in the District, resigned B&apos;s position as coach in a letter to the District dated November 20, 1995. B released a copy of B&apos;s resignation letter (signed by four other assistant coaches, in which they also resigned) to a local newspaper.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The District delivered a disciplinary reprimand to B, in a letter dated December 18, 1995. The District said that B had released private educational and personnel data, by giving a copy of the resignation letter to the newspaper. B was directed not to release any private data in the future, to review and adhere to state and federal law and the District&apos;s policies regarding private educational and personnel data, and to share no information or discuss any aspect of this matter with student athletes.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Olsen enclosed copies of the Letter of Agreement, the employment agreement which governed B&apos;s coaching assignment, and the Agreement Between Independent School District No. 720 and Shakopee Education Association, MEA-NEA, i.e., B&apos;s teaching contract.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Upon receiving Ms. Olsen&apos;s request, the Commissioner, as authorized in Section 13.072, contacted B, in a letter dated January 12, 1996, to invite B to comment. B did not respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Olsen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the data in the letter, dated December 18, 1995, sent by the District to B?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be no question that the data, contained in the letter from the District to B, were created because B was employed as a coach by a government entity, i.e., District 720. Therefore, for purposes of Chapter 13, those data are classified under Section 13.43, Personnel Data. Section 13.43 provides that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2(a), in relevant part, provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[T]he existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [and] the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[A] final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual &lt;u&gt;when the resignation occurs after&lt;/u&gt;the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, if no final disposition regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, as defined in subdivision 2(b), only those data relating to the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public. Further, there cannot be a final disposition of disciplinary action if no disciplinary action has been taken.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The classification of the data in question depends, therefore, on whether disciplinary action was taken by the District against B, and if so, whether there has been a final disposition of that disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In her letter to the Commissioner, Ms. Olsen characterized the action taken against B, i.e., the letter of reprimand as &lt;u&gt;the discipline of an athletic coach&lt;/u&gt; related to [B&apos;s] duties as a coach and not [B&apos;s] duties as a teacher in the District. (Emphasis added.) B&apos;s coaching contract states [t]his assignment is not included as part of your teaching contract with the school district under [Minnesota Statutes Section] 125.12.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, according to both the language in B&apos;s coaching contract, and Ms. Olsen&apos;s statements, B was employed separately as teacher and coach. B resigned as coach prior to the District issuing the letter of reprimand. Presumably, the District has power to sanction only those individuals under its authority, i.e., current students and employees. Therefore, if B&apos;s employment as coach and teacher really were separate, the letter of reprimand from the District to B cannot be disciplinary action because B was no longer employed as a coach at the time the District issued that letter. It is not clear to the Commissioner how the District could discipline B, the teacher, for an action taken by B, the former coach. Therefore, any action taken by the District concerning B&apos;s employment as a coach, after B&apos;s resignation, cannot be considered disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Further, Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b) provides that a final disposition includes a resignation if it occurs &lt;u&gt;after&lt;/u&gt; the government entity makes its final decision regarding disciplinary action. A resignation which occurs &lt;u&gt;before&lt;/u&gt; a final decision is not a final disposition of disciplinary action. Therefore, in that situation, any detailed data which document the specific reasons and basis for disciplinary action are not public, because there is no &lt;u&gt;final disposition&lt;/u&gt; of the disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, it is conceivable that a government entity may receive and maintain a complaint or charge made against a former employee. Therefore, if any data in the letter relate to the existence and status of a complaint or charge made against B, as a former employee, those data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Olsen is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              It does not appear that the District may impose discipline related to B&apos;s coaching duties on B, because B resigned as coach before the District took any disciplinary action. If any data, in the letter dated December 18, 1995, sent by the District to B, relate to the existence and status of a complaint or charge made against B, as a former employee, those data are public.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 14, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267864</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reprimand</Title><Id>266294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Resignation</Title><Id>266406</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-009</Title><title>Opinion 96 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266429&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-02-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a parent entitled to gain access to the educational records of her/his eighteen year old child?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 14, 1996; School District 577 (Willow River)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter from G (a pseudonym), in which G requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by Independent School District Number 577, Willow River. G enclosed copies of correspondence regarding G&apos;s effort to gain access to data about G&apos;s child, an eighteen-year-old District high school student.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to G&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to O.W. Pat Ostrand, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 1995, were to inform Mr. Ostrand of G&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner is required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, G and Mr. Ostrand were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a subsequent telephone message to PIPA staff, William V. Skarich, Principal, Willow River High School, indicated that the information he provided to G would serve as the District&apos;s response in this matter. In particular, Mr. Skarich referred to a 1991 School Law Bulletin for school board members and administrators, entitled Effect of 18 Year Old Age of Majority Law on Certain School District Policies. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to G, G is the noncustodial parent of G&apos;s child. G requested access to said child&apos;s educational records. Mr. Skarich responded to G by citing the above-referenced bulletin, which . . . in part states that educational data is private data and cannot be released without the consent of the age of majority student. [Your child] has chosen not to release this information to you.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In G&apos;s request for an opinion, G asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is a parent entitled to gain access to the educational records of her/his eighteen year old child? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Provisions of both state and federal law govern access to data generated by school districts about students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, Educational Data, incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    NOTE: FERPA refers to education records and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 refers to educational data. For purposes of this opinion, the definitions are similar enough not to warrant distinction.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.32 provides that educational data are private data about individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. ( Directory information is an exception. See Section 13.32, subdivision 5.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Under both state and federal law, parents are entitled to gain access to the education records of their minor children. (See FERPA, Section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 1232g (d) of FERPA states: whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education the permission or consent required of and the rights accorded to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be required of and accorded to the student. Section 99.3 of the federal rules defines students who fall under this provision as eligible students.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In general then, as private data, educational data may not be disclosed except to parents and eligible students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3, provides certain exceptions to that general rule. One of those exceptions, contained in subdivision 3(e), incorporates a provision of the federal law that is central to this opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.32, subdivision 3(e) provides for the disclosure of educational data: [p]ursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, sections 1232g(b)(1), (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B), (b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, sections 99.31, 99.32, 99.33, 99.34, and 99.35 which are in effect on July 1, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 1232g(b)(1) provides that, with the exception of directory information, education records may not be disclosed without the written consent of the parent(s) or eligible student, except as otherwise provided in that Section.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     One of the other exceptions, found in Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), states that consent is not required for the disclosure of education records to parents of a &lt;u&gt;dependent student&lt;/u&gt;of such parents, as defined in section 152 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Service Code.) (Emphasis added.) (See also 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(8).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner was not provided information to enable her to determine whether G&apos;s child qualifies as a dependent student under the IRS definition. If the child is G&apos;s &lt;u&gt;dependent&lt;/u&gt;student, even though the child is an &lt;u&gt;eligible&lt;/u&gt;student, then pursuant to Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), G is entitled to gain access to G&apos;s child&apos;s education records, without the child&apos;s consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by G is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              If G&apos;s child qualifies as a dependent student under the IRS Code definition, then G is entitled to gain access to G&apos;s child&apos;s education records, pursuant to Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g(b)(1)(H).
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 14, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266429</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent of dependent adult student</Title><Id>266428</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:44:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Security information</Title><Id>266367</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-008</Title><title>Opinion 96 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267351&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-02-05T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of data collected and maintained by the Capitol Complex Security Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety relating to a request from an individual for an automobile ride?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 5, 1996; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 7, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Michael Jordan, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, hereinafter MDPS. In his letter, Commissioner Jordan requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Capitol Complex Security Division of MDPS. (Commissioner Jordan&apos;s request was not processed until January, 16, 1996, because that is the date PIPA received the fee required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, for requests by government entities.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Commissioner Jordan stated, The Capitol Complex Security Division has received a request for a copy of the dispatch tape recording the request of a state legislator for a ride. We wish to ascertain the data practices status of the entire recording of that event. Commissioner Jordan asserted that data collected and maintained by the Capitol Complex Security Division, hereinafter Capitol Security, appear to be classified under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.861. Section 13.861 classifies certain data as public and provides that any remaining data collected and maintained by security services are private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Jordan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Thus, the request for a ride appears to be a request for service, comparable to the data referenced in Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 3. Therefore, four items of data are public: 1) the nature of the request or the activity complained of; 2) the name and address of the individual making the request unless the identity qualifies for protection under Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 10 (which does not appear applicable here); 3) the time and date of the request or complaint; and 4) the response initiated.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Acknowledging that public access must be granted to any data on the tape similar to those data described in Section 13.82, subdivision 3, Commissioner Jordan further stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Although in this particular instance, the request for service was denied due to the location of the caller outside Capitol Security&apos;s jurisdiction, the response by Capitol Security is one of the four pieces of data made public by Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 3. It does not appear that the classification of the data should be dependent upon Capitol Security&apos;s response to the request for service or the physical location of the caller. Thus, an argument can be made that all portions of the tape beyond the four items referenced in Minn. Stat. section 13.82, subd. 3 are private security information pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Jordan asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of data collected and maintained by the Capitol Complex Security Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety relating to a request from an individual for an automobile ride?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
There is no dispute that data collected, created, or maintained by Capitol Security are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.861, security service data. In relevant part, Section 13.861, subdivision 2, states, Security service data that are similar to the data described as request for service data and response or incident data in section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 4, are public....All other security service data are security information pursuant to section 13.37. (Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as private, with regard to data on individuals, or nonpublic, with regard to data not on individuals.)
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;Section 13.82, subdivision 3, provides that certain data (see clauses (a) through (d)) created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document requests by the public for law enforcement services are public. Section 13.82, subdivision 4, provides that certain data (see clauses (a) through (m)) created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document the agencies&apos; responses to requests for service are public.&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;In the current situation, an individual contacted Capitol Security and requested an automobile ride, a service provided by Capitol Security. This is clearly a request for service. Therefore, as Commissioner Jordan concluded, pursuant to Section 13.861, subdivision 2, any of the data contained on the tape which are similar to the data elements described in Section 13.82, subdivision 3, (a) through (d), are public. Specifically, any or all of the following data which document the individual&apos;s request to Capitol Security are public: (1) the nature of the request or the activity complained of; (2) the name and address of the individual making the request, unless the identity of the individual qualifies for protection under subdivision 10 (this qualification does not appear to apply in the present situation); (3) the time and date of the request or complaint; and (4) the response initiated and the response or incident report number. (See Section 13.82, subdivision 3, (a) through (d)).&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;Commissioner Jordan suggests the only data on the tape that may be public are request for service data. However, it is possible, depending on the content of the conversation on the tape, that the tape may contain some additional public data. Section 13.861 &lt;u&gt;also classifies as public&lt;/u&gt; those data described in Section 13.82, subdivision 4 (response or incident data). Accordingly, if any of the data contained on the tape document Capitol Security&apos;s response to the individual&apos;s request for service, and are similar to the data elements described in clauses (a) through (m), those data are public.&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;Given Commissioner Jordan&apos;s description of the content of the dispatch tape, it appears that the tape might contain data similar to those described in clauses (a), (b), and (f), of Section 13.82, subdivision 4. Clause (a) makes public the date, time, and place of the action ( action in this case being Capitol Security&apos;s response). Clause (b) makes public the agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action, unless the identities of agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 10. Clause (f) makes public a brief factual reconstruction of events associated with the action. Thus, if the dispatch tape contains any of the above data documenting Capitol Security&apos;s response to the individual&apos;s request for an automobile ride, those data are public under Section 13.82, subdivision 4.&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner Jordan is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Any data contained in the Capitol Security dispatch tape which are similar to the data described in Section 13.82, subdivision 3, (request for service data) and to the data described in Section 13.82, subdivision 4, (response or incident data) are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: February 5, 1996&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267351</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security service data/Capitol Security (13.861)</Title><Id>266871</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security information (13.37, subds. 1(a), 2)</Title><Id>266454</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security service data (13.861)</Title><Id>266963</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-17T19:58:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-007</Title><title>Opinion 96 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266735&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-02-05T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the first and last names of Stillwater Public School ninth grade (1995 school year) students and their parents/legal guardians public data?
Is a school district required, by Chapter 13, to provide requested data in a format specified by the requestor?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 5, 1996; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 5, 1996, PIPA received a FAX of a letter dated January 3, 1996, from Dean Berckes. In his letter, Mr. Berckes requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his difficulty in gaining access to certain data maintained by School District #834, Stillwater, hereinafter Stillwater.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Berckes&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Wettergren, Superintendent of Stillwater. The purposes of this letter, dated January 9, 1996, were to inform Superintendent Wettergren of Mr. Berckes&apos; request, to ask him or Stillwater&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Stillwater&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On January 19, PIPA received a FAXed response from Marv Swanson, Director of Personnel for Stillwater. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Berckes and Superintendent Wettergren were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Berckes supplied to PIPA a copy of a form letter which he has apparently mailed to many Minnesota school districts. In that letter, Mr. Berckes stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Enclosed you will find a request for the first and last names of the students and the names of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), in your school district for the
                      &lt;h2&gt;
                        ninth
                      &lt;/h2&gt;
                       grade for this current school year of 1995/1996. I would like to have this request in list form with one individual set for each of the grades identified by the grade. I would like to have this printed in alphabetical order by students last name with the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) name printed on the same line behind the students name or in a obvious manner that shows the relationship of student and parent(s) or guardian(s). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to a copy of a letter dated December 26, 1996, addressed to Mr. Berckes from Mr. Swanson, Mr. Berckes sent his request to Stillwater on December 19, 1995. In his response to that request, Mr. Swanson wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;In response to your December 19, 1995, request for information on students in our school system, please be advised that our School Board policy drafted pursuant to MSA 13.32, does not permit the release of a student&apos;s home address nor name and address of the student&apos;s parents or guardian without the consent of that parent or guardian....Please advise if you wish to have us prepare a list of the names of all 9th grade students for you. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Berckes&apos; opinion request, Mr. Swanson provided a copy of Stillwater&apos;s School Board policy which defines Stillwater&apos;s policy regarding directory information. Mr. Swanson stated, The definition of &apos;directory information&apos; as defined in the policy, and as consistently applied to all people and entities requesting student information, does not include the release of information as requested by Mr. Berckes, except as noted in my 12/26/95 letter to Mr. Berckes....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Berckes asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the first and last names of Stillwater Public School ninth grade (1995 school year) students and their parents/legal guardians public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a school district required, by Chapter 13, to provide requested data in a format specified by the requestor?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In his first question, Mr. Berckes has, essentially, asked the Commissioner to determine the classification of certain data about students and parents/legal guardians which are maintained by Stillwater. To make that determination, it is necessary to examine Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, educational data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.32, subdivision 1, states that educational data are data about individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. Subdivision 2 (b) of Section 13.32 states that data concerning parents are educational data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32 states that except as provided in subdivision 5, educational data are private data and shall not be disclosed except in certain circumstances. (Subdivision 3 does go on to list the additional circumstances in which private data may be disclosed. One of those exceptions includes obtaining consent from the data subject.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, it is the language of Section 13.32, subdivision 5, that relates to the issues raised by Mr. Berckes. Subdivision 5 states, Information designated as directory information pursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, section 1232g and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, section 99.37 which are in effect on July 1, 1993, is public data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In 34 CFR, directory information is defined in Section 99.3 as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...information contained in an education record of a student which would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to the student&apos;s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 99.37 of 34 CFR discusses the conditions which apply to disclosure of directory information:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and eligible students in attendance at the agency or institution of:
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(1) The types of personally identifiable information that the agency or institution has designated as directory information;
                                  &lt;p&gt;
                                    (2) A parent&apos;s or eligible student&apos;s right to refuse to let the agency or institution designate any or all of those types of information about the student as directory information; and
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                                    (3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does not want any or all of those types of information about the student designated as directory information.....
                                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, the effect of the interaction between state and federal law is that items of information properly designated under federal law as directory information become public data for purposes of Chapter 13. Proper designation means that a school district has performed the steps outlined in the federal code: (1) the district has designated the types of data it intends to treat as directory information; and (2) the district has given public notice to students and parents announcing (a) which data the district intends to treat as directory information, and (b) that students and parents may refuse to let the district treat those data as directory information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Obviously, if a parent or student notifies the school district that s/he does not wish certain data about that student to be directory information, those data would remain private. In addition, even if a school district has said it intends to treat certain data as directory information, those data cannot be released as public unless the district has completed all of the steps outlined in federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the present situation, Mr. Berckes has requested access to the first and last names of ninth grade students and the names of their parents/legal guardians. On the issue of directory information, the Stillwater School Board policy states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[Directory Information] Includes the following information and is considered public data: the student&apos;s name, major field of study, participation in activities, weights and heights of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, grade levels completed, degrees and awards received, and other similar information. It does not include religion, race, color, age, nationality, address, or phone number. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Stillwater &lt;u&gt;does not appear to have designated&lt;/u&gt;the names of parents/legal guardians as directory information. Thus, names of parents/legal guardians &lt;u&gt;cannot be public data and are not available&lt;/u&gt;to Mr. Berckes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, Stillwater &lt;u&gt;has designated&lt;/u&gt;the names and grade levels of students as directory information. Therefore, names and grade levels of students (unless any of those students and/or their parents have informed the district not to treat that data as directory), &lt;u&gt;are public and available&lt;/u&gt;to Mr. Berckes, as long as Stillwater has completed the notice requirement contained in federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Mr. Berckes in his opinion request is whether Stillwater is required to provide the requested data in a specific format. For example, Mr. Berckes requested that the data be formatted in a specific manner:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I would like to have this request in list form with one individual set for each of the grades identified by the grade. I would like to have this printed in alphabetical order by students last name with the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) name printed on the same line behind the students name or in a obvious manner that shows the relationship of student and parent(s) or guardian(s).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that government entities must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that upon request, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Chapter 13 clearly requires government entities to provide access to public data which those entities collect, create, receive, etc. However, there is no provision in Chapter 13 which imposes a general duty on government entities to create data or to provide data in a particular format specified by a requestor.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in regard to Mr. Berckes&apos; request, Chapter 13 imposes no obligation on Stillwater to provide the students&apos; names in any format in which they do not currently exist. Stillwater may choose to arrange the data in the manner desired by Mr. Berckes. However, pursuant to Chapter 13, Stillwater is not required to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Berckes is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                 For purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes that Stillwater has, in compliance with federal law, designated names and grade levels of students as directory information. Therefore, given that Stillwater &lt;u&gt;has&lt;/u&gt;designated student names and grade levels as directory information, those data are public. Given that Stillwater &lt;u&gt;has not&lt;/u&gt;designated the names of parents/guardians as directory information, those data are not public.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Chapter 13 does not impose a general duty on government entities to create data. In this situation, Stillwater is not required, by Chapter 13, to provide data in a format in which they do not exist.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 5, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266735</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Directory information</Title><Id>266274</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:43:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-006</Title><title>Opinion 96 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267655&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources complied with the public access requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when a member of the public requested access to government data and, after approximately ten weeks, has received no response?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 30, 1996; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 12, 1995, PIPA received a FAX dated December 13, 1995 (the Commissioner assumes this date is not correct), from Harold Meier. In his letter, Mr. Meier requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter MDNR.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Meier&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ron Sando, Commissioner of the MDNR. The purposes of this letter, dated December 15, 1995, were to inform Commissioner Sando of Mr. Meier&apos;s request, to ask him or the MDNR&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the MDNR&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The Commissioner did not receive a response from the MDNR. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Meier and Commissioner Sando were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. As part of his opinion request, Mr. Meier submitted a copy of a letter, dated September 27, 1995, sent by registered mail to Commissioner Sando. (Also according to documentation submitted by Mr. Meier, the MDNR received this letter on September 29, 1995.) In his letter to Mr. Sando, Mr. Meier wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am writing this letter to formally request the release to me of the report gathered by the state Attorney General&apos;s Office in investigating allegations of quota impositions by area supervisor in the DNR&apos;s Division of Enforcement, pursuant to a complaint by the Minnesota Conservation Officers Association. It is my understanding that this report is public information under the Minnesota Data Practices Act.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On January 5, 1996, PIPA received, from the MDNR, copies of documents that were apparently simultaneously mailed to Mr. Meier. A letter accompanying the documents, from MDNR staff to Mr. Meier, stated:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;In response to your request of September 27, 1995, I have enclosed the report of the investigation of the allegation that quotas were set by a DNR Area Enforcement Supervisor. As you will see, the report has some information blacked out. This is because the report contains personnel data and the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, makes personnel data private.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Upon receipt of those documents, PIPA staff contacted Mr. Meier who confirmed that, during the week of January 8, 1996, he had received data from the MDNR. Mr. Meier also stated that he still wished to have this opinion issued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Meier asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Has the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources complied with the public access requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when a member of the public requested access to government data and, after approximately ten weeks, has received no response?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provide the time requirements regarding access to public government data. In part, subdivision 2 states, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and &lt;u&gt;prompt manner&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, states, in part, the responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03....In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within &lt;u&gt;a reasonable time&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 states, in part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In summary, these provisions require government entities to maintain data in a manner such that requests for access to public government data may be responded to appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity must so notify the requestor, either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon thereafter as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The question at hand is whether the MDNR responded to Mr. Meier&apos;s request as required by Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. Specifically, did the MDNR provide a response to Mr. Meier&apos;s request in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time? In Commissioner of Administration &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion Number 96-003&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, the Commissioner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267053&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion Number 96-003&lt;/a&gt;, at least six weeks passed before the data requestor received any kind of a response from the government entity. As the Commissioner stated, such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable, especially when the data requested were not a point of confusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the present situation, it took the MDNR approximately thirteen weeks to respond to Mr. Meier&apos;s request. The MDNR clearly did not respond to Mr. Meier within the time requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, if some of the data contained in the requested report are not available to Mr. Meier because those data are not public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, Mr. Meier should have been so advised either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Meier is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Given that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) took at least thirteen weeks to respond to Mr. Meier&apos;s request for access to government data, the MDNR did not respond within the time frame required by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: January 30, 1996&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267655</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-10T21:08:29Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-005</Title><title>Opinion 96 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267107&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-25T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of the names and addresses of persons or entities who currently are insured, for Dram Shop liquor liability, by the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (JUA)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 25, 1996; Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: In 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in &lt;em&gt;Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association v. Star Tribune&lt;/em&gt; that MJUA is not a government entity, which supersedes the conclusion of this opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 8, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated December 5, 1995, from Douglas Franzen, an attorney representing the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association, hereinafter JUA. In his letter, Mr Franzen requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the JUA. (Mr. Franzen&apos;s request was not processed until January 5, 1996, because that is the date PIPA received the fee required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, for requests by government entities.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his letter, Mr. Franzen stated that the JUA is organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62I. He also explained that the JUA&apos;s statutory purpose is to provide certain types of insurance coverage, e.g., Dram Shop liquor liability insurance, to persons or entities not otherwise able to obtain such insurance.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Franzen asked the Commissioner whether Chapter 13, or any other data practices laws, preclude or restrict in any way, the [data requestor&apos;s] right to obtain [a listing of the names and addresses of persons or entities who currently are insured by the JUA for Dram Shop liquor liability] from the JUA or the JUA&apos;s right or obligation to provide such information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Franzen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of the names and addresses of persons or entities who currently are insured, for Dram Shop liquor liability, by the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (JUA)?
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  To address Mr. Franzen&apos;s question, it is first necessary to determine whether the JUA is subject to Chapter 13. Section 13.01, subdivision 1, states that all state agencies, political subdivisions, and statewide systems shall be governed by Chapter 13. Section 13.02, subdivision 17, defines state agency as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district, or agency of the state. Given the JUA is an association created by Minnesota statute, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that the JUA is a state agency, for purposes of Chapter 13, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    All data subject to Chapter 13 are presumed to be public unless those data are otherwise classified in statute, in federal law, or by a temporary classification. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.) Therefore, it is next necessary to determine whether the data in question are classified in statute, in federal law, or by temporary classification as anything other than public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, Chapter 13 itself does not contain any provisions that appear to classify data about JUA Dram Shop liquor liability insureds as anything other than public data. Second, upon review of Minnesota Statutes Section 62I, it does not appear that any of its provisions classify data relating to Dram Shop liquor liability insureds as anything other than public. Third, the Commissioner is not aware of any other Minnesota statute or any federal law which would classify the data in question. Fourth, there are no temporary classifications relating to the data in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, because the data relating to Dram Shop liquor liability insureds do not appear to be classified as anything other than public, those data are public by operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Franzen is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It appears that the names and addresses of persons or entities currently insured, for Dram Shop liquor liability, by the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association are public data.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 25, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267107</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) (Superseded by MJUA v. Star Tribune, A13-2112, April 8, 2013 (Minn.))</Title><Id>267101</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:00:24Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-004</Title><title>Opinion 96 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267847&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-25T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>With respect to the termination of the employment of the city employee, does simply citing the three sections of the City&apos;s code of ordinances satisfy the &quot;specific reasons&quot; requirement of §13.43, subd. 2(a)?
Since it appears clear that the City Council relied on the City administrator&apos;s report in deciding to terminate the city employee, must the City provide a copy of that report, as well as any other documentation relating to the decision?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 25, 1996; City of Victoria</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On December 21, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the &lt;u&gt;Chaska Herald&lt;/u&gt; newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by the City of Victoria. Mr. Anfinson enclosed a copy of an article published in the &lt;u&gt;Chaska Herald&lt;/u&gt;, dated December 14, 1995, which provides additional background information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Miriam Porter, City administrator for Victoria. The purposes of this letter, dated December 22, 1995, were to inform Ms. Porter of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask her or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Porter were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 9, 1996, PIPA received a response from Christopher J. Harristhal, attorney for the City. Subsequently, the Commissioner asked Mr. Harristhal to provide a copy of the City&apos;s personnel policies. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The City recently fired a longtime employee. According to Mr. Anfinson:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When the newspaper learned of this, it requested the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and all the data documenting the basis for the action, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 2(a). The newspaper understands that among other documents, a report was submitted to the council by the city administrator, criticizing the performance of the [city employee]. It seems clear that the council relied in significant part on this report in deciding to terminate his employment; the motion to fire the [city employee] expressly includes language accepting the findings contained in the report.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Anfinson, the City responded to the newspaper&apos;s request by providing . . . only three citations to portions of the Victoria city code. These simply describe in general terms behavior that the city believes to be unacceptable.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Harristhal stated that, pursuant to the City&apos;s personnel policy, the employee has exercised his right to a review proceeding before the City Council, which has not yet taken place. According to Mr. Harristhal,
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The &apos;specific reasons&apos; requirement of [Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)] does not come into play until there has been final disciplinary action. To date, there has been no final disciplinary action and therefore no obligation to provide the specific reasons for the . . . termination.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The same statutory provision which triggers the obligation to provide the specific reasons for a disciplinary action also embodies the obligation to provide supporting documentation for a disciplinary decision. Again, since no final disposition has yet occurred, the [report] has not yet become public.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Harristhal did not dispute Mr. Anfinson&apos;s assertion that the City Council relied upon the administrator&apos;s report in reaching its decision to dismiss the city employee.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            With respect to the termination of the employment of the city employee, does simply citing the three sections of the City&apos;s code of ordinances satisfy the specific reasons requirement of section13.43, subd. 2(a)?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Since it appears clear that the City Council relied on the City administrator&apos;s report in deciding to terminate the city employee, must the City provide a copy of that report, as well as any other documentation relating to the decision?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 governs personnel data, which are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . [a] political subdivision . . . .
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 2(a), in relevant part, provides that the following personnel data are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[T]he existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [and] the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[A] final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, whether the City has met its statutory obligation to provide the public with appropriate access to the data in question is dependent upon whether there has been a final disposition of a disciplinary action, within the meaning of Section 13.43. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Harristhal stated that there has not yet been a final disposition, because the employee has exercised his right, under the City&apos;s personnel policies, to have a hearing before the City Council. Mr. Harristhal acknowledged that the specific reasons for the city employee&apos;s termination, and data which document the decision, including such data contained in the administrator&apos;s report, would become public when the disciplinary action was final.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Apparently, according to the City&apos;s personnel policies governing the city employee&apos;s termination, he is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The classification of the data at issue is therefore dependent upon whether the City has made &lt;u&gt;its final decision&lt;/u&gt; about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b), above.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     According to the City&apos;s personnel policy, in the case of a dismissal, if the employee submits a written request within the time frame provided, the employee shall be granted a hearing before the [City] council. (See Section 255.11, subdivision 4, Victoria City Code.) It appears that the decision the City Council makes about the employee&apos;s termination, &lt;u&gt;after&lt;/u&gt; the employee&apos;s hearing before the Council, will be the City&apos;s final decision. The Commissioner discussed a similar disciplinary process in Advisory Opinion Number 94-019:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;By its adoption of the Charter and Code provisions dealing with the employee review board, [the City of] Crystal has made the operation of the employee review board and appeals to it by employees an integral part of the process Crystal uses to deal with employee disciplinary matters. Although from a temporal standpoint, a decision by the employee review board may be a later proceeding, decisions by the board are actually the last step in an integrated process used by Crystal to process employee disciplinary matters. Crystal has established and supports the employee review board. The board is not making decisions for itself. It is making decisions on behalf of the City of Crystal. Decisions by the employee review board, to either not review a decision of the city manager or to review a city manager&apos;s decision in a hearing and either uphold the decision or to modify it, are the final decisions of the City of Crystal for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Similarly, the decision the Victoria City Council makes about the dismissal, after the dismissed employee&apos;s hearing before it, is the final decision of the City for purposes of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). Therefore, the specific reasons for the employee&apos;s termination, and data which document that decision, including such data in the City administrator&apos;s report, will become public government data after the employee&apos;s hearing before the City Council, if the Council decides to uphold the disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The City&apos;s position is that because it has not yet made its final decision regarding the employee&apos;s disciplinary action, neither the specific reasons for disciplinary action nor data documenting the basis of the action are public data at this time. However, according to the &lt;u&gt;Chaska Herald&lt;/u&gt; article, when the City publicly announced the employee&apos;s termination, it cited three specific provisions of Section 255:12 of the City Code as its reasons for dismissing the employee. Those numbered provisions, listed in the Code among various grounds for dismissal, are: (1) Incompetency in the performance of duties; (7) Discourteous, insulting, abusive or inflammatory conduct toward the public or fellow employees; and (13) Evidence of failure to observe safety rules, regulations, ordinances or statutes.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson asked whether the citation of those specific provisions of the City Code satisfied the specific reasons requirements of Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), i.e., the specific reasons for final disciplinary action. It may well be the case that the employee&apos;s violation of a specific provision of Section 255:12 of the City Code constitutes the specific reason for any disciplinary action. If that is the case, then the City could meet its obligation to provide public access to the specific reasons for the disciplinary action, once the action is final, simply by citing the relevant provisions of the Code. (It would not, however, satisfy the City&apos;s obligation to provide public access to data which document the basis for the action.) Given the City&apos;s position that the disciplinary action is not yet final, it is puzzling that it chose to provide to the public what might be the specific reasons for the action, before the action is final.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Victoria City Code may contain sufficient detail such that it may be sufficient for the City simply to cite three sections of the Code as the specific reasons for disciplinary action, once the disciplinary action is final.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Since it appears clear that the City Council relied on data in the City administrator&apos;s report in deciding to terminate the city employee, the City must provide copies of those data, as well as any other documentation relating to the decision, after the City has made its final decision to impose disciplinary action, in conformance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a).
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 25, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267847</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:43:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-003</Title><title>Opinion 96 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267053&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act require the MPHA to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use? If so, has the MPHA done so?
Was the MPHA&apos;s October 26, 1995, response to the Tenants Union&apos;s September 12, 1995, letter requesting government data &quot;prompt&quot; as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2?
Did the MPHA respond to the Tenants Union&apos;s request &quot;within a reasonable time&quot; as required by Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 23, 1996; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Lindsay R. M. Jones, an attorney representing the Minnesota Tenants Union, in which he described his client&apos;s attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA.) Mr. Jones enclosed copies of relevant correspondence.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Jones&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cora McCorvey, Executive Director of the MPHA. The purposes of this letter, dated December 5, 1995, were to inform Ms. McCorvey of Mr. Jones&apos; request, to ask her or the MPHA&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Jones and Ms. McCorvey were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 12, 1995, PIPA received a response from Louis N. Smith, an attorney representing the MPHA. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 On September 13, 1995, Kirk Hill, Director of the Minnesota Tenants Union, wrote to Ms. McCorvey, and requested access to the survey conducted by the MPHA of Sumner-Olson, Glenwood, and other public housing tenants as part of the [&lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;] lawsuit.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 26, 1985, Mr. Smith responded to Mr. Hill. Mr. Smith wrote: [w]e have determined that the data you requested constitutes protected non-public data under Minnesota Statute Section 13.39 (investigative data). Accordingly, we have advised the MPHA not to produce the data to you. Mr. Smith also advised Mr. Hill that the MPHA had requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration concerning the proper classification of the survey data. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-054.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Smith wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The [MPHA] readily acknowledges its obligations under [Chapter 13] to maintain its data in an accessible form and to be responsive to requests for public information. The particular data requested by the Minnesota Tenant&apos;s Union, however, arose in the context of the Hollman v. Cisneros litigation, and the question of whether the data requested may be released is a peculiar legal issue involving the interpretation of several ambiguous provisions of Minnesota Statutes 13.39.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The MPHA responded by seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration, which has in turn taken a reasonable period of time to resolve this issue. Under these circumstances, the MPHA has responded to the Minnesota Tenant&apos;s Union in a timely manner.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Jones asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act require the MPHA to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use? If so, has the MPHA done so?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Was the MPHA&apos;s October 26, 1995, response to the Tenants Union&apos;s September 12, 1995, letter requesting government data prompt as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the MPHA respond to the Tenants Union&apos;s request within a reasonable time as required by Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data. Subdivision 1 provides: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides: [t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 3 provides:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that [t]he responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with [Section] 13.03. . . . In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, these provisions require government entities to maintain data in such manner as to enable them to respond to requests for access to government data appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity is required to so notify the requester orally at the time it receives the request, or in writing as soon as possible thereafter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Hill requested access to government data maintained by the MPHA, which he apparently assumed were public, on September 13, 1995. From the copies of the correspondence between Mr. Hill and the MPHA, the data sought by Mr. Hill were clearly identified by him. The MPHA apparently did not, at any time, suggest to Mr. Hill that the data did not exist. However, the MPHA did not provide Mr. Hill with any response to his request for six weeks. Six weeks after the date of his request, Mr. Hill was informed that the MPHA considered the data to be classified as protected nonpublic data, and therefore not accessible to him. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 13.) At the same time, he was informed that the MPHA was seeking confirmation of its position in the form of a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Essentially, all three of the issues to be addressed in this opinion relate to whether the MPHA met its full obligation, under Chapter 13, to provide Mr. Hill with a prompt, reasonable and appropriate response to his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the MPHA is required to maintain its government data in such an arrangement and condition as to be easily accessible for convenient use. Mr. Jones asked whether the MPHA had done so. The MPHA did not determine the proper classification of the survey data, and communicate that to Mr. Hill, for six weeks. The MPHA did not seek assistance in the form of a Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion for six weeks.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether the MPHA was maintaining the survey data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. However, given the MPHA&apos;s lack of any response to Mr. Hill for six weeks, it is reasonable to assume that if the survey data were being maintained as such, the MPHA ought to have been able to respond to Mr. Hill&apos;s request within days, not weeks.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue is whether the MPHA&apos;s October 26, 1995, response to the Tenants Union&apos;s September 13, 1995, letter requesting government data was prompt as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The third issue is whether the MPHA&apos;s response to Mr. Hill was within a reasonable time pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 2. As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 13.03, the MPHA was required to communicate its determination regarding the classification of the survey to Mr. Hill at the time he made his request, or as soon after that time as possible. The MPHA did not provide information to the Commissioner about its data practices policies and procedures. However, in instances like this one, those procedures ought to provide for a response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request within a matter of days, not weeks. For further discussion of this issue, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-006.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the realities of large-scale data collection and generation by government entities, there may be instances in which a request for access to government data is complicated due to confusion as to what specific data are sought. That is not the case here. Therefore, the MPHA ought to have told Mr. Hill that the survey data were not public, pursuant to Section 13.39, and/or sought assistance from the Commissioner in the form of an advisory opinion, in less than six weeks&apos; time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Jones is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requires the MPHA to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. In this instance, the Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether the MPHA was maintaining the survey data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. However, given the MPHA&apos;s lack of any response to Mr. Hill for six weeks, it is reasonable to assume that if the survey data were being maintained as such, the MPHA ought to have been able to respond to Mr. Hill&apos;s request within days, not weeks.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The MPHA&apos;s October 26, 1995, response to the Tenants Union&apos;s September 12, 1995, letter requesting government data was not prompt as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The MPHA did not respond to the Tenants Union&apos;s request within a reasonable time as required by Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 23, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267053</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:43:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-002</Title><title>Opinion 96 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267552&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Upon responding to a request for access to data by a data subject, is it appropriate, pursuant to Chapter 13, for a government entity to withhold entire documents because those documents apparently contain private or confidential data about the data subject and another individual(s)?
What is the classification of data which identify individuals who have made complaints against employees of government entities?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 1996; City of Mahtomedi</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On November 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated November 20, 1995, from Scott Martin, an attorney representing X. In his letter, Mr. Martin requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by the City of Mahtomedi, hereinafter Mahtomedi.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Martin&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Olinger, City Administrator of Mahtomedi. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 1995, were to inform Mr. Olinger of Mr. Martin&apos;s request, to ask him or Mahtomedi&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Mahtomedi&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On December 15, 1995, PIPA received a response, by FAX, dated December 15, 1995, from Becky Thorson and William Everett, attorneys for Mahtomedi. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Martin, Mr. Olinger and Ms. Thorson were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner wishes to add that in a letter dated November 22, 1995, Ms. Thorson requested that the Commissioner not issue this opinion because X has brought a lawsuit against Mahtomedi seeking an order to compel the release of the documents which are the subject of this opinion. Mr. Martin responded to Ms. Thorson&apos;s request in a letter to the Commissioner dated November 27, 1995, by urging the Commissioner to issue this opinion. As is evident, the Commissioner determined to proceed with Mr. Martin&apos;s request for an opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this matter is as follows. According to Mr. Martin, X is a former employee of Mahtomedi. In the spring of 1995, X requested, from Mahtomedi, all personnel data regarding himself. Mr. Martin wrote, ...X was finally advised that certain documents were being withheld from him because other persons could also be identified in those documents, and that those individuals also had privacy interests in those documents pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43. Mr. Martin also wrote that he believes Mahtomedi&apos;s position of withholding entire documents, because portions of those documents contain data regarding others, is without support in statute or case law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, Mr. Martin argued it is inappropriate for Mahtomedi to withhold a document containing the name of an individual who is claimed to have contacted X&apos;s supervisor John Olinger to make a complaint regarding X&apos;s conduct.... Mr. Martin wrote, In denying X&apos;s request for the identity of the individual, the City attempts to claim that the individual making the complaint has a privacy interest in the release of her name under the Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The City agrees...that entire documents may not be withheld if redaction will adequately prevent the disclosure of private or confidential data on other individuals. The City respectfully urges the Commissioner in answering this inquiry, however, to recognize that circumstances may sometimes exist where withholding multiple subjects documents in their entirety is the only means for protecting private or confidential data about subjects &lt;em&gt;othe&lt;/em&gt;r than the requestor.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In responding to the second issue raised by Mr. Martin, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett argued, based on Section 13.43, subdivision 8, that the data in question may be inaccessible to the complained about individual. Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett then raised three additional issues stating, The parties in this case would be most assisted with guidance from the Commissioner addressing a number of these circumstances. As the Commissioner noted in her December 6, 1995, letter to Mahtomedi&apos;s City Administrator, it is her intention, in this advisory opinion, to address the two issues raised by Mr. Martin in his opinion request. Mahtomedi is certainly welcome to request additional advisory opinions if it so desires.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Martin asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Upon responding to a request for access to data by a data subject, is it appropriate, pursuant to Chapter 13, for a government entity to withhold entire documents because those documents apparently contain private or confidential data about the data subject and another individual(s)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data which identify individuals who have made complaints against employees of government entities?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In debating the first issue, both Mr. Martin and Ms. Thorson/Mr. Everett cited Commissioner of Administration&apos;s Advisory Opinion Number 94-034 and &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/u&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993). In his opinion request, Mr. Martin stated that the court in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt; first noted that Chapter 13 contemplates the possibility of documents containing both public and nonpublic data and provides for their separation.
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Martin also cited Advisory Opinion Number 94-034, stating, ...the Commissioner of Administration stated that the legislature by enacting Minn.Stat.Sec. 13.04 recognized that the information regarding individuals stored by the government can have a tremendous impact on the life of the individual, and has therefore given individuals liberal access to the data held by the government. Therefore, said Mr. Martin, Mahtomedi should provide the requested documents, editing out such portions as may be necessary to protect the privacy rights of others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett argued, based on both the holding in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt; and language in Advisory Opinion Number 94-034, that if the nature of a document is such that disclosable and non-disclosable data cannot be separated, then the document cannot be released. Of the situation-at-hand, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett stated, Some documents, however, contained confidential or private data on other individuals, besides X. The City contacted most of the other subjects. These people have refused to give the City a waiver authorizing release of data of which they are the subject. Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett further stated:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The City agrees with the principle of data practices law advanced by [X] that entire documents may not be withheld if redaction will adequately prevent disclosure of private or confidential data on other individuals. The City respectfully urges the Commissioner in answering this inquiry, however, to recognize that circumstances may sometimes exist where withholding multiple subjects documents in their entirety is the only means for protecting private or confidential data about subjects &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; than the requestor.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinion Number 94-034, it is her opinion that if documents, etc., contain data about one or more data subjects, it may be necessary for a government entity to withhold, from one or more of the data subjects, access to some or all of the content of those documents. The Commissioner&apos;s position is buttressed by the holding in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt; which states that entire documents may be withheld under Chapter 13 only when public and nonpublic information is so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. However, it is important to note that the Commissioner, as well as the court in &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications&lt;/u&gt;, maintains that denial of access of data to the data subject should occur only in situations where it is &lt;u&gt;impossible&lt;/u&gt; to appropriately separate or redact the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the present situation, if it is not possible for Mahtomedi to separate the multiple subject data (of which X is a subject) without releasing private data about another data subject, then it is appropriate for Mahtomedi to withhold entire documents from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addressing the second issue, Mr. Martin argues that under &lt;u&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/u&gt;, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991), the identity of the complainant must be made available to X. As Mr. Martin noted, the court in Demers held that information identifying complainants on nonpending, noncurrent police departmental internal affairs complaint forms is public government data under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett argue that while the identity of a complainant is generally information to which an employee is entitled, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 8, such data can be withheld. Section 13.43, subdivision 8 states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;(1) threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or
&lt;p&gt;(2) subject the complainant or witness to harassment. If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current situation, Mahtomedi has apparently taken the position that the complaint made against X was, in its nature, harassing. Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett stated, That complaint, together with the context and circumstances surrounding its receipt...compelled the City to regard the complaint as harassment data under section 13.43, subd. 8. (In his opinion request, Mr. Martin disputed Mahtomedi&apos;s analysis of the complaint by stating, X was not accused of harassing the individual who made the complaint to Mr. Olinger. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett further noted that Section 13.43, subdivision 8, expressly sets forth the threshold for disclosure of harassment data....If no disciplinary action is taken against the employee as a result of the complaint, then no need for disclosure is justified. Apparently, Mahtomedi has taken the position that because X was not disciplined as a result of this particular complaint, he is not entitled to gain access to the identity of the complainant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addressing the second issue of this advisory opinion, it is important to look first to the &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt;case, in which an individual requested access to complaints made to a city regarding the city&apos;s police officers. The city, in responding to the request, withheld the identity of the individuals making complaints, asserting that the data were private personnel data under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. In part, the court wrote:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Personnel data, as defined by Minn.Stat. section 13.43, subd. 1, includes data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee.... Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified &lt;em&gt;as the subjec&lt;/em&gt;t of that data * * *. Minn.Stat. section 13.02, subd. 5 (1988) (emphasis added). The plain language of these statutes indicates that personnel data are data that identify the employee who is the subject of the data. The police officer, whose identity is public data under section 13.43, is the subject of the data. The complainant is neither the employee nor the subject of the data. Accordingly, as held by the trial court and the court of appeals, information identifying the internal affairs complainant is not personnel data at all.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The court went on to find that information identifying complainants on nonpending, noncurrent police departmental internal affairs complaint forms is public government data subject to disclosure under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, based on &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt;, it seems clear that identifying data about a complainant who is not an employee are public data. However, the difficulty with the &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt;case is that it is unclear whether its holding also applies to situations in which the complainant is an employee. The court makes at least two comments which could lead one to reasonably conclude that the holding does not apply to employee complainants. The court stated, Similarly, respondent has agreed throughout the proceeding that portions of internal affairs files are not public, particularly those data so classified, such as names of juveniles, victims of abuse or &lt;u&gt;co-employees&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) The court also stated, The complainant is neither the employee nor the subject of the data [therefore, the data cannot be private personnel data].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In applying the &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt; analysis to the current situation, it is clear that if the complainant whose identity is sought by X is not a current or former employee of Mahtomedi, then identifying data about her/him should be accessible to X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, if the complainant is a current or former employee of Mahtomedi, it appears that &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt; does not apply and therefore, the identifying data are personnel data (see Section 13.43) about the complainant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In their response to Mr. Martin&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett argued that regardless of the &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt; holding, Mahtomedi, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 8, may withhold from X, access to identifying data about the complainant. This is so, stated Ms. Thorson and Mr. Everett, because the complaint was one of harassment; because Mahtomedi&apos;s responsible authority had determined that X&apos;s access to the data would either threaten the personal safety of the complainant, or subject the complainant to harassment; and because no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against X as a result of the complaint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the Commissioner appreciates Mahtomedi&apos;s argument and analysis, they do create a practical problem which the Commissioner believes was not intended by the Legislature when it enacted Section 13.43, subdivision 8. The problem with the use of subdivision 8 arises if the complainant is not an employee. In such a situation, the result of accepting Mahtomedi&apos;s argument would be that identifying data about the complainant would not be accessible to the complained about employee, but would be available, based on &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt;, to members of the public. This result, i.e., that the data are available to all individuals except the person being complained about, seems absurd to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This result is reached because Section 13.43, subdivision 8, does not classify data about a complainant as anything other than public. Rather, it specifies the situations in which access to data that identify the complainant, or other witnesses, can be withheld from an employee being complained about.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 624.24, the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, it does not appear that Mahtomedi may invoke Section 13.43, subdivision 8, in this situation. However, because the Commissioner understands the dilemma created by Mahtomedi&apos;s argument, it is the Commissioner&apos;s intention to bring this matter to the 1996 Legislature in hopes of obtaining some type of resolution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Martin is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Upon request for access to data by a data subject, if a document contains private data about the data subject and other individuals, the government entity may withhold the entire document if it is not possible for the data in the document to be separated without releasing private data about another data subject to the requestor.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the person who complains about an employee of a government entity is not an employee of the entity, identifying data about that complainant are public. If, however, the complainant is an employee of the entity, the data are classified pursuant to Section 13.43 and are private data about the complainant.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 16, 1996
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267552</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)</Title><Id>266327</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access</Title><Id>267012</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:43:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 96-001</Title><title>Opinion 96 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267765&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1996-01-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Independent School District 191, Burnsville, provided the Commissioner with two documents, each of which relates to a specific District 191 employee. The District asked the following question: do either or both of the documents contain data which document disciplinary action taken against the two employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 9, 1996; School District 191 (Burnsville)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity requesting this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On November 20, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated November 17, 1995, from Anne Krisnik, an attorney representing Independent School District Number 191, Burnsville, hereinafter Burnsville. In her letter, Ms. Krisnik requested an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Burnsville.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Ms. Krisnik wrote:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Last year, the School District investigated concerns into employee conduct and issued written documentation to both employees setting forth the behaviors of concern and specific directives for corrective action. The District has received a request for copies of the documentation given to these employees. The District understands that if the documents are considered to be disciplinary as that term is used in Section 13.43 of the Data Practices Act, they are available for release. However, if the documents are not considered to be disciplinary but rather are considered to be directives, the District may not release them.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Krisnik then requested that the Commissioner review the documents on both employees and determine whether they are disciplinary and, therefore, whether they may be released by the District.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Upon receiving Ms. Krisnik&apos;s request, the Commissioner, as authorized in Section 13.072, contacted, in letters dated December 13, 1995, the two Burnsville employees to invite them to offer any comments. In addition, the Commissioner requested from Ms. Krisnik any information regarding policies and/or procedures relating to discipline contained in either the employees&apos; contract or Burnsville&apos;s general policies. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Krisnik was informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, David Moracco of the Minnesota Education Association, hereinafter MEA, submitted written comments, in a FAX dated January 3, 1996, on behalf of the two employees and made several arguments as to why it is the opinion of the MEA that the two documents do not document disciplinary action. In addition, in a FAX dated December 11, 1996, Ms. Krisnik provided a copy of the portion of the employees&apos; contract which relates to discipline. Ms. Krisnik stated, There is no separate Board policy dealing with progressive discipline.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Krisnik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Independent School District 191, Burnsville, provided the Commissioner with two documents, each of which relates to a specific District 191 employee. The District asked the following question: do either or both of the documents contain data which document disciplinary action taken against the two employees? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The question raised by Ms. Krisnik is whether the data at issue, which apparently were created as a result of complaints made by students and staff, are public or private data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be no question that the data contained in the two documents were created and are maintained because the subjects of the data are employees of a government entity, i.e., Burnsville. Therefore, for the purposes of Chapter 13, those data are classified under Section 13.43, personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 provides that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this opinion, Subdivision 2 (a) clauses 4 and 5, provide that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action, together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), defines, for the purposes of Chapter 13, the term final disposition as:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Thus, if no final disposition, as defined in subdivision 2 (b), regarding a disciplinary action has occurred, only those data relating to the existence and status of a complaint or charge are public. Further, if no disciplinary action has been taken, there cannot be a final disposition.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The answer to Ms. Krisnik&apos;s question depends, therefore, on whether disciplinary action was taken by Burnsville and if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, the first issue to be addressed is whether any of the data about the two employees document disciplinary action taken by Burnsville against the two employees. (Again, if the data are not disciplinary in nature, a final disposition could not have occurred and, therefore, only very limited data regarding the complaints or charges are public.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon first glance of the two documents (which are memos directed to the individual employees), it appeared, given the differences in the reference headings, that they were dissimilar in content. One of the memos states, Re: Concerns about Conduct, Record of Oral Reprimand while the other memo states, Re: Concerns about Conduct, Conference Summary. However, upon a more thorough examination, it appears to the Commissioner and to PIPA staff that the contents of the two documents are actually quite similar.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Each document is three paragraphs long. The first paragraph in each memo, in essence, states that Burnsville received reports from either, or both, students and staff regarding inappropriate behavior on behalf of each of the employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second paragraph in memo number one states it is Burnsville&apos;s expectation that employees refrain from engaging in the inappropriate behavior attributed to that employee. The second paragraph in memo number two states that the employee should refrain from engaging in the inappropriate behavior attributed to that employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third paragraph in memo number one states it is Burnsville&apos;s expectation that the employee will refrain from engaging in inappropriate behavior and also states, After our discussions, it is clear that you understand the School District&apos;s expectations for professional staff and feel comfortable with the District&apos;s expectations for.... The third paragraph in memo number two states it is Burnsville&apos;s expectation that the employee will refrain from the inappropriate behavior and also states we discussed strategies to use to avoid [the inappropriate behavior].
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In determining whether either, or both, of the memos are disciplinary in nature, the Commissioner has relied upon the language, which relates to discipline, contained in the employees&apos; contract. As provided by Ms. Krisnik, Section 12 of this contract states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Subd. 2. The School District shall draw [an employee&apos;s] attention to the lack of professional conduct in the following ways:
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            a. oral reprimand
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            b. written reprimand
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            c. suspension without pay
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            d. notice of deficiency
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            e. loss of salary increase for substandard performance
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            f. discharge per M.S. section125.12.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Use of items a to f above need not be in progressive order; dependent on the frequency and severity of the lack of professional conduct any or all of the above may be used.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            Subd. 3. The following information will be provided with notice of disciplinary action:
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            a. a review of the rule, regulation, code, policy, etc., that defines the expected behavior;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            b. a description of the inaction or failure of the employee to comply with the expectation, including an outline of previous oral or written reprimands;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            c. a reference to the grievance process as defined in the Master Agreement; and
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            d. notice that the Association President will be copied [on] any suspension without pay, notices of deficiency, loss of salary increases, or notice of discharge unless the [employee] objects in writing within ten (10) calendar days; any grievance in this category would begin at Level lll.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the above contract language, it appears that while there are many ways in which Burnsville may draw an employee&apos;s attention to a lack of professional conduct, any such actions taken by Burnsville are not considered disciplinary unless certain information accompanies the notice of inappropriate behavior.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the situation-at-hand, based on the information provided by Ms. Krisnik, it is clear that none of the information required to be provided with a notice of disciplinary action, was, in fact, provided to either employee, in either memo number one or memo number two. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that neither of the memos contains data documenting disciplinary action by Burnsville against the two employees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (The Commissioner does wish to note that while she appreciates having received comments from the MEA, she found it unnecessary to rely upon those comments.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Krisnik is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When considered in light of the employees&apos; contract (which requires that certain information be provided with a notice of discipline), the data in question do not constitute data which document disciplinary action taken against the two employees, and are, therefore, not public data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 9, 1996
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267765</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Policy or contract determines</Title><Id>266857</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reprimand</Title><Id>266294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:43:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory responsibilities government</Title><Id>375060</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-055</Title><title>Opinion 95 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267112&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Minnesota Statutes Section 518.575 authorizes the publication of certain data on individuals that would otherwise be classified as private data by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46. If the Minnesota Department of Human Services published those data without complying with the requirements of Section 517.575, was that publication a violation of Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 28, 1995; Minnesota Department of Human Services</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 9, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated November 8, 1995, from William Morris, an attorney representing T. In his letter, Mr. Morris requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Minnesota Department of Human Services, hereinafter MDHS, inappropriately disclosed private data about T.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Morris&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Maria Gomez, Commissioner of MDHS. The purposes of this letter, dated November 13, 1995, were to inform Commissioner Gomez of Mr. Morris&apos; request, to ask her or MDHS&apos; attorney to provide information or support for MDHS&apos; position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On November 27, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated November 27, 1995, from David Schultz, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Morris and Mr. Schultz were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to a marriage dissolution decree, T is required to pay monthly child support through the Hennepin County Department of Human Services. According to Mr. Morris, for several months in 1991, T changed jobs and paid child support directly to T&apos;s former spouse. Subsequently, Hennepin County Support and Collection Services contacted T regarding the payments which had not been processed through the County. Mr. Morris wrote, After an investigation that required [T] to provide supportive documentation, Hennepin County determined that [T] had made all the required payments. As far as my client was concerned, this matter was cleared up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Morris then stated that on January 31, 1995, the MDHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 518.575, published T&apos;s name in an advertisement in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The ad, a copy of which was provided by Mr. Morris, read, in part, The parents named here are among 211 of Minnesota&apos;s most delinquent parents whose cases are handled by county agencies. These parents owe $9.8 million in child support. they [sic] owe at least $36,300 each and have paid less than 25% of support owed during the last year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Morris further stated that T did not receive the written notice, as required by Section 518.575, stating the Department&apos;s intention to publish the obligor&apos;s name and the amount of child support owed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response, Mr. Schultz cited the parameters within which, according to Section 13.072, the Commissioner may issue an opinion requested by a government entity and then argued, on the basis of that statutory language, why rendering such an opinion may be proper in some circumstances, it is not so in the present case. (In fact, this opinion was not requested by a government entity but rather by an individual. Section 13.072 also provides parameters within which the Commissioner may issue an opinion requested by an individual and Mr. Morris&apos; request falls within those parameters.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, Mr. Schultz asserted that Mr. Morris&apos; letter makes several factual assertions which the MDHS presently disputes. Mr. Schultz stated, Resolving such fact disputes is not part of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion function. Nor should it be. It should be noted that Mr. Schultz did not provide details regarding the MDHS&apos; position on the facts of this situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, Mr. Schultz argued that this opinion should not be issued because Mr. Morris has apparently indicated his intention to sue the MDHS for the publication regarding T. Mr. Schultz stated, By asking the Commissioner to adopt the argument of one side to this dispute, Mr. Morris seeks to involve the Commissioner in his litigation and to gain tactical advantage by doing so....Mr. Morris is attempting to use this statute as a substitute for litigation in a manner that is improper. The publication has already occurred. From an advisory standpoint any opinion that is issued will be moot. Thus, the opinion can only purport to determine liability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Morris asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 518.575 authorizes the publication of certain data on individuals that would otherwise be classified as private data by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46. If the Minnesota Department of Human Services published those data without complying with the requirements of Section 517.575, was that publication a violation of Chapter 13?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before addressing the issue raised by Mr. Morris, it is necessary to respond to Mr. Schultz&apos; comments. Mr. Schultz stated, This section of the Data Practices Act [Section 13.072] provides for a written opinion by the Commissioner of Administration in one of three limited circumstances: (1) to resolve questions relating to classification of data; (2) to resolve questions relating to rights of the subjects of data; or (3) to resolve questions relating to public access to the data. However, Mr. Schultz&apos; statement is both somewhat incorrect and somewhat confusing.
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In fact, Section 13.072 provides that the Commissioner may issue advisory opinions requested by both government entities and individuals but the circumstances under which an opinion may be issued differs depending upon whether the requestor is an individual or a government entity. In his response, it appears that Mr. Schultz has analyzed the appropriateness of Mr. Morris&apos; opinion request based on the language relating to opinion requests made by government entities. In part, Section 13.072 subdivision 1, states, &lt;u&gt;Upon request of a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision&lt;/u&gt;, the commissioner may give a written opinion on any question relating to public access to government data, rights of subjects of data, or classification of data under this chapter or other Minnesota statutes governing government data practices. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, this opinion was requested by Mr. Morris who is clearly an individual, not a government entity. Therefore, the applicable language in Section 13.072 states, &lt;u&gt;Upon request of any person&lt;/u&gt;who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision, the commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because the purpose of this opinion is to address whether T&apos;s rights as a subject of data were violated, the Commissioner, according to the plain words of Section 13.072, has authority to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Schultz also asserted that resolving factual disputes is not part of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion function. The Commissioner has previously stated her position on this issue, most recently in Advisory Opinion 95-052 :
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In Advisory Opinion 95-029, the Commissioner quoted from Advisory Opinion 93-004: Ms. Blumstein&apos;s [attorney for an educational agency] chief objection seems to rest on the concern that the Commissioner is being asked whether the actions of an entity subject to the MGDPA constitute a violation of the MGDPA. Many of the questions that can be asked of the Commissioner under this new authority will implicitly or explicitly lead to a conclusion, based on the facts relied upon by the Commissioner in issuing an opinion, that a violation of the MGDPA may have occurred. The Commissioner is of the opinion that refusing to issue opinions in situations like that would lead inevitably to a situation of issuing no opinions whatsoever because virtually all opinions could be interpreted as a finding that an agency violated the MGDPA.
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the legislature conferred sufficient authority on her to issue these types of opinions. Her opinions are by their nature conditional on the facts and information presented to her by the government entity and the data subject. To the extent that a Commissioner&apos;s opinion becomes at issue as part of a lawsuit, no court is bound to adopt all or part of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. Under the terms of the authority conferred by the legislature, courts are only asked to give deference to the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, they are not directed to surrender their fact finding authority to the Commissioner or to automatically accept that if the Commissioner determined on the facts provided to her that there may have been a violation of the MGDPA that an actual violation did occur. To the extent that a court finds the Commissioner&apos;s opinions helpful because of the special expertise of the Department of Administration in data practices matters it is free to use that expertise. To the extent that a court finds that the Commissioner&apos;s opinion rests on incomplete or incorrect facts, the court will obviously be free to find its own facts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Schultz also stated, Moreover, the opinion here will provide no prospective guidance to the Department for the publication if [T&apos;s] name was inadvertent (though not necessarily inappropriate). The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with this comment. In making this comment, it appears Mr. Schultz either does not acknowledge or does not understand that the Commissioner&apos;s authority, under the opinion statute, goes beyond providing guidance and assistance to government entities so they can understand and perform their duties under Chapter 13 and related statutes. Her authority also extends to using the expertise of the Department of Administration to assist citizens in their efforts to understand and evaluate whether various determinations made by government entities, which affect their rights as data subjects, are appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Schultz also argued that this advisory opinion should not be issued because Mr. Morris has already indicated his intention to sue the Department for the publication regarding his client. The Commissioner has already discussed the parameters provided by Section 13.072 which set forth the situations in which she has authority to issue advisory opinions. There is nothing in that language which prohibits the issuing of advisory opinions in situations where the requestor may or may not sue the government entity with which s/he is involved in a dispute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The issue raised by Mr. Morris in his opinion request is whether the MDHS inappropriately disseminated data about T. The MDHS has collected and maintains data about T because T is legally required to pay child support. The statutory treatment of such data is found in Section 13.46, subdivision 2, which classifies data collected about individuals by components of the welfare system (e.g. the Department of Human Services, local social services agencies, county welfare agencies, human services boards, etc.) as private data. Clearly, data about T are private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The fact that the Legislature has classified certain data as private does not mean those data can never be used or disseminated. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9.) In the case of welfare data, subdivision 2 of Section 13.46 also provides a list of circumstances when private welfare data can be disseminated. Section 13.46, subdivision 2(a)(18), states, data on a child support obligor who is in arrears may be disclosed for purposes of publishing the data pursuant to section 518.575.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 518.575 provides for the Commissioner of Human Services to bi-annually publish a list of the names and last known addresses of each child support obligor who is at least $3,000 in child support arrears, and is not in compliance with a written payment agreement regarding both current support and arrearages. (For the purposes of this opinion, although neither Mr. Morris nor Mr. Schultz directly commented on how the MDHS came to collect and maintain the data about T, it appears, and the Commissioner assumes, that the MDHS received the data from the Hennepin County Department of Human Services.) In addition, Section 518.575 provides that an obligor&apos;s name may not be published if the obligor claims, in writing, and Commissioner of Human Services determines, there is good cause for the nonpayment of child support.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, Section 518.575 states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Before publishing the name of the obligor, the department of human services shall send a notice to the obligor&apos;s last known address which states the department&apos;s intention to publish the obligor&apos;s name and amount of child support the obligor owes. The notice must also provide an opportunity to have the obligor&apos;s name removed from the list by paying the arrearage or by entering into an agreement to pay the arrearage, and the final date when the payment or agreement can be accepted. The department of human services shall insert with the notices sent to the obligee, a notice stating the intent to publish the obligor&apos;s name, and the criteria used to determine the publication of the obligor&apos;s name.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Part of the legislative intent behind Section 518.575 was to provide an incentive, through embarrassment or threat of embarrassment, to force the state&apos;s most egregious child support obligors to make good on their support obligations. It seems clear, though, that by requiring the MDHS to attempt to contact all such obligors prior to any publication, the Legislature apparently contemplated some of the potential problems that might arise if incorrect data were released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the situation-at-hand, it appears the MDHS did not comply with at least two of the requirements of Section 518.575. First is that T received no notice from MDHS prior to the publication of T&apos;s name and address. In his letter, Mr. Morris wrote, [T] has lived and continues to live at the address listed in the advertisement. At no time did [T] receive any notice providing him an opportunity to challenge the validity and accuracy of the State&apos;s charge. Furthermore, as Mr. Morris points out, the state admitted it did not follow the Section 518.575 guidelines in a retraction it printed in the Pioneer Press. The ad stated, Of the 244 names published statewide, 34 were published in error. None of these individuals had received prior notice which would have given them the opportunity to remove their names from the list.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Second is that T did not fit the criteria as outlined in subdivision 1 of Section 518.575. As Mr. Morris wrote, ...[T] was not in arrears at all. [T] was not a delinquent child support obligor. [T] did not fit any of the conditions set out by Statute section 518.575. [T] was not at least $3,000 in arrears, nor had [T] failed to make a child support payment in the preceding twelve months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As previously mentioned, Section 13.46 provides that private data on child support obligors &lt;u&gt;who are in arrears&lt;/u&gt;may be released for the purposes of publishing the data pursuant to Section 518.575. However, although the language does provide for a release of these data, it also provides very specific conditions that must be met prior to any dissemination. Therefore, given that T was not in arrears (as required for publication) and received no prior notice (as required by publication), it appears that private data about T were disseminated in disregard of the specific requirements provided in Section 518.575. Accordingly, the release of the data about T was not that contemplated by the language in Section 13.46, subdivision 2(a)(18) and it appears the MDHS has complied with neither the requirements of Chapter 13 nor Section 518.575.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Morris is as follows:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided by T&apos;s attorney, it appears that because the Minnesota Department of Human Services (MDHS) did not comply with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 518.575, the MDHS&apos; release of data about T was without appropriate statutory authority.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 28, 1995
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267112</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2024-08-06T18:21:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-054</Title><title>Opinion 95 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267141&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority treat the survey of family housing project residents as civil investigative data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 20, 1995; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 26, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Louis N. Smith, an attorney representing the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA). A summary of the detailed facts of the matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 The MPHA was a defendant in &lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;, a class action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in 1992. A consent decree was entered into in April 1995. Mr. Smith enclosed a copy of the Consent Decree in his opinion request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Smith:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Consent Decree provides for the release of all claims, subject to the rights of the parties to enforce the Decree. The Decree further provides for court retention of jurisdiction for seven years for the purpose of enabling any party to apply for such orders as may be necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Decree.
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        One component of the Consent Decree calls for the MPHA to create an action plan for the redevelopment of 750 units of family public housing on the near north side of Minneapolis. . . .
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        In conjunction with the defense of the litigation, the settlement discussions, and in pursuit of the preparation of the action plan, the MPHA retained an expert witness. . . . [who] retained a sociologist to perform a survey of the residents in the family housing projects in order to determine their opinions and attitudes about their living environment and their desires with respect to the housing type and location. Some of the survey results, although not necessarily all of them, will probably be used in carrying out the planning studies. . . .
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        The MPHA has recently received a request for the results of this survey from an organization that is not a party to the lawsuit. It is our position that the survey currently constitutes investigative data gathered in defense of active litigation pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.39.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the newspaper &lt;u&gt;City Pages&lt;/u&gt;, in a letter dated November 1, 1995, submitted comments to the Commissioner regarding this opinion request. Essentially, Mr. Anfinson argued that the MPHA should not be able to employ Section 13.39 to classify the survey as not public data. He stated that given that the underlying litigation has been settled, the survey . . . should be classified as inactive investigative data under section13.39, subd. 3. The [MPHA] has plainly decided &apos;not to pursue the civil action.&apos; Subd. 3(1). Furthermore, by definition, when a settlement has been entered into, the issue of an appeal becomes moot under clause (3) of subdivision 3 [of Section 13.39].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson further stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Simply because the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, this does not alter the fact that the matter is inactive; a court nearly always retains jurisdiction, implicitly or explicitly, in order to enforce settlements. . . .
                      &lt;p&gt;
                        The foregoing interpretation is consistent with the last paragraph of section13.39, subd. 3, which expressly provides that if a civil action is renewed, data determined to be inactive under clause (1) may become active again. This provision might therefore apply if a party did not comply with settlement terms and the other party then sought judicial assistance. For the present, however, there is no longer any active or pending civil legal action in this case, nor could the data covered by the request properly be described as data retained in anticipation of a civil legal action, since the request concedes that the data were collected strictly in connection with litigation that has now been settled.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Permitting investigative data to continue to be classified as active for the entire time during which the terms of an agreement settling litigation are being carried out-which could extend over many years-would jeopardize the relatively clear distinction incorporated into section13.39. Indeed, construing data as remaining active under these circumstances would encourage the drafting of settlement agreements to take advantage of such an interpretation, providing a pretext for interfering with public access.
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Lindsay R. M. Jones, an attorney representing the Minnesota Tenants Union, also submitted comments for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration. Mr. Jones included copies of correspondence documenting the Tenants Union&apos;s efforts to gain access to the survey, and minutes of meetings of the Low Income Housing Committee (LIHC). (Mr. Jones did not identify LIHC&apos;s affiliation.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Jones made three main points in support of his assertion that the MPHA ought not to be able to rely upon Section 13.39 to classify the survey data as not public. First, Mr. Jones stated that while the chief attorney acting for the MPHA has the discretion to protect data while litigation is active, &lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;is settled, so it is no longer pending. Therefore, the data cannot be protected pursuant to Section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Second, Mr. Jones argued that . . . the MPHA attempts to extend the cloak of secrecy over the tenant survey data by referring to its possible usefulness during the implementation stage of the Consent Decree. . . . According to the Consent Decree, the Action plan process is supposed to be an open one . . . . [It is not] consistent with the aims of [Chapter 13] to keep [government data] hidden from the public when that data would be relevant to a public planning process.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Third, Mr. Jones suggested that the MPHA released the survey data to opposing counsel in &lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;, namely attorneys for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis. According to Mr. Jones, by having done so, the MPHA waived its claim that the tenant survey results were classified as protected nonpublic pursuant to Section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Smith asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                          May the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority treat the survey of family housing project residents as civil investigative data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Section 13.39, subdivision 2, provides that data collected by government entities as part of an active investigation undertaken to commence or defend a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) or as confidential (data on individuals.)
                &lt;p&gt;
                  There are three conditions which must be met for a government entity to protect government data from public disclosure pursuant to Section 13.39. The first condition is that there must be a pending civil legal action. Section 13.39, subdivision 1, states that a civil legal action includes, but is not limited to, judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings. Second, the chief attorney acting for the government entity must make the determination that a civil legal action is pending.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Third, as established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the government entity must have taken some affirmative action to &lt;u&gt;collect&lt;/u&gt;the data it wishes to protect, it must not be simply a passive recipient of that information. (See Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion 95-040.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In interpreting Section 13.39 and applying it to the data in question, the MPHA appears to have met all three conditions. Mr. Smith, as chief attorney for the MPHA, has made the determination that a civil legal action is pending, and the survey data were collected by an agent for the MPHA. Therefore, the MPHA may treat the survey as protected nonpublic data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   The Commissioner wishes to discuss briefly Mr. Anfinson&apos;s and Mr. Jones&apos; comments. Both Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Jones argued that the first condition, i.e., that a civil legal action is pending, does not apply in this case. They assert that &lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;is settled, and therefore the survey data must be considered inactive civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 3. That is a reasonable conclusion for Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Jones to reach.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   However, subdivision 3 of Section 13.39 provides that except for those portions of a file which are classified as not public data by Chapter 13 or other law, inactive civil investigative data are public, &lt;u&gt;unless the release of the data would jeopardize another pending civil legal action&lt;/u&gt;. In their comments, neither Mr. Anfinson nor Mr. Jones acknowledged the possibility that the MPHA may be retaining the survey data, and treating it as protected nonpublic data pursuant to Section 13.39, in anticipation of litigation brought by someone other than the plaintiffs in &lt;u&gt;Hollman v. Cisneros&lt;/u&gt;. Further, the statute provides that the chief attorney for the MPHA has the sole discretion to make that determination. If Mr. Smith determines that a civil legal action is pending, and that the MPHA is retaining the survey data in anticipation of that action, then the data may be treated as civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.39.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr Jones also argued that [a]ccording to the Consent Decree, the Action plan process is supposed to be an open one . . . . [It is not] consistent with the aims of [Chapter 13] to keep [government data] hidden from the public when that data would be relevant to a public planning process. Mr. Jones is correct, that Chapter 13 contains a fundamental presumption that government data are to be accessible to the public. However, in enacting Section 13.39, the Legislature has given attorneys acting for government entities considerable latitude to determine whether certain data are collected or retained for a pending civil legal action. When they make those determinations, as Mr. Smith has done, the presumption that government data are public no longer applies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Jones further claimed that the MPHA released the survey data to opposing counsel, namely attorneys for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis. According to Mr. Jones, by having done so, the MPHA waived its claim that the tenant survey results were classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to Section 13.39.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is not clear to the Commissioner, from the information provided, whether the MPHA has indeed released the survey to anyone. However, the MPHA has the discretion, pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, to . . . make any data classified as confidential or protected nonpublic pursuant to this subdivision accessible to any person, agency or the public if [it] determines that the access will aid the law enforcement process, promote public health or safety or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner acknowledges that Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Jones make some persuasive policy arguments as to why the survey data ought to be public data. While their arguments are compelling, they collide with current policy which, as articulated in Section 13.39, states that the chief attorney for a government entity has very broad discretion to make a determination as to whether or not a civil legal action is pending.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is worth noting, however, that the Legislature has provided a remedy for any person who disagrees with a government entity&apos;s decision to protect data under Section 13.39. Subdivision 2a provides:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;During the time when a civil legal action is determined to be pending under subdivision 1, any person may bring an action in the district court in the county where the data is maintained to obtain disclosure of data classified as confidential or protected nonpublic under subdivision 2. The court may order that all or part of the data be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In making the determination whether data shall be disclosed, the court shall consider whether the benefit to the person bringing the action or to the public outweighs any harm to the public, the agency, or any person identified in the data. The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  This provision constitutes a counter-balance to the wide discretion afforded government entities under Section 13.39 to withhold data from public disclosure.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Smith is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The chief attorney acting for the MPHA has determined that a civil legal action is pending, and the survey data were collected in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation. Therefore, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority may treat the survey of family housing project residents as not public civil investigative data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 20, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267141</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-053</Title><title>Opinion 95 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266635&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a government entity authorized, under Chapter 13, to charge sales tax as part of the &quot;actual cost&quot; for copying public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 11, 1995; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 23, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated October 18, 1995, from Don Dame. In his letter, Mr. Dame requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his dispute with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, hereinafter MPCA, over the MPCA&apos;s assessment of charges for copies of public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Dame&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Williams, Commissioner of MPCA. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 1995, were to inform Commissioner Williams of Mr. Dame&apos;s request, to ask him or MPCA&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Mr. William&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On November 30, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated November 29, 1995, from Ann Cohen, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Dame and Commissioner Williams were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In his opinion request Mr. Dame wrote, It is my understanding that Minnesota government entities are required by law to disclose public information to the public, and that the public is entitled to received copies of this public information, and that agencies may ask to be reimbursed for some of the costs associated with making copies of public information. I respectfully request that your Department provide me with an &apos;official opinion&apos; of whether it is appropriate for the agencies to charge sales tax for copies of public information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Attached to Mr. Dame&apos;s letter was an invoice from the MPCA to Mr. Dame dated June 26, 1995 ( Claim for reimbursement to the State of Minnesota for copying performed at/by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ). A portion of the charge assessed to Mr. Dame was a 6 1/2 percent charge for Minnesota sales tax and a 1/2 percent charge for local sales tax.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Ms. Cohen appeared to argue that it is not within the Commissioner&apos;s authority to comment on issues relating to tax law. She stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) first finds it important to point out what this inquiry is NOT about: whether it was proper or improper for the MPCA to have assessed (and paid to the Department of Revenue) sales tax on copies. This is a question for the Department of Revenue. Thus, for the purpose of the opinion request, the question might be stated: &lt;i&gt;assuming&lt;/i&gt; a state agency is required to pay sales tax or other tax for copies of public information charged for provided pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3 (1994), may the state agency assess this cost to the person receiving the copies?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Ms. Cohen further commented, The MPCA believes that charges such as sales taxes &lt;i&gt;that are &lt;/i&gt;required to be paid when assessing persons for the cost of producing copies can also be assessed to those persons as part of the &apos;actual costs.&apos;
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Dame asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                          Is a government entity authorized, under Chapter 13, to charge sales tax as part of the actual cost for copying public government data?
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Before discussing the issue raised by Mr. Dame, it is important to comment on Ms. Cohen&apos;s remarks apparently relating to the authority of the Commissioner. The advisory opinion enabling language, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, authorizes the Commissioner to give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. Nothing in this language prohibits the Commissioner from commenting on Minnesota Department of Revenue laws or rules which affect the data practices rights of the person. It is also important to note that in this particular instance, PIPA staff, sometime in the past, had discussed this issue with Department of Revenue staff. For this reason, the Commissioner&apos;s staff was aware of the Department of Revenue&apos;s position as described below.
                &lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Dame&apos;s question to the Commissioner is whether the MPCA may charge him a sales tax on the cost of copies of public government data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual requests copies of public government data, the responsible authority shall, ...provide copies of public data upon request. If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. According to this language, government entities may charge only those costs which represent the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this instance, a Minnesota Rule specifically provides that government entities such as the MPCA are not required to collect sales taxes for providing copies of government data, pursuant to Chapter 13. Because collecting sales tax is not required, assessing such a tax to Mr. Dame is not part of the actual cost of providing copies of government data. Subpart 2 of Minnesota Rules 8130.9300 states, If law or ordinance requires a governmental agency to furnish copies of documents held in its files, the furnishing of such copies is a governmental act or service and shall not constitute a taxable retail sale.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Chapter 13 is a law which clearly requires the MPCA to furnish copies of documents held in its files. Therefore, pursuant to the aforementioned Rule, the cost of the copies of government data requested by Mr. Dame do not constitute a taxable retail sale. Accordingly, it appears that government entities are not required, and should not be assessing, a sales tax as part of the cost for copies of public government data. Charging sales tax is not part of the actual cost of providing copies of government data. The furnishing of copies is a governmental act or service required by Section 13.03.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Dame is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 8130.9300, subpart 2, and Chapter 13, a government entity is not required to charge a sales tax as part of the cost for copying government data. Because collecting sales tax is not required, such a tax is not part of the actual cost of providing copies of public government data, and should not be charged to individuals requesting copies of government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 11, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266635</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Sales tax excluded</Title><Id>266254</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-052</Title><title>Opinion 95 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267627&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Was the dissemination of data about T, by a school psychologist to a school secretary, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, and 20 United States Code 1232g (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 7, 1995; School District 777 (Benson)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 18, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated October 13, 1995, from T&apos;s mother. In her letter, T&apos;s mother requested an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of private data by Independent School District 777, Benson, hereinafter District 777.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the request of T&apos;s mother, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Les Potas, Superintendent of District 777. The purposes of this letter, dated October 20, 1995, were to inform Dr. Potas of T&apos;s mother&apos;s request, to ask him or District 777&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for District 777&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On November 29, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated November 29, 1995, from Kevin Rupp and Nancy Blumstein, attorneys representing District 777. (In subsequent correspondence, T&apos;s mother and Dr. Potas, were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this situation is as follows. In her letter, T&apos;s mother described the data she believes to be private that were disseminated by a school psychologist to a school secretary, It was brought to my attention on September 29, 1995 that dissemination of private data about [T] was disclosed by the school psychologist to a secretary...that takes care of another age group not pertaining to any area concerning [T]. Information disclosed pertained to [a flare-up of a specific medical condition which is T&apos;s] due to my judgement on a medication change. Also an incident between [T&apos;s]...teacher, myself, my husband and [T] in regards to [the flare-up of a specific medical condition which is T&apos;s] and a communication not [sic] book that is a log for [T&apos;s medical condition].
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also according to T&apos;s mother, several additional comments were made to the secretary about her (T&apos;s mother&apos;s) behavior, such as I was over reacting to allot [sic] of my daughters [sic] concerns and I was calling the school to [sic] often.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In their response to T&apos;s mother&apos;s opinion request, Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp asserted that the issue of this opinion, as stated by the Commissioner, is different than the issue raised by T&apos;s mother.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp also argued that the Commissioner lacks authority to issue this opinion, In posing her question and in providing the School District the opportunity to respond to the parent&apos;s factual allegations, the Commissioner has assumed that she has the power to act as the arbiter of fact in this matter. She has also assumed that she has the power to render an opinion on the application of the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. section 1232g). Neither of these assumptions are correct.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Finally, Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp argued, based on &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.App. 1992), The only information imparted by the School Psychologist to the secretary during this conversation consisted of her unrecorded mental impressions and apprehensions about the student&apos;s parent and home situation or other information about the teacher&apos;s interaction with the parent that was recorded only in the mind of the psychologist or teacher. Under the rule set out above, this information does not constitute government data. Therefore, no violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act may be established on these facts.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, T&apos;s mother asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Was the dissemination of data about T, by a school psychologist to a school secretary, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, and 20 United States Code 1232g (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974)? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Before addressing the issue raised by T&apos;s mother, the Commissioner must respond to the first three assertions made by Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp. First is the argument that the Commissioner&apos;s statement of the issue in this opinion is inaccurate:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...while your [PIPA&apos;s request to School District 777 for a response] letter asked the School District to respond to the question of whether a dissemination of data regarding the student had violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and FERPA, the letter initiating the request for an advisory opinion indicated that the parent&apos;s allegations actually involved the supposed dissemination of information (not necessarily data) by a school psychologist regarding the parent&apos;s actions or behavior (rather than the student&apos;s) to another party....the parent&apos;s letter expressly states that the information she believes to have been disclosed by the School District arose out of a school psychologist&apos;s questions about the parent to a secretary in the School District. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Given the information provided the Commissioner by T&apos;s mother, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees. In her opinion request, T&apos;s mother wrote, Information disclosed pertained to [a flare-up of a specific medical condition which is T&apos;s] my judgement on a medication change. Also an incident between [T&apos;s]...teacher, myself, my husband and [T] in regards to [the flare-up of a special medical condition which is T&apos;s] and a communication not [sic] book that is a log for [T&apos;s medical condition]. In these comments, T&apos;s mother states clearly that data or information about T was disclosed, e.g. the fact that T&apos;s medical condition had flared-up, the fact that T&apos;s medication had been changed, and the fact that an incident had occurred between T&apos;s mother, T&apos;s teacher, and T&apos;s mother&apos;s husband. While the Commissioner agrees that some of the data apparently disclosed by District 777 appear to be about T&apos;s mother, much of the data are &lt;u&gt;clearly&lt;/u&gt;also about T. However, it should be noted, pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), that data concerning parents are also educational data and therefore, are classified as private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Second is the assertion by Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp that the Commissioner lacks the authority to render opinions on the application of FERPA, The Minnesota legislature has not and, in fact, could not, grant the Commissioner the authority to render advisory opinions on the application of FERPA. There are a variety of reasons why the Commissioner may find it necessary to discuss the requirements of FERPA in an opinion. First, some of FERPA&apos;s provisions have been incorporated into Chapter 13. Second, the advisory opinion enabling language, Section 13.072, authorizes the Commissioner to give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. Nothing in this language prohibits the Commissioner from commenting on federal law which affects the rights of the person.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Third is the assertion by Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp that nothing in Section 13.072 gives the Commissioner the right to determine whether a violation of Minnesota or federal law has occurred or to make findings of fact. This argument is now quite familiar to the Commissioner as Ms. Blumstein and some of her colleagues have included it in their responses to several other opinion requests. In Advisory Opinion 95-029 the Commissioner quoted from Advisory Opinion 93-004:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Ms. Blumstein&apos;s [attorney for an educational agency] chief objection seems to rest on the concern that the Commissioner is being asked whether the actions of an entity subject to the MGDPA constitute a violation of the MGDPA. Many of the questions that can be asked of the Commissioner under this new authority will implicitly or explicitly lead to a conclusion, based on the facts relied upon by the Commissioner in issuing an opinion, that a violation of the MGDPA may have occurred. The Commissioner is of the opinion that refusing to issue opinions in situations like that would lead inevitably to a situation of issuing no opinions whatsoever because virtually all opinions could be interpreted as a finding that an agency violated the MGDPA.
                        &lt;p&gt;
                          It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the legislature conferred sufficient authority on her to issue these types of opinions. Her opinions are by their nature conditional on the facts and information presented to her by the government entity and the data subject. To the extent that a Commissioner&apos;s opinion becomes at issue as part of a lawsuit, no court is bound to adopt all or part of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. Under the terms of the authority conferred by the legislature, courts are only asked to give deference to the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, they are not directed to surrender their fact finding authority to the Commissioner or to automatically accept that if the Commissioner determined on the facts provided to her that there may have been a violation of the MGDPA that an actual violation did occur. To the extent that a court finds the Commissioner&apos;s opinions helpful because of the special expertise of the Department of Administration in data practices matters it is free to use that expertise. To the extent that a court finds that the commissioner&apos;s opinion rests on incomplete or incorrect facts, the court will obviously be free to find its own facts.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner&apos;s position on the aforementioned issue raised by Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp has not changed since Ms. Blumstein raised the same issue in connection with Advisory Opinion 93-004 and her colleague, Mr. Foy, raised the same issue in connection with Advisory Opinion 95-029.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  T&apos;s mother requested this opinion because she is concerned that School District 777 inappropriately disseminated data about T. It should first be noted that, pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student are termed educational data. Pursuant to Section 13.32, subdivision 3, educational data are private data on individuals and can be disclosed in only very limited circumstances. Also, as previously mentioned, Section 13.32, subdivision 2 (b), defines data concerning parents as educational data. Therefore, regardless of whether the data are about T and/or T&apos;s mother, the data are private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   One exception to the strict statutory requirements regarding disclosure of private data was created by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;. In this case, the court wrote:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If &apos;government data&apos; includes the unrecorded mental impressions of government employees, [Chapter 13] requires responsible authorities to describe procedures for gaining access to these impressions. The statute cannot be reasonably interpreted to include such a requirement....To give effect to [Chapter 13], we conclude that information is not government data until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain....Under this definition of &apos;government data&apos;, an individual has no cause of action under [Chapter 13] for the unauthorized release of private data about him unless he shows the information released was recorded somewhere other than in the mind of a government employee. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As applied to the situation at hand, if the data about T (and/or T&apos;s mother), disclosed by the school psychologist to the school secretary, were not recorded somewhere other than in the mind of a government employee, those data are not government data and are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In their response, Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp stated that District 777 conducted a thorough investigation into T&apos;s mother&apos;s complaint and determined that the data communicated by the school psychologist to the school secretary had not been recorded, The only information communicated by the psychologist to the secretary consisted of the psychologist&apos;s unrecorded thoughts and apprehensions, her general unrecorded observations about the parent or other unrecorded information. Further, Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp stated:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The only information imparted by the School Psychologist to the secretary during this conversation consisted of her unrecorded mental impressions and apprehensions about the student&apos;s parent that was recorded only in the mind of the psychologist or teacher.
                        &lt;p&gt;
                          Under the rule set out above, this information does not constitute government data. Therefore, no violation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act may be established on these facts.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Even thought there does appear to be a dispute regarding whether the data in question are data about T or about T&apos;s mother (or about both T and T&apos;s mother), the facts as presented by Ms. Blumstein and Mr. Rupp (that no data were ever recorded regarding the incident described by T&apos;s mother), coupled with the reality that nothing in T&apos;s mother&apos;s letter indicates otherwise, lead the Commissioner to conclude that the data in question, based on &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, are not government data. Therefore, it appears that no violation of Chapter 13, Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, or FERPA has occurred.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, since the conclusion reached in this opinion relies upon a court decision of which T&apos;s mother may or may not be aware, it is important to note that had her opinion request contained additional information regarding whether the data were or were not recorded, the result of this opinion might have been different.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by T&apos;s mother is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided by District 777, it appears that because the data in question are unrecorded mental impressions of government employees, the data are not government data, and therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 (see &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493, N.W.2d 614 (Minn.App. 1992)). Accordingly, the dissemination of data by District 777 was not in violation of the requirements of Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 7, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267627</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266381</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:23Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-051</Title><title>Opinion 95 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267240&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the District violate D&apos;s rights to receive access to private data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.43, with regard to the time frame in which it provided D with copies of the data requested?
Did the District violate D&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.43, because, in its response to D&apos;s request, it did not include copies of the minutes of two school board meetings?
Did the District charge an excessive fee for D&apos;s Data Practices Act request?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 6, 1995; School District 166 (Cook County)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 25, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Peter J. Nickitas, an attorney, on behalf of his client, D. Mr. Nickitas described his attempts to gain access to data about D which are maintained by the Cook County Schools, I.S.D. #166. He enclosed various documents with his request.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald J. Langan, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 27, 1995, were to inform Dr. Langan of Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request, to ask him or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Nickitas and Dr. Langan were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 7, 1995, PIPA received a response from John M. Colosimo, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Nickitas, D is a former employee of the District. In a letter to the District dated September 11, 1995, in which he enclosed an authorization signed by D, Mr. Nickitas requested photocopies of various data, including any and all other written notes, memoranda, or records . . . of which [D] is a subject or the subject. (Emphasis his.) Mr. Nickitas stated [D] asserts [D&apos;s] rights to such data within five working days of this request, pursuant to Minn. Stat. sectionsection 13.04 and 13.43. [D] requires that these data arrive in this office no later than 22 September 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated September 20, 1995, Mr. Colosimo wrote to Mr. Nickitas, to inform him that the District had referred D&apos;s request to him, and that Mr. Nickitas should direct any further related inquiries to Mr. Colosimo. Mr. Colosimo further stated I will make every effort to respond to your request within a reasonable period of time. I might add that virtually all of the information you have requested has already been provided [D], or has been provided [D&apos;s] previous attorneys and [D&apos;s] MEA representatives. Consequently, this information is clearly accessible by you from them, as well. Mr. Colosimo then stated that he would be absent from his office until the middle of the following week, and would be attempting to respond to your requests upon my return.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In correspondence dated September 20, 1995, Mr. Nickitas acknowledged Mr. Colosimo&apos;s communication, and reasserted his earlier request for data about D. He noted Mr. Colosimo&apos;s impending absence, and stated I regard that as a timely request for an extension of five working days, in accordance with Minn. Stat. section 13.04. I look forward to receiving the requested data on [D] by 29 September 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 3, 1995, Mr. Colosimo transmitted the data to Mr. Nickitas. Enclosed was the District&apos;s bill for photocopies, the total of which was $125.00 (500 copies @ $.25 per page.) On October 6, 1995, Mr. Colosimo wrote to Mr. Nickitas, and enclosed documents which the District had inadvertently omitted from the materials provided. Mr. Colosimo apologized for the oversight.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 16, 1995, Mr. Nickitas wrote to Mr. Colosimo, and challenged the $125.00 copying fee as excessive. He stated that as the subject of the data, D need pay only the actual copying costs.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Colosimo responded specifically to each of the issues raised in this opinion. His responses are discussed in detail below. In summary, Mr. Colosimo stated that the time frame in which D was provided the copies requested was influenced by the District&apos;s uncertainty as to whether the authorization to release data provided by Mr. Nickitas was satisfactory. He said that D or D&apos;s representatives (other than Mr. Nickitas) had gained access to the private data on D kept by the school district . . . on at least three to four occasions over the past 12 months. He suggested [i]f that data and information could be obtained from [D or D&apos;s] previous representatives, the district need not then concern itself with the vagueness of the &apos;authorization&apos; and the uncertainty of her signature.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Colosimo also stated that Mr. Nickitas did not specifically request access to minutes of specific school board meetings; had Mr. Nickitas done so, Mr. Colosimo said the District would have provided him with copies. Mr. Colosimo also stated that the photocopy costs represented the actual cost to the District to provide D with copies of the data requested.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the District violate D&apos;s rights to receive access to private data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.43, with regard to the time frame in which it provided D with copies of the data requested?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the District violate D&apos;s rights under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.43, because, in its response to D&apos;s request, it did not include copies of the minutes of two school board meetings?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the District charge an excessive fee for D&apos;s Data Practices Act request?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 governs personnel data. Subdivision 1 provides that personnel data are . . . data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by . . . [a] political subdivision . . . . (The District is a political subdivision for purposes of Chapter 13, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 11.) Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, personnel data are classified as either public or private government data.
                &lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.04 provides certain rights to individuals who are subjects of government data. One of those rights is the right to gain access to the public and private data about oneself that are maintained by a government entity. Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.
                        &lt;p&gt;
                          The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, a government entity must provide a data subject with access to the public and private data it maintains about that individual within five working days of the date of the request, if immediate compliance is not possible. The government entity, upon notice to the individual, may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The first issue, whether the District provided D with copies of personnel data within the time frame required by statute, is complicated by Mr. Nickitas&apos;s own actions. Mr. Nickitas, in his original request, granted the District more than five working days to respond. Assuming that a letter mailed on September 11th would reach the District on September 13th, the District then, to meet the five-day requirement, needed to comply with the request by September 20th. However, Mr. Nickitas granted the District seven days to comply, by asking for the data by September 22nd. In addition, he accepted Mr. Colosimo&apos;s statement that he would be out of his office as a timely request for an extension of five working days, pursuant to Section 13.04. Technically, it was not a proper notice under that Section. In any event, Mr. Nickitas agreed to a five-day extension beyond the date he originally designated, from September 22nd to September 29th. The District mailed the copies on October 3, two working days after September 29th. Technically, the District violated D&apos;s rights under Section 13.04, by failing to provide the data by September 29th. However, there are other issues raised in Mr. Colosimo&apos;s response that require some discussion.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his response, Mr. Colosimo suggests that the District&apos;s delay in providing the data beyond the five-day requirement is Mr. Nickitas&apos;s responsibility, not the District&apos;s, because of the District&apos;s uncertainty about the validity of the authorization submitted by Mr. Nickitas. Mr. Colosimo said that the District was . . . concerned about the lack of particularity and specificity of the &apos;Authorization&apos; in that it was not specifically directed to the school district, did not make specific mention of Data Practices, only generally talked about (what might be considered to be) private data, and contained an unnotarized signature. Mr. Colosimo further stated that although he did not communicate this to Mr. Nickitas, it was his own responsibility to . . . determine whether, in fact, [D] was intending this be directed to private data on [D] kept and stored by the school district.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo also stated that he continues to be uncertain with respect to the validity of the authorization. In addition, he stated . . . it must be remembered that the individual who is the subject of the stored data was not making the request, but in fact, an attorney claiming to represent this individual . . . . At no time was there a specific and clear written or oral request made by the subject of the data . . . .
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Mr. Colosimo enclosed a copy of the authorization which he said was provided to the District by Mr. Nickitas. It describes various data to which Mr. Nickitas was entitled access, including medical data, motor vehicle accident reports, and . . . any and all information or reports he may request; and further permit him to inspect and/or obtain any &lt;u&gt;and all personnel records&lt;/u&gt;, job history, and complete wage records. (Emphasis added.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If Mr. Colosimo was unable to accept the authenticity of the authorization, he should have communicated that to Mr. Nickitas immediately. Failure to do so is not an acceptable basis upon which to blame a delay in providing access to the data as required by statute.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo did not provide a copy of the policies and procedures the District has established, pursuant to the requirements of Section 13.05, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 3, to ensure that the District provides appropriate access to the data it maintains. Those procedures should contain directions for dealing with a situation in which the District is not comfortable with an authorization such as the one provided by Mr. Nickitas. Perhaps the District needs to review its procedures to ensure that it does not delay in its provision of proper access to its data on the basis of discomfort over the validity of such an authorization.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo offered further justification for the District&apos;s delay in providing the data, which also requires comment. He stated I reiterate that this is, at least, the third time that this information has now been provided [D or D&apos;s] representative in the last 6 to 7 months. If that is indeed the case, then the District had a choice to make at the time it received Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, once a data subject gains access to the private data maintained by a government entity, . . . the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. Therefore, had it chosen to do so, the District could have invoked that provision as its basis to deny Mr. Nickitas access to data on D. If Mr. Colosimo intended to rely upon that provision, he should have communicated that immediately to Mr. Nickitas, upon receipt of his request. However, Mr. Colosimo did not exercise that option. Failure to do so removes that provision as an acceptable basis upon which to make a subsequent argument that access to the data need not be provided as required by statute.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo also asserted that Mr. Nickitas could have gained access to the same data from D or another of D&apos;s representatives, and if so, . . . the district need not then concern itself with the vagueness of the &apos;authorization&apos; and the uncertainty of [D&apos;s] signature. However, the District has an obligation to provide data subjects with access to the public and private data it maintains. That D may have gained access to the data from another source in no way relieves the District from its obligation to provide D with proper access to the data it maintains.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his response to Issue 2, Mr. Colosimo stated that Mr. Nickitas did not request copies of the minutes of any particular school board meetings, but had he done so, the District would have been happy to provide them.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   In his initial data request, Mr. Nickitas specified certain data (e.g. performance evaluations) and also requested copies of any and all other written notes, memoranda, or records . . . of which [D] is a subject or &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt;subject. (Emphasis his.) The fact that Mr. Nickitas did not specify particular school board meeting minutes may offer a practical problem. Practically speaking, it is not reasonable to expect a government entity, in response to a request for data on a particular individual, to research all of the meeting minutes it maintains in the off-chance that there may be data about that individual in some of the minutes.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   However, the District is obliged to make a &lt;u&gt;reasonable&lt;/u&gt;response to D&apos;s request, and is obliged to provide D with access to the data it maintains about D, regardless of where or in what form the data reside. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-034.) In other words, if D were the subject of a part of a school board meeting, then the minutes of the meeting that reflect discussion about D, constitute data about D, and must be made available to D. In this case, the personnel matter involving D appears to be on-going, and therefore it is not unreasonable for D or D&apos;s representative to expect that data about D contained in recent school board meeting minutes would be fairly easily identifiable to the District as containing data about D.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo further stated however, [school board meeting minutes are] subject to Minn. Stat. 13.03, Subd. 3 . . . in other words, it is not governed by the 5 day requirement which relates to private data on individuals,
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  when requested by the individual who is the subject of the data.
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                (Emphasis his.) However, Section 13.04 governs access by a data subject to both public and private data about the data subject. Therefore, to the extent that any of the District school board meeting minutes contain data on D, D&apos;s access to those data is governed by the requirements of Section 13.04, not Section 13.03, as Mr. Colosimo asserts.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Further, in his emphasis
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  when requested by the individual who is the subject of the data,
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                Mr. Colosimo raises a difficult issue about the operation of a fundamental provision of Chapter 13 and its implementing rules, i.e., that a data subject may give her or his consent to the release of private data to anyone the data subject chooses. Section 13.05, subdivision 4(d) states: [p]rivate data may be used by and disseminated to any person or agency if the individual subject . . . of the data [has] given [her or his] informed consent. Further, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that among those who are entitled to gain access to private data are entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Colosimo suggests that a government entity need not respond to a data access request from a representative of an individual data subject in the same manner and time frame in which it must respond to a request from a data subject. The Commissioner acknowledges that it would be problematic to assert that anytime a government entity receives a consent to release information, Section 13.04 applies. However, in this instance, Mr. Nickitas was acting in his client&apos;s stead, a common occurrence. The appropriate response in that circumstance is for the government entity to treat the representative as it would the data subject, for purposes of satisfying the request. For a government entity to do otherwise would have the effect of limiting a data subject&apos;s rights, simply because the data subject hired an attorney to act for her or him, or authorized someone else to gain access to private data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  For purposes of the requirements of statute and rule, the District must respond to Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request on D&apos;s behalf in the same way it is required to respond to a request which comes directly from D. In other words, through D&apos;s written authorization, Mr. Nickitas is entitled to exercise D&apos;s rights as a subject of government data, i.e., to gain access to the public and private data maintained by the District on D.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  With regard to Issue 3, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, data subjects may be required to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 5, provides that data subjects may be charged a reasonable fee for copies, and refers to Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, for guidance in determining the amount of the reasonable fee. According to the Rule, a government entity may include the cost of labor necessary to prepare the copies in its copy charge.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   According to the information provided, D was charged $.25 per page for copies. In his response, Mr. Colosimo differentiated between the costs allowable for copies of private data, pursuant to Section 13.04, and the costs allowable for copies of public data, pursuant to Section 13.03. He is correct that a government entity may include the cost of employee time to search for and retrieve government data in its charge for copies pursuant to a request under Section 13.03. However, as noted above, D requested copies of the public and private data of &lt;u&gt;which D is the subject&lt;/u&gt;, pursuant to Section 13.04. Section 13.04 contains no provision which allows a government entity to recover the cost of employee time to search for and retrieve public and private data on an individual data subject. Mr. Colosimo stated: . . . Mr. Nickitas was charged by the school district for the actual costs of &lt;u&gt;retrieving&lt;/u&gt;, compiling, copying, and mailing the requested data. (Emphasis added.) If that is the case, then the copy charge of $.25 per page is too high. It must be adjusted to subtract the cost of employee time to retrieve the data. The Commissioner wishes to note that on its face, a copy charge of $.25 per page is not unreasonable. However, government entities must include only allowable costs when calculating copying charges. In this circumstance, the inclusion of the cost of &lt;u&gt;retrieval&lt;/u&gt;of the data is not allowed.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Technically, the District violated D&apos;s rights to receive access to private data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.43, by providing the data two or three days after the extension agreed to by Mr. Nickitas.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Data about D in the minutes of school board meetings are data to which D is entitled access, pursuant to Section 13.04. It appears that it is reasonable to expect the District to have been aware that D was the subject of recent school board meetings. However, it is not reasonable, in general, to expect a government entity, as a routine matter, to review all meeting minutes anytime it receives a request for access to data under Section 13.04.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              To the extent that it included in the computation of its copying charges the cost of employee time to retrieve the public and private data requested by D, the District&apos;s copy charge is excessive.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 6, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267240</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Licensing data</Title><Id>266781</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-050</Title><title>Opinion 95 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267505&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-12-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of data collected and maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park&apos;s Housing Inspection Division (e.g. data relating to the Division&apos;s enforcement of city ordinances and laws regulating housing maintenance standards, the investigation of complaints, the inspection of rental units, and the licensing of rental properties)?
Does the term &quot;civil legal action&quot; (see Section 13.39) refer only to actions initiated by a government entity?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 1, 1995; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 28, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated September 22, 1995, from Colleen Paulus, Deputy Community Development Director for the City of Brooklyn Park. In her letter, Ms. Paulus requested an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Housing Inspection Division of the City of Brooklyn Park.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In her letter, Ms. Paulus stated that the Housing Division enforces city ordinances and laws which regulate housing maintenance standards relating to both owner-occupied housing and rental housing. She added that the Housing Division investigates complaints, conducts scheduled rental inspections, and licenses rental properties. In describing the data collected by the Housing Division, Ms. Paulus stated, The collected data includes: names, addresses and telephone numbers of owners, tenants and complainants; documents regarding inspections and complaint investigations to determine if city/state law violations exist. Ms. Paulus asked the Commissioner to discuss whether specific statute sections in Minnesota law, e.g. Sections 13.41, 504.23, 566.19, or 13.39, affect the treatment of the data collected by the Housing Division.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Paulus, on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Park, asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;What is the classification of data collected and maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park&apos;s Housing Inspection Division (e.g. data relating to the Division&apos;s enforcement of city ordinances and laws regulating housing maintenance standards, the investigation of complaints, the inspection of rental units, and the licensing of rental properties)?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the term civil legal action (see Section 13.39) refer only to actions initiated by a government entity?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to the presumption stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a political subdivision, such as the City of Brooklyn Park, are public unless otherwise classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. It follows, therefore, that the data collected by the Housing Division are public data unless otherwise so classified. Ms. Paulus has requested this opinion primarily to clarify whether any provisions exist, such as Sections 13.41, 504.23, 566.19, or 13.39, which classify the Housing Division Data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(While the Commissioner is not limited in her discussion of this issue to the aforementioned statute sections, it appears that those particular sections, along with Section 13.82, are the most likely to classify the data collected by the Housing Division.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, it does not appear that the Housing Division data are classified as anything other than public by Section 13.41, licensing data. This is because Section 13.41 does not apply to any data collected and maintained by Brooklyn Park. In part, subdivision 1 of Section 13.41 states, As used in this section &apos;licensing agency&apos; means any board, department or agency of this state which is given the statutory authority to issue professional or other types of licenses, except the various agencies primarily administered by the commissioner of human services. In this instance, it is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that the terms board, department or agency of this state refer to just that - a board, department, or agency which is part of state government. The Commissioner believes that had the Legislature intended Section 13.41 to include data collected and maintained by licensing divisions or departments of local governments, the language would have clearly so stated. Therefore, Brooklyn Park cannot rely on Section 13.41 to classify the Housing Division Data as anything other than public. (The Commissioner understands that the status of licensing data collected and maintained by local governments has been a contentious issue for some time. This issue will be brought to the attention of the Legislature in 1996.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, it does not appear that Housing Division data are classified as anything other than public by Section 504.23, code violations and disclosure. Section 504.23 states:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;All code violation records pertaining to a particular parcel of real property and the buildings, improvements and dwelling units located thereon kept by any state, county or city agency charged by the governing body of the appropriate political subdivision...with the responsibility for enforcing a state, county or city health, housing, building, fire prevention or housing maintenance code shall be available to all persons having a reasonable need for the information contained in the records relating to the premises....The persons to whom the records shall be available under this section &lt;u&gt;include but are not limited to&lt;/u&gt; the following persons and their representatives:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(a) any person having any legal or beneficial interest in the premises, including a tenant;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(b) any person considering in good faith the lease or purchase of the premises;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(c) any person authorized to request an inspection under section 566.19; and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;(d) a party to any action related to the premises, including actions maintained pursuant to sections 504.18 and 588.18 to 566.33. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner bases her conclusion that Section 504.23 does not classify the Housing Division data as anything other than public upon an examination of the plain words of Section 504.23. While Section 504.23 includes a list of persons who are entitled to obtain code violation records, the list is made non-inclusive by the use of the following language: [persons who can obtain the information] include but are not limited to the following persons and their representatives. Nothing in Section 504.34 would prevent the interpreter from reading the including but not limited to language to include the public. Therefore, nothing in Section 504.23 appears to preclude the code violation records from public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, if any doubt exists as to why Section 504.23 does not classify the Housing Division data as anything other than public, an analysis of legislative history may be of assistance. Section 504.23 was enacted in 1974, prior to the 1979 enactment of the presumption of public data language in Section 13.03, subdivision 1. Under the rules of statutory interpretation, when two provisions of statute appear to be in conflict, the later enacted statute is assumed to be the Legislature&apos;s last word on a given subject. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.26, subdivision 4.) Given that Section 13.03 was enacted after Section 504.23, and the intent of Section 13.03 is clearly to maximize the ability of the public to gain access to government data, it appears the Legislative intent is that Section 504.23 not restrict access to only those persons having a specific interest in the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, is does not appear that data collected and maintained by the Housing Division are classified as anything other than public by Section 566.19. The relevant language of Section 566.19 is found in subdivision 2 which states, After an inspection of a building has been made upon demand by a tenant or neighborhood organization with the written permission of a tenant, the owner or the owner&apos;s agent and the complaining tenant or neighborhood organization shall be informed in writing by the inspector of any code violations discovered and a reasonable period of time shall be allowed in which to correct the violations. While Section 566.19 establishes a requirement that certain persons be informed of the results of an inspection, it does not contain language which would classify the Housing Division data as not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fourth, while none of the aforementioned statute sections appear to classify the Housing Division data as anything other than public, it appear that the data in question may be classified as not public by the language of Section 13.39, civil investigative data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.39 states that data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems, as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) or as confidential (data on individuals).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note, however, that there are three conditions which must be met when a government entity seeks to classify data as not public pursuant to Section 13.39. The first condition is that there must be a pending civil legal action. This term is defined in subdivision 1 of Section 13.39 as including, but not limited to, judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings. From the information submitted by Brooklyn Park for this opinion, it appears that some of the code enforcement data collected and maintained by the Housing Division might, at some time, become part of a civil legal action (and/or a criminal investigation).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second condition is that the chief attorney acting for the state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall determine whether, for purposes of Section 13.39, a civil legal action is pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third condition is that as established by a 1993 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the data must have been collected by a government entity in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267653&quot; title=&quot;95-040&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion # 95-040&lt;/a&gt;.) In &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the court held that a notice of claim provided to a political subdivision, had not been collected by the political subdivision in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation and thus, could be disclosed under Chapter 13. The court wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, in our view Minn. Stat. section13.39, subd. 2 (1990) does not permit a notice of claim to be classified as a nonpublic document. The statute speaks of &apos;data collected by * * * political subdivisions.&apos;...&apos;Collect,&apos; then, requires affirmative action by someone, and pursuant to section 13.39, subd. 2, that someone is a political subdivision...The information contained in a notice of claim is indeed retained by a political subdivision in anticipation of the possible commencement of legal action, but is not &apos;data collected&apos; by the political subdivision as part of an active investigation. The political subdivision has not taken any affirmative action to gather the information contained in a notice of claim; it is simply a passive recipient of that information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if the chief attorney acting for Brooklyn Park determines that a civil legal action is pending, and the data in question have been collected in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation, then it appears those data are classified as either confidential or protected nonpublic. The Commissioner wishes to note that pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 3, except for those portions of a file which are classified as not public data by Chapter 13 or other law, inactive civil investigative data are public, unless the release of the data would jeopardize another pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner also wishes to note it is possible that Section 13.82, comprehensive law enforcement data might classify as not public some of the data collected by the Housing Division. However, as Ms. Paulus stated in her opinion request, We understand that complaint investigations begin as civil investigations until a violation is not corrected. At the time staff begins prosecution for obtaining compliance with city ordinances the investigation becomes a criminal investigation. Because Ms. Paulus seemed primarily concerned with the following statutory Sections: 13.41; 504.23; 566.19; and 13.39, and because any application of the Housing Division data to Section 13.82 would likely occur later in the data collection process, the Commissioner has limited her discussion in this opinion to the statute sections referenced by Ms. Paulus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue raised by Ms. Paulus is whether the term civil legal action (of Section 13.39) refers only to actions initiated by a government entity. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 of Section 13.39, data collected by a government entity as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or &lt;u&gt;defense&lt;/u&gt; of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. Based on this language, it appears the Legislature intended Section 13.39 to protect data which are collected for either initiating or defending a civil legal action. Therefore, if the chief attorney determines that the government entity is or will be party to a civil legal action, either as a plaintiff or a defendant, data collected as part of an investigation relating to such a civil legal action are protected under Section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Paulus is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;While Sections 13.41, 504.23, and 566.19 do not classify the Housing Division&apos;s data as anything other than public, Section 13.39 may classify the Housing Division data as not public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Section 13.39 may classify as not public those data which are collected by the government entity for the purpose of either initiating a civil legal action or defending itself against a civil legal action.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 1, 1995
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267505</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Housing inspection data</Title><Id>267225</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Licensing data (13.41)</Title><Id>266935</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Later enacted statute</Title><Id>266351</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-049</Title><title>Opinion 95 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267750&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If Olmsted County Community Services maintains data about an individual, are legally authorized representatives of that individual entitled to gain access to those data, upon request, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
If the Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s Office maintains data about an individual, are legally authorized representatives of that individual entitled to gain access to those data, upon request, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1995; Olmsted County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On October 16, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Warren Higgins. Mr. Higgins described his attempts to gain access to certain data which are maintained by Olmsted County. He enclosed copies of correspondence with the County related to this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Higgins request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia L. Carlson, Director of Olmsted County Community Services, and Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated October 19, 1995, were to inform Ms. Carlson and Mr. Schmitz of Mr. Higgins&apos; request, to ask each of them to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform them of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Higgins, Ms. Carlson, and Mr. Schmitz were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 25, 1995, PIPA received a response from Mr. Schmitz. On October 26, 1995, PIPA received a response from Robert McIntosh, senior assistant county attorney, writing on behalf of Ms. Carlson. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Higgins, on September 21, 1995, and again on October 5, 1995, he attempted to gain access to the private data maintained by the County on S, an adult, and S&apos;s minor child. That data request and subsequent requests were signed by both Mr. Higgins and S&apos;s mother, Ms. S. He presented to Ms. Carlson a written authorization which stated that Mr. Higgins and Ms. S were entitled to gain access to any and all data maintained about S and S&apos;s minor child by any and all government entities. From the information provided, it appears that the County did not respond to Mr. Higgins&apos; request for access to the data on S until he made his second request for access.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated October 5, 1995, Ms. Carlson wrote to Ms. S in response. Ms. Carlson wrote that the request had been reviewed and [t]here has been no new information added to this social services file since the previous releases of information to you on August 16, 1994 and September 1, 1994 except for the data from Mower County which you already have.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Higgins and Ms. S also wrote to Mr. Schmitz on October 5, 1995, to request access to the data maintained by the County Attorney. In his response to them, dated October 6, 1995, Mr. Schmitz wrote: [y]our request for information from this office cannot be filled. The Minnesota Data Privacy Act [sic] limits the access to files of this office to activities such as discovery in a criminal case and then pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Schmitz enclosed a copy of Section 13.30, Attorney Data, and suggested that Mr. Higgins seek access from the agency maintaining the data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. McIntosh wrote: [a]ssuming the legal capacity to give a release and the legal authority to give a release on behalf of a data subject, data can be released to a designated representative, pursuant to Minn. Rules 1205.0200, Subd. 9B. Limiting this response to the narrow question you raised to Ms. Carlson, I conclude by observing that there has been no denial of access to [Ms. S] in Ms. Carlson&apos;s letter to [her] dated October 5, 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Schmitz wrote . . . [Section] 13.30 provides that data maintained by attorneys is not governed by this statute but rather by the rules of civil and criminal procedure and other statutes. I would advise you that full compliance has been made in all cases with the provisions of the appropriate rules.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Higgins asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If Olmsted County Community Services maintains data about an individual, are legally authorized representatives of that individual entitled to gain access to those data, upon request, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s Office maintains data about an individual, are legally authorized representatives of that individual entitled to gain access to those data, upon request, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 provides certain rights to individuals who are subjects of government data. One of those rights is the right to gain access to the public and private data about oneself that are maintained by a government entity. (Pursuant to Section 13.46, most data maintained by an agency which is part of the welfare system, such as Olmsted County Community Services, are private government data.) Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.
                        &lt;p&gt;
                          The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Chapter 13 also confers specific rights upon parents to have access to government data about their minor children. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8, provides [i]n the case of a minor . . . &apos;individual&apos; includes a parent . . . Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500 also governs access to private data on minors. Subpart 2 (B) provides [f]or purposes of this part, the responsible authority shall presume the parent has the authority to exercise the rights inherent in the act unless the responsible authority has been provided with evidence that there is a state law or court order governing such matters as divorce, separation, or custody, or a legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. Nothing was provided to the Commissioner to indicate that either S&apos;s rights to gain access to government data concerning S&apos;s minor child, or S&apos;s rights to authorize release of data to anyone else have been abrogated.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Chapter 13 provides that data subjects may give their consent to the release of private data about them to anyone they choose. Section 13.05, subdivision 4(d) states: [p]rivate data may be used by and disseminated to any person or agency if the individual subject . . . of the data [has] given [her or his] informed consent. Further, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that among those who are entitled to gain access to private data are entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Therefore, S has the right to give consent to the release of private data about S and S&apos;s minor child to Mr. Higgins and Ms. S. When Mr. Higgins presented S&apos;s authorization and requested access to the data maintained by the County about S and S&apos;s child, the County should have provided Mr. Higgins with access to those data within five working days. The County could have taken up to any additional five days to provide the data, had it given Mr. Higgins notice of its intent to do so.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, in her response to Mr. Higgins and Ms. S, Ms. Carlson stated [t]here has been no new information added to this social services file since the previous releases of information to you on August 16, 1994 and September 1, 1994 except for the data from Mower County which you already have. That response does not meet the County&apos;s obligation, to data subjects and their representatives, to provide appropriate access to the data it maintains. The fact that S or S&apos;s representatives may have gained access to the data a year earlier, or from another government entity, has no bearing on the County&apos;s obligation to provide appropriate access to the data it maintains.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. McIntosh wrote: [a]ssuming the legal capacity to give a release and the legal authority to give a release on behalf of a data subject, data can be released to a designated representative, pursuant to Minn. Rules 1205.0200, Subd. 9B. Limiting this response to the narrow question you raised to Ms. Carlson, I conclude by observing that there has been no denial of access to [Ms. S] in Ms. Carlson&apos;s letter to [her] dated October 5, 1995.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is not clear what Mr. McIntosh means in that response. Perhaps he understood the issue to relate only to whether or not an authorized representative of a data subject may gain access to private government data about the data subject. If the County had concerns about the consent, that should have been dealt with at the time the consent was presented by Mr. Higgins. However, Ms. Carlson&apos;s response to Mr. Higgins and Ms. S did not question their right to gain access to the data as S&apos;s representatives. Rather, it referred to their having already gained access to the data a year earlier, or from another County. In her response to their request, Ms. Carlson did not agree to provide access to the data to which they are entitled.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Issue 2 concerns Mr. Schmitz&apos;s obligation, as County Attorney, to provide access to data maintained by his office. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Schmitz wrote: . . . [Section] 13.30 provides that data maintained by attorneys is not governed by this statute but rather by the rules of civil and criminal procedure and other statutes. I would advise you that full compliance has been made in all cases with the provisions of the appropriate rules.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.30 provides:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 95-040:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities is controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, by the attorney/client privilege, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 can supersede and/or alter the classification/treatment of those data.
                        &lt;p&gt;
                          It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          If a government entity wishes to classify certain data as not public because those data are protected under Section 13.30, the entity must be able to point to the statute, rule, and/or professional standard which provides that the data should be not public. Given that Tri-County has not provided the Commissioner with any such documentation, it is difficult for the Commissioner to hypothesize as to which statute, rule, and/or professional standard Tri-County deems to be appropriate in this situation.
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.30 must be applied in a way that harmonizes its provisions with the requirements of Chapter 13, as well as other provisions of statute and rule. Given the limiting language in the last phrase of Section 13.30, clearly the Legislature did not intend that any and all data used, collected, stored, or disseminated by a public attorney, or government data held by a government entity that relate to the conduct of its legal affairs, be classified as not public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is possible that Mr. Schmitz does not maintain any data about S to which S is entitled access under the provisions of Chapter 13. In that case, Mr. Schmitz properly directed Mr. Higgins to seek access to the data from the appropriate government entity. However, Mr. Schmitz is not correct that any and all data maintained by attorneys are exempt from regulation under Chapter 13. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions 95-045 and 95-048).
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Higgins is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Olmsted County Community Services must provide appropriate access, to data subjects and their legally authorized representatives, to the public and private data it maintains. The fact that S or S&apos;s representatives may have gained access to the data a year earlier, or that the County believed S had gained access to some of the data from another County, has no bearing on Olmsted County&apos;s obligation to provide appropriate access to the data it maintains.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Section 13.30 relieves attorneys, acting in their professional capacity for government entities, from the requirements of Chapter 13 that relate to the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data. However, responsible authorities, other than public attorneys, may not rely upon that Section to relieve them of their responsibilities under Chapter 13. The Commissioner was not provided with any information to indicate that the County Attorney has received or is maintaining data about S provided to him by any other responsible authority. Therefore, it is possible that the Olmsted County Attorney&apos;s Office is not obligated to provide S or S&apos;s representatives with access to data.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 29, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267750</id><Tag><Description/><Title>County attorney</Title><Id>266257</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-048</Title><title>Opinion 95 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267837&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the data contained in the itemized legal bills, from January 1995 to the present, from the law firm of Holmes and Graven [sic] to the City of Lauderdale, public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 20, 1995; City of Lauderdale</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On October 4, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Keith P. Dyrud, publisher of the &lt;u&gt;Lauderdale Citizen&lt;/u&gt;newsletter. Mr. Dyrud described his attempts to gain access to certain data which are maintained by the City of Lauderdale. He enclosed copies of relevant correspondence with the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Dyrud&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tim Cruikshank, City Administrator for Lauderdale. The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 1995, were to inform Mr. Cruikshank of Mr. Dyrud&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Dyrud and Mr. Cruikshank were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 16, 1995, PIPA received a response from Ronald H. Batty, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter to the City dated July 17, 1995, Mr. Dyrud requested access to [t]he itemized legal bills from Holmes Graven [sic] for January 1995 to the present. These bills must include a. The person from Lauderdale making the request; b. The &apos;matter&apos; discussed; the date the request was made; and, the time charged to meeting that request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City responded . . . the Lauderdale City Council voted unanimously to not release the information you requested . . . . This decision was based on advice from the City&apos;s attorney that this information is protected under attorney-client privilege. Mr. Dyrud wrote back to the City, asking it to cite the specific section of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 upon which it relied to deny him access to the data. The City responded that the . . . citation is Minnesota Statute 13.30 and 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Batty wrote Lauderdale has never contended that disclosure of the amount of an attorney fee is prohibited by the attorney/client privilege. In fact, the city promptly provided Mr. Dyrud with a summary of the city&apos;s legal bills which showed the dollar amount of fees by month for each file. The law is clear, however, that disclosure of the confidential information underlying the payment of that fee is entitled to the full protection of the privilege.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Batty also stated that the content of the billing statements includes more detailed information than that described by Mr. Dyrud, and suggested that Chapter 13 . . . specifically recognizes at least three ways that the type of data requested by Mr. Dyrud is protected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, according to Mr. Batty, is . . . the protection offered to investigative data pursuant to [Section] 13.39. He said that the billing statements sought by Mr. Dyrud include bills for work on a personnel matter that is now in litigation. According to Mr. Batty, those details constitute civil investigative data, which are not public, as there is a pending civil legal action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Mr. Batty cited Section 13.30 as authority for his position that the data are protected by the attorney/client privilege. Mr. Batty also cited Rule 1.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Minnesota Statutes Sections 595.02(1)(b), 481.06, and 471.705 (1)(d)(e), and case law as further support for that position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Third, Mr. Batty stated . . . a city attorney typically becomes involved in a large number of issues involving not public data which are reflected in the attorney&apos;s bills to the city. As an example, Mr. Batty suggested that a billing statement might contain private medical data about a public employee, which the government entity is obliged to protect from public disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mr. Batty discussed the policy implications of making detailed billing statements public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Dyrud asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the data contained in the itemized legal bills, from January 1995 to the present, from the law firm of Holmes and Graven [sic] to the City of Lauderdale, public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Note: the correct name of the law firm in question is Kennedy and Graven.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Mr. Batty&apos;s first rationale for denying public access to the data in the billing statements is that the data are classified under Section 13.39, as civil investigative data. Section 13.39, subdivision 2, provides, in relevant part, that data collected by government entities, as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) or as confidential (data on individuals.)
&lt;p&gt;Subdivision 1 of Section 13.39 states that the chief attorney acting for the government entity shall determine whether, for purposes of Section 13.39, a civil legal action is pending.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Batty stated that the billing statements sought by Mr. Dyrud include bills for work on a personnel matter that is now in litigation and therefore, those details constitute civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.39. It is up to Mr. Batty, as chief attorney for the City, to make that determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Section 13.39 does not protect data simply by virtue of their inclusion in an attorney&apos;s billing statement. For example, data such as the number of hours a public attorney bills a government entity, or the hourly fee charged, cannot be construed to be civil investigative data under Section 13.39. Indeed, as the Minnesota Supreme Court held in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), not all data about legal matters are civil investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It may well be the case that some of the data in the billing statements are civil investigative data. Mr. Batty is correct that the chief attorney for the government entity has the discretion to make that determination. In that case, those data must be protected from public disclosure. However, any public data contained in the billing statements, that are not clearly civil investigative data protected by Section 13.39, must be accessible to members of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that &lt;u&gt;inactive&lt;/u&gt;civil investigative data, with certain exceptions as provided in Section 13.39, subdivision 3, are public data. Therefore, if the City chooses to invoke Section 13.39 to protect data while a civil legal action is pending or anticipated, it must properly treat inactive civil investigative data as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, Mr. Batty argues that if the data in question are not civil investigative data, they are still protected under Section 13.30. That Section provides:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 95-045:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;As discussed in Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-040, the Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities are controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected [for example] as an attorney&apos;s work product, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 supersedes and/or alters the classification or treatment of those data.
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this Section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17. Otherwise, a government entity could effectively shield any data it did not wish to disclose, by turning the matter over to its attorney. If Mr. Krafts&apos; logic were accepted, anything an attorney did related to the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data could be exempted from regulation under Chapter 13. By including the last phrase of Section 13.30, the legislature clearly intended to prevent just such an occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Batty cited several statutory provisions, and various case law, in support of his position that the data sought by Mr. Dyrud are not public. The Commissioner recognizes that the attorney/client privilege is significant; however, it is not all-encompassing. Given the finding in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, and the limiting language in the last phrase of Section 13.30, clearly the Legislature did not intend that any and all data used, collected, stored, or disseminated by a public attorney, or government data held by a government entity that relate to the conduct of its legal affairs, be classified as not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.30 must be applied in a way that harmonizes its provisions with the requirements of Chapter 13, as well as other provisions of statute and rule. It is not sufficient to argue, for example, that because an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client in a court proceeding, pursuant to Section 595.02, therefore any and all data an attorney uses, collects, stores, or disseminates in the course of her or his representation of a government entity, are protected from disclosure under Chapter 13. Chapter 595 governs who may or may not be compelled to testify in a court proceeding. This opinion addresses an issue of access to data, not an issue of evidentiary privilege. It is crucial that the two not be confused.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third point raised by Mr. Batty is that public attorneys routinely deal with issues involving not public data. Those data are often referenced in the billing statements. Mr. Batty said [i]f the attorney provides billing statements to the client that are detailed enough to allow meaningful review, and if the client is then forced to make those billing statements public, what is not public by law will become public in fact. To the extent that data that are not public are contained in the billing statements, Mr. Batty is correct that those data must be protected from public disclosure. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(8), for an example of the Legislature&apos;s attempts to accommodate a mixture of public and private data which are typically contained in a single document.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Commissioner acknowledges that Mr. Batty makes some persuasive policy arguments as to why some of the data contained in the billing statements ought not to be public data. He writes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Cities cannot be placed in the position of disclosing information that is otherwise protected as investigative data or that is the subject of a pending legal action. Cities can even less afford to reveal data that are not public under [Chapter 13.] If release of billing statements is required, such statements are likely to become less detailed, and thus more difficult for the municipal client to evaluate. Alternatively, public clients will become reluctant to discuss sensitive issues with their attorneys. In either event, the public ultimately suffers.
&lt;p&gt;The effect of such a ruling would also place a disproportionate burden on small cities who generally contract for legal services and receive a monthly billing statement detailing the attorney&apos;s work. Larger cities, who employ in-house attorneys who do not prepare client bills, will not face this problem. There seems to be no justification for making a distinction between what information must be revealed based on how a city obtains its legal services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While Mr. Batty&apos;s arguments are compelling, they collide with current policy which, as articulated in Chapter 13, states a very strong presumption of public accessibility to government data. However, his comments, if brought to the Minnesota Legislature, might result in some clarification as to the proper treatment of such data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the very nature of attorney billing statements, and the apparent lack of standardization among them with regard to content, it is very possible that the statements contain certain data which are protected from public disclosure under Sections 13.30 or 13.39. If so, then those portions of the billing statements are not accessible to the public. However, that does not imply a blanket protection for the billing statements. That protection applies only to the specific data elements in the billing statements that are subject to protection under Sections 13.30 or 13.39, or other relevant statutes. All other data contained in the statements must be presumed to be public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Dyrud is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Some of the data contained in the attorney&apos;s billing statements may properly be classified as not public, pursuant to Sections 13.30, 13.39, or other applicable statutes. All other data contained in the statements must be presumed to be public, pursuant to Section 13.03.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 20, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267837</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Billing statements</Title><Id>266977</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-047</Title><title>Opinion 95 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267389&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Duluth Detoxification Center subject to Chapter 13?
Was the Duluth Detoxification Center Acting in compliance with Minnesota law when it disseminated, to the Duluth Police Department, the results of T&apos;s Preliminary Breath Test?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 1995; Duluth Detoxification Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On September 29, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated September 26, 1995, from T&apos;s father, on behalf of T. In his letter, T&apos;s father requested an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of private data by the Duluth Detoxification Center, hereinafter Duluth Detox.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the request of T&apos;s father, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Sharon Oates, Director of Duluth Detox. The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 1995, were to inform Ms. Oates of T&apos;s father&apos;s request, to ask her or Duluth Detox&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Duluth Detox&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On October 12, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated October 12, 1995, from Gary Olson, Executive Director of the Center for Alcohol Drug Treatment, Inc., the organization which operates the Duluth Detoxification Center program. (In subsequent correspondence, T&apos;s father and Ms. Oates were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this situation is as follows. According to both the Duluth Police Department arrest report (which was provided to PIPA by T&apos;s father) and to T&apos;s father, T was transported to Duluth Detox by a member of the Duluth Police Department where s/he signed in voluntarily. Also according to both the police report and T&apos;s father, Duluth Detox gave T a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). Based on the following language contained in the police report, it appears that Duluth Police apparently obtained information from Duluth Detox regarding the results of the breath test, I [the officer who prepared the police report] transported [T] to the Duluth Detoxification Center....Detox gave [T] a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). The result on the PBT for [T&apos;s] breath sample was [a number]. I left [T] at Detox and told [T] that, after a few weeks, someone would notify him as to when he has to come to court on this incident.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Olson stated that Duluth Detox is operated by the Center for Alcohol Drug Treatment, Inc., a non-profit social service agency which performs services under contract to a political subdivision. Mr. Olson also stated, &apos;T&apos; was brought to the Duluth Detox by the Police Department....[T] agreed to take a breath test for our own internal purposes (admission criteria)....When we discussed [results of PBT, etc.] with &apos;T&apos;, either the comments were overheard by the Police, or the Police managed to obtain a glance at the machine readings. It appears that the Police did not have the exact test results in any case. To the extent that the Police may have received information on the results, this was entirely inadvertent on the part of the Center. The data was not knowingly, voluntarily or willfully shared with the Police Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Olson further stated, It should be noted that Federal confidentiality regulation apparently restrict the use of information obtained in the course of alcohol and drug abuse programs in connection with the investigation or prosecution of alcohol or drug abuse patients. See 42 CFR Part 2....Therefore, we believe that this information, which was inadvertently learned by the Police officers, cannot be used in connection with the charges in any event. It is certainly not the practice of the Center to share test results with anyone other than our client. The Center will work to avoid other situations where test results might be inadvertantly [sic] seen or heard by the Police or others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, T&apos;s father asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the Duluth Detoxification Center subject to Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Was the Duluth Detoxification Center Acting in compliance with Minnesota law when it disseminated, to the Duluth Police Department, the results of T&apos;s Preliminary Breath Test?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
The first issue is whether Duluth Detox is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Duluth Detox is a private, non-government entity. As a general rule, a non-government entity is &lt;u&gt;not subject&lt;/u&gt;to the requirements of Chapter 13. However, upon entering into a contract with a government entity, there are certain situations in which a non-government entity may become subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Depending on several variables, such as the terms of and the parties to the contract, one or more of several provisions in Chapter 13 may bind a non-government entity to the Chapter 13 requirements. The extent to which the non-government entity is bound depends upon language of the particular Chapter 13 provision.
&lt;p&gt;In the situation at hand, as stated by Mr. Olson, Duluth Detox performs services under contract to a political subdivision, in this case, St. Louis County. In his response, Mr. Olson wrote, [Duluth Detox] does provide services under contract to a political subdivision. It is required to collect some data due to that relationship. I am not sure that this particular data is data which must be collected under those conditions, however.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, during a telephone conversation with PIPA staff, Mr. Olson explained that the contract with St. Louis County includes a clause stating, in effect, that Duluth Detox agrees to comply, in all respects, with Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.01 through 13.46. (It should be noted that the Commissioner has not seen a copy of this contract.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on Mr. Olson&apos;s explanation of the contract and the nature of the services provided by Duluth Detox, the Commissioner concludes that the contract is probably between Duluth Detox and the county welfare (or human services, etc.) division (or department, etc.) of St. Louis County. Given that conclusion, there is a provision in Chapter 13 which binds Duluth Detox to Chapter 13. Section 13.46, subdivision 1 (c) states:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Welfare system includes the department of human services, local social services agencies, county welfare agencies, human services boards, community mental health center boards, state hospitals, state nursing homes, the ombudsman for mental health and mental retardation, and persons, agencies, institutions, organizations, &lt;u&gt;and other entities under contract to any of the above agencies to the extent specified in the contract.&lt;/u&gt;[Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming that Duluth Detox has entered into a contract with the St. Louis County welfare agency, Duluth Detox, pursuant to Section 13.46, subdivision 1 (c), has become part of the welfare system to the extent specified in its contract. Therefore, because the language, as stated by Mr. Olson, in the contract requires Duluth Detox to comply with Sections 13.01 through 13.46, that is the extent to which Duluth Detox is subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue is whether the dissemination of the preliminary breath test results was in compliance with Minnesota law. Section 13.46, subdivision 2 (a), states that unless the data are summary data or a statute specifically provides a different classification, data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system are private data on individuals and must not be disclosed except in certain circumstances (see Section 13.46, subdivision 2 (a) (1) - (18)). In addition, Section 13.46, subdivision 2 (b), adopts a further limitation in the case of individuals who have applied for or been given diagnosis or treatment for alcohol or drug abuse at a federally assisted program. Data on such individuals may be disclosed only in accordance with the requirements of Code of Federal Regulations, title 42, sections 2.1 to 2.67.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(The Commissioner wishes to note that the referenced federal rules contain strict language relating to the disclosure and use of drug abuse patient records, and allow for disclosures without patient consent only in very limited circumstances.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As previously stated, Section 13.46, subdivision 2, classifies all data on individuals which are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system as private data. Therefore, it is clear that the preliminary breath test results are private data. Pursuant to Chapter 13, there are limited situations in which the dissemination of private data might be permitted to persons outside of Duluth Detox. However, there is no authority in Section 13.46, or elsewhere, to disseminate this kind of private data to law enforcement officers. Nor was there any indication from T that s/he authorized, through informed consent, release of the preliminary breath test results to the Duluth Police Department. Therefore, it appears that the release of those data by Duluth Detox was not in compliance with Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner wishes to note that Mr. Olson, in his response, did state, It is certainly not the practice of [Duluth Detox] to share results with anyone other than our client. [Duluth Detox] will work to avoid other situations where test results might be inadvertantly [sic] seen or heard by the Police or others. To the extent that the Police may have learned something of the test results in this particular instance, that disclosure was entirely unknowing and inadvertant [sic]. The Commissioner appreciates Mr. Olson&apos;s candor and willingness to work to avoid similar disclosures in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by T is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Based on both Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1 (c), and the language in Duluth Detox&apos;s contract with St. Louis County, it appears that Duluth Detox is subject to the requirements of Sections 13.01 through 13.46.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Assuming Duluth Detox is subject to Chapter 13, the dissemination of T&apos;s preliminary breath test results to the Duluth Police Department was not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 16, 1995&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267389</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug treatment records (42 C.F.R. Part 2)</Title><Id>266686</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contractors</Title><Id>266553</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Detox center records</Title><Id>267018</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entities bound by contract</Title><Id>267054</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-046</Title><title>Opinion 95 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267477&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-09T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did H&apos;s supervisor act in compliance with Chapter 13 when he disseminated data about H (an employee of Minneapolis Community College) to persons not employed by Minneapolis College?
Did H&apos;s supervisor act in compliance with Chapter 13 when he disseminated data about H (an employee of Minneapolis Community College) to persons employed by Minneapolis Community College?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 9, 1995; Minneapolis Community College</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 22, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated September 13, 1995, from H. In that letter, H requested an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of private data by H&apos;s supervisor. Both H and H&apos;s supervisor are employees of Minneapolis Community College, hereinafter MCC.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to H&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Diann Schindler, MCC President. The purposes of this letter, dated October 5, 1995, were to inform Ms. Schindler of H&apos;s request, to ask her or MCC&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for MCC&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On October 25, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated October 24, 1995, from Nancy Joyer, Assistant Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this situation is as follows. In the September 13, 1995, opinion request, H discussed the instances in which H believed an inappropriate dissemination of data about H occurred. H&apos;s first concern was that data about H had apparently been provided (without H&apos;s permission), by H&apos;s MCC supervisor, to persons not employed by MCC. H attached, to the September 13, 1995, letter, a copy of a letter addressed to H&apos;s attorney from an apparent resident of Texas. In part, the letter read, Enclosed are the papers we spoke of. Upon further reflection, I am now certain that [H&apos;s supervisor] gave me the packet of papers when he and his wife came to [Texas].... H provided copies of the packet of papers which included two physician-generated documents and four employment-related documents.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                H&apos;s second concern was that data about H had been provided (without H&apos;s permission), by H&apos;s MCC supervisor, to various named MCC employees. It is H&apos;s contention that these employees had no reason to have knowledge of the data about H.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Ms. Joyer did not specifically address the issue of whether an inappropriate dissemination of data about H occurred. Rather, she made two arguments related to the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue this opinion. First she asserted that the Commissioner is precluded from issuing an advisory opinion in this case because there has been no determination by MCC. Second, she asserted that because H has filed a complaint against MCC with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, ...the College declines to respond to the opinion request. The College urges the Commissioner not to become involved in issues which are actively in another forum for dispute resolution....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In H&apos;s request for an opinion, H asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did H&apos;s supervisor act in compliance with Chapter 13 when he disseminated data about H (an employee of Minneapolis Community College) to persons not employed by Minneapolis College?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did H&apos;s supervisor act in compliance with Chapter 13 when he disseminated data about H (an employee of Minneapolis Community College) to persons employed by Minneapolis Community College?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Before addressing the specific issues raised by H, the Commissioner wishes to comment on the two assertions made by Ms. Joyer. In MCC&apos;s response letter, Ms. Joyer included some of the language from Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, the section containing the language which authorizes the Commissioner of Administration to issue advisory opinions:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision, the commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Ms. Joyer states, This section presupposes the agency has made a determination about the data. No such agency determination is alleged in the present matter. Here, rather, the underlying question is whether an employee of the College released private data on the party requesting the Commissioner&apos;s opinion contrary to the Data Practices Act. The College asks the Commissioner to decline to issue an opinion for lack of jurisdiction.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  While not entirely clear, it appears Ms. Joyer presumes that a determination regarding data practices by a government entity requires an overt action on the part of a government entity. However, it is the Commissioner&apos;s position that the Legislature intended a much broader definition of the term determination. For instance, in this situation, the Commissioner believes that the apparent decision by H&apos;s supervisor to release private data about H is a determination regarding data practices. Therefore, the Commissioner does not agree that the issues to be addressed in this opinion are beyond the scope of the authority granted her in Section 13.072.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The second assertion made by Ms. Joyer is that the Commissioner should not issue an opinion in this situation because H has filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights involving the same issues raised by H in H&apos;s opinion request. Ms Joyer stated, The College urges the Commissioner not to become involved in issues which are actively in another forum for dispute resolution. The College asks the Commissioner to refrain from issuing an opinion in this matter.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner is not aware of any provision in Minnesota law which preludes her from issuing an opinion if the opinion requestor has filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights has no jurisdiction over disputes arising out of Chapter 13. Therefore, the Commissioner does not agree with Ms. Joyer&apos;s argument that this opinion should not be issued because H has filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given that the Commissioner has determined it appropriate to issue this opinion, she will now address the two issues raised by H. It seems that the documents about H, which were apparently disseminated by H&apos;s supervisor, were collected and maintained by MCC because H is an employee of MCC. Further, because MCC is a state agency as defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 17, and is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, the data in question are personnel data for the purposes of Chapter 13 and are classified in Section 13.43. Section 13.43 specifies the various types of personnel data which are public and provides that all remaining types of personnel data are private data. In examining the documents about H, it appears to the Commissioner that the data contained in those documents are private. It also appears that some of the data were collected from H and some of the data were collected from other persons.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As previously discussed, H is concerned about the dissemination of data by MCC to both certain non-employees (or persons outside) of MCC and certain employees of MCC. Pursuant to Chapter 13, there are limited situations in which dissemination of private data is permitted. First, Section 13.05, subdivision 3, states that the use and dissemination of private and confidential data on individuals must be limited to that which is ...necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. However, in situations where private or confidential data were collected from the data subject and are about that data subject, those data cannot be released unless the data subject received notice of such a release as required in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, and Section 13.05, subdivision 4.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Second, Section 13.05, subdivision 9, states that a government entity may allow another government entity access to data classified as not public only when the access to required by statute or federal law.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Third, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to any person or agency if the individual subject of the data has given their informed consent.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As to the first issue raised by H, dissemination of private data to persons outside of MCC, the following appears to be true if the aforementioned limitations are applied to H&apos;s particular situation. In regards to any data about H collected directly from H, it does not appear that H was advised in a Tennessen Warning notice that certain persons outside MCC were authorized to gain access to the data. In regards to the data collected about H from other sources, MCC has not presented any documentation to demonstrate that certain persons outside MCC were authorized by law to receive the private data. Furthermore, in regards to all the private data, regardless of the source of collection, it appears that the release of those data was authorized without H&apos;s informed consent.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As to the second issue raised by H, dissemination of private data to MCC employees, Chapter 13 and its implementing rules provide additional clarification regarding the release of private data within a government entity. Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides the standard required when a government entity is deciding who within a government entity may have access to private data:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Access to private data shall be available only to the following: the subject of such data, as limited by any applicable statute or federal law; &lt;u&gt;individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access&lt;/u&gt;; entities and agencies as determined by the responsible authority who are authorized by statute, including Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4, or federal law to gain access to that specific data; and entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In addition, subpart 3 of Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.0400 states, The responsible authority shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2....
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Chapter 13, private data about H should be available to only those MCC employees whose work assignments reasonably require such access. MCC&apos;s response did not address the issue of whether the named MCC employees, who apparently received data about H, possess work assignments that reasonably require access to those data. Furthermore, MCC&apos;s response did not indicate whether MCC has established the procedures required under Minnesota Rules Section 1205.044, subpart 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given that MCC did not demonstrate why certain persons outside MCC and certain employees of MCC should have access to private data about H, the Commissioner is left to conclude there is no reason, under Chapter 13, as to why those named persons should have access to the data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by H is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data relating to H are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.43. While Minnesota law specifies the individuals and entities authorized to gain access to private data, MCC provided no supporting documentation demonstrating why certain persons outside of MCC or certain employees of MCC were authorized, pursuant to Sections 13.04, 13.05, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, to gain access to the private data about H. Absent this information from MCC, it appears that the dissemination of data about H, by H&apos;s supervisor, to persons outside MCC and persons employed by MCC was not authorized by Chapter 13 or its implementing rules. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 9, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267477</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data necessary for administration and management of programs (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266359</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intergovernmental access (13.05, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266387</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266835</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determination under 13.072</Title><Id>266701</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Performance data/evaluations</Title><Id>266625</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-045</Title><title>Opinion 95 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267680&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the District obligated to release to the public its attorney&apos;s investigator&apos;s report concerning alleged misconduct by a District employee?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 9, 1995; School District 792 (Long Prairie-Grey Eagle)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On October 20, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Ivars J. Krafts, an attorney representing the Long Prairie-Grey Eagle School District (I.S.D. # 792.) A summary of the detailed facts of the matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District hired Mr. Krafts to investigate a complaint, made by a parent against a teacher in the District. The complaint alleged misconduct toward the parent and the parent&apos;s child, a student in the teacher&apos;s class.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Krafts directed one of his employees to interview witnesses, and report his findings to Mr. Krafts. Mr. Krafts then made a written report to the District, in which he concluded that the teacher had behaved inappropriately toward both the parent and child. Upon Mr. Krafts&apos; recommendation, a &quot;Notice of Deficiency&quot; was placed in the teacher&apos;s file. Mr. Krafts referred to the Notice of Deficiency as &quot;the resulting discipline.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Krafts, upon request, the parent was &quot;provided a summary&quot; of the actions taken by the District in this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The parent then requested a copy of my investigator&apos;s report. I advised the Superintendent that, in my opinion, this information was not subject to release for the following reasons:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The investigator is employed by me, not the District.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The investigator&apos;s report is in effect my work product, and as a general principle, an attorney&apos;s work product is not subject to disclosure.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The report is my property, not the District&apos;s.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;By providing a summary of the disciplinary action, the District met the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, Subd. 2 (a).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Krafts asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the District obligated to release to the public its attorney&apos;s investigator&apos;s report concerning alleged misconduct by a District employee?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Krafts offered four reasons to support his opinion that the investigative report is not public data. The first reason is that the investigator is his, not the District&apos;s, employee. However, in this instance, Mr. Krafts is acting as an agent of the District. By extension, his employee is also, in this instance, acting as an agent of the District while conducting the interviews. This argument, &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, is not sufficient to deny public access to the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Krafts&apos; second rationale is that the report constitutes his &lt;u&gt;work product&lt;/u&gt;, and &quot;as a general principle . . . is not subject to disclosure.&quot; He offered no other information in support of this assertion. In order to determine whether the work product of an attorney employed by a government entity is exempt from disclosure under Chapter 13, it is necessary to examine Section 13.30, which governs public attorneys:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, &lt;u&gt;nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17&lt;/u&gt;. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As discussed in Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267653&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 95-040&lt;/a&gt;, the Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities are controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected, as an attorney&apos;s work product, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 supersedes and/or alters the classification or treatment of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this Section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17. Otherwise, a government entity could effectively shield any data it did not wish to disclose, by turning the matter over to its attorney. If Mr. Krafts&apos; logic were accepted, anything an attorney did related to the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data could be exempted from regulation under Chapter 13. By including the last phrase of Section 13.30, the legislature clearly intended to prevent just such an occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Third, Mr. Krafts asserts that the report is his property, not the District&apos;s. It is difficult to address this issue without knowing the exact content of the contract between Mr. Krafts and the District. If the terms of the contract state that all the data produced by Mr. Krafts for the District belong to him, then that would appear to be another way in which responsible authorities may be relieved of their responsibilities under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The same concerns apply to this argument that apply to the claim that the report is Mr. Krafts&apos; work product. Although he did not cite Section 13.30 as the basis for his rationale, if public attorneys may employ Section 13.30 to claim that all the data they handle in conjunction with the performance of any duty for a government entity are their property, then that could have the effect of negating significant policy requirements of Chapter 13. The Commissioner does not believe that the Legislature intended that result in its enactment of Section 13.30.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Finally, Mr. Krafts maintains that because the District provided a &lt;u&gt;summary&lt;/u&gt; of its actions in this matter, it had met its obligation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, to provide access to the data requested. However, the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, in relevant part, states clearly that the following data are public: &quot;. . . the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and &lt;u&gt;data documenting the basis of the action&lt;/u&gt;. . . .&quot; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District is obligated to provide appropriate access to the data requested. Clearly, the data in the investigator&apos;s report constitute data which document the basis of the District&apos;s disciplinary action. It may be the case that the matter is not &quot;final disciplinary action&quot; for purposes of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, and if not, those data are not yet public. However, the District did not offer that as its basis for denial of access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, it may well be the case that the report also contains private educational data, and/or private personnel data on other District employees. In that case, those data must be redacted from the data provided to the public. Of course, the parent is entitled to gain access to educational data about her or his own child, but is not entitled to gain access to private educational data about other students, or private personnel data. (For a more in-depth discussion of this point, see Commissioner&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-267430&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 93-010&lt;/a&gt;, issued December 9, 1993.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Krafts is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The District is obligated to provide access to the public data portion in its attorney&apos;s investigator&apos;s report. If the District has made a &quot;final disposition&quot; of disciplinary action, the data in the report that describe the reasons for the disciplinary action or document the basis for the action are public data. If the report contains private personnel or educational data about other employees of District 792, or its students, those data must be redacted from the data made available to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: November 9, 1995&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267680</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work product</Title><Id>266676</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Investigator/interview notes</Title><Id>266710</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-07-10T19:51:20Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-044</Title><title>Opinion 95 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267781&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-11-01T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does a copy charge of $10.00 per photograph represent the &quot;actual&quot; cost to Scott County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, for copying government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 1, 1995; Scott County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On September 14, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mary Britton Clouse. In her letter, Ms. Clouse requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her dispute with the Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Department over copying charges for public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Clouse&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William J. Nevin, Scott County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated September 19, 1995, were to inform Sheriff Nevin of Ms. Clouse&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Clouse and Sheriff Nevin were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 29, 1995, PIPA received a response from Sheriff Nevin. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to Ms. Clouse&apos;s request were copies of three letters documenting her correspondence with Scott County officials, all relating to her attempts to gain access to copies of photographs that are inactive investigative data. (Ms. Clouse&apos;s attempt to gain access to some of the same data from Scott County was the subject of an earlier Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion, 95-032.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to her request for copies of certain photographs maintained by the County, Ms. Clouse received a letter, dated August 3, 1995, from Deputy David N. Einertson, of the County Sheriff&apos;s Office. In that letter, she was informed that the Sheriff&apos;s Office is the responsible authority for the data, and that the cost of copies was $10.00 per photograph.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Clouse wrote back to the Sheriff on August 27, 1995, and objected to the $10.00 charge per photograph. She quoted a local film developer&apos;s price of $10.50 to print a roll of 24 exposures ($.44 each). Ms. Clouse said that she was . . .willing to pay an additional $10 to cover the administrative costs. . . . This seems reasonable since you have not provided an itemized account of how your department arrived at a [$10.00 per photograph] charge for reproducing these photos for me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to that letter, Deputy Einertson wrote to Ms. Clouse that the County has charged $10.00 per photographic reprint for quite a number of years without complaint. He said [t]he fee covers a number of costs, such as reprinting, enlarging, employee time preparing and conducting viewings of the photographs, employee time expended in retrieving the negatives chosen, labeling them and returning them to the file after reprinting, employee time and vehicle use to transport the negatives, etc. Deputy Einertson also compared Scott County&apos;s copy charges with those of other metropolitan sheriff&apos;s offices, and stated that the County&apos;s were not out of line.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Sheriff Nevin stated that his office had reviewed its charges about ten years ago, and determined that $10.00 per reprint was a reasonable charge based on the time and expense involved in such requests. He provided some additional detail of the costs outlined by Deputy Einertson, as support for the County&apos;s copy fee for photographic reprints.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Clouse asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does a copy charge of $10.00 per photograph represent the actual cost to Scott County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, for copying government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provide that government entities may recover some of the costs associated with providing copies of public government data.
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides, in relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public data upon request. If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, provides that [t]he responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of public data. This Part also provides guidance on the kinds of costs that may be included in the copy charge, including materials, labor required to prepare the copies, and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Sheriff Nevin stated that the County includes in its calculation of its copying fee (1) employee time (including numerous elements, discussed below), (2) actual reprinting costs, (3) vehicle costs, and (4) storage costs. &lt;!--/font--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;1. Employee time&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A. Preparing and conducting review(s) of photographs by requester(s) to determine which photographs are to be reprinted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that government data may be inspected &lt;u&gt;at no charge&lt;/u&gt;. If upon inspection, a person requires copies, then the actual cost of the copy may be recovered, including employee time &lt;u&gt;required to prepare the copies&lt;/u&gt;. In his response, Sheriff Nevin has described a number of costs which are not related to copying data. As he has described it, this activity appears to be associated with &lt;u&gt;inspection &lt;/u&gt;of data, not &lt;u&gt;copying &lt;/u&gt;the data, and as such, may not be included in the County&apos;s copying fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;B. Determination if some or all of the photographs may be released to the requester, which may involve consultation with supervisory personnel and/or the County Attorney&apos;s Office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This criterion represents a determination whether the data are public or private. Section 13.03 clearly states that charges for separating public from not public data may not be recovered in the copying fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;C. Retrieval of the chosen negatives from the evidence room; sorting and labeling the chosen negatives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This activity may be a part of the actual cost of providing copies of the photographs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;D. Transporting the negatives to and from the reproducing facilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly this is a part of the process to provide copies of photographs, as the Sheriff&apos;s office does not produce reprints in-house.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;E. Returning the originals and subsequently the negatives to the evidence room.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This activity is an indirect cost associated with access and inspection, not copying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;F. Recording these activities in the evidence room records; and meetings, telephone and/or letter correspondence with requesters regarding photographs and reprints; etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These appear to be costs associated with the County&apos;s obligation to keep track of its data, and to account for and respond to data requests. These are not costs directly related to preparing and providing copies of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;2. Actual reprinting costs.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly the charge for reprints is an element of the cost of providing copies. Ms. Clouse, in a letter to the Sheriff, quoted a local film developer&apos;s price to print a roll of exposures. Sheriff Nevin responded . . . Ms. Clouse quotes the price to develop a roll of 24 prints. However, the charge for reprints is higher than simple development charges. (Emphasis his.) It is not clear from the information provided if Ms. Clouse was referring to printing or film developing costs. The Sheriff is correct, that the appropriate cost to include is that of reprinting negatives, not developing the film.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that the County provides copies of photographs with some regularity. If so, it must have recent documentation of the actual cost of reprints. To avoid confusion, it would be helpful if the County were to provide that documentation to the data requester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;3. Vehicle costs.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The vehicle costs which may appropriately be included in the copying fee are those costs directly involved in the provision of copies, i.e., the mileage costs to transport the negatives to and from the printing facility. Presumably, the Sheriff&apos;s Office does not maintain a separate vehicle solely for purposes of such transportation. Again, it is not reasonable for government entities to recover a portion of their normal operating expenses by charging a copying fee which is higher than the actual cost to supply the copy. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions 94-040 and 94-059.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;4. Storage costs.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County must make provisions for storing government data it is required to maintain, whether or not anyone ever requests a copy of the data. The storage costs are not incidental to the cost of providing Ms. Clouse with copies of the photographs. The inclusion of such storage costs is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The County appears to be including all of its administrative costs associated with maintaining photographs in the copying fee, which is not allowed under statute and rule. The costs which are allowed to be recovered are the direct costs of providing copies, including reasonable costs to retrieve the negatives, to transport them to and from the printing facility, the actual reprint costs, and mailing costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One additional comment is in order. In his response, Sheriff Nevin stated [c]harges for photocopies of birth and death certificates in Scott County, and other jurisdictions, are also similarly priced. A birth certificate is $11.00 and a death certificate is $8.00. The fees for certified copies of vital records are set by Rules of the Commissioner of Health. The fee for a certified copy of a birth certificate includes a surcharge, which is deposited into the Children&apos;s Trust Fund. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 144.226.) Those fees are not based solely on the actual cost to provide a copy of a vital record, as the County&apos;s fee for copies of other government data must be based.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Clouse is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Office has not met the burden of establishing that a copy charge of $10.00 per photograph represents its actual cost, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, for copying government data. It appears that the County is including costs in its copying fee that are not allowable, under statute or rule.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 1, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267781</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T15:18:26Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-043</Title><title>Opinion 95 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267233&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-10-31T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does a copy charge of $1.00 per page represent the &quot;actual&quot; cost, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, for copying government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 1995; Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 13, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated September 11, 1995, from Abigail Grenfell. In her letter, Ms. Grenfell requested an advisory opinion related to the charge she had been assessed, by the Office of Administrative Hearings, for a copy of certain data. Attached to Ms. Grenfell&apos;s request letter were copies of correspondence between her attorney, Larry Peterson, and the Office of Administrative Hearings, hereinafter OAH.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Grenfell&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge. The purposes of this letter, dated September 18, 1995, were to inform Judge Johnson of Ms. Grenfell&apos;s request, to ask him or OAH&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for OAH&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On September 29, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated September 26, 1995, from Rolf Hagen, Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Grenfell and Judge Johnson were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this situation is as follows. Ms. Grenfell is appealing a decision by OAH to the Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals and has been seeking access to a transcript of the original OAH hearing. Minnesota Statutes Section 176.421, subdivisions 3 and 4, state An appeal initiates the preparation of a typewritten transcript of the entire record.... and The first party to file an appeal is liable for the original cost of preparation of the transcript.... In a letter dated June 6, 1995, the OAH Court Administrator wrote The approximate cost of the transcript in your case is $1416.00. The preparation of the transcript will not begin until you submit either a check in the amount of $1416.00 payable to the State Treasurer/OAH or a petition for an indigent transcript has been received and granted....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then, in a letter dated July 14, 1995, Mr. Peterson wrote to Judge Johnson, It is my understanding that the transcript has been prepared and is waiting to be submitted to the Workers&apos; Compensation Court of Appeals. Therefore, my client requests a certified copy of the transcript. Please advise what the cost will be for a copy of that transcript under Minn. Stat. section 13.01, subds. 12 and 17 and Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3.... We believe that my client should be paying a reasonable copying charge for this transcript given the fact that it has been prepared and is now a public record....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated July 18, 1995, the OAH Court Administrator wrote to Mr. Peterson, Being that a transcript has already been prepared per a special request, you may obtain a copy of that transcript through the transcriptionist...the copying charge is $1.00 per page (847 pages) for a total of $847.00....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, to Ms. Grenfell&apos;s opinion request, Judge Hagen wrote, ...it has always been the position of Office of Administrative Hearings that the transcript of hearings (regardless of its classification) are the property of the court reporter and/or court reporting service that does the actual transcription. In point of fact, when a party(ies) orders an original transcript or a copy thereof, they are actually ordering the original and/or copies from the court reporter and/or court reporting service and not from the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Emphasis his.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Judge Hagen also stated that the OAH annually sends out Requests for Proposals from the various court reporters and/or court reporting services to solicit bids for providing court reporting services, including transcriptions. Judge Hagen further stated that the Requests for Proposals result in contracts between the State of Minnesota and various court reporters and/or court reporting services, In these contracts, the cost for production of a hearing transcript and/or copies are set forth, and this serves as the basis for the cost of obtaining the requested hearing transcript. Judge Hagen provided a copy of a Request for Proposal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Grenfell asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does a copy charge of $1.00 per page represent the actual cost, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, for copying government data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;NOTE: Subsequent to Ms. Kerr&apos;s opinion request, she was provided access to all of the data she requested. Therefore, this opinion will address only Issue 2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
First, there does not appear to be any dispute that the OAH is a state agency as defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 17 and is therefore subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. In Advisory Opinion 95-033 the Commissioner stated:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;The issue is further complicated by the fact that OAH is an executive branch agency which functions like a court; its hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings. However, the rules that govern judicial records are not applicable to OAH. (See the Supreme Court&apos;s Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.) OAH is subject to Chapter 13, and is subject to administrative rules. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 17, and Section 176.83.)&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the Commissioner wishes to make absolutely clear that this opinion addresses only the issue of the cost of &lt;u&gt;a copy&lt;/u&gt; of a transcript &lt;u&gt;maintained by OAH&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that OAH is a state agency, any data it collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates are government data. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 7.) Therefore, if OAH has, in its possession, a document which is a transcription of a hearing, then that transcription is government data. Further, since there appears to be no provision in Minnesota law which classifies the transcription as private or confidential data, it appears to be public data. It follows, then, that if an individual requests a copy of a transcript which has been collected by OAH, OAH may require the requesting person to pay &lt;u&gt;only&lt;/u&gt; the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the transcription, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Judge Hagen, stated that OAH has always regarded transcripts of OAH hearings to be the property of the court reporting services which are under contract to OAH. He further pointed out that individuals seeking original transcripts or copies thereof, must order such documents from the appropriate court reporting service. However, Judge Hagen did not directly address the issue of transcripts which are maintained by OAH, nor did he discuss how the accessibility of those transcripts might be impacted by the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that OAH is a state agency subject to Chapter 13, the answer to the specific issue raised by Ms. Grenfell depends on whether OAH is actually in possession of the transcript of which she seeks a copy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this particular situation, there appears to be no disagreement over the issue of whether a transcript has been prepared. However, it is not entirely clear that the transcript is in the possession of OAH. According to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.421, subdivision 5, If the transcript is prepared by a person who is not an employee of the office of administrative hearings, upon completion of the transcript, the original shall be filed with the chief administrative law judge. Based on the aforementioned language, it seems reasonable to conclude that since a transcript has been prepared, the original has been collected and is being maintained by OAH. Assuming this, there appears to be nothing in law which prevents Ms. Grenfell from obtaining a copy of the transcript pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following this logic, the question next becomes whether OAH is justified, pursuant to Chapter 13, in charging Ms. Grenfell a copying charge of $1.00 per page. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules 1205, subpart 4, provide the parameters within which a government entity is authorized to charge for copying public government data. It is reasonable to assume that OAH would have documentation which demonstrates how it arrived at a charge of $1.00 per page. However, if OAH has such documentation, it was not provided to the Commissioner. Therefore, it does not appear OAH has met the burden of establishing that a $1.00 per page copy charge is the actual cost of providing copies of public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Grenfell is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the assumption that the transcript sought by Ms. Grenfell is government data because it has been collected and is maintained by OAH, OAH has not met the burden of establishing that a copy charge of $1.00 per page represents the actual cost, pursuant to Chapter 13, for making a copy of the transcript.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 31, 1995&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267233</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of administrative hearings OAH</Title><Id>266970</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Actual cost - public</Title><Id>266567</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:18Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-042</Title><title>Opinion 95 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267796&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-10-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the following data public:
A &quot;prehearing order form.&quot;
A memorandum to the ALJs entitled &quot;Issues Appropriate for Hearing&quot; and a copy of the Assistant Attorney General Memorandum arguing that only the most recent school year can be the focus of a hearing.
A copy of a directive sent by Adele Ciriacy of MDE to the ALJs with a copy of the procedures to which Judge Beck referred.
A copy of any MDE policy letters interpreting MDE rules.
The number and nature of any complaints received by MDE about any of the special education judges and the names of any judges that anyone has asked to be removed from the roster or eliminated from the list.
What is the Department&apos;s obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, to respond to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 31, 1995; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public acces.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On September 11, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Sonja D. Kerr, attorney at law, in which she described her attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE.) (The Department was recently reorganized into a new Department, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning.) Ms. Kerr enclosed copies of correspondence relating to this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 13, 1995, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ms. Ann Schluter, at that time Acting Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of that letter were to inform Ms. Schluter of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to ask her to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Kerr and Ms. Schluter were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On October 2, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Robert J. Wedl, Assistant Commissioner, MDE. A summary of the detailed facts of the matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Ms. Kerr, on August 7, 1995, she wrote to the Department to request access to certain data maintained by the Department (see items a-e in Issue 1 below.) The data sought by Ms. Kerr were referenced in correspondence between the Department and the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH.) Ms. Kerr did not gain access to any of the data she requested until September 12, 1995, and she was not provided with copies of all the data she requested until September 26, 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Wedl, in his response to the Commissioner, said that copies of the data requested by Ms. Kerr, other than the policy interpretation letters, (item 1(d) below), were mailed to her on September 12, 1995. Copies of the policy letters, which needed to be compiled, were mailed to Ms. Kerr on September 20, 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol type=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the following data public:
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot;&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                A prehearing order form.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                A memorandum to the ALJs entitled Issues Appropriate for Hearing and a copy of the Assistant Attorney General Memorandum arguing that only the most recent school year can be the focus of a hearing.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                A copy of a directive sent by Adele Ciriacy of MDE to the ALJs with a copy of the procedures to which Judge Beck referred.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                A copy of any MDE policy letters interpreting MDE rules.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The number and nature of any complaints received by MDE about any of the special education judges and the names of any judges that anyone has asked to be removed from the roster or eliminated from the list.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                What is the Department&apos;s obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, to respond to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request?
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                NOTE: Subsequent to Ms. Kerr&apos;s opinion request, she was provided access to all of the data she requested. Therefore, this opinion will address only Issue 2.
              &lt;/dd&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                As noted, Ms. Kerr was provided with access to all of the data she sought from the Department. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, absent any other provision of state and federal law that provides otherwise, the data in question are public government data. Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data.
                &lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that government entities must maintain data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides that requests for access to government data must be complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, provides that [t]he responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   The remaining issue is whether the Department met its full obligation, under Chapter 13, to provide Ms. Kerr with prompt access to the data. The legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in &lt;u&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It appears, from the copies of the correspondence between the Department and OAH, that all of the data sought by Ms. Kerr were clearly identified by her. The Department apparently did not, at any time, suggest to Ms. Kerr that the data did not exist, or were not public. It appears that the data, other than the policy letters, which needed to be compiled, ought to have been readily available. However, the Department did not provide Ms. Kerr with access to any of the data for five weeks.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In situations in which the requester clearly identifies the data sought, and the data exist (other than the compilation of the policy letters), the only thing that seems to be required of the government entity, in order to meet its statutory obligation, is to photocopy the data and provide it to the requester. A response five weeks later is neither prompt nor reasonable.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the Department did not provide information about its data practices policies and procedures, in instances like this one, those procedures ought to provide for a response within a matter of days, not weeks.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner does note that the Department was in the midst of a reorganization at the time it received Ms. Kerr&apos;s request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                           The Department does not appear to have met its obligation, pursuant to Chapter 13, to provide Ms. Kerr with prompt and reasonable access to public government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Elaine S. Hansen
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 31, 1995
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267796</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-041</Title><title>Opinion 95 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267573&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-10-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is X entitled to gain access to a copy of the investigative report, of which he is the subject, that the members of the Mahnomen County Board reviewed and discussed publicly at one of their regularly scheduled meetings?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 12, 1995; Mahnomen County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 23, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from X, an elected official of the County, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain data the County maintained about him. X enclosed various documents relating to this issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 31, 1995, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Franklin Thompson, Mahnomen County Auditor, and chief executive officer of the County. The purposes of that letter were to inform Mr. Thompson of X&apos;s request, to ask him to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, X and Mr. Thompson were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 13, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Eric O. Boe, Mahnomen County Attorney. A summary of the detailed facts of the matter follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X, on June 21, 1995, Betty Toso, a local abstractor, submitted a list of complaints and accusations against him to the County Board, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. According to a copy of the minutes of that Board meeting, the Board discussed possible disciplinary action, and then voted to investigate Ms. Toso&apos;s complaints. The Board directed Gerald Paulson, then the County Attorney, to make arrangements for the investigation to be conducted by a neutral outside party.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X stated that the investigation was conducted by Terry Shannon, police chief of Perham, Minnesota. According to X, Mr. Shannon interviewed several individuals on July 12, 1995. X declined to be interviewed by Mr. Shannon.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to the minutes of the July 19, 1995, County Board meeting, after the investigation had been completed, no disciplinary action was taken. According to X, he was denied access to a copy of the investigative report, which had been distributed to the Board members.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Subsequently, X hired an attorney, Zenas Baer. On August 1, 1995, on X&apos;s behalf, Mr. Baer wrote to John I. Allen, Assistant County Attorney, who was then the Acting County Attorney, to request access to the report. Mr. Baer stated that it was his position that the report, having been discussed at an open meeting, was public, and therefore accessible to X. On August 4, 1995, Mr. Allen, in response to Mr. Baer, wrote I am new to this situation and I don&apos;t believe I have all the necessary information to make the decision at this time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X made subsequent unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the investigative report.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Boe did not offer a specific reason for the County&apos;s refusal to provide X with access to the report.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is X entitled to gain access to a copy of the investigative report, of which he is the subject, that the members of the Mahnomen County Board reviewed and discussed publicly at one of their regularly scheduled meetings? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The issue of whether X may gain access to the investigative report is determined by the classification of the data in the report. According to the information provided, Ms. Toso made allegations against X, which were investigated by an agent of the County. Clearly, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, the report contains government data, i.e., data which were collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any . . . political subdivision . . . . Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     X, as County elected official, may or may not be considered an &lt;u&gt;employee&lt;/u&gt;of the County. The classification of the data in question depends, in part, on whether or not the County considers him an employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If X is an employee of the County, then it appears that the data in question are governed by Section 13.43, Personnel Data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . [a] political subdivision . . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 provides that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, provides, in relevant part, that the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee, and details of any final disciplinary action taken (excluding data that identify confidential sources who are also employees), are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From the information provided, it appears that the Board did not take any disciplinary action. If that is the case, then the following data about the complaint are public: that a complaint had been made against X; that the complaint was investigated; and that no disciplinary action was taken. All other details and documentation of the complaint are private data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Therefore, if X is a County employee, all of the data about him in the investigative report are either public or private personnel data. Pursuant to the rights of data subjects provided in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, X is entitled to gain access to the public and private data in the report which are about him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, if X is &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;an employee, but rather an elected official without employee status, absent any statute or federal law that provides otherwise, the data in the investigative report about X, or other individuals who are not employees of the County, are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should be noted that there are provisions in Chapter 13 which regulate data about elected officials. Section 13.33 provides that correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. Clearly, an investigative report does not constitute correspondence. Section 13.60 provides that certain financial disclosure statements of elected or appointed officials are public data on individuals. Again, that Section does not apply to the investigative report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should also be noted that Section 13.39 provides for situations in which government entities may treat government data that are otherwise classified, as confidential. However, the County, in its response to the Commissioner, did not offer that as its reason for denying X appropriate access to the report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                             If X is an employee of the County, the investigative report appears to contain public and private personnel data about him, to which he is entitled access. If he is not an employee of the County, it appears that the data are public, and therefore are accessible to him. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: October 12, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267573</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Status as employees (13.601, 13.43)</Title><Id>266326</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266394</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-040</Title><title>Opinion 95 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267653&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-09-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a written proposal for settlement of litigation, which has been submitted to the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission, government data?
If the settlement proposal is government data, is it classified as not public by any of the following sections: Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.37, subdivision 1 (b); 13.39; or 13.30?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 21, 1995; Tri-County Solid Waste Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 4, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated August 2, 1995, from Gerald Von Korff, an attorney representing the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission, hereinafter Tri-County. In his letter, Mr. Von Korff requested an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Tri-County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. Mr. Von Korff stated that Tri-County is involved in a contractual dispute with another organization. He also briefly explained the process, A demand for arbitration resulted in the convening of a three member arbitration panel. The panel issued an interim decision that requires the parties to engage in good faith negotiations. In the event that the dispute cannot be resolved by September 30, 1995, the parties will then return to the panel, which after receiving additional evidence, will rule on the parties&apos; claims.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter, Mr. Von Korff also stated that Tri-County and the other organization have begun negotiations. As part of those negotiations, the parties must exchange settlement proposals. Tri-County has received a written settlement proposal from the opposing party and is requesting that this advisory opinion address the issue of the classification of the settlement proposal.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Commissioner wishes to note that Mark Anfinson, attorney for the St. Cloud Times, in a letter dated August 4, 1995, submitted comments regarding Mr. Von Korff&apos;s opinion request. Essentially, Mr. Anfinson argued that Tri-County should not be able to employ Sections 13.37, subdivision 1 (b); 13.39; or 13.30 to classify the settlement proposal as not public data. He stated that certain information provided by the opposing party, i.e. major creditors and the amount of debt, does not seem to fall within the boundaries of the items listed in Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his comments, Mr. Anfinson also asserted that based on St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the settlement proposal cannot be classified as not public data under Section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addition, Mr. Anfinson stated that Section 13.30 effectively extends the attorney-client privilege. Because the proposal is not a communication between only the client and the attorney, it is not protected by Section 13.30.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Von Korff asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a written proposal for settlement of litigation, which has been submitted to the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission, government data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the settlement proposal is government data, is it classified as not public by any of the following sections: Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.37, subdivision 1 (b); 13.39; or 13.30?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The first issue raised by Mr. Von Korff is whether a written proposal for settlement of litigation, which has been submitted to Tri-County, is government data. It appears that Tri-County is a joint powers entity established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 400.01 to 400.17 (The County Solid Waste Management Act of 1971) and Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 (joint exercise of powers.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as &lt;u&gt;all data&lt;/u&gt;collected, created, &lt;u&gt;received&lt;/u&gt;, maintained, or disseminated &lt;u&gt;by any&lt;/u&gt;state agency, political subdivision, or &lt;u&gt;statewide system&lt;/u&gt;regardless of its physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. Section 13.02, subdivision 18, defines statewide system as any record keeping system in which government data is collected, stored, disseminated, and used by means of a system common to one or more state agencies or more than one of its political subdivisions, or any combination of states agencies and political subdivisions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For the purposes of Chapter 13, Tri-County is a statewide system. Thus, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, any data Tri-County collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates are government data. Tri-County has received data, in the form of a written settlement proposal. Therefore, the settlement proposal is government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Mr. Von Korff is whether the settlement proposal is classified as not public data by any of the following sections in Chapter 13: 13.37, subdivision 1 (b) (trade secret data); 13.39 (civil investigative data); or 13.30 (attorney data)?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the possibility that the settlement proposal is classified as not public because the data comprising the agreement are trade secret data, the Commissioner must look to the language of Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Clearly, government entities can use the trade secret exemption to classify data as not public only if the data meet each of the specific requirements set forth in Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b).
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    In his August 2, 1995, letter, Mr. Von Korff noted that as negotiations proceed, Tri-County will likely require additional financial information about the opposing party which the opposing party may regard as trade secret. He also stated that the initial proposal contains a listing of the the opposing organization&apos;s major creditors and the amount of debt. Mr. Von Korff further expressed concern that if negotiations continue, Tri-County will require additional and more confidential data which, if disclosure is necessary, will not be forthcoming.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, the Commissioner wishes to note that she cannot comment on any data Tri-County may receive in the future. Without knowing the content of the data, it is impossible to formulate any conclusion regarding its classification.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, because Mr. Von Korff did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the actual settlement proposal, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether any of the data elements comprising the proposal are trade secret data. However, the Commissioner would like to note that, if, as Mr. Von Korff states, the proposal does contain a listing of the opposing party&apos;s major creditors and the amount of debt, the Commissioner presumes that neither of those two data elements would meet the rigorous definition of Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the possibility that the settlement agreement is classified as not public because the data comprising the agreement are civil investigative data, the Commissioner must look to the relevant language in Section 13.39. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.39 states that data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems, as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as protected nonpublic (data not on individuals) or as confidential (data on individuals).
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Subdivision 1 of Section 13.39 defines pending legal action as including, but not limited to, judicial, administrative, or &lt;u&gt;arbitration proceedings&lt;/u&gt;. Subdivision 1 also states that the chief attorney acting for the state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall determine whether, for purposes of Section 13.39, a civil legal action is pending.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In 1993, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), addressed an issue similar to the one at hand. In &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, the court held that a notice of claim provided to a political subdivision, had not been collected by the political subdivision in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation and thus, could be disclosed under Chapter 13. The court wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...we should prefer to characterize the notice of claim...as a nonpublic document because we believe nondisclosure until litigation is actually commenced better serves our oft repeated public policy of encouraging negotiation and compromise of disputes. Publicity tends to crystallize positions, and requiring a municipality to treat a notice of claim as a public document suggests that a notice, which might otherwise be presented simply to apprise the municipality of an event or condition, will be perceived as necessarily presaging commencement of a lawsuit.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            Unfortunately, in our view Minn. Stat. curren;13.39, subd. 2 (1990) does not permit a notice of claim to be classified as a nonpublic document. The statute speaks of Data collected by * * * political subdivision. ... Collect, then, requires affirmative action by someone, and pursuant to section 13.39, subd. 2, that someone is a political subdivision....The information contained in a notice of claim is indeed retained by a political subdivision in anticipation of the possible commencement of legal action, but is not data collected by the political subdivision as part of an active investigation. The political subdivision has not taken any affirmative action to gather the information contained in a notice of claim; it is simply a passive recipient of that information.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                   Although the Tri-County situation does not involve a notice of claim, it appears that the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Heral&lt;/u&gt;d case is applicable. Mr. Von Korff stated that Tri-County has received a written settlement proposal from the opposing party. Assuming that his statement is an accurate reflection of how Tri-County came to possess the proposal, it appears, as in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, that Tri-County did not take any affirmative action to gather the proposal, but rather was a passive recipient of the proposal. Therefore, based on the holding in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, it appears that the settlement proposal cannot be classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to Section 13.39.
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, the Commissioner does wish to add that she is somewhat puzzled by the holding in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;. It appears that Section 13.39, subdivision 2, when read in full, could certainly be interpreted to mean that data become not public if a government entity either collects the data as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending legal action, &lt;u&gt;or if the government entity retains the data in anticipation of a pending legal action&lt;/u&gt;. Thus, the classification of the data would &lt;u&gt;not be&lt;/u&gt;dependent, as the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;case suggests, on the method upon which the government entity comes to possess the data. This issue may need legislative clarification.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Regardless of the Commissioner&apos;s reluctance to fully accept the conclusion reached in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, there appears to be no other case law on the issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the possibility that the settlement agreement is classified as not public because the data comprising the agreement are attorney data, the Commissioner must look to the language in Section 13.30:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter and section 15.17, the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by an attorney acting in a professional capacity for the state, a state agency or a political subdivision shall be governed by statutes, rules, and professional standards concerning discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility; provided that this section shall not be construed to affect the applicability of any statute, other than this chapter and section 15.17, which specifically requires or prohibits disclosure of specific information by the attorney, nor shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The Commissioner believes the intent behind and the purpose of Section 13.30 is to clarify that the use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by attorneys acting in their professional capacities is controlled by statutes, rules, and professional standards which relate to discovery, production of documents, introduction of evidence, and professional responsibility. In other words, if certain data are protected, pursuant to a particular statute, rule, or professional standard, by the attorney/client privilege, no provision in Chapter 13 or Section 15.17 can supersede and/or alter the classification/treatment of those data.
                  &lt;p&gt;
                    It should be noted, however, that the last phrase of Section 13.30 indicates the Legislature did not intend for this section to relieve responsible authorities, other than attorneys, from their duties and responsibilities under Chapter 13 or Section 15.17.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a government entity wishes to classify certain data as not public because those data are protected under Section 13.30, the entity must be able to point to the statute, rule, and/or professional standard which provides that the data should be not public. Given that Tri-County has not provided the Commissioner with any such documentation, it is difficult for the Commissioner to hypothesize as to which statute, rule, and/or professional standard Tri-County deems to be appropriate in this situation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, since Mr. Anfinson has raised the issue of data protected by attorney/client confidentiality, the Commissioner believes it may be helpful to address that particular possibility. Attorney/client confidentiality is a rule of conduct which serves to protect information provided by a client to her/his attorney. The question at hand is whether the settlement proposal received by Tri-County could be considered information which is protected by attorney/client confidentiality.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The main provision regarding attorney/client confidentiality can be found in Rule 1.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. In part, Rule 1.6 states that except where otherwise permitted, a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) reveal a confidence or secret of a client; (2) use a confidence or secret of a client to the disadvantage of the client; (3) use a confidence or secret of a client for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person, unless the client consents after consultation. Because there does not appear to be any relevant case law, the Commissioner must look directly to the plain language of the rule.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly, the language of the rule defines privileged information as a confidence or secret which is shared by a client with her/his attorney. Given that definition, it is difficult to argue reasonably that the data in question, the opposing party&apos;s settlement proposal, is privileged information. The proposal is obviously not a confidence or secret of Tri-County&apos;s; the opposing party has been the source of the data in question.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, it does not appear that Tri-County could rely on the attorney/client privilege to classify the settlement proposal as not public data under Section 13.30.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, the Commissioner wishes to point out that while it does not appear Mr. Von Korff can use any of the aforementioned provisions of Chapter 13 to classify the settlement proposal as not public data, he does make some persuasive policy arguments as to why such proposals ought, initially, to be not public data. He writes:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...a settlement proposal is inadmissable as evidence in the later litigation. The law protects settlement proposals to encourage settlement negotiations. Parties may be reluctant to offer compromise in the context of negotiations, because their proposal, if public, will be viewed as an admission of weakness. Moreover, once the proposal becomes public, it inevitably gets communicated to the finder of fact; parties may be concerned that if they make a proposal, it will prejudice the decision of the tribunal.
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                          [Tri-County] recognizes that once the litigation reaches a proposed resolution, that the public policy implications of the proposed resolution must be fully aired in public, and that the public then has a right to access to data which may help to inform the public so that the public can be fully involved in the policy discussions. [Tri-County] however is concerned that it may never obtain reasonably acceptable concessions from its litigation adversary if initial proposals must be disclosed.
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  While Mr. Von Korff&apos;s arguments are compelling, they collide with current policy which, as articulated in Chapter 13, states a very strong presumption of public accessibility to government data. However, his comments, if brought to the Minnesota Legislature, might result in some changes to the way settlement proposal data are classified.
                  &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Von Korff is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Chapter 13, a written proposal for settlement of litigation which has been submitted to the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission is public data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Based on the information provided by Tri-County, it does not appear that Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.30; 13.39; or 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), classify the settlement proposal received by Tri-County as anything other than public.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 21, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267653</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney data</Title><Id>266397</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Joint powers agreements/entities (471.59)</Title><Id>266827</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement proposals</Title><Id>266690</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Statewide system</Title><Id>266793</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:17Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-039</Title><title>Opinion 95 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267801&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-09-12T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the &quot;Letter of Agreement,&quot; signed by the faculty member and the student, constitute &quot;the terms of any agreement settling any dispute&quot; within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2? If so, may the contents of the letter be disclosed to the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 12, 1995; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 28, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Marshall Tanick, an attorney, on behalf of a client, a member of the faculty of the University of Minnesota. Mr. Tanick explained that the University, in response to a media request, was preparing to disclose to the public information about his client which he believed to be private data. Mr. Tanick enclosed, and later submitted, various documents relating to this issue.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 31, 1995, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark B. Rotenberg, University General Counsel. The purposes of that letter were to inform Mr. Rotenberg of Mr. Tanick&apos;s request, to ask him to provide information or support for the University&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Tanick and Mr. Rotenberg were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 7, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Tracy M. Smith, University Associate General Counsel. A summary of the detailed facts of the matter is as follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Tanick, in the summer of 1991, his client hired a University student through the University&apos;s student employment service, to do yard work for him at his home. Subsequently, the client attempted to contact the student to see if she would be interested in continued employment. The student did not respond to his messages. She did, however, contact the University&apos;s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EEO) about the faculty member.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The University contacted the faculty member about the matter, and asked him to sign a statement to the effect that he would have no further contact with the student, and would abide by the
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                University&apos;s sexual harassment policy. Both Mr. Tanick and Ms. Smith enclosed redacted copies of the document signed by the student and the faculty member. The text of that document, entitled Letter of Agreement, reads, in part, as follows:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;This agreement is made between [ ] and [ ] of the [ ] Department in regard to the complaint brought forward by [ ]. [ ] has agreed to the following stipulations . . .. By signature at the bottom of this letter [ ] has indicated her concurrence with these measures as appropriate resolutions of her complaint. Your signature will similarly indicate that you have read and understood these agreements and are entering into them freely. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Tanick, the University represented to his client that if he signed the statement, the matter would be closed, and would remain totally confidential and would not be disclosed to anyone. According to Mr. Tanick, [t]he faculty member vigorously denies any impropriety, but he signed the document in order to bring the matter to a resolution, based upon the assurances of confidentiality given to him.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, Ms. Smith wrote that due to personnel changes, and the fact that the faculty member did not identify the person who gave him the promise of confidentiality, the University cannot determine, and does not concede that such a promise was made.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith also raised some additional issues, which will not be addressed in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Tanick asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does the Letter of Agreement, signed by the faculty member and the student, constitute the terms of any agreement settling any dispute within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2? If so, may the contents of the letter be disclosed to the public? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data, are . . . data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of [a government entity subject to Chapter 13.] It appears that the data in question were collected because certain allegations were made about an employee, the faculty member, to his employer, the University. The University collected data about the complaint, and entered into an agreement with the faculty member and the complainant. Therefore, the data in question are personnel data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2, provides that certain personnel data are public. The provisions in that subdivision which are possibly relevant to this opinion are the following (see Laws of Minnesota for 1995, Chapter 259, Section 7):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body;
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (6) the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Mr. Tanick wrote that the student, in her contact with the EEO office, made no signed, formal charge against Mr. Tanick&apos;s client. However, the University looked into the matter, and the Letter, which the faculty member signed, makes reference to the &lt;u&gt;complaint&lt;/u&gt;brought forward by the student, and states that the terms of the agreement were appropriate resolutions of her &lt;u&gt;complaint&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, pursuant to the statute, the fact that a complaint had been made against the faculty member, and its status, i.e., that an agreement had been reached, are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their comments, both Mr. Tanick and Ms. Smith discussed whether or not the Letter of Agreement constitutes disciplinary action. It is the position of both of them that it does not. From the information provided, their conclusions appear to be correct. Therefore, whether any of the detailed contents of the Letter are public is dependent upon whether, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the Letter contains the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The document in question is entitled Letter of Agreement. It makes reference to an agreement made . . . in regard to the complaint brought forward . . .. It says that the faculty member agreed to certain stipulations. It states that the student&apos;s signature on the document is indication of . . . her concurrence with these measures as appropriate resolutions of her complaint. The faculty member&apos;s signature is indication that he . . . read and understood these agreements and [entered] into them freely.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Tanick&apos;s position is that the Letter does not constitute an agreement &apos;settling any dispute,&apos; because there was no claim pending. . . . The representations that were made to [his client] concerning confidentiality, which he relied upon, also negate the &apos;public&apos; nature of the document. Ms. Smith stated that it was the University&apos;s position that the Letter does constitute a settlement agreement within the meaning of Section 13.43. She did not elaborate on the basis for that position.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The language in Section 13.43, subdivision 2, as it relates to the issue of settlement agreements and their classification, is very clear. The language encompasses any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship. (Emphasis added.) Although the Legislature did not provide a specific definition of agreement in this provision, it appears that the agreement entered into here is of the kind contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted this provision.*
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The faculty member and the student reached an understanding with respect to the effect of their past history on their relative rights and duties. The faculty member agreed to have no further contact with the student, and agreed to abide by the University&apos;s sexual harassment policy. In other words, the faculty member agreed to settle a dispute, i.e., the student&apos;s complaint, by agreeing to the terms set forth in the Letter. Therefore, the terms of the agreement are public data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, except to the extent that data which identify the student may be private educational data, pursuant to Section 13.32.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Tanick has raised the issue of the effect of a promise of confidentiality. According to Mr. Tanick, his client relied upon the University&apos;s representations of confidentiality, and those representations negate the &apos;public&apos; nature of the document. According to Ms. Smith, the University cannot determine, and does not concede that such a promise was made. Apparently there is a factual dispute as to whether any representations of confidentiality were made.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, the Legislature has enacted clear policy related to the issue of the public nature of any kind of agreement settling any kind of dispute arising out of the public employment relationship. Although this kind of agreement may have been private at the time it was entered into, the Legislature, in its 1991 enactment of Section 13.03, subdivision 9, provided that [u]nless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, &lt;u&gt;regardless of the data&apos;s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) (See Laws of Minnesota for 1991, Chapter 319, Section 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature has further underscored its position that all settlement agreements involving public employees must be public, by enacting Section 13.08, subdivision 6. That provision, enacted in 1991, states that [n]o cause of action may arise as a result of the release of data contained in a termination or personnel settlement agreement if the data were not public data as defined in section 13.02, at the time the agreement was executed but become public data under a law enacted after execution. (Emphasis added.) (See Laws of Minnesota for 1991, Chapter 319, Section 30.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In 1993, the Legislature clarified that the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the public employment relationship were public. (See Laws of Minnesota for 1993, Chapter 351, Section 6.) Consequently, the Letter of Agreement contains public personnel data, regardless of the classification of those data at the time the Letter was executed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, regardless whether the University made any representations of confidentiality to the faculty member at the time that the Letter of Agreement was executed, the terms which settled the dispute are public personnel data, and upon request, must be disclosed to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Tanick is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Letter of Agreement, signed by the faculty member and the student, constitutes the terms of any agreement settling any dispute within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, and as such, must be disclosed to the public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 12, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
                       * Absent a specific definition in the statute of the term agreement, it is appropriate to consult a dictionary for guidance. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) &lt;u&gt;Black&apos;s Law Dictionary&lt;/u&gt;, Revised Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, Saint Paul, 1968, provides several definitions of agreement which are applicable, including the following: in law a concord of understanding and intention between two or more parties with respect to the effect upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. Clearly, the Letter is such a concord of understanding and intention relative to these two parties.
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267801</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Promise of confidentiality</Title><Id>267043</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-038</Title><title>Opinion 95 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268027&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-09-12T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 626.557, does an individual have the right to gain access to data about her/himself maintained by an agency which has investigated an allegation of maltreatment of a vulnerable adult?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 12, 1995; Lyon County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On August 15, 1995, in a letter dated August 8, 1995, PIPA received a letter from M. In the letter, M requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her/his dispute with Region VIII North Welfare, hereinafter Lyon County, over access to data about her/him maintained by Lyon County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to M&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Frank Moorse, Director of Lyon County Region VIII North Welfare Department. The purposes of this letter, dated August 18, 1995, were to inform Mr. Moorse of M&apos;s request, to ask him or Lyon County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Mr. Moorse&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On August 28, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated August 24, 1995, from Kathryn Keena, Lyon County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In the opinion request, M related that s/he had been wrongfully accused of physically assaulting a vulnerable adult. According to M, the Marshall Police Department conducted a criminal investigation but elected not to charge the case. M stated that the Minnesota Department of Human Services, hereinafter DHS, investigated the incident and determined that abuse had occurred. M further stated that s/he believes the allegations to be false and has been attempting to gain access to data that are maintained about her/him by Lyon County.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                M stated that s/he had made requests to officials in Lyon County for access to data about her/him. M was told by one official that all information would be turned over to the Lyon County Attorney. M related that s/he then made requests to Ms. Keena who gave her/him access to the DHS investigative memorandum and a copy of a Marshall Police Department report. According to M, when s/he requested access to all other data about her/him, Ms. Keena advised M that she would not release any other information unless she was ordered to release it pursuant to a court order.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                M related that s/he then made a request to Mr. Moorse. Mr. Moorse advised M that another employee would provide M with all necessary information. M stated that s/he has not received any documentation from anyone after receiving Mr. Moorse&apos;s assurances.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In Ms. Keena&apos;s August 24, 1995, letter, she stated that a report of maltreatment by M was received by Lyon County. An investigation was conducted by the DHS and a criminal investigation was conducted by the Marshall Police Department. Ms. Keena related that an investigative memorandum (which she enclosed in her letter to PIPA) was generated as a result of the DHS&apos;s investigation. She noted that the memo was prepared and is public in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 626.557, subdivision 12. Ms. Keena stated that M was provided with a copy of said memo.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Keena further stated, The only other document that the Region VIII North Welfare Department has in its possession that [M] does not have is the intake form used by the department when the initial report was made. That form has not been released to [M] because it identifies the reporter. In numerous discussions with [M], [s/he] seems to think that there are case notes and other memoranda prepared by a [social worker] in regard to the case. [M] indicated to me that it was this information [s/he] was attempting to gain access to. There are no such documents in existence and I have previously informed [M] of that fact.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In the request for an opinion, M asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 626.557, does an individual have the right to gain access to data about her/himself maintained by an agency which has investigated an allegation of maltreatment of a vulnerable adult? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Given that M has been investigated for an allegation of maltreatment of a vulnerable adult, data about her/him has been collected by at least three government entities: Lyon County, the DHS, and the City of Marshall Police Department. The focus of this opinion, however, will be on data maintained by Lyon County. While it appears M has had some contact with each of the other entities, s/he may wish to make a request for access to data to both the responsible authority of the Marshall Police Department and the DHS, if s/he has not already done so.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, individuals have the right to gain access to public and private data maintained about them by government entities. (See Sections 13.02, subdivisions 12 and 15; 13.03; and 13.04.) In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.557, when a licensing agency has completed an investigation, any data collected and maintained in the course of that investigation are private data on individuals, and accessible to the subject of the data. (See Section 626.557, subdivision 12.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the situation at hand, M has requested access to any data maintained about her/him by Lyon County. From Lyon County, s/he has received a copy of the DHS investigative memorandum and a copy of a Marshall Police Department report. Apparently, M believes that additional data about her/him exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Keena, the only other document in Lyon County&apos;s possession that M does not have is the intake form which identifies the reporter of the maltreatment. Also according to Ms. Keena, she has previously informed M that case notes and other memoranda to which M has attempted to gain access, are not in existence.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, Ms. Keena&apos;s statement about the intake form which identifies the reporter is somewhat puzzling. While data about the reporter are private data (see Section 626.557) and cannot be disclosed to M, it is possible that some of the data on the intake form are also about M. If there are data about M, and disclosing those data to M would not reveal any data about the reporter, then Lyon County is obligated under both Chapter 13 and Section 626.557 to allow M to gain access to those data. Simply because a portion of the intake form identifies the reporter, it cannot be automatically assumed that the entire form and its contents contain data only about the reporter. If the form also contains data about M, any such data should be provided to M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, pursuant to Section 626.557, subdivision 10, a local welfare agency which receives a report of alleged maltreatment is required to, ...investigate and offer emergency and continuing protective social services for purposes of preventing further abuse or neglect and for safeguarding and enhancing the welfare of the abused or neglected vulnerable adult...In performing any of these duties, the local welfare agency shall maintain appropriate records.... Given this requirement in 626.557, it seems somewhat curious that, according to Ms. Keena, Lyon County maintains no other data about M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Third, M somehow seems to be under the impression that Lyon County maintains additional data about her/him. While Ms. Keena asserts she has advised M that no other data exist, it appears M&apos;s understanding from both Ms. Keena and Mr. Moorse is different. If the data simply do not exist, it seems that Mr. Moorse could have communicated that fact to M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner would like to reiterate that M may wish to contact the responsible authority of both the DHS and the City of Marshall Police Department to determine if either entity is maintaining additional data about M.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by M is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;An individual does have the right, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 626.557, to gain access to data about her/him maintained by a human services agency which has completed an investigation of an allegation of maltreatment of a vulnerable adult. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 12, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268027</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-037</Title><title>Opinion 95 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267440&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-09-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Anoka County required to provide access to original mechanic&apos;s lien filings?
Is the County required to provide access to mechanic&apos;s lien filings on a timely basis?
Must the County permit members of the public to inspect mechanic&apos;s lien data at no charge?
Must the County provide members of the public direct access to the data via a computer terminal, if the County has the capability to do so?
Are the County&apos;s charges for computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
Must the County provide computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data to members of the public promptly, upon request?
May the County determine the frequency with which a member of the public requests access to mechanic&apos;s lien data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 7, 1995; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                 On July 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, &lt;u&gt;Finance and Commerce&lt;/u&gt;, a newspaper published in Minneapolis. Mr. Anfinson described his client&apos;s efforts to gain access to certain data maintained by Anoka County. Enclosed with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request were copies of correspondence between Patrick Boulay, associate publisher of &lt;u&gt;Finance and Commerce&lt;/u&gt;, and Larry W. Dalien, of the County&apos;s Division of Property Records and Taxation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                After subsequent conversation with Mr. Anfinson to clarify the issues he wanted the Commissioner to address, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jay McLinden, Anoka County Administrator. The purposes of that letter, dated July 25, 1995, were to inform Mr. McLinden of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and the County were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 2, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Tim Yantos, Anoka County Deputy Administrator, and Responsible Authority for the Anoka County Property Records and Taxation Division.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts of the matter is as follows. Mr. Boulay stated that he had been made aware that some of the newspaper&apos;s reporters had complaints about the County&apos;s practices regarding access to mechanic&apos;s liens. According to Mr. Boulay, his understanding was that due to computerization, there were new restrictions on public access to the data. Mr. Boulay stated that [t]hese restrictions, if I understand them correctly, will put a significant financial burden on Finance and Commerce, will significantly limit access to the information in a timely manner, and most critically, deny access to the original document.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his correspondence with the County, Mr. Boulay said that the paper had tested the County&apos;s . . . recommendation that we use the microfiche to gather information on mechanic&apos;s liens. It took in excess of three hours to scan through 1,000 documents to find 34 mechanic&apos;s liens. This is unacceptable. Mr. Boulay stated that he believed that [the County&apos;s] solution to this problem - that we pay $50.00 a week for a computer printout - is also unacceptable and unreasonable as best as we can determine.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 The County responded to Mr. Boulay in a letter dated April 26, 1995. In that letter, Mr. Dalien wrote that the County&apos;s &lt;u&gt;tract index&lt;/u&gt; . . . is specifically set up to accommodate for the statutory requirements of a tract index . . . . There is no requirement to access documents by type. According to Mr. Dalien, the County does not maintain mechanic&apos;s liens by document type, and therefore . . . the only way to get at the specific information you are requesting, is to go through and look at each document or purchase a special listing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Yantos responded specifically to each of the seven issues raised in this opinion. His responses are discussed in detail below. In summary, Mr. Yantos said that it is the County&apos;s position that it is meeting its statutory obligations to provide appropriate access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data it maintains. He stated that the newspaper is asking the County to provide access to the data by a specific criterion, i.e., document type, that the County is neither required to maintain, nor has a business reason for doing so. Therefore, special computer reports must be generated for the newspaper, for which the County charges its costs. Mr. Yantos included a copy of an internal memorandum which explains the formula the County uses to determine its cost for providing that service. That same memorandum also includes information Anoka gathered from other metropolitan area counties about the access they provide to the same kind of data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is Anoka County required to provide access to original mechanic&apos;s lien filings?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the County required to provide access to mechanic&apos;s lien filings on a timely basis?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Must the County permit members of the public to inspect mechanic&apos;s lien data at no charge?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Must the County provide members of the public direct access to the data via a computer terminal, if the County has the capability to do so?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the County&apos;s charges for computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Must the County provide computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data to members of the public promptly, upon request?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            May the County determine the frequency with which a member of the public requests access to mechanic&apos;s lien data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt; Issue 1. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is Anoka County required to provide access to original mechanic&apos;s lien filings?
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data. Subdivision 1 provides that government data shall be kept in such an arrangement and condition as to make them &lt;u&gt;easily accessible for convenient use&lt;/u&gt; and further provides that [p]hotographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or &lt;u&gt;microfilmed&lt;/u&gt;records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Yantos, the County Recorder&apos;s office does not retain the original mechanic&apos;s lien filings. Instead, the filings are microfilmed, the originals are returned to the filer, and . . . the microfilmed copy is the county record . . .. Documents received by the office of the Registrar of Titles are retained by that office. Mr. Yantos also stated that [b]oth the microfilmed Recorder&apos;s documents and the actual Registrar&apos;s documents are available at all times during normal business hours for public inspection and are routinely inspected on a daily basis . . ..
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It does not appear, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 386, which governs county recorders, that the County has an obligation to retain the originals of documents filed in the Recorder&apos;s office. Therefore, it appears that the County is not required to provide access to the original mechanic&apos;s liens, and it appears that the County is meeting its statutory requirement to provide convenient access to public government data. The fact that the newspaper may disagree with the standard provided in statute is something for which the County may not be held responsible. &lt;u&gt;Finance and Commerce&lt;/u&gt;may reasonably prefer a different accommodation than that provided by the County, but the County does not appear to be required to provide the kind of access the newspaper prefers.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt; Is the County required to provide access to mechanic&apos;s lien filings on a timely basis? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides that [t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures . . . to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an &lt;u&gt;appropriate and prompt&lt;/u&gt;manner. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, provides that . . . the responsible authority may limit the time during which access to public data is available to the time during which the normal operations of the agency are conducted. . . . The responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, pursuant to Section 386.17 of the recorder statute, [t]he county recorder shall exhibit free of charge, during the hours that the office is or is required by law to be open, any of the records or papers in the recorder&apos;s official custody to the inspection of any person demanding the same. . . .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Yantos, mechanic&apos;s lien filings are accessible to the public during County business hours, and County personnel are available to offer assistance. Mr. Yantos also stated that if a special computer run is required, those data are available the next business day after the request is made.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Boulay stated in his correspondence with the County that the newspaper required access to all filings as they are made. The newspaper may prefer access to the mechanic&apos;s liens as they are filed, but the statutory standard is appropriate and prompt, not immediate access to government data. From the information provided by Mr. Yantos, it appears that the County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide appropriate public access to government data. Members of the public may gain access to the microfilmed or actual mechanic&apos;s liens during regular County business hours, and access to copies of the computer printouts on the next business day following the request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Must the County permit members of the public to inspect mechanic&apos;s lien data at no charge?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides that [i]f a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Yantos, [t]he County does not charge the public for the inspection of the microfilmed or actual mechanic&apos;s lien documents . . .. However, according to Mr. Yantos, it is not possible for a member of the public to inspect the liens via a computer terminal, due to the County&apos;s design of the system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Again, it appears that the County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide free inspection of government data, i.e., free inspection of the microfilmed mechanic&apos;s liens, at the Recorder&apos;s office, or the actual liens at the office of the Registrar.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 4.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Must the County provide members of the public direct access to the data via a computer terminal, if the County has the capability to do so? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Various sections of Chapter 386 provide specific requirements for the maintenance of records by county recorders. For example, Sections 386.03 and 386.05 provide for the maintenance of reception books and tract index books. Section 386.32 requires recorders to keep a consecutive index of all records or files kept in the office. Sections 386.03 and 386.32 provide that the records include specific references to the kind of instrument recorded.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Yantos,
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Under Minn. Stat. sectionsection 386.03 and .19, the Recorder is only required to keep a Grantor&apos;s and Grantee&apos;s index by name. Under Minn. Stat. section 386.05, the Recorder may keep a tract index (by legal description) if the county wishes to do so. The Registrar shall keep a tract index by legal description and a Grantor-Grantee index for registered property. There is no statutory requirement that a special index for specific types of documents, e.g. mechanic liens, be created. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his March 14, 1995 letter to the County, it appears to be Mr. Boulay&apos;s understanding that the design of the system resulted in a change in the ways that information is made available to the public. (From the information provided to the Commissioner, it is not clear whether, or what kind, of change has occurred.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Yantos indicated that the County&apos;s computer system was not designed to accommodate the kind of request the newspaper has made, i.e., direct public access to mechanic&apos;s lien data. Apparently the kind of instrument is not a searchable criterion. According to Mr. Yantos,
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The County has computer terminals available to the public at no charge to access records in either the Recorder&apos;s or Registrar of Title&apos;s office. The format that is set up in these terminals is to locate documents by Property Identification Number (PIN); by legal description; by Grantor-Grantee names; document number or certificate of title number and, for documents filed after April 1, 1994, by taxpayer name.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Yantos stated that the County is neither required by statute nor has a business reason to maintain mechanic&apos;s lien data such that direct public access to the data via computer is possible.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Strictly speaking, Mr. Yantos is correct in his assertion that there is no statutory requirement for the County to maintain its computer database in such a manner as to allow for the kind of search desired by &lt;u&gt;Finance and Commerce&lt;/u&gt;. There is no statutory requirement that the data filed with the County Recorder and Registrar be computerized at all. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 386, sections of which were enacted in 1907, does not make reference to electronic data maintenance systems. However, given the requirements of Sections 386.03, 386.04, and 386.32, that County Recorders make notations and maintain written records of the kind of instrument filed, it raises questions with respect to the County&apos;s obligation to continue that practice in its computerized system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Apparently the County found it necessary, from a business perspective, to implement a computerized record-keeping system. Mr. Yantos himself said that the records of the Recorder and Registrar are routinely inspected on a daily basis by title companies, real estate professionals and other members of the general public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County, as a government entity subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, is obliged to provide appropriate, prompt and convenient access to government data. Mr. Yantos said that direct access to Recorder and Registrar data via computer terminal is available, however, kind of instrument is not a searchable criterion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given that access to the data in question appears to be in widespread public demand, and given that the type of access requested by the newspaper appears to be more convenient to the public, it is puzzling that the County does not consider providing direct access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data a business reason. Had the County so considered, it might have designed its computer system to accommodate the apparently routine request for access that the newspaper has made.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From the information provided by Mr. Anfinson, it is possible that decisions made by the County in its system design may have resulted in its providing, in the newspaper&apos;s view, less convenient access to the data than was previously the case. However, questions relating to a government entity&apos;s specific obligations to design computer systems to provide convenient access involve issues not currently addressed in statute.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 5.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are the County&apos;s charges for computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, provide that government entities must grant prompt, appropriate, and reasonable access to public government data. (As discussed above, it appears that the County is doing so.) However, those provisions of statute and rule do not provide members of the public the right to dictate the specific form in which the data to which they seek access are provided.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Mr. Yantos, [i]n order to retrieve the specific type of data requested, the County must assign certain qualified personnel to compile this request. The computer must then be specifically programmed to compile this type of data. Clearly, the County did not design its record system in such a manner that allows direct retrieval of the data the newspaper seeks. Instead, a special computer program is required.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The County does provide direct access to mechanic&apos;s lien data in the form of the actual documents, in the Registrar&apos;s office, and on microfilm, in the Recorder&apos;s office. Apparently Finance and Commerce finds the County&apos;s provision of access to mechanic&apos;s liens inconvenient, and excessively time consuming. However, Section 13.03, subdivision 1, defines access to microfilmed records as accessible for convenient use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a government entity were readily able to satisfy a request for a particular form of access, it is reasonable for a member of the public to expect that it would do so. However, Section 13.03 does not provide members of the public the right to demand access to data in any particular form. Therefore, the question of what the County may charge for providing the newspaper with the kind of access it prefers is up to the parties to negotiate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Certainly, the newspaper may ask the County to accommodate its special request, to reorganize and retrieve the data electronically. Certainly, the County is free to negotiate the terms under which it is willing to do so, including the amount of a reasonable fee to recover its costs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 6.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Must the County provide computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data to members of the public promptly, upon request? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As discussed above, Section 13.03 provides that government entities must respond to public requests for access to government data in an appropriate and prompt manner. However, that does not mean that government entities must provide &lt;u&gt;immediate&lt;/u&gt;access to public data. As discussed in Issue 2, it appears that computer printouts of mechanic&apos;s lien data are available on the next business day following the request. Therefore, it appears that the County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide prompt access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data it maintains in its computer system.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Issue 7.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;May the County determine the frequency with which a member of the public requests access to mechanic&apos;s lien data? &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Yantos stated that [t]here is no legal authority for the County to determine the frequency of access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data found among the public records. As stated earlier, members of the public have unlimited access during business hours to the public records in the format which Minn. Stat. sectionsection 386 and 508 require.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson stated that the County . . . has resisted requests to make the data available on a regular basis . . .. As noted earlier, Mr. Boulay suggested that, although the paper often required access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data on a daily basis, it might, in order not to be burdensome, agree to limit its requests to three times per week, if the County could provide direct electronic access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is nothing in statute which limits Mr. Boulay&apos;s, or any citizen&apos;s ability to enter into that kind of agreement with a government entity. However, as Mr. Yantos stated, there are no provisions within Chapter 13 which enable a government entity to impose that kind of limitation. Members of the public, seeking access to public government data, may make as many requests for access to data as they choose, as frequently as they choose. Government entities are required, in response, to provide appropriate, prompt, and reasonable access to public data. Again, that does not imply that government entities are obliged to provide immediate access to public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A further comment is in order. In Mr. Dalien&apos;s April 26, 1995, letter to Mr. Boulay, Mr. Dalien said that the cost for the computer printouts was $63.50, plus sales tax. As the Commissioner addressed in Advisory Opinion 94-059, [t]his issue was previously raised with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, which requires collection of sales tax by entities which are in the business of selling copies. The Department specifically exempted entities which are subject to [Chapter 13] from including sales tax in their charges for copies of government data. In the fee schedule enclosed with Mr. Yantos&apos; response, a charge for sales tax was not indicated. However, if the County is collecting sales tax in its charge for copies of government data, it should review that policy with the Department of Revenue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The County is not required to provide access to the original mechanic&apos;s liens, as long as access to valid copies is provided.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide appropriate public access to government data. Apparently, members of the public may gain access to the microfilmed or actual mechanic&apos;s liens during regular County business hours, and access to copies of the computer printouts on the next business day following the request.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide free inspection of government data, i.e., free inspection of microfilmed mechanic&apos;s liens, at the Recorder&apos;s office, or actual liens at the office of the Registrar.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                 Strictly speaking, there is no statutory requirement for the County to maintain its computer database in such a manner as to allow for the kind of search desired by &lt;u&gt;Finance and Commerce&lt;/u&gt;. However, the requirements of Sections 386.03, 386.04, and 386.32, that County Recorders make notations and maintain written records of the kind of instrument filed, raise questions, not currently addressed in statute, with respect to the County&apos;s obligation to continue that practice in its computerized system.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The issue of what the County may charge for providing the newspaper with the kind of access it prefers is up to the parties to negotiate. Section 13.03 does not provide members of the public the right to demand access to data in any particular form.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The County is meeting its statutory obligation to provide prompt access to the mechanic&apos;s lien data it maintains in its computer system.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                There are no provisions within Chapter 13 which enable a government entity to impose limitations on the frequency with which a member of the public requests access to public government data. Members of the public, seeking access to public government data, may make as many requests for access to data as they choose, as frequently as they choose. Government entities are required, in response, to provide appropriate, prompt, and reasonable, not necessarily immediate, access to the public data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 7, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267440</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Explanation of data</Title><Id>266621</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mechanic’s liens</Title><Id>267130</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-036</Title><title>Opinion 95 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267525&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-07-31T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does an individual have a right, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to gain access to the data collected and recorded on ICRs that have been maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office since 1991?
Does an individual have a right, pursuant to Chapter 13, to gain access to the data collected and recorded on dispatch logs that have been maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office since 1991?
When an individual requests access to specific ICRs maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office and has provided general details that describe the ICRs in question, does that individual have a right, pursuant to Chapter 13 to gain access to the data collected and recorded on those ICRs?
Are the 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 mutual aid/joint powers agreements for the LeSueur County Drug Task Force public data?
Are the educational and training background, and previous work experience of sheriff&apos;s deputies (public employees) public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 31, 1995; LeSeuer County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizens who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizens disagree are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On July 5, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated June 29, 1995, from Wayne and Susan Quiram. In their letter, the Quirams requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding their dispute with the LeSueur County Sheriff over access to various kinds of government data. (Mr. Quiram had recently been corresponding with PIPA regarding his difficulties in obtaining access to the data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the Quirams&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Pat Smith, Jr., LeSueur County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated July 6, 1995, were to inform Sheriff Smith of the Quirams&apos; request, to ask him or the Sheriff&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of the Quirams&apos; correspondence regarding his pursuit of access to data were attached to the July 6, 1995, letter to Sheriff Smith. On July 26, 1995, PIPA received a response, dated July 24, 1995, from the Sheriff. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. and Mrs. Quiram were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. On March 8, 1995, PIPA received a copy of a letter dated March 6, 1995, from the Quirams, addressed to the Sheriff. In their letter, the Quirams requested access to various types of data, including data collected and maintained on ICRs (the Commissioner believes these to be incident complaint reports), data collected and recorded on dispatch logs, data relating to the LeSueur County Drug Task Force, and personnel data. On March 30, 1995, PIPA received a copy of the Sheriff&apos;s March 21, 1995, written response to the Quirams&apos; request. Based on the Sheriff&apos;s response, the Quirams, in a letter dated June 29, 1995, and received by PIPA on July 5, 1995, requested an advisory opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attached to the Sheriff&apos;s July 24, 1995, response was a copy of his March 21, 1995, letter addressed to Mr. Quiram and a copy of a letter dated June 31, 1994, from an Assistant LeSueur County Attorney addressed to Mr. Quiram&apos;s attorney. The Sheriff refers to both letters in his July 24, 1995, correspondence, I believe the letter which Assistant LeSueur County Attorney Mike Keogh addressed to Mr. Quiram&apos;s attorney Jerry Strouss and the letter which I sent to Mr. Quiram should answer the questions you proposed. In referring to the Quirams&apos; request for access to certain personnel data he states, Each and every one of these officers [certain LeSueur County Deputies] have received the minimum officer training enabling them to obtain a Minnesota Police Officer&apos;s license. In addition, each of these officers have requested that no further information regarding their educational background [sic] be released to Mr. Quiram.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does an individual have a right, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to gain access to the data collected and recorded on ICRs that have been maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office since 1991?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does an individual have a right, pursuant to Chapter 13, to gain access to the data collected and recorded on dispatch logs that have been maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office since 1991?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When an individual requests access to specific ICRs maintained by the LeSueur County Sheriff&apos;s office and has provided general details that describe the ICRs in question, does that individual have a right, pursuant to Chapter 13 to gain access to the data collected and recorded on those ICRs?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 mutual aid/joint powers agreements for the LeSueur County Drug Task Force public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are the educational and training background, and previous work experience of sheriff&apos;s deputies (public employees) public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before discussing the specific types of public data the Quirams are seeking, it is appropriate to review some of the basic requirements set forth in Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 relating to access to public data. Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, subpart 3, requires that requests for access to data be responded to within a reasonable time. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, requires government entities to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires the responsible authority to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning...If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, these provisions require government entities to respond to requests for access to government data appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity is required to so notify the requester.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some of the data sought by the Quirams are collected by the LeSueur County Sheriff and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs. Specifically, the Quirams have requested access to the public data on ICRs and dispatch logs dating back to 1991. Pursuant to Chapter 13, certain types of data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data, regardless of the form or document on which they are maintained. Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, state specifically which arrest data, request for service data, and response for service data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data. It is highly likely that both the ICRs and dispatch logs maintained by the Sheriff contain arrest data, request for service data, and/or response for service data. Generally speaking, if the Sheriff maintains any of these types of data, the Quirams, as members of the public, should have access to those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Sheriff&apos;s March 21, 1995, response to the Quirams&apos; request, he suggested Mr. Quiram contact the Waterville Police Department dispatcher to review their logs as [Waterville&apos;s] file would not be as large as the Sheriff Department file. He also stated he had previously answered such a request some time ago. (This response referred to by the Sheriff was sent to PIPA by Mr. Quiram. It is dated June 16, 1994, and is addressed to Mr. Quiram&apos;s attorney.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Sheriff&apos;s June 16, 1994, response, he referred to Section 13.82, subdivision 9, but cited only a portion, When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. He then stated that separating the confidential data on the ICRS from the public data on the ICRS would require hundreds of hours and therefore, the task was not administratively feasible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also stated, Even if the task were feasible the Sheriff department is allowed to collect reasonable costs for the production of the requested documents. Since in this instance it would be necessary to expend hundreds of hours to review almost five years of records, it would not be unreasonable to believe those costs would run into the thousands of dollars. If [Mr. Quiram&apos;s co-requester] is willing to pay these monies up front I would be more than happy to reconsider my position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sheriff&apos;s response is problematic for two reasons. In his June 16, 1994, letter, he omitted the following two sentences of Section 13.82, subdivision 9: However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. When investigative data becomes inactive, as described in subdivision 5, the actual physical data associated with that investigation, including the public data, shall be available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read in its entirety, Section 13.82, subdivision 9, provides that unless the data are inactive investigative data, a law enforcement agency is not required to make the actual physical data available to the public, if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential data. However, as is clearly stated, this provision does not relieve the agency of its responsibility to make the information described as public data available to the public. If the Quirams cannot view the actual physical data on the ICRs and dispatch logs because the Sheriff determines that separating the public from the private data is not administratively feasible, one way for the Sheriff to fulfill his obligation under Chapter 13 would be for the Sheriff&apos;s staff to verbally communicate to the Quirams the content of the public data. Again, the Sheriff cannot rely upon Section 13.82, subdivision 9, to prevent the Quirams from gaining access to the ICR and dispatch data described as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other problem with the Sheriff&apos;s response is that pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, a government entity may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, does provide that a government entity may require a requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. Regarding the present situation, the Quirams wish only to view the data. Therefore, the Sheriff cannot charge them a fee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The June 30, 1994, response from Assistant LeSueur County Attorney Keogh, forwarded to PIPA from the Sheriff, offers a slightly different twist on the aforementioned Sheriff&apos;s argument. Mr. Keogh first states, Please be advised initially that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, the County acknowledges that the requesting parties are entitled to the public portion of the information sought. However, he then cites Section 13.82, subdivision 9, and appears to assert that the Quirams are precluded from viewing the actual data because it is not administratively feasible to separate the public data from the private data. Next, he seems to suggest the only way for the Quirams to gain access to the data described as public is for the Sheriff&apos;s staff to engage in an elaborate photocopying exercise, to dictate for transcription, or to hand-copy portions of the data. Mr. Keogh then appears to assert that any of the aforementioned processes will require searching for and retrieving government data, and that therefore, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Quirams&apos; request will be quite costly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While it may be true that separating the public and private data is not administratively feasible, the Sheriff is still under an obligation to provide, free of charge, the data described as public for inspection by the Quirams. Only if the Quirams request copies of the data, does the Sheriff have authority, under Chapter 13, to charge them for the copies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Quirams have also requested access to specific ICRs which they believe are maintained by the Sheriff. In their March 6, 1995, request to the Sheriff for data, the Quirams asked to view specific ICRs and provided general details describing those particular ICRs. The details provided to the Sheriff included statements such as the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;In October 1991, your officers received a &apos;pass on&apos; information of a death threat against [Mr. Quiram]...Please allow us to review any ICR....
&lt;p&gt;In May of 1992 one of your officers received information of another threat of my safety. We want to see the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A report was made about [an individual] harassing my family and later threatening me...We want to see the report.....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the spring of 1993 two of your officers were dispatched to [a residence] to handle a call of a man in their yard with a gun...Person(s) were taken into custody...We want to see the ICR....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We want to view the ICR from which you are working the case of possible misuse of public funds and payment arising out of the county ditch #32 in Kilkenny....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the summer of 1991 I took a report of a harassing phone call. As I was working the case I was informed the YOUR dept. initial started the report and phone tap and trace...I wish to see that report....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In May of 1992 one of your officers received information of another threat of my safety. We want to see the report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A report was made about [an individual] harassing my family and later threatening me...We want to see the report....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his March 21, 1995, letter, the Sheriff&apos;s comments relating to the Quirams&apos; request for access to specific ICRs are not consistent with requirements set forth in Chapter 13. For example, while he appears to acknowledge that, in most cases, reports were made and investigations were conducted, the Sheriff did not address the statutory bases for denying the Quirams&apos; requests to gain access to the data. In addition, he suggested that some of the requested data had already been explained to the Quirams, or that data relating to a particular complaint resided with the complainant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, the Quirams have the right to gain access to any public data maintained by the Sheriff. If the Quirams wish to have access to the public data collected and recorded on a specific ICR that were created in a particular month or year, or that relate to a particular individual or location, the Sheriff must provide the Quirams with access to those data. In addition, if the Quirams are seeking inactive investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 5, the Sheriff must provide them with access to those public data, as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Quirams have also requested access to the 1992, 1993, and 1994 mutual aid/joint powers agreements for the LeSueur County Drug Task Force. While there appears to be no dispute that the mutual aid/joint powers agreements are public data, the Sheriff, in his March 21,1995, letter responded to the Quirams&apos; request in a vague fashion, The Joint Powers agreement you have for 1995 is identical to the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 agreement. If you still want copies of this it would simply be a duplication. Since it appears the agreements are public data, the Quirams have the right to have access to those agreements, regardless of whether they are, in the Sheriff&apos;s opinion, duplicates of data already obtained by the Quirams.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Quirams have also requested access to certain personnel data about specific sheriff&apos;s deputies. The data being requested by the Quirams are the educational and training backgrounds and previous work experiences of those deputies. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, particular data about public employees are public data, including a public employee&apos;s educational and training background and previous work experience.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his March 21, 1995, response to the Quiram&apos;s request, the Sheriff states the data are private and kept in the officers&apos; personnel files, I would suggest you contact each individual Officer and they can give you this information if they choose to do so. Further, in his July 24, 1995, response, the Sheriff states, Each and every one of these officers [certain LeSueur County Deputies] have received the minimum officer training enabling them to obtain a Minnesota Police Officer&apos;s license. In addition, each of these officers have requested that no further information regarding their educational background [sic] be released to Mr. Quiram. The Sheriff is simply incorrect in his understanding of how these particular personnel data elements are classified. According to Chapter 13, the data are clearly public and therefore, should be accessible, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to the Quirams.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by the Quirams is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Certain data elements contained on the LeSeuer County Sheriff ICRs are public data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.82, the Quirams have the right to gain access to those public data. If the Sheriff has determined that some of the data are classified as private or confidential, the Sheriff is required to so inform the Quirams and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Certain data elements contained on the LeSeuer County Sheriff dispatch logs are public data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.82, the Quirams have the right to gain access to those public data. If the Sheriff has determined that some of the data are classified as private or confidential, the Sheriff is required to so inform the Quirams and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Yes. When an individual requests access to specific ICRs maintained by the Sheriff&apos;s office and has provided general details that describe the ICRs in question, that individual has the right to gain access to the public data collected and recorded on those ICRs.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;It appears that the 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 mutual aid/joint powers agreements for the LeSeuer County Drug Task Force are public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Yes. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the educational and training backgrounds, and previous work experiences of sheriff&apos;s deputies are public data&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 31, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267525</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Dispatch logs</Title><Id>266700</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Initial crime report (ICR)</Title><Id>266568</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)</Title><Id>267153</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education/training background, job history, previous work experience</Title><Id>266583</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-035</Title><title>Opinion 95 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267736&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-07-27T15:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Brooklyn Park Police Civil Service Commission a &quot;political subdivision&quot; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11?
Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, apply to the Commission, and its individual members?
Do the data contained in the letter of complaint filed by an attorney on behalf of the Commission constitute &quot;government data&quot; pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
Are verbal communications, made by a member of the Commission, concerning the details of a complaint made by the Commission against an officer, &quot;government data&quot; pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
Are a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action &quot;personnel data,&quot; pursuant to Section 13.43?
Are the details and specifics contained in a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action classified as private data on an individual, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, if there is no &quot;final disposition,&quot; as defined in Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)?
If the details and specifics contained in a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action are classified as private data, prior to any final disposition, is the data subject&apos;s informed consent required for dissemination of those data?
Do the provisions of Section 13.39 govern data collected in active administrative investigations, when the outcome of the investigation can be disciplinary action subject to review by an arbitrator, district court, or veteran&apos;s preference regulations? Would said data be classified as confidential while the investigation is considered &quot;active&quot; or &quot;pending&quot; by the chief attorney of Brooklyn Park</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 27, 1995; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 13, 1995, PIPA received a letter from X requesting this opinion. In his letter, X described a dissemination of certain data maintained about him by the Brooklyn Park Police Civil Service Commission. X enclosed copies of relevant correspondence with the Commission.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Rupp, Manager of the City of Brooklyn Park. The purposes of that letter, dated July 17, 1995, were to inform Mr. Rupp of X&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On July 21, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Gregory J. Hellings, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Commission.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts of the matter is as follows. X is employed by the City of Brooklyn Park, as director of services for the police department. On June 19, 1995, he received written notification from Chief of Police Donald E. Davis, that a complaint had been filed against him by the Commission. Chief Davis notified X that an administrative investigation into the complaint would be conducted.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to X, while the complaint was under investigation, a member of the Commission communicated the details of that complaint to an employee of the police department who has no responsibility in the matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response, Mr. Hellings stated that the Commission denies the facts as presented by X.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the Brooklyn Park Police Civil Service Commission a political subdivision pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, apply to the Commission, and its individual members?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do the data contained in the letter of complaint filed by an attorney on behalf of the Commission constitute government data pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are verbal communications, made by a member of the Commission, concerning the details of a complaint made by the Commission against an officer, government data pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the details and specifics contained in a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action classified as private data on an individual, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, if there is no final disposition, as defined in Section 13.43, subdivision 2(b)?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If the details and specifics contained in a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action are classified as private data, prior to any final disposition, is the data subject&apos;s informed consent required for dissemination of those data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do the provisions of Section 13.39 govern data collected in active administrative investigations, when the outcome of the investigation can be disciplinary action subject to review by an arbitrator, district court, or veteran&apos;s preference regulations? Would said data be classified as confidential while the investigation is considered active or pending by the chief attorney of Brooklyn Park
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                   Issue 1. Within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11, the Commission is not, &lt;i&gt;per se&lt;/i&gt;, a political subdivision. However, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 419.01, the Commission was established by City ordinance, and is a function of the City of Brooklyn Park.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 2. Given that the Commission is a function of City government, then pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 11, it is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 3. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, data contained in the letter of complaint are data which were collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system and are, therefore, government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Issue 4. As the Commissioner discussed in Advisory Opinion 93-011, the answer to whether verbal communications constitute dissemination of government data rests upon whether the data are recorded in physical form, or exist only as mental impressions, as decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 1993. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     X referred to a verbal dissemination of data which were detailed in the Commission&apos;s letter of complaint about him. A verbal dissemination of data &lt;u&gt;which are recorded elsewhere in physical form&lt;/u&gt;is a dissemination of government data, per &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;. If the dissemination of data occurred as X described, it was a dissemination of government data. However, the attorney for the Commission explicitly denied that the complaint data were verbally disseminated by one of its members in the manner described by X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 5. Pursuant to Section 13.43, a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action made against a City employee are data which were collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision . . .. Therefore, those data are personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 6. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, provides that during the processing of a complaint or charge against an employee, the data that are public are the employee&apos;s name, and the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the employee is disciplined, and the disciplinary action is a final disposition, then the final disposition, the specific reasons for the action, and data documenting the basis of the action are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in this case, setting aside the factual dispute, absent a final disposition, data about the complaint or charge, other than the fact of the existence of the complaint, and its status, are private data. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 7. The informed consent of an employee is not always necessary to release private data about that employee. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 3, the use and dissemination of private or confidential data outside the government entity which maintains the data is limited to that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. Therefore, in some instances, a dissemination of private data may be made without the data subject&apos;s consent, if the disclosure is necessary for the administration and management of authorized programs.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to the general standard established by Section 13.05, subdivision 3, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides guidance on issues of access to private data within a government entity. Pursuant to the rule, access to private or confidential data by public employees within a government entity is limited to those individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access . . .. Therefore, an employee may gain access to private data about a fellow employee, without that employee&apos;s informed consent, if his or her work assignment reasonably requires access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the general standards of use and dissemination of private data provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, are subject to further limitations, in the circumstance in which the private or confidential data in question were collected from the data subject, and the individual was given the proper notice ( Tennessen Warning ) required under Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The collection, storage, use and dissemination of such data for any purposes other than those stated to the individual, in the Tennessen Warning, at the time of collection, are regulated by Section 13.05, subdivision 4. The exceptions provided in that subdivision are very limited. (For further discussion of this issue, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-028.) However, one of the exceptions is that data may be used and disseminated in a manner different from that stated in the Tennessen Warning, if the individual gives informed consent. (See Section 13.05 (4)(d).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, the details and specifics contained in the personnel complaint may be disseminated without the data subject&apos;s informed consent if, subject to the limitations stated in the Tennessen Warning if applicable, the data are disseminated pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 3, and if the dissemination meets the standard set forth in Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Issue 8. Pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, data collected for . . . the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are classified as [confidential]. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of that Section, [a] &apos;pending civil legal action&apos; includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. Clearly, the definition of legal action provided in Section 13.39 includes administrative and arbitration proceedings.
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                     Whether a civil legal action is pending &lt;u&gt;shall be determined by the chief attorney&lt;/u&gt;acting for the state agency, political subdivision or statewide system. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the chief attorney acting for the City of Brooklyn Park must make a determination, pursuant to subdivision 1, for the provisions of Section 13.39 to apply. In this particular situation, it is not clear if the City&apos;s chief attorney has made that determination. Further, any such determination made by the chief attorney must be reconciled with the public disclosure requirements set forth in Section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    NOTE: The following statements of opinion are the Commissioner&apos;s reading of the issues raised by X, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13. The statements do not contain any determination as to whether the City did or did not do what X asserts that it did.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                 Within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11, the Commission is not, &lt;i&gt;per se&lt;/i&gt;, a political subdivision. However, pursuant to Section 419.01, the Commission was established by City ordinance, and is a function of the City of Brooklyn Park.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The Commission is a function of City government, and therefore, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 11, it is subject to the provisions of Chapter 13.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, data contained in the letter of complaint are data which were collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system and are therefore, government data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                 Whether verbal communications constitute dissemination of government data is dependent upon the recording of the data in physical form. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.) If the dissemination of data occurred as X described, it was a dissemination of government data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Section 13.43, a complaint of misconduct and request for disciplinary action made against a City employee are data which were collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision . . .. Therefore, those data are personnel data.
                                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                 Pursuant to Section 13.43, prior to a &lt;u&gt;final disposition&lt;/u&gt;of any disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action are private data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The details and specifics contained in the personnel complaint may be disseminated without the data subject&apos;s informed consent if, subject to the limitations stated in the Tennessen Warning, if applicable, the dissemination meets the standards set forth in Section 13.05, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The City may treat private personnel data as confidential data, pursuant to Section 13.39, if the chief attorney for the City has made the determination required in subdivision 1 of that Section.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 27, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267736</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data necessary for administration and management of programs (13.05, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266359</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Consent needed for new use of data if notice was not given</Title><Id>266792</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-034</Title><title>Opinion 95 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267828&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-07-27T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What data about former public employees are public?
If disciplinary action has been taken against a public employee, are the following data relating to the disciplinary action public: specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 27, 1995; Douglas County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On July 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated July 3, 1995, from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of the Echo Press. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the Echo&apos;s dispute with the Douglas County Housing and Redevelopment Authority over access to certain personnel data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Meyer, Chair of the Douglas County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, hereafter HRA. The purposes of this letter, dated July 12, 1995, were to inform Ms. Meyer of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask her or the HRA&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the HRA&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On July 20, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Meyer requesting that the Commissioner wait an additional 30 days before issuing an opinion. She asked for the extension so that officials of HUD could complete certain processes in regard to the employee.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated July 21, 1995, Don Gemberling, Director of PIPA, responded to Ms. Meyer&apos;s letter by stating, in part, The basis you describe in your request for an extension is not, in our opinion, one of the circumstances that is contemplated by the opinion statute. For that reason, we are denying your request...However, you still have the opportunity to present the commissioner with information that the HUD sanction process that you described in your letter or something else about this situation somehow affects the classification of the data your agency is maintaining about [the employee]. PIPA did not receive an additional response from the HRA.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. Apparently, the HRA recently fired an employee. According to Mr. Anfinson, shortly thereafter, the Echo requested access to the public data relating to the disciplinary action. Mr. Anfinson related that the HRA had refused to provide the data, despite his follow-up written request, dated June 15, 1995. (Mr. Anfinson provided a copy of this letter to PIPA.) Based on the refusal of the HRA to provide access to the data, Mr. Anfinson requested an advisory opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What data about former public employees are public?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If disciplinary action has been taken against a public employee, are the following data relating to the disciplinary action public: specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Mr. Anfinson, on behalf of the Echo, requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner because the newspaper has experienced difficulty obtaining certain government data from the HRA.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Echo seeks data relating to a former employee of the HRA. Such data are classified in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, personnel data: As used in this section, &apos;personnel data&apos; means data on individuals collected because the individual is &lt;u&gt;or was&lt;/u&gt;an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a), certain data about former employees are public:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Except for employees described in subdivision 5, &lt;u&gt;the following personnel data on current and former employees&lt;/u&gt;, volunteers, and independent contractors of a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision and members of advisory boards or commissions is public: name; actual gross salary; salary range; contract fees; actual gross pension; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary; job title; job description; education and training background; previous work experience; date of first and last employment; the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; &lt;u&gt;the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body&lt;/u&gt;; the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship; work location; a work telephone number; badge number; honors and awards received; payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes, except to the extent that release of time sheet data would reveal the employee&apos;s reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave or other not public data; and city and county of residence. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a), clearly states that when a final disposition of any disciplinary action has occurred, the final disposition is public as well as the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the action. A final disposition, as clarified in Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), occurs when a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the present situation, there appears to be no dispute that the HRA, in terminating the employee, has arrived at a final disposition. Therefore, the final disposition of any disciplinary action (the termination) together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the action are public data. In addition, any other data about the employee that are consistent with the elements in Section 13.43, subdivision 2, are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Section 13.43, subdivision 2, specifies which data about former public employees are public.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The HRA appears to have made a final disposition in terminating its employee. Therefore, the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 27, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267828</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Former employee</Title><Id>266384</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-033</Title><title>Opinion 95 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267883&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-07-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must the Office of Administrative Hearings provide Mr. Vail with access to data that provide the basis for the issuance of an &quot;Order on Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause&quot; ?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 27, 1995; Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On June 30, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from David R. Vail, an attorney, on behalf of a client. In his letter, Mr. Vail described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH.) Mr. Vail enclosed copies of correspondence with OAH.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Vail&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings. The purposes of that letter, dated July 5, 1995, were to inform Mr. Johnson of Mr. Vail&apos;s request, to ask him or OAH&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for OAH&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On July 26, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from Rolf G. Hagen, Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge, OAH. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Vail was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. Mr. Vail represents an employee in a workers&apos; compensation claim. According to Mr. Vail, Adam S. Wolkoff, attorney for the employer and insurer involved in the claim, filed a Petition for Reassignment Pursuant to Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause. According to Mr. Vail, attached to that document was another document, an Order on Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause. That Order refers to affidavits signed by Mr. Wolkoff, and another attorney, which apparently relate to an earlier case before OAH. Copies of those affidavits were not provided to Mr. Vail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Order on Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause states: [t]hat Compensation Judge Deanna McCashin be, and the same is, hereby precluded from presiding over any matter in which any party is represented by Attorney Michael D. Aafedt and Attorney Adam S. Wolkoff. Accordingly, Judge McCashin was reassigned from Mr. Vail&apos;s client&apos;s case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, Mr. Vail corresponded with OAH on a number of occasions, to question the Order, and to gain access to copies of the affidavits signed by attorneys Aafedt and Wolkoff. Although the affidavits were not made available, Mr. Johnson rescinded the Order. However, the case was not reassigned to the original judge, Judge McCashin. Mr. Vail objected to the removal of Judge McCashin, and continued to seek access to the affidavits, to learn the basis upon which the Order had originally been issued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated June 7, 1995, Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Rolf G. Hagen told Mr. Vail that his request for access to the affidavits was denied, because they . . . contain private data within the scope of Minnesota Statute section13.43, Personnel Data . . . and, as such, the data may not be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Vail maintained that it was his belief that the affidavits in question were part of the files relating to an earlier case, and stated that [i]t is difficult to conceive of a situation where an attorney files an Affidavit of Prejudice on a compensation judge without disclosing the basis of the alleged prejudice, or even the Affidavits in question. He reiterated his belief that the affidavits are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Hagen stated that [i]t is the position of [OAH] that the information sought by Mr. Vail is not public data; specifically, that the information sought is private personnel data within the scope and meaning of Minn. Stat. section 13.43, Subd. 4, and, therefore, may not be released except pursuant to a court order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Vail asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Must the Office of Administrative Hearings provide Mr. Vail with access to data that provide the basis for the issuance of an Order on Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause ?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Mr. Vail represents an employee in a workers&apos; compensation claim, which is before OAH. Mr. Wolkoff represents the employer and insurer in that claim. Mr. Wolkoff filed a petition to remove the compensation judge, Judge McCashin, pursuant to an earlier Order on Permanent Affidavit of Prejudice for Cause. That Order referred to affidavits filed by Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. Aafedt, but did not contain any details of the basis of their assertion of prejudice. Judge McCashin was removed from Mr. Vail&apos;s case. That Order was rescinded, but Judge McCashin was not reassigned to Mr. Vail&apos;s client&apos;s case. Mr. Vail wants to know the basis for the judge&apos;s removal, and accordingly, seeks access to the affidavits. He maintains that the affidavits, as part of the record of a case which came before OAH, are public data.
&lt;p&gt;OAH told Mr. Vail that the statutory basis for denying him access to the affidavits is that they contain private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, and are therefore inaccessible to him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question of the proper classification of the data in question, i.e., the affidavits, is complicated by somewhat vague language in statute and rule. The issue is further complicated by the fact that OAH is an executive branch agency which functions like a court; its hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings. However, the rules that govern judicial records are not applicable to OAH. (See the Supreme Court&apos;s Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.) OAH is subject to Chapter 13, and is subject to administrative rules. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 17, and Section 176.83.) A review of the applicable provisions of statute and rule, which follows, illustrates the complexity of determining the appropriate classification of the data contained in the affidavits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, [a]ll government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency . . . shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as [not public.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry and OAH are involved in the processing of workers&apos; compensation claims. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 176 governs workers&apos; compensation claims. Minnesota Rules Chapter 1415 governs workers&apos; compensation hearings at OAH. Upon the filing of a workers&apos; compensation claim, a file is created, which contains some data which are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Section 176.231, the initial report filed with Labor and Industry is classified as private. The classification of data in the file other than the initial report is not as clear. However, the implication in Minnesota Rules Part 1415.0600, which states that a person who is not a party to a claim can gain access to a file with a written authorization from a party, is that the files are not accessible by the public. (Note: Minnesota Rules Chapter 1415 provides no special definition of the term file. )&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1415.2900, subpart 7, describes the contents of the &lt;u&gt;record&lt;/u&gt;of a case, which includes all pleadings, motions and orders . . . and the entire record from any previous hearing which is relevant to the issues under consideration and those parts of the . . . file on the matter which the compensation judge incorporates . . .. That Part of the Rules also states that any person may request a copy of the transcript of the hearing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Section 176.401 states [a]ll hearings before a compensation judge are public. Section 176.391, subdivision 3, states [t]he report shall be made a part of the record of the case &lt;u&gt;and be open to inspection as such&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, it appears that the record of the case is accessible to the public, including those parts of the file which are incorporated into the record. Section 175.10, which governs the workers&apos; compensation division of Labor and Industry, also appears to add weight to that conclusion. That provision states [a]ll the proceedings of the division shall be shown on its records, &lt;u&gt;which are public records&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) Taken together, these statutory provisions appear to indicate that anything which is made a part of the record, including the affidavits, are open to public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As further support for that conclusion, Section 175A.06 states that the hearings of the workers&apos; compensation court of appeals are open to the public, and that [a]ll the proceedings of the court shall be shown on its records, which shall be public records. (Decisions of OAH compensation judges may be appealed to that court.) In addition, the legislature has demonstrated its clear intent with respect to records of public proceedings in general, in its enactment of Section 471.705, the open meeting law. That Section provides that [d]ata discussed at an open meeting retain the data&apos;s original classification; however, &lt;u&gt;a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly, if the contents of the affidavits were disclosed at a public hearing, they would be accessible to the public through the transcript of the hearing. (See Minnesota Rules Part 1415.2900, subpart 7.) Although it is not clear, it appears that the &lt;u&gt;record&lt;/u&gt;of the case is also public, on the basis of the sections of statute cited above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it appears that even if the contents of the affidavits were not disclosed at a public hearing, if they were made a part of the record of any case before OAH, they would be part of the public record of the case. The description of the contents of the record, contained in Minnesota Rules Part 1415.2900, leads to a reasonable conclusion that an affidavit filed in support of a petition for reassignment of an OAH judge would have been made part of the record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the lack of clarity in statute, confusion with respect to the proper classification of the affidavits exists. It is reasonable for OAH to have determined that the affidavits contain private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43. (Personnel data are data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency . . .. ) Compensation judges are employees of OAH.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (a), [t]he classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. The earlier discussion of the statutes and rules which govern the workers&apos; compensation program appears to have identified the authority for the position that even if the affidavits contain private personnel data, when those affidavits were made part of a record of a hearing at OAH, the classification of those data changed as a result of the hearing process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Vail is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It appears that the affidavits were made a part of the record of a case before OAH, and are therefore accessible to the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: July 27, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267883</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of administrative hearings OAH</Title><Id>266970</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Traveling data</Title><Id>267064</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Workers&apos; compensation</Title><Id>266780</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-032</Title><title>Opinion 95 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267842&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-07-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May a law enforcement agency, which maintains videotapes and photographs that are part of an inactive investigative file, classify same videotapes and photographs as nonpublic data when those videotapes and photographs have already been viewed by the person making the data request and other members of the public?
Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 require a government entity to inform a person requesting access to public data that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access?
Does Chapter 13 require a government entity to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use?
Does Chapter 13 require a government entity to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner
?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 25, 1995; Scott County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On June 26, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated June 22, 1995, from Mary Britton Clouse. In her letter, Ms. Clouse requested that the Commissioner assist her in obtaining government data from the Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Department, hereafter Sheriff. In a subsequent telephone conversation with PIPA staff, Ms. Clouse indicated that she desired an advisory opinion regarding her dispute with Scott County over access to data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Clouse&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to William Nevin, Scott County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated June 28, 1995, were to inform Sheriff Nevin of Ms. Clouse&apos;s request, to ask him or the Sheriff&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On July 10, 1995, PIPA received a response from Susan McNellis, Assistant Scott County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. Attached to Ms. Clouse&apos;s request were copies of five letters documenting her correspondence with Scott County officials, all relating to her attempts to gain access to data. In the first letter, dated May 18, 1995, Ms. Clouse wrote to Thomas Harbinson, Scott County Attorney, requesting access to, all photographs and videotapes taken as evidence in the investigation of animal mistreatment/cruelty in which 69 diary cows were starved to death last spring to which [citizens] pled guilty. This evidence was documented in [Scott County Deputy&apos;s] report of 4/22/94 (ICR #94011374). I inspected all of the above requested records when I met with you on June 14, 1994. You told me at that meeting that the photographs and video tape would be available to me as soon as the case had been concluded...The sentencing order was filed on February 23, 1995.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her letter to Mr. Harbinson, Ms. Clouse also stated that she contacted the Sheriff&apos;s office on May 1, 1995, and was told that the photographs were releasable for $10 each and the cost of the videotape was uncertain. Ms. Clouse related that the Sheriff&apos;s office called later to say they would not release any of the materials until the County Attorney&apos;s office made a decision about their availability. Ms. Clouse added in her letter that the County Attorney&apos;s office was to call her but did not. She recounted that she then called the prosecuting attorney for the particular case and left a message asking him to return the call. Ms. Clouse stated that her call was not returned.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the second letter, dated May 30, 1995, Ms. McNellis responded to Ms. Clouse&apos;s May 18, 1995, letter and stated, Our office does not oppose the release of the materials you seek, after the appeal period has expired, which is today&apos;s date, May 30, 1995...You can make arrangements to obtain those items and the costs involved by contacting the Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Department.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the third letter, dated June 7, 1995, Ms. Clouse wrote to Sheriff Nevin and included a copy of her May 18, 1995, letter. In her correspondence to Sheriff Nevin, Ms. Clouse requested the data referenced in the May 18, 1995, letter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the fourth letter, dated June 9, 1995, David Einertson, Chief Deputy, Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Office, wrote to Ms. Clouse and advised her that the Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Office is the agency which retains custody of all investigative data and information. He further stated, I am declining to release either the photographs or videotape to you because I am of the opinion that the items are not public data. One of the factors in my decision is that the videotape and photos are clearly offensive to common sensibilities, as described in MN Stat. 13.83, subd. 5.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the fifth letter dated June 14, 1995, Ms. Clouse wrote again to Sheriff Nevin, recounting her communications with Scott County officials, and again requested the photographs and videotape, citing the reasons she believed the data are public. At the time Ms. Clouse communicated with the Commissioner, she had received no response from Sheriff Nevin.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In Ms. McNellis&apos; response to Ms. Clouse&apos;s opinion request, Ms. McNellis stated, The responsible farmers pled guilty to cruelty to animals charges and the time for appeal has expired. Thus, the photographic evidence is part of the case evidence now classified as inactive investigation data, which is usually public data. In her letter, Ms. McNellis went on to provide graphic descriptions of some of the photographs and stated, Given the graphic and detailed depictions of the loathsome, repugnant, and grotesque situation, it is clear that the Scott County Sheriff&apos;s Office is correct in its decision to withhold the data from publication.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Clouse asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            May a law enforcement agency, which maintains videotapes and photographs that are part of an inactive investigative file, classify same videotapes and photographs as nonpublic data when those videotapes and photographs have already been viewed by the person making the data request and other members of the public?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 require a government entity to inform a person requesting access to public data that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Chapter 13 require a government entity to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Chapter 13 require a government entity to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner
                            &lt;h2&gt;
                              ?
                            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be no dispute that the data in question are inactive investigative data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Investigative data are classified in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5: Inactive investigative data is public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of individuals protected under subdivision 10. Section 13.82, subdivision 5, also states, photographs which are part of inactive investigative files and which are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data, provided that the existence of the photographs shall be disclosed to any person requesting access to the inactive investigative file. In this situation, the Sheriff, as stated by Ms. McNellis, is asserting that because the photographs and videotape sought by Ms. Clouse are clearly offensive to common sensibilities, those data are classified as nonpublic data and therefore, are not available to members of the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is apparent from the language in Section 13.82, subdivision 5, that a law enforcement agency has the authority to make a determination that photographs which are part of an inactive investigative file are clearly offensive to common sensibilities. Once that determination is made, the photographs with clearly offensive content are classified as private or nonpublic data. However, if a law enforcement agency makes such a determination, the agency must consistently treat the photographs as clearly offensive. In other words, it makes no sense that a law enforcement agency would treat the photographs as public at one point in time, and treat them as not public at another point in time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Clouse states that on June 14, 1994, she viewed all the photographs and the videotape now in dispute. At that time, she apparently was advised by the Scott County Attorney that the data would be available to her as soon as the case concluded. In her May 30, 1995, letter, Ms. McNellis, of the County Attorney&apos;s Office, related that the case had, indeed, become inactive and that Ms. Clouse could arrange to obtain the data by contacting the Sheriff&apos;s Department. Then, in the June 9, 1995, letter from the Sheriff&apos;s Office, Ms. Clouse was informed that the photographs and videotape were not public data, because the Sheriff had determined that the data were clearly offensive to common sensibilities.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Sheriff&apos;s determination is problematic for two reasons. First, Ms. Clouse has already had access to the data. Given that she viewed all of the photographs and the videotape on June 14, 1994, it appears Scott County did not, at that time, consider those data to be clearly offensive to common sensibilities. Further, since the Sheriff&apos;s response does not address the fact that the data have already been treated as public, it is not clear on what basis, if any, Scott County is relying to abruptly alter the classification of the data. Therefore, the Commissioner must conclude that because the Sheriff has already treated the photographs and videotape as public data, those data remain public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second reason the Sheriff&apos;s determination is problematic is that Ms. Clouse had twice previously (in June of 1994 and in May of 1995) been informed by the County&apos;s legal advisor that the data would be available to her when the case became inactive. Furthermore, in May of 1995, the Sheriff&apos;s Office advised Ms. Clouse that the data would be available to her for a price. The clear message communicated to Ms. Clouse by Scott County officials was that she could gain access to the data once the criminal case for which the data were collected became inactive. When the County&apos;s legal advisor states that certain data will be available to the public upon a criminal investigation becoming inactive, a member of the public ought to be able to rely on those statements.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An additional issue relating to the nature of the responses from Scott County is that they were not in concert with the clear Legislative intent behind the requirements placed on government entities in Section 13.03 that relate to the handling of requests for access to public data. For instance, given that Ms. Clouse had to make requests to both the County Attorney&apos;s Office as well as the Sheriff&apos;s Office, it does not appear, in this situation, that the Sheriff is keeping data in such an arrangement and condition as to make those data easily accessible for convenient use. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) In addition, given that the Sheriff took approximately 5 weeks, from the time of Ms. Clouse&apos;s first request for access to the photographs and videotape, to notify her that the data were not public, it does not appear that the Sheriff responded to Ms. Clouse&apos;s request in an appropriate and prompt manner. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) Finally, it is clear the Sheriff did not notify Ms. Clouse, either orally at the time of her request or in writing as soon after that time as possible, that the photographs and videotape are classified as other than public data. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Clouse are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Scott County officials provided a member of the public with access to certain government data (photographs and a videotape.) Subsequently, the same individual was assured that she would be able to receive copies of the data when the criminal investigation, for which the data were collected, became inactive. (See Section 13.82, subdivision 5.) Based on the Scott County officials&apos; prior treatment of the data, i.e. allowing access to the data and informing the requesting party that she could receive copies, the photographs and videotape are public data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Yes. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, if a government entity determines requested data are classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Ms. Clouse received this notice approximately five weeks after making her initial request for the data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Yes. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, a government entity is required to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Yes. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, a government entity is required to establish procedures to insure that requests for access to government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Ms. Clouse was notified by the Sheriff approximately five weeks after her initial request that the data would be unavailable to her.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: July 25, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267842</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs/videotapes (See also: Law enforcement - Booking photos)</Title><Id>266525</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-031</Title><title>Opinion 95 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267078&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When an individual supplies private data about her/himself to a government entity and one of the entity&apos;s employees disseminates that data to another employee whose work assignment does not reasonably require access to the data, has a violation of Chapter 13 occurred?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 29, 1995; Steele County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 19, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 15, 1995, from Eric Mattison, an attorney for R. In his letter, Mr. Mattison, on behalf of R, requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding, ...whether the access to and disclosure of private data on individuals to co-workers within the Human Services office for purely personal reasons is a violation of the Data Practices Act....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Mattison&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stanley Groff, Director of Steele County Human Services. The purposes of this letter, dated May 23, 1995, were to inform Mr. Groff of Mr. Mattison&apos;s request, to ask him or Steele County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On June 5, 1995, PIPA received a response from Mr. Groff. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Mattison was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Mr. Mattison, on approximately February 2 or 3, 1995, R contacted Steele County Human Services with questions concerning eligibility for Medical Assistance (MA) in connection with specific medical care. At that time, R provided information, including R&apos;s name, address, and description of the medical condition for which R had been treated. Subsequently, at about 1:30 p.m. on February 7, 1995, R met with Diann, a financial worker for the MA program in Steele County. Thereafter, R provided additional information to Diann as required and requested by Diann.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Mattison, later in the day on February 7, 1995, R received a telephone call, at home, from M, an employee of Steele County Human Services. Mr. Mattison stated that the apparent purpose of M&apos;s call was to inform R that M knew the reason for R&apos;s presence at the Human Services offices and had knowledge of R&apos;s medical care. Also according to Mr. Mattison, other employees of the Steele County Human Services offices had knowledge of R&apos;s circumstances.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Mattison related that following M&apos;s telephone call, R called Diann to inquire why and under what circumstances M was informed, apparently within a matter of hours, of the reason for R&apos;s visit. According to Mr. Mattison, Diann indicated that M came to her seeking information regarding R&apos;s appointment. Also according to Mr. Mattison, R was not otherwise provided an adequate explanation and was asked to speak directly with the Director of Steele County Human Services, Mr. Groff. When R did speak with Mr. Groff, the explanation, apparently, was not adequate.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                While Mr. Groff&apos;s response, on behalf of Steele County, does not specifically address the issue of whether M&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R, he made three points which, according to him, put, ...the matter in a fundamentally different light... First he explained that Diann, as a relatively new financial worker, needed to consult with a knowledgeable colleague prior to the interview on February 7, 1995, about, ...which application to take so as to give the best possible service and not waste [R&apos;s] time by taking the wrong type of application.... According to Mr. Groff, Diann&apos;s supervisor was out of the office that day and M, the second-most senior financial worker, was available.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Secondly, Mr. Groff asserted that M actually ran into R in the hallway of the offices of Steele County Human Services either just before or just after the February 7, 1995, interview.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Thirdly, Mr. Groff stated that while M did call R on the evening of February 7, 1995, the reason for the telephone contact was to reassure R that M&apos;s observation of R in the office that day and possible consultation on the facts of the situation was in no way of interest to M, nor would the information be used in any way, either inside the agency or outside the agency. M&apos;s call to R that night was for the purpose of reaching out and reassurance.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, Mr. Groff adds, ...We hope that this adequately demonstrates that no part of the Data Practices Act were violated....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Mattison asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When an individual supplies private data about her/himself to a government entity and one of the entity&apos;s employees disseminates that data to another employee whose work assignment does not reasonably require access to the data, has a violation of Chapter 13 occurred? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The central issue in this opinion is whether M&apos;s work assignment, as an employee of Steele County Human Services, reasonably required access to private data about R.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be no dispute regarding the classification of the data collected about R by Steele County. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1, Steele County Human Services is part of the Minnesota welfare system and, in most cases, data on individuals collected and maintained by the welfare system are private data. Section 13.02, subdivision 2, defines private data as, ...data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the subject of that data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400 provides guidance concerning access to private data. Specifically, subpart 2 provides for who may see private data, Access to private data shall be available only to the following:...individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, subpart 3 states, The responsible authority shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2.... Steele County&apos;s response neither specifically addressed the issue of whether M&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R nor did it indicate whether Steele County has established the procedures required under Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The only rationale offered by Steele County in support of its position that M had authorization to gain access to the private data about R is that Diann&apos;s supervisor was out of the office on February 7, 1995, and that Diann needed to consult with a knowledgeable colleague before collecting the data about R. Based on this information, Mr. Goff appears to suggest that because M is considered a knowledgeable colleague, it is automatic that M&apos;s work assignment reasonably requires access to the data about R.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the only way to ascertain whether M&apos;s work assignment does reasonably require access to the type of data collected and maintained about R is if Steele County so directed in its policies and procedures. Steele County did not provide a copy of the written procedures described in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. Absent a statement in those procedures that M&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R, it appears that the sharing of the data about R was not authorized.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Mattison is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It does not appear that M&apos;s work assignment reasonably required access to the private data about R. Therefore, it does appear that R&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 were violated. Steele County did not provide a copy of the written procedures required pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. If those procedures had been provided and clearly indicated that M&apos;s work assignment required access to the data about R, a different conclusion might have been reached. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 29, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267078</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:03:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-030</Title><title>Opinion 95 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267709&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-26T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, what is the City&apos;s obligation to provide public access to three-year-old City council meeting minutes?
Pursuant to Section 13.08, must a person who is denied access to public government data exhaust any administrative remedy prior to filing suit?
Who is the Responsible Authority for the City of Roseau?
May a Responsible Authority require that requests for access to government data, made pursuant to Section 13.03, be in writing, on a specific form?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 26, 1995; City of Roseau</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 15, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 11, 1995, from Dale Blanshan. In his letter, Mr. Blanshan requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his dispute with the City of Roseau, hereinafter &quot;City,&quot; over access to certain data maintained by the City. Mr. Blanshan enclosed several items, including a copy of an amended civil complaint he filed against the City, and a copy of the City&apos;s answer to his complaint. (The source of many of the details about the dispute that the Commissioner is relying upon in this opinion is Mr. Blanshan&apos;s civil complaint.) Mr. Blanshan also enclosed what he characterized as a conformed copy of a handwritten request for information which he submitted to the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Blanshan&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Leland Lunos, the Roseau City Clerk. The purposes of this letter, dated May 17, 1995, were to inform Mr. Lunos of Mr. Blanshan&apos;s request, to ask him or Roseau&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On May 24, 1995, PIPA received a response from Pierre Regnier, attorney for Roseau. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Blanshan was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this dispute is as follows. According to the information provided in Mr. Blanshan&apos;s civil complaint, on or about February 7, 1995, he telephoned Mr. Lunos&apos;s office, to request access to minutes of certain meetings of the City council. At those meetings, which took place in 1992, a certain proposed gift of land to the City was discussed or voted upon. Someone (unidentified) in Mr. Lunos&apos;s office told Mr. Blanshan that Mr. Lunos would return his telephone call.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Blanshan, on Friday, February 10, having not heard from Mr. Lunos, he went to Mr. Lunos&apos;s office, and asked to meet with him. After a wait of approximately two and one-half hours, Mr. Lunos met with Mr. Blanshan. At that meeting, Mr. Blanshan repeated his request to inspect the council meeting minutes. He said he informed Mr. Lunos that he &quot;. . . intended to utilize the data requested in an attempt to influence a current political campaign to gather signatures on a petition to change the county seat from Roseau to Warroad. . . .&quot; He said that Mr. Lunos refused to provide him with access. Mr. Blanshan said that he asked Mr. Lunos to cite the specific statutory basis for his denial, but that Mr. Lunos refused, &quot;. . . saying only that the disclosures would be used to &apos;blacken someone&apos;s name&apos;. . . .&quot; Mr. Blanshan also stated that he asked Mr. Lunos whether he claimed the minutes were not public, or were not readily available. Mr. Lunos did not answer either question. Mr. Lunos said that he would talk to the city attorney on Monday.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blanshan further stated that before he left the Clerk&apos;s office on February 10, he gave Mr. Lunos a handwritten request for access to the data he had previously requested orally, both by telephone and in person. In that written request, Mr. Blanshan again asked to be informed as to the specific statutory basis upon which the City relied to deny him access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blanshan said that at that point, he went directly to the office of Bernie Burggraf, Mayor. He made the same request for access to the data, and was again denied. Mr. Blanshan said that Mayor Burggraf &quot;. . . repeated the objection that the information requested would be used to &apos;blacken someone&apos;s name&apos;, and refused to intervene. . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Blanshan also enclosed a letter, dated February 22, 1995, that he received from Mr. Lunos. In that letter Mr. Lunos referred to an enclosed &quot;request for information form.&quot; He asked Mr. Blanshan to &quot;. . . specify on this form the information you are requesting and mail it back to the City of Roseau.&quot; (There is no date on the form.) Mr. Blanshan stated that the information request form was sent to him &quot;nearly two weeks after the original denial&quot; of his request for information. He said that the form &quot;asked for no information other than what I had already provided&quot; (in his handwritten request, earlier referenced), and therefore he &quot;chose to ignore it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Regnier stated that &quot;this case is fact specific&quot; and therefore, the City would address the issues raised in this opinion only generally.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the first issue, Mr. Regnier stated that City council meeting minutes are public government data, pursuant to Section 471.705, the &quot;Open Meeting Law.&quot; He quoted the relevant provisions of Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, which govern public access to government data. He also stated that the City has &quot;resolved [that] all requests for government data must be in writing. . . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier stated that the City&apos;s position is that &quot;. . . the public has the same right to view three year old records as one week old records. However, it is only reasonable to assume it may take longer to retrieve older records.&quot; He said that &quot;reasonable time&quot; and &quot;prompt manner&quot; (as provided in Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300) &quot;. . . must be interpreted in light of the specific request.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier stated that Mr. Lunos told Mr. Blanshan, on Friday, February 10, that before he could allow him access to the data, he &quot;needed clarification&quot; from the City attorney. He told Mr. Blanshan to return on Monday, &quot;. . . at which time access would be granted according to the City Attorney&apos;s direction.&quot; Mr. Regnier further stated that Mr. Blanshan did not provide the dates of the meetings at which the topic of Mr. Blanshan&apos;s interest was discussed, and therefore &quot;the . . . request involved investigation on behalf of [Mr. Lunos] besides simple access.&quot; He concluded that Mr. Lunos &quot;. . . correctly requested one working day so that he could consult the city attorney.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier said that Mr. Blanshan did not return for the data on the following Monday, or at all. He said that Mr. Blanshan then initiated the lawsuit &quot;. . . even though the requested information was available for inspection the Monday after his request.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding the second issue, Mr. Regnier stated that it is the City&apos;s position that &quot;. . . a party who requests public government data must not initiate a lawsuit as long as the Responsible Authority is attempting, in good faith, to respond to the request.&quot; Mr. Regnier added that &quot;[a] doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy&quot; clearly should apply under [Chapter 13] to avoid unnecessary lawsuits such as this one.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier further stated that &quot;. . . it would only make sense that a person who feels that a city employee has not complied with [Chapter 13] be required to present the request to the city governing body which in this case would be the city council.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On the third issue, Mr. Regnier stated that Mr. Leland Lunos is the Responsible Authority of the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On the fourth issue, Mr. Regnier said that in accordance with Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, &quot;. . . this question really inquires whether it is &lt;u&gt;reasonable&lt;/u&gt; to require a request in writing on a specific form.&quot; (Emphasis his.) Mr. Regnier maintains that it is a reasonable requirement for the following reasons. He said that the Responsible Authority may limit public access to government data to regular working hours, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3. He said that it is &quot;. . . highly likely that some requests will not be processed on a walk-in basis. . . . [and] a request form allows the staff to compile and prepare requests without the requestor&apos;s presence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier also said that requiring data requests to be made in writing allows a government entity to &quot;analyze frequency of requests for staffing and logistics purposes.&quot; He also stated that the written request requirement also serves to eliminate government staff errors, and increases efficiency. For these reasons, Mr. Regnier asserts that &quot;a procedure requiring written requests is clearly reasonable.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Blanshan asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, what is the City&apos;s obligation to provide public access to three-year-old City council meeting minutes?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.08, must a person who is denied access to public government data exhaust any administrative remedy prior to filing suit?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Who is the Responsible Authority for the City of Roseau?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;May a Responsible Authority require that requests for access to government data, made pursuant to Section 13.03, be in writing, on a specific form?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City and Mr. Blanshan do not disagree regarding the classification of the City council meeting minutes. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the minutes are classified as public government data. The first issue to be addressed in this opinion, therefore, concerns whether the City&apos;s response to Mr. Blanshan&apos;s request for access to public data was the response contemplated under Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Section 13.03, subdivision 1, provides that &quot;[t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them &lt;u&gt;easily accessible for convenient use&lt;/u&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.) Subdivision 2 provides that &quot;[t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an &lt;u&gt;appropriate and prompt manner&lt;/u&gt;.&quot; (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that &quot;[t]he responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with [Section] 13.03. . . . In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 16, &quot;&apos;[r]esponsible authority&apos; in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Lunos made his first request for access to the data by telephone, to someone in Mr. Lunos&apos;s office. A few days later, he again requested access, in person, and made that request directly to Mr. Lunos, the City&apos;s Responsible Authority. On that same day, according to Mr. Blanshan, he delivered his handwritten request to Mr. Lunos.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City and Mr. Blanshan agree that Mr. Lunos, in response to Mr. Blanshan, said that before he would provide access to the data, he needed to consult the City attorney for clarification. Mr. Lunos told Mr. Blanshan to return on Monday, &quot;. . . at which time access would be granted according to the City Attorney&apos;s direction.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier said that the City&apos;s position is that &quot;. . . the public has the same right to view three year old records as one week old records. However, it is only reasonable to assume it may take longer to retrieve older records.&quot; Mr. Regnier stated that &quot;reasonable time&quot; and &quot;prompt manner&quot; &quot;. . . must be interpreted in light of the specific request.&quot; He said that Mr. Blanshan had not included the specific dates of the meetings, and therefore the &quot;. . . request involved investigation on behalf of [Mr. Lunos] besides simple access.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Apparently, at no time did the City claim that the data sought by Mr. Blanshan were not public data. It certainly may be the case that it would require some time to research the specific dates of the council meetings of interest, and then to retrieve the minutes. Perhaps immediate access would not have been &quot;reasonable&quot; within the meaning of Section 13.03. If that was the case, the City should have told Mr. Blanshan that it needed extra time to locate the data he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, when Mr. Blanshan requested access to the data from Mr. Lunos, he was told that he couldn&apos;t have access until Mr. Lunos, the Responsible Authority, consulted with the City attorney. Mr. Lunos said that access to the data would be provided according to the attorney&apos;s direction. This response reasonably suggests to a citizen seeking access to public data that the City&apos;s position is not one of a need for time to retrieve data, but the possibility that the request for access may be denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the City had in place the data practices policies and procedures it is required by statute to establish, presumably it could avoid this kind of situation. (See Section 13.03, and see also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 95-006.) It ought not to be necessary for Mr. Lunos, the Responsible Authority of the City, i.e., the individual responsible for the City&apos;s data practices, to need to consult with the City attorney before providing Mr. Blanshan with appropriate access to the public data he requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Further, according to Mr. Blanshan, both Mr. Lunos and Mayor Burggraf said that Mr. Blanshan would use the data to &quot;blacken someone&apos;s name.&quot; As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinion 95-001:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;As noted above, [a County attorney] suggested that [the citizen] has sought the data in question in order to &quot;publicly harass&quot; and otherwise invade the privacy of County employees. The County appears to argue that it has grounds to deny access to public data on the basis of its anticipation that the data will be used in a manner to which it objects. However, the legislature has specifically determined the classification of data about public employees, and has further established the fundamental information policy principle that in general, no restrictions may be imposed upon the public&apos;s use of public government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.0300, subpart 2.) Government entities may not restrict access to public government data because they object to potential uses of the data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Commissioner cannot determine if Mr. Lunos delayed in responding to Mr. Blanshan&apos;s request because he needed time to locate the specific data, or because he was concerned about what use Mr. Blanshan might make of the data. The former is a response which is authorized under Chapter 13, the latter is not. However, it is understandable that Mr. Blanshan may have thought that he was being stonewalled by Mr. Lunos. Again, if the City had implemented data practices policies and procedures, and had clearly communicated them to Mr. Blanshan, the City might better avoid this kind of situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding the second issue, Mr. Regnier stated that it is the City&apos;s position that &quot;. . . a party who requests public government data must not initiate a lawsuit as long as the Responsible Authority is attempting, in good faith, to respond to the request.&quot; Mr. Regnier added that &quot;[a] doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy&quot; clearly should apply under [Chapter 13] to avoid unnecessary lawsuits such as this one.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, Chapter 13 does not contain a requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedy, except as provided in Section 13.04, subdivision 4, which is not relevant in this matter. A citizen who does not agree with a Responsible Authority&apos;s determination has two options: first, to file a lawsuit, and second, to request an advisory opinion of the Commissioner. Mr. Blanshan exercised both options. There is no requirement in either Section 13.03, or Section 13.072, that a citizen must request an advisory opinion before s/he may take any of the legal actions authorized in Section 13.08.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Regnier further stated that &quot;. . . it would only make sense that a person who feels that a city employee has not complied with [Chapter 13] be required to present the request to the city governing body which in this case would be the city council.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The policy rationale underlying the requirement provided in Section 13.03, subdivision 2, i.e., &quot;appropriate and prompt&quot; access, is that citizens not encounter unreasonable delays, and undue bureaucratic hurdles, when trying to secure their rights under Chapter 13. In order to address, in part, this concern, the Legislature established the role of the Responsible Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1000, provides that governing bodies, in this case the City, &quot;shall confer on the responsible authority full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned&quot; by Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. Clearly, a review of Chapter 13 indicates that the role of the Responsible Authority is pivotal to a government entity&apos;s compliance with the statute. (See Sections 13.03, 13.04, 13.05, &lt;em&gt;inter alia&lt;/em&gt;, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Regarding the third issue, there is no disagreement. Mr. Lunos, City Clerk, is the Responsible Authority for the City of Roseau.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On the fourth issue, the discussion of issue one also applies, with regard to what is &quot;reasonable.&quot; Mr. Regnier stated that the City had resolved that all requests for government data be made in writing. He did not provide a copy of the City&apos;s policies and procedures implementing that resolution. Apparently, neither Mr. Lunos nor his staff explained to Mr. Blanshan, at the time of his original request, that the City had in place a policy which requires that data requests must be made in writing. Apparently Mr. Blanshan was not informed of this policy until nearly two weeks later, when he received a letter from Mr. Lunos, with a &quot;request for information form&quot; enclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Section 13.03, as cited above, the Responsible Authority is supposed to establish procedures to insure that the public receives &quot;appropriate and prompt&quot; access to public government data. Although there is nothing in Chapter 13 which requires data requests to be made in writing, a government entity may choose to impose that requirement as part of its data access procedures. Mr. Regnier provided several reasons supporting a government entity&apos;s decision to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If the City has complied with its obligation to establish such procedures, it may ask citizens to follow those procedures when making data requests. Once written compliance policies and procedures are established, and are communicated to the public, one important role they play is to depersonalize potential conflicts over access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, it is not reasonable for the City to hold citizens to a procedure which it does not explain or make available to them. Mr. Regnier did not offer any explanation why, if indeed the City had adopted a policy requiring written requests at the time of Mr. Blanshan&apos;s initial request, Mr. Lunos did not inform Mr. Blanshan of that policy the first three times he requested access to the data. The City did not tell him of that policy, or provide Mr. Blanshan with a copy of its &quot;request for information form,&quot; until nearly two weeks after his initial request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, from the information provided, it appears that in this case, it was not reasonable for the City to require Mr. Blanshan to make his request on a specific form. First, it appears that Mr. Lunos understood what data Mr. Blanshan requested orally. It is not apparent, therefore, what the City gained by requiring that the request be made in writing. Second, in the conformed copy of the handwritten note Mr. Blanshan gave Mr. Lunos, all of the information requested by the City on its form is included. It cannot reasonably be argued that the City could better meet its obligations under Chapter 13, by rejecting the handwritten request, only to mail to Mr. Blanshan, nearly two weeks later, a form requesting the same information he had already provided. Such a procedure would also result in the City incurring unnecessary expense in responding to Mr. Blanshan&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Blanshan is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the City is obligated to provide appropriate and prompt access to City council meeting minutes, which are public government data, and which, by nature of the role they play in documenting the City&apos;s actions, ought to be easily accessible by the public. In this case, it appears that the City needed some period of time to determine the specific dates of the council meetings, in order to retrieve the meeting minutes. However, it did not communicate that need to Mr. Blanshan. In this case, the City&apos;s response was not reasonable.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Chapter 13 does not require a person who is denied access to public government data to exhaust any administrative remedy prior to filing suit.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Leland Lunos, City Clerk, is the Responsible Authority for the City of Roseau.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;A Responsible Authority may require that requests for access to government data be in writing, on a specific form, if the Responsible Authority has established policies and procedures which contain that requirement, and if that requirement is properly communicated to citizens making data access requests. In this case, it does not appear that the requirement was reasonable, or properly communicated to the citizen&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: June 26, 1995&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267709</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Administrative remedies - exhaustion</Title><Id>267113</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266677</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public access procedures</Title><Id>266426</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-05-11T19:11:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-029</Title><title>Opinion 95 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267396&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are data collected by the City of Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs (Initial Call Reports) public data?
Are data collected and recorded on the City of Waterville Police Department dispatch logs public data?
Are personnel data on City of Waterville employees public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 21, 1995; City of Waterville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 11, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 6, 1995, from Wayne Quiram. In his letter, Mr. Quiram requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his dispute with the City of Waterville over access to various kinds of data. (Mr. Quiram had recently been corresponding with PIPA regarding his difficulties in obtaining access to the data.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nickie Roberge, City Administrator for Waterville. The purposes of this letter, dated May 15, 1995, were to inform Ms. Roberge of Mr. Quiram&apos;s request, to ask her or Waterville&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Waterville&apos;s position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of Mr. Quiram&apos;s correspondence regarding his pursuit of access to data were attached to the May 15, 1995, letter to Ms. Roberge. On May 23, 1995, PIPA received a response from Terrence Foy, attorney for Waterville.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In a letter dated March 6, 1995, Mr. Quiram wrote to Arlie Bluhm, Chief of Police of Waterville. In his letter, Mr. Quiram stated that he wished to view the following data maintained by Waterville: ICRs (the Commissioner believes these to be incident complaint reports); radio dispatch logs; and the job description, prior work history, general education, and any special training of Waterville&apos;s dispatcher.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Having received no response from Mr. Bluhm, Mr. Quiram, in a letter dated March 24, 1995, again requested the same data, stating clearly that he was requesting this information as a private citizen not as a city employee. (Mr. Quiram is employed by the Waterville Police Department.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated April 3, 1995, addressed to Police Patrolman, Wayne Quiram , Mr. Bluhm responded, In regard to your request for ICR&apos;s, the File&apos;s [sic] in Police Office are open and if the One File is locked all Officer&apos;s [sic] have access to that File as key is in Desk Drawer. The Information you are asking for about Ruth Kramer, the City Administrator should have that in the Office at Waterville City Hall. The Police Dispatcher is Hired by City Council.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                At Mr. Bluhm&apos;s instruction, Mr. Quiram, in a letter dated April 17, 1995, made a request to Ms. Roberge, Waterville City Administrator, for access to data. Mr. Quiram asked for a job description for the position of city police dispatcher. He also requested the previous work experience, education and training background, current salary, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration in addition to salary, and the name of the supervisor for Ruth Kramer, the current Waterville police dispatcher. In addition, Mr. Quiram requested the education and training background, and the existence and status of any complaints concerning three other Waterville employees. Finally, he asked to view the dispatch logs created and collected by the police dispatcher(s). Mr. Quiram did not receive a response from Ms. Roberge.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Quiram also made a more specific written request for data, dated April 24, 1995, to Chief Bluhm. Mr. Quiram wrote, ...You have said that the ICRs are open and available...Many of the ICRs are missing...Additionally, many ICRs do not have the complete amount of data required by law...For those ICRs that are short of the data required I am also requesting to see the finished, whole report that follows. This is a partial list of the ICRs (and reports) that I wish to view: 91000252, 93000770, 93000190, 93000292, 93000277, 94000709, 94000149, 94000112.... Mr. Quiram did not receive a response from Chief Bluhm.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response to Mr. Quiram&apos;s opinion request, Mr. Foy asserted that Waterville has not made a determination regarding Mr. Quiram&apos;s request for access to data. Therefore, argued Mr. Foy, the Commissioner does not have authority to issue an opinion, ...Since there has been no determination regarding data practices by the City, Mr. Quiram&apos;s statutorily mandated condition precedent to requesting this opinion has not been met.... Mr. Foy also stated, ...the Commissioner&apos;s opinion making powers are limited, under those circumstances, to rendering opinions solely on the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or rights to access to this data.... In addition, Mr. Foy asserted, ...The Commissioner has no authority, however, to decide whether a violation has in fact occurred. The Commissioner lacks the power to go beyond the express grant of authority in the statute to issue an opinion on such a basis....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the remainder of his response, Mr. Foy listed various types of law enforcement and personnel data which are public data, pursuant to Chapter 13. Most of the data acknowledged by Mr. Foy as public data are the very same data being requested by Mr. Quiram.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Quiram asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are data collected by the City of Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs (Initial Call Reports) public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are data collected and recorded on the City of Waterville Police Department dispatch logs public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are personnel data on City of Waterville employees public data?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before addressing the issues raised by Mr. Quiram, the Commissioner must respond to Mr. Foy&apos;s assertion that the Commissioner lacks authority to issue this opinion.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As noted above, Mr. Foy made three arguments to support his conclusion that the Commissioner does not possess the authority to issue this opinion. His first assertion is, ...Since there has been no determination regarding data practices by the City, Mr. Quiram&apos;s statutorily mandated condition precedent to requesting this opinion has not been met.... The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the statement that a determination has not been made. Often times, a determination occurs by default when a government entity simply chooses not to respond to a request. In other words, inaction becomes an action. This is especially true given that Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 require a government entity to respond to requests for access to public data within a reasonable time or in a appropriate and prompt manner. Under the statute, a response of some sort is required.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In Advisory Opinion 94-027 the Commissioner responded to the very same argument made currently by Mr. Foy:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The Edina attorneys also argue that the Commissioner cannot issue an opinion until after a determination concerning data practices has been made by a government agency and a citizen asks for an opinion concerning that determination. In this instance, the Edina attorneys argue that Edina has not made determinations regarding data practices, therefore there is nothing with which the Plaetzers may disagree, and therefore an opinion is not appropriate. It is clear from the submission of the Plaetzers&apos; letter that they believe that Edina has made determinations regarding data practices that affect the Plaetzers and their son and that they strongly disagree with those determinations.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                             The Commissioner has previously indicated that she will not issue these formal written opinions in hypothetical situations or where there has not been a determination by a government agency that affects a data subject&apos;s rights or a citizen&apos;s right to gain access to government data. &lt;u&gt;However, this need for a determination by an agency should not be interpreted in such a way that an agency could avoid ever having to deal with a Commissioner&apos;s opinion by refusing to make determinations that affect data practices.&lt;/u&gt;In some cases, a determination necessary to a Commissioner&apos;s opinion may be a determination regarding just exactly how a government entity has chosen or not chosen to comply with provisions of the Act that affect rights of data subjects or the right of the public to gain access to data. (Emphasis added.)
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    With regard to the current opinion, Mr. Quiram made an initial request to Waterville&apos;s police chief and was advised that part of the request needed to be directed to another Waterville employee. Mr. Quiram then redirected part of his request to the appropriate person but received no response. In addition, Mr. Quiram made a more detailed request to the police chief relating to data apparently maintained by the chief. Mr. Quiram received no response to his more detailed request. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond for requests to access to data within a reasonable time and in an appropriate and prompt manner. Given that Mr. Quiram made his requests in mid-April, 1995, and had heard nothing by May 6, 1995, the Commissioner considers this lack of response by Waterville to be a determination.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Foy&apos;s second assertion is, ...the Commissioner&apos;s opinion making powers are limited, under those circumstances, to rendering opinions solely on the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or rights to access to this data.... Again, the Commissioner addressed this very same issue in Advisory Opinion 94-027:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;According to the Edina attorneys, the Commissioner can issue an opinion only concerning a citizen&apos;s . . . rights as a subject of government data or rights to access this data. This view of the Commissioner&apos;s authority seems to conclude that the Commissioner can issue opinions only about an individual&apos;s rights as the subject of government data and the right to access data of which the citizen is a subject. This is not the statement of the Commissioner&apos;s authority that appears in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072. The Commissioner can actually issue an opinion to a citizen about . . . the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, subdivision 1.) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Because the issues raised by Mr. Quiram regard his rights as a citizen to gain access to government data under Chapter 13, it is the position of the Commissioner that she has the authority to address those issues in this opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Foy&apos;s third assertion is, ...The Commissioner has no authority, however, to decide whether a violation has in fact occurred. The Commissioner lacks the power to go beyond the express grant of authority in the statute to issue an opinion on such a basis.... The Commissioner addressed this very same issue in Advisory Opinion 93-004:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Ms. Blumstein&apos;s [the attorney for an educational agency] chief objection seems to rest on the concern that the Commissioner is being asked whether the actions of an entity subject to the MGDPA constitute a violation of the MGDPA. Many of the questions that can be asked of the Commissioner under this new authority will implicitly or explicitly lead to a conclusion, based on the facts relied on by the Commissioner in issuing an opinion, that a violation of the MGDPA may have occurred. The Commissioner is of the opinion that refusing to issue opinions in situations like that would lead inevitably to a situation of issuing no opinions whatsoever because virtually all opinions could be interpreted as a finding that an agency violated the MGDPA.
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the legislature conferred sufficient authority on her to issue these types of opinions. Her opinions are by their nature conditional on the facts and information presented to her by the government entity and the data subject. To the extent that a Commissioner&apos;s opinion becomes at issue as part of a lawsuit, no court is bound to adopt all or part of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. Under the terms of the authority conferred by the legislature, courts are only asked to give deference to the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, they are not directed to surrender their fact finding authority to the Commissioner or to automatically accept that if the Commissioner determined on the facts provided to her that there may have been a violation of the MGDPA that an actual violation did occur. To the extent that a court finds the Commissioner&apos;s opinions helpful because of the special expertise of the Department of Administration in data practices matters it is free to use that expertise. To the extent that a court finds that the commissioner&apos;s opinion rests on incomplete or incorrect facts, the court will obviously be free to find its own facts.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s position on the aforementioned issue raised by Mr. Foy has not changed since Mr. Foy&apos;s colleague, Ms. Blumstein, raised the same issue in connection with Advisory Opinion 93-004, which was issued on November 12, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Quiram requested an opinion because he has experienced difficulty in obtaining public government data from Waterville. Before discussing the specific types of public data Mr. Quiram is seeking, it is appropriate to review some of the basic requirements set forth in Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 relating to access to public data. Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, subpart 3, requires that requests for access to data be responded to within a reasonable time. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, requires that government entities keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires the responsible authority to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning...If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, these provisions require government entities to respond to requests for access to government data within a reasonable time. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity is required to so notify the requester.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As stated above, Mr. Quiram requested this opinion because he maintains he has experienced difficulty in obtaining certain types of public data from Waterville. Some of the data he seeks are collected by the Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs, and some of the data are personnel data maintained by Waterville about Waterville employees. Mr. Quiram believes that the data he seeks are public and seeks the Commissioner&apos;s assistance in so verifying. Mr. Quiram is aware that Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides him with certain rights regarding his ability to gain access to public government data and he believes that Waterville is not complying with those statutory requirements.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Two of the requests made by Mr. Quiram are for data collected and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs. Upon his initial request, Mr. Quiram was advised by Chief Bluhm as to how to view the ICRs. (The Commissioner wishes to note that the Chief&apos;s response to Mr. Quiram, which directed him to use the key in the Desk Drawer if the files containing ICRs were locked, does not appear to have been appropriate. Mr. Quiram requested access to the ICRs as a member of the public, not as an employee of the Waterville Police Department.) As Mr. Quiram viewed the ICRs, he determined that some of the ICRs were not in evidence. When Mr. Quiram asked for those specific ICRs, he received no response from Chief Bluhm. Similarly, when Mr. Quiram requested access to the dispatch logs, he received no response.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Chapter 13, certain types of data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data, regardless of the form or document on which they are maintained. Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, state specifically which arrest data, request for service data, and response for service data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data. It is highly likely that both the ICRs and dispatch logs will contain arrest data, request for service data, and/or response for service data. Generally speaking, if Waterville maintains any of these types of data, Mr. Quiram, as a member of the public, should have access to those data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response to whether data collected by the Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs are public data, Mr. Foy listed the public data elements contained in Section 13.82, subdivision 4. In response to whether data contained on Waterville Police Department dispatch logs are public data, Mr. Foy listed the public data elements contained in Section 13.82, subdivision 3. In addition to the above, Mr. Foy cited Section 13.82, subdivisions 9 and 10, which provide for limitations on public access to law enforcement data. However, he offered no comments regarding the significance of his citation to those two subdivisions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Foy also did not directly address the issue of why Mr. Quiram has received no response to his requests for certain ICRs and dispatch logs. Pursuant to Section 13.03 and Section 13.82, all public data contained on those ICRs and dispatch logs must be made available to Mr. Quiram within a reasonable time. If Waterville has determined that the data are protected and classified as private by Section 13.82, subdivision 10, Waterville&apos;s responsible authority is required, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to so inform Mr. Quiram. Mr. Quiram has received no such notification in response to his request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Quiram also seeks access to certain personnel data about employees of Waterville. Specifically, he requested a job description for the position of city police dispatcher. He also requested the previous work experience, education and training background, current salary, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration in addition to salary, and the name of the supervisor for Ruth Kramer, the current Waterville police dispatcher. In addition, Mr. Quiram requested the education and training background, and the existence and status of any complaints of three Waterville employees. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, describes the specific types of data about public employees which are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Foy listed the personnel data elements that are public pursuant to 13.43, subdivision 2. In addition, he stated that Waterville responded to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request for a job description for the police dispatcher by informing him that the City has none. If this is so, it was not communicated to Mr. Quiram in response to his April 17, 1995, request. In fact, as stated above, at the time Mr. Quiram requested this opinion, he had received no response to his April 17, 1995, letter in which he requested access to other types of data which Waterville clearly maintains, such as salary, and data which Waterville probably maintains, such as education and training background.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, it appears that aside from one exception, all of the personnel data requested by Mr. Quiram are public data. (The Commissioner wishes to note that while names of supervisors are not listed as one of the public data elements in subdivision 2, it is likely that Mr. Quiram could determine that information by requesting other types of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, public data about certain Waterville employees, such as a job title, a job description, and/or a work location.) Therefore, based on Section 13.43, Mr. Quiram has the right to view and receive copies of the personnel data he has requested, with one exception, within a reasonable time. If the data do not exist, it is reasonable to expect that Waterville would simply so inform Mr. Quiram.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Quiram is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Certain data elements contained on the Waterville Police Department ICRs are public data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.82, Mr. Quiram has the right to view or receive copies of those public data, as well as the right to receive an appropriate and prompt response to his request. If Waterville has determined that some of the data are classified as private or confidential, Waterville is required to so inform Mr. Quiram and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Certain data elements contained on the Waterville Police Department dispatch logs are public data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.82, Mr. Quiram has the right to view or receive copies of those public data, as well as the right to receive an appropriate and prompt response to his request. If Waterville has determined that some of the data are classified as private or confidential, Waterville is required to so inform Mr. Quiram and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the following personnel data requested by Mr. Quiram are public data: job description; previous work experience; education and training background; current salary; the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary; and the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action. Therefore, Mr. Quiram has the right to view or receive copies of those public data. In addition, Waterville is required pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to respond to Mr. Quiram&apos;s request within a reasonable time.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 21, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267396</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Dispatch logs</Title><Id>266700</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Initial crime report (ICR)</Title><Id>266568</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Entity determination under 13.072</Title><Id>266701</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education/training background, job history, previous work experience</Title><Id>266583</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-028</Title><title>Opinion 95 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267488&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a &quot;Tennessen Warning&quot; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, required for the collection of data pursuant to an internal audit investigation and admitted to be &quot;confidential data&quot; by the government entity?
Do internal auditors&apos; notes about the data subject, collected pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1, constitute confidential data?
Does Section 13.05, subdivision 4, forbid a governmental entity from using for any purpose, confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning?
Is it a violation of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for the University to delay for seven weeks in providing a data subject access to public and private data maintained on her by the investigators?
Is it a violation of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, for the University to retain wrongfully collected data (i.e., confidential data collected without a Tennessen warning)?
Is it a violation of Chapter 13 or its accompanying Rules to collect confidential data from a data subject in a manner which can easily be overheard by someone whose job does not require access to such information?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 15, 1995; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 11, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 8, 1995, from Gary A. Weissman, an attorney, in which he requested an advisory opinion on behalf of his client, who he identified by the alias Melinda Muffett.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Muffett is employed as an account specialist by the University of Minnesota, hereinafter University. From 1991 to 1993, Ms. Muffett also performed overtime bookkeeping services for another unit of the University. According to Mr. Weissman, at some point during the time period 1993-1995, another employee alleged that Ms. Muffett was performing the overtime services during regular working hours.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In February and March of this year, Ms. Muffett was interviewed three times by two internal auditors about her overtime work. Mr. Weissman stated that she was not given a Tennessen Warning, i.e., the notice requirement provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, on any of those occasions. Mr. Weissman also stated that the third interview was . . . in Ms. Muffett&apos;s work station, which is separated only by a banker&apos;s partition from [the employee who made the allegations] and obviously in earshot of her.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request, Mr. Weissman included three attachments. Attachment one is a copy of the March 14, 1995, letter he wrote, on Ms. Muffett&apos;s behalf, to the head of the University&apos;s Department of Audits, hereinafter Department. Attachment two is a copy of the University&apos;s reply, dated April 3, 1995, from Lorie S. Gildea, University associate general counsel. Attachment three is a copy of Mr. Weissman&apos;s, reply, dated April 4, 1995, to Ms. Gildea&apos;s letter. Details of the contents of each attachment follow.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In attachment one, Mr. Weissman referred to the interviews conducted by the Department, and stated that, given that no Tennessen Warning had been administered to Ms. Muffett by the interviewers, the data had been collected improperly.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Weissman then made several formal requests of the Department. Mr. Weissman requested that all data collected from Ms. Muffett by the two Department interviewers be destroyed, and that the destruction be certified in writing, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Weissman asked the Department to inform him, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, whether it maintains data on Ms. Muffett, and if so, how the data are classified.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Weissman also requested copies of all public and private data on Ms. Muffett currently maintained by the Department, or which it did maintain on or after November 1, 1994.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addition, Mr. Weissman asked that if the Department head were not a properly appointed Designee of the University&apos;s Responsible Authority, that his request be forwarded to the appropriate person. In that circumstance, he asked that the Department or the University provide him with that person&apos;s identity.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In attachment two, Ms. Gildea stated that the Department had forwarded Mr. Weissman&apos;s letter to her office for response. She indicated that she had been unable to reach Mr. Weissman by telephone the previous week. (Ms. Gildea did not identify herself as either the University&apos;s Responsible Authority or Designee.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In that reply, Ms. Gildea stated that the University was not required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning because she was . . . questioned about her compensation and employment by the University, both of which the University is entitled to do without providing the extensive warning in the Data Practices Act. In any event, [Ms. Muffett] was fully informed of the nature and purpose of the inquiry of the [Department.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Gildea further stated that the University would not destroy the data provided by Ms. Muffett, as the University . . . has valid and appropriate reasons . . . . for maintaining the data, which are . . . relevant to legitimate evaluation of her performance as [an employee.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In response to Mr. Weissman&apos;s question about whether and what type of data the &lt;u&gt;Department&lt;/u&gt; maintains on his client, Ms. Gildea responded that the &lt;u&gt;University&lt;/u&gt; maintains public, private and confidential data on Ms. Muffett. She said that the confidential data were internal audit data, pursuant to Section 13.794, and therefore inaccessible to Ms. Muffett.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In attachment three, Mr. Weissman reiterated his request for access to the public and private data, if any, on Ms. Muffett maintained by the Department (not the University.) He also stated that if the Department claims that the data maintained by it are confidential, pursuant to Section 13.794, then the Department was required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning upon its collection of those data from her.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Weissman also questioned Ms. Gildea&apos;s statement that the data were relevant to legitimate evaluation of [Ms. Muffett] as a University employee. He stated that [i]f the [Department] is conducting performance evaluations, then it presumably is not part of an audit or investigation and, consequently, would not be protected from disclosure to the data subject by section 13.794, subd.1.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Weissman repeated his objection to the Department&apos;s use of data he believes were not collected in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 13.05, subdivision 4.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 4, 1995, Ms. Muffett was interviewed a fourth time by the same two internal auditors. Both Mr. Weissman and Ms. Gildea were present. According to Mr. Weissman, Ms. Gildea reiterated that she disagreed with Mr. Weissman&apos;s assertion that . . . the confidential data collected by [the auditors] required a Tennessen Warning . . . . However, before Ms. Muffett was questioned, Ms. Gildea gave her an oral Tennessen Warning.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Weissman, Ms. Gildea also . . . described some 120-150 pages of public and private data the auditors maintained on Ms. Muffett (none of which included anything remotely like auditors&apos; notes). During the meeting, Mr. Weissman requested that Ms. Muffett be provided access to the data the following day, May 5, 1995. Ms. Gildea replied that the data . . . weren&apos;t ready for inspection . . . Mr. Weissman noted that the initial request for access to those data had been made seven weeks earlier, on March 14, 1995. Mr. Weissman then requested the Commissioner to issue this opinion, on the six issues described below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Rotenberg, University general counsel. The purposes of this letter, dated May 12, 1995, were to inform Mr. Rotenberg of Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Mr. Rotenberg to provide any information or support for the University&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Weissman was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 22, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response, dated May 18, 1995, from Tracy M. Smith, University associate general counsel. In her response, Ms. Smith provided a substantially similar summary of the events outlined by Mr. Weissman, and the University&apos;s reasons for its actions. She also included a letter, dated May 5, 1995, from Ms. Gildea to Mr. Weissman. Ms. Smith did not respond directly to each of the six issues raised in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In that letter, Ms. Gildea responded to Mr. Weissman&apos;s request on May 4, that Ms. Muffett be provided access on May 5 to the public and private data on her maintained by the Department. Ms. Gildea said that the data would be available for Ms. Muffett&apos;s inspection by sometime late next week. (In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith stated that Ms. Muffett inspected the data the University made available on May 12, 1995.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the question of whether the auditors were required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning, Ms. Smith stated that . . . the University was entitled to question [Ms. Muffett] concerning her work hours . . . . [and] was not obligated to give [her] a Tennessen warning before doing so. Ms. Smith stated that the auditors interviewed Ms. Muffett as part of their investigation into possible improprieties concerning her overtime claims, and that the University has authority to . . . investigate whether one of its employees was wrongfully taking public compensation based on falsified work hours.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith stated that the Tennessen Warning requirement does not apply when an employer questions an employee about work hours, and that . . . this conclusion remains true even if the public employer seeks the information through its internal audit office. She stated that pursuant to Section 13.794, all active audit data are confidential, but [t]he fact that audit investigations are confidential while active . . . has no bearing on the question of whether auditors must issue a Tennessen Warning before gathering the data to perform the audits.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Smith stated that the auditors had informed Ms. Muffett of the purpose of the interviews, and concluded that Ms. Muffett could not claim that . . . she did not understand what the investigation was about or what the consequences of providing information about falsifying hours might be.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the issue of the time it took the University to provide Ms. Muffett access to the data pursuant to Mr. Weissman&apos;s March 14 request, Ms. Smith stated that the . . . University was obligated to produce no data in response to this request. She stated that the data are active audit data and are confidential data pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1. However, she stated that although Ms. Muffett had no right to inspect the data, the . . . University gathered the documents from the [Department], redacted confidential auditors&apos; notes . . . . and made the data available for Ms. Muffett&apos;s inspection. In doing so, according to Ms. Smith, the University exceeded its obligations under Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Issue six concerns whether the Department violated Ms. Muffett&apos;s rights under Chapter 13 by conducting its interviews with her in a place in which they could be overheard. Ms. Smith stated the subject of the interview was [Ms. Muffett&apos;s] work hours. Such data is not confidential . . . . but public, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. She stated that there . . . may be some instances where discretion would dictate that such a conversation take place in private . . . . but if it does not, it is not a violation of Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Weissman asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a Tennessen Warning pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, required for the collection of data pursuant to an internal audit investigation and admitted to be confidential data by the government entity?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do internal auditors&apos; notes about the data subject, collected pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1, constitute confidential data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Section 13.05, subdivision 4, forbid a governmental entity from using for any purpose, confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is it a violation of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for the University to delay for seven weeks in providing a data subject access to public and private data maintained on her by the investigators?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is it a violation of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, for the University to retain wrongfully collected data (i.e., confidential data collected without a Tennessen warning)?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is it a violation of Chapter 13 or its accompanying Rules to collect confidential data from a data subject in a manner which can easily be overheard by someone whose job does not require access to such information?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/u&gt;Is a Tennessen Warning pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, required for the collection of data pursuant to an internal audit investigation and admitted to be confidential data by the government entity?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, provides the notice requirement commonly referred to as a Tennessen Warning. When a government entity &lt;u&gt;asks a data subject to provide private or confidential data about her/himself&lt;/u&gt;, the entity must inform the individual how it intends to use the data, and for what purpose, whether the individual may legally refuse to supply the data, the consequences of providing or not providing the data, and the identity of others who are authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in order to address the first issue, it is necessary to determine the classification of the data collected from Ms. Muffett by the auditors. If any of the data collected are classified as private or confidential, the University was required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Weissman maintains that the data were collected as part of an investigation conducted by the University auditor&apos;s office, and therefore, pursuant to Section 13.794, the auditors collected confidential data from Ms. Muffett.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The University&apos;s position is less clear. On the one hand, the University has claimed that the data are about Ms. Muffett&apos;s work hours, and are public, pursuant to Section 13.43. On the other hand, the University acknowledges that data were collected from Ms. Muffett by the auditors during their investigation of her possible fraudulent actions. The University told Mr. Weissman that those data are classified as confidential active investigative data, pursuant to Section 13.794. As a further complication in the University&apos;s position, Ms. Gildea characterized the data as relevant to legitimate evaluation of [Ms. Muffett&apos;s] performance as a University employee. This statement indicates that the University is treating these data as private personnel data. (See Section 13.43.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, the personnel data Section of Chapter 13, provides that personnel data . . . means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision . . . . Clearly, the data on Ms. Muffett were collected because she is an employee of the University. As such, absent an investigation, the data collected are personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith discussed at some length a rationale whereby the University was justified in asking Ms. Muffett questions about her employment without giving her a Tennessen Warning. She said that Ms. Muffett had been asked about her work hours, data which are public under Section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Certainly, Section 13.43, subdivision 2, provides that . . . payroll time sheets or other comparable data . . . . are public. However, Ms. Muffett was asked questions as part of the Department&apos;s effort to ascertain whether she had defrauded the University. Apparently, she was asked to provide more than payroll and time sheet data. According to Ms. Gildea, the data are . . . relevant to legitimate evaluation of her performance as a University employee. However, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, performance evaluation data are not public data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, those data are classified as private. Therefore, the collection of those data from Ms. Muffett by anyone at the University, not just auditors, was subject to the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Further, at the time of the interviews with Ms. Muffett, the Department was conducting an investigation, of which Ms. Muffett was the subject. Ms. Muffett was interviewed during an investigation of possible fraud, conducted by the internal audit department of the University. Section 13.794, subdivision 1, provides that [d]ata, notes, and preliminary drafts of reports &lt;u&gt;created, collected, and maintained by the internal audit offices&lt;/u&gt; of state agencies or persons performing audits for state agencies and &lt;u&gt;relating to an audit or investigation&lt;/u&gt; are confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data until the final report has been published or the audit or investigation is no longer being pursued actively. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly, by operation of Section 13.794, data created, collected or maintained by an internal audit office as part of an active audit or investigation are confidential. Those same data very likely may be classified otherwise, outside the context of an auditor&apos;s investigation. Ms. Smith stated that [t]he fact that audit investigations are confidential while active, however, has no bearing on the question of whether auditors must issue a Tennessen warning before gathering data to perform the audits. University auditors may collect data, both public and private, from a host of sources . . . . Auditors need not give a Tennessen warning every time they collect data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, the issue is whether the auditors were required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning when they collected data &lt;u&gt;from her&lt;/u&gt; as part of their investigation. The Tennessen Warning requirement does not apply to all collections of private or confidential data. It applies to collections of private or confidential data from the data subject, when s/he is asked to supply private or confidential data about her/himself.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It may well be the case that in some, or even most, of the situations in which auditors collect data for investigative purposes, auditors are not required to give Tennessen Warnings. To the extent that the Department, during an audit or investigation, collects data from sources other than the data subject, that is the case. However, by operation of Section 13.794, the data the Department collects during an investigation are confidential. If those investigative data are collected from the data subject, and are about the data subject, the collection of the data requires a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Clearly then, in this instance, regardless whether the auditors were investigating Ms. Muffett for fraud, or conducting a personnel evaluation, the data collected from her are either confidential audit data, private personnel data, or a combination of both types of data. Therefore, the Department was required to give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith also stated that the auditors had informed Ms. Muffett of the purpose of the interviews, and concluded that Ms. Muffett could not claim that . . . she did not understand what the investigation was about or what the consequences of providing information about falsifying hours might be. The University acknowledges that Ms. Muffett did not receive a Tennessen Warning from the auditors. Ms. Smith appears to suggest that the obligation was Ms. Muffett&apos;s, not the University&apos;s, to determine the consequences of providing data to the auditors, absent a proper Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     However, Chapter 13 imposes obligations on government entities, not on data subjects. The Legislature, in its enactment of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, provided one of the fundamental right of data subjects, i.e., the right to be informed, &lt;i&gt;inter alia&lt;/i&gt;, as to the purpose and consequences of providing private or confidential data to the government. The issue is not whether Ms. Muffett properly ascertained the consequences of supplying the data to the auditors. The issue is whether agents of the University complied with their statutory obligation to provide her with a Tennessen Warning when they interviewed her.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As such, the collection of those data was subject to the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2. Ms. Muffett should have been given a Tennessen Warning by the auditors.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 2.&lt;/u&gt;Do internal auditors&apos; notes about the data subject, collected pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1, constitute confidential data?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The auditors interviewed Ms. Muffett as part of their investigation to determine whether she had defrauded the University. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, [g]overnment data means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated . . . . Clearly, the auditors notes constitute government data, and by operation of Section 13.794, are classified as confidential while the investigation is active. There appears to be no disagreement between Mr. Weissman and the University on this issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 3.&lt;/u&gt;Does Section 13.05, subdivision 4, forbid a governmental entity from using for any purpose, confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, in relevant part, states the following policy:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Subd. 4.
                          &lt;h2&gt;
                            Limitations on collection and use of data.
                          &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;u&gt;Private or confidential data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by&lt;/u&gt; political subdivisions, statewide systems, or &lt;u&gt;state agencies for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision.&lt;/u&gt; [Emphasis added.]
                          &lt;p&gt;
                            (a) Data collected prior to August 1, 1975, and which have not been treated as public data, may be used, stored, and disseminated for the purposes for which the data was originally collected or for purposes which are specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to public health, safety, or welfare.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (b) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies specifically authorized access to that data by state, local, or federal law enacted or promulgated after the collection of the data.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (c) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies subsequent to the collection of the data when the responsible authority maintaining the data has requested approval for a new or different use or dissemination of the data and that request has been specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to carry out a function assigned by law.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            (d) Private data may be used by and disseminated to any person or agency if the individual subject or subjects of the data have given their informed consent. Whether a data subject has given informed consent shall be determined by rules of the commissioner.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature, through enactment of this subdivision, sought to provide some substance to the protections provided to individual data subjects in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, so that individuals, having received the Section 13.04 notice, can expect that private or confidential data they provide to a government entity will not be used or disseminated except as described to them at the time they provided the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Legislature, by connecting the notice requirement of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, with the limitations on uses and disseminations of data established by Section 13.05, subdivision 4, also provided a consequence for government entities which do not meet their statutory obligation regarding the collection of private or confidential data. If a government entity does not administer a Tennessen Warning that meets the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 2, there are strict limitations imposed on the entity regarding any data it collects without giving the notice required by statute. That is, those data may not be stored, used or disseminated except as provided in Section 13.05, subdivision 4, as cited above. Apparently none of the exceptions that are provided in clauses a-d applies in this case. Therefore, according to the plain words of the statute, the University may not use the data it collected from Ms. Muffett in the auditors&apos; interviews for any purpose.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 4.&lt;/u&gt;Is it a violation of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, for the University to delay for seven weeks in providing a data subject access to public and private data maintained on her by the investigators?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential . . . . The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request . . . if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request . . . . &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his letter dated March 14, 1995, sent to the director of the Department, Mr. Weissman made three requests pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3. He asked the Department to (1) inform him whether it maintains data on Ms. Muffett, (2) if so, how those data are classified, and (3) if the Department was maintaining public and private data on Ms. Muffett, he asked for copies of those data. In addition, Mr. Weissman asked that if the director were not a properly appointed Designee of the Responsible Authority, that his letter be forwarded to the appropriate responsible official. He also asked for that individual&apos;s identity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Fourteen working days later, Ms. Gildea responded, in a letter dated April 3, 1995. She indicated that she had been unable to reach Mr. Weissman by telephone the previous week. In that letter, she responded that the University (not the Department) maintains public, private and confidential data on Ms. Muffett, pursuant to Sections 13.43 and 13.794. She told Mr. Weissman that Ms. Muffett could not have access to the confidential active audit investigative data, but that the other data were accessible. She asked Mr. Weissman to indicate which public or private data he wanted copied, and told him the copying cost.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Weissman wrote to Ms. Gildea, in a letter dated April 4, 1995, and repeated his request that he be informed about data maintained by the Department specifically, not the University as a whole. He asked that if the Department maintained public or private data on Ms. Muffett, that he be sent copies, unless the data exceeded ten pages. In that case, he asked Ms. Gildea to inform Ms. Muffett when she would be able to inspect the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Weissman repeated his request for access to the public and private data maintained on Ms. Muffett by the Department at the May 4, 1995 interview. At that time, Ms. Gildea told him that the data were not yet ready for inspection. Finally, in Ms. Gildea&apos;s letter dated May 5, 1995, she acknowledged that the Department did maintain public and private data on Ms. Muffett, and that the data would be available for inspection the next week. According to Ms. Smith, Ms. Muffett inspected the data on May 12, 1995.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Weissman asked the Commissioner whether the University had complied with its obligation, under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to inform Ms. Muffett about whether the Department maintained data about her, to tell her the classification of any such data, and to provide access to the data within the time limits provided in that Section.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Gildea informed Mr. Weissman, fourteen working days after the date of his initial request, that the University maintains public, private and confidential data on his client. He was informed that the Department maintains data on his client seven weeks after he requested that information. His client was provided access to the public and private data on her maintained by the Department, with the confidential auditors&apos; notes redacted, eight weeks after his initial request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Smith stated that the . . . University was obligated to produce no data in response to this request. She stated that the data are active audit data and are confidential data pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1. However, she stated that although Ms. Muffett had no right to inspect the data, the . . . University gathered the documents from the [Department], redacted confidential auditors&apos; notes . . . . and made the data available for Ms. Muffett&apos;s inspection. In doing so, according to Ms. Smith, the University exceeded its obligations under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Department, pursuant to Section 13.794, might reasonably have told Mr. Weissman that all of the data it maintains on Ms. Muffett are confidential investigative data. However, the Department told him that it maintains public and private data on her as well, and made those data available to her. Therefore, the Department was obligated to provide Ms. Muffett with access to those data within five days of her request, or within ten days with notice. That obligation was not met, either by Ms. Gildea&apos;s response of April 3, 1995, or her response of May 5, 1995.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 5.&lt;/u&gt;Is it a violation of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, for the University to retain wrongfully collected data (i.e., confidential data collected without a Tennessen warning)?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     As discussed above, private and confidential data may not be collected, &lt;u&gt;stored&lt;/u&gt;, used or disseminated except as provided in Section 13.05. From the information provided to the Commissioner, it appears that Ms. Muffett, in her interviews with the auditors, supplied the data to them without having received a Tennessen Warning.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, according to the plain words of the statute, the University may not retain the data obtained from Ms. Muffett by the auditors. The University may retain other data about this investigation that were not collected in violation of Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Issue 6. &lt;/u&gt;Is it a violation of Chapter 13 or its accompanying Rules to collect confidential data from a data subject in a manner which can easily be overheard by someone whose job does not require access to such information?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner has determined, as discussed above, that most of the data collected from Ms. Muffett by the auditors appear to be private or confidential, or both. By definition, private or confidential data are not accessible by the public. In situations in which government agents are collecting not public data, those agents are obligated to take reasonable measures to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of those data are afforded the protections provided by statute. Any other conclusion would vitiate those protections.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, Section 13.05, subdivision 5, provides that Responsible Authorities . . . establish appropriate security safeguards . . . . for all data on individuals. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, provides that access to private data within a government entity is limited to those whose work assignments reasonably require access. From the information provided, it is not clear if the auditors collected private or confidential data from Ms. Muffett in a manner which allowed access to those data by unauthorized persons. Clearly, the University had an obligation to ensure that such an event did not occur.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Smith also stated that there is no indication that Ms. Muffett asked the auditors to move the location of the interview. Ms. Smith stated [a]n employee cannot be allowed to silently permit a data practices violation to continue and later turn it against the employer to further her own self-interest. Ms. Smith, in that statement, seems to imply that it was Ms. Muffett&apos;s responsibility to ask for a private place in which to be interviewed. However, as noted above, Chapter 13 imposes obligations upon government entities, not individual data subjects. Under Chapter 13, the rights of data subjects not to have private or confidential data about them made public include the right to have those data secured and protected against unauthorized access. The issue is not whether Ms. Muffett took any action to secure a private place in which to be interviewed. The issue is whether the University took appropriate action to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One further note is in order. One of the issues Mr. Weissman raised with the University, but did not raise when he requested this opinion, is the identity of the University&apos;s Responsible Authority, and if any, her/his Designee(s.) Apparently, the University did not provide Mr. Weissman with the identity of the individual it has properly appointed as Responsible Authority, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 13. Presumably the University has complied with its statutory obligation to appoint a Responsible Authority and Designees.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The role of the Responsible Authority is absolutely essential to a government entity&apos;s proper fulfillment of its responsibilities under Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.05, the Responsible Authority is required to establish policies and procedures regarding the appropriate collection, use, dissemination and storage of government data. Government entities presumably could avoid the kinds of problems addressed in this opinion if they appoint Responsible Authorities (if they are required to appoint them), and if so, they grant their Responsible Authorities and Designees the authority to fulfill the entities&apos; obligations under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Weissman is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                It appears that private or confidential data were collected from Ms. Muffett by the auditors, and that she was not given a proper Tennessen Warning, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Internal auditors&apos; notes about the data subject collected pursuant to Section 13.794, subdivision 1, are classified as confidential data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The purpose of Section 13.05, subdivision 4, is to impose strict limitations upon government entities&apos; use and dissemination of private or confidential data collected absent a Tennessen Warning. The University did not give Ms. Muffett a Tennessen Warning, and therefore it may not use the data collected from Ms. Muffett by the auditors.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The University responded to Mr. Weissman&apos;s specific request seven weeks later. It responded more generally fourteen days after the initial request. Ms. Muffett was allowed to inspect the data eight weeks after the initial request. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, a data subject must be provided access to public and private data immediately or within five to ten days of the request, if appropriate notice is given.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, the University may not lawfully retain wrongfully collected data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Government entities are obligated to secure not public data from public access. The auditors, if they did not, should have ensured that the privacy and confidentiality of the data they collected from Ms. Muffett were protected.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 15, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267488</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Internal audit</Title><Id>266795</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266599</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266493</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-027</Title><title>Opinion 95 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267595&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-06T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the written reprimand issued to the officer the &quot;final disposition&quot; of a disciplinary action, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2? If so, are the reasons for the disciplinary action and supporting documentation public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 6, 1995; Metropolitan Airports Commission</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On May 23, 1995, PIPA received a request for this opinion, dated May 22, 1995, from William J. Everett, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, hereinafter MAC. In his letter, Mr. Everett described a disciplinary action taken by the MAC against an employee of the airport police department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Everett, the disciplinary action was a formal written reprimand. The employee was not a member of a union or bargaining unit, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement that would have allowed him the right to arbitration. In the letter of reprimand, the employee was notified of his right, under the MAC&apos;s internal grievance procedures, to challenge the disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Everett enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the MAC&apos;s disciplinary and grievance process for MAC employees not covered under a collective bargaining agreement. An employee subject to disciplinary action may appeal that action through a three-step process. There are specific time limits in which an employee must take action during each step in the process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Everett, the employee whose discipline is the subject of this opinion subsequently resigned without filing a grievance or in any way challenging the disciplinary action within the time limits provided by the MAC&apos;s grievance procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Everett asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the written reprimand issued to the officer the final disposition of a disciplinary action, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2? If so, are the reasons for the disciplinary action and supporting documentation public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 governs personnel data. Subdivision 2(a) provides that ...the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.... are public data.
&lt;p&gt;For public employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements, Subdivision 2(b), provides that ...a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the Commissioner concluded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267946&quot; title=&quot;94-019&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-019&lt;/a&gt;, the key to determining when a government entity has made its final decision about a disciplinary matter is in the entity&apos;s decision-making process. In this case, the MAC&apos;s procedures allow its employees who are not subject to collective bargaining agreements to challenge disciplinary actions within specified time limits. For MAC employees who choose to exhaust all steps in the grievance process, the final decision occurs at the end of that process, when the MAC makes its final decision. At that point in the process, the disposition of the disciplinary action is also final.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in this case, the employee did not file a grievance or in any way challenge the disciplinary action within the time limits provided by the MAC&apos;s grievance procedure. In failing to do so, the employee waived any rights to use the MAC&apos;s grievance process. Therefore, the written reprimand constitutes a final disposition of a disciplinary action for purposes of Section 13.43. Consequently, the reasons for the action and supporting documentation are public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Everett is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The written reprimand issued to the officer is the final disposition of a disciplinary action, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and supporting documentation are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 6, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267595</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Final decision regarding disciplinary action</Title><Id>266752</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Reprimand</Title><Id>266294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-026</Title><title>Opinion 95 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267679&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-06-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is a parent of one of the students involved in the incident entitled to a copy of the sexual harassment report?
If so, must any portions of the document be redacted? If so, which specific portions?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 6, 1995; School District 458 (Truman)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On May 8, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 2, 1995, from Kevin J. Rupp, an attorney representing Independent School District No. 458, Truman, hereinafter District. On behalf of the District, Mr. Rupp requested an advisory opinion on the issues described below. Mr. Rupp enclosed a copy of a sexual harassment report, which described an incident which took place during a field trip. A teacher, three volunteer chaperones, and a group of high school juniors were involved. Two of the chaperones are school employees who took personal leave to go on the trip. The teacher, the two employee-chaperones, and twelve students were identified in the report.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The teacher was disciplined, by letter of reprimand, as a result of the incident. He did not file a grievance over the discipline within the time period allowed. The twelve students received in-school suspensions, and the volunteer chaperones were issued letters ...expressing dissatisfaction with their level of supervision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (The $200.00 fee required of government entities, pursuant to Section 13.072, subdivision 3 was not enclosed in Mr. Rupp&apos;s opinion request. The fee was received by PIPA on May 16, 1995. Mr. Rupp was notified by letter of the deadline for issuance of this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is a parent of one of the students involved in the incident entitled to a copy of the sexual harassment report?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If so, must any portions of the document be redacted? If so, which specific portions?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The first issue concerns the rights of a parent to gain access to data on his/her (presumably) minor child. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, confers specific rights upon parents to have access to government data about their minor children. Private data about a minor child are accessible by the parent of that child, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8. Educational data are private, pursuant to Section 13.32. Educational data about a minor child are accessible by the parent of that child.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, the parent has the right to gain access to the private data about his/her child contained in the District&apos;s report. Further, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the parent has the right to gain access to any public data contained in the report.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue concerns the specific data in the report to which the parent is entitled access. The report appears to contain a mixture of public and private personnel data pursuant to Section 13.43, private educational data pursuant to Section 13.32, and data not classified under either of those Sections.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Personnel data as defined in Section 13.43, subdivision 1, are ...data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an &lt;u&gt;employee&lt;/u&gt;of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a &lt;u&gt;voluntary basis&lt;/u&gt;for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision.... (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, ...the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.... are public personnel data. A final disposition occurs when a government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, or, as is the case here, upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    From the information provided, the data on the teacher contained in the report appear to be data which document the basis for the District&apos;s disciplinary action (i.e., the reprimand of the teacher.) There has been a final disposition of the discipline, because the teacher did not choose to file a grievance. Therefore, the data in the report about the employee who was disciplined and which document the basis for the disciplinary action are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The question of the classification of the data on the volunteer chaperones is not as clear. Although two of the chaperones are also employees, they were on leave for the field trip and, therefore, not acting in their capacity as employees. However, the definition of personnel data includes data on volunteers. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the names of individuals who volunteer to perform services as school chaperones are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The report also contains a reference to the letters sent to all three chaperones by the District. From the information provided, it is not clear whether the District considers the letters it sent to the volunteers to be disciplinary action. Although Section 13.43 clearly applies to data on volunteers, it is not clear just how the Legislature intended the provisions of this Section which deal with discipline to apply to volunteers. Typically it is employees who are subject to disciplinary measures, not volunteers. However, it is conceivable that volunteers may be subject to disciplinary action in some circumstances.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner was not provided with information which allows her to make a determination about whether the District&apos;s action in writing letters to the chaperones constitutes disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 13.43. However, if the District considers that action to be disciplinary action, and if the action is final within the meaning of subdivision 2(b), then the reference in the report to those letters is public personnel data. If the action taken by the District concerning the volunteers is not considered disciplinary action, then the reference to the letters is private personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Twelve students were identified by name in the report, and reference was made to the in-house suspensions they received. Section 13.32, subdivision 1, provides that educational data are defined as ...data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Subdivision 3 provides that educational data are classified as private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, the data on the students in the report are private educational data. The parent who requested access to the report is entitled to gain access to the data in the report which relate to his/her child as a data subject. The parent is not entitled to gain access to the identities of the other students involved.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The other data in the report which are not classified as private under either Section 13.43 or Section 13.32 are government data not on individuals, pursuant to Section 13.02. It appears those data are public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and are therefore accessible by the parent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Rupp is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Absent any evidence to the contrary, the parent has the right to gain access to the private data about his/her child and the public data contained in the report.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                The District needs to redact the private data contained in the report that are not about the requesting parent&apos;s child, as described above.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: June 6, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267679</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment claims, investigations</Title><Id>266489</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Volunteers</Title><Id>266832</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Volunteers</Title><Id>266832</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Existence of data</Title><Id>266296</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-025</Title><title>Opinion 95 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267904&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is Vadnais Heights required to calculate the amount of a pending assessment on a particular parcel of property when a member of the public so requests?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 25, 1995; City of Vadnais Heights</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On May 18, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Willard Converse, Attorney for the City of Vadnais Heights, in which he requested an advisory opinion. The issue Mr. Converse raises in his letter is whether, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Vadnais Heights is required to calculate the amount of a pending assessment on a particular parcel of property when a member of the public so requests. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding the issue raised by Mr. Converse is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Mr. Converse, Vadnais Heights typically has one or more public improvement projects underway. Said projects have been initiated by property owners who petition the City to put in some form of public improvement. The City then orders a feasibility report in which the City Engineer advises the City Council as to whether the project is feasible. In his letter, Mr. Converse stated, &quot;...Part of the feasibility report concerns the engineer&apos;s projection as to how the adjoining property owners will be assessed for the cost of the improvement. Such assessed cost is computed upon the basis of how much frontage the subject property has, its acreage, and a connection charge for each buildable lot that the engineer believes the parcel will ultimately have....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Converse went on to say that if the project is approved, any projected assessment figures formulated by the Engineer between the time of the approval order and the time of substantial completion are called &quot;pending assessments.&quot; He further stated, &quot;...Only after the project is substantially completed and the cost known will the Council hold an assessment hearing at which time it will determine the exact amount of assessments and spread them of record with the County....&quot; Mr. Converse explained that the engineer&apos;s projections are never the final assessment figures because the City will usually assess only some part of the cost of the improvement against the benefited property owners, and pay the rest out of general revenue. In addition, the City will usually set an assessment figure which is either more or less than the engineer first projected.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Converse also explained that his request for an advisory opinion came about because, &quot;...Certain representatives of title companies and financial companies believe that the City is legally required to provide the pending assessment calculation for any parcel of property that they request....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Converse asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is Vadnais Heights required to calculate the amount of a pending assessment on a particular parcel of property when a member of the public so requests?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, is that all government data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a government entity are public unless those data are otherwise classified. However, this presumption applies only to data which exist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In the scenario involving Vadnais Heights, Mr. Converse states that the data being requested, pending assessments, do not exist. Mr. Converse also relates that both the feasibility reports, which include the engineer&apos;s original projections of any assessments, and the section maps for involved parcels, are data which do exist and are public data and are made available to any person who requests to see them. In addition, he adds, &quot;...Title companies and financial institutions desire to know the assessment status of property which is in the process of being sold. There is no difficulty in informing the interested person of the amount of assessments that have been spread, as each one has been calculated and spread of record for collection....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Converse&apos;s question is: does Vadnais Heights have a duty, under Chapter 13, to create data (pending assessments) which do not exist, when such data are requested by a member of the public? The answer is no. There is no provision in Chapter 13 that imposes a general duty on government entities to create data. Vadnais Heights may choose to create the data being requested however, pursuant to Chapter 13, Vadnais Heights is not required to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While Chapter 13 does not require Vadnais Heights to create pending assessments, it is possible that another statute or ordinance, of which the Commissioner is unaware, does require the creation of such assessments. Therefore, the Commissioner must add that the conclusion reached in this opinion does not preclude Vadnais Heights from creating pending assessments if another statute or ordinance so requires.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Converse is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Chapter 13 does not impose a general duty on government entities to create data. In this situation, Vadnais Heights is not required, by Chapter 13, to create special assessments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: May 25, 1995&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267904</id><Tag><Description/><Title>New data or different format not required</Title><Id>266666</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-28T13:34:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-024</Title><title>Opinion 95 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267432&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are itemizations of expense accounts public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 2?
Are the bylaws of the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association in conformity with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 18, 1995; Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 28, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated April 25, 1995, from Gary Hill of KSTP-TV. In his letter, Mr. Hill requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his dispute with the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association (hereupon, Association) over access to expense account reimbursement data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Hill&apos;s letter had four attachments. The first was a copy of the original request for data, dated April 17, 1995, made by Robb Leer of KSTP-TV. The second attachment was a copy of the initial response to Mr. Leer&apos;s request, dated April 20, 1995, from Robert Christianson, an attorney representing the Association. Attached to this letter was a copy of the Association&apos;s policy concerning data privacy issues.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The third attachment was a copy of the final response, dated April 21, 1995, from Mr. Christianson. The forth attachment was a copy of a letter, dated April 21, 1995, from Robert Lewis Barrows, an attorney representing KSTP-TV. This letter disputed the response received from Mr. Christianson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jens Peterson, President of the Association. The purposes of this letter, dated May 2, 1995, were to inform Mr. Peterson of Mr. Hill&apos;s request, to ask him or the Association&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Association&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On May 9, 1995, PIPA received a response from Mr. Christianson.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. On April 17, 1995, Mr. Leer requested information relating to expenses incurred during out-of-town conferences by five of the Association members. Mr. Leer requested totals as well as individualized itemizations of expenses paid by the Association to the members.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 20, 1995, Mr. Christianson wrote to Mr. Leer and provided him with a copy of the Association&apos;s data practices policy (a three-page document), ...I assume you will comply with that policy concerning the request. As soon as we have satisfied our client that your request is appropriate and you have complied with our client&apos;s policy thereto, information permitted to be disclosed pursuant to the Act will be provided to KSTP-TV....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 1995, Mr. Christianson again wrote to Mr. Leer and advised him, We have advised the [Association] that the gross expenditures by the [Association] incurred in connection with the [conferences] are proper subjects of disclosure pursuant to [Chapter 13]...We have also concluded that a breakdown of each individual&apos;s expenses incurred in connection with the subject meetings is non-public data under the section of [Chapter 13] which governs personnel data....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 1995, Mr. Barrows wrote to Mr. Christianson and advised him, ...While your letter indicates that such information is &apos;non-public data&apos; under the section of [Chapter 13] which governs personnel data, I think you may have misread some of that statute. Minn. Stat. section 13.43, subd. 2 specifically classifies the following personnel data as public: &apos;the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary; ...&apos; I believe that the information that KSTP-TV requested falls squarely within the above quoted section and is required to be produced.... On April 25, 1995, Mr. Hill requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are itemizations of expense accounts public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 2?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the bylaws of the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association in conformity with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The primary dispute which led to Mr. Hill&apos;s request for this opinion is whether detailed data documenting a public employee&apos;s receipt of remuneration, and the basis for any such remuneration are public data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The specific statutory language in question is contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a):
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...The following personnel data on current and former employees,...is public: name;...the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary;.... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to Mr. Leer&apos;s request for reimbursement data, the Association determined that data comprising gross expenditures, i.e. a total of all expenses paid, are public but that data comprising an itemization of expenses incurred by each individual are not public. In Mr. Christianson&apos;s May 9, 1995, letter he asserts that the dispute centers around the definition of the word remuneration.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In examining a Minnesota Court of Appeals case, Toro Co. v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 356 N.W.2d 789 (Minn.App. 1984), and a definition of remuneration in Black&apos;s law dictionary, he concludes that the definition of remuneration is limited to, reward and pay, and would not include non-salary reimbursement for expenses incurred while employees were engaged in official duties. The Toro Co. case examines the use of the term remuneration in the context of an unemployment compensation case, not in the context of Chapter 13. In addition, while Black&apos;s law dictionary is an excellent reference, it is not definitive.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, Mr. Christianson suggests that, ...it is unclear whether [Chapter 13] contemplated the inclusion of non-salary reimbursements for expense incurred by employees.... He also states that if an employee receives a per diem advance to defray expected expenses and the employee does not spend the full amount, only the amount not spent is considered to be remuneration and is therefore, public data. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Christianson&apos;s contention that the Legislature did not consider the issue of non-salary reimbursements. The language in Section 13.43 specifically relates to expenses that are in addition to salary.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears that the central dispute regarding the meaning of Section 13.43 revolves around the words basis for and remuneration. Since the Legislature has not specifically defined these terms, it is appropriate to seek guidance from a dictionary. As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, basis is defined as, 1. a supporting element; foundation. 2. The chief component of something. 3. The essential principle. Remunerate is defined as, 1. To pay to (a person) for goods provided, services rendered, or losses incurred. 2. To compensate for; make payment for....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Applying the aforementioned definitions to the phrase, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration, including expense reimbursement, in addition to salary [are public data]; the meaning of the phrase seems clearer: the main component of or the supporting element of any compensation or payment, as well as the amount of any compensation or payment, in addition to an employee&apos;s salary, are public data. The Legislature clearly intended the following data about public employees to be public: the amount an employee receives for reimbursement for expenses which are in addition to salary, and the details describing the basis for the amount paid.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    While it is unclear what type of reimbursement system is employed by the Association, i.e. whether members are reimbursed directly on a dollar-for-dollar basis or whether members receive some type of a per diem payment, the method used is irrelevant. The classification of the data is not contingent upon the type of reimbursement received by an employee. Data specifying the amount and data documenting the basis for per diem payments or for dollar-for-dollar reimbursements are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue raised by Mr. Hill in his request for an opinion is whether the Association&apos;s Resolution pertaining to Chapter 13 is in conformity with Chapter 13. In Mr. Christianson&apos;s May 9, 1995, response, he stated that the Resolution was adopted on August 28, 1992, and that it, in accordance with Section 13.03, subdivision 3, sets forth the requirements for obtaining public government data from the Association. He goes on to state, ...It does not contain any requirements contrary to either the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. Furthermore, it was not implemented by the Association. Consequently, there is no dispute before you.... Mr. Christianson also noted that KSTP-TV was not charged for the data it had received.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regardless, Mr. Hill did request that the Commissioner examine the Resolution. In addition, upon examination of Mr. Christianson&apos;s April 20, 1995, letter to Mr. Leer, it does appear that the Association attempted to invoke the terms of the Resolution, ...I enclose a copy of the [Resolution]. I assume you will comply with that policy concerning the request....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon review of the Resolution, it appears there are several statements which do not quite mirror the language of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    First, in Mr. Christianson&apos;s May 9, 1995, letter he states that the Resolution, ...sets forth the requirements for obtaining public government data from the Association.... (Emphasis added.) However, in the introductory paragraph of the actual Resolution, the language reads, The Trustees...adopt the following policies and procedures to be followed in connection with any requests under [Chapter 13].... (Emphasis added.) This distinction is significant because Chapter 13 sets up one set of policies and procedures for access to data which are public and another set of policies and procedures for access to data which are private.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For instance, number three of the Resolution reads, ...The request also shall specifically state that the applicant will pay all actual costs of searching for and retrieving documents and other data, including pro rata time and expenses of employees, and costs of compiling and copying the documentation or other data.... This language is taken almost verbatim from Section 13.03, subdivision 3, requests for access to public data. However, the document does not describe what charges would be assessed if an individual is seeking copies of private data about her\himself. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, regulates those requests for access to data and provides a different standard for charges.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, number four of the Resolution, in part, states, ...In addition, the Association shall charge all costs of copying and compiling the documents or other data, with copying costs charged on the basis of 50cent; per page.... Again, it is unclear whether this charge is based on an individual requesting copies of public or copies of private data. In addition, the estimate of 50cent; per page raises an additional issue. In Advisory Opinion 94-059, the Commissioner determined that the government entity did not meet the burden of establishing that a 50cent; per sheet copy fee was the actual cost of providing copies of public data. In the current scenario, with limited information available, the Commissioner is unable to comment as to whether a charge of 50cent; a page is appropriate.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Third, number six of the Resolution states that the Association shall try to comply with all requests within a reasonable time based on the availability of staff and other business considerations. Again, it is unclear whether this policy is based on an individual seeking access to public data or access to private data. If an individual is seeking access to public data, Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures...to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.... Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, subpart 3, states, ...the responsible authority may shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the request for data is from an individual seeking access to private data about her/himself, Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states,
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Number six also states, ...the Association shall respond in writing setting forth any reasons documentation cannot be furnished.... The requirements in Chapter 13 are more detailed and specific. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, number nine states, Any objections by applicants to responses for requests under [Chapter 13] shall be subject to review by the Trustees at the next regular meeting, or at such special meetings as may be convened to discuss the request.... Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 16, government entities are to appoint or designate a responsible authority who is the, ...individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data unless otherwise provided by state law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Accordingly, it is the responsible authority&apos;s duty to initially handle any issues surrounding disputes over access to data. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, subpart 1205.1000, the responsible authority is required to be given full administrative authority to carry out the duties assigned by Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Hill is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              As to issue one, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the following data are public: the amount an employee receives for reimbursement for expenses which are in addition to salary, and the details describing the basis for the amount paid.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              As to issue two, there are provisions in the Association&apos;s Resolution on Chapter 13 that are not consistent with the language in Chapter 13.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 18, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267432</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire relief associations - subject to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266651</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Remuneration</Title><Id>266589</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Duties, generally</Title><Id>266766</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-023</Title><title>Opinion 95 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267485&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must the City of Duluth retain the oral examination score sheets for two years after the oral examination of prospective firefighters?
Do X&apos;s oral examination score sheets constitute private data available to him, or public data?
Does the City&apos;s failure to retain X&apos;s oral examination score sheets constitute a violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3?
Who is the responsible authority for the data in question?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 15, 1995; City of Duluth</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 25, 1995, PIPA received a letter, dated April 18, 1995, from Peter J. Nickitas, an attorney. Mr. Nickitas wrote on behalf of his client, X, an applicant for the position of firefighter in the City of Duluth ( City. ) Mr. Nickitas described X&apos;s efforts to gain access to data related to X&apos;s application for employment by the City.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to Mr. Nickitas, X was given a written examination, as part of the City&apos;s consideration of his application for openings in the fire department in 1994 and 1995. X received the highest score, which earned him first ranking, and which qualified him to be placed on a list of applicants eligible for an oral examination.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Nickitas enclosed a copy of correspondence, dated March 31, 1995, from Duane R. Flynn, Chief of the City fire department, to Karl Nollenberger, City Administrator. In that letter, Chief Flynn described the process by which the fire department hires employees. The City&apos;s human resources division certifies an existing list and provides the department with the names of two candidates per vacancy. The candidates are then scheduled for interviews.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In the letter, Chief Flynn stated that he selects the panels of interviewers, which are typically comprised of seven members. Chief Flynn also stated that [f]inal approval of the questions is done by Cliff Tanner, [a City personnel analyst] and myself. &lt;u&gt;A copy of the questions and evaluation sheet used in the question test are enclosed.&lt;/u&gt; (Emphasis added.) Chief Flynn stated: [t]he final selection is accomplished by each interviewer providing their top choice for each vacancy plus an alternate should someone not pass the physical. A consensus is reached by the group....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Nickitas provided a copy of a sheet labeled Fire Fighter Interview Questions, which consists of ten questions. He also enclosed a blank copy of a Firefighter Oral Examination Score Sheet, which provides for evaluations of responses to four questions, plus an overall evaluation. It is not clear if the oral examination score sheet is connected to the interview question sheet.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X was not hired by the City for either position for which he interviewed. When, through his attorney, in a letter dated April 4, 1995, he asked to see the oral examination grading sheets, he was told that the City did not retain the interviewer evaluation sheets.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Nickitas also enclosed a copy of Section 13-52 of the Duluth Civil Service Code, which states that [t]he secretary shall see that the work of testees is scored as promptly as possible and shall keep for a period of at least two years a copy of any written tests used, a description of any other tests used, a copy of the public notice of the tests, a copy of the scoring stencils or other scoring standards used and the &lt;u&gt;reports of the examiners.&lt;/u&gt;(Ord. No. 6619, 3-1-43, section 69.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Nickitas then requested the Commissioner to address six issues in this opinion. The Commissioner determined that she would not address all of the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas, but would address those listed in the Issues section below. By letter, Mr. Nickitas and the City were advised of that decision.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karl Nollenberger, the City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 27, 1995, were to inform Mr. Nollenberger of Mr. Nickitas&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Mr. Nollenberger or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On May 8, 1995, PIPA received a letter in response from M. Alison Lutterman, Assistant City Attorney. In the first part of Ms. Lutterman&apos;s response, she questioned whether the Commissioner has the authority to issue an opinion in this matter. However, Ms. Lutterman did offer responses to each of the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Issue 1, Ms. Lutterman stated that [t]he City did not utilize an oral examination to develop its employment list for the position of firefighter; thus, there were no &apos;oral examination score sheets&apos; to retain.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Issue 2, she wrote [b]ecause the City did not conduct an oral examination, this question is moot. If such data existed, it would be non-public and unavailable to [X] pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.34.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Issue 3, Ms. Lutterman stated that there was no violation of Section 13.04, because [t]his question assumes a factual predicate which did not occur; namely the use of an oral examination. No factual basis exists which supports a conclusion that the City failed to retain data. She also stated that Section 13.04 imposes no obligation to retain specific data, only to provide access to data which are stored.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Finally, in response to Issue 4, Ms. Lutterman stated [t]he data in question does not exist. Had an oral examination been conducted, the testing data would be in the custody and control of the Civil Service Board and its Secretary, who is the chief executive officer of the Board.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas, on behalf of his client, Mr. Backlund, asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Must the City of Duluth retain the oral examination score sheets for two years after the oral examination of prospective firefighters?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Do X&apos;s oral examination score sheets constitute private data available to him, or public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does the City&apos;s failure to retain X&apos;s oral examination score sheets constitute a violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Who is the responsible authority for the data in question?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before offering an opinion on each of the specific issues raised by Mr. Nickitas, the basic question of the authority of the Commissioner in this matter, as raised by Ms. Lutterman, must be addressed. The plain statement of that authority, as it relates to requests from individuals for opinions, is found in the 1993 enactment. Chapter 192 states: [u]pon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision, the commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, Section 38.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Lutterman asserted that [a]s an initial issue, however, it should be noted that the issue raised by X does not implicate the Data Practices Act; rather, it involves a question of compliance with the City&apos;s Civil Service Code. The Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving civil service issues and no authority to issue an opinion. However, Mr. Nickitas has asked the Commissioner to address the City&apos;s obligations under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 to provide X with access to data relating to his application for employment with the City. The Commissioner agrees that this is a question of data practices and rights of data subjects and therefore it is appropriate for her to issue an opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This matter is somewhat complicated by Mr. Nickitas&apos;s and the City&apos;s use of various terms to describe aspects of the City&apos;s hiring procedure, and to identify related data. There is no agreement between the parties as to how to characterize the oral interview X had with the panel. It is not clear if the problem is one of semantics, or substance. Mr. Nickitas refers to the oral interview as an examination. The City provided him with blank oral examination scoring sheets. Chief Flynn referred to the interview as a question test. Ms. Lutterman says the City did not conduct an oral examination. The issue is whether the interview is an oral examination: Mr. Nickitas says it is; the City says it is not. It may appear that this is just an exercise in semantics, however, the distinction may have some bearing on the classification of the data X seeks.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the data are examination data, then the operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.34, the examination data section of the Data Practices Act, must be considered. The relevant provisions of Section 13.34 state that if the disclosure of data, consisting solely of materials used in examinations to determine individual qualifications for public employment, would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process, then those data are classified as nonpublic. If the data sought by X were determined to be governed by Section 13.34, then there would be implications regarding his right to gain access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City has stated that if oral examination data existed, they would be classified as nonpublic under Section 13.34. However, the classification of data as nonpublic under Section 13.34 is not a presumptive classification. In order to deny access to examination data, it must be determined, by the responsible authority, that access would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or integrity of the examination process. However, X was given a copy of the interview questions and a blank oral examination score sheet. Therefore, it appears that the City has already determined that data which document the panel&apos;s evaluation of X are not classified as nonpublic under Section 13.34.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears that Mr. Nickitas is confused about the proper characterization of the interview. Given the information he has received from the City, confusion is perhaps understandable. However, based on the information the City has provided to the Commissioner, the City does not consider the interview conducted by the panel to be an oral examination. According to the City, applicants for the firefighter position, including X, were interviewed by a panel, consisting of current employees. Those employees evaluated his performance in the interview. It appears those evaluations were done in writing. According to the City, that evaluation process did not produce examination data, as defined in Section 13.34. Given the City&apos;s position that the data are not examination data, it is appropriate to focus the discussion on the what type of data are created by panel members as part of their evaluations in the interviews, and who has access to the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first issue is whether the City is obligated to retain the oral examination score sheets for two years. Mr. Nickitas, in his April 4, 1995, letter to the City, asked for copies of the oral examination grading sheets for his client and all of the individuals on the firefighter eligibility lists who competed against X. The City responded that it did not retain interviewer evaluation sheets.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to the excerpt from the City code, provided by Mr. Nickitas, the City must retain for at least two years a copy of any written tests used, a description of any other tests used, a copy of the public notice of the tests, a copy of the scoring stencils or other scoring standards used and the reports of the examiners. (Ord. No. 6619, 3-1-43, section 69.) (Emphasis added.) According to Ms. Lutterman, that requirement applies to the civil service hiring process, and stated [h]ere, the civil service testing process did not include an oral examination.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Apparently, the City&apos;s position is that the oral interview, which Chief Flynn stated was an important part of the evaluation of applicants, is considered not to be part of the civil service hiring process, and not subject to the requirements of the Code. Mr. Nickitas apparently was under the impression that all aspects of the hiring process were subject to the civil service hiring procedures set forth in the City Code, and that data generated from the interview were subject to the retention requirements cited above.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, regardless whether the City Code imposes requirements on the retention of the data generated by the interview process, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17, the Records Management Statute, and federal EEOC requirements regarding records retention must still be met.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Government records, i.e. records which document official transactions, may not be destroyed except as provided by Section 138.17. Pursuant to Section 138.17, records may be destroyed as provided in an approved records retention schedule. The City does have on file, in PIPA&apos;s offices, a records retention schedule which was approved by the records disposition panel. It is not clear, from the descriptions in the schedule, which category is appropriate for the data in question, i.e. data which document the City&apos;s hiring decisions. According to the schedule, depending upon the appropriate categorization, the data must be retained either for two years, or permanently. However, if the data are not included on an approved records retention schedule, the City may not destroy the data without special approval from the records disposition panel.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Federal employment law imposes an additional obligation upon government entities to retain certain data. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. section 1602.31, [a]ny personnel or employment record made or kept by a political jurisdiction (including...records having to do with hiring...) shall be preserved by the political jurisdiction for a period of 2 years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. Therefore, it appears the City is obligated by both its own retention schedule and EEOC requirements to retain the type of data sought by X for a period of at least two years.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The second issue is whether the data on the oral examination score sheets are classified as public or private data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, defines personnel data as ...data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by...a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision.... (Emphasis added.) Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section list the data on current and former employees or applicants which are public. Subdivision 4 states that all other personnel data are private data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X was an applicant for City employment, and, according to the information provided, remains ranked first on the eligible list. He wants to find out why he hasn&apos;t been hired by the City. The Minnesota Legislature, through its enactment of Section 13.43, subdivisions 1 and 3, has clearly determined that applicants for public employment are subjects of government personnel data, and have certain rights of access to the government data generated by their applications. Clearly, by operation of Section 13.43, the data X seeks are personnel data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The third issue is whether the City&apos;s failure to retain the oral examination score sheets constitutes a violation of X&apos;s right to gain access to private data about himself, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3. After consideration of the first and second issues, it is clear that if the data in question exist, X has the right under Sections 13.03 and 13.04 to gain access to them. Ms. Lutterman maintains the data never did exist. Perhaps oral examination score sheet data did not. However, as evidenced by the documents provided, certainly X was given an oral interview. According to the letter written by Chief Flynn, it appears that he was evaluated by a panel of examiners. It appears data were created by the examiners while they conducted the interview, and ranked the candidates as described by Chief Flynn. It also appears those data may no longer exist. If they do not, it is not certain that destruction of the data was authorized. In fact, it appears that the City had obligations to retain the data, pursuant to both state and federal law.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The unauthorized destruction of government data frustrates the ability of individuals to exercise their rights under Sections 13.03 and 13.04. The Legislature included applicants for public employment in its definition of subjects of personnel data, so that those applicants could do exactly what X is attempting to do: find out why he was not hired by the City. If the City, or any government entity, can evade its responsibility/accountability by destroying those data, then the rights granted to data subjects under Chapter 13 and other laws are thwarted.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The final issue is the identity of the City&apos;s responsible authority. The City, in its response, did not identify its responsible authority. Ms. Lutterman stated that the data in question do not exist, but if there had been an oral examination, ...the testing data would be in the custody and control of the Civil Service Board and its Secretary, who is the chief executive officer of the Board.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 16, and Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 14(B), the responsible authority of a city is the individual, an employee of the city, who is appointed by the city council. It is not clear whether Mr. Nickitas asked the City to identify its responsible authority, and what response, if any, he received. In any case, it ought not to be difficult for citizens to identify a government entity&apos;s responsible authority. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1200, subpart 2, states:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;For the purposes of public accountability, the responsible authority shall, by October 31, 1981...place his/her name, job title and business address, and the name(s) and job titles of any designees selected by the responsible authority on a document. Such document shall be made available to the public and/or posted in a conspicuous place by each entity. The document shall identify the responsible authority or designees as the persons responsible for answering inquiries from the public concerning the provisions of [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13] or this chapter. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The identity of the individual charged with the responsibility of overseeing an entity&apos;s data practices ought not to be in question. In this case, it is the individual so appointed by the City council, and so identified in the public document required pursuant to the Rules, as noted above. The City, in its response, did not identify its responsible authority.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 1
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the City must retain data which document its hiring decisions for at least two years, under federal law, and for the time specified on its approved records retention schedule, pursuant to Section 138.17. If the data are not included on the City schedule, then the data must be retained permanently, or specific approval for their destruction must be secured.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 2
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the data about X which relate to his application for employment by the City constitute both public and private data, pursuant to Section 13.43. X has the right, under Section 13.04, to gain access to all public and private data about him.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 3
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , if the City failed to retain the data sought by X in order to deny him access to those data, it did so in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. There is no indication that the City destroyed the data for that reason. However, the City provided no evidence that the destruction of those data was accomplished in compliance with state and federal law.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 4
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the responsible authority for the data in question is the individual so appointed by the City council
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 15, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267485</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Examination data (13.34)</Title><Id>266928</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority (RA)</Title><Id>266893</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-022</Title><title>Opinion 95 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267209&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are certain data (see Mr. Anfinson&apos;s letter for particulars), collected and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, public data?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 11, 1995; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 21, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated April 18, 1995, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Rochester Post-Bulletin. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the Post-Bulletin&apos;s dispute with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) over access to data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Jordan, Commissioner of Public Safety. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 1995, were to inform Mr. Jordan of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or Public Safety&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On April 3, 1995, Steven Alpert, Assistant Attorney General, contacted PIPA to request an additional day to respond to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request. Mr. Alpert stated that the DPS and Mr. Anfinson were trying to reach an agreement. Mr. Alpert&apos;s request for additional time was granted. Apparently, no agreement was reached because on April 4, 1995, PIPA received a FAXed response from Mr. Alpert.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request is as follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, the Post-Bulletin recently requested certain data, in computer format, from the DPS relating to vehicle accidents in nine southeastern Minnesota counties. The Post-Bulletin is seeking the following specific information:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;
                name, sex, and age or birth date of victim
              &lt;/dd&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                date, time, and specific location (including county) of accident
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                type of vehicle
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                road conditions
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                whether alcohol was involved and with which vehicle
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                whether victim was ejected
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                whether victim was wearing a seatbelt
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                what agency handled the scene report
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 any other items of public data in the database &lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson noted the Post-Bulletin had been informed by the DPS that this information is stored electronically for all years back to 1981. However, Mr. Anfinson also noted that the DPS refuses to provide the requested information to the Post-Bulletin and has given no reasons for this position.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his response, Mr. Alpert stated that the information contained on disk which is collected and stored by the DPS is obtained from law enforcement under Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, subdivision 8, pursuant to federal and state law. Mr. Alpert also stated that, ...While the information being sought may be maintained by both Driver and Vehicle Services [of the DPS], the Department is precluded from releasing the information to the Rochester paper as it is classified as confidential pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 169.09, subd. 13, as well as 23 U.S.C. section 409. Mr. Alpert asserts that, ...Under Minn Stat. section 13.82, subd. 3 or 4, the request may be, and should be, made to law enforcement agencies--agencies which carry on a law enforcement function....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are certain data (see Mr. Anfinson&apos;s letter for particulars), collected and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, public data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, subdivision 8, all law enforcement officers who, in the regular course of duty, investigate a motor vehicle accident which results in bodily injury to or death of any person or total property damage to an apparent extent of $1,000 or more, must forward a written report of such an accident, within ten days thereof, to the Commissioner of Public Safety. To assist in this process, the DPS prepares and supplies to law enforcement agencies, proper accident report forms. As necessary, law enforcement officers fill out the forms and forward them to the DPS. It is certain data on these forms that the Post-Bulletin is seeking.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Most of the data sought by the Post Bulletin are classified as public, pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 4, when the data are stored in the particular law enforcement agency that created or collected the data. For example, if the City of Winona Police Department responded to a call relating to a traffic accident, certain data (as specified in Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 4) regarding that incident are public in the Winona Police Department. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s question is whether these same data are also public on the accident report forms maintained at the DPS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. Alpert argues that the data sought by the Post Bulletin are not public because those data are classified as confidential pursuant to Section 169.09, subdivision 13, as well as to 23 U.S.C. section 409.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Upon a close examination of Section 169.09, subdivision 13, it appears this section sets forth the premise that all written reports and supplemental reports required under Section 169.09 are confidential. Section 169.09, subdivision 13 (a), states, ...[reports] shall be for the use of the commissioner of public safety and other appropriate state, federal, county, and municipal governmental agencies for accident analysis purposes....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Alpert also specifically mentions two additional provisions, one in Section 169.09 and the other in federal law, which he argues have the effect of classifying the accident reports as confidential. Section 169.09, subdivision 13 (b), states, Accident reports and data contained in the reports shall not be discoverable under any provision of law or rule of court.... Section 409 of 23 U.S.C., states, Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings...shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner did address a somewhat similar issue in Advisory Opinion # 94-015. In said opinion, the opinion requester was seeking response or incident data and request for service data from a law enforcement agency. The law enforcement agency refused to release the data based on an argument that those same data had also been collected by the Commissioner of Health, in reports where the data were clearly classified as private data. The Commissioner wrote:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;It is very clear that the legislature intends to make certain data about law enforcement activities...public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 1 to 4.) It is also clear that when operators of ambulance services, including municipal fire departments, make reports, under Section 144.807, to the Commissioner of Health about the services they provide that those reports are classified as private. However, there is nothing in those two points of clarity that is necessarily in conflict. What is classified as private by the Section 144.807 provision is the contents of reports made to the Commissioner of Health. In other words, when personnel of a city fire department sit down and fill out the form required by the Commissioner of Health, that form, once completed, is what is classified as private. The fact that this data may have been compiled and brought together from public data, collected and maintained as request for service and response or incident data , or from private medical data does not change the classification of the source data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Similarly, in this situation, there is no question that data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivisions 3 and 4, are public in the law enforcement agency in which those data are collected, received, and maintained. In addition, it appears that those same data are classified as confidential pursuant to Section 169.09, subdivision 13, when the data exist on accident report forms (filed pursuant to Section 169.09) which are received and maintained by the DPS.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summation, the data classified as confidential by Section 169.09 are the contents of the accidents reports. However, the fact that the reports contain data otherwise classified as public does not change the classification of the source data. Nothing in Section 169.09 prevents the Post-Bulletin from obtaining the request for service and response or incident data from the individual law enforcement agencies in which those data are maintained.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 169.09, subdivision 13, accident reports, and the data contained in those reports, which are collected and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety are confidential data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 11, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267209</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Traffic accidents (169.09)</Title><Id>266304</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:23:48Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-021</Title><title>Opinion 95 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266616&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-10T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>At what point do materials, which are public government data, created or collected for the purpose of a city council meeting, become public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 10, 1995; City of Coon Rapids</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On April 17, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated April 13, 1995, from Thomas Casey. In this letter, Mr. Casey requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his dispute with the City of Coon Rapids over access to data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Casey&apos;s letter had two attachments. The first was a copy of a FAX dated April 14, 1995 (it appears the date on this FAX may be incorrect), addressed to Mr. Casey from Michelle Posch, Community Development Department of Coon Rapids. The FAX reads, ...I&apos;m not able to send out the [materials] to you until Monday morning, after City Council has received their agendas....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second attachment was a copy of a letter dated April 13, 1995, from Mr. Casey to Al Hofstedt, City Attorney for Coon Rapids. Mr. Casey writes, ...To restate my previous oral request made today, I respectfully request that the City of Coon Rapids fax a copy of the Tuesday, April 18, 1995 city council packet pertaining to the above-stated item. This material was generated today as public government data. You denied my oral request based on a city council policy that allows the city council packet to be released &lt;u&gt;only after&lt;/u&gt;it is received by the city council...I request that the City of Coon Rapids change the above policy because it violates the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 17, 1995, PIPA contacted Mr. Casey and suggested that since he had very recently made a request for the meeting materials to Mr. Hofstedt, it would be reasonable to give Mr. Hofstedt one week to respond to that request. Mr. Casey agreed. On April 28, Mr. Casey related to PIPA that he had received no response from Mr. Hofstedt or anyone else associated with Coon Rapids.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, in response to Mr. Casey&apos;s April 13, 1995, opinion request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bob Svehla, Manager of Coon Rapids. The purposes of this letter, dated April 25, 1995, were to inform Mr. Svehla of Mr. Casey&apos;s request, to ask him or Coon Rapids&apos; attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. PIPA received no response from Mr. Svehla or anyone else representing Coon Rapids.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Casey asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;At what point do materials, which are public government data, created or collected for the purpose of a city council meeting, become public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
According to Mr. Casey, the information he seeks is contained in packets which are prepared for meetings of the Coon Rapids City Council. Apparently, it is the policy of Coon Rapids that the packets are not released to the public until the City Council has received the packets. Mr. Casey believes the packets should be released to the public as soon as the data are generated.
&lt;p&gt;There appears to be no dispute that the data Mr. Casey seeks are government data. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as, ...all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. Political subdivision is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 11, as, ...any county, statutory or home rule charter city, school district....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, there appears to be no dispute that the data Mr. Casey seeks are &lt;u&gt;public&lt;/u&gt; government data. If Coon Rapids considers these data to be anything other than public data, it is required under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to so notify Mr. Casey and to cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which any such determination is based. According to Mr. Casey, he received no such notification from Coon Rapids and, as mentioned above, Coon Rapids provided no comments regarding its position to PIPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Casey&apos;s question is at what point do the data in question become public. First, based on the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that any data collected, created, received, or maintained by Coon Rapids contained in the City Council packets are government data. Second, there appears to be no dispute that these same data are classified as public government data. Therefore, the data contained in the City Council packets that are collected, created, or received by Coon Rapids are public as soon as they are collected, created, or received by Coon Rapids. The data in the packets should be available for public inspection once agents of Coon Rapids have prepared the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Casey is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data contained in the City Council packets are presumptively public government data, under Section 13.03, subdivision 1, as soon as they are collected, created, or received by an agent of Coon Rapids. Once the packets are prepared, the data in them, except for data specifically classified as not public, become accessible to members of the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 10, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266616</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Minutes, personal notes</Title><Id>266615</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-03T16:03:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266358</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-020</Title><title>Opinion 95 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267880&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-05-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the University of Minnesota Program in Human Sexuality release private data it maintained about X without his consent, and if so, was that release authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, or other applicable law?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 3, 1995; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On April 13, 1995, PIPA received a hand-delivered letter from X, a resident of Golden Valley, Minnesota. In this letter and enclosures, X described a release of data about him maintained by the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, hereinafter Program.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                NOTE: X blacked out portions of the enclosures he submitted to PIPA to protect, to the extent possible, his privacy.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X was a patient in the Program from June, 1992, through November, 1993. In December, 1992, he entered into an agreement with his professional licensing board, the Board of Medical Practice, hereinafter Board. The stipulation contained certain conditions, including item 4 (b), which stated that following successful completion of Phase I of the Program, X:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;...&lt;u&gt;shall arrange&lt;/u&gt;for the Program to transmit a written report directly to the Board setting out the Program&apos;s goals for [X], his accomplishments, rationale for recommending that [X] may safely resume patient care, and any recommended limits on [his] practice. &lt;u&gt;[X] shall release&lt;/u&gt;all records of therapy and other Program participation to that time to the Board. (Emphasis added.) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X submitted copies of three letters sent to the Board by Dr. Michael Miner, his treating psychologist. According to X, the first letter, dated April 19, 1993, was sent without his consent. X learned of the letter when he was sent a copy by Dr. Miner. In several subsequent conversations, X told Dr. Miner of his objections to the disclosure in the letter of what he considered to be private medical data about him. Dr. Miner noted those conversations in X&apos;s case file.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In the progress notes dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Miner recorded X&apos;s objections to the release of data in the April 19, 1993 letter to the Board. Dr. Miner referred to having reviewed authorizations and X&apos;s agreement with the Board, and stated that after consulting with the Program director, Dr. Coleman, they agreed that X&apos;s agreement w/Board constituted consent.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Dr. Miner also noted that he called X and ...apologized for not reviewing specific content of letter w/him before sending.... In a note dated April 27, 1993, Dr. Miner recounted another conversation with X in which Dr. Miner [a]gain explained that I believed had consent, acknowledged wished I&apos;d walked through letter with [X.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The second letter sent by Dr. Miner to the Board was dated August 23, 1993, in which Dr. Miner stated that he was ...writing at the request of [X].... Dr. Miner discussed the contents of the letter with [X] before it was sent, and asked X to sign a consent form, which was dated August 26, 1993. X indicated his consent to release (1) Narrative account of case history, diagnosis, progress and recommendations for future programs, counseling or services. and (2) Progress Report containing information as stipulated in the December &apos;92 Medical Board Agreement. The statement X signed stated:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;I understand I may revoke this consent to release/exchange information at any time and that upon fulfillment of the above stated purpose(s), this consent will automatically expire without my expressed revocation. Unless sooner revoked or fulfilled, this consent will be in force until I have completed or discontinue treatment and appropriate reports have been sent out. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The third letter, dated April 21, 1994, (5 months after X left the Program), contains the release of data that is the subject of this opinion. In that letter, Dr. Miner stated that he was writing in response to ...a phone call from Mr. Bill Marczewski requesting information to bring the Board up to date on the progress of X.... That letter was sent without X&apos;s knowledge or, according to him, his consent. X learned of the existence of this letter only after he gained access to the private data maintained about him by the Program. His difficulty in gaining access to those data was the subject of Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion #94-024. Subsequent to the issuance of that Opinion, X was provided access to data maintained about him by the Program.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Upon discovery of that letter in his file, X filed a claim with the Program&apos;s insurer for unauthorized release of medical records. The conclusion of the insurer was that ...the release of information to the [Board] was handled appropriately.... Therefore the insurer denied X&apos;s claim. He then requested this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Eli Coleman, the Director of the Program. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 1995, were to inform Dr. Coleman of X&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Dr. Coleman or the Program&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the Program&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The University did not respond.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the University of Minnesota Program in Human Sexuality release private data it maintained about X without his consent, and if so, was that release authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, or other applicable law? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In order to ascertain whether the Program had X&apos;s informed consent to release medical data about him to the Board, in the letter from Dr. Miner dated April 21, 1994, it is necessary to examine the sections of Minnesota Statutes which govern access to medical data. Section 13.42 provides that medical data are classified as private data. Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, private data may not be disseminated except as authorized by state or federal law, unless the subject of the data has granted her/his informed consent. Section 144.335 provides additional limits on dissemination of medical and health data, and also requires health providers, who don&apos;t have statutory authority to release health records, to secure the signed and dated informed consent of data subjects for release of those records.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 144.335, subdivision 3a(a) states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A provider, or a person who receives health records from a provider, may not release a patient&apos;s health records to a person without a signed and dated consent from the patient or the patient&apos;s legally authorized representative authorizing the release, unless the release is specifically authorized by law. Except as provided in paragraph (c), a consent is valid for one year or for a lesser period specified in the consent or for a different period provided by law. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, the dissemination of private data was to the Board of Medical Practice. Section 147.092, subdivision 6(b), grants the Board authority to gain access to medical or health records relating to a licensee who is subject to disciplinary action by the Board, upon its written request: [a] provider, insurance company, or government agency shall comply with any written request of the board under this subdivision and is not liable in any action for damages for releasing data requested by the board if the data are released pursuant to a written request under this subdivision....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As was noted above, if there is no statutory authority for the dissemination of private data, the informed consent of the data subject must be obtained. Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1400, subparts 3 and 4, provide guidance concerning what constitutes informed consent. Subpart 3 states that informed consent ...means the data subject possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make a decision which reflects an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question. Subpart 4 requires that informed consents be written, and that the consequences of giving the consent also be in writing. It also states, in clause D, that [o]nly those [data] elements that the data subject has expressly consented to shall become part of the new or different purpose or use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Dr. Miner&apos;s patient progress notes stated that he relied upon the language of the stipulation X entered into with the Board, as constituting X&apos;s informed consent to the release of private medical data the Program maintained about him. Dr. Miner&apos;s notes also state that the Program&apos;s director, Dr. Coleman, concurred in that interpretation. However, the language in the stipulation simply states that X agreed, upon successful completion of Phase I of the program, to ...arrange for the Program to transmit a written report directly to the Board.... and that he would ...release all records of therapy and other Program participation to that time to the Board.... (Emphasis added.) The Commissioner interprets this to mean that X agreed that he would give his consent to release certain data to the Board, and would make arrangements for the Board to receive those data. Given the language in the agreement, and the restrictions placed upon informed consent as noted above, it is not reasonable to conclude that the stipulation into which X entered with the Board contains his informed consent to release private medical data about him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Dr. Miner&apos;s notes also made one reference to his having reviewed authorizations. The University did not submit any comments for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration, and from the information provided, i.e. the redacted copies of Dr. Miner&apos;s progress notes, it is not clear what that reference means. In the documentation submitted, X referred to his having signed release of information forms ...so my treatment results could be conveyed to Corrections and so my medical claims could be processed by my insurers. Perhaps those are the authorizations Dr. Miner reviewed. If so, as described by X, clearly they cannot be construed to be applicable to a release of data to the Board.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, as mentioned above, X requested an earlier advisory opinion from the Commissioner concerning his efforts to gain access to data maintained about him by the Program. After X learned of the first letter Dr. Miner sent to the Board, the one dated April 19, 1993, he requested access to the data maintained about him by the Program. He was denied access to those data until June, 1994. Therefore, at the time the letter which is the subject of this opinion was sent by Dr. Miner to the Board, X had not been provided access to his medical records. As X was not allowed access to the data upon which Dr. Miner was basing the assertions he made in his correspondence with the Board, he could not know what data the Program maintained about him. Therefore it is questionable whether any consent signed by X truly would be his informed consent to release data, as it would be signed without his knowledge of the detailed content of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X did sign a consent form to release the second letter Dr. Miner wrote to the Board, the one dated August 23, 1993. However, the language on this consent is vague, and if the copy submitted to the Commissioner constitute&apos;s the entire consent form, it raises additional questions. The form says that upon fulfillment of the above stated purpose(s) the consent will automatically expire, but nowhere on the form are the purposes explained. Absent clearer explanation, the statement concerning purposes on the consent form appears to be meaningless.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Another statement on the form is unclear. That one says that unless the consent is sooner revoked or fulfilled, the consent will be in force until treatment is completed or discontinued and appropriate reports have been sent out. As discussed above, in order for the consent to be valid, it must be specific as to the data elements involved and the consequences of granting consent, and it must be executed by an &lt;u&gt;informed&lt;/u&gt;data subject. That does not appear to be the case here.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X signed that consent form, for release of the data in the second letter, in order for the Board to receive a report on his progress in treatment at a certain point in time. Three months later he left the Program. Dr. Miner sent the letter in question to the Board some five months after X had been his patient. From the documents provided to the Commissioner, it is clear that on several occasions X told Dr. Miner that the stipulation, in itself, did not grant the Program his consent to release data to the Board. Apparently Dr. Miner believed it was necessary to secure X&apos;s consent to release the data contained in the second letter to the Board. It is puzzling, then, that Dr. Miner wrote the third letter to the Board with neither X&apos;s knowledge, nor, apparently, his consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The contents of the third letter indicate that Dr. Miner wrote to the Board about X in response to a request for information he received from the Board in a telephone call. However, although the Board does have the authority to gain access to data on its licensees without their express consent, pursuant to Section 147.092, subdivision 6(b), the request from the Board &lt;u&gt;must be in writing&lt;/u&gt;. That does not appear to be the case here. The statute does not provide authorization for release of not public data to the Board absent its written request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;From the limited information provided, it appears that the University of Minnesota Program in Human Sexuality released private data it maintained about X without his consent, and that release was not authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, or other applicable law. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: May 3, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267880</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Consent to release</Title><Id>266644</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-019</Title><title>Opinion 95 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267540&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-04-27T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the proper classification of the data collected on the &quot;Regional Mixed Municipal Waste Collection and Transportation License Application&quot; form?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 27, 1995; Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On March 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Zack Hansen, on behalf of the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, in which he requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion as to the proper classification of data the Board was planning to collect on its Regional Mixed Municipal Waste Collection and Transportation License Application form.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Hansen explained that the application form is part of a new regional licensing program in the seven-county metropolitan area. He enclosed draft copies of the application form and its instructions, and stated that the ...application is divided into two sections: Section I is designed to contain public data; Section II is designed to contain nonpublic, private or trade-secret data. It is the intent that all seven metropolitan counties would have access to the data in both Sections. (The application form refers to Parts I and II, not Sections. The Commissioner assumes, for purposes of this opinion, that Section and Part are interchangeable.) Question number two on the second part of the application form asks: [d]o you deem any of the information set forth in items 3-7 of this Part below or any of the attachments related to these items to be &lt;u&gt;trade secret information&lt;/u&gt;pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.37, Subd. 1(b) or &lt;u&gt;confidential&lt;/u&gt;pursuant to Minn. Stat. section473.151? (Emphasis added.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Items 3-6 (there is no number 7 on the application form submitted to the Commissioner) request the following data: whether charges for collection of mixed municipal solid waste vary by weight or volume, and a fee schedule; the percentage of total mixed municipal solid waste collected annually by county; the total number of residential and non-residential accounts by county; and the number of residential and non-residential accounts, by day(s) of pick-up, by municipality or district within each of the seven counties in the metropolitan area.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                NOTE: Minnesota Statutes Section 473.151 contains a cross-reference to Section 116.075, one of the statutory sections which governs the Pollution Control Agency (PCA.) Section 116.075 grants authority to the Commissioner of the PCA to certify data, submitted to the PCA by owners or operators of sources of air, land or water pollution, as not public, if certain criteria are met. (See below.) PIPA sought assistance from staff of the PCA, who provided very useful background information related to the Agency&apos;s implementation of its governing statutes and rules.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (PIPA wrote back to Mr. Hansen to inform him that prepayment of the $200.00 fee was required in order for the Commissioner to issue the opinion he requested. On March 28, 1995, PIPA received payment of the fee.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Hansen was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hansen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the proper classification of the data collected on the Regional Mixed Municipal Waste Collection and Transportation License Application form? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that [a]ll government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The application form asks applicants to state whether they consider any of the data they are asked to provide in Part II are trade secret information, pursuant to Section 13.37, or confidential, pursuant to Section 473.151.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies trade secret data as not public. Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b) states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;(b) Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 473.151, which classifies data relating to the generation, collection and processing of solid and hazardous waste, contains a cross-reference to Section 116.075, with respect to the classification of those data. Section 116.075, subdivision 2, states in part that:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Any records or other information obtained by the pollution control agency or furnished to the agency by the owner or operator of one or more air contaminant or water or land pollution sources which are certified by said owner or operator, and said certification, as it applies to water pollution sources, is approved in writing by the commissioner [of the PCA], to relate to (a) sales figures, (b) processes or methods of production unique to the owner or operator, or (c) information which would tend to affect adversely the competitive position of said owner or operator, shall be only for the confidential use of the agency in discharging its statutory obligations, unless otherwise specifically authorized by said owner or operator. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Apparently, in order for any of the data collected on the regional waste collection application form to be classified as not public, the supplier of the data must have either met the requirements of the provisions of Section 116.075 to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency, or must establish that the data being requested are trade secret within the meaning of Section 13.37.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner of the PCA has the authority to determine whether data, certified by the supplier of the data as confidential, meet the criteria set forth in Section 116.075, subdivision 2 (see above.) If the PCA makes the determination that those criteria are met, the data may be treated as not public by both the PCA, and pursuant to the operation of Section 473.151, by the Board. However, the application does not ask whether certification from PCA has been received for the data requested on the application. The application asks only whether the applicant deems the information to be confidential pursuant to Section 473.151. That in itself is not sufficient for the data to be treated as not public, according to the language in Section 116.075. Under that Section, certification from the PCA must be secured for the classification of those data as not public to apply. However, there is no way, from the limited information the application form requests, to determine whether that certification has been secured. Therefore, it does not appear that the Board may rely solely upon the information collected on the application form, as drafted, to treat the data as not public under Section 473.151.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     If certification from the PCA has &lt;u&gt;not&lt;/u&gt;been secured, then the data requested on the application form are public unless the data are classified as not public by another statute or federal law. In this instance it appears that the only possible statutory or federal law authority that would make these data not public is the trade secret provision of Section 13.37.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In Advisory Opinions 95-017 and 95-018, the Commissioner stated that data may be classified as trade secret data under Section 13.37 only if all the criteria contained in the definition of trade secret are met. From the information on the application form, it is not possible for the Commissioner (or the Board) to conclude that the definition of trade secret data applies to any of the data collected, as the form does not collect enough data to make that determination possible. The only criterion which clearly is applicable to the data in question is that the data have been ...supplied by the affected individual or organization....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, in these circumstances, Section 13.37 cannot be relied upon to treat the data as not public. For an applicant to make a reasonable case for trade secret designation for the data, s/he must demonstrate the data meet all of the criteria set forth in Section 13.37, i.e. that the data are (1) a formula, pattern compilation, program, device method, technique or process that (2) were supplied to a governmental entity, that (3) are the subject of reasonable efforts by the applicant to maintain their secrecy, and that (4) derive independent economic value from not being known or readily ascertainable by other persons who could obtain economic value from their disclosure or use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Hansen is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data on the Regional Mixed Municipal Waste Collection and Transportation License Application form are properly classified as public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, unless the data have been certified by the Pollution Control Agency as not public, pursuant to Section 116.075. The application form does not collect enough information to allow a determination that Section 13.37 is applicable. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 27, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267540</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Pollution Control Agency</Title><Id>266707</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Determination made by entity</Title><Id>266435</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-018</Title><title>Opinion 95 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267625&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-04-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the data contained in the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store&apos;s inventory and sales report classified as trade secret data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), and therefore, not public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 18, 1995; City of Bigfork</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note: See also, the Minnesota Court of Appeals case, &lt;em&gt;Uhr. v. University of Minnesota&lt;/em&gt;, A17-0337 (Minn.App. Jan. 16, 2018) (unpublished), &lt;em&gt;rev. denied&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On March 7, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated March 3, 1995, from Rodney Otterness, an attorney for the City of Bigfork. In his letter, Mr. Otterness requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store&apos;s detail inventory is trade secret information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this matter is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Otterness noted that attached to his letter was a copy of two letters. One letter, dated January 30, 1995, from citizen John Undem, was a request to the Bigfork City Council for specific government data relating to the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store. As part of his request, Mr. Undem asked for records relating to inventory statements or documentation. The other letter, dated February 9, 1995, was addressed to Karen Lakso, Bigfork City Clerk, from Debra Sakrison, a CPA, whom apparently had been consulted about Mr. Undem&apos;s request. In her letter, Ms. Sakrison stated, ...Disclosing the information [contained in the liquor store detail inventory] would be damaging to the liquor store because you would be disclosing information that would allow calculation of your pricing formula and other details such as your product mix and product cost. Release of this type of information would be beneficial to your competitors and only harmful to the City....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also attached to Mr. Otterness&apos; letter was a copy of the Liquor Store&apos;s inventory and sales report which appears to be dated December 31, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Otterness was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue: &lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Otterness asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the data contained in the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store&apos;s inventory and sales report classified as trade secret data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), and therefore, not public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question raised by Bigfork is whether certain sales and inventory information relating to its municipal liquor store are classified as not public data because they fit the definition of trade secret data in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b). In subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37, trade secret information is defined as the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the language in Section 13.37, it is clear that data can be classified as trade secret only if each criterion of the definition is satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The definition of trade secret in Section 13.37 is derived from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325C. The language in Section 325C.01, subdivision 5, is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Trade secret means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under circumstances to maintain its secrecy.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A comparison of the language in the two statute sections reveals that Section 13.37 contains one criterion not included in Chapter 325C. The additional requirement is that government data can be classified as trade secret only if the data have been supplied by the affected individual or organization. The adoption of this additional language by the Legislature demonstrates, for general purposes, the Legislature&apos;s intent that a claim for trade secret protection for certain data can be made only if the data were supplied to the government by an entity outside the government.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In light of this intent, the discussion regarding the classification of the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store&apos;s inventory and sales report data should focus on whether these data were supplied to Bigfork by an affected individual or organization outside of Bigfork. If this criterion is not satisfied, the data cannot be classified as not public pursuant to the trade secret exemption in Section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, since the data claimed to be trade secret by Bigfork were generated by the City itself and were not supplied by an outside organization or individual, it appears that the data cannot be appropriately classified as trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Otterness is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data contained in the sales and inventory report are not trade secret information data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), because the data do not meet the definition of trade secret information. Therefore, the data are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 18, 1995&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267625</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets</Title><Id>266942</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Supplied by the affected individual or organization</Title><Id>266962</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-017</Title><title>Opinion 95 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267743&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-04-13T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the data on pages 2, 6, 7, 12, 14-19, 21, 22, and 25-56 of the Deloitte-Touche Financial Feasibility Study, and also the data in the November 1994 Financial Statements for Envirosys, classified as trade secret information data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), and therefore, not public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 13, 1995; City of Moorhead</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On January 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 5, 1995, from James Antonen, City Manager of the City of Moorhead. In his letter, Mr. Antonen requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this matter is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Antonen requested that the Commissioner advise as to whether certain data obtained by Moorhead as a result of its economic development assistance efforts with Envirosys, Inc. and Envirosys, L.P. are classified as trade secret data. From two letters, dated December 20 and 21, 1994, attached to Mr. Antonen&apos;s opinion request, it is apparent that a citizen, Thomas Holtgrewe, originated this request by asking Moorhead for a copy of the Financial Feasibility Study and any addenda/supplements regarding Envirosys that had been prepared by Deloitte-Touche, a business consulting and accounting firm.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also attached to the opinion request, was a letter dated December 23, 1995, from Reed Stigen, Chief Operating Officer of Envirosys, in which he informed Mr. Antonen that, ...Information concerning our business plans, production, prices, customers, inventories, financial status, employment and raw material supplies, equipment acquisition, financing terms, etc. represent trade secrets....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another letter, dated January 3, 1995, included by Mr. Antonen, was from Mr. Stigen to Brian Neugebauer, an attorney for Moorhead, in which Mr. Stigen stated that he had reviewed the entire Financial Feasibility Study and had found trade secret information on the following pages: 2, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 25-56.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Antonen also provided a copy of a letter dated December 28, 1994, from Linda Gaughan, Controller at Envirosys, to Mr. Antonen regarding Envirosys&apos; November 1994 Financial Statements. In her letter, Ms. Gaughan states that, ...we consider this information on our financial status to be trade secret and ask that you regard it as confidential.... (The 1994 Financial Statements were not provided to PIPA.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated January 12, 1995, on behalf of the Commissioner, Don Gemberling, Director of PIPA, wrote to Mr. Antonen regarding the request for an advisory opinion. Mr. Gemberling stated that the Commissioner was unable to issue an opinion to Moorhead without viewing the data in question. Mr. Gemberling also provided some additional suggestions for resolving the data classification issue. One suggestion was that Moorhead examine provisions of Minnesota Statutes, other than the trade secret provision, which might classify the Envirosys data as not public data. In addition, Mr. Gemberling informed Mr. Antonen that the Commissioner has taken the position that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 4, any data provided as part of an opinion request will have the same classification it had in the hands of the government entity which provided it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 30, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 26, 1995, from Mr. Holtgrewe in which he asserted his position that the data in dispute should be made available for public inspection. In a letter dated February 2, 1995, Mr. Gemberling responded to Mr. Holtgrewe and advised him that Mr. Antonen&apos;s opinion request had been deferred unless Moorhead provided, to the Commissioner, copies of the data in dispute. Mr. Gemberling informed Mr. Holtgrewe that PIPA would retain his letter in the event that the Commissioner did issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 1, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 27, 1995, from Mr. Stigen in which he asserted that Envirosys has taken great care in maintaining the secrecy of the Financial Feasibility Study and certain other information that Envirosys deems to be trade secret. In a letter dated February 2, 1995, Mr. Gemberling responded to Mr. Stigen and advised him that Mr. Antonen&apos;s opinion request had been deferred unless Moorhead provided, to the Commissioner, copies of the data in dispute. Mr. Gemberling informed Mr. Stigen PIPA would retain his letter in the event that the Commissioner did issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated February 23, 1995, from Mr. Antonen in which he informed Mr. Gemberling that Moorhead was renewing its opinion request. Mr. Antonen did not indicate that he or Moorhead&apos;s attorneys had examined other statutory provisions which might classify the Envirosys data as not public. Mr. Antonen noted that attached to his letter was a copy of the Deloitte-Touche Financial Feasibility Study and any addenda/supplements thereto, as well as a copy of the November 1994 Financial Statements for Envirosys. In his letter, Mr. Antonen included the citation for a Nebraska Supreme Court Case, &lt;u&gt;Northwestern Bell Telephone Company v. American Data Systems&lt;/u&gt;, 390 N.W.2nd 495 (Neb. 1986), which Moorhead&apos;s attorneys had determined might be helpful in resolving the issue of how the data are classified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Antonen was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Antonen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the data on pages 2, 6, 7, 12, 14-19, 21, 22, and 25-56 of the Deloitte-Touche Financial Feasibility Study, and also the data in the November 1994 Financial Statements for Envirosys, classified as trade secret information data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), and therefore, not public data?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 contains language, adopted by the Minnesota Legislature over twenty years ago, which embodies the policy objective that all government data are public unless otherwise so classified. Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states, All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as non public or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential....
&lt;p&gt;The presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, establishes a decision-making process in which, unless federal law provides otherwise, legislative approval must be sought and granted if a government entity wishes to classify its data as anything other than public. This is true even in the case of a temporary classification granted by the Commissioner. Although data which are the subject of an application for temporary classification become not public upon the filing of the application, the Legislature has reserved for itself the final decisions regarding temporary classifications approved by the Commissioner. The Legislature has two legislative sessions in which to adopt the language. If the Legislature fails to act, the data affected by the temporary classification revert to a classification of public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.06, subdivisions 6 and 7.) Requiring that the Legislature make determinations to close off public access to certain government data ensures those decisions will be debated, openly and thoughtfully, and the rights of privacy of citizens and the need for confidentiality in a variety of institutions will be weighed against the need, in a democratic society, for the openness of governmental operations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One exception to the general rule that all data are public is Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 2, which classifies trade secret data as not public. The question raised by Moorhead which led to this Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion is whether certain information regarding Envirosys contained in a financial feasibility study and a financial statement (both of which were prepared by Deloitte-Touche), is classified as not public data because it fits the definition of trade secret data in Chapter 13. Subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37 contains the definition of trade secret data:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the language in Section 13.37, is it clear that data can be classified as trade secret only if the data meet all of the criteria set out in the definition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Many different kinds of information constitute the data which are in dispute. For instance, the 1994 Financial Statements include information gathered for general accounting purposes, e.g. Envirosys&apos; assets, liabilities, long term investments, long term debt, equity, income statement, and statement of cash flows. The information displayed on the specified pages of the Financial Feasibility Study includes figures comprising forecasted balance sheets; a summary of significant forecast assumptions including a project description, a facility description, a project timeline; figures comprising the forecasted schedule of maximum annual cast debt service coverage for 4 years; a description of forecasted net operating revenues; a description of forecasted expenses; and a market assessment including, trends, analysis of demand, competitive assessment, process equipment availability, freight cost competitiveness, and Envirosys&apos; marketing strategy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To determine if the data in dispute are trade secret, it is necessary to evaluate those data in relation to the criteria set forth in Section 13.37. First, are the data regarding Envirosys government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process? It appears an argument could be made that some of the data claimed by Envirosys to be trade secret do, in fact, constitute a compilation, method, technique, or process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second requirement set forth in Section 13.37 is that the data must have been supplied by the affected individual or organization, i.e. the individual or organization that would be affected by the disclosure. Since all the data were supplied by Envirosys, it does appear that all the data in dispute meet the second criterion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third requirement outlined in Section 13.37 is that the data be the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. In this situation, it does appear that Envirosys has made reasonable attempts to maintain the secrecy of the data in dispute. For instance, Mr. Stigen&apos;s January 27, 1995, letter to Mr. Gemberling indicates that Envirosys has taken measures to ensure the confidentiality of the data, ...Our company takes great care in maintaining the secrecy of the financial feasibility study and certain other information that we deem to be trade secret. For example, anyone who obtains a copy of our financial feasibility study is required to sign a confidentiality agreement... In addition, the very reason for the issuance of this opinion is Envirosys&apos; contention that certain data are not public. The fact that those data were not included with the original opinion request further illustrates Envirosys&apos; concern regarding the secrecy of the data. Because it appears that Envirosys has reasonably attempted to maintain the secrecy of the data, it seems that the data do meet the third criterion set forth in Section 13.37.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fourth requirement set forth in Section 13.37 is that the data must derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. It is in the evaluation of this fourth criterion that Envirosys&apos; characterization of the data as trade secret becomes problematic. First, a reasonable argument could be made that most of the information in the Summary of Significant Forecast Assumptions and in the Market Assessment sections of the Financial Feasibility Study is readily ascertainable by proper means by other individuals. For example, Envirosys&apos; description of its egg carton production process is quite general. It does not delve into specific details describing the quantities of the various ingredients involved in creating the molded pulp. Given that other companies appear to be manufacturing egg cartons from molded pulp, it would be difficult to argue that a general description of the process used to produce egg cartons would not be readily ascertainable by other persons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Details relating to the capacity of the pulp-making machines would be readily ascertainable by making inquiries to the companies that manufacture those particular machines. Furthermore, after an individual had conducted market research regarding the need for egg cartons, s/he would be able to compile forecasted operating revenues and expenses. In addition, the Market Assessment section contains information relating to recycling trends, an analysis of demand for molded pulp egg cartons, a competitive assessment, process equipment availability, freight cost competitiveness, and marketing strategy. It seems that all of this information is readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who would obtain economic value from its disclosure or use and therefore, is not trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, in evaluating the 1994 Financial Statements, it appears difficult to construct a reasonable argument that numbers compiled as part of a regular or routine financial analysis derive some sort of independent economic value from not being generally known to persons who could obtain economic value from the disclosure of those numerical figures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the strong presumption in Minnesota law that government data are generally classified as public and that reasonable arguments can be made to support the position that much of the information about Envirosys does not appear to fit all of the criteria set forth in Section 13.37, the Commissioner must conclude that the data are not trade secret.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It must be noted, however, that one additional factor contributed significantly to the outcome of this opinion. A close examination of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.671 and 13.76 reveals that both sections classify, as not public, certain data which relate to businesses that have requested financial assistance from the government. Sections 13.671 and 13.76 began as temporary classifications of data and were subsequently enacted into law by the Legislature. Section 13.671 classifies data collected by the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB):
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Subdivision 1. &lt;u&gt;Nonpublic data&lt;/u&gt;. The following data that are submitted to the commissioner of the iron range resources and rehabilitation board by businesses that are requesting financial assistance are nonpublic data: the identity of the businesses and financial information about the business including, but not limited to, credit reports, &lt;u&gt;financial statements&lt;/u&gt;, &lt;u&gt;net worth calculations&lt;/u&gt;, &lt;u&gt;business plans&lt;/u&gt;, &lt;u&gt;income and expense projections&lt;/u&gt;, customer lists, and &lt;u&gt;market and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds&lt;/u&gt;.
&lt;p&gt;Subd. 2. &lt;u&gt;Public data&lt;/u&gt;. Data submitted to the Commissioner under subdivision 1 become public data upon submission of the request for financial assistance to the iron range resources and rehabilitation board &lt;u&gt;except that the following data remain nonpublic:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;u&gt;business plans&lt;/u&gt;, &lt;u&gt;income and expense projections&lt;/u&gt;, customer lists, and &lt;u&gt;market and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.76 classifies certain data collected by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Subdivision 1. Development loan data. &lt;u&gt;All financial information&lt;/u&gt; on individuals and business entities including, but not limited to credit reports, &lt;u&gt;financial statements&lt;/u&gt;, and &lt;u&gt;net worth calculations&lt;/u&gt;, that are contained in an application received by the department of trade and economic development in its administration of the certified state development loan program &lt;u&gt;are classified as private data&lt;/u&gt;with regard to data on individuals, and as nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals &lt;u&gt;until the application is approved.&lt;/u&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subd. 2. Financial incentive data. Data collected by the department of trade and economic development relating to financial incentives offered by private businesses and organizations, other than state government, to companies for locating their proposed business operations in Minnesota are classified as nonpublic data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subd. 3. Businesses seeking state incentives. Notwithstanding subdivision 1, &lt;u&gt;any business seeking $250,000 or more in financial assistance from the state of Minnesota in the form of grants, loans, or tax incentives shall make available for public inspection its audited financial statements for the three most recent years.&lt;/u&gt;These statements shall include all information that would be required by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission prior to any public stock offering. This subdivision does not apply to financial assistance sought from the iron range resources and rehabilitation board or from a political subdivision of the state, including home rule charter and statutory cities, towns, counties, and all agencies, commissions, and councils established under chapter 473, as well as any authority or agency of such a political subdivision. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is relevant about these sections in relation to the data Envirosys has provided to Moorhead? First, the existence of these sections indicates the Legislature has, in the past, dealt with the issue of classification of data submitted by a private business seeking financial assistance from the government. It is reasonable to conclude that if the Legislature determined this type of data fit more appropriately under the trade secret exemption in Section 13.37, there would have been no need to adopt the provisions in 13.671 and 13.76.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second, the existence of these sections also indicates that the Legislature and the Commissioner (in the granting of temporary classifications) have not been adverse to classifying, as not public, certain data relating to businesses seeking financial assistance from the government. Since Moorhead has not applied for a temporary classification for the Envirosys data, it would be appropriate for Moorhead to exercise that option. The policy is clear, however, that much of the data classified as not public during the application process, must become public upon approval of a business&apos; application for assistance. This point is vital to the discussion about Envirosys&apos; data. If Moorhead were to classify Envirosys&apos; data as not public under Section 13.37, Envirosys would receive a confidentiality protection not available to other companies that may be receiving financial assistance from the government. Such an inconsistent result is one that the Commissioner cannot support.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Antonen is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The data on pages 2, 6, 7, 12, 14-19, 21, 22, and 25-56 of the Deloitte-Touche Financial Feasibility Study, and also the data in the November 1994 Financial Statements for Envirosys, are not trade secret information data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b), because the data do not meet all parts of the four part test outlined in Section 13.37. Therefore, the data are public data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 13, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267743</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Economic development assistance data(13.594 / 13.62); (13.5951 / 13.621); (13.5952 / 13.622); (13.5953 / 13.671); (13.596 / 13.76)</Title><Id>266930</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Temporary classifications</Title><Id>266931</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose of process</Title><Id>266932</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Efforts to maintain secrecy (subd. 1(b))</Title><Id>266785</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-016</Title><title>Opinion 95 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267832&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-04-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Bloomington Fire Department a government entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
If the answer to Issue 1 is affirmative, does the City have an obligation to recover records which were &quot;mislaid&quot; or destroyed, in order to provide public access to those records</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 5, 1995; City of Bloomington</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizens who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizens disagree are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On February 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Charles W. Wolter and Mr. Antonio J. DeAntoni, in which they described their efforts to gain access to certain accounting data of the Bloomington Fire Department (BFD) which they believe are maintained by the City of Bloomington (City.) Specifically, Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni stated that they had asked the City for access to Bloomington Fire Department cancelled bank checks. According to Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni, they
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...had not been granted access to all of the checks issued by the Bloomington Fire Department for much of the period 1994 through 1989 and no access to checks for the years 1988 and prior. The reason given was because the checks and records were lost or destroyed. A check with the First National Bank indicates that they have at least the last seven years of checks on file and possibly longer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;They also said that they asked the City to obtain copies of the missing checks from the bank in order to provide them with access to the data, and according to Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni the city manager denied the request ...stating that these are records of the Bloomington Fire Department and not subject to...[Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Wolter&apos;s and Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington City Manager. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Bernhardson of this opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Bernhardson or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On March 13, 1995, PIPA received a response, via facsimile transmission, from Ms. Sheila Happe, Associate City Attorney. In her response to the first issue, Ms. Happe stated that ...the records of the City of Bloomington Fire Department are subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13; however, the records of the separate entity, the Membership of the Bloomington Fire Department (Membership) are not subject to [Chapter 13]. Ms. Happe provided some information about the relationship between the City and the Membership, and the City and the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association (BFDRA.) Ms. Happe also stated that some of the monies paid by the City to the Membership are placed in the general fund of the BFDRA. Apparently the Bloomington Fire Department, the Membership of the Bloomington Fire Department, and the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association are three distinct entities which have entered into various agreements between and among one another.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;According to Ms. Happe, the City ...funds the acquisition of equipment, maintenance of trucks and stations, uniforms, and other necessary expenses.... including the provision of Worker&apos;s Compensation coverage for the volunteer firefighters as part of its budget for a fire department. In addition, the City makes contributions to the BFDRA ...special fund to provide a service pension to the volunteer firefighters as required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 69.772, Subd. 3(1995). The BFDRA is a separate entity from the City and has its own Articles of Incorporation.... It appears that the Membership has established the BFDRA as a means to provide retirement benefits for its members. (See Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Happe explained that the portion of the City fire department&apos;s budget that is not spent as described above is
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...for personnel services. Historically, the City has entered into an arrangement each year with the Membership to provide fire suppression services and selected fire protection programs to the City....The Membership, which has earned these monies through services rendered, decides by vote as to how the funds are to be spent....The Membership votes...to place any balance of the money remaining...into a fund to provide severance payments for firefighters who terminate their service with the BFD. This money is placed in the general fund of the BFDRA.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Happe further stated that [t]he Membership is separate from the City. It must be kept in mind that the firefighters are volunteer residents of the City, not employees....the Membership maintains its own checking account to spend the monies it receives from the City as it deems appropriate and the Membership signs its own checks from that account. The City obviously may not sign checks for an entity separate from the City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In addition, according to Ms. Happe, [t]he City&apos;s records of the BFD are certainly subject to Chapter 13....However, the records of the Membership are not...as these records are not City records or government records....Records of how the Membership, a separate entity, chooses to spend the monies it receives for providing fire suppression services and fire protection program services are not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to the second issue, Ms. Happe referred to the portion of Mr. Wolter&apos;s and Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s opinion request which stated that they had not been provided access by the City ...to all of the checks issued by the Bloomington Fire Department.... Ms. Happe stated that the checks in question are ...checks issued by the Membership of the BFD.... Ms. Happe stated that ...Mr. Wolter reviewed many of the checks issued by the Membership...when the BFD chief voluntarily provided these records to Mr. Wolter for his inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Happe further stated that&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;...the &apos;lost or destroyed&apos; checks that Mr. Wolter refers to are Membership checks and the City is unable to provide those checks....They are checks issued by the Membership and are issued from its own accounts. Mr. Wolter may certainly request the Membership to provide those records, but the City has no authority to request those checks from First National Bank where the Membership&apos;s checking account is located...The City has no obligation to reconstruct records that the Membership has lost....&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In conclusion, Ms. Happe stated that [a]ll records relating to the City&apos;s payments for fire trucks, equipment, maintenance, personnel services, fire department relief association contributions are subject to [Chapter 13].... She stated that the City had provided Mr. Wolter with access to all of the public records he has requested in this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
In their request for an opinion, Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the City of Bloomington Fire Department a government entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If the answer to Issue 1 is affirmative, does the City have an obligation to recover records which were mislaid or destroyed, in order to provide public access to those records&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It appears, from documents provided to the Commissioner by both the requesters and the City, that the City has a fire department, established by City ordinance. The main function of this department is to acquire and maintain firefighting equipment and stations. The City contracts with the Membership to supply personnel who use the City&apos;s equipment and facilities to provide the fire suppression and prevention services. The City pays the Membership for these services. According to the Agreement Between the Membership of the Bloomington Volunteer Fire Department and the City of Bloomington, a copy of which Ms. Happe submitted, the City may examine the Membership&apos;s ...books, records, documents, and accounting procedures.... The City&apos;s position is that within the meaning of the definitions of government entities which are subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Section 13.02, subdivisions 11, 17 and 18), the Bloomington Fire Department is subject to Chapter 13, but the Membership is a separate entity that is not subject to Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In order to address these issues, it is necessary to examine the definition of government data contained in Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, states that government data are ...all data collected, created, &lt;em&gt;received, maintained&lt;/em&gt; or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In their opinion request, Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni indicated that they requested data that the City maintains about the Bloomington Fire Department. In its response, the City stated that the request to the City was for data that are not under the City&apos;s jurisdiction, but are instead the Membership&apos;s data. It is possible that there is some confusion as to just what data Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni sought access. Given that it appears that at least three entities are involved in some aspect of the City&apos;s provision of firefighting services, some confusion is not surprising.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Apparently, Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni are attempting to gain access to data the City maintains which relate to firefighting services provided by the City, either directly or through contracts, and have phrased their requests as requests for access to data about the Bloomington Fire Department. It also appears that they may reasonably, if perhaps incorrectly, have assumed that the data they requested are government data which the City has created, received, or maintains. It is possible that the City&apos;s own actions have contributed to that assumption or expectation. Ms. Happe, in her letter to the Commissioner, referred to three meetings in which she and the fire chief met with Mr. Wolter in order to provide him with access to City &lt;u&gt;and&lt;/u&gt;Membership data. If the City is involved in meetings in which citizens are provided access to data which are not City data, it is understandable that some confusion may result regarding the status of those data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;If Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni sought access to data that are maintained by the Membership, but not maintained by the City, then that request is outside the scope of this opinion. If the request was for data that are maintained by the BFDRA, but are not maintained by the City, then that request is also outside the scope of this opinion. (There is an on-going dispute concerning the status of data which are maintained by the BFDRA, but are not maintained by the City. In Advisory Opinion 94-043, the Commissioner said that the BFDRA is an entity subject to Chapter 13.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, if the request was for data that the City does or should maintain, the status of the source of the data is not relevant. The definition of government data makes it clear that if the City collects or receives data, those data are government data. In Advisory Opinion 95-012, which also involved the City, the Commissioner emphasized that, regardless of the source, data which the City maintains are government data, and unless otherwise classified, are public, pursuant to Section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City&apos;s agreement with the Membership includes a provision that authorizes the City to gain access to the Membership&apos;s records. The City relies on the Membership to provide firefighting services. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that the City obtains and maintains data concerning the Membership. If, for the sake of argument, the Commissioner accepts the City&apos;s position that the Membership is not an entity subject to Chapter 13, it does not alter the reality that to the extent that data about this separate entity are collected or generated by the City, the data are government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Certainly, given that the City makes payments to both the Membership and the BFDRA, the data on checks written by the City are accessible to the public. If the data are on checks written by the Membership or the BFDRA, then those are outside the City&apos;s control, unless the City has obtained copies of those checks. If the City does maintain those data, there is no indication that they are classified as anything other than public, and therefore the City is obligated to provide access to the data it maintains.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;As to Issue two, apparently at least some of the data in question are recoverable from the bank, according to correspondence between the City Manager and Mr. Wolter. The question then is whether the City has an obligation to recover the data it can recover, in order to provide the public with appropriate access. The answer to this question is dependent upon whether or not the data requested are data which the City does or should maintain, but which were lost or destroyed. The Commissioner has addressed this issue in previous Advisory Opinions, 94-035 and 95-012. If the cancelled checks are the City&apos;s government data then the City has an obligation to restore the data, if the data were not properly disposed of, pursuant to the Records Management Act. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 138.163, et.seq.) If the data at the bank are retrievable, and are the City&apos;s data, then retrieval from the bank is the simplest way for the City to restore the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Wolter and Mr. DeAntoni is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to Issue 1 , the City of Bloomington Fire Department is a government entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. The City has an obligation to provide access to all public data it maintains regarding City firefighting services, regardless of whether the provider of the service or the data is the Bloomington Fire Department, the Membership of the Bloomington Fire Department, the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association or any other entity.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to Issue 2 , the City has an obligation to recover records which were mislaid or destroyed in order to provide public access to those records, if the City has not properly disposed of the data pursuant to Section 138.17, and if the data actually are retrievable.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: April 5, 1995&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267832</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire relief associations - subject to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266651</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Includes data not created by maintaining entity</Title><Id>266560</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-20T19:49:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-015</Title><title>Opinion 95 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267483&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the data describing grievances submitted by a teachers&apos; union to a school district, including documentation, public data?
If so, at what point do the data become public?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 30, 1995; School District 227 (Chatfield)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On March 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated March 9, 1995, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Chatfield News. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, relating to a dispute with Independent School District #227 over access to data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jeffrey Miller, Superintendent of School District #227, Chatfield. The purposes of this letter, dated March 13, 1995, were to inform Mr. Miller of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or District #227&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. No response to PIPA&apos;s letter was received from Mr. Miller or anyone else representing District #227.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request is as follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, the Chatfield News became aware that the union representing the teachers of Independent School District #227, the Chatfield Educational Association, had filed two grievances with District #227. Soon thereafter, the Chatfield News became aware that the grievances had apparently been resolved. Mr. Anfinson reported that the Chatfield News had requested information from District #227 both before and after the grievances were resolved.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Anfinson went on to state that District #227 provided no information in response to Chatfield News&apos; initial request and has provided only a press release since the grievances were resolved. (Attached to the opinion request was a copy of the press release.) Mr. Anfinson maintains that the Chatfield News, as a member of the public, should be allowed to gain access to most of the data, with the exception of any data expressly classified as not public, e.g. private personnel data, relating to the grievances.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are the data describing grievances submitted by a teachers&apos; union to a school district, including documentation, public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If so, at what point do the data become public?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The District #227 press release, included as an attachment to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request, reveals some details about the grievances filed by the Chatfield Education Association. The release states, The CV School Board and the Chatfield Education Association have resolved two issues which have arisen regarding the Master Agreement. The Master Agreement is the contract which governs working conditions, salary, and extracurricular activities of the instructors. If a different interpretation of the contract language occurs during the year the contract is in effect, a grievance must be filed.... The release divulges that one of the grievances discussed was the use of non-certified personnel in study halls and in the In-school Suspension Room, and that the other grievance related to pay for extracurricular activities.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson&apos;s first question is whether the data in dispute are public data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, contains the presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified: All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to Section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to individuals, as private or confidential....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.02, subdivision 11, defines political subdivision to be, ...any county, statutory or home rule charter city, &lt;u&gt;school district&lt;/u&gt;, special district and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision... (emphasis added). The term government data is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 5, as, ...all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the aforementioned definitions, it is clear that data relating to the grievances are government data. Further, because there does not appear to be a state statute, temporary classification, or federal law classifying the government data relating to these grievances as anything other than public, and because no information was provided by District #227 to support an alternative conclusion, it appears that the data are public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Anfinson&apos;s second question is at what point do the data relating to the grievances become public. First, based on the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that any data collected, created, received, or maintained by District #227 relating to the grievances are government data. Second, the Commissioner has determined that the grievance data appear to be classified as public government data given the presumption in Minnesota law that all government data are public unless otherwise classified. Therefore, any data related to the grievances that are collected, created, or received by District #227 are public as soon as those data are collected, created, or received by District #227.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Data relating to the two grievances filed by the Chatfield Educational Association with Independent School District #227 appear to be public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02 and 13.03.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 7, and 13.03, subdivision 1, any data relating to the grievances are public as soon as those data are collected, created, or received by District #227
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 30, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267483</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grievance</Title><Id>266821</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Grievance filed by union</Title><Id>266404</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:13:22Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Closed meetings</Title><Id>266284</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-014</Title><title>Opinion 95 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267570&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>By releasing information regarding discussions between Mr. Dragisich and the president of the City Council about his proposed termination and possible severance package, did the City violate provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
Did the City violate provisions of Chapter 13 by releasing specific data on a performance evaluation?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 28, 1995; City of Virginia</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On March 8, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Gregg M. Corwin, an attorney acting on behalf of his client, Mr. Nick Dragisich, City Administrator for the City of Virginia, hereinafter City. Mr. Corwin enclosed copies of newspaper articles which were published in the &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily News&lt;/em&gt; on February 28, 1995, and March 1, 1995. According to the information Mr. Corwin provided, the Virginia City Council met in a closed meeting in order to evaluate Mr. Dragisich&apos;s job performance. Subsequent to that council meeting, Mr. Dragisich met with Ms. Carolyn Gentilini, the city council president, to discuss various aspects of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s employment. Following that meeting, Ms. Gentilini gave an interview to the &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily News&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The February 28 article provided by Mr. Corwin includes the interview with Ms. Gentilini, in which she discussed details of the conversation she had with Mr. Dragisich. According to the newspaper article, Ms. Gentilini told the newspaper that she had telephoned Mr. Dragisich to arrange a meeting and was quoted in the article as having told him in the phone conversation ...that he should think about what he would accept as a termination settlement and resign.... She said that they then met to discuss a severance package. The article said that initially Ms. Gentilini refused to be interviewed, but that she later changed her mind because a number of people in town had heard about the meeting. When she agreed to the interview with the newspaper, she ...also [agreed] to turn over her typewritten notes about last week&apos;s events. The events referred to apparently are the closed council meeting, and Ms. Gentilini&apos;s conversations with Mr. Dragisich. The article apparently contains quotations from Ms. Gentilini&apos;s written notes concerning those discussions and conversations, both about and with Mr. Dragisich.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The March 1 article provided by Mr. Corwin refers to the discussion of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance at the closed council meeting. The article also refers to data from a ...confidential report summarizing the evaluation forms filled by councilors and the mayor.... In addition, it provides detailed information regarding the council members&apos; individual evaluations of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance, from a ...four-page document received by the &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily News&lt;/em&gt;.... According to Mr. Corwin, the ...President of the City Council gave a copy of a confidential report summarizing the evaluation forms filled by counselors [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;] and the Mayor to the newspaper. Mr. Corwin stated that the information published in the article ...is not simply a summary of a performance evaluation, but the actual evaluation and raw data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter requesting this opinion, Mr. Corwin questioned whether the City disseminated private data in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as described in the Issues section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Corwin&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the chief administrative officer of the City, as is its usual practice. However, the individual who requested this Commissioner&apos;s advisory opinion is the attorney for the chief administrative officer of the City of Virginia. Therefore, copies of the letter were sent to Mr. Leroy A. Guss, Mayor of the City of Virginia, and to Ms. Gentilini, in her capacity as the president of the Virginia City Council. The purposes of this letter, dated March 9, 1995, were to inform the City of Mr. Corwin&apos;s request, to ask him or Virginia&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 17, 1995, PIPA received letters in response from Mr. Thomas Butorac, attorney for Virginia, and from Ms. Gentilini, via facsimile transmission.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his response, Mr. Butorac stated that in regard to the first issue, [i]t was the City&apos;s position that this conversation is not data protected under Chapter 13. This conversation was not an evaluation of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance or any type of disciplinary action. It was merely an informal conversation between the City Administrator and the Council President concerning City business. Council President Gentilini states that Mr. Dragisich had talked to a number of people about their conversation, in fact, other council members had talked to her and told her they knew about the meeting and its content. Therefore, her belief was that this conversation had become public knowledge and that talking about it publicly was appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the second issue, Mr. Butorac stated that ...it is the City&apos;s position that the City has taken every precaution to insure that no protected data would become public. The City has no knowledge of how Mr. Dragisich&apos;s evaluation was reported in the newspaper. In any event, it is further the City&apos;s position that, under the Open Meeting Law 471.705, Subd. 1(d), 3(d) [&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;], allows closure of a meeting to evaluate an employee. Upon completion of the evaluation, a summary of the meeting must be given publicly. It is the City&apos;s position that anything that was reported in the newspaper was merely a summary of the meeting which is public under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Gentilini stated that ...a number of people had asked me about the meeting [with Mr. Dragisich], and it was apparent that it was common knowledge. That is why I agreed to give the newspaper an interview. As to Mr. Corwin&apos;s assertion that she was the source of the performance evaluation, Ms. Gentilini stated that I have no knowledge of how the newspaper received this information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of its response, the City submitted a copy of a &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily News&lt;/em&gt; article, dated March 15, 1995, in which the newspaper&apos;s executive editor, Mr. Bill Hanna, is quoted as saying [t]he evaluation information was not provided by [Ms. Gentilini]....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Corwin asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;By releasing information regarding discussions between Mr. Dragisich and the president of the City Council about his proposed termination and possible severance package, did the City violate provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the City violate provisions of Chapter 13 by releasing specific data on a performance evaluation?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Although the descriptions of the data in question contained in the submissions to the Commissioner were somewhat confusing, it appears that the data at issue are (1) the typewritten notes made by Ms. Gentilini concerning Mr. Dragisich&apos;s employment by the City and (2) the data concerning the city council&apos;s evaluation of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance. The notes apparently contain details of discussions Ms. Gentilini had at city council meetings, and in conversations with Mr. Dragisich. The performance evaluations appear to consist of a summary of the council&apos;s evaluation, and also individual council members&apos; specific ratings of his performance based on various criteria, the details of which were published in the &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily News&lt;/em&gt; on March 1, 1995.
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Butorac stated that it is the City&apos;s position that the contents of an informal conversation between Mr. Dragisich and Ms. Gentilini ...is not data protected under Chapter 13. Other than to say that the conversation was neither an evaluation of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance nor any type of disciplinary action, Mr. Butorac did not elaborate on the reasons why the data in question were not protected under Chapter 13. It is possible that because the data were generated in a conversation, the City views these data as falling under the rule established in &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the court held that ...information is not &apos;government data&apos; until the information is &lt;em&gt;recorded&lt;/em&gt; somewhere other than the human brain. (&lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, at 618.) (Emphasis added.) If Ms. Gentilini&apos;s recollection of the conversation at that meeting weren&apos;t recorded in any form, then under &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;it might be argued that she did not disseminate government data to the newspaper. However, the February article referred to and quoted from her typewritten notes. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7, as an official of the City, Ms. Gentilini&apos;s written notes fall within the definition of government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As those data were recorded by an official of the City, the question is what is the proper classification of those government data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, ...&apos;personnel data&apos; means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of...a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision.... Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section list personnel data which are classified as public; subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private. Nothing in Section 13.43 classifies data which reflect discussions between Mr. Dragisich and Ms. Gentilini about his proposed termination and possible severance package as public. If the City and Mr. Dragisich had actually reached an agreement about severance, the terms of that agreement would be public. However, the data are notes about preliminary negotiations about a possible agreement, and the data therefore are private government data, and may not be disclosed except as provided under Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4. The same criteria apply to the question of whether the data in the detailed performance evaluation, published by the &lt;em&gt;Mesabi Daily&lt;/em&gt; News on March 1, 1995, are private government data. Nothing in Section 13.43 classifies those data as public, so therefore they are private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City raised the point that Mr. Dragisich himself had discussed his conversation with Ms. Gentilini with a number of people, and that therefore Ms. Gentilini believed that ...talking about it publicly was appropriate. The City did not clarify just who those people were or what relationship, if any, they have with the City, or how Mr. Dragisich&apos;s use of data about himself is limited by Chapter 13. While it is understandable for the City to take that position, it is not a conclusion which is allowed under Chapter 13. Government entities&apos; data practices, including the collection, storage, use and dissemination of private and confidential data, are regulated by Chapter 13 and other applicable statutes and rules. However, once private data are disseminated to the data subject, the data subject&apos;s use and dissemination are not regulated. The fact that Mr. Dragisich may have discussed or otherwise disseminated the data in question does not alter the City&apos;s responsibilities under Section 13.05.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the second issue, Mr. Butorac stated that it was the City&apos;s position that, pursuant to Section 471.705, the Open Meeting Law, the City properly discussed Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance at a closed meeting of the city council, and that [i]t is the City&apos;s position that anything that was reported in the newspaper was merely a summary of the meeting which is public under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d) does state that a public body may hold a closed meeting to discuss the job performance of an individual subject to its authority. However, it also states that [&lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;em&gt;t its next open meeting, the public body&lt;/em&gt; shall &lt;em&gt;summarize&lt;/em&gt; its conclusions regarding the evaluation. (Emphasis added.) Even if the detailed performance evaluation data could be construed to be a summary of the evaluation, the public body is authorized to disseminate a summary of the data to the public at the next open meeting of the body. Providing a summary or details of a summary directly to a reporter is not a dissemination authorized by Section 471.705.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is a factual dispute regarding the newspaper&apos;s source of the detailed performance evaluation, including the detailed evaluations done by each councilor. Mr. Corwin stated that Ms. Gentilini provided the newspaper with a copy, and the City says she did not. Also, according to the March 15 newspaper article, the paper&apos;s executive editor, Mr. Hanna, stated that Ms. Gentilini was not the source of the evaluation. However, the City is obligated under Section 13.05 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 to secure private and confidential data on individuals. The data in question were apparently publicly disseminated by an unknown agent of the City, and the City is accountable for the dissemination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Corwin is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
, the public release by the City of private data contained in written notes regarding preliminary discussions between Mr. Dragisich and the president of the city council about a proposed termination and possible severance package was not allowable under provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
, the City has an obligation under Chapter 13 to secure private data. The public dissemination of the summary by the City of Mr. Dragisich&apos;s performance evaluation and the specific data comprised of the individual council members&apos; performance evaluations of Mr. Dragisich was not authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Section 471.705.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 28, 1995
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267570</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266381</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Employee evaluation summary</Title><Id>266365</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Recorded</Title><Id>266382</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T18:35:21Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Elected and appointed officials</Title><Id>266264</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-013</Title><title>Opinion 95 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267620&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are data contained in a school board member&apos;s telephone log, which pertain to school board business, public government data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 1995; School District 270 (Hopkins)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 6, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Robert C. Moilanen, in which he provided details concerning his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Hopkins School District #270, hereinafter District, and in which he stated his wish to file an appeal of a denial of access to data maintained by the District, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.1600. Mr. Moilanen submitted considerable documentation of his correspondence with the District. He sought access to data related to elementary school boundary issues, involving three single family home developments which are under construction within the boundaries of the District. In response, PIPA wrote to Mr. Moilanen to clarify that the subject matter of his appeal was not within the appeal right which is detailed in Part 1205.1600. That right is limited to an appeal of an adverse determination regarding a challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data on individuals maintained by a government entity. PIPA also informed him of the authority of the Commissioner to issue advisory opinions.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 23, 1995, PIPA received another letter from Mr. Moilanen, in which he referred to his earlier submission, and asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion, as described in the Issue section below. Mr. Moilanen, as part of a larger data request on November 3, 1994, had asked the District to provide him with access to ...all data reflecting or pertaining to meetings held by and between employees, board members or representatives of the Hopkins School District and employees, officers, directors, agents, investors or representatives of the developments including, without limitation, all pertinent calendars, diaries or memos reflecting such meetings.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                According to correspondence between Mr. Moilanen and the District, he received all of the data he requested, except for data pertaining to meetings between school board members and developers. The District said that it ...found that no such data requested exists.... although [o]ne of the board members does maintain a log of telephone calls received at that board member&apos;s residence, and the log does reflect one telephone message which was received from a representative of one of the developers. There are no notes regarding the substance of any conversations. In response, Mr. Moilanen requested the identity of the board member who had received the phone call, and the date and time of the call. The District&apos;s response to this request stated that they would not release the data, for two reasons.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                First, the District stated that it was not clear that the data were government data as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7. The District described the telephone log as ...a personal telephone log kept of personal telephone messages maintained by the board member. While it is difficult to draw the line between data which is government data and data which is not...we believe that information of this kind that is originated and maintained at the board member&apos;s private residence is not government data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The second reason the District offered was that ...if the telephone log were found to be government data, we believe that that telephone log would reflect correspondence between an elected official and a constituent under Minn. Stat. section 13.33. As such, the log would contain private data on individuals and need not be disclosed to other parties.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Moilanen&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Michael Kremer, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Kremer of Mr. Moilanen&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Kremer or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 7, 1995, PIPA received a letter of response from Ms. Terri L. Groen, attorney for the District. Ms. Groen reiterated that the District&apos;s reasons for denying access to the data in the telephone log were: (1) it was not clear to the District that the data are government data, and (2) if the data are government data, then they are classified as private under Section 13.33.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Concerning the District&apos;s first reason for denying access, Ms. Groen stated that ...a School Board member received a recorded telephone message at the Board member&apos;s personal residence...[which] was transcribed to a log which is kept by the Board member and other members of the household to make sure that telephone messages are relayed to the appropriate person in the household.... (District&apos;s emphasis.) She further explained that ...the telephone log contains information concerning the board member&apos;s entire family and is viewed by the board member and the board member&apos;s family as a purely private document which is intended to make sure that private telephone messages get relayed to the correct family member....It should also be noted that the information at issue is not maintained by the Board. It does not form a part of the Board&apos;s records in this case and is not necessary to form a complete record pursuant to the Official Records Act. Minn. Stat. section 15.17. This further supports the argument that the information is not government data within the meaning of [Chapter 13.]
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In support of the District&apos;s second reason for denying access to the data in the log entry, Ms. Groen said that if the data were in fact government data, then they would be classified under Section 13.33, which classifies correspondence between elected officials and individuals as private data. In reference to Mr. Moilanen&apos;s objection to the application of this Section on the basis that the log is not correspondence, i.e. written communication, Ms. Groen stated that [t]his interpretation is very narrow and ignores the reality of everyday life in which many communications are commonly run through telecommunications systems (eg. faxes, e-mail, voicemail).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Moilanen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are data contained in a school board member&apos;s telephone log, which pertain to school board business, public government data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  This discussion must begin with an examination of the definition of government data. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, states: [g]overnment data means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. (Section 13.02, subdivision 11 defines political subdivision to include school districts, and any boards created pursuant to law.) Therefore, clearly an employee or official of a school district, such as a school board member, can collect, create, receive, maintain or disseminate government data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District, as part of its assertion that the data in the log were not government data, emphasized that the log is maintained at the board member&apos;s residence. The Commissioner addressed the issue of whether the location of data maintained by an agent of a government entity affects the definition of the term government data in Advisory Opinion 95-008, which stated:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Data maintained by a current or former employee of a government entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, that were created or collected by that person acting as an agent of the government entity, are government data pursuant to Chapter 13, regardless of where the data are maintained.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Therefore, the fact that the data in the telephone log are maintained at the school board member&apos;s residence does not, in itself, mean that the data are not government data. This is particularly important, in light of the increase in job-sharing and telecommuting, as more public employees are working at home and other locations away from the primary workplace. This is particularly the case with an elected official who serves part-time, and who may not even have an office at the place of her/his public employment.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District also asserted that the data ...does not form a part of the Board&apos;s records in this case and is not necessary to form a complete record pursuant to the Official Records Act. Minn. Stat. section 15.17....[which] further supports the argument that the information is not &apos;government data&apos;.... Although Section 15.17 does not provide an official definition of an official record, subdivision 1 states that [a]ll officers and agencies of...school districts...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. It is possible that the telephone log entry, which documents some kind of communication between the school board member and a representative of one of the developers, may in fact be a part of an official record. Regardless, the fact that the data in the telephone log may not be part of an official record has no bearing upon whether the data fall under the broad definition of government data provided in Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The purpose for which the board member uses the telephone log is an important factor in this issue. The use of the term telephone log has crept into modern usage, in what appears to be a variation on the traditional usage of log as a navigational record.&lt;i&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/i&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, provides one definition of log as [a] record of performance.... Presumably, a telephone log exists for the purpose of keeping track of the persons one has called or has received calls from, the time and date of the call, and, depending on the circumstance, the substance of the communication.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In this instance, the question is whether the school board member&apos;s telephone log includes an entry which contains government data. It is reasonable to question whether the log may contain data which reflect official school board business, given that membership on a school board is typically not full-time, and it is common for board members to conduct school board business at their residences or other locations which are not District property. However, the issue is complicated by the varying descriptions provided by the District regarding the purposes for which the telephone log is maintained. In the initial explanation provided to Mr. Moilanen, the District described the log as ...a personal telephone log kept of personal telephone messages &lt;u&gt;maintained by the board member&lt;/u&gt;. (Emphasis added.) In the information provided to the Commissioner, the District described it as ...a log which is kept by the Board member and other members of the household to make sure that telephone messages are relayed to the appropriate person in the household....
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the log is maintained by the school board member in part to log messages which concern her/his role as a school board member, then it would appear that the data in the log which reflect school board business are government data. However, if the log is a message communication system used by a family to make sure that all family members receive their telephone messages, then it would seem to lack the critical standard of use by the school board member to keep track of her/his phone conversations relating to personal or school board business.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The District revealed the existence of the entry in the telephone log in response to Mr. Moilanen&apos;s request for data relating to meetings between board members and representatives of the developers. If this were a purely personal call, it is puzzling why the District revealed it in the context of his data request. It did not identify any other calls to the board member recorded in the log. The District&apos;s acknowledgement to Mr. Moilanen that the school board member logged a call from a representative of a developer, who had business before the school board, suggests there is some connection between the phone call and the board member&apos;s official role, and may raise some concern for the accountability of an elected official to the public. Accountability of elected officials is one of the overall objectives of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that is accomplished by the strong presumption of public access provided in Section 13.03, and the legislature&apos;s broad definition of government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     If the data are government data, then the remaining question is whether they are data classified under Section 13.33, Elected Officials; Correspondence; Private Data, which states: [c]orrespondence between individuals and elected officials is private data on individuals, but may be made public by either the sender or the recipient. The legislature did not define correspondence, therefore guidance on the language used is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in&lt;i&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/i&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, correspondence is defined as [c]ommunication by the exchange of letters or [t]he letters written or received.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Groen stated that an interpretation which is limited to written communication ...is very narrow and ignores the reality of everyday life in which many communications are commonly run through telecommunications systems.... It may be the case that the legislature, in light of the development and adoption of new communications technologies, may need to reconsider the language of this Section. However, the language as it stands is the language which guides the Commissioner. Data in a telephone log, which document the name of an individual and the time of the telephone call, are not correspondence within the plain meaning of Section 13.33.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Moilanen is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Under the very narrow facts presented, including the fact that the District acknowledged the existence of the telephone log entry, the limited data at issue, i.e. the name and telephone number of an individual whose business might be affected by the board member&apos;s decisions, and perhaps the content of the telephone message, the data contained in the particular entry in the school board member&apos;s telephone log appear to be government data. An entry in a school board member&apos;s telephone log, which documents the name of an individual and the time of a telephone call, is not correspondence within the plain meaning of Section 13.33. Absent any other classification, the data in the telephone log entry appear to be public government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 13, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267620</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Correspondence with elected officials</Title><Id>266268</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.601</Title><Id>379308</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Accountability of government</Title><Id>267148</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Presumption of openness</Title><Id>266912</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:03Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-012</Title><title>Opinion 95 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267580&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-13T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the City deny access to public data based on its claim that the data are involved in litigation between the requestors and an entity which is not part of the City?
In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 13, may the City limit public access to data to times when both a city attorney and the fire department chief are available, only on certain days of the week, and only to one or two hours at a time?
Is it reasonable for the City to deny access to public government data on the grounds that the data have been &quot;mislaid&quot; or destroyed?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 13, 1995; City of Bloomington</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 22, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Anthony J. DeAntoni, in which he described his efforts to gain access to certain data which are maintained by the City of Bloomington (City).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. DeAntoni included an excerpt of correspondence from the City regarding his request for access to data about the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association (BFDRA). In its response to Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request, the City stated that it had provided him with ...substantial information on the BFDRA in the past and, due to the pending litigation between the BFDRA and [Mr. DeAntoni, the City was] concerned about providing this information. The City told Mr. DeAntoni to ...make a motion to obtain the information to the judge assigned to the [case].... Mr. DeAntoni, in his request for an opinion, questioned the City&apos;s position, and also asked the Commissioner to address certain conditions he said the City had imposed on public access to data. These issues are described in the Issues section below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington City Manager. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Bernhardson of Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Bernhardson or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On March 3, 1995, PIPA received a response letter from Ms. Sheila M. Happe, Associate City Attorney, in which she stated that the issues raised by Mr. DeAntoni were moot, for the following reasons. Regarding the first issue, she said that the City had ...responded to several requests for a significant amount of data [from Mr. DeAntoni and an associate, Mr. Wolter]....the information they requested was similar to requests that they have made over the past three years and is information which we have already supplied them. Ms. Happe further stated that ...since they were involved in litigation over this data with the [BFDRA], the City requested them to make a motion to the judge assigned to the case in Hennepin County District Court to authorize us to provide this information. Ms. Happe then stated that following receipt of correspondence and conversation between attorneys for the BFDRA and Mr. DeAntoni, ...the City has provided and will continue to provide...the public data that they are requesting....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                As to the second issue, Ms. Happe said that Mr. Wolter ...asked to review a lot of data regarding the Bloomington Fire Department and the separate entity - the Membership of the Bloomington Fire Department. It is necessary for [the fire chief] or one of his representatives to authorize release of the records of the [Membership] as the records are not City records. Furthermore, [the chief] or one of his representatives are needed to be available when Mr. Wolter reviews the data to adequately answer questions and to insure the security of original records.... Ms. Happe then stated that the fire chief asked her to attend the meetings during which the data were inspected. The City manager also asked her to ...attend as his representative to deal with requests that were related to City data. She also stated that Mr. Wolter ...did not complain that I attended these meetings and appeared satisfied that I was there to answer questions from him. Ms. Happe also said that contrary to Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s assertion, no time constraints were placed upon Mr. Wolter&apos;s access to the data, but some of the meetings were fairly short because Mr. Wolter needed to leave.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The third issue concerns access to records which have been lost or destroyed. Ms. Happe said that the data ...consists of the records of the separate entity, [the Membership] and is not government data, nor is it subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02 Subd. 7. Furthermore, data that no longer exists cannot be provided.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. DeAntoni asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, may the City deny access to public data based on its claim that the data are involved in litigation between the requestors and an entity which is not part of the City?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 13, may the City limit public access to data to times when both a city attorney and the fire department chief are available, only on certain days of the week, and only to one or two hours at a time?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is it reasonable for the City to deny access to public government data on the grounds that the data have been mislaid or destroyed?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The issues raised may be addressed by examining particular provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that [u]pon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning. Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data to mean ...all data collected, created, &lt;i&gt;received, maintained &lt;/i&gt;or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. (Emphasis added.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As to Issue 1, Ms. Happe asserted that the City had already responded to similar requests for a considerable volume of data. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, the City has an obligation to provide access to the public data it receives and maintains. The only basis upon which access to government data may be denied is that the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification or federal law. The fact that a person may have already gained access to the data, or that the request was for a significant amount of data is not a basis for denying access to public data. The fact that the data may be involved in litigation between parties other than the City is also not a statutory basis upon which to deny access. Although the City now appears to have agreed to provide access to the data, the reasons Ms. Happe offered for the City&apos;s earlier position do not constitute a basis for denial of access to data which is allowed under Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The first part of Issue 2 concerns whether for purposes of inspection of public data the City may require the presence of a city attorney and the presence of the fire chief. Ms. Happe stated that she was asked by the fire chief to be present while the data were inspected. She also said that the City manager had asked her to ...attend as his representative to deal with requests that were related to City data.... and that she was there to answer questions from Mr. Wolter.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear whether Ms. Happe was acting in this case as the responsible authority&apos;s designee. If so, then she had the responsibility to ensure that the requirements of Section 13.03, which governs public access to government data, were fulfilled. Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states: ...[t]he responsible authority... shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states: ...[t]he responsible authority... shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There was nothing in the information provided to the Commissioner which indicated that Mr. Wolter requested that a City attorney be present while he inspected data. It is not clear if it is the City&apos;s consistent practice to make data available for public inspection only at times when a City attorney can be present. If the attorney&apos;s presence is required in order to protect the interests of the City whenever any citizen inspects public data, it appears that the City may need to review its policies and procedures to determine if they meet the standards of provision of reasonable, prompt and appropriate public access to government data, as set forth in Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Happe stated that the fire chief or his representative had to authorize release of the data, and had to be present during inspection ...to adequately answer questions and to insure security of original records. The data in question are data maintained by the City. The responsible authority for the City is the individual designated to be responsible for the City&apos;s data practices, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 16. The City has not informed the Commissioner that the fire chief is handling this data request as the City&apos;s data practices designee. Presumably the fire chief is not the City&apos;s responsible authority. It is therefore puzzling why the fire chief must authorize access to and ensure security of government data maintained by the City, when those are responsibilities of the responsible authority. Again, there was nothing in the information provided to the Commissioner which indicated that Mr. Wolter requested that the fire chief be present while he inspected data in case he had any questions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Presumably the City has developed the procedures necessary to ensure that it is in compliance with the public access provisions of Chapter 13, including procedures for providing answers to citizen&apos;s questions. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion #95-006, which also involved the City, for a detailed discussion of a government entity&apos;s affirmative obligation to make the determinations necessary to provide prompt access to public data.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There appears to be a factual dispute regarding the issue of whether the City may impose certain time limitations upon public access to government data. The City said it has not imposed the constraints indicated by Mr. DeAntoni. In light of this dispute, the Commissioner will not comment on this aspect of the City&apos;s practice. However, the City must provide reasonable access to public data. If it were limiting access only to certain days of the week, or to one or two hours at a time, and only when certain high level employees of the City can be present, clearly this practice would not be considered reasonable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Regarding Issue 3, Ms. Happe stated that the data are the records of a separate entity, and are not government data. (The Commissioner addressed the issue of the status of data maintained by the BFDRA in an earlier Advisory Opinion, #94-043. Please see that Opinion for further details and discussion.) However, as noted above, the data are government data if they are received or maintained by the City, regardless of the source of the data. In fact, the sources of a great deal of government data are individuals or entities which are not state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. For purposes of Chapter 13, the source of the data is not a determining factor with respect to public government data. That is, in part, why the definition of government data includes the word received. Apparently at least some of the data sought by Mr. DeAntoni and Mr. Wolter have been received and are maintained by the City. If so, they are government data, pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 7. There is nothing in the information provided to the Commissioner to indicate that the data are classified as anything other than public, and therefore the City has an obligation to make these data available for public access pursuant to Section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, Ms. Happe stated that the data no longer exist and therefore cannot be provided. It is not entirely clear in this case if the data are no longer maintained by the City but exist elsewhere, or if the data were utterly destroyed. While it is true that access to data no longer in existence cannot be provided, if the data are official records of the City and were not destroyed pursuant to Section 138.17, then the City is obliged to pursue avenues available to it to restore the data. (See Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion #94-035 for further discussion of this issue.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. DeAntoni is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 1
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the City may not deny access to public data on the basis that the data are involved in litigation between the requestors and an entity which is not part of the City.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 2
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the City&apos;s limitation upon public access to data to times when both a city attorney and the fire department chief are available does not appear to be reasonable. If the City were to limit public access to government data to certain days of the week, or to one or two hours at a time, that would not be a reasonable practice.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 3
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , it is not reasonable for the City to deny access to public government data on the grounds that the data have been mislaid or destroyed if the City has an obligation under Section 138.17 to maintain the data, and it is possible for the City to restore the data by obtaining them from another entity.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 13, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267580</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Designee appointed by Responsible Authority</Title><Id>266421</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire relief associations - subject to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266651</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Includes data not created by maintaining entity</Title><Id>266560</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-011</Title><title>Opinion 95 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267366&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does a member of the public have the right, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to inspect free of charge, records of a city relating to pending and levied assessments?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 10, 1995; City of Blaine</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 21, 1995, PIPA received a written request for an opinion dated February 15, 1995, from Paul Garvie in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on the issue cited in the Issue section below. Attached to this request were copies of two letters. The first letter, dated January 4, 1995, is from Mr. Garvie to Paul Ostrow, an attorney for the City of Blaine. In this letter, Mr. Garvie described several ways in which Blaine was restricting his access to view records relating to pending and levied assessment information. The second letter, dated February 8, 1995, is a response to Mr. Garvie from Mr. Ostrow.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Garvie&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Poss, City Manager of the City of Blaine. The purposes of this letter, dated February 22, 1995, were to inform Mr. Poss of Mr. Garvie&apos;s request, to ask him or Blaine&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 2, 1995, PIPA received a response via facsimile from Paul Ostrow, attorney for Blaine.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In his correspondence to PIPA, Mr. Garvie included a copy of a letter he had written to Mr. Ostrow. In reading this letter, it is apparent that Mr. Garvie had attempted to inspect data maintained by Blaine relating to pending and levied assessments. Mr. Garvie noted that he was advised by Blaine that, ...[he] cannot look up any of this information [himself], that the City will do this for [him] if [he drops] off a list on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, that the list will be available the following Monday, Wednesday or Friday, and that there will be a $5.00 charge per parcel. [He has] also been advised that if [he needs] the information the same day, the charge will be $10.00 per parcel.... Mr. Garvie asserted that because the data he seeks are public data, Blaine&apos;s policy of charging for inspection of public data is in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The essence of Mr. Ostrow&apos;s February 8, 1995, written response to Mr. Garvie is very similar to the response PIPA received from Mr. Ostrow. Mr. Ostrow states that the actual issue in this matter is whether a commercial enterprise is entitled to benefit, without any cost to it, from the enterprise&apos;s access to a system and data base compiled by a publicly funded municipality. He added, ...We believe that the imposition of a reasonable charge for this information is entirely consistent with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3 which allows reasonable charges for information having commercial value if the data base or a system is developed with a significant expenditure of public funds....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Ostrow also noted that if Mr. Garvie was simply viewing the data in question, ...the Assessments Clerk for the City of Blaine would be removed from her work station while waiting for Mr. Garvie to complete his search. In the alternative, the City would be required to purchase a new computer and equip a work station at public expense for the private benefit of Mr. Garvie or other commercial enterprises. Finally, requiring access to the City&apos;s data base rather than allowing the Assessments Clerk to obtain the information and provide copies for a minimal charge could threaten the security of the information system....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Garvie asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does a member of the public have the right, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, to inspect free of charge, records of a city relating to pending and levied assessments? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  There appears to be no dispute regarding the classification of the data Mr. Garvie is seeking. Mr. Garvie asserts that special assessment information is public government data and Mr. Ostrow, on behalf of the City of Blaine, makes no attempt to challenge this assertion. Indeed, based on the existing presumption in Chapter 13 that all government data are public unless otherwise classified, and given that assessment information does not appear to be classified anywhere as not public, the data sought by Mr. Garvie are public government data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Language in the first paragraph of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides the public with the right to inspect public government data at no cost.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Upon request to a responsible authority or designees, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data&apos;s meaning. &lt;u&gt;If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect the data.&lt;/u&gt;[Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the language in Section 13.03, subdivision 3, it is clear that an individual inspecting public government data may not be charged for that inspection.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, Mr. Ostrow arrives at a different conclusion by applying the language in the second paragraph of Section 13,03, subdivision 3. That paragraph relates to individuals requesting copies of public government data that have commercial value.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When a request under this subdivision involves any person&apos;s &lt;u&gt;receipt of copies&lt;/u&gt;of public government data that has commercial value and is a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. [Emphasis added.] &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Indeed, the statute is clear that a government entity has the authority to charge, in addition to the permissible copying fee, an extra amount for copies of public government data if the data have commercial value and are a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, device, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the flaw in Blaine&apos;s position is that the charge described in Section 13.03, subdivision 3, can be invoked only when a person requests copies of the data. Mr. Garvie has not requested copies of the data to which he seeks access. He has asked only to inspect the data. Because there is no provision in Chapter 13 permitting government entities to charge fees for inspection of public data, it is not appropriate for Blaine to charge Mr. Garvie a fee to view Blaine&apos;s special assessment data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Finally, Mr. Ostrow&apos;s comments about the difficulties Blaine will experience if it permits inspection of the assessment data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 and 2, government entities are responsible for keeping records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use, and for establishing procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. If the policies and procedures developed by the City of Blaine for inspecting certain public government data are, as Mr. Ostrow suggests, cost-prohibitive and lacking in security, it is within Blaine&apos;s purview to alter its policies and procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Garvie is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities subject to Chapter 13 may not charge a fee for inspection of public government data. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 10, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267366</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Free of charge</Title><Id>266755</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-010</Title><title>Opinion 95 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267458&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-08T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is X entitled to gain access to data maintained about him by the Olmsted County Community Services Department?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 8, 1995; Olmsted County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 16, 1995, the Commissioner received a letter from X, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Olmsted County Community Services Department (County), and in which he requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below. Attached to his letter were copies of correspondence between X and the County, in which he requested access to data about him concerning three reports of incidents of alleged maltreatment of vulnerable adults, made in June and July 1994, which involved the program that X managed at that time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X was given a Tennessen Warning, i.e., the notice requirement contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, before being interviewed by staff of the County and the State Department of Human Services (DHS) during the investigation of the alleged incidents. X subsequently requested access to private data about himself maintained by the County which specifically relate to that investigation. Mr. James Johnson, the County&apos;s data practices designee, in a letter to X dated February 6, 1995, stated that he had ...examined the materials and information contained within case files at [the County].... and had concluded that X had gained access to all of the data to which he was entitled, as he had received summary reports from DHS, and as he was not the subject of the investigation.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. James Johnson. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 1995, were to inform Mr. Johnson of X&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 28, 1995, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Johnson, dated February 22, 1995, in which he stated the County&apos;s three reasons for denying X access to the data. First, Mr. Johnson stated that X was the manager of the program, not the director of the agency ...which might have entitled him to additional information. Second, X had received two public reports from DHS, the investigative memoranda, which Mr. Johnson said he believed ...had adequately answered [X&apos;s] questions of findings and dates of notification as well as given him enough details of the investigation.... Third, Mr. Johnson stated that County personnel involved in the investigation told him that ...X&apos;s involvement was merely incidental to the investigation itself. For these reasons, Mr. Johnson stated that ...Olmsted County has acted in an appropriate manner regarding X&apos;s request for data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is X entitled to gain access to data maintained about him by the Olmsted County Community Services Department? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  This issue can be addressed by examining particular sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 13 and 626. According to the County, the data sought by X were collected under Section 626.557, which provides, among other things, for reports of maltreatment of vulnerable adults and the handling of those reports by licensing, local welfare and law enforcement agencies.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subdivision 12 of that Section provides guidance on the handling of records produced in investigations of maltreatment. Clause (a) states that licensing agencies shall prepare an investigation memorandum which is accessible to the public, which shall contain ...a complete review of the agency&apos;s investigation...., and which protects the identities of the reporter, the vulnerable adult, and to the extent possible, the alleged perpetrator and those interviewed during the investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This subdivision further states that, [a]fter the licensing agency&apos;s investigation is complete, the data on individuals collected and maintained shall be private data on individuals... [excluding the name of the reporter].... Private data are defined under Section 13.02, subdivision 12, as data which are not public and which are accessible to the data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Practically speaking, data collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.557 might include data about any of the following persons: the alleged perpetrator, the reporter, the alleged victim of the abuse or neglect, the caretaker of the vulnerable adult, and other individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, the question is whether X has been provided with appropriate access by the County to the data he requested. Mr. Johnson stated that because X had received copies of the investigative memoranda, and because some of the data he asked for were contained in those reports, the County had no obligation to provide him access to those data. In his correspondence to the County in this matter, X framed some of his data requests in the form of questions for which he sought answers. It is therefore understandable that there may have been some confusion on the part of the County regarding its obligation to provide appropriate access to the data. However, the fact that some of the data sought by X may have been contained in the public documents he received from DHS does not obviate the County&apos;s obligation to provide X, upon his request, access to all of the public and private data it maintains about him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears to be the County&apos;s position that because X was neither the alleged perpetrator nor a vulnerable adult, he was not the subject of the data to which he seeks access. X stated that he received a Tennessen Warning before he was interviewed as part of the vulnerable adult investigation. Tennessen Warning is the common term used for the notice requirement contained in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, which a government entity subject to Chapter 13 must give individuals when they are asked to provide private or confidential data about themselves.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Presumably, X would not have been given a Tennessen Warning if he were not asked to provide private or confidential data about himself to the investigators. The County did not assert that the data in question are confidential data about X. As noted above, pursuant to Section 626.557, subdivision 12, the data collected in the course of a vulnerable adult investigation are private data after the investigation is complete. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the County is maintaining private data about X. The fact that he is neither the alleged perpetrator nor a vulnerable adult is immaterial to the question of whether the County collected and still maintains private data on X in connection with its investigation.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that [u]pon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data.... X has a right of access to public and private government data about him. Upon his request, a government entity which maintains data about him has an obligation to provide him with access to the data he seeks, regardless of whether he may already have gained access to some of the data elsewhere.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The County did not provide to the Commissioner information which supports its position that the data sought by X are not data about him. X is entitled to gain access to public and private data maintained about him by the Olmsted County Community Services Department. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 8, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267458</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed of existence/classification</Title><Id>266499</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Vulnerable adults</Title><Id>266695</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-21T16:11:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-009</Title><title>Opinion 95 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267693&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-03-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether the dissemination of data about X&apos;s son was in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 2, 1995; School District 877 (Buffalo)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On February 9, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated February 6, 1995, from the X&apos;s. The X&apos;s letter included a discussion of an incident regarding their son, a student at Buffalo High School, during which they believe an inappropriate dissemination of data occurred. Also in this letter, the X&apos;s requested an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to the X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. M. Darrell Miller, who was thought to be the current Superintendent of Buffalo School District # 877, hereinafter referred to as District #877. The purposes of this letter, dated February 13, 1995, were to inform Dr. Miller of the X&apos;s request, to ask him or District #877&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On February 21, 1995, PIPA received a response dated February 16, 1995, from Tom Nelson, the new Superintendent of District #877. In his letter, Mr. Nelson noted that he had attached a copy of a memo written by Mary Loberg, Assistant Principal of Buffalo Senior High School, in which she explains her actions regarding the incident in question.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. The X&apos;s son was suspended, for three days, from attending both classes and extracurricular activities at Buffalo High School. During that time, he was present at a non-district hockey practice which had been scheduled to begin after a Buffalo High School varsity hockey game, at the same ice arena. Ms. Loberg was a school supervisor at the varsity hockey game.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Apparently, before the X&apos;s son&apos;s hockey practice began, Ms. Loberg confronted the X&apos;s son and accused him of violating the terms of his suspension. As part of that confrontation, Ms. Loberg apparently disclosed some of the details regarding the suspension to Thomas Ahrens and Rory Zitur, coaches of the X&apos;s son&apos;s hockey team.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, the X&apos;s asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Whether the dissemination of data about X&apos;s son was in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In analyzing the X&apos;s question, it is first necessary to discuss the classification of the data in dispute. The X&apos;s son is a student of a public school. Data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions about students are classified in Section 13.32. Subdivision 1(a) of Section 13.32 defines educational data as, ...data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student.... The word student is defined in subdivision 1(b) of Section 13.32 as, ...an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered...at a public educational agency or institution.... Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32 states that except in certain specific situations, none of which have been asserted by Ms. Loberg or the X&apos;s, educational data are private data and therefore, are not accessible to the public. Given this statutory language, it is clear that any data relating to the X&apos;s son&apos;s suspension are private data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her memo, Ms. Loberg appears to defend the dissemination of data to Mr. Ahrens by explaining that he was, ...another school official working at the hockey game (the trainer).... However, she offers no explanation as to why this particular fact would authorize him to gain access to the data. Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.0400, subpart 2, describes who within a given government entity may have access to private data.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Access to private data shall be available only to the following: the subject of such data, as limited by any applicable statute or federal law; &lt;u&gt;individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access&lt;/u&gt;; entities and agencies as determined by the responsible authority who are authorized by statute, including Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, or federal law to gain access to that specific data; and entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject. [Emphasis added.]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the language in the Rules, the fact that Mr. Ahrens is, in the words of District #877, a school official is not, per se, sufficient grounds for him to have access to any private data about a student enrolled in the school district. If Mr. Ahrens&apos; work assignment reasonably required him to have access to private data, then, according to Minnesota law, access would be legal. However, in the case of this opinion, District #877 makes no attempt to demonstrate how it is that Mr. Ahrens&apos; work assignment reasonably requires him to have access to data about the X&apos;s son&apos;s suspension. Therefore, it seems that disclosure of this information to Mr. Ahrens is not authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and its implementing rules.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In relating how Mr. Zitur became informed of details surrounding the X&apos;s son&apos;s suspension, Ms. Loberg, in her memo, states the following, ...At some point in the conversation, his [the X&apos;s son&apos;s] other coach came up, introduced himself as the other coach, and he began to listen in. I did not talk with him but continued directing my conversation to Dr. Ahrens.... Ms. Loberg provides no explanation as to how she apparently concluded it was appropriate to disclose private educational data about the X&apos;s son in the presence of Mr. Zitur, who appears to have no connection whatsoever to the school district. Given that District #877 did not demonstrate why Mr. Zitur should have access to the data, and that the X&apos;s assert neither Mr. Zitur nor Mr. Ahrens is a district employee, the Commissioner is left to conclude there is no reason, under Chapter 13, as to why Mr. Zitur should have access to private educational concerning the X&apos;s son.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by the X&apos;s is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The information relating to the X&apos;s son&apos;s suspension is private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Given that Minnesota law specifies the individuals and entities permitted to gain access to private data, and that District #877 provided no supporting evidence that either Mr. Ahrens or Mr. Zitur are authorized to gain access to private data, the dissemination of the data by Ms. Loberg is not authorized by Chapter 13 or its implementing rules. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 2, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267693</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access</Title><Id>266340</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)</Title><Id>266620</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-008</Title><title>Opinion 95 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267794&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-02-15T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When an employee, or former employee, or an agent, or former agent, of an entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 possesses work-related data outside of the workplace, are those data government data as defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 7?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 1995; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 26, 1995, the Commissioner received a letter from Dave M. Johnson, Director of Services for the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department in which he requested an opinion on the following issue: when an employee or agent of an entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 possesses work-related data outside of the workplace, are those data government data as defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 7?
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter, Mr. Johnson made the distinction that any such data maintained by an employee or agent were not data that had been obtained by the employee or agent under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, Access to Government Data, or Section 13.04, Rights of Subjects of Data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Johnson also noted that the Police Department recently instituted a policy that requires employees who leave employment of the Department to return all government data in their possession or control.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When an employee, or former employee, or an agent, or former agent, of an entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 possesses work-related data outside of the workplace, are those data government data as defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 7? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  To answer Mr. Johnson&apos;s question, it is first necessary to examine the definition of the term government data in Chapter 13. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7, states that, ...all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. Based on this definition, any data created by a current employee, or maintained or disseminated by a current or former employee of a government entity are considered government data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The focus of Mr. Johnson&apos;s question is whether the location at which an employee creates, maintains, or disseminates data affects the definition of the term government data. For example, if a current or former employee maintains government data outside of the traditional workplace, are the data still government data? The answer to this question is yes. Government data are government data regardless of where the data reside. If an employee works at home, any work-related data s/he creates, maintains, or disseminates are still government data and therefore, are subject to the requirements and regulations of Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Each government entity is responsible for assuring that data maintained away from the primary workplace are handled in compliance with Chapter 13. While neither Chapter 13 nor Rules Chapter 1205 provides any specific guidelines for this process, Section 13.05, subdivision 5, does address the issue in an indirect fashion. The language charges the government entity&apos;s responsible authority with establishing procedures to assure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which the data were collected and also with establishing appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It seems reasonable to conclude that if an entity has established and is implementing the aforementioned procedures and safeguards, the likelihood of a former employee engaging in an unauthorized possession of government data would be diminished. Furthermore, if an employee or former employee commits a violation of the entity&apos;s policy, the employer would then have some recourse.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Johnson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data maintained by a current or former employee of a government entity subject to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, that were created or collected by that person acting as an agent of the government entity, are government data pursuant to Chapter 13, regardless of where the data are maintained.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine s. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 15, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267794</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Complete and current 13.05</Title><Id>266530</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)</Title><Id>266303</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:01Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-007</Title><title>Opinion 95 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267344&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-02-15T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Bemidji State University have the authority to require faculty members to provide their Social Security numbers and birth dates for the purposes of student registration, or is this a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
Does the Bemidji State University have an obligation to provide faculty members with the notice requirement (&quot;Tennessen Warning&quot;) detailed in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of faculty Social Security numbers and birth dates for purposes of registering students? If Tennessen Warnings are not given, what is the effect on BSU&apos;s ability to use faculty members&apos; Social Security numbers and birth dates in its student registration system?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 15, 1995; Bemidji State University</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 4, 1995, from Mr. Alexander Nadesan, a professor at Bemidji State University (BSU), in which he requested an advisory opinion of the Commissioner. Mr. Nadesan&apos;s request concerned aspects of BSU&apos;s student registration system. In order to clarify some of the information in the documents he provided, and to discuss the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion authority, PIPA staff had subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Nadesan.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 19, 1995, PIPA received a second letter from Mr. Nadesan, dated January 12, 1995, in which he restated his request for an opinion. (After subsequent telephone conversations, in which the information provided by Mr. Nadesan was further clarified, the issues were identified on January 24, 1995.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Nadesan described the operation of BSU&apos;s new Touchtone Registration System, and expressed his concern with the system&apos;s reliance upon faculty birth dates, and faculty and student Social Security numbers. Mr. Nadesan asked whether the use of his Social Security number and birth date for the purposes of registering BSU students was a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and asked whether BSU was required to give him a Tennessen Warning, the notice required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, regarding this practice. Mr. Nadesan raised other issues concerning BSU&apos;s treatment of Social Security numbers, and after clarification with PIPA staff, requested an opinion on the issues detailed in the Issues section below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Nadesan&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. M. James Bensen, President of BSU. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Bensen of Mr. Nadesan&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Bensen or BSU&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Nadesan and Mr. Bensen were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On February 3, 1995, PIPA received a response from Ms. Linda L. Baer, Senior Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. In her letter, Ms. Baer stated that BSU&apos;s registration system uses faculty members&apos; Social Security numbers and Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) ...to insure security on a restricted system. Ms. Baer stated that BSU&apos;s records office assigns the initial PIN, which is the faculty member&apos;s birth date. PINs may be changed by faculty, and Ms. Baer said that the directions provided to faculty members recommended that the PIN be changed to ...a more personal and more confidential number immediately. She also stated that [i]f a faculty member wished to have their original PIN assigned by the Records Office as something other than birthday and year, that wish is accommodated.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Baer further stated that ...as the means by which the security on the registration system is maintained.... Social Security numbers and PINs are ...obviously NOT information intended to be given to a student or another university employee not involved in the registration process.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Baer also commented on several concerns which Mr. Nadesan had raised in his original request, which will not be addressed in this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nadesan asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does Bemidji State University have the authority to require faculty members to provide their Social Security numbers and birth dates for the purposes of student registration, or is this a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does the Bemidji State University have an obligation to provide faculty members with the notice requirement ( Tennessen Warning ) detailed in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of faculty Social Security numbers and birth dates for purposes of registering students? If Tennessen Warnings are not given, what is the effect on BSU&apos;s ability to use faculty members&apos; Social Security numbers and birth dates in its student registration system?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Chapter 13 contains specific provisions that regulate a government entity&apos;s authority to collect and use private data. In the case of Social Security numbers, provisions of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, are also implicated. The discussion of the requirements of the Privacy Act concerning a government entity&apos;s use of Social Security numbers follows the discussion of the relevant provisions of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to the documents provided by both Mr. Nadesan and Ms. Baer, BSU&apos;s student registration system relies upon faculty members to enter their Social Security numbers and PINs by touchtone telephone, along with the student&apos;s Social Security number and course registration information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Nadesan asked whether BSU&apos;s requirement that faculty members supply the records office with personal data invoked the notice provision of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, commonly known as the Tennessen Warning. This provision states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data.... &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Mr. Nadesan&apos;s Social Security number and birth date, as collected, maintained and used by BSU, are personnel data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data ...means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of...a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision.... Certain personnel data are classified as public under subdivision 2; all other personnel data, including Social Security numbers and birth dates, are private, pursuant to subdivision 4. Therefore, Mr. Nadesan&apos;s Social Security number and birth date, as collected, maintained and used by BSU, are private personnel data, which means that BSU must give a Tennessen Warning concerning the use of these data at the time they are collected. (Section 13.43 notwithstanding, the Legislature had classified Social Security numbers as private prior to the enactment of Chapter 13. It has further underscored its intention regarding classification of these data through its 1994 enactment of Section 13.49, which classifies Social Security numbers as private.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    In order to evaluate BSU&apos;s obligations regarding its use and dissemination of faculty Social Security numbers for student registration, it is also necessary to review provisions of Section 13.05, which detail the means by which a government entity may obtain authority to use private data in a manner which was not included in a Tennessen Warning, and which place further restrictions upon the collection and use of private data. Subdivision 4 states that [p]rivate or confidential data on an individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated...for any purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with Section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    The exceptions to the requirement that private data may be used and disseminated only as stated to an individual at the time of collection are when: (1) the data were collected prior to August 1, 1975 and are used for the originally-stated purpose, or a purpose specifically authorized by the Commissioner; (2) subsequent to the data collection, a state, local or federal law specifically authorizes the use or dissemination; (3) the Commissioner specifically authorizes the use; (4) the individual gives her/his informed consent; or (5) at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in Section 471.705, subdivision 1d.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                     Section 13.05, subdivision 3, further limits a government entity&apos;s collection of all data, and the use of private and confidential data to ...that necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the Legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government. If the collection or use is necessary, and the data are private or confidential, then the entity must give the individual a Tennessen Warning. When the provisions of Sections 13.04 and 13.05 are read together, it is clear that a government entity may use and disseminate private data only as stated to an individual at the time of collection, unless one of the exceptions noted above applies. If the entity fails to give a Tennessen Warning, then the data may not be used for &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; purpose.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Therefore, in order for BSU to have implemented a registration system which relies upon the use of private data, i.e. faculty Social Security numbers and birth dates, it was obligated first to determine that it had authority to do so, and then to assure that it established procedures to exercise that authority properly, in accordance with the requirements contained in Sections 13.04 and 13.05.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Professor Nadesan stated that he did not receive a Tennessen Warning concerning this use of private data about him, and he has not indicated that he has given BSU his informed consent. BSU was invited to comment on whether it has provided faculty members with Tennessen Warnings concerning this issue, but in its response to the Commissioner, it chose not to. Ms. Baer did say that a faculty member could request that the original PIN assigned by the records office could be something other than the birth date, but did not indicate that faculty members are notified of that right. BSU also did not provide information as to what statutory authority it relied upon to establish this practice.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Mr. Nadesan also asked the Commissioner to comment on the relevance of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, to BSU&apos;s Touchtone Registration System. In general, the Commissioner is reluctant to address federal law in her opinions. However, for educational and information purposes in this instance, which concerns Social Security numbers, she has concluded that it is necessary for her to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    The relevant provision, Section 7* of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of 1974, reads as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;TOP&quot;&gt;(a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual&apos;s refusal to disclose his Social Security account number. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody /&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;TOP&quot;&gt;(2) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to-
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                          (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                           (B) the disclosure of a Social Security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;tbody /&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;TOP&quot;&gt;(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his Social Security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    (*Public Law 93-579 was codified at 5 U.S.C. section 552a. Section 7, as quoted above, was not incorporated into the U.S.Code.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Congress has enacted very limited exceptions to the constraints it has imposed upon government entities&apos; authority to require individuals to provide their Social Security numbers. An individual may be denied ...a right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual&apos;s refusal to disclose his Social Security account number... only in very narrow circumstances. The most notable are contained in a 1976 amendment to the Social Security Act, which authorizes states and their political subdivisions to require individuals to provide their Social Security numbers for the purposes of the administration of any tax, general public assistance, or driver&apos;s license or motor vehicle registration, regardless of whether the number was used for those purposes prior to January 1, 1975 (42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii).)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that BSU has implemented a student registration system which is dependent upon faculty and student Social Security numbers for its operation. It appears that BSU&apos;s practice amounts to a mandatory requirement that faculty and students provide their Social Security numbers for this purpose. There does not appear to be authority within the language of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the 1976 amendment to the Social Security Act noted above, for BSU to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition, Public Law 93-579, Section 7 (b) clearly imposes upon state and local government agencies an affirmative obligation to apprise individuals who have been asked to supply their Social Security numbers of certain information. In particular, individuals must be informed of the uses to which the number will be put, and whether the disclosure is voluntary or mandatory. This notice must be given whenever the government entity requests that an individual provide her/his Social Security number; the obligation contained in this Section is not qualified in any way. As a state government entity, BSU has an affirmative obligation, pursuant to state and federal law, to provide proper notice to individuals from whom it requests Social Security numbers, and has had this obligation for more than twenty years.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The impetus for government entities to employ the Social Security number as a universal identifier is increasing. Both the Minnesota Legislature and the U.S. Congress have addressed in statute and law their concerns in this regard, and their intention that individuals be able to make informed decisions when asked to disclose their Social Security numbers to agents of government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon any Minnesota government entity, when contemplating the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier, as a security access code, or for other purposes, to address the requirements of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, and the Legislature&apos;s classification of Social Security numbers as private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nadesan is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 1,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                it does not appear that Bemidji State University has the statutory authority to require faculty members to provide their Social Security numbers and birth dates for the purposes of student registration. This practice/system also raises significant issues under the federal Privacy Act which should be addressed by BSU.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to Issue 2,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                Bemidji State University has an affirmative obligation to provide faculty members with the notice requirement detailed in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, concerning the collection and use of faculty Social Security numbers and birth dates, which are private data, for purposes of registering students. If Tennessen Warnings have not been given, BSU may not properly use faculty members&apos; Social Security numbers and birth dates in its student registration system.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine M. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 15, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267344</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4)</Title><Id>266599</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice</Title><Id>266419</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required</Title><Id>266362</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:46:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-006</Title><title>Opinion 95 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267434&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-02-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Has the City of Bloomington violated provisions of Minnesota law that require government entities to respond to requests for access to data within a certain time frame?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 2, 1995; City of Bloomington</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On January 13, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Charles W. Wolter, in which he described his efforts to gain access to certain accounting data of the Bloomington Fire Department, which is maintained by the City of Bloomington, hereinafter City. Specifically, Mr. Wolter wrote that on December 23, 1994, he requested access to ...all account ledgers and checkbook ledgers [1988-1994] along with supporting invoices and cancelled checks [and]...all Bloomington Fire Department operating procedures and other...documents used to support the maintenance of these account(s).
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Wolter&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington City Manager. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Bernhardson of Mr. Wolter&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Bernhardson or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On January 23, 1995, PIPA received a response letter from Ms. Sheila M. Happe, Associate City Attorney, in which she said that she received Mr. Wolter&apos;s request for access to the data described above on December 27, 1994. Ms. Happe wrote that she sent a letter to Mr. Wolter on December 29, 1994, ...indicating that I needed a reasonable period of time to research the accessibility of the data being requested under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Happe also stated that ...[m]y interpretation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03, subd. 3 is that the responsible authority has a reasonable time to determine if requested data is public or nonpublic. The requested data which is determined to be public must then be made available for inspection and/or copying within a reasonable period of time.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Happe said that [t]he City responded to Mr. Wolter&apos;s...request for data in a letter mailed on January 13, 1995, 13 business days from receipt of the request, giving the City&apos;s determination of the accessibility of the data and explaining that the City was putting that data together for [his] review. Responding within only thirteen days was clearly a reasonable time considering the extensive request for data....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Wolter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Has the City of Bloomington violated provisions of Minnesota law that require government entities to respond to requests for access to data within a certain time frame? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  From the description of the data contained in Mr. Wolter&apos;s opinion request, it appears that the data in question are public data, and are therefore accessible pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states: ...[t]he responsible authority... shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states: ...[t]he responsible authority... shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The language of Section 13.03 makes it clear that government entities are required to develop procedures to assure that the public is provided prompt access to public data. In order to develop and implement proper public data access procedures, entities must determine the classification of the data they maintain. The requirement that entities determine the classification of the government data they maintain is fundamental to the operation of all of Chapter 13. It is not possible for them to comply with the requirements of the statute if they do not make these determinations.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The legislature has dealt with this issue explicitly, in the case of data on individuals, by requiring responsible authorities to prepare a public report which describes the types of data entities maintain that are classified as private or confidential. (See Section 13.05 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1500.) Even though that same requirement is not made explicitly for data not on individuals, an entity cannot respond promptly to requests if data classification determinations are not made. These determinations are central to any entity&apos;s compliance with Sections 13.03, 13.05, and other provisions of Chapter 13.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The issue is whether the City has complied with its obligations to provide Mr. Wolter with prompt access to the public data he requested. The legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in&lt;i&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/i&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the procedures it has developed to ensure that it is in compliance with the public access provisions of Chapter 13. Presumably it has developed these procedures. However, Ms. Happe said that she was unable to make the data available at the time she received Mr. Wolter&apos;s request because she needed ...a reasonable period of time to research the accessibility of the data being requested under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Happe also stated that it is her position that the City&apos;s having taken thirteen working days to make its determination regarding the accessibility of the data is not unreasonable, given the volume of Mr. Wolter&apos;s data request. Mr. Wolter requested access to all account ledgers and checkbook ledgers from 1988 through 1994, along with supporting invoices, cancelled checks, and all Bloomington Fire Department operating procedures and other documents used to support the maintenance of those accounts. Owing to the volume and complexity of Mr. Wolter&apos;s request, the Commissioner concurs that thirteen working days, in this case, is not an unreasonable time frame in which to make the data available.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, the problem with the City&apos;s position is its assertion that it can deny the public access to data while it conducts legal research to determine the classification of the data. Government entities have an affirmative obligation to make the determinations of data classification as necessary to provide prompt access to public data. To the greatest extent possible, in order to assure its continuing compliance with Chapter 13, the City should have been able to determine how the data sought by Mr. Wolter were classified at the time he made his request, based on an examination of the public report required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and other reference materials. If the City, as a matter of practice, were to determine the classification of its data in advance of public requests for access, it would be better able to respond promptly, i.e. without delay, to those requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     It is also possible that for certain data requests, government entities may need a reasonable amount of time to separate public from not public data. In many instances it is to the entity&apos;s advantage to maintain government data in a fashion that makes it easy to separate public from not public data, and therefore more conveniently accessible. However, it is not always possible or even desirable to do so. Nonetheless, the fact that at times the separation of public from not public data will require time and effort does not relieve entities of their obligation to provide appropriate and prompt access to government data. (See &lt;u&gt;Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/u&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993.))
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Further, it is not unreasonable for government entities, when responding to a request for access to data, to review the data to ensure that appropriate access is provided. For example, the legislature changes classifications of data on an annual basis, through amendments to Chapter 13 and other statutes. That is in part why Section 13.05, subdivision 1, requires that the public report be updated on an annual basis. It is reasonable for agencies to need to verify that recent changes to Chapter 13 do not affect the classification of data they are treating as public. However, an entity&apos;s compliance practices are not reasonable if it must make data classification determinations any time it receives a request for access to data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Entities are obligated to establish procedures to ensure prompt and appropriate access to public data, and they will be able to go a long way toward adhering to that legislative policy if they verify, on an ongoing basis, the classification of the government data they maintain. If they develop their compliance practices in accordance with the requirements in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, it certainly will be easier and more efficient for their data classification references to be updated annually, rather than having to start anew each time they receive data requests.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Wolter is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Although it is not reasonable for Bloomington to take the position that it will take time to research the classification of government data before making the data available, it may take a reasonable time to review the data it treats as public in order to ensure appropriate access. In this case, given the volume and complexity of the data requested, thirteen business days is not an unreasonable time in which to make public data available for public inspection. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 2, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267434</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Definition of prompt or reasonable time</Title><Id>266311</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:45:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-005</Title><title>Opinion 95 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267632&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-01-31T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must Chaska permit public access to the Notice of Claim, to information concerning the existence and status of a sexual harassment claim, whether a student is the alleged perpetrator, and the damages (if any) that have been demanded, and to similar data relating to the claim, as long as the information was not &quot;collected&quot; by Chaska and as long as it does not identify the student?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 31, 1995; School District 112 (Chaska)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On January 5, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 4, 1994, from Mr. Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Chaska Herald. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s letter includes a discussion of the Herald&apos;s attempt to obtain certain data maintained by Independent School District 112, Chaska, hereinafter referred to as Chaska. Also in this letter, Mr. Anfinson requests an opinion from the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. David Clough, Superintendent of Chaska. The purposes of this letter, dated January 6, 1995, were to inform Dr. Clough of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask him or Chaska&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Chaska&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and Dr. Clough were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.) On January 19, 1995, PIPA received a response dated January 19, 1995, from Ms. Maggie Wallner, attorney for Chaska.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for the Herald received information indicating that Chaska was the object of a sexual harassment claim involving a student. The reporter then spoke with various school officials, requesting the following information: whether the school district had received a claim involving sexual harassment by a student; the status of any such claim; any damages that had been demanded; and a copy of the Notice of Claim, if one had been served on the District. Neither school authorities nor Chaska&apos;s attorney would provide any information. The attorney based her position on language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 and 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson argues that because the Herald is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could identify, the student, Section 13.32 does not apply. In addition, he argues that according to &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the Notice of Claim, if one has been filed, should be public data and cannot be not public data under Section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her response, Ms. Wallner asserts that when the reporter requested information regarding the alleged claim, he made his request by asking for data about the [X] incident at [a Chaska school]. Ms. Wallner argues that because the reporter asked for information about a particular student, any of that data would be private educational data under Section 13.32 and therefore, is not accessible to the public. She states, once the newspaper identified a particular student, any information would have implicitly identified the data subject as the &apos;[X]&apos; student at [a Chaska School].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, Ms. Wallner disputes that the Notice of Claim should be public based on the holding in the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt; case. Her argument appears to be that because the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;case did not involve a situation in which a Notice of Claim contained identifying data about a student, the case&apos;s holding has no applicability to the Chaska situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Must Chaska permit public access to the Notice of Claim, to information concerning the existence and status of a sexual harassment claim, whether a student is the alleged perpetrator, and the damages (if any) that have been demanded, and to similar data relating to the claim, as long as the information was not collected by Chaska and as long as it does not identify the student?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
It appears that both the Herald reporter&apos;s request for data and Mr. Anfinson&apos;s opinion request relate to data contained within a Notice of Claim, as filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04. Generally, every person who claims damages from any municipality or municipal employee for or on account of any loss or injury within the tort liability statute (Section 466.02) must file a Notice of Claim stating the time, place and circumstances thereof, the names of the municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded.
&lt;p&gt;The answer to the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson revolves around a simple, yet critical and pivotal question: did the Herald reporter request data on individuals or data not on individuals?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his opinion request letter, Mr. Anfinson describes a fact scenario in which the Herald reporter requested certain data allegedly maintained by Chaska. Mr. Anfinson states, ...The newspaper is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could serve to identify, the student.... In addition, the issue he asks the Commissioner to address in this opinion is whether any data maintained by Chaska regarding the alleged claim would be accessible to the Herald, ...so long as the information was not &apos;collected&apos; by the school district and so long as it does not identify the student....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, based on the information provided by Ms. Wallner, the reporter asked specifically for data about the [X] incident, i.e. data about a specific, identifiable student. Rather than asking merely for data about an alleged incident, the reporter asked for data about a student. For that reason, any dissemination of such data by Chaska would be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The key is that the reporter requested data on an individual.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The term data on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, as, ...all government data in which any individual is or &lt;u&gt;can be identified&lt;/u&gt; [emphasis added] as the subject of that data.... Data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions about students are classified under Section 13.32. Subdivision 1(a) of Section 13.32 defines educational data as, ...data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which &lt;u&gt;relates to a student&lt;/u&gt; [emphasis added].... The word student is defined in Subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.32 as, ...an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered...at a public educational agency or institution.... Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32 states that except in certain specific situations, none of which have been asserted by Chaska or Mr. Anfinson, educational data are private data and therefore, are not accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the Herald reporter requested information from school authorities, he framed his request in such a way that he asked for specific data about a specific student. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by classifying education data as private data on individuals, clearly prohibits the release of such data to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, as Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request states, had the reporter requested data relating to any claims filed against Chaska which did not identify the student involved, such data would clearly be data not on individuals. Data not on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 4, as all government data which is not on individuals. Such data maintained by public educational institutions do not appear to be classified in Chapter 13 as not public. Therefore, based on the presumption established by Chapter 13 that government data are public unless a federal law, state statute, or temporary classification of data provides otherwise, it appears that most data not on individuals maintained by Chaska would be classified as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Had the Herald reporter requested data not on individuals about the alleged claim, it appears those data would be public. However, as soon as the reporter identified the student, he was clearly requesting data on individuals. Except for certain exceptions which are not applicable in this situation, data on students are private data on individuals, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Chaska is obligated to protect private data from public disclosure. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, and 13.05, subdivision 3.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson also argues that the Notice, as long as it does not identify the student, should be public data according to &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 498 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993). In &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt;, the Supreme Court held that a Notice of Claim provided to a political subdivision is not collected by the political subdivision in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation and thus is not exempt from disclosure under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Ms. Wallner contends that because the Notice of Claim in &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt; did not relate to a student and did not contain private educational data, ...the case provides no guidance regarding the educational data issue present in this case.... Because the Herald reporter made his request by asking for data about a specific student, those data appear to be private data under Section 13.32 and would not appear to be accessible to the public. As Ms. Wallner asserts, the &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald&lt;/u&gt; case does not seem to be particularly on point as it relates to the Chaska situation. In this circumstance, the Herald reporter is requesting Notice of Claim data that may contain data which relate to a student. Such data are classified as private data by Section 13.32, not by Section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data not on individuals relating to a claim, filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05, against an educational institution, are public data. However, in this situation, because the request for information was made for data about an individual student, all of the Notice of Claim data are private data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elaine S. Hansen
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 31, 1995&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267632</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of claim</Title><Id>266943</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of Claim (466.04 - Tort liability)</Title><Id>267168</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data revealed in request determines entity response</Title><Id>266393</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-05-17T19:48:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-004</Title><title>Opinion 95 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267729&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-01-26T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May detention photos (&quot;mug shots&quot;) be classified as private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, or any provision of Minnesota Statutes other than Section 13.82?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 26, 1995; Dakota County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Due to a legislative change in 1995, booking photographs are now classified as public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 26.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 12, 1994, the Commissioner received a request for an opinion from James C. Backstrom, attorney for Dakota County (hereinafter County ), concerning the classification of detention photos, also known as booking photos or mug shots.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Backstrom made reference to an earlier Advisory Opinion of the Commissioner (94-020), in which the Commissioner found that mug shots do not appear to be classified explicitly as public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, but do appear to be classified as public under the operation of the general rule for all government data as set forth in Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Backstrom noted that in the discussion of Opinion 94-020, the Commissioner left open the possibility that ...arguments may be made that other provisions of the [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act] may classify booking photos as not public, [however] those arguments were not made by the Sheriff&apos;s office in this instance. Mr. Backstrom stated [i]t is the position of the Dakota County Sheriff and my office that detention photos or mug shots are classified under Minn. Stat. section 13.85, subd. 1 as private data. He offered the following bases for his argument.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Detention photos are taken by personnel at the jail where an arrested individual will be detained....The Dakota County Sheriff&apos;s Office uses detention photos to make sure that the inmates are properly identified for receiving medical treatment, for participating in various programs offered by the jail and to properly identify the individual who is booked into the jail. Mr. Backstrom also made reference to arguments raised in the earlier referenced Opinion which said that booking photos are rarely used to prepare criminal cases, and are primarily used by law enforcement agencies for the purposes of documenting the identity of individuals they detain.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 Mr. Backstrom further stated that [b]ecause these photographs are taken because the individuals are being confined in County jails, it has been the position of the Dakota County Attorney and the Dakota County Sheriff that detention photos are classified as corrections and detention data under Minn. Stat. section 13.85, subd. 1.... , and are therefore ...private to the extent they would, &lt;u&gt;inter alia&lt;/u&gt;, &apos;disclose personal. . . information. . .&apos; unless the data are summary or arrest data....Therefore, if governed by this section, they are private because they disclose personal information about the individual, for example, race.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;May detention photos ( mug shots ) be classified as private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, or any provision of Minnesota Statutes other than Section 13.82? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                   In order to apply the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, it is necessary to determine what is meant by detention photo or mug shot. The legislature has made no specific reference to this kind of photograph, so guidance on the language used is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in&lt;i&gt; The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/i&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, mug (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;) is a photograph of the face, especially one used by police for identification; or (&lt;i&gt;v&lt;/i&gt;) to photograph (a person&apos;s face) for police files.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As discussed above, Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-020 dealt with the issue of whether mug shots are classified as public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. As was discussed in that opinion, the status of this kind of photograph has been ...the subject of discussion and disagreement for a number of years. The Commissioner, in that Opinion, acknowledged that it could be argued that other provisions of Chapter 13 may classify mug shots as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this case, the County has argued that mug shots are properly classified as private data under Section 13.85, subdivision 1, which states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As used in this section, corrections and detention data means data on individuals created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, work houses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.85, subdivision 2 states:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unless the data are summary data or arrest data, or a statute specifically provides a different classification, corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, to the extent that the release of the data would either (a) disclose &lt;i&gt;personal&lt;/i&gt;, medical, psychological, or financial information or (b) endanger an individual&apos;s life. (Emphasis added.)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The key to the County&apos;s assertion that mug shots are properly classified under this Section is that they disclose &lt;i&gt;personal&lt;/i&gt; data. Again, the legislature has not provided a specific definition of personal , and therefore the dictionary offers guidance. The dictionary defines personal &lt;i&gt; inter alia&lt;/i&gt;, as of or pertaining to a particular person; private; one&apos;s own.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A definition this broad must be narrowed in order to be meaningful in this context. Clearly the legislature did not intend for any or all data pertaining to detained individuals to be classified as private, or it would not have included the conditions specified in Section 13.85(2)(a) and (b). Therefore, in order for the County to make a reasonable argument that mug shots may be classified under this Section, it must be determined that a mug shot falls within a reasonably narrow definition of personal information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     A limited examination of case law in other jurisdictions is inconclusive. The Michigan Court of Appeals found that mug shots are public records and do not fall under the privacy exemption of the state&apos;s freedom of information act. (See &lt;u&gt;Patterson v. Allegan County Sheriff&lt;/u&gt;502 N.W. 2d 368 (Mich. App. 1993.) The California Penal Code defines a record to include ...information compiled by any local criminal justice agency...pertaining to the identification...of any person, such as...physical description.... . However, the California Court of Appeals found that ...a mug shot is not a &apos;record or information obtained from a record&apos; within the meaning of the statutes here relied upon. (See &lt;u&gt;People v. McCloud&lt;/u&gt;194 Cal Rptr. 75 (Cal. App. 1983) at 183.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the broadness of the definition of the term personal it may be reasonable for the County to argue that a mug shot is a form of personal data, and given the description of the purpose for the collection of mug shots provided by Mr. Backstrom, it also may be reasonable for the County to assert that these photographs may properly be classified under Section 13.85. However, even though the County&apos;s position may be reasonable, it is also problematic.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue Advisory Opinions was intended, among other things, to assure consistency of application of Chapter 13 through the employment of the expertise of the Department of Administration to offer consistent interpretation of the statute. As noted, the Commissioner has issued an Opinion which states that [b]ooking photos do not appear to be classified as public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. Booking photos do appear to be classified as public by operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If the County, and other government entities, were to rely upon Section 13.85 to classify mug shots as personal and therefore private data, while others relied upon Advisory Opinion 94-020 to classify mug shots as public, the value of the opinion authority to ensure consistency would be impeded. It may also lead to further complications, because as is the case here, classification of data as private under Section 13.85 will depend upon whether each agency that collects and maintains corrections and detention data determines that mug shots are personal. It is possible that some agencies would continue to treat mug shots as public while others would treat them as private. The result would be no consistency in the treatment of mug shots.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    By contrast, if all agencies that maintain mug shots state clearly in their data practices policies and procedures that they treat mug shots as public in reliance on the Commissioner&apos;s Opinion, then the agency should be immunized from financial liability and the state and the public will benefit from consistent treatment of these data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is also important to note that important public safety objectives are attained by the treatment of mug shots as public data. In practice, law enforcement agencies make use of mug shots in the investigation of subsequent crimes, through photographic lineups, or the public release of a photograph to aid the apprehension of escapees and other fugitives. If mug shots were to be classified under Section 13.85, they would be private data, and potentially these uses of mug shots could not be made without the informed consent of the data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Backstrom also asked whether any provision of Minnesota Statutes other than Section 13.82 applies to the classification of mug shots. It does not appear that any of the other Sections of Chapter 13 which govern data maintained by criminal justice agencies is applicable.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner issued an Opinion which stated that as the legislature has not stated specifically that mug shots are not public, then mug shots appear to be public data under the operation of Section 13.03, subdivision 1. If the County decides to treat mug shots as private data under Section 13.85, it would result in inconsistent treatment of these data, and would lead to the other problems addressed above. In this instance, the Commissioner concludes that a subject of such public importance and on-going disagreement ought, in the best interests of the State, to be handled consistently. The Commissioner believes that the consistency of interpretation of Chapter 13 is one of the objectives set forth for her by the legislature when it conferred upon her the authority to issue advisory opinions. Therefore, even though there may be a basis within Section 13.85 for determining that mug shots may be treated as private data, it is the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion that mug shots are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, and subject to the issues discussed above, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Backstrom is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Mug shots are properly classified as public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Elaine S. Hansen
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 26, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267729</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Booking photos</Title><Id>267192</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Advisory Opinions</Title><Id>267193</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose</Title><Id>267069</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mug shots</Title><Id>267228</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:45:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-003</Title><title>Opinion 95 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267790&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-01-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked whether the St. Paul Police Department responded appropriately for a request for a videotape of an interview between an individual and police officers. The Police Department argued that the videotape is not public under Minnesota Statutes section 13.82, subdivision 16, as it contained deliberative processes or investigative techniques. The Commissioner determined that this videotape of an interrogation of a criminal suspect is not a deliberative processes, and that it does not reveal investigative techniques. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 16, 1995; City of Saint Paul</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes section 13.82&apos;s subdivisions were renumbered in 2000. 13.82 subdivision 16 discussed below is now codified in 13.82 subdivision 25.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
&lt;p&gt;On November 28, 1994, PIPA received a request for an opinion from Ms. Leslie J. Anderson, an attorney representing Mr. Rick Kupchella, a reporter working for KARE 11, a Twin Cities television station. In this letter, Ms. Anderson described attempts by Mr. Kupchella and others from KARE 11 to get access to a videotape of the interviews of Guy Harvey Baker that were recorded by the St. Paul Police Department, hereinafter the Department. She pointed out that audiotapes of those same interviews had previously been released to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Anderson stated that the Department has refused to release the videotape claiming that the videotape is classified as not public by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 16. This statutory provision states that data that reflect deliberative processes and investigative techniques of law enforcement agencies are classified as not public. Ms. Anderson went on to discuss the Department&apos;s reliance on this statutory provision and to argue that this provision cannot be properly applied to the videotape data in question. Ms. Anderson pointed out that the rules of criminal procedure require a tape like this to be made available to the defendant. The rule provision would conflict with the classification of the data as confidential under the provisions of Section 13.82, subdivision 16.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Anderson also cited to the &lt;u&gt;Scales&lt;/u&gt; case, a recent case in which, according to Ms. Anderson, the Minnesota Supreme Court required that all police interviews of arrested persons be recorded for judicial and public review of police practices. (&lt;u&gt;State v. Scales&lt;/u&gt;, 518 N.W. 2d 587 (Minn. 1994).) It was her position that a not public classification for the videotape of the interviews with Mr. Baker would not be consistent with the Supreme Court&apos;s holding in the &lt;u&gt;Scales&lt;/u&gt; case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Anderson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. William Finney, the Chief of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated November 29, 1994, were to inform Chief Finney of Ms. Anderson&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask the Chief or the attorney for the Department to provide any information about or support for the Department&apos;s position and to inform the Chief of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Finney were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 12, 1994, in response to the letter to Chief Finney, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Paul F. McCloskey, an attorney for the Department. In this letter, Mr. McCloskey reviewed the Department&apos;s position and offered support for a finding that the Department&apos;s position is a reasonable interpretation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 16. A summary of Mr. McCloskey&apos;s comments is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The videotape was never identified in court documents as part of the prosecution&apos;s case against Mr. Baker. Although the rules of criminal procedure may require videotapes such as these to be made available to a defendant, the rules do not, according to Mr. McCloskey, suggest that doing so would make the tapes public. In this particular instance, the defendant did not ask for access to the tape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. McCloskey acknowledged that the Department was relying on Section 13.82, subdivision 16, but took the position that any explanation by the Department for its reliance on that provision would disclose the material the Department is trying to protect. Mr. McCloskey discounted the effect of the &lt;u&gt;Scales&lt;/u&gt; case and pointed out that the case does not say that recording of defendant interrogations makes the recordings public. Mr. McCloskey concluded his remarks by arguing that a failure to recognize the application of Section 13.82, subdivision 16, to this situation would cause this subdivision to cease to exist and would remove the protection for data about crime fighting methodology that the legislature provided in Section 13.82, subdivision 16.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Can the Saint Paul Police Department deny access under Section 13.82, subd. 16 to videotaped interview(s) of Guy Harvey Baker made while he was in detention by claiming that releasing the videotape would reveal &apos;investigative techniques and deliberative processes which must remain private&apos; and by claiming that the videotape was made for the sole internal use of the Police Department?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
The Department&apos;s assertion, as reported by Ms. Anderson, that this videotape was created for the sole internal use of the Department, has relevance only if the legislature has classified the videotape data as not public or has otherwise limited dissemination and use of the videotape data. The statutory provision claimed by the Department in support of its position that the videotape data are not public is Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 16. This subdivision states that data that reflect deliberative processes or investigative techniques of law enforcement agencies are confidential or protected nonpublic data. The subdivision also contains a proviso that information reports or memoranda adopted as the final opinion or justification for a decision of a law enforcement agency are public data.
&lt;p&gt;The dispute over access to this videotape revolves around the central issue of whether the videotape of an individual being interviewed about the killing of two police officers and a police dog contains data that reflect deliberative processes or investigative techniques of the Department. Although the Department asserts that the videotape does contain those kind of data, the Department also takes the position that it cannot explain just how the data on the videotape actually reflect deliberative processes or investigative technique because to do so would reveal the material that the Department seeks to protect from public disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two primary sources of guidance are available to assist in determining whether this kind of videotape data actually constitutes deliberative process or investigative techniques. The first of these sources relies on the plain words of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 16, itself. The legislature has not defined special terminology for the language used in Subdivision 16 so guidance on the language used is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) A summary of the definitions of the critical terms as defined in &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, is as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deliberative means assembled or organized for deliberation or debate or characterized by or for use in deliberation or debate. Deliberation means the formal discussion and debate of all sides of an issue. Process means a system of operations in the production of something or a series of actions, changes or functions that bring about an end result. Given those definitions, it would appear that for data to reflect a deliberative process, it must be data collected, created or maintained that explain or describe the actions, changes or functions that a given law enforcement agency follows to conduct formal discussion or debates of all sides of an issue. This definition appears to have little to do with a videotape that records a number of police officers interviewing a suspect about his commission of a crime and otherwise interacting with that suspect. This is an interrogative process not a deliberative process. The objective of officers conducting the interrogation is not to conduct a debate or discussion in order to reach a deliberative decision but to elicit inculpatory data and/or a confession from the suspect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is possible, if the Department videotaped a discussion among its officers as to how they were going to approach the interrogation of this particular suspect, that a videotape of those kind of discussions could be said to be data that reflect a deliberative process. However, that appears not to be the case here. This is the videotape that documents the actual process of conducting the interrogations of Mr. Baker. It does not appear that the videotape documents any deliberative discussions about how the interrogation could or should be conducted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigate means to observe or inquire into detail, to examine systematically or to make a detailed inquiry. Technique means the systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is accomplished. Given the definition of those terms, it would appear that data which reflect investigative techniques are those data that describe the systematic procedures used by the officers of the Department to make detailed inquiries into the commission of crimes. The videotape data in question here do not seem to fit that definition. The videotape appears to contain a visual record of the actual interrogation of the suspect. It does not seem, based on Ms. Anderson&apos;s description, to contain a statement or record of the systematic procedures used by the Department to investigate crimes. It appears to be a videotape of the process of conducting an inquiry into a crime, not a set of data that reflect the procedures that the Department follows to investigate crimes or to curtail the commission of crimes through preventive measures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department&apos;s claims that the release of this videotape to the public would reveal deliberative processes or investigative techniques is further complicated by the fact, as asserted by Ms. Anderson and not denied by the Department, that an audiotape version of the interrogation of Mr. Baker has been made available to KARE 11 and to other members of the public. The Department has offered no information or explanation that supports the Department&apos;s apparent position that a videotape version of the interrogation of Mr. Baker would reveal deliberative processes or investigative techniques while the audiotape version of that same investigation would not reveal deliberative processes or investigative techniques.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department also acknowledges that if Mr. Baker&apos;s case had gone to trial, under the Supreme Court&apos;s holding in the &lt;u&gt;Scales&lt;/u&gt; case, this videotape would have been available to Mr. Baker and conceivably offered into evidence by either the prosecution or defense in Mr. Baker&apos;s trial. In that eventuality, the videotape data would have been shown to the public in attendance in the courtroom and would have been available to the public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, and the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judiciary Branch. It is difficult to agree with the Department&apos;s assertion, now that it knows this case will not got to trial, that the data it collected for the express purpose of filing criminal charges against Mr. Baker, and the data it knew would be made public by the operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, can now be withheld from release to the public by the Department&apos;s reliance on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 16.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to examining the plain words used in Section 13.82, and the apparent fact that the audiotape version of this data has been made public, it is helpful to look at cases in other jurisdictions involving the deliberative process evidentiary privilege and the deliberative process public records exemption. Statutes and cases in a number of jurisdictions recognize that certain government data may be protected from discovery in litigation and may be protected from disclosure to the public when the public requests access to government data. The former protection is referred to as an evidentiary privilege while the latter is based on a statutory exemption contained in the jurisdiction&apos;s freedom of information or public records act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The focus in both the public records exemption and the discovery privilege is on whether the records sought are predecisional, i.e. prepared by a government agency to assist it with making decisions and whether the documents are deliberative, i.e. actually used during the agency&apos;s deliberative process to make the decision. (See &lt;u&gt;Florida House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce&lt;/u&gt;, 961 F. 2d 941 (11th Cir. 1992) at p. 945.) A document is part of the deliberative process if disclosure of the document to the public would expose the agency&apos;s decision making process in a way that would discourage candid discussions within an agency. (&lt;u&gt;Bay Area Lawyers Alliance v. Department of State&lt;/u&gt;, 815 F. Supp. 1291 (ND Cal. 1992, at page 1297.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Applying the definitions and logic, used in federal cases to explain the meaning of the deliberative processes exemption and privilege, to the videotape, claimed to be part of a deliberative process used by the Department, establishes that this videotape would not fall within the federal law exemption or privilege. The videotape in dispute here is government data that were collected to, if necessary, assist the State in convicting Mr. Baker of a crime. This videotape does not appear to be a record of members of the Department conducting a discussion of decisions to be made by the Department. It appears to be a videotape of an interrogation of a criminal suspect. There is nothing in the information provided to the Commissioner that establishes how release of this videotape would discourage candid discussion within the Department about decisions being made by the Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, to the extent that the videotape reveals discussions among officers of the Department on this videotape about the questions being asked Mr. Baker and other matters, all of these discussions appear to have been previously released to the public in the form of audiotapes. The Department did not cite the provisions of Section 13.82, subdivision 16, when it released the audiotapes of Mr. Baker&apos;s interrogation. It has offered no explanation or basis for differentiating between the audiotape and videotape versions of the same event.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Anderson is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Department cannot refuse to deny public access to this videotape on the grounds that it would reveal deliberative processes and investigative techniques or that the videotape was made for the internal use of the Department.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Robert A. Schroeder
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 16, 1995&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267790</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Deliberative processes (13.82, subd. 25 / subd. 16)</Title><Id>266565</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Interrogation/investigative technique, defined</Title><Id>266476</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Words and phrases construed (645.08)</Title><Id>266312</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-12T13:10:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-002</Title><title>Opinion 95 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267748&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-01-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does ISD #709&apos;s failure to deliver this memorandum to X within five (5) days of his 7/15/94 request violate Minn. Stat. §13.04, subd. 3?
Does ISD #709&apos;s failure to deliver this memorandum to X within five (5) days of his 10/13/94 request violate Minn. Stat. §13.04, subd. 3?
Would destruction of the said memorandum by ISD #709 violate the Minnesota Data Practices Act, viz., Minn. Stat. §§ 13.04, subd. 3 and 13.05, subd. 5?
Would alteration of the said memorandum by ISD #709 violate Minn. Stat. §§ 13.04, subd. 3 and 13.05, subd. 5 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 1995; School District 709 (Duluth)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 19, 1994, PIPA received a letter, dated December 14, 1994, from Peter J. Nickitas, an attorney representing X, an employee of Duluth Public Schools, Independent School District #709, hereinafter referred to as Duluth. Mr. Nickitas&apos; letter included a discussion of two attempts by X to obtain data maintained about him by Duluth. Also in this letter, Mr. Nickitas requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Myles, Superintendent of Duluth. The purposes of this letter, dated December 21, 1994, were to inform Mr. Myles of Mr. Nickitas&apos; request, to ask him or Duluth&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Duluth&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Nickitas and Mr. Myles were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.) On January 3, 1994, PIPA received a response dated December 29, 1994, from Elizabeth A. Storaasli, attorney for Duluth.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 30, 1994, PIPA received a second letter dated December 29, 1994, from Mr. Nickitas to which was attached a copy of the data sought by X. The purpose of this letter was to update PIPA on the fact that X had received, from Duluth, a copy of the data he had been requesting. The data (contained in a memo) were attached to a letter dated December 20, 1994. Mr. Nickitas, in his letter, also raised three additional issues for possible consideration in the opinion. Mr. Don Gemberling, Director of PIPA, contacted Mr. Nickitas by telephone on December 30, 1994. The outcome of this discussion was that only the issues originally raised by Mr. Nickitas would be dealt with in the opinion. However, the fact that X received a copy of the data would be acknowledged.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. On two separate occasions, once in July and once in October of 1994, X contacted Duluth&apos;s Superintendent, in writing, to request a copy of an inter-office memo addressed to X from Laura Johnson, X&apos;s supervisor, regarding X&apos;s employment as a school bus driver. (Copies of these written data requests were attached to Mr. Nickitas&apos; opinion request.) X did not receive a copy of the memo until sometime after December 20, 1994.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                 In her response, Ms. Storaasli asserts that Ms. Johnson drafted the memo to X and was awaiting approval from the Administrator of Certified Personnel of Duluth before releasing it to X. Citing &lt;u&gt;Matter of Kokesch&lt;/u&gt;, Minn. App. 1987, 411 N.W.2nd 559, Ms. Storaasli states that because approval was not given, the subject of the data is Ms. Johnson, not X. According to Ms. Storaasli, the document was never placed in X&apos;s personnel file. She also cites &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, Minn. App. 1992, 493 N.W.2nd 614, and suggests that, ...the data did not become &apos;government data&apos; as it was not authorized to be recorded in some physical form....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also in her response, Ms. Storaasli notes that Duluth is in possession of the memo and that, ... the School District is amenable, pursuant to approval of the requesting party and the Department of Administration, to providing a copy to the requesting party and the destruction of all remaining copies...the memorandum has not been destroyed, and the memorandum has not been altered....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does ISD #709&apos;s failure to deliver this memorandum to X within five (5) days of his 7/15/94 request violate Minn. Stat. section13.04, subd. 3?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Does ISD #709&apos;s failure to deliver this memorandum to X within five (5) days of his 10/13/94 request violate Minn. Stat. section13.04, subd. 3?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Would destruction of the said memorandum by ISD #709 violate the Minnesota Data Practices Act, viz., Minn. Stat. sectionsection 13.04, subd. 3 and 13.05, subd. 5?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Would alteration of the said memorandum by ISD #709 violate Minn. Stat. sectionsection 13.04, subd. 3 and 13.05, subd. 5 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before addressing the specific questions raised in issues one through four, it is important to discuss the classification of the data sought by X. The memo and the data contained within are classified in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 1 of Section 13.43 defines personnel data as, ... data on individuals collected because the individual is...an employee of...a political subdivision.... In this case, the memo written by Ms. Johnson was clearly created because X is an employee of Duluth. It is addressed to X, School Bus Driver, from Laura Johnson, Supervisor of Transportation, and its purpose is to request that X refrain from certain activity while driving a district school bus.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Generally, personnel data are classified as either public or private data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 lists various types of personnel data which are classified as public and Subdivision 4 of Section 13.43 states that, ...all other personnel data is [are] private data on individuals.... The Legislative intent behind the language in Section 13.43 is to ensure that public employees are able to gain access to any and all data created and maintained as a result of their employment, regardless of whether the data reside in an actual personnel file. It appears that the data contained in the memo are private personnel data and therefore, X should be provided access to the memo.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The issue of employees gaining access to their own personnel data was addressed in Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-023. In that opinion, the Commissioner stated:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            As described by the City, the data in the supervisor&apos;s files is [are] entirely concerned with the monitoring by supervisors of employees under their supervision. Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, subdivision 1 defines personnel data , in part, to mean data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee. Data on an individual is defined in part, at Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02, subdivision 5, as all government data in which an individual is or can be identified. Given those definitions and the City&apos;s description of the supervisors&apos; files, those files are personnel data for purposes of the MGDPA [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13].
                            &lt;br /&gt;
                            Supervisors&apos; files, maintained by agents of the [City] that identify individual employees being supervised, are government data and personnel data for purposes of the MGDPA and the data about those employees in those supervisors&apos; files are accessible by the employees.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                     In her letter, Ms. Storaasli appears to argue that because Ms. Johnson never received approval from the Personnel Services Department to submit the memo to X, Ms. Johnson, rather than X, is the subject of the memo. She argues that if X is not the subject of the data, he is not entitled to have access to the memo. In support, she cites &lt;u&gt;Matter of Kokesch&lt;/u&gt;. In that case, the court examined Minnesota Statutes Section 13.79, Department of Labor and Industry Data, and found that because the employees who filed complaints were the subjects of the data, any data identifying them were private and not available to the employer. Ms. Storaasli&apos;s reference to this case is not entirely clear. First, the data X seeks are not Department of Labor and Industry data. Second, X is not an employer seeking data which identify employees who have made complaints about him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Contrary to Ms. Storaasli&apos;s assertion, it would be very difficult to prove that X is not the subject of the data in the memo. First, the memo is addressed to him. Second, his behavior is the clear reason for its issuance. Third, it specifically requests that he discontinue engaging in certain behavior which Duluth apparently finds unacceptable. Finally, given the fact that Ms. Storaasli offered, more than six months after the original request, to provide a copy of the memo to X, it appears that even she now considers X to be the subject of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                     In her response, Ms. Storaasli also argues that, ...the data were created as a proposal which was specifically not approved for existence and authorization. Based on &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;...the data did not become &apos;government data&apos; as it was not authorized to be recorded in some physical form.... Again, her reliance on this case, as applied to X&apos;s situation, is not entirely apparent. The holding in &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;does limit the definition of government data in Chapter 13 but not in the way suggested by Ms. Storaasli. In &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, the Court of Appeals found that data held only in the mind of a government official are not government data and that data are government data, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, when the data are recorded somewhere other than in the human brain. According to &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, as soon as Ms. Johnson transferred the information from her brain into computer storage or onto a piece of paper, it became government data. The physical existence of the memo clearly makes it government data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    Issues one and two as raised by Mr. Nickitas pertain to the time frame within which government entities are required by Minnesota law to respond to requests for access to government data. This issue has been addressed in several advisory opinions, most recently in Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-058. In that opinion, the Commissioner stated:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;On this point, [issue of timely responses to requests for access to data] Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13...are quite clear. When a citizen is seeking access to data maintained about her\himself, Section 13.04 states that, ...The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request pursuant to this subdivision, or within 5 days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the data sought by [requestor] are data about her, then [entity] had, at the maximum, ten days (excluding weekends and legal holidays) in which to respond. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    In this situation, X made his first request for a copy of the memo in a letter dated July 15, 1994. Having received no response, he made his second request in a letter dated October 13, 1994. By not responding until after December 20, 1994, Duluth obviously did not comply with the time requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    In issues three and four, Mr. Nickitas questioned whether destruction or alteration of the memo would constitute a violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. In her response, Ms. Storaasli stated that the memorandum had not been destroyed or altered. Since X has now received a copy, it appears this is so. However, it is worth noting, for educational purposes, that destruction and alteration of government data could create implications for any government entity. These issues were discussed in Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-011. In that opinion, the Commissioner stated:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;If there were an outstanding request by a parent to have access to a report on their minor child and a government entity destroyed that report, the destruction could be viewed as a violation of the provision of the MGDPA [Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13] that give[s] data subject&apos;s [sic] access to data about themselves. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Destruction of a report could have implications for a government entity&apos;s obligations to keep data on individuals accurate, complete and current. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Destruction of a report like this by a government entity, without an approved retention schedule, could have implications for that entity under Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17, the state&apos;s Records Management Statute .&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
                    In this instance, Mr. Nickitas makes no claim that the memo had been altered and it clearly had not been destroyed. However, as discussed in the aforementioned Advisory Opinion, it is important for government entities to be aware of possible implications resulting from any such actions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issues one and two,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to data in the following fashion: when the data are about the citizen, the response must be immediate or within five working days. If the entity needs additional time, it may take an additional five working days if it so informs the data subject. In this case, Duluth did not respond to X&apos;s request for access to data within the time frame required by Chapter 13.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issues three and four,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                no specific allegations of alteration or destruction of government data were made. In fact, given that X received a copy of the requested memo, the data had obviously been neither altered nor destroyed. Consequently, there is no need for the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding issues three and four.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Robert A. Schroeder
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Acting Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 10, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267748</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Labor and Industry Department</Title><Id>266544</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Supervisor file</Title><Id>266788</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:45:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 95-001</Title><title>Opinion 95 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267527&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1995-01-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does a member of the public have the right to gain access to government data about a public employee that describe specific institutions of learning attended and specific places of employment?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 4, 1995; Dodge County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
              &lt;p&gt;
                On December 6, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Jerry Berg, dated December 2, 1994, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain personnel data maintained by Dodge County (hereinafter County ), and in which he requested an opinion of the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Berg asked the County to provide him with various personnel data concerning a County employee, and asked that the County provide specific data regarding the employee&apos;s education background and work experience, including the ...names of institutions and dates listed on application and/or resume.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Berg received a reply to his request from Mr. Curt Kephart, County Coordinator, in which the employee&apos;s educational background was detailed as ...he graduated from high school...and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban Studies and Planning. The description of the employee&apos;s work history similarly contains no identification of the organizations by which he was employed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Berg&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Kephart. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Kephart of Mr. Berg&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Kephart or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Berg and Mr. Kephart were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On December 19, 1994, PIPA received letters of response from Mr. Kephart and Ms. Nancy Vollertsen, an attorney for the County. In his response, Mr. Kephart stated that the County had provided Mr. Berg with the public data he requested, ...including the disclosure of information that demonstrates the qualifications and credentials of applicants and individuals hired for positions. We do not believe that the other specific information requested is public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In her response, Ms. Vollertsen stated that the data Mr. Berg requested was provided ...in a summary fashion. It is our position that this comports with the requirements under Minn. Stats. section13.43. There is no specific requirement under this act which requires the degree of specificity which Mr. Berg seeks. He has been attempting to gain information concerning certain Dodge County employees for the purpose of publicly harassing those employees. To provide specific information simply affords Mr. Berg the opportunity to invade the privacy of [the employee]....
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does a member of the public have the right to gain access to government data about a public employee that describe specific institutions of learning attended and specific places of employment? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, classifies ... education and training background; previous work experience.... on current and former employees as public personnel data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 3, classifies ...job history; education and training.... of current and former applicants for public employment as public personnel data. Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion 94-022 addressed the issue of whether the level of specificity implied by the statute requires provision of the details Mr. Berg requested, in an instance in which the public sought access to data about applicants for public employment. In that opinion, the Commissioner stated:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The [State University Board] also concludes that the legislature only intends for public entities to reveal generic information about [an] applicant&apos;s job history, education and training. This conclusion fails to take into account that the legislature also recognizes a strong public interest in assuring that the public... should have access to as much detailed data as possible in evaluating a public entity&apos;s decisions about selecting individuals to fill vacancies. Without detailed information, it would be virtually impossible for the public...to compare the actual qualifications of the candidates. The quality and reputation of the college and university from which an individual receives a degree and the size and complexity of an organization in which an individual previously worked can have a great effect on understanding the entity&apos;s personnel and salary decisions. In situations where they (sic) may be allegations of improper selection, access to detailed information about the job histories, education and training of finalists and eligible candidates can help to dispel or reinforce those allegations.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, the question concerns access to similar data about public employees, rather than applicants, and the public interest in having access to this kind of detailed information is just as critical to government accountability.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As noted above, Ms. Vollertsen suggested that Mr. Berg has sought the data in question in order to publicly harass and otherwise invade the privacy of County employees. The County appears to argue that it has grounds to deny access to public data on the basis of its anticipation that the data will be used in a manner to which it objects. However, the legislature has specifically determined the classification of data about public employees, and has further established the fundamental information policy principle that in general, no restrictions may be imposed upon the public&apos;s use of public government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.0300, subpart 2.) Government entities may not restrict access to public government data because they object to potential uses of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;dd&gt;
                     Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Berg is as follows: &lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;A member of the public has the right to gain access to government data about a public employee that describe specific institutions of learning attended and specific places of employment.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Robert A. Schroeder
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Acting Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 4, 1995
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267527</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public data, no restrictions on use</Title><Id>266517</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education/training background, job history, previous work experience</Title><Id>266583</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:45:57Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-060</Title><title>Opinion 94 060</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266830&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-30T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>May access to certain law enforcement data be denied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 7 and 10, if those data have been disseminated in a briefing to members of the public by the law enforcement agency?
May access to certain law enforcement data be denied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10, if there is no evidence in the record that at the time access to the data was denied, the city had made the determination required by Minn. Stat. §13.82, subd. 10 (d)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 30, 1994; City of Champlin</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On December 8, 1994, PIPA received, via FAX, a letter from Mr. Gary Hill of KSTP-TV dated December 7, 1994. In that letter, Mr. Hill discusses the dispute he is having with the Champlin Police Department over whether certain law enforcement data he requested were correctly determined by Champlin to be private and were therefore not accessible to Mr. Hill. Also in that letter, Mr. Hill requests an opinion from the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Kurt Ulrich, Champlin City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated December 8, 1994, were to inform Mr. Ulrich of Mr. Hill&apos;s request, to ask him or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Hill and Mr. Ulrich were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.) On December 14, PIPA received a response dated December 12, 1994, from Mr. Allen Garber, Champlin Chief of Police.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In his letter to PIPA, Mr. Hill reports that he requested information from Champlin Police regarding a burglary/arson incident. He goes on to state that Chief Garber refused to give KSTP-TV reporters information regarding where and when the incident took place and who the victims were. Also according to Mr. Hill, the police department had briefed fifty-five members of the community on what had occurred.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Included in Mr. Hill&apos;s opinion request was a letter dated November 18, 1994, from Mr. Gregory Hellings, Champlin City Attorney, addressed to Mr. Hill. In that letter, Mr. Hellings cites the two specific statutory sections on which Champlin Police relied in refusing access to the data sought by Mr. Hill. First, Mr. Hellings states, ...pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.82 Subd. 7, a law enforcement agency may temporarily withhold response or incident data from public access if the agency reasonably believes that public access would be likely to endanger the physical safety of an individual or cause a perpetrator to flee or destroy evidence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Second, Mr. Hellings states, ...Minn. Stat. section13.82 Subd. 10, further allows a law enforcement agency to withhold public access to data on individuals to protect the identity of individuals when access to the data would reveal the identity of a victim to a crime if the victim specifically requests not to be identified publicly and the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the victim would threaten the personal safety or property of the individual.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Hellings notes that in this situation, the victims specifically informed Chief Garber that they did not wish to be identified publicly and furthermore, Champlin Police&apos;s position is that identifying the victims could endanger their physical safety as well as provide an incentive for the perpetrators to destroy evidence.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In the response received by PIPA from Chief Garber, he states, ...I [denied Mr. Hill&apos;s request for the names and addresses of the victims of an arson burglary] did so in response to a specific request of the victims who expressed fear to me that if their names were made public before any arrests were made that the criminals would attempt to harm them. They had also expressed fear that if their names and addresses were made public that the criminals would hastily dispose of the stolen property. Chief Garber adds that contrary to Mr. Hill&apos;s allegation, the names and address of the victims were not released at the community meeting held by Champlin Police.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          May access to certain law enforcement data be denied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 7 and 10, if those data have been disseminated in a briefing to members of the public by the law enforcement agency?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          May access to certain law enforcement data be denied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10, if there is no evidence in the record that at the time access to the data was denied, the city had made the determination required by Minn. Stat. section13.82, subd. 10 (d)?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Issue one can be addressed by examining Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, comprehensive law enforcement data. In answering questions about which data classified under Section 13.82 are public, the general rule is that arrest, request for service, and response or incident data are public. However, there are exceptions, two of which have been invoked by Champlin Police.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                One exception is contained in Minnesota Statues Section 13.82, subdivision 7, which states, A law enforcement agency may temporarily withhold response or incident data from public access if the agency reasonably believes that public access would be likely to endanger the physical safety of an individual or cause a perpetrator to flee, evade detection or destroy evidence....
                &lt;br /&gt;
                Another exception is found in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d), which states that public access to data on individuals may be withheld to protect the identity of individuals when, ...access to the data would reveal the identity of a victim of..a crime...if the victim specifically requests not to be identified publicly, and the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identity of the victim...would threaten the personal safety or property of the individual....
                &lt;br /&gt;
                In this case, Champlin Police cites the language in both Subdivision 7 and Subdivision 10 (d) as the basis for its refusal to release the names and address of the arson/burglary victims. With regards to Subdivision 10 (d), Champlin Police reports that the individuals involved made a specific request that their names and address be kept private. After receiving this request from the victims, the Department then made what appears to be a reasonable determination, based on the seriousness of the crime, that the perpetrators might make an attempt to re-victimize the involved individuals if their identities were made public. Thus, it appears that Champlin Police acted within the language of Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d), in withholding the identities and address of the victims. Consistent with that determination, Champlin Police neither released the data at the public meeting nor released it to other members of the public.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                With regards to Subdivision 7, it appears Champlin Police reasonably determined that a public identification of the victims would likely put their physical safety in danger and would likely cause the perpetrator to destroy items taken from the victims&apos; home to avoid detection. It thus appears the Department acted in accordance with the language in subdivision 7.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                Although the language in Subdivision 7 provides for a temporary withholding of response or incident data, the practical effect of Champlin Police having invoked both Subdivision 7 and Subdivision 10, is that the identifying data may remain private data permanently.
                &lt;br /&gt;
                The question raised in issue two concerns the paragraph located at the end of Section 13.82, subdivision 10, which reads, Data concerning individuals whose identities are protected by this subdivision are private data about those individuals. Law enforcement shall [emphasis added] establish procedures to acquire the data and make the decisions necessary to protect the identity of individuals described in clauses (d)....
                &lt;br /&gt;
                Included in PIPA&apos;s December 8, 1994, letter to Mr. Ulrich, was a request for a copy of the procedures Champlin Police uses in making its determinations about whether certain identifying data should be private. Because Chief Garber did not provide a copy of the procedures in his response or make any comment about whether such procedures exist, it is reasonable to infer that Champlin Police has not established these procedures. The apparent failure to do so does not, in itself, affect the Department&apos;s ability to invoke Subdivision 10. However, it does raise some doubt that Champlin Police has in place a system to make the appropriate determinations required by Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d).
                &lt;br /&gt;
                The language contained in the last paragraph of Subdivision 10 was proposed to the Legislature during the 1993 Session by PIPA because of information received by PIPA indicating that the determinations required by Subdivision 10 (d) were not being made or were being made in an arbitrary fashion. The purpose of requiring law enforcement agencies to establish these procedures is to assure that the determinations are actually being made, that they are not being made arbitrarily, and that they are being made according to the criteria established by statute. Furthermore, the ability of the public to review a police department&apos;s procedures may make law enforcement more accountable for its decisions to withhold data about victims and witnesses from the public.
                &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Hill as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                          1. As to issue one, in his letter, Mr. Hill stated that the data he requested from Champlin Police had already been disseminated to other members of the public. However, according to Champlin Police, this is not the case. Based on the information provided, it appears that Champlin Police acted within the language of Section 13.82, subdivisions 7 and 10(d), in withholding identifying data about the victims from all members of the public, including Mr. Hill.
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                           2. As to issue two, the fact that Champlin Police provided no evidence of having established or used the procedures required by the final paragraph of Section 13.82, subdivision 10, does not, in itself, affect the Department&apos;s ability to invoke subdivision 10(d). However, the apparent failure of Champlin Police to establish those procedures contributes to the lack of understanding and mistrust that contributed to Mr. Hill&apos;s decision to request this opinion. If, as it appears, Champlin Police has not established the required procedures, it should do so as soon as possible. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Robert A. Schroeder
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Acting Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 30, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266830</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)</Title><Id>266723</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-059</Title><title>Opinion 94 059</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267741&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is it reasonable and justifiable for Rosemount to charge Mr. Walsh for copies of data he did not request?
Is a copy charge of $.50 per page reasonable and justifiable?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 30, 1994; City of Rosemount</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 29, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Larry Walsh, a resident of Rosemount, Minnesota, in which he described his attempts to obtain copies of certain public data maintained by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter City or Rosemount ). According to Mr. Walsh, in April, 1994, he requested copies of certain public data. Upon receipt of the copies, Mr. Walsh noted that the City had included copies of data which he had not requested. He said he immediately returned those copies, and informed the City that he would not pay the copying charges for the unrequested items. He also questioned the City&apos;s copy charge of $.50 per page, which he believed to be unreasonable, and said he would not pay for the copies he retained until he received an explanation of the charges.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In September and November, 1994, Mr. Walsh received additional invoices from Rosemount concerning the copying charges. He said that he has received no response to his communications with Rosemount concerning these invoices. Mr. Walsh requested an opinion of the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to this request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Thomas Burt, City Administrator of Rosemount. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Burt of Mr. Walsh&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Burt or the City&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Burt were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On December 8, 1994, in his response, Mr. Burt stated that the City&apos;s practice of charging $.50 per sheet for photocopies is a reasonable charge, based on the [c]osts for copy machines, maintenance, paper and city staff time.... which were considered in the determination of the fee. Mr. Burt did not address the issue of Mr. Walsh&apos;s having been charged for copies of data he did not request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Is it reasonable and justifiable for Rosemount to charge Mr. Walsh for copies of data he did not request?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Is a copy charge of $.50 per page reasonable and justifiable?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Section 13.03 of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (hereinafter Act or MGDPA ), controls access to public government data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that [i]f a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. If a person requests copies of public data, the responsible authority may charge for ... the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is reasonable to conclude that a person may be assessed a charge for access to public data only if copies of the data are requested. Mr. Walsh requested copies of certain data, some of which he received. He also received copies of data he did not request, for which he may not be charged. In addition, Rosemount is charging Mr. Walsh interest on the unpaid balance. It may be permissible for the City to charge interest on an unpaid balance for copies of public data, if it has the authority to do so, but in no case is it permissible for Rosemount to charge Mr. Walsh interest for copies of data which he did not request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If Rosemount did not understand what Mr. Walsh was requesting, it could have sought written or other clarification from him. Although there is nothing in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 which requires data requests to be made in writing, if it would help a government entity to respond appropriately to requests for access to data, the entity may choose to impose that requirement as part of its data access procedures. In this case, if the City has complied with its obligation to establish public access procedures, it may ask citizens to follow those procedures when making data requests.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As stated above, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, allows a responsible authority to recover the actual costs of providing copies of public government data. Pursuant to this subdivision and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, subpart 4, it is permissible to include certain costs in the calculation of the fee charged for copies of public data. Mr. Burt states that included in the costs considered by the City in its determination of a $.50 per sheet copy charge were the costs of copy machines and maintenance. Neither the statute nor the rule allows inclusion of costs for copy machines and maintenance in the calculation of reasonable copying fees, unless the machine and maintenance costs are directly attributable to the costs of providing the public with copies of public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Presumably Rosemount must operate and maintain copy machines for its internal operations. Rosemount did not submit information to the Commissioner which indicates that it must operate and maintain machines other than those necessary for its internal operations in order to provide members of the public with copies of public data. It is not reasonable for government entities to recover a portion of their normal operating expenses by charging a copying fee which is higher than the actual cost to supply the copy. (See also Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinion #94-040.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  A few further comments are in order. In the documents provided by Mr. Walsh, it appears that Rosemount has added sales tax to its charge for copies of public government data. This issue was previously raised with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, which requires collection of sales tax by entities which are in the business of selling copies. The Department specifically exempted entities which are subject to the MGDPA from including sales tax in their charges for copies of government data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Also, Mr. Walsh asked the City for an explanation of its policies and procedures regarding access to public data, but apparently has not received a response. For a discussion of this issue, see Commissioner&apos;s Advisory Opinions #94-014 and #94-021.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Walsh is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue one
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , it is neither reasonable nor justifiable to charge Mr. Walsh for copies of public data which he did not request.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue two
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , Rosemount has not met the burden of establishing that a $.50 per sheet copy fee is the actual cost of providing copies of public data
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Robert A. Schroeder
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Acting Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: December 30, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267741</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Operating expenses excluded</Title><Id>266306</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Sales tax excluded</Title><Id>266254</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:16Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Inspection</Title><Id>266259</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266323</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-058</Title><title>Opinion 94 058</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267696&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-28T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is Hennepin County Collections Services Division, a government entity that collects and distributes child support on behalf of custodial parents, required to provide child support accounting information requested by the custodial parent regarding her/his case?
Whether Hennepin County&apos;s conduct, where the county provided a response eight and one-half months after the initial request and where it failed to respond to a subsequent request, constitutes a violation of the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
Whether Hennepin County violated the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by failing to provide complete information requested by an individual regarding private data on her/his case?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 28, 1994; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in &lt;em&gt;Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016)&lt;/em&gt;, held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
&lt;p&gt;On November 17, 1994, PIPA received a letter, dated November 10, 1994, from Sangeeta Jain, an attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, on behalf of her client, X. Ms. Jain&apos;s letter included a discussion of Legal Aid&apos;s attempts to obtain certain child support and collections data about X maintained by Hennepin County. Also in this letter, Ms. Jain requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Jain&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Barry Bloomgren, Manager of Hennepin County&apos;s Collection Services Division. The purposes of this letter, dated November 18, 1994, were to inform Mr. Bloomgren of Ms. Jain&apos;s request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 2, 1994, PIPA received a 16-page response via FAX from Mr. Bloomgren. Included in this response was a statement from Mr. Bloomgren and a chronological statement prepared by Ms. Casey White, a supervisor in Hennepin County Collection Services Division (CSD). It should be noted that the fact situation presented by Hennepin County differs significantly from that presented by Ms. Jain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also included in the response from Mr. Bloomgren, was a copy of a memo dated August 26, 1994, to all CSD staff regarding Legal Aid Requests for Case Information; a copy of a letter sent to X dated April 17, 1994; a copy of the court order for child support issued to the father of X&apos;s child; and a copy of a letter dated November 30, 1994, to Legal Aid which appears to contain the sought-after data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Ms. Jain, on June 4, 1993, Monica Burczek, an attorney with Legal Aid, contacted Hennepin County CSD, and spoke with Ms. Deb Lubintine and requested a breakdown of the child support paid in X&apos;s case by the father of X&apos;s child, retroactive to the child&apos;s date of the birth (DOB). Ms. Burczek indicated that she would obtain a consent to release of information from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. White&apos;s statement indicates that Hennepin County has no record of this contact.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Jain reports that on June 14, 1993, a letter requesting accounting of any child support enforcement activities since the child&apos;s DOB along with a consent to release information was FAXed to CSD. A copy of this letter and the release was included in Ms. Jain&apos;s opinion request. (PIPA notes that the date affixed to the copy of the letter it received is June 11, 1993.) Legal Aid reports they received no response from Hennepin County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. White, Ms. Lubotina received the FAX, contacted Ms. Burczek to get further clarification regarding the letter, and then requested that Ms. Burczek provide a written statement of exactly what information she was seeking. (There is a dispute over the spelling of Ms. Lubotina&apos;s name. Because she is an employee of Hennepin County, the Commissioner will assume Hennepin County&apos;s spelling is correct.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Legal Aid, on July 6, 1993, Ms. Burczek again wrote to CSD specifically requesting a copy of all information on the child support received on X&apos;s behalf and how the child support was disbursed retroactive to the child&apos;s DOB. PIPA received a copy of this letter. Legal Aid reports no response from Hennepin County. According to Ms. White, Hennepin County has no record of this correspondence nor does Ms. Lubotina recall receiving such a letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 29, 1993, according to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek contacted Ms. Lubotina and left a message requesting that a time be arranged when X&apos;s file could be examined and its contents discussed. Legal Aid reports no response from Hennepin County. According to Ms. White, Hennepin County has no record of this message nor does Ms. Lubotina recall receiving such a message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 3, 1993, according to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek called Ms. Lubotina and left a message. Ms. Lubotina returned the message and stated that accounting information would be provided by the week of November 15, 1993. Legal Aid reports that no such information was sent by the County.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. White, Ms. Burczek requested accounting information and copies of all notices generated to X. Ms. Lubotina explained that some notices are sent directly from the State Office of Child Support and Enforcement and that accounting information is contained on the state&apos;s computer system. She indicated to Ms. Burczek that the requested accounting information would be forwarded in two weeks. Because Ms. Lubotina had questions about releasing some of this information, Ms. White referred her to the County Attorney&apos;s office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. White, on November 4, 1993, Ms. Lubotina attempted to get a county attorney to review the issues but no one was available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. White, on December 2, 1993, Ms. Lubotina discussed the situation with Ms. Gray-Larson, Assistant County Attorney, who was then to handle the case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Legal Aid, on January 6, 1994, Ms. Burczek contacted Ms. Lubotina and left a message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. White reports that their records do not reflect a message or contacts on that date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 14, 1994, according to Ms. White, Ms. Burczek left a voice mail message inquiring as to when she would be receiving the information. Ms. Lubotina returned the call and left a message detailing the discussions she had had with Ms. Gray-Larson and noted there must be some miscommunication since Ms. Burczek had not yet received a response. Ms. Lubotina also left Ms. Gray-Larson&apos;s phone number. Ms. Lubotina then contacted Ms. Gray-Larson who took the file to call Ms. Burczek.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Legal Aid notes that sometime in January of 1994, Ms. Gray-Larson returned Ms. Burczek&apos;s call and left a message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 7, 1994, Legal Aid states that Ms. Burczek returned Ms. Gray-Larson&apos;s call and was informed that the requested information would not be provided. Further, Ms. Gray-Larson indicated the County&apos;s policy is that all child support information are private data including the amount received, the date child support was received, the account number, and the effective date of the child support order. In addition, data would not be disclosed unless both parties, including the payor and payee, sign a release of information form. According to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek responded that the requested information did not require a release since she was not seeking the Social Security number or employer information of the payor. Rather, she was requesting information on the amount of child support received, when the support was received, the date of collection, and when any pass-through&apos;s were paid to X. Ms. Gray-Larson indicated she would review the procedures and would get back to Ms. Burczek.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. White, there is no record of this conversation on file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. White notes that on February 18, 1994, Ms. Gray-Larson requested payment printouts (state computer system printouts) which were compiled and forwarded to Ms. Gray-Larson by Ms. Lubotina.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both the County and Legal Aid agree that a letter dated February 23, 1994, was sent from Ms. Gray-Larson to Ms. Burczek. However, Legal Aid states that most of the information was provided in computer jargon, was not understandable, and did not include all information requested. Specifically, it did not provide information regarding the date of receipt, the date of collection, and how monies were disbursed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Legal Aid notes that a letter dated March 28, 1994, was sent to Ms. Gray-Larson indicating that additional information was needed. Specifically requested was a breakdown of how monies were distributed and to what monies X was entitled. Legal Aid states that the County then contacted Ms. Burczek and told her to contact a county attorney in the child support division for the information requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hennepin County notes that it has no record on file of the March 28, 1994, correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Legal Aid then notes that on May 20, 1994, Ms. Jain discussed X&apos;s case along with other issues with Mr. Robert Distad, head of the County Attorney&apos;s Child Support Division. He indicated that the County Attorney&apos;s office could not provide the requested information and that any request needed to be directed to the Collections Division.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hennepin County states that they have no record of a contact by Ms. Jain on this date.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PIPA is aware of one final contact between Hennepin County and Legal Aid regarding X&apos;s case. Attached to the response from Mr. Bloomgren was a letter, dated November 30, 1994, from Ms. White to Ms. Jean Lastine, the managing attorney at Legal Aid of Minneapolis. In that letter, Ms. White states she is responding to the voice mail message Ms. Lastine left in response to Ms. White&apos;s phone call of the day before. Ms. White apologizes for taking so long to respond and notes that her office had referred this case to the County Attorney&apos;s office for clarification regarding data. Ms. White goes on to say they had assumed that Legal Aid had received a response to its request. It also appears that Ms. White, in this letter, provides the data which Legal Aid has been requesting for quite some time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is Hennepin County Collections Services Division, a government entity that collects and distributes child support on behalf of custodial parents, required to provide child support accounting information requested by the custodial parent regarding her/his case?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Whether Hennepin County&apos;s conduct, where the county provided a response eight and one-half months after the initial request and where it failed to respond to a subsequent request, constitutes a violation of the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Whether Hennepin County violated the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by failing to provide complete information requested by an individual regarding private data on her/his case?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Although Hennepin County and Legal Aid have presented different factual accounts regarding X&apos;s quest to gain access to certain data, those inconsistencies are irrelevant to the discussion about issue one. According to Legal Aid, the data sought on behalf of X are data which Hennepin County uses to determine how much child support she receives, when she receives it, how much has been applied to arrearages, etc. As Ms. Jain noted in her opinion request, the Commissioner, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267298&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;94-017&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 94-017&lt;/a&gt;, has already addressed the issue of whether such child support accounting information is accessible to a custodial parent.
&lt;p&gt;In that advisory opinion, the Commissioner stated, ...[the custodial parent] is asking for the source data, either public data not on individuals about the county and how it &apos;pays&apos; itself over the course of CSC&apos;s [Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office of Child Support and Collections] relationship with [the parent] or private data about herself and the course of that relationship, that CSC uses to produce or prepare account reviews or monthly statements. This kind of data not on individuals maintained by the welfare system is [are] public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1, and 13.46, subdivision 6.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in Advisory Opinion 94-017, the Commissioner clarified that the custodial parent has the right to gain access to any private data maintained about her by Ramsey County: ...Under the MGDPA [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act], [the parent] has the right to gain access to all private or public data maintained about her by CSC...To the extent that CSC maintains private data about her...[the parent] has the right under Section 13.04 of the MGDPA to gain access to that data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In X&apos;s case, although the County does not so state, it seems that the data collected and maintained about her are classified under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, as welfare data. According to subdivision 2, data on individuals maintained by the welfare system are, with certain exceptions, classified as private data. Private data, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, are not public and are accessible to the individual subject of that data. Therefore, if the County is maintaining any private data about X, she has the right to gain access to that data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the same vein, any private data collected and maintained by the County about the father of X&apos;s child would be accessible only to him and not to X. Such data might include his Social Security number, his address, his place of work, etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further, if the County is maintaining any data not on individuals, those data are classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 6. Public data are accessible to anyone, including X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue raised by Ms. Jain is whether Hennepin County violated provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by taking several months to respond to Legal Aid&apos;s request. According to Legal Aid, the initial request was made in June of 1993 and was not responded to until February of 1994. At that point, a subsequent request was made and no answer was received. According to Hennepin County, the request was not clarified until November of 1993 and after CSD sent the request to the County Attorney&apos;s office, someone responded in February of 1994. The County has no record of the follow-up request but did issue what appears to be a response, in a letter dated November 30, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the issue of timely responses to requests for access to data, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 are quite clear. When a citizen is seeking access to data maintained about her\himself, Section 13.04 states that, ...The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request pursuant to this subdivision, or within 5 days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the data sought by X are data about her, then Hennepin County had, at the maximum, ten days (excluding weekends and legal holidays) in which to respond. In this case, the County took, at the minimum, over three months to respond to the initial request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a citizen is seeking access to public data, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, Subpart 3, states that, ...the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time. In addition, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states that, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures...to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.... If the data sought by X are public data, then Hennepin County is required to respond to her request within a reasonable time and in an appropriate and prompt manner. In this instance, a response after three or more months is not reasonable, prompt or appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is one additional comment to be made regarding the issue of a timely response. In early November of 1993, according to Hennepin County, Ms. Lubotina began seeking assistance from the County Attorney&apos;s office. Ms. White&apos;s statement indicates her office was unsure as to, whose data is this? The County Attorney&apos;s office did not respond to Legal Aid until either January or February of 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This sequence of events seems to suggest that CSD staff do not have a clear understanding of the classifications assigned to the particular pieces of data they collect and which pieces of data can be released to whom. It is conceivable that CSD staff might wish to contact an attorney for clarification but that does not justify taking more time to respond or responding in an incomplete fashion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0800 describe some of the duties of the responsible authority. Section 13.05, Subdivision 1, states that, The responsible authority shall prepare a public document containing...a description of each category of record, file, or process relating to private or confidential data on individuals.... Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0800 is even more to the point, ...the responsible authority shall review and identify all of the types of data maintained by the entity...determine what types of data maintained by the entity are classified as private or confidential. Hennepin County clearly has a duty under Minnesota law to understand what types of data it collects, how those data should be classified, and to whom those data can be disseminated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third issue Ms. Jain asked the Commissioner to address is whether Hennepin County violated provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by not providing all the information requested by Legal Aid.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In looking at the facts as presented by Ms. Jain, it appears that specific requests for specific information were made to Hennepin County. When the County asked for clarification regarding the initial request, Ms. Burczek of Legal Aid did respond with that information in a letter dated July 6, 1993. Ms. Burczek&apos;s letter states, ...X would like a copy of all child support received and how the child support was disbursed. While Ms. White and Ms. Lubotina stated they have no record of this correspondence, a copy of the letter was provided to PIPA in Ms. Jain&apos;s opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Hennepin County has no record of the aforementioned letter, a phone conversation occurred on November 3, 1993, during which Ms. Burczek requested, accounting information and copies of all notices generated to [X]. Because Ms. Lubotina did not request additional clarification, it seems reasonable to conclude that Hennepin County and Legal Aid were in agreement as to what data were being sought.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, according to Ms. Jain, when Ms. Burczek received the requested information from Ms. Gray-Larson of the County Attorney&apos;s office on February 23, 1994, it was, written in computer jargon, was not understandable and did not include all the information requested. It failed to provide information regarding the date of receipt, the date of collection, and how monies were disbursed. Legal Aid sent a letter to that effect to Ms. Gray Larson dated March 28, 1994, and never received a response. Again, Ms. White and Ms. Lubotina stated they have no record of this correspondence and again, a copy of the letter was provided to PIPA in Ms. Jain&apos;s opinion request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Putting aside the factual disagreement about whether Hennepin County received these letters, the real issue is whether Hennepin County&apos;s February 23, 1994, response included the requested information and whether the information was comprehensible. According to the those working on behalf of the data subject, the answer to both questions is no. Not only was the information incomplete, but it was provided in a format which appears to be difficult to comprehend. Interestingly, in the County&apos;s November 30, 1994, letter, the information was presented in a manner which seems to be much easier to understand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a data subject requests access to view or make copies of data about which s/he is the subject or data which are public, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the government entity is required to meet certain obligations. It must, upon request, show a data subject the data which the entity maintains about her/him and must inform the data subject of the content and meaning of the data (Section 13.04, Subdivision 3). In addition, upon request, it must permit a person to inspect and copy public government data and must inform the person of the data&apos;s meaning (Section 13.03, Subdivision 3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly, if Hennepin County is producing computer reports that are incomprehensible to a person seeking access to government data, it has a duty to explain the contents of those reports to those who request and receive access to the data. In addition, it is obligated to provide public data or private data it maintains about a data subject as requested. In this situation, it appears that Hennepin County met neither of these responsibilities, until November 30, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Jain is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue one&lt;/h2&gt;
, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivisions 2 and 6, child support accounting information collected and maintained by Hennepin County are, in some instances, either private data on individuals about the support obligee or public data not on individuals and are therefore accessible to X or her designee(s).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue two&lt;/h2&gt;
, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to data in the following fashion: (1) when the data are about the citizen, the response must be immediate or within five working days. If the entity needs additional time, it may take an additional five working days if it so informs the data subject; (2) when the data are public, the response must be complied within an appropriate and prompt manner. In this case, Hennepin County did not respond to Legal Aid&apos;s request, on behalf of X, within the time frames as required by Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue three&lt;/h2&gt;
, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, when a citizen requests access to public data or data about which s/he is the subject, government entities are obligated to provide access to all the data that have been requested. In addition, government entities are required to provide the data in a manner which is comprehensible to the person seeking access or to explain the content and meaning of the data. In this case, Hennepin County did not provide all the data requested by X and the data she did received was presented in a fashion that was difficult to comprehend.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 28, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267696</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)</Title><Id>266260</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Multiple data subjects</Title><Id>266328</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266547</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-057</Title><title>Opinion 94 057</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267865&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-28T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the position of the Department of Natural Resources that it can limit Mr. Boe&apos;s use of public data in compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 28, 1994; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Attorney General opinion 852 (Dec. 4, 1995) takes precedence over this opinion, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, subd. 1(f).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
&lt;p&gt;On November 17, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Stephen Boe, dated November 15, 1994, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter Department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Beginning in June, 1994, and continuing into October, 1994, Mr. Boe attempted to gain access to and copies of data concerning Cass Lake muskellunge. Department personnel told him that he was free to view or copy the requested data, but that the Department copyrighted all the data he requested, and therefore any use, other than personal, was regulated by the terms of the copyright. In addition, the Department told him that all photocopies and notes he made must carry the Department&apos;s copyright statement. Mr. Boe objected to having these conditions placed upon his access to the data, and asked the Department to provide him, in writing, with the legal basis upon which it relied to impose such limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 22, 1994, Mr. Boe wrote to Mr. Rodney Sando, Commissioner of the Department, to ask for a ruling on the Department&apos;s response to his data request. Mr. Sando, in his written reply to Mr. Boe, stated that it was the Department&apos;s position that the data in question were copyrighted, and that all copies or notes made by or for Mr. Boe were to carry the Department&apos;s copyright stamp. Mr. Boe then requested an opinion of the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to this request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Commissioner Sando. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Sando of Mr. Boe&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Sando or the Department&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 2, 1994, PIPA received a response letter from Commissioner Sando. In his response, Mr. Sando stated that it is the Department&apos;s position that it is in full compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ( Act or MGDPA ), regarding Mr. Boe&apos;s request. He stated that the Department gave Mr. Boe access to all the data he requested, that Mr. Boe took notes on the data he reviewed, and that Mr. Boe refused the Department&apos;s offer to provide him copies of the data, because the copies carried the Department&apos;s copyright notice. He also stated that the Department informed Mr. Boe that he may not publish or otherwise use the data for purposes other than personal ones unless he obtains a license from the Department. He said that [t]he Department grants licenses to the public on a regular basis, normally without charge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Sando based his assertion of intellectual property rights for the data under Title 17, United States Code, the Copyright Act of 1976.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the position of the Department of Natural Resources that it can limit Mr. Boe&apos;s use of public data in compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
The legislature has implemented fundamental information policy principles in the MGDPA. It has determined that, unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification, government data are public, and that generally, no restrictions may be imposed upon the public&apos;s use of public government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.0300, subpart 2.)
&lt;p&gt;However, in provisions of the Act and in other statutes, the Minnesota legislature has addressed the reality that in some instances government data may have commercial or other value, and that taxpayers in general ought to benefit from the value of government information and data. In a variety of instances the legislature has made both general and specific policy that is intended to give entities the authority to tap the value that may be inherent in government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a matter of general policy, the legislature, in 1984, amended Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to authorize responsible authorities to charge a reasonable fee, in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies, when a request for data under this subdivision ...involves any person&apos;s receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, database, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency,.... The agency must be able to demonstrate clearly the relationship of the fee to the actual development costs of the information. (Laws of Minnesota for 1984, Chapter 436, Section 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In certain instances, the legislature has authorized government agencies to sell data or to seek copyright or patent protection for certain types of government data. In Minnesota Statutes Section 16B.51, the Department of Administration is authorized to sell certain data. Government entities can also seek patent or copyright protection for computer software programs or components of software programs. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 5.) In the instance of projects supported by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (and two other funds), the legislature has said that: [t]he fund owns and shall take title to the percentage of a royalty, copyright, or patent resulting from a project supported by the fund equal to the percentage of the project&apos;s total funding provided by the fund.... (Minnesota Statutes Section 116P.10.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The history of specific legislative authorizations to sell data or claim intellectual property rights indicates a legislative position that government entities do not have general authorization to make claims of intellectual property rights over public government data. If all government entities could claim intellectual property rights in their public data, then there would be no need for such specific authorizations to do so. In fact, during the 1984 session, Hennepin County proposed general legislative authorization that would have allowed government entities to acquire a copyright or patent for any government data created by their agencies. The legislature rejected such a broad approach, and instead enacted the language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 5, that authorizes agencies to seek protection for computer software programs or components of programs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 1994, the legislature again considered and rejected an amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 5, which proposed that state agencies and political subdivisions be authorized to acquire copyright or other protection for intellectual property in any government data developed or acquired by the entity. The proposed legislation defined intellectual property to mean ...an idea, datum, artistic or other tangible expression, innovation, invention, process, or product, or any other meaning as defined by state or federal copyright, patent, or trademark laws.... (See A-1 amendment, SF 2076, 3-9-94.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After rejecting this language, the only action taken by the legislature in 1994 concerning intellectual property was the creation of the following new section in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16 B:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Sec. 33 [16B.483] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
&lt;p&gt;Before executing a contract or license agreement involving intellectual property developed or acquired by the state, a state agency shall seek review and comment from the attorney general on the terms and conditions of the contract or agreement. (Ch. 632, Art. 3, Sec. 33, Laws of Minnesota for 1994.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the previous history of legislative consideration of copyright and other forms of intellectual property claims for government data, this language does not appear to be sufficient evidence of legislative intent to allow any government entity in this state to claim copyright or other forms of intellectual property protection for any public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Commissioner Sando stated that the Department relied upon Title 17, United States Code, as its authority to claim copyright protection for the data in question. It is the case that Title 17 U.S.C. does not exclude state governments and agencies from claiming copyright protection, but it also does not provide for it. (Federal copyright law does not allow federal government agencies to claim copyright protection for federal data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is no indication in legislative history that the legislature intends that any government entity can claim and enforce intellectual property rights in its public government data, and thereby severely limit public use of public data. As noted above, a fundamental principle of the MGDPA is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose. It would contravene this principle to find that such a general authority resides in agencies. These reasons, as well as the devastating impact that intellectual property claims may have on public access to and use of public government data, lead to the conclusion that the Department&apos;s position is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legislature, through the enactment of the MGDPA, and as evidenced by subsequent actions, has for 20 years retained the authority to classify data. It removed such discretion from government entities. If the Department&apos;s assertion that it can control the use of public government data were to be upheld, the Department would, in effect, be exercising its own discretion over public access to and use of public data. The information policy principles embedded in the MGDPA, (the presumption of openness of government data, and the absence of limitations upon the use of public government data) would then be circumvented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Department, and other government entities, in appropriate circumstances, may charge an add-on fee as is authorized in the Act. This enables entities to recover development costs for data which have commercial value, without imposing upon the public the financial and other costs of intellectual property claims.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Boe is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The position of the Department of Natural Resources that it can limit Mr. Boe&apos;s use of public data, is not in compliance with the presumption of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, that, unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public&apos;s right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity&apos;s claim of intellectual property rights in those data.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 28, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267865</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commercial value</Title><Id>266548</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Copyright</Title><Id>266702</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intellectual property (See also: Proprietary information)</Title><Id>266703</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intellectual property/copyright</Title><Id>267065</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-056</Title><title>Opinion 94 056</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267348&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-14T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are members of the public entitled to gain access to files relating to workers&apos; compensation through use of a company name as the search criterion?
Is the public entitled to gain access to those data in the worker&apos;s compensation files that are not specifically classified as not public by statute?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 14, 1994; Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity are presented in summary form. Copies of the detailed submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In a letter dated November 4, 1994, and received by the Commissioner on November 7, 1994, Mr. Andrew Coffey, a law clerk for the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper described attempts by reporters working for the paper to gain access to certain data maintained by the State Department of Labor and Industry, hereinafter Department. After providing some details about what the reporters requested, the response from the Department to the request and some discussion as to why the data in question are public, Mr. Coffey asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issues stated in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;A summary of the detailed information provided by Mr. Coffey is as follows. Two reporters for the Star Tribune requested access to the public portions of workers&apos; compensation documents relating to employees injured while working for a specific company. According to Mr. Coffey, the reporters were told that a member of the public could not search the Department&apos;s files by the name of a specific company even though the Department&apos;s computer has the capability to perform a search by company name. Also according to Mr. Coffey, the reporters were told that workers&apos; compensation files are private until the cases are adjudicated, at which point the files become public. However, Mr. Coffey stated that the adjudicated files could not be accessed by the public unless the member of the public provided the name of a specific employee whose case had been adjudicated. Mr. Coffey went on to make a number of arguments, based on Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and other specific statutory provisions, that attacked the positions taken by the Department as he had described those positions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Coffey&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Mr. John B. Lennes, Jr., the Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated November 8, 1994, were to inform Mr. Lennes of Mr. Coffey&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to the Department and to ask the Department or its attorney to provide information or support for the Department&apos;s position and to inform the Department of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On November 17, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Commissioner Lennes. In that letter, Commissioner Lennes stated that workers&apos; compensation files at the Department contain data to which access is restricted under Minnesota Statutes Section 176.231. He also mentioned that the files are identified by social security numbers that are private and are also likely to contain private rehabilitation data. In addition, Commissioner Lennes pointed out that the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act constrain disclosure about workers&apos; compensation claims. He did not elaborate on the applicability of those two acts to an issue of public access to data under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Lennes acknowledged that hearings before a compensation judge are public under Minnesota Statutes Section 176.401 and that the record of an appeal would be public. However, he added that it was not clear whether the reporters actually asked for a file under the name of the specific company in instances where the claim made by the worker had been the subject of a public hearing. He stated that the reporters did not present authorization from an employer or employee to provide access. He pointed out that there was no identification of who within the Department had allegedly told the reporters that the public could not search files by the name of an employer. He did acknowledge that the Department&apos;s files are identified by both employee and employer name and that the reporters were told they could get access by obtaining an authorization or by making a request for summary data in writing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, Mr. Coffey asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are members of the public entitled to gain access to files relating to workers&apos; compensation through use of a company name as the search criterion?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is the public entitled to gain access to those data in the worker&apos;s compensation files that are not specifically classified as not public by statute?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statues Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states the general rule that all government data are accessible by the public unless there is a statute or federal law that classifies certain data as not public. In addition to stating this presumption of public access, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, also imposes an obligation on government entities to keep their records containing government data in an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use by the public. As the Commissioner pointed out in Opinion Number 94-032, dated August 11, 1994 and relating to access to data at the state Department of Public Safety, this language concerning convenient use has been a part of Minnesota Law since 1941.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this instance, as acknowledged by the Department, the capability exists for the Department to search its files by the name of the employer. When the reporters made their initial request to the Department, it appears that they asked for a search of the files by employer name. If the search by employer would provide access to public data then there appears to be no basis on which the Department could reasonably rely to reply to the reporters that a search by employer name would not be done.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, in the situation described by both the newspaper and the Department, the issue of whether or not the Department&apos;s files could be searched by employer name is intertwined with the issue of whether a search by employer name would provide access to data that are classified as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Department&apos;s position is that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.231, the Department&apos;s files contain reports that cannot be disclosed to the public without the authorization of the employers or employees who are the subject of those reports. In addition, the Department cites the social security number and rehabilitation data provisions of Sections 13.49 and 13.791 of Chapter 13 as sections of statute that classify certain data in files of the Department as private data. In addition, the Department discussed civil rights acts that limit disclosure about workers&apos; compensation claims but the Department did not elaborate on how these civil rights acts limit public access to data about a company&apos;s experience with workers&apos; compensation claims if data about the workers themselves were not disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is clear that any data contained in reports submitted to the Department pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.231 cannot be disclosed to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 176.231, subdivisions 8 and 9.) It is clear that if the files of the Department contain rehabilitation data and the social security number of a workers&apos; compensation claimant, those data are classified as private by Minnesota Statues Sections 13.49 and 13.791. It is also clear, as acknowledged by the Department that the contents of files made a part of the record of a hearing before a compensation judge of the Office of Administrative hearing are public data. It appears, given the response of the Department, that any government data maintained by the Department in its administration of the workers&apos; compensation system, that are not reports provided to the Department pursuant to Minnesota statutes Section 176.231 and are not social security numbers or rehabilitation data, are public data by virtue of the operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The reporters for the Star Tribune seek access to data about a company. Data maintained about a company are data not on individuals for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 4 and 5.) With the exception of the basis for nondisclosure of government data provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 176.231, the other not public classifications cited by the Department are for data on individuals. With the exception of data contained in the reports received by the Department pursuant to Section 176.231, the operation of Section 13.03 of the Act logically dictates that data maintained by the Department about employers, are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It appears that part of the Department&apos;s concern for providing public access to the data sought by the newspaper rests in an administrative reality that the Department is maintaining files that contain both public and not public data. However, it is clear that Chapter 13 requires agencies in that kind of circumstance to separate public from not public data and to make the public data accessible by the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3.) The obligation of government entities to perform this separation of data has been recently upheld by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. (&lt;u&gt;See Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington&lt;/u&gt;, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. App. 1993).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;My opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Coffey is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 1, if the Department has the capability of providing access to its public data by the name of an employer, that access, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, should be provided.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 2, data maintained by the Department are subject to the presumption stated in Minnesota Statues Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that, subject to certain exceptions, all government data are public. To the extent that the Department is maintaining public data in files that also contain not public data, it is the Department&apos;s responsibility, under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3, to make the public data available to the public.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: December 14, 1994&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267348</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Rehabilitation data (13.791)</Title><Id>266779</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public and not public data</Title><Id>266278</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Workers&apos; compensation</Title><Id>266780</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-06-24T14:35:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-055</Title><title>Opinion 94 055</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267814&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-12-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>As the parent of the five minor children, does the mother have the legal right to the files in Crow Wing County Child Protection?
Does the mother have the rights to see any data regarding the father, exclusive of the name/names of the reporter, any information on the mental health reports of the father and any material on the chemical health of the father?
Does the mother have the legal right to access any/all psychological or chemical history data on her five minor children?
In the event that six months or more has expired since our last review, may we legally access the file?
Since the mother has had no parental rights terminated and no action by the court has taken away any of the mother&apos;s rights other than the fact that the father has physical custody, with the mother having joint legal custody of her sixteen year old daughter, does the mother have the legal right to authorize advocates of The Center for Victims of Professional Abuse to act as her agents and access data on her children.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 14, 1994; Crow Wing County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 7, 1994, PIPA received a letter dated November 2, 1994, from Ms. Marjory Aldrich, an advocate with the Center for Victims of Professional Abuse Concern for Children Network. In her letter, Ms. Aldrich described the difficulties she and another advocate, Ms. Valerie Carlson, were having in obtaining certain information maintained by Crow Wing County Human Services about the children of their client, X. Also in this letter, Ms. Aldrich requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A summary of the detailed information provided by Ms. Aldrich is as follows. On approximately March 24, 1994, Ms. Aldrich, Ms. Carlson, and X visited Crow Wing County Human Services and reviewed the child protection file of the children of X and her husband. They paid for and received copies of certain pages. Upon later review, they realized that some of the pages of which they had wanted copies had not been copied. (Ms. Aldrich did not raise this particular issue in her request for an opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several months later, on October 19, 1994, Ms. Aldrich and Ms. Carlson contacted, in writing, Mr. Lannell Farmer, Supervisor at the Social Service Center of Crow Wing County, and requested an appointment to again view the file of the children of X and her husband on Tuesday, November 2, 1994. Mr. Farmer responded in writing that the county, would not share information on records you are requesting to see. He further stated that the Crow Wing County Attorney, Mr. John Remington Graham, had reviewed the issue on a previous date and had determined that because X is not the subject of the private data, she cannot gain access to the data. Ms. Aldrich then requested a Commissioner&apos;s opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Dennis Johnson, Director, Crow Wing County Social Service Center. The purposes of this letter, dated November 8, 1994, were to inform Mr. Johnson of Ms. Aldrich&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask him or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 18, 1994, PIPA received a response via FAX from Mr. Graham which included a copy of the opinion he issued on August 24, 1994. Mr. Graham stated in his letter that he stands on the opinion and that therefore, Ms. Aldrich and her client are not entitled to information maintained by Crow Wing County about X&apos;s husband.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issues raised by Mr. Anfinson in his request for an opinion were stated by him as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As the parent of the five minor children, does the mother have the legal right to the files in Crow Wing County Child Protection?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the mother have the rights to see any data regarding the father, exclusive of the name/names of the reporter, any information on the mental health reports of the father and any material on the chemical health of the father?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the mother have the legal right to access any/all psychological or chemical history data on her five minor children?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;In the event that six months or more has expired since our last review, may we legally access the file?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Since the mother has had no parental rights terminated and no action by the court has taken away any of the mother&apos;s rights other than the fact that the father has physical custody, with the mother having joint legal custody of her sixteen year old daughter, does the mother have the legal right to authorize advocates of The Center for Victims of Professional Abuse to act as her agents and access data on her children.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue one can be addressed by examining particular sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 13 and 626, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205. According to Crow Wing County, the data sought by X and her advocates have been collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, which provides, among other things, for reports of child maltreatment and the handling of these reports by child protection and law enforcement. Subdivision 11 of that Section provides guidance on the handling of records produced in assessments and investigations of maltreatment and states that, ...all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency under this section,... shall be private data on individuals...The records shall be collected and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13...An individual subject of the record shall have access to the record in accordance with those sections, except that the name of the reporter shall be confidential while the report is under assessment or investigation...After the assessment or investigation is completed, the name of the reporter shall be confidential.... Practically speaking, data collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 could include data about any of the following persons: the alleged perpetrator, the reporter of the abuse or neglect, the child/ren whom have allegedly been abused or neglected, the parents of the child/ren, and other individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, defines private data on individuals as, ...data which is...: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. Subdivision 8 defines individual as, ...in the case of a minor...includes a parent...except that the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents...upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When read together, subdivisions 8 and 12 of 13.02 and subdivision 11 of Section 626.556 make it clear that, unless a minor who is the subject of data requests and receives approval for data about the minor to be withheld, a parent of that minor child has the right to gain access to private data about that child. (In this instance, Crow Wing County has not provided any evidence to suggest that X&apos;s children have requested and received permission to withhold data from their parents.) To make it absolutely clear that this right exists, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500, Subpart 2, also addresses the issue: ...Access to private data concerning minors shall be available...to...the parents of the minor data subject...the responsible authority shall presume the parent has the authority to exercise the rights...unless the responsible authority has been provided with evidence that there is a state law or court order governing such matters as divorce, separation, or custody, or a legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. In this case, Ms. Aldrich does note in her letter dated November 11, 1994, that none of X&apos;s parental rights have been terminated by a court. Therefore, it appears that X should be permitted access to private data about her children maintained by Crow Wing County Social Services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the second issue, Ms. Aldrich questions whether or not X should be able to gain access to information maintained by Crow Wing County about X&apos;s husband to any mental or chemical health reports. If the County has collected and is maintaining any such data about X&apos;s husband under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, the data are private data on individuals. X&apos;s husband, not X, would be the subject of such data and therefore, only he could gain access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The third issue raised by Ms. Aldrich on behalf of X is whether or not she (X) has the right to gain access to any or all psychological or chemical history data on her five minor children. This question needs to be addressed in two parts. First, is the issue of any mental health data that may be maintained about X&apos;s children. Mental health data about X&apos;s children collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 would be private data about those children. Accordingly, as in the above discussion regarding issue one, unless X&apos;s children have requested and received approval from the responsible authority to withhold data from their parents, X should be allowed to gain access to data about her children&apos;s mental health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the second part of the question, if the data X seeks have been collected because her children have been treated for drug or alcohol abuse, then the disclosure of that data could be covered under the requirements set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Sections 2.1 to 2.67. This federal law appears to state that disclosure may only occur upon written consent of the minor. However, there is nothing in the information provided by the County or X to indicate that any data on her children would be subject to the federal law. Because other chemical history data about her children would likely be private data, it appears then that X has the right to gain access to such data about her children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fourth issue Ms. Aldrich asks the Commissioner to address also concerns the rights of subjects of data in gaining access to private data. She notes that the second time she and Ms. Carlson, on behalf of X, attempted to gain access to data concerning X&apos;s children, it had been six months since their previous visit. Ms. Aldrich wonders if the County had any authority to prevent her from gaining access to that data based on some type of time restriction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On that point, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, is quite clear. It states that, ...After an individual has been shown the private data...the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. In this situation, over six months had passed between visits by Ms. Aldrich, on behalf of X, to Crow Wing County to view and obtain copies of private data about X&apos;s children. Therefore, the County would not have been correct in refusing to allow access to the data based on an argument that the request was not timely. (It should be noted that Crow Wing County did not make this argument in explaining their refusal to let Ms. Aldrich view the data.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The final issue Ms. Aldrich raises in her opinion request relates to whether or not X may authorize others to act on her behalf in gaining access to private data. The answer to this question is clearly outlined in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, Subpart 2, which states that, Access to private data shall be available to...entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject. In this situation, because X&apos;s children are the subject of the data and because X, as one of their parents, has clear rights to gain access to that data, X is legally permitted to give written direction allowing Ms. Aldrich and the Center for Victims of Professional Abuse to gain access to private data about herself or her children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the County&apos;s response to Ms. Aldrich&apos;s questions, Mr. Graham essentially only addresses the first three issues. His primary point is that private data is accessible only to the data subject and in this case, the data subject is X&apos;s husband. Therefore, X should not have access to certain data maintained by Crow Wing County Social Services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Graham is correct if the only data collected by Crow Wing County are data about X&apos;s husband. As stated in the discussion of issues one through three, any data of which X&apos;s husband is the subject would not be accessible to X. However, Mr. Graham did not discuss the strong probability that while the file may contain data about X&apos;s husband, it may also contain data about Mr. and X&apos;s children. For that matter, it may also contain data about X. Because Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 clearly provide that the parent of a minor child can gain access to private data about that child, and Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 states that data collected in the course of investigating charges of child abuse or neglect are private data, X has a right to view and make copies of any data about her children maintained by Crow Wing County Social Services. If the County is maintaining any data of which X is the subject, then she would clearly have access to that data as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the only data maintained by Crow Wing County Human Services are data of which X&apos;s husband is the subject, Mr. Graham need only have stated that fact. However, since he did not, it seems plausible that the County has collected and is maintaining some data about which X and X&apos;s husband&apos;s children are the subject. Given the fact that the data were apparently collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, and that those data are private data and shall be collected and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13, it is clear that X and those to whom X has expressly awarded access, should be permitted to view and make copies of any private data maintained by the County about X&apos;s children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 23px; font-weight: 600;&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in the matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Aldrich on behalf of her client, X, is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue one, in the absence of a X&apos;s children having requested and received approval from the responsible authority to withhold data from their parents, and in the absence of evidence that a court or state law prohibits X from exercising her legal rights as a parent, she is allowed access to private data about her children.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue two, X does not have the right to gain access to any private data about X&apos;s husband.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue three, any mental health data collected about X&apos;s children would be private data. Barring any of the exceptions noted above in the statement regarding issue one, X does have the right to gain access to that data. If the data have been collected about X&apos;s children because they have been treated for alcohol or drug abuse, it is likely, based on federal law, that she would not be able to gain access to such data. However, it does not appear that this particular type of data has been collected. Therefore, because other chemical history data about X&apos;s children would be private data, X would have the right to gain access to that data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue four, given the fact that over six months has passed since Ms. Aldrich and X last viewed private data about X and her children, they are well within their rights, under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to request another review of that data, especially since, according to Ms. Aldrich, additional data have been collected.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue five, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, Subpart 2, X is legally permitted to give written direction to release private data about herself and her children to whomever she so chooses, including to Ms. Aldrich and her organization.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: December 14, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267814</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Advocates - access to data</Title><Id>266685</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Alcohol and drug treatment records (42 C.F.R. Part 2)</Title><Id>266686</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access to data subject</Title><Id>266497</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Spouse access to other spouse’s data</Title><Id>266687</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Social services/welfare data</Title><Id>266688</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:14Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-054</Title><title>Opinion 94 054</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267634&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When a 16- or 17-year-old juvenile has been arrested on suspicion of, and/or charged with, an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony, are the juvenile&apos;s name and age, and other identifying information maintained by the law enforcement agency, public data under Minn. Stat. §13.82?
May the Willmar police department refuse to provide copies of the initial complaint reports in such cases to reporters for the Tribune, and may it provide only oral accounts based on the report? (Tribune reporters desire to review the actual ICR, masked as appropriate.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 30, 1994; City of Willmar</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. A copy of the complete submission is on file at the offices of PIPA and is available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 10, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, the attorney for the West Central Tribune newspaper located in Willmar, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson described attempts by reporters working for his client to gain access to certain law enforcement data maintained by the City of Willmar, hereinafter City. A summary of what Mr. Anfinson related is as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 5, 1994, there was an altercation among several juveniles in Willmar One juvenile was critically wounded. Shortly thereafter a juvenile suspect was taken into custody by Willmar police. On November 6, 1994, a Tribune reporter asked for the name and age of the suspect being detained. The City refused to provide the data. Subsequently, the juvenile was charged with two separate crimes, both of which are felonies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Anfinson explained that the Tribune has encountered a number of difficulties in getting access to data on juveniles from the City&apos;s police department. These difficulties include getting access to incident complaint reports (ICR&apos;s), when the incident being documented involves a juvenile. He then asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on the issues described in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to his request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Michael Schmit, the City&apos;s administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated November 10, 1994, were to inform Mr. Schmit of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Schmit to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              No response was received from the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issues raised by Mr. Anfinson in his request for an opinion were stated by him as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          When a 16- or 17-year-old juvenile has been arrested on suspicion of, and/or charged with, an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony, are the juvenile&apos;s name and age, and other identifying information maintained by the law enforcement agency, public data under Minn. Stat. section13.82?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          May the Willmar police department refuse to provide copies of the initial complaint reports in such cases to reporters for the Tribune, and may it provide only oral accounts based on the report? (Tribune reporters desire to review the actual ICR, masked as appropriate.
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.82, subdivisions 2 through 4 and Section 260.161 provide guidance on the handling of data concerning juveniles involved in incidents requiring law enforcement services. An examination of those statutory provisions reveals the following.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 3 states that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document requests for law enforcement services are always public data. This includes items of data such as the nature of the request or activity complained of, the names and addresses of individuals who request police services, the time and date of the request or complaint and the response initiated and the response or incident report number. In certain specified circumstances, the identity of an individual requesting services is treated as not public data. These data are referred to as request for service data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 4 states that certain data created or collected by law enforcement agencies that document an agency&apos;s response to requests for service or that describe actions taken by an agency on its own initiative are also public data. The data identified in this section as being public are a much longer list of data elements than the list of request for service data. Included in this list are items of data such as date, time and place of the law enforcement action, a brief factual reconstruction of events, names and addresses of witnesses and victims and a number of other items. This subdivision also provides means by which the identities of certain individuals may be protected. The data made public by this section are referred to as response or incident data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, Section 13.82, subdivision 2, acknowledges in some situations that law enforcement actions involve the arrest of individuals. This subdivision lists a number of elements of data associated with an arrest that are public data. Included in this list are items of data such as time, date and place of the arrest, identities of agencies and individual persons taking the arrest action and the name, age, sex and last known address of an adult person cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty. In the case of juvenile persons, their names and last known addresses do not appear on the list of data that are public but the age and sex of juveniles who are cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise substantially deprived of liberty are public data. The data made public by this section are referred to as arrest data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Request for service data, response or incident data and arrest data are public data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter Chapter 13 or Act. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 2 through 4.) In enacting these subdivisions, the legislature has carefully and specifically described what data maintained by law enforcement agencies that document certain activities conducted by those agencies must be made available to the public. In these subdivisions, the legislature protects data on juveniles who may be engaged in delinquent or other unlawful behavior by specifying, in the arrest data subdivision, that only the age and sex of a juvenile offender taken into custody are required to be made public. All of the other data elements specified in these subdivisions either do not by their nature identify juveniles or if the data are about juveniles who are victims or witnesses are to be treated the same as data on adult victims or witnesses. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.82, subdivision 10 and 260.161, subdivision 3.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In determining the classification of data on juvenile offenders, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, must be read in conjunction with Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161. Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161 classifies and regulates data about juveniles held by the court system and by law enforcement agencies. Subdivision 3 of Section 260.161 specifies, subject to certain exceptions, that law enforcement records on children, who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts, are private data. Most of the exceptions deal with authority for juvenile records to be disseminated to various persons or agencies. In two instances, law enforcement data about juveniles can be disseminated to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  First, Section 260.161, subdivision 3 authorizes dissemination of law enforcement data pursuant to Section 13.82, subdivision 2. This is a cross reference to the arrest data section and it authorizes release to the public of the age and sex of juveniles taken into custody. This subdivision also states that law enforcement data relating to offenses by juveniles, in instances where the court proceedings involving a juvenile are public under Minnesota Statutes Section 260.155, subdivision 1, are not private data. The clear implication of that language is that those records are to be treated the same as records on adult individuals.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 260.155, subdivision 1 states that courts that hear juvenile matters are required to exclude the general public from those hearings. However, this subdivision also says that courts are required to open delinquency proceedings to the public when the child who is the subject of the proceeding is alleged to have committed an offense or has been proven to have committed an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and the child was at least 16 years of age at the time of the offense. This policy is sometimes called the sixteen year old felon rule. When read together, Sections 260.161, subdivision 3 and 260.155, subdivision 1, state a policy that law enforcement data on juveniles, who are subject to the 16 year old felon rule, are to be treated the same as data on adults for purposes of Section 13.82 of the Act.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  With that background, an analysis of the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson establishes the following. If a court, that is adjudicating a juvenile under the 16 year old felon rule, has opened its proceedings to the public, then the juvenile&apos;s name, age, sex and last known address are public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 2. If the court in the specific instance described by Mr. Anfinson has opened proceedings to the public, then the City should be providing this public data to the public. However, if the juvenile has been taken into custody and there has not yet been a decision by the court, under Minnesota Statutes Section 260.155, subdivision 1, to open delinquency proceedings concerning that juvenile to the public, the City must continue to treat the data on the juvenile, with the exception of the age and sex, as private data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In its provisions dealing with public access to data, the general rule of Chapter 13 is to give the public the right to gain access to the actual physical public government data being maintained by government agencies. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3.) This rule would normally apply to data contained on, what Mr. Anfinson, refers to as, incident complaint reports to the extent that those reports contain data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. However, when the legislature first enacted Section 13.82, it included, in the overall scheme of the operation of Section 13.82, a possible exception to the rule that the public can always gain physical access to public government data. Section 13.82, subdivision 9, states that, in an instance where it is not administratively feasible for a law enforcement agency to separate public data from confidential data, it is permissible for the law enforcement agency to not provide physical access to the data but to make the information described as public data available to the public in some other reasonable manner.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is not clear from the information provided by Mr. Anfinson if the reports his client seeks access to contain both public and confidential data. If they do, and, if it is not administratively feasible for the City to separate the data, then providing an oral report of the public data contained in the reports would be permissible under Section 13.82, subdivision 9. However, if these reports do not contain confidential data, or, if it is administratively feasible to separate public from confidential data, the City should be providing Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client with access to the actual reports or to copies of those reports in which the confidential data has been blacked out or otherwise removed.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the information provided by Mr. Anfinson, my opinion on the issues he raised is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 1
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , data on 16 and 17 year old juveniles who have been arrested and charged with offenses that would be felonies if they were adults, are to be treated the same as data on adults if the court adjudicating the juvenile has, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 260.155, subdivision 1, opened the delinquency proceedings to the public.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 2
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , the public has the right to gain access to and receive copies of incident complaint reports except in instances where those reports contain confidential data and it has been reasonably determined by the law enforcement agency maintaining the reports that it is not administratively feasible to separate the public data from the confidential data in those reports.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 30, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267634</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)</Title><Id>267153</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-053</Title><title>Opinion 94 053</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267212&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-23T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether he has the right to gain access to data that has been blanked out by his probation officer.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 23, 1994; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 22, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X dated September 3, 1994, in which he expressed concern that several violations of Chapter 13 had occurred regarding his dealings with the Corrections Division of Anoka County. Attached to this letter was a copy of a CHRONO (Refers to a type of document apparently used by Anoka County Probation for work on individual probation/parole cases. Information appears to be listed in the chronological order in which it was obtained and includes data from telephone conversations, office visits, etc.) X received from his probation officer, Mr. Tom Foster. Because PIPA was unable to determine the specific issues about which X was seeking assistance, a request for clarification, dated October 5, 1994, was mailed to him.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 3, 1994, PIPA received a second letter from X, dated October 23, 1994, in which he specifically requested an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed information provided by X is as follows. X made a data request to his probation officer for various kinds of data, including ...documents on all correspondence regarding conversations he [probation officer] has had which have not been solicited regarding myself which included all the Crono&apos;s [sic] he [probation officer] has logged in the logs, as well as any handwritten or miscellaneous materials regarding third-party conversations.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X received, from Mr. Foster, a copy of these documents with various data blacked out or redacted. Most of the notations regarding the redacted sections were labeled as having come from confidential callers. According to X, Mr. Foster, in redacting the data, cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.24, subdivisions 3 and 5, (the reference to section 13.24 appears to be a typographical error and probably should read Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84) and stated that the information is protected because the sources so requested.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Tim Yantos, the Deputy County Administrator of Anoka County. The purposes of this letter, dated November 4, 1994, were to inform Mr. Yantos of X&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Mr. Yantos or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 21, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Yantos, in which he stated Anoka County&apos;s position to be the following: the chronological entries into the probation file maintained by Anoka County Corrections Department on X are classified as confidential data on individuals pursuant to Minn. Stat. [section] 13.84, subd. 4. He further stated in his letter that the chronological entries are, information which is gathered by the Anoka County Corrections Department to help determine whether he [X] has remained law abiding or on good behavior or whether he has followed the reasonable recommendations of the Anoka County Corrections Department. This information also determines whether there is to be any legal action or disposition of X while he remains on probation.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Whether he has the right to gain access to data that has been blanked out by his probation officer. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                X is seeking access to data maintained about him by the Anoka County Corrections Department. The reason Anoka County is collecting and maintaining this particular data on X is that he is on probation. Therefore, this data is classified under Section 13.84 of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, court services data, the definition of which is, data that are created, collected, used, or maintained by a court services department, parole or probation authority, correctional agency, or by an agent designated by the court to perform studies or other duties and that are on individuals who are or were defendants, parolees or probationers .... In Section 13.84, court services data are classified as public, private, and confidential.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Anoka County makes its determination that the data sought by X are confidential based on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, Subdivision 4. Subdivision 4 states that progress and other reports and recommendations provided at the request of the court by parole or probation officers for the purpose of determining the appropriate legal action or disposition regarding an individual on probation are confidential data on individuals. According to Mr. Yantos, Anoka County is collecting the data about X, maintained in the chronological entries, because the court has requested this information to help determine whether X has complied with the rules of his probation and whether there is to be any legal action or disposition while he remains on probation. Therefore, Mr. Yantos believes the data sought by X are properly classified as confidential.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X, however, believes the data in question to be private. In support of that position, he relies on language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 3. Subdivision 2 states that unless the data are summary data or a statute specifically provides a different classification, certain court services data are private. The statute then lists the following types of data which are private: (a) data gathered at the request of a municipal, district, or county court to determine the need for any treatment, rehabilitation, counseling, or any other need of a defendant, parolee, probationer, or participant in a diversion program, and used by the court to assist in assigning an appropriate sentence or other disposition in a case; (b) data on petitioners or respondents to a family court gathered at the request of a court for purposes of, but not limited to, individual, family, marriage, chemical dependency and marriage dissolution adjustment counseling, including recommendations to the court as to the custody of minor children in marriage dissolution cases; (c) data on individuals gathered by psychologists in the course of providing the court or its staff with psychological evaluations or in the course of counseling individual clients referred by; the court for the purpose of assisting them with personal conflicts or difficulties.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language in Subdivision 3 of Section 13.84 relates to the data collected in Subdivision 2. Subdivision 3 states that when, in the course of gathering the private data described in Subdivision 2, a psychologist, probation officer or other agent of the court is directed by the court to obtain data on individual defendants, parolees, probationers, or petitioners or respondents in a family court, and the source of that data provides the data only upon the condition of its being held confidential, that data and the identity of the source shall be confidential data on individuals.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X relies on the following interpretation of Subdivision 3 to state his position. He suggests that data gathered for the purposes stated in Subdivision 2 can become confidential only by order or direction of the court. He argues that, because there has been no such order or direction in his case, the data in question are private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, on this point, the statute is quite clear. Subdivision 3 states that data gathered under Subdivision 2 can be converted to a confidential classification if the source of the data so requests. Direction from a court is not required.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The basis for Anoka County&apos;s position that the data are confidential is clear. The authority for this position is Subdivision 4 of Section 13.84, not Subdivision 3. Subdivision 4 classifies data which are collected for the purpose of determining the appropriate legal action or disposition regarding someone on probation. In his letter, Mr. Yantos states that Anoka County has gathered some of the data in the chronologies on X to determine his compliance with the rules of probation as ordered by the sentencing court and also to determine whether there is to be any legal action or disposition while he is on probation. Anoka County appears to be collecting this data for the reasons described in Subdivision 4. Therefore, because the data classified in Subdivision 4 are confidential, it would appear that the blacked out, or redacted data about X are confidential.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As the data sought by X from his Anoka County probation officer relate to progress reports, other reports, and recommendations provided for the purpose of determining legal action or disposition regarding X, they are classified as confidential under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.84, Subdivision 4.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 23, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267212</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Court services data (13.84)</Title><Id>266336</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-052</Title><title>Opinion 94 052</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267197&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-16T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is X entitled to gain access to data maintained by Beltrami County Social Services concerning the welfare of her minor child, including but not limited to data maintained by child protection?
In failing to respond to Ms. Dunn&apos;s repeated requests for access to data, on X&apos;s behalf, did Beltrami County Social Services violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 1994; Beltrami County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. The entity whose data are the subject of this opinion did not file a response to the notification of the citizen&apos;s request for an opinion. Copies of the detailed submission of the citizen are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 28, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Elizabeth Dunn, attorney for X, in which Ms. Dunn outlined her efforts, on behalf of X, to gain access to certain data maintained about X&apos;s minor child by Beltrami County Social Services, hereinafter County.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Dunn, through a Release of Information form signed by her client, sought access to the data, beginning in April, 1994, and continuing into October, 1994. According to her, she made numerous attempts to gain access to the data, each of which was unsuccessful. Ms. Dunn first contacted personnel at the social services department, and was told that her request must be directed to Timothy Faver, attorney for Beltrami County. Her subsequent attempts to gain access to the data were directed both to Mr. Faver and to personnel in social services. According to Ms. Dunn, as of October 25, 1994, she had received no response to her inquiries from Mr. Faver, and had not gained access to the data. Ms. Dunn then requested an opinion of the Commissioner, concerning the issues enumerated in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to this request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Larry Ellingson, acting director of Beltrami County Social Services. The purposes of this letter were to inform Mr. Ellingson of Ms. Dunn&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Ellingson or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The County did not respond to PIPA&apos;s letter, and therefore this opinion is based solely upon the information provided by Ms. Dunn.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Is X entitled to gain access to data maintained by Beltrami County Social Services concerning the welfare of her minor child, including but not limited to data maintained by child protection?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          In failing to respond to Ms. Dunn&apos;s repeated requests for access to data, on X&apos;s behalf, did Beltrami County Social Services violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act , confers specific rights upon parents to have access to government data about their minor children. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8, states that In the case of a minor...&apos;individual&apos; includes a parent...except that the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents...upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0500 also governs access to private data on minors. Subpart 2 (B) states that For purposes of this part, the responsible authority shall presume the parent has the authority to exercise the rights inherent in the act unless the responsible authority has been provided with evidence that there is a state law or court order governing such matters as divorce, separation, or custody, or a legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary. Nothing was provided to the Commissioner to indicate that X&apos;s rights to gain access to government data concerning her minor child have been abrogated.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, most data maintained by an agency which is part of the welfare system, as is the County, are private government data. There is some indication in Ms. Dunn&apos;s letter that the data may involve child protection data. If this is the case, Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 specifically governs those data. However, other than the identity of a reporter of maltreatment, data collected, created or maintained by child protection agencies are classified under Section 626.556 as private data. Access to child protection data is specifically governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Ms. Dunn, in her letter requesting an opinion, enumerated her many attempts, beginning in April, 1994, and continuing into October, 1994, to gain access, on behalf of her client and with a written consent, to private data maintained by the County about X&apos;s minor child. Private data about a minor child are accessible by the parent of that child. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 8 and 12.) Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, also identifies entities and individuals who may have access to private government data, including ... individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject. For purposes of this rule provision, X functions as a subject of the data because the data are about her minor child.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, outlines the rights individuals have to gain access to private government data, and states that The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request...if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request.... Ms. Dunn has not been provided access to the data she has the right to gain access to on behalf of her client. Access to the data requested not only has not been provided within five days, access to these data has not been provided.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Dunn is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue one,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              in the absence of evidence to the contrary, X has the right to gain access to data maintained by Beltrami County Social Services concerning her minor child.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue two,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              in failing to provide access to the private data requested by X immediately, or within five days, Beltrami County Social Services has not complied with the requirements of the Act or its implementing rules.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 16, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267197</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Social services/welfare data</Title><Id>266688</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-051</Title><title>Opinion 94 051</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267566&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>For which files have there been &quot;final dispositions of any disciplinary action?&quot;
Within the files in which there has been a &quot;final disposition of any disciplinary action,&quot; which data are public data &quot;documenting the basis for the action&quot; and are there any data which need to be redacted under any other provision of the MGDPA?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 16, 1994; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 28, 1994, PIPA received a request for an opinion from Mr. Michael Jordan, Commissioner of the state Department of Public Safety, hereinafter Department. In his request, Commissioner Jordan presented the following information. Recently, the Department has received requests from journalists for certain data relating to the disciplinary actions taken against individuals employed by the Department as state troopers with the Minnesota State Patrol.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to those requests, the Department asked the Commissioner to address the two questions described in the Issues section below. To allow the Commissioner to fully address the questions raised in those issues, the Department submitted copies or summaries of thirteen files involving complaints and charges against thirteen state troopers. All of those files involve situations where the Department has made a final decision about disciplinary actions involving these thirteen individuals. For purposes of reference, the Department labeled these files as Exhibits A through M.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Department also provided a copy of Article 15 from the current labor agreement between the State of Minnesota and certain state employees including the Minnesota State Patrol Troopers&apos; Association. Under the terms of this agreement, after a certain period of time, an employee may ask that the written records relating to some types of discipline be removed from the employee&apos;s personnel file. The agreement also allows the Department to maintain records of prior incidents of disciplinary actions after the records are removed from the personnel file.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to the Department, Exhibits A-G are personnel data identifying employees who may yet exercise their rights under the labor agreement to ask that data be removed from their personnel files. In regards to these exhibits, the Department asked the Commissioner, in addition to addressing the issues described below, to answer certain general and specific questions relating to the classification and redaction of other data in those exhibits. The Department described Exhibits H-K as personnel data identifying employees who have not yet exercised their rights to have the data removed from their personnel files. However, these exhibits also present a series of detailed issues because of their content. The Department stated that Exhibits L-M are personnel data identifying employees who have asked that the data be removed from their personnel files. The Department has done so but now maintains the files in its Internal Affairs section. In the particular case of Exhibit M, the file involves a situation where, by agreement, the Department rescinded a suspension involving the employee and restored lost pay benefits and so forth.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to this submission, personnel of PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, conducted a detailed examination of each of the files provided by the Department. The objectives of that examination were to determine answers to the issues presented by the Department and to determine what answers, if any, could be found for the Department&apos;s additional detailed questions.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Jordan asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          For which files have there been final dispositions of any disciplinary action?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Within the files in which there has been a final disposition of any disciplinary action, which data are public data documenting the basis for the action and are there any data which need to be redacted under any other provision of the MGDPA?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Except in one instance, the thirteen files submitted to the Commissioner as Exhibits A-M all involve situations in which complaints or charges were made against an individual state trooper and management personnel within the Department determined to impose disciplinary action on the employee as a result of the investigation of those complaints or charges. For purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Chapter 13 or the Act, the final disposition of a proposed disciplinary action against a public employee occurs when a public employer makes its final decision about the disciplinary action or, in the case of proposed disciplinary action against an employee who has a grievance right under a collective bargaining agreement, at the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time frame contemplated by the collective bargaining agreement. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).)
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In Exhibits A-L, disciplinary action was proposed by the Department by sending an order for and notice of discipline to the employee. In response to the order and notice, eleven of the twelve employees either did not elect arbitration within the time frame contemplated in the collective bargaining agreement or specifically agreed, after some negotiation, to accept imposition of a disciplinary action as part of a settlement agreement with the employer. In the case of employee L, the matter went to arbitration and the disciplinary action was upheld. In the case of employee M, a proposed disciplinary action against the employee was later rescinded by mutual agreement of the employee and the Department. This agreement is memorialized in a Settlement Agreement which is part of Exhibit M.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In its request to the Commissioner, the Department noted that the data recording and supporting the disciplinary actions described in the exhibits have been removed from each individual&apos;s personnel file or may in the future be removed from the employee personnel file. The employee&apos;s right to request removal from the personnel file is a right conferred by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that the Department has with some of its employees. Although the agreement provides for removal of certain kinds of data from the personnel file, it authorizes the Department to maintain these data elsewhere in the Department. It appears that in these instances when an employee requests removal of the data from the personnel file, the data are physically moved from the personnel or human resources section of the Department to its Internal Affairs section.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, for purposes of the operation of the public access provisions of Chapter 13, these twelve particular sets of data are maintained by an entity subject to Chapter 13 and, to the extent that the data in the twelve exhibits are public, those data are accessible by the public. The fact that the Department has agreed in the collective bargaining agreement to give employees the right to ask that a part of the employee&apos;s personnel file not kept by the personnel section of the Department does not affect the right of the public to gain access to any public data that appear in that file no matter where the file is physically maintained.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If the contract term, giving the employee the right to request that certain data be removed from the personnel file, were interpreted to affect the public&apos;s right to gain access to public data, that particular interpretation of the term would be void as being against the clear public policy stated in Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1 and 13.43, subdivision 2. No matter where within the Department these particular sets of data are kept, they clearly meet the definition of the term personnel data, as stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1, and to the extent that they constitute public data, they must be made available to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In the instance of Exhibits A-L, there has been a final disposition of a disciplinary action and therefore certain data within each of those exhibits are public data. In the instance of Exhibit M, the Department, after negotiating with the employee, decided to rescind a proposed disciplinary action and entered into a settlement agreement with the employee to settle the dispute. As no disciplinary action was imposed against the employee identified in Exhibit M, the only data about that employee that are public are: the employee&apos;s name; the fact that complaints or charges were made against the employee; the fact that the status of the Department&apos;s handling of those complaints or charges was a determination that no disciplinary action was taken; and the terms of the settlement agreement resolving this dispute between the employee and the Department. The classification of the data contained in the other twelve exhibits is the second issue presented by the Department.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Once it has been determined that a final disposition of a proposed disciplinary action against an employee has occurred, the following data become public: data that describe the final disposition; data that are or that describe the reasons for the disciplinary action; and data that document the basis for the action. In requesting this opinion and in raising specific questions in addition to the issues described above, the Department has asked the Commissioner to specifically address, in all of twelve of these exhibits, just exactly what data constitute specific reasons for the [disciplinary] action and data documenting the basis for the action. Given the content of these exhibits and the nature of the process followed by the Department in making and recording disciplinary decisions, the Commissioner, except in general terms, is not able to respond to that specific request.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Taken together, the exhibits contain data that are made up of a variety of reports, memoranda, summaries of investigative notes and transcripts of interviews including interviews of other Department employees, employees of other government jurisdictions, the employee being investigated and members of the public. In many instances the exhibits contain settlement agreements that record the fact that a proposed disciplinary action became final because the employee, the Department and the employee&apos;s labor organization agreed to imposition of a disciplinary action by entering into an agreement to resolve the dispute. In making these twelve disciplinary decisions, at least as exemplified in the exhibits, the Department did not make detailed findings of fact and conclusions, such as those that might be found in a court case or in the record prepared by an administrative law judge as part of a Chapter 14 contested case matter.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In some of these exhibits, the reasons the Department decided to impose disciplinary action and the data that document the basis for that action are quite clear. Perhaps the best example of that kind of clarity is an admission by the employee that s/he committed the wrongful act being investigated and knew that the act was improper. In many of these exhibits, although it seems clear that the employee&apos;s conduct warranted discipline, it is not clear what part of the interviews and other investigative data the Department&apos;s management relied on to make the disciplinary decision. It could very well be the case that all of the investigative data in each of the files, taken as a whole, were what led to the Department&apos;s decision to impose discipline.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the Commissioner has the objective of making her opinions as helpful and complete as possible, she does not have the desire or the means to try to enter the minds of the decision-makers at the Department who reviewed the data in the reports, memoranda and interview transcripts as described above and decided which of those data constituted their reasons for ordering a disciplinary action and what detailed data supported that decision. Clearly the best persons to make those determinations are the management employees of the Department who made the actual decision to impose discipline. It is they who know exactly what data in these exhibits lead them to conclude that disciplinary action was appropriate in each of the twelve instances presented here. It is the actual data they relied on that will constitute their reasons for imposing the disciplinary action and the data documenting the basis for that action.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the Commissioner is not willing, given the data presented to her, to try to make the detailed decisions about what constitutes the reasons for and the data that document the basis for the Department&apos;s decisions to discipline these twelve employees, she is mindful of the legal effects of her opinions and, in the interest of assisting the Department, offers the following comments for further examination by the Department and its attorneys.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As mentioned earlier, a number of the exhibits contain settlement agreements entered into by the employee, the Department and the association representing the employee. The terms of settlement agreements resolving disputes arising out of the employment relationship are always public data for purposes of Chapter 13. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a).) Wherever a settlement agreement appears in these exhibits, the complete contents of that agreement are public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Often the exhibits contain data collected from and about complainants and witnesses. Under the rule established in the &lt;u&gt;Demers&lt;/u&gt;case, data about complainants that appear in files concerning investigations of complaints or charges against public employees are public data regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action. (See &lt;u&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/u&gt;, 468 N.W. 2d 71 (Minn. 1991).) This rule would applies to data about witnesses, other than witnesses who are also employees of the Department. A possible exception to the rule that data on complainants and witnesses are public would involve situations where the allegations against the employee involve some kind of harassment. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8 allows for the protection of data about complainants and witnesses where the allegation against the employee is some type of harassment. However, this provision may not apply in this instance because it appears that the Department, as part of the disciplinary process, provides identifying and other information about complainants and witnesses to its employees.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The exhibits often contain data about employees of the Department other than the employee who was disciplined. These data may be interviews with those employees relative to their actions in an incident involving the employee. The data may consist of statements that another employee allegedly did the same thing as was alleged against the disciplined employee and that the other employee was not disciplined. Unless these data document the basis for the disciplinary action taken against the disciplined employee, or unless they are public data documenting discipline against another employee, these data appear to be private personnel data on other employees of the Department.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, the exhibits contain data such as copies of accident reports, references to ongoing criminal investigations, logs of calls made to patrol stations, logs of radio transmissions and other forms of data that may be classified as not public under Minnesota Statutes Section 169.09, subdivision 13, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 or other statutory sections. If these data document the basis for the disciplinary action taken against the employee, they may be, notwithstanding other classifications assigned to them by other provisions of Minnesota Statutes, public data for purposes of Section 13.43. If they are not data that document the basis for the Department&apos;s decision to discipline these employees, then they would appear to retain their classification as not public under other statutory provisions.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Commissioner Jordan is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 1
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , for all of these files, with the exception of Exhibit M, there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary actions taken against the employees identified in those files and the name of the employee, the reasons for the disciplinary action and the data documenting the disciplinary action are public data, notwithstanding the fact that these employees have exercised or may exercise rights under a collective bargaining agreement to request that these data not be kept as part of their Department personnel file.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 2
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              and as discussed above, detailed decisions about what data in these exhibits constitute the reasons for imposing a disciplinary action and data that support the basis for that action can best be made by those persons within the Department who made the decisions to discipline these employees. Subject to the guidance provided above, there may be other data in these exhibits whose classification is not public, but the final determinations as to those classifications should be made by the Department
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 16, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267566</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel files</Title><Id>266986</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-050</Title><title>Opinion 94 050</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267947&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What data are public about a public employee after an investigation into a complaint against that employee results in a determination that no disciplinary action will be taken.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 10, 1994; School District 834 (Stillwater)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the detailed submission of the entity are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 21, 1994, the Commissioner received a request for an opinion from Ms. Anne F. Krisnik, the attorney for Independent School District No. 834, the Stillwater schools, and hereinafter the District. In her request, Ms. Krisnik presented the following information. A complaint was made against an employee of the District by another employee. This complaint alleged gender harassment. An investigation was conducted and the investigator was unable to substantiate that harassment had occurred. The District sent a memo to the employee, who was the subject of the complaint. This memo summarized the results of the investigation, informed the employee that no harassment had been substantiated and discussed some job performance issues. (Ms. Krisnik provided a copy of this memo as part of her request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Subsequently, the employee who had made the original complaint asked the District for disciplinary documents relating to the complaint, specific reasons for the District&apos;s action and any supporting documentation. Ms. Krisnik then asked that the Commissioner review the memo described above and determine whether it may be released to the complainant.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What data are public about a public employee after an investigation into a complaint against that employee results in a determination that no disciplinary action will be taken. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                In this particular instance, a complaint was made against an employee of the District. An agent of the District investigated the complaint and determined that it could not be substantiated. Given that result, the District determined that no disciplinary action would be taken against the employee. The District sent a memorandum to the employee to inform him of the results of the investigation and to discuss some work performance issues.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In its treatment of personnel data about employees, the legislature has specifically identified data about public employees that will always be public. In instances of complaints or charges made against public employees, the legislature has said that the following are public data: the existence and status of any complaints or charges, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary actions together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In all situations in which complaints or charges against an employee are made, the fact of a complaint or charge, the status of the employing government entity&apos;s handling of that complaint or charge including whether or not the entity decided to impose a disciplinary action are always public data. In those instances where the government entity has determined to impose a disciplinary action and that disciplinary action has become final then the additional data listed, as described above, in Section 13.43 will also become public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, the District determined, after an investigation of the complaint, that no disciplinary action would be taken against the employee. There is no language in the memo sent to the employee that states that the District is taking any punitive actions against the employee. There is language discussing the employee&apos;s performance but these are comments directed at improving an employee&apos;s performance and indicate no immediate disciplinary intent.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given that no disciplinary action was taken against this employee, Section 13.43 directs that the following data about the complaint made against this employee are public: the fact that a complaint was made; the fact that the District investigated the complaint; and the fact that the District determined that no disciplinary action would be taken. For purposes of a request for access to data about the employee, the person who originally complained about this employee has the same status as any other member of the public. The complainant is entitled to gain access to the public data about this complaint as previously described. Data that describe the District&apos;s specific reasons for determining not to take disciplinary action and any detailed documentation that supports that determination are private data about the employee complained about and are not available to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Ms. Krisnik also asked the Commissioner to examine the memo sent to the employee about whom the complaint was made to determine the status of the data in that memo. The memo does contain the employee&apos;s name, the fact that a complaint was made against the employee, the fact that an investigation was conducted and that no disciplinary action would be taken. Those items of data are public as outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. The other data contained in this memo deal with job performance issues. Those data are private data. Performance related data are not made public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2, and are private under the provisions of Section 13.43, subdivision 4.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Krisnik is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When a complaint made against a public employee is investigated by the employer and a determination made that no disciplinary action will be taken against the employee, the only data that are public about the handling of the complaint are the name of the employee complained about, the fact that a complaint was made, the fact that the complaint was investigated, and the fact that the employing government entity determined that no disciplinary action would be taken.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 10, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267947</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-049</Title><title>Opinion 94 049</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267609&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-03T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When a government agency (such as Beltrami County) and its insurance carrier have settled claims, charges or causes of action against the agency, by means of an agreement that incorporates a confidentiality covenant, may the government agency refuse to disclose the terms of the settlement or to provide copies of the settlement agreement?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 1994; Beltrami County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. The entity whose data are the subject of this opinion did not file a response to the notification of the citizen&apos;s request for an opinion. Copies of the detailed submission of the citizen are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated October 13, 1994, and received by PIPA on October 14, 1994, Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, attorney for the Pioneer, a newspaper published in Bemidji, Minnesota described an attempt by a reporter for his client to gain access to certain data maintained by Beltrami County, hereinafter County. After providing detail about the reporter&apos;s request for data held by the County, Mr. Anfinson asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A summary of the detailed information provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. On or about October 6, 1994, the County issued a press release that announced that a former county juvenile probation officer had settled a discrimination case filed against the County with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The press release contained some details about the terms of the settlement. However, the amount of money to be paid to the former employee and other details of the settlement agreement were not disclosed. When a reporter asked detailed questions about the settlement, the County responded that the agreement contained a confidentiality clause and that neither details about the agreement nor a copy of the agreement itself would be provided to the public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ms. Christine Patten, the County Auditor, and Mr. Tim Faver, the County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated October 18, 1994, were to inform the County of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to the County, to ask the County or its attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position and to inform the County of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. No response was received from the County.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;When a government agency (such as Beltrami County) and its insurance carrier have settled claims, charges or causes of action against the agency, by means of an agreement that incorporates a confidentiality covenant, may the government agency refuse to disclose the terms of the settlement or to provide copies of the settlement agreement? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states the general rule that all government data are public unless there is a statute or federal law that classifies certain data as not public. A settlement agreement to which a government entity such as the County is a party is government data for purposes of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13. The legislative policy, as stated in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, makes it very clear that, except for classifications of not public data required by federal law, the legislature intends that government data can be classified as not public only if there is a statute that says certain data are not public.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   In light of that policy, it is clear that a government entity in this state cannot enter into an agreement to make certain government data not public when the statutory treatment of the data, either specifically or by operation of Section 13.03, subdivision 1 of the Act, classifies the data in question as public. Under well-settled principles of contract law, an agreement to treat certain public data as not public would be void at its inception because it violates the public policy stated in Section 13.03, subdivision 1. (See &lt;u&gt;Northern Pacific Railway, Co. v. Thornton Bros., Co.&lt;/u&gt;, 228 N.W. 226, 227 (Minn. 1939.) If the County, its former employee and its insurer have entered into a covenant in a settlement agreement to keep the complete agreement not public, this covenant is not enforceable and it therefore cannot be used as a basis for denying public access to the settlement agreement.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In addition to the general presumption that all government data are public, the legislature, in the particular instance of settlement agreements involving current and former employees, has specifically and very clearly classified settlement agreements as public data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the provision in the Act that details what data about current or former public employees are public, includes the following in its list of public data: the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship. Accepting as correct Mr. Anfinson&apos;s discussion of the situation that gave rise to the County entering into this agreement, it appears clear that it is an agreement settling a dispute arising out of the employment relationship. The terms of all such agreements are explicitly made public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2, of the Act and the County should provide the public with access to this agreement including, if requested, copies of the agreement.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the information provided only by Mr. Anfinson, my opinion on the issue raised by him is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;A government agency that enters into an agreement to settle a legal dispute cannot refuse to disclose the terms of that agreement or to provide copies of that agreement to the public when its only basis for denying public access is that the agency has promised in the agreement to keep the terms of the agreement or copies of the agreement not public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267609</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Settlement agreements</Title><Id>266557</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-048</Title><title>Opinion 94 048</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267572&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-11-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If an inactive criminal investigative file contains both public and private data, is a government entity required by Chapter 13 to separate the two types of data and make the public data available to the public?
How are data on a deceased victim of alleged criminal sexual conduct classified in an inactive criminal investigative file?
In an instance where an individual is investigated for alleged maltreatment of a child, does the fact that the individual was or was not a person responsible for the child&apos;s care, affect the classification of data in an inactive criminal investigative file?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 3, 1994; Martin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On October 13, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Gary Hill, Managing Editor of the Eyewitness News at KSTP Television. In this letter, Mr. Hill described unsuccessful attempts by reporters for KSTP-TV to gain access to data maintained by Martin County in an inactive criminal investigative file. He also forwarded copies of correspondence that documented these requests. In his letters, Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion dealing with the three issues described in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Hill&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Gary G. Wollschlager, the Martin County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated October 14, 1994, were to inform Mr. Wollschlager of Mr. Hill&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Wollschlager to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 25, 1994, PIPA received a letter of reply from Mr. Wollschlager. In summary, Mr. Wollschlager stated that it was the position of Martin County, hereinafter County that the data being requested by KSTP-TV were classified as private data and were therefore not discloseable to the public. Mr. Wollschlager offered detailed information and argument that supported the County&apos;s interpretation of the statutes that led to the County&apos;s position that the data being requested are not public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issues that Mr. Hill asked the Commissioner to address, as restated by PIPA, are as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          If an inactive criminal investigative file contains both public and private data, is a government entity required by Chapter 13 to separate the two types of data and make the public data available to the public?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          How are data on a deceased victim of alleged criminal sexual conduct classified in an inactive criminal investigative file?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          In an instance where an individual is investigated for alleged maltreatment of a child, does the fact that the individual was or was not a person responsible for the child&apos;s care, affect the classification of data in an inactive criminal investigative file?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 1:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                It is the County&apos;s position that the inactive criminal investigative file requested by KSTP-TV contains only private data. Therefore it is precluded by language in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, from providing any data out of this file to the public, including to KSTP. The County cites the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 5a, 5b, and 10 (b) as the basis for determining that the data being requested by KSTP-TV are classified as private.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5a, classifies as private data, any data that identify victims of child abuse or neglect that were reported to a law enforcement agency under the Minnesota Statutes 626.556, the state&apos;s maltreatment of minors reporting act. Section 13.82, subdivision 5a, is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, that criminal investigative data become public data when the investigation for which the data were collected, created or maintained becomes inactive. Section 13.82, subdivision 5, specifies at what point an investigation becomes inactive. The County agrees that the investigation associated with the data sought by KSTP has become inactive.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.82, subdivision 5a, was added to the Act by the legislature in 1988. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1988, Chapter 625, Section 1.) One purpose for the adoption of this exception to the general rule, that criminal investigative data become public when the underlying criminal investigation ceases to be active, was to protect the identity of juvenile victims of maltreatment when law enforcement investigations of the alleged maltreatment become inactive. Another purpose for the adoption of the amendment was to provide the same treatment for data about victims of maltreatment, in inactive criminal investigative data, as is provided for data in files held by child protection agencies that assess whether child maltreatment occurred. (Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11 classifies data in records maintained by child protection agencies as private data.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  To the extent that the particular inactive criminal investigative file sought by KSTP-TV contains data that would identify a victim or victims of abuse or neglect that were reported to the law enforcement agency as specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, those data are classified as private and cannot be disclosed to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The County also claims that some of the data maintained in this inactive file is classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5b. Subdivision 5b states that criminal investigative data that become inactive, either because the statute of limitations for the criminal offense investigated has expired or the law enforcement agency or its prosecutor has decided not to pursue the case, and that relate to alleged abuse or neglect by a person responsible for the child&apos;s care, as defined in the child maltreatment statute, do not become public data but instead are classified as private data. The County states that the investigation that produced this particular file was an investigation of a person responsible for the child&apos;s care that became inactive because the statute of limitations for the alleged offense has expired and therefore this inactive investigative data are classified as private by Section 13.82, Subdivision 5b, of the Act.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.82, subdivision 5b, was added to the Act by the legislature in 1989. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1989, Chapter 177, Section 1.) The amendment reflected concern discussed by the legislature about certain realities of the child maltreatment reporting system. Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 mandates that various professionals must report suspected maltreatment and should follow a when in doubt, report imperative. Although this imperative increases the probability that children in need of protection will get protection, it also, when coupled with the fact that Section 626.556 allows anyone to report alleged maltreatment and to receive almost total confidentiality protection, increases the possibility that there will be more unsubstantiated and even false reports made about persons responsible for the care of children.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The adoption of the amendment that became Section 13.82, subdivision 5b, represents a legislative judgment that if an individual is investigated for alleged criminal abuse or neglect of a child and the law enforcement investigating agency is not able to establish that there is sufficient evidence to charge the individual, then the individual&apos;s privacy and reputation will be protected by classifying the inactive investigative data about that individual as private. If, however, the individual investigated is charged and tried, the inactive investigative data concerning that individual become public. This amendment also reflects a legislative decision to make the law enforcement treatment of data concerning alleged perpetrators of maltreatment, in of inactive criminal investigative files, consistent with the treatment of similar data about those individuals in child protection agencies in county welfare departments. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11, that classifies all data concerning allegations and assessment of maltreatment of children in welfare agencies as private data.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The County states very clearly that this particular investigation was about allegations involving a person responsible for a child&apos;s care and that it became inactive because the statute of limitations expired for the underlying and alleged criminal offense. The County&apos;s determination that the data in this file are private is a correct determination.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The County also suggested that data in this file may be classified as private by Section 13.82, subdivision 10, (b) of the Act. This provision classifies as private data any data that identifies victims or alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct crimes. However, given the above discussion that all data that identifies victims of child abuse or neglect in this file are classified as private under Section 13.82, subdivision 5a, it is not necessary to discuss this additional basis for classifying data in this file as private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 2:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                In its request for an opinion, KSTP-TV pointed out that at least one of the alleged victims, about whom there is data in this file, is deceased and therefore has no expectation or need for that data to continue to be private. The County&apos;s response is that the provisions of Section 13.82, subdivision 5a classify data about victims as private. The County&apos;s response goes on to state: There is nothing in the statute which changes the classification of the data upon the death of the victim.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this instance the County&apos;s position is technically incorrect. The Act does specifically deal with the general topic of the effect of death on classifications of data about individuals. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.10, entitled Data on Decedents. ) Among other things, Section 13.10 provides that: private data about a living data subject becomes private data on decedents upon the death of the data subject; a person defined as a representative of the decedent has the right to exercise the rights of the decedent; and private data on decedents will, if it is still in existence, become public at a statutorily specified time after the death of the decedent.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the basis for the County&apos;s position is technically incorrect, the Act&apos;s treatment of data on decedents produces the same result on the issue of whether the public is entitled to gain access to private data on decedents in an inactive criminal investigative file. Unless the data on this particular victim were collected and created after the death of the decedent or the time frame specified in Section 13.10 of the Act has run, the data about this victim are private data on decedents and are not discloseable to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, 13.10, subdivision 1 (b) and 13.82, subdivision 5a.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 3:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                This issue appears to involve a factual dispute between the County and KSTP-TV as to whether the individual who was the subject of this inactive criminal investigation was a person responsible for a child&apos;s care as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556. The significance of this dispute is that it could affect the classification of the data concerning the individual investigated in the inactive file. The County states very clearly that the individual investigated was an individual responsible for the child&apos;s care and therefore, for all practical purposes, issue 3 is not an issue. Given the County&apos;s clear position on this issue, it is not necessary for the Commissioner to comment further.
                &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by KSTP-TV are as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 1
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , there appears to be no data in this particular inactive criminal investigative file that are classified as public. The County&apos;s position that all of the data in this file are classified as private or, in the case of any data that identifies a reporter of child maltreatment as confidential, is consistent with the statutory treatment of this data. As there is no public data in the file, there is no data that the County can separate out and make available to the public.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 2
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , private data in an inactive criminal investigative file becomes private data on decedents upon the death of the subject of the data. Until the statutory time frame, specified in Section 13.10 of the Act, occurs, private data on decedents cannot be made available to the public.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 3
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              , the individual investigated for allegedly neglecting or abusing a child or children was, according to the County, a person responsible for the care of that child or children and the classification of data about that individual in a criminal investigative file that became inactive because the statute of limitations has expired, is private.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: November 3, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267572</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data connection</Title><Id>266470</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Decedents (13.10)</Title><Id>266471</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Deceased victim</Title><Id>266472</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-047</Title><title>Opinion 94 047</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267730&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
On October 7, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Archie Anderson, a resident of Coon Rapids, Minnesota. In this letter Mr. Anderson described attempts by him to gain access to certain data that he believes are maintained by the Office of the Attorney General, hereinafter Attorney General. Mr. Anderson asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion concerning the Attorney General&apos;s duty to provide him with access to the data he had requested. Mr. Anderson provided copies of his correspondence with the Attorney General, including his letters of request.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 28, 1994; Minnesota Attorney General</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On October 7, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Archie Anderson, a resident of Coon Rapids, Minnesota. In this letter Mr. Anderson described attempts by him to gain access to certain data that he believes are maintained by the Office of the Attorney General, hereinafter Attorney General. Mr. Anderson asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion concerning the Attorney General&apos;s duty to provide him with access to the data he had requested. Mr. Anderson provided copies of his correspondence with the Attorney General, including his letters of request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his letter requesting data, dated August 6, 1994, Mr. Anderson asked that he be provided with the following data:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 1.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            A copy of any contract with the person who wrote a preliminary report entitled Growing Children and Passive Smoke: A Dangerous Menu , hereinafter referred to as the report ;
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 2.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            A copy of the final report;
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 3.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            Copies of all correspondence relating to the report and the final report;
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 4.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            Criteria for financing the project to develop the report;
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 5.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            Amount of public money used to produce the report: and
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 6.
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            The amount of 501C money used to produce the report.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated August 25, 1994, the Attorney General responded to Mr. Anderson. In summary, the response was: data requested either did not exist; were not public; would, in the case of the final report, be provided when available; or, in the case of amount of public money spent to produce the report were not known.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After making a second request to the Attorney General, in which he challenged the Attorney General&apos;s position that some of the data were not public, Mr. Anderson sent his letter requesting an opinion to the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to his request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Hubert H. Humphrey III, the responsible authority for the Office of the Attorney General. The purposes of this letter, dated October 10, 1994, were to inform Attorney General Humphrey of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask him to provide information or support for the Attorney General&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 21, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. D. Douglas Blanke, Director of Consumer Policy, who indicated he was responding on behalf of the Attorney General. As to each item of data, as described above, Mr. Blanke provided the following responses:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 1:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            The Attorney General did not enter into a contract with anyone to write this report therefore there are no data to provide to Mr. Anderson.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 2:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            The final copy of the report has not been produced. When a final copy is completed, it will be provided to Mr. Anderson.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 3:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            The Attorney General has determined that the correspondence requested are classified as private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.65, subd. 1 (b). Mr. Blanke indicated that there may be additional sections of Minnesota Statutes that classify the correspondence data as not public including the trade secret provision at Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37 and the elected officials correspondence section at Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 4:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            The Attorney General does not understand what data Mr. Anderson is requesting.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 5:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            There are no existing data that document the total amount spent on the project but the Attorney General has calculated that out-of-pocket expenses for travel, lodging and production of the preliminary report total $6701.00.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Item 6:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            As there was no contribution of funds to produce the report by nonprofit organizations that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code, there are no data that describe the amount of 501(c)(3) money used to produce the report.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Blanke supplemented this summary of responses with detailed explanations of the Attorney General&apos;s position.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Discussion:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              The Attorney General states very clearly that there are no data being maintained by the Attorney General that correspond to the data requested by Mr. Anderson in items 1, 2 and 6. Item 2, the copy of the final report, will be provided to Mr. Anderson when it is produced. It appears that the data requested by Mr. Anderson, described above as items 1, 2 and 6 do not exist and therefore there are no public government data available to him under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                As to item 4, the criteria used to finance this project, the Attorney General takes the position that it does not understand Mr. Anderson&apos;s request. The Attorney General indicates that it may be able to respond if Mr. Anderson&apos;s request can be clarified. It appears that Mr. Anderson is asking the Attorney General if he can gain access to any data that will explain why the Attorney General decided to become part of the project that worked to produce this report and that required the expenditure of public funds. This appears to be a reasonable reading of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request in item 4. Whether that is a correct reading of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, if there are data responsive to his request and the classification of those data can be clarified in further discussions between Mr. Anderson and the Attorney General.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                As to item 5, the amount of public money used to produce the report, the Attorney General takes the position that Chapter 13 does not require it to produce data that do not currently exist. However in the interest of being helpful, the Attorney General calculated the amount of out-of-pocket expenses that went toward the production of the report and provided a figure of $6701.00. The Attorney General indicated that the state also paid the salaries and benefits of staff who worked on the project and other miscellaneous expenses but the Attorney General does not have data on the amount of those expenditures.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                It is the Commissioner&apos;s understanding that the Attorney General uses a time sheet system for tracking the time spent by employees of the Attorney General on various projects and work for various clients. If the project to produce this report was a project against which Attorney General staff charged time on those time sheets, then data that account for that time and the amount of public funds that corresponded to that time would be data that exist and that should be available to Mr. Anderson. Data that account for an employee&apos;s work time are public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Lastly, as to item 3, copies of all correspondence that relate to the report and the production of the final report, the Attorney General&apos;s response to Mr. Anderson was that correspondence data are classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.65, subd. 1(b). In its response to the Commissioner, the Attorney General indicated, in addition to being classified as not public by Section 13.65 of the Act, the correspondence data may also be classified as not public by other provisions of the Act.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.65, subdivision 1 (b), classifies the following as private data on individuals: communications and noninvestigative files regarding administrative or policy matters which do not evidence final public actions. The Attorney General&apos;s position is that any correspondence it received about the production of this report was a communication about a policy project and that all correspondence are classified as private under Section 13.65. To the extent that the correspondence received by the Attorney General are data on individuals, Section 13.65 does classify correspondence concerning this report as private data on individuals.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                However, the Attorney General&apos;s response indicates that some portion of this correspondence came from corporations. Generally, correspondence from a corporation, from non-profit organizations or from another government agency are not data on individuals. (See the definition of individual and data on individuals in Section 13.02, subdivisions 8 and 5 of the Act.) Section 13.65, subdivision 1(b), does not state that communications that are received by the Attorney General that are data not on individuals are classified as anything other than public and, absent a specific classification for the data, the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, operates to make communications received from corporations and other entities that are not individuals, public data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In its response the Attorney General mentioned that the correspondence relating to this report might also be classified as not public by Section 13.33 of the Act. However this section, which classifies correspondence between individuals and elected officials as private, presents a similar problem. Correspondence from corporations and other entities that are not individuals, depending on the content of the correspondence, are generally not data on individuals and therefore cannot be classified as private data by Section 13.33.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Lastly, the Attorney General indicates that some of the data provided by corporations in correspondence may be trade secret information under Section 13.37 of the Act. The Attorney General also indicates that some corporations provided data only on the understanding that the data would be kept in confidence. Entities subject to Chapter 13 are not authorized to make promises of confidentiality unless the data that are the subject of the promise of confidentiality are actually classified by statute or federal law as not public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) It may very well be that some of the data provided by corporations to the Attorney General, that relate to this report, are trade secret information as defined in Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b). It is not likely, however, that all of the correspondence concerning this report sent by corporations to the Attorney General can meet the rigorous definition of a trade secret specified in Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b). To the extent that the data provided do fulfill the definition, they are properly classified as nonpublic under Section 13.37, subdivision 2.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Attorney General pointed out that there may be additional statutes that classify data in the correspondence files relating to this project as not public. However, there was no specific mention of what sections those may be, so it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether they may affect the public&apos;s right to gain access to the correspondence data.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Opinion:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anderson is as follows:
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Attorney General does not have a duty to provide the data described in items 1, 2 and 6 above because those items of data do not currently exist. Because of the problems of the Attorney General in understanding the nature of Mr. Anderson&apos;s request, as described in item 4 above, I have no opinion as to whether the Attorney General has a duty to disclose those data. The Attorney General and Mr. Anderson should continue their dialogue to clarify if any data that relate to the criteria actually exist and, if so, how those data are classified. If the Attorney General maintains time sheet data that clarify the amount of staff time and the cost associated therewith spent on this project, the Attorney General has a duty to disclose those public data to Mr. Anderson. Lastly, to the extent that corporations and other non-individuals have corresponded with the Attorney General about the preparation of this report, the data in that correspondence appear to be public data and, unless it can be established that the data in that correspondence constitute a trade secret, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, the Attorney General has a duty to disclose that correspondence to Mr. Anderson. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Signed:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Debra Rae Anderson
                    &lt;br /&gt;
                    Commissioner
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                    Dated: October 28, 1994
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267730</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Attorney general data (13.65)</Title><Id>266886</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets (13.37)</Title><Id>266417</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-046</Title><title>Opinion 94 046</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267775&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is the classification of data maintained by the Department concerning a certain insurance company and a wholly owned subsidiary of that company?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 21, 1994; Minnesota Department of Commerce</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the actual submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 13, 1994, the Commissioner received a letter, via facsimile transmission, from Dale Kurshner, the Managing Editor at the CityBusiness newspaper. Because of the wording of his letter, PIPA directed a letter to him on September 23, 1994, to determine what action he was requesting. After discussion with him and at his request, PIPA determined to handle his letter as a request for an opinion of the Commissioner received on October 4, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his letter, Mr. Kurshner described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained at the state Department of Commerce, hereinafter Commerce. Specifically, Mr. Kurshner sought access to data concerning two insurance companies. In written correspondence and verbal discussions with Commerce&apos;s commissioner and deputy commissioner for insurance, Mr. Kurshner&apos;s requests for access to data about the companies were denied. Commerce did tell Mr. Kurshner that Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, was the basis for denying his request for access to data about the insurance companies. In his letter requesting an opinion, Mr. Kurshner offered a number of arguments in opposition to the Department&apos;s position that Section 60A.03 classifies the data as not public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Kurshner&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James E. Ulland, the Commissioner of Commerce. The purposes of this letter, dated October 6, 1994, were to inform Commissioner Ulland of Mr. Kurshner&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask the Commissioner or Commerce&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for Commerce&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 19, 1994, PIPA, via facsimile transmission, received a letter of response from Commissioner Ulland. This response stated that Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, was the basis for Commerce&apos;s position that it could not provide Mr. Kurshner with access to the data he requested. Commissioner Ulland went on to discuss the basis for the interpretation that Commerce places on Section 60A.03. He also discussed a variety of negative consequences that could occur if the Commissioner&apos;s opinion was in opposition to Commerce&apos;s interpretation. Lastly, Commerce raised an issue of whether, given the language of Section 60A.03, it was appropriate for the Commissioner to issue an opinion in light of the fact that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, the opinion statute, states that it does not apply to questions involving the exercise of discretionary power specifically granted by statute to a responsible authority.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Mr. Kurshner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;What is the classification of data maintained by the Department concerning a certain insurance company and a wholly owned subsidiary of that company? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Before addressing the specifics of Mr. Kurshner&apos;s request, the issue concerning the authority of the Commissioner should be discussed. In denying Mr. Kurshner access to data about the insurance companies, Commerce has cited Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.03, subdivision 9. This section states, in part, the following:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The commissioner [of Commerce] may not be required to divulge any information obtained in the course of supervision of insurance companies, or the examination of insurance companies, . . . .
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given that language, Commerce questions whether the Commissioner is authorized to issue an opinion involving an interpretation of that statutory provision.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The pertinent language of the opinion authority states that:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;This section does not apply to a question involving the exercise of discretionary power specifically granted by statute to a responsible authority to withhold or grant access to government data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general statutory classification.
                        &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the Commissioner of Commerce is the responsible authority for the Department of Commerce, the language of Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, does not seem to grant any particular discretionary power to the Commissioner of Commerce. The term discretion usually refers to situations in which some actor is given the power to act without limits. There is nothing in the language of Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, that conveys the impression that the Commissioner of Commerce is given that kind of power. The language of the section merely says that the Commissioner of Commerce cannot be required to divulge information.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The limiting language in the opinion statute also focuses on the object of the responsible authority&apos;s discretion. The opinion statute says that the Commissioner should not issue opinions about questions involving a responsible authority&apos;s discretion to withhold or grant access to data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general classification. In this instance, the Commissioner of Commerce is not using discretion to withhold or grant access to data, he is merely saying that Section 60A.03, subdivision 9 is the statute that generally classifies data held by Commerce about insurance companies as not public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is, therefore, appropriate for the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning the issue raised by Mr. Kurshner.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states the presumption that all government data are public unless classified as not public by statute or federal law. The government data held by Commerce is subject to that presumption. Commerce has cited Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, as quoted above, as the statute that classifies data about these insurance companies as not public. The key issue of dispute between Mr. Kurshner and Commerce focuses on the use of the word supervision in the section. Commerce&apos;s position is that in its ongoing work as a regulator of insurance companies, it is supervising those companies and that all of the data it holds as a result of that supervision are subject to the nondisclosure provisions of Section 60A.03, subdivision 9. Mr. Kurshner urges a different use of the word supervision and argues that section 60A.03, subdivision 9, only covers situations in which Commerce is directly involved in supervising i.e. directing the affairs of a given insurance company.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, the legislature has stated that a government entity such as Commerce may deny public access to government data in situations where there is a state statute or federal law that can be reasonably interpreted to say that certain data are not public. In this particular instance, Section 60A.03 states very clearly that the Commissioner of Commerce may not be required to divulge any information obtained in the course of supervising insurance companies. Although this section does not use the data classification terminology, i.e. confidential, nonpublic, etc, that is generally described in Chapter 13, the section does make a very clear statement of policy that the Commissioner of Commerce may not be required to disclose information to anyone, including the public, if the Commissioner of Commerce has obtained that information in the course of supervision or examination of insurance companies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, the legislature has not defined the term supervision. Reference to a standard work used to assist in statutory interpretation establishes that the term supervision can be interpreted to mean general oversight. (Black&apos;s Dictionary of Law, Fourth Edition. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1968.) This is essentially the definition of the term that Commerce feels is appropriate and necessary to its role as a regulator of insurance companies. Use of the phrase general oversight in interpreting Section 60A.03&apos;s use of the word supervision means that the position taken by Commerce, that the data concerning these companies is not public and therefore inaccessible to Mr. Kurshner, is a reasonable interpretation.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Kurshner is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr valign=&quot;CENTER&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data obtained by Commerce in its supervision of insurance companies are classified as not public by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.03, subdivision 9, and are inaccessible by the public. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 21, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267775</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Insurance companies</Title><Id>266546</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T16:15:35Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-045</Title><title>Opinion 94 045</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267676&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-20T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are government data, provided to a school district, that consist of a financial profit and loss statement, commodities inventory list, and summary of purchases list, accessible to the public?
NOTE: The identification of the issue in the letter sent by PIPA to Dr. Potas referred to the question of access only to the financial profit and loss statement. The issue of whether the District also must provide public access to the commodities inventory and summary of purchases lists was raised in the letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, but was inadvertently omitted from the identification of the issue in the letter sent by PIPA to Dr. Potas. PIPA regrets this oversight, but the Commissioner does not believe that these additional items of data sought by Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen differ substantially enough from the profit and loss statements, with regard to the issue of public access, to warrant separate opinions. Therefore, the Commissioner will address the issue as a request for access to all three items of data.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 1994; School District 777 (Benson)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizens who requested this opinion, and the response from the government entity with which the citizens disagree, are presented in summary form. Copies of the actual submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
&lt;p&gt;On September 29, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Linda Detloff and Ms. Tammy Luschen, in which they described their attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Independent School District #777, the Benson public schools, hereinafter District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen described their numerous requests, both oral and written, which began in June, 1994, and continued into September, 1994, for access to data concerning the agreement that the District has with Taher, Inc., a food management company, with which the District contracts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They made their initial data requests to Dr. Lee Potas, superintendent of the Benson schools, and Mr. Darin Jensen, business manager for the District. Mr. Jensen told them that he would have to check with the District&apos;s auditor to determine whether the data were public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At that point, Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen contacted PIPA for more information. They were told that from their description, it appeared that such data were public, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1. They also discussed with PIPA personnel the procedures to follow to make a request for access to public government data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 11, 1994, Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen sent a letter to Dr. Potas, requesting Taher&apos;s profit and loss statements for certain months in 1992, 1993, and 1994. In this letter they described their contact with Mr. Jensen, and requested a written explanation if the data they sought were classified such that they were to be denied access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They stated that they had not received a reply to this request after fifteen business days, and then sent a second letter to Dr. Potas, by Restricted Delivery Certified Mail. According to Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen, Dr. Potas was sent two notices concerning this letter by the U.S. Post Office, but he failed to retrieve it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On September 6, 1994, Dr. Potas wrote to Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen in response to their first letter. He denied them access to the data requested, and stated that the data were classified as nonpublic because the profit and loss statements are ...spreadsheet[s] that [were] designed and developed by Taher Incorporated for their own personal use and not that of the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Detloff delivered by hand a third letter in which she and Ms. Luschen again requested access to the profit and loss statements. The letter directed attention to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, which states, in part:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen, as of September 25, 1994, they had not received a response from Dr. Potas to their third letter. They requested an opinion of the Commissioner, on the issue stated in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to this request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Potas, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter were to inform Dr. Potas of Ms. Detloff&apos;s and Ms. Luschen&apos;s opinion request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Potas or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 12, 1994, PIPA received a response from Dr. Potas, in which he stated that he believes that District 777 has provided all public information to Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen, even though they ...do not make appointments but come in unannounced; [and] do not usually make their requests in writing or allow time to research data, some of which is quite old and filed away.... His letter further stated that On the advise (sic) given the school district business manager by the school auditor and in keeping with the contractual (sic) agreement we have with the Taher Food Service Management Company, internal forms and company accounting procedures proprietary to the daily activities of the operation should remain confidential.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are government data, provided to a school district, that consist of a financial profit and loss statement, commodities inventory list, and summary of purchases list, accessible to the public?
&lt;p&gt;NOTE: The identification of the issue in the letter sent by PIPA to Dr. Potas referred to the question of access only to the financial profit and loss statement. The issue of whether the District also must provide public access to the commodities inventory and summary of purchases lists was raised in the letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, but was inadvertently omitted from the identification of the issue in the letter sent by PIPA to Dr. Potas. PIPA regrets this oversight, but the Commissioner does not believe that these additional items of data sought by Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen differ substantially enough from the profit and loss statements, with regard to the issue of public access, to warrant separate opinions. Therefore, the Commissioner will address the issue as a request for access to all three items of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen sought data, maintained by the District, which relate to an agreement the District has with a food service management company. In his response to the Commissioner, Dr. Potas states that denying access to these data is ...in keeping with the [contractual] agreement we have with the Taher Food Service Management Company.
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, contains the provision which is commonly referred to as the presumption of openness, which states that absent a statute, temporary classification, or provision of federal law which classifies government data as not public, government data are presumed to be public, and therefore accessible to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District states that the data in question are not public because it has entered into a contractual agreement with Taher to treat data concerning that agreement as not public. However, if the District entered into a contract which contains an agreement to treat data as confidential, which are classified as public, it would appear to be in opposition to public policy, and a violation of state law, and therefore the contract would not be valid. A contract which contains terms that are in violation of public policy is void. [See &lt;u&gt;Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Thornton Bros. Co.&lt;/u&gt;288 N.W. 226, 227 (Minn. 1939).]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nothing in the information provided to PIPA suggests that one may reasonably draw the conclusion that the data sought are classified as other than public. The data, as described, appear to concern operations of the food service company in performance of its contract with the District. Dr. Potas did not cite any state statute, temporary classification, or federal law which classifies such data as not public in either his response to Ms. Detloff&apos;s and Ms. Luschen&apos;s requests or his communication with PIPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is a possibility, in some circumstances, that business-related information maintained by a government entity may not be public. The legislature has provided a mechanism (M.S. section 13.37) whereby commercial enterprises which provide trade secret data to government entities may be able to protect these data from public access. However, there is no indication that Taher, Inc., asked for this protection, the District did not claim that the data Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen sought are trade secret data, and in either case it does not appear that the definition of trade secret data contained in Section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), applies to these data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One further comment is in order. Dr. Potas referred to Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen having made oral requests for government data, without making appointments to request those data. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states that Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places... Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states that the responsible authority ...shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. There is nothing in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 which requires data requests to be made in writing, but a government entity may choose to impose that requirement as part of its data access procedures. If the District has complied with its obligation to establish such procedures, it may ask citizens to follow those procedures when making data requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence provided in the matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Detloff and Ms. Luschen is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Government data, provided to a school district, that consist of a financial profit and loss statement, commodities inventory list, and summary of purchases list, are public data, and accessible to the public.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 20, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267676</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Written requests, procedures may require</Title><Id>266416</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Trade secrets (13.37)</Title><Id>266417</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-044</Title><title>Opinion 94 044</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267218&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>By not supplying the custodial parent with the Activity Tracker Record that was supplied to Dr. DeSanctis (the psychologist) which was requested on 6 June 94 and the authorization for release of information which was requested on 3 July 94, until 7 September 94, did the Buffalo High School violate the data subject&apos;s and custodial parent&apos;s rights to access information.
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 20, 1994; School District 877 (Buffalo)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the actual submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 13, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X. In this letter X described attempts by him to get access to certain data maintained about his minor child by Independent School District Number 877, the Buffalo School District and hereinafter District. After describing what he believed to be violations of the rights conferred on him and his minor child by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning the issues stated in the issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Specifically, X alleged the following. One June 6, 1994, during a consultation with a psychologist who was evaluating X&apos;s child, X was shown a copy of a report sent to the psychologist by Buffalo High School. This report, entitled Activity Tracker Report, and described by X as a computer printout, contained data concerning disciplinary actions taken against the child by the District. After seeing this report, X went to Buffalo High School and asked to inspect and copy all data the school was maintaining about his child. This request was made on June 6, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 9, 1994, X received some data from the District. He identified certain items that he thought were missing, including a copy of the Activity Tracker Report and the form used to release data to the psychologist, and renewed his request to gain access to all data. On June 15, 1994, he received additional data from the District including a copy of a computer printout entitled Activity Tracker Report that was dated June 8, 1994. Although this printout contained some of the same data X had seen on the Activity Tracker Report in the possession of the psychologist, it did not contain all of the data that appeared on the version X had seen in the psychologist&apos;s office.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X continued his discussions with the District and with the private psychologist about gaining access to data concerning his child and particularly access to data that the District had allegedly sent to the psychologist. On September 7, 1994, X received a letter from the District. Enclosed with that letter were additional data, including a copy of a computerized Activity Tracker Report, dated May 18, 1994, that contained the same data as the copy of this report that X alleges was sent to the psychologist by the District. At this time, the District also provided X with a copy of a consent for release of data form, signed by the child&apos;s mother, that authorized release of educational data to the private psychologist.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Darrell Miller, Superintendent of Schools for the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1994, were to inform Dr. Miller of X&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Miller to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence to Dr. Miller and X, the Commissioner notified them that she would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 4, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Ann R. Goering and Mr. Paul C. Ratwik, attorneys for the District. As they have on previous occasions, involving requests for opinions about their clients, these attorneys questioned the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, criticized the statement of the issues to be addressed and conditioned their response on being able to restate the issues in factually neutral and abstract terms and to answer those issues only as generalities. The Commissioner has addressed these questions and concerns in previous opinions and will not restate her position here.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In summary, the District stated its position as follows. There is nothing in Chapter 13 that prohibits a school district from altering or disposing of educational data. Nothing in Chapter 13 requires a school district to maintain copies of data it releases to third parties. Parents do have the right to request and to gain access to educational data regarding their children. A school district must respond to that request within the time periods established by Section 13.04, subdivision 3, of the Act. If a district does not store data, it is not required to provide parents with access to the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issues raised by X in his request for an opinion were stated by him as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;By not supplying the custodial parent with the Activity Tracker Record that was supplied to Dr. DeSanctis (the psychologist) which was requested on 6 June 94 and the authorization for release of information which was requested on 3 July 94, until 7 September 94, did the Buffalo High School violate the data subject&apos;s and custodial parent&apos;s rights to access information. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Most data maintained by the District about X&apos;s child are educational data that are classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Parents of minor children have the right to gain access to private data about their children. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8.) Access to data about a data subject by the data subject or, in the case of a minor, by the parents of the data subject, is regulated by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Section 13.04 of the Act is the section that confers a variety of rights on data subjects. Upon a request to a government entity, a data subject is entitled to immediately gain access to private or public data maintained about him/her by the entity, or, if immediate access is not possible, within five days of the request.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  According to X, he requested access to all data about his child on June 6, 1994. When he did not receive certain data that he believed the District to be retaining about his child, he specifically identified those data and asked for access on July 3, 1994. The District did not provide those data, consisting of the full version of the Activity Tracker Report Form and the consent for release of information signed by the child&apos;s mother, until September 7, 1994. The District was required to give X access to data immediately or within five days of his initial request for data on June 6, 1994. This is the result dictated by Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In response to his general request on June 6, 1994, the District did not provide the two specific items described above until 64 working days after his request. In response to his July 3, 1994, letter to the District, in which he specifically identified items of data he felt that the District was withholding from him, it took the District approximately 45 working days to provide the two items to him. Clearly, X did not receive the data he requested within the time frames required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If X&apos;s allegations are accepted, the fact that he received two different versions of the Activity Tracker Report raises an additional problem. At some point, in addition to asking for all data about his child, he specifically identified the Activity Tracker Report as a report of particular interest to him and asked to receive a copy of it. He did receive a copy of this report, which was a computer printout and carried a date of June 8, 1994. However, after examining this report, he was of the opinion that, even though it carried the same title as a similar report he had seen in the offices of the psychologist and included some of the same data, it was not the version in the possession of the psychologist because that version of the report had additional data about his child. The District did not provide to X the May 19, 1994, version of the report, that appears to be the same version as supplied to the psychologist, until September 7, 1994.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In its response, the District declined to comment in detail on this issue. There are references in the response to a general position that a school district does not have to provide private data to a parent if the data are not being stored by the District. However, in this particular instance, it appears that the District may have had the full set of data constituting the Activity Tracker Report on its computer throughout the period of time during which X was seeking access to all data about his child. At some point, it appears that they may have provided him with a partial printout of this report. It was only after his persistent inquiries, that the District provided him with a copy of the version previously provided to the psychologist. If the District were not keeping the full set of data on the District computer or in some other form, they would not have been ultimately able to provide X with a duplicate version as provided to the psychologist. It is possible that they retrieved a copy from the psychologist but there is no indication of that in their response.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  This history, if correct, raises the specter of a District using the power of its computerized systems to provide different versions of a set of data to a parent than are being provided to others. If that is the case, and it must be emphasized that the District has admitted to none of the factual allegations raised by X, this practice would effectively deny a data subject, or in the case of a minor, the parents of that data subject, access to all of the educational data maintained by a school district. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when read in conjunction with Sections 13.02, subdivision 8 and 13.32, gives the parent of a minor access to all educational data about that minor. If a district were to respond to a parent&apos;s request for access to all data about his or her child by providing a printout of selected computerized data, while withholding other data about the minor, the district would not be in compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, and on detailed information and allegations only as presented by X, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The District was required to provide X with access to all data about his child within five days of his request for access on June 6, 1994. The District did not provide him with access to portions of the data he requested until 64 days after his request and, in the case of the Activity Tracker Report, initially provided him with an incomplete version of the data, effectively denying his right of access to all of the data contained in the Activity Tracker Report. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 20, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267218</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Education data</Title><Id>266533</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-043</Title><title>Opinion 94 043</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267159&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-14T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are data maintained by the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association accessible by the public under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 14, 1994; Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 423A.21, was repealed by the Legislature in 2013.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information provided by the citizen who requested this opinion is presented in summary form. The entity whose data are the subject of this opinion did not file a response to the notification of the citizen&apos;s request for an opinion. Copies of the detailed submission of the citizen are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated September 9, 1994, and hand delivered to PIPA during the week of September 12, 1994, Mr. A. J. DeAntoni, a resident of Bloomington, Minnesota, described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained by the Bloomington Fire Department and, more specifically, data maintained by the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association, hereinafter Association. Further discussion with Mr. DeAntoni established that he was desirous of obtaining an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner, as to whether or not certain financial and other data maintained by the Association are accessible by members of the public. For purposes of the time frames established by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request was deemed to have been filed with the Commissioner on September 9, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Joseph B. Nierenberg, an attorney who was identified in correspondence supplied by Mr. DeAntoni as the attorney for the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1994, were to inform Mr. Nierenberg of Mr. DeAntoni&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Nierenberg to provide information or support for the Association&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue an opinion. (In subsequent correspondence to Mr. DeAntoni and the Association, the Commissioner notified them that she would be taking some part of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Commissioner did not receive a reply to the notification sent to Mr. Nierenberg. It should be noted that in the information provided by Mr. DeAntoni, Mr. Nierenberg had informed him, in a letter dated April 13, 1992, that it was the position of the Association that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter Chapter 13 or the Act, did not apply to the Association.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue that Mr. DeAntoni asked the Commissioner to address, as extracted from his request, is as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are data maintained by the Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association accessible by the public under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Chapter 13 extends its regulation of government data to state agencies and political subdivisions as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02. Political subdivision is defined to include cities, counties, school districts and other local government entities. However, the term is also defined to include special districts and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11.) Given the numerous statutory references to fire relief associations that are spread throughout Minnesota Statutes in, inter alia, Chapters 69, 423 and 423A and the fact that those statutes and others regulate the creation and conduct of the affairs of the various types of fire relief associations, it may be possible to conclude that this particular Association and other fire relief associations are authorities created pursuant to law.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, the legislature will, from time to time, specifically determine that certain types of entities which are not traditional government entities such as state agencies and municipalities ought to be subject to Chapter 13. (For example, in 1989, the Legislature made the Minnesota State High School League subject to Chapter 13. See Minnesota Statutes Section 128C.17.) This also appears to be the case in the instance of fire relief associations.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 423A.21 states that a local relief association is subject to the provisions of Chapter 6, relating to audits by the state auditor, and to the provisions of Chapter 13. It is important to note that the title of Chapter 423A is Police and Salaried Firefighters Relief Association. Statutes dealing with fire relief associations do differentiate between salaried firefighters and volunteer fire relief associations. An argument could be made that, because Minnesota Statutes Section 423A.21 is a part of Chapter 423A, the provision making fire relief associations subject to the provisions of Chapter 13 applies only to salaried relief associations.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes 423A.21 was enacted as Section 15 of Chapter 359 of the Laws of Minnesota 1986. The first part of the title of this Act reads as follows: An act relating to retirement; police and firefighters relief associations; . . . clarifying various duties and responsibilities in the management of local associations. . . . Although the title of the bill refers in general to firefighters relief associations, the actual language of the bill deals with specific issues relating to both salaried and volunteer fire relief associations. This indicates the legislative intent that the term firefighters relief association when used throughout the balance of Chapter 359, including Section 15 that created Minnesota Statutes 423A.21, was meant to include both volunteer and salaried fire relief associations. If that is a correct reading of legislative intent, then the Association, as a local firefighters relief association, is subject to Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  A review of a variety of statutory provisions dealing with volunteer and salaried fire relief associations provides further indication that, when the legislature uses the terms local relief association or firefighters relief association, that it intends that terminology to cover all of the various types of firefighter relief associations. For example, the following sections, that describe duties and accountabilities of both salaried and volunteer relief associations, use the term relief association to refer to both types of associations: Minnesota Statutes Section 6.495, auditing of various fire and police relief associations ; Minnesota Statutes Section 69.25, requiring cities of the first class to maintain a fire relief association; Minnesota Statutes Section 69.26 specifying the organization of relief associations; and Minnesota Statutes Section 69.05l, a section that prescribes duties of both volunteer and salaried fire relief associations.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 424A.001, defines the term relief association to mean, inter alia, a volunteer firefighters relief association. Although the introductory language to the definitions contained in Section 424A.001 does state that the terms are defined as used in this chapter, this definition, when coupled with the other usage of the term relief association throughout Minnesota Statutes, as described above, provides additional support for an interpretation of Minnesota Statutes Section 423A.21 that will bring the Association under the coverage of Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language of Minnesota Statutes Section 423A.21 makes it clear that the legislature intends that local relief associations shall be subject to Chapter 13. Review of a variety of statutes indicates a legislative practice of using the term local relief associations as a way of referring to the variety of volunteer and salaried associations collectively. This interpretation leads to a conclusion that the data maintained by the Association are subject to Chapter 13. Mr. DeAntoni should be provided with access to the public data maintained by the Association.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. DeAntoni is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As the legislature has determined that local fire relief associations of all types are subject to Chapter 13, public data maintained by the Association are accessible by the public in accordance with Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 14, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267159</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Fire relief associations - subject to Chapter 13</Title><Id>266651</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:09Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-042</Title><title>Opinion 94 042</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267528&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the identity of a governmental employee who has been disciplined, and the nature of the discipline imposed on that employee, public data prior to a final disposition of the disciplinary action.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 14, 1994; City of Hibbing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 15, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration (Commissioner) received a letter from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, the attorney for the Hibbing Daily Tribune, a newspaper located in Hibbing, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson described attempts by a reporter working for his client to gain access to certain personnel data maintained by the City of Hibbing, hereinafter City. A summary of what Mr. Anfinson related is as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The City&apos;s Council held a closed meeting after announcing the meeting was closed for the purpose of considering charges against a City employee. At the end of the closed portion of its meeting, the City then held an open portion of its meeting. At the open part of the meeting the City Council voted to discipline an employee. After that action, a reporter for the Hibbing Daily Tribune asked for the name of the employee who was disciplined and the nature of the discipline. The City denied this request and told the reporter that under the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and, hereinafter, Act or Chapter 13, that those two items of data were not public. After providing the foregoing explanation, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion that addressed the issue found in the Issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to his request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. John Fedo, the City&apos;s Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1994, were to inform Mr. Fedo of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Fedo to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence to Mr. Anfinson and the City, the Commissioner notified them that she would be taking some part of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 28, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Mr. Steve Fecker, an attorney for the City. The City&apos;s position as summarized from Mr. Fecker&apos;s response is as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Fecker agreed that the City had refused to provide the data described above to the reporter for the Hibbing Daily Tribune. Mr. Fecker stated that this employee had the right to file an appeal under a collective bargaining agreement and still had time in which to do so. Given that possibility, it was the City&apos;s position that there had been no final disposition of the disciplinary action that the City was imposing against this employee and the City was not obligated under Chapter 13 to make the name of the employee or the nature of the proposed disciplinary action public. Mr. Fecker did acknowledge that a strong argument could be made under Section 13.43 of the Act that the name of the employee was public. However, it was his opinion that there was no support in Section 13.43, subdivision 2 for the proposition that the nature of the disciplinary action the City intended to impose was public data prior to the final disposition of the disciplinary action.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue raised by Mr. Anfinson in his request for an opinion was stated by him as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the identity of a governmental employee who has been disciplined, and the nature of the discipline imposed on that employee, public data prior to a final disposition of the disciplinary action. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 is the section of the Act that contains specific legislative policy on the handling of personnel data about public employees. Section 13.43 contains a subdivision 2, that specifically lists data about public employees that the legislature has declared to be public data. Included in this list are, among the other public data elements and types of the data, the following: name; . . . the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, . . .
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.43 has been the object of considerable legislative attention in recent years. The current language of the section declares a legislative policy that balances two strongly competing interests. The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular balancing of interests, the public is able to find out that charges or complaints have been made against an employee and how the government entity is handling those complaints or charges. If a final disciplinary action is imposed on the employee, the public will also be able to learn the details of the action itself and why the action was taken, including all data that supports the action. If no disciplinary action is imposed or if a proposed disciplinary action is overturned because the employee grieved a proposed disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement, the employee&apos;s interest is protected because there is very limited dissemination to the public of any details about the allegations.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this instance, the City, acting through its Council, decided to discipline an employee. At the time that decision was announced, the City did not provide to the public, even when asked to do so, either the employee&apos;s name or what disciplinary action was being proposed. This particular employee has rights under a collective bargaining agreement to grieve the proposed discipline. Therefore, there will be no final disposition of the proposed disciplinary action until either the employee fails to go forward with a grievance or the City&apos;s proposed disciplinary action is upheld by an arbitrator. As there is not yet a final disposition of this disciplinary action, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 specifies that the following data about this employee and the City&apos;s handling of the complaints or charges against this employee are public: the employee&apos;s name; the status of the City&apos;s handling of the complaints or charges against the employee and the fact that the complaints or charges have resulted in the City proposing a disciplinary action against the employee.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language of Section 13.43 is very clear that, with the exception of undercover law enforcement officers, the names of public employees are always public. It seems equally clear that the name of an employee can also be associated with other public data about that employee. In this instance, that means that the City should provide to the newspaper the name of the employee and the fact that there have been complaints or charges against that named employee. Section 13.43 also directs that the status of complaints or charges about a named employee and whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action also be treated as public data and made available to the newspaper and other members of the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  What is not clear on the face of the statute itself is whether or not the nature of the discipline the City is attempting to impose is also public. Given the extensive legislative history of this section and the balancing of interests described above, a reasonable interpretation of the language whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action means that Section 13.43 requires the City to disclose the fact that, in this instance, it is proposing to impose a disciplinary action. However, the City is not required, particularly in an instance where the employee has collective bargaining agreement rights that may set aside the proposed disciplinary action, to provide to the public personnel data that will describe the nature of the proposed disciplinary action.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The name of a public employee, against whom complaints or charges have been made and discipline proposed, is public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. The nature of the proposed disciplinary action is private unless and until the proposed disciplinary action becomes final.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 14, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267528</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266587</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Names of employees</Title><Id>266917</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-041</Title><title>Opinion 94 041</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267106&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When Buffalo High School Psychologist, Paula Dietz, and Assistant Principal, Mary Loberg, coerced the minor child into believing that in order to be readmitted to school, a psychological evaluation would been to be conducted, when in reality it did not, and then failed to provide the minor child and custodial parent in writing with: 1) What is the purpose and intended use of the data? 2) Whether the child may refuse to supply the requested data? 3) What are the known consequences arising from supplying or refusing to supply this confidential data? and 4) The identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data, was the minor child&apos;s and custodial parents government data practices rights violated?
Buffalo High School supplied an ACTIVITY TRACKER RECORD to Dr. Michael DeSanctis. The data being held by Dr. Michael DeSanctis was viewed by the custodial parent on 6 Jun 94 and noted as inaccurate and incomplete. Although requested to do so, Dr. DeSanctis will not release the information supplied by the Buffalo High School. Buffalo High School has either altered the data or destroyed it, and in any case, did not reveal the data maintained by Dr. DeSanctis to the custodial parent for inspection and copying per the MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT REQUEST of 6 June 94. Did Minnesota Independent School District 877 violate the rights of the minor child and custodial parent by altering, destroying or withholding data that was supplied to Dr. DeSanctis, and not allowing the minor child and custodial parent to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the data. Did Dr. DeSanctis, acting as an agent for the School District, violate the rights of the custodial parent by not allowing the inspection and copying of data when requested.
Did Buffalo High School Principal, Nick Miller, violate the rights of the data subject by not providing the consent forms requested on 3 July 94 by the custodial parent?
NOTE: The PUPIL FAIR DISMISSAL ACT OF 1974 [127.27] defines &quot;
Parent
&quot; as: &quot;(b) in the case of divorce, legal separation or illegitimacy, the
custodial parent
.&quot; Did Buffalo High School Psychologist, Paula Dietz, have the authority to release private data to Dr. Michael DeSanctis without the written consent of the parent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 7, 1994; School District 877 (Buffalo)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees is presented in summary form. Copies of the actual submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public inspection.
&lt;p&gt;On August 16, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from X. In this letter, X described incidents involving collection, use and dissemination of data about his minor child by Independent School District Number 877, the Buffalo Schools and hereinafter District. It was X&apos;s opinion that certain practices of the District violated the rights of himself or his child under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Specifically, X alleged the following. On April 26, 1994, X&apos;s child was involved in an incident in Buffalo High School that lead to the child being suspended from school and taken into custody by the Buffalo Police Department. X is the custodial parent of the child. According to X, the District informed the child and the child&apos;s noncustodial parent that in order for the child to be readmitted to school the child would have to undergo a psychological evaluation. Sometime after that, Dr. Michael DeSanctis, a psychologist in private practices began an evaluation of the child. According to X, Paula Dietz, the Buffalo High School psychologist sent data about the child to Dr. DeSanctis. (Note: X&apos;s request sometimes spells the doctor&apos;s name as DeSanctis and other times DeSancti. The former spelling is used here.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 20, 1994, X received correspondence from Dr. DeSanctis who informed him that the child&apos;s evaluation was complete and a review of the evaluation would take place on June 6, 1994. On June 6, X met with Dr. DeSanctis and reviewed the doctor&apos;s findings and certain data provided by the District. As a result of that meeting, it was X&apos;s belief that the District had provided inaccurate and incomplete data to Dr. DeSanctis and that it had provided private data to Dr. DeSanctis without his consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On that same day, X went to the high school and asked to view all data about his child contained in any system of records. He made that request to Mr. Nick Miller, the high school&apos;s principal. On June 9, 1994, X met with Mr. Miller and examined the data provided to him. In his opinion, four specific items of information about his child, including information he had seen at Dr. DeSanctis&apos; office, were missing from the data provided to him by Mr. Miller. Subsequently, X received copies of two of these items from Ms. Mary Loberg, an assistant principal. She also informed him that the District did not have a copy of one of the items and that he would have to request the other item from Dr. DeSanctis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X then wrote to Mr. Miller expressing concern that the District had released data to Dr. DeSanctis without the consent of X. He asked Mr. Miller to provide copies of the consent forms that authorized the District to send data to Dr. DeSanctis. It appears that X never received copies of the consent forms. X also wrote to Dr. DeSanctis and asked him to provide copies of all data supplied to the doctor by the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On July 20, 1994, X received a letter from the Dr. DeSanctis. According to X, this letter informed him that the referral letter from the psychologist for the District might be a professional to professional consultation and without authorization from the other professional the letter could not be released to a third party. As to the other data requested by X, Dr. DeSanctis referred him back to the District.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After presenting the allegations summarized above, X asked the Commissioner to provide an opinion on the four issues that are summarized below in the Issues section. In response to this request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Darrell Miller, Superintendent of Schools for the District. The purposes of this letter, dated August 19, 1994, were to inform Mr. Miller of X&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Miller to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence to X and the District, the Commissioner notified them that she would be taking the additional 30 days allowed by opinion statute to issue this opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 30, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Ann R. Goering and Mr. Paul C. Ratwik, attorneys for the District. As they have on other occasions involving requests for opinions about the data practices of their clients, attorneys for the Ratwik law firm questioned the authority of the Commissioner to issue opinions that involves factual disputes. They also objected to the fact that the issues, on which the Commissioner asks for a response are, in most instances, an unedited statement of the issues recited by the citizen and those issues are sometimes stated in argumentative and emotional terms. The Commissioner has addressed the questions raised by the Ratwik firm in previous opinions and will not restate the details of her position here. Detailed support for the Commissioner&apos;s positions on the issues raised by Mr. Ratwik and Ms Goering can be found in those previous opinions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Suffice it to say, the Commissioner believes she has the authority to issue opinions that involve factually disputed issues. She will consider all allegations and information provided to her and will, notwithstanding how a citizen states the issues in a request for an opinion, render an opinion that addresses the actual disagreement that appears to exist between the citizen and a government entity as she is required to do by the language of the opinion statute. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, 1993 Statutory Supplement.) If a governmental entity or its attorney chooses, out of concern for potential liability or other reasons, not to provide detailed information in its response, the Commissioner will still render an opinion. However, the government entity&apos;s silence will force the Commissioner to render an opinion based only on the citizen&apos;s view of the disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to challenging the Commissioner&apos;s authority, the attorneys for the District also took the position that in order to respond they would have to restate the issues raised by X in what they called factually neutral terms, and that they would respond only to the issues as they restated them. In effect, this means that their responses do not address what did or did not happen in the incidents described by X. The District&apos;s 12 page response merely addresses, in abstract and neutral terms, the duties of government agencies and the rights of subjects of data. The following is an example of how the District responded to one of the issues raised by X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X asked whether he had the right, under the Act, to inspect and copy data the District allegedly sent to a private psychologist. The District&apos;s response restated this issue as follows. First, the District asked the question: does Chapter 13 prohibit a school district from altering or disposing of government data. The District&apos;s response then answered that question in the negative. Next, the District asked the question: does the Data Practices Act require a school district to retain copies of data that it releases to a third party. The District also answered that question in the negative. Lastly, the District&apos;s response summarized the questions it restated and the answers to the questions as follows. A school district is not prohibited by the Act from altering or disposing of government data. A school district is not required to retain copies of data it releases to a third party. Therefore, a school district is not required to provide a data subject with copies of data concerning that subject in an instance where the school district disposed of and kept no copies of the data it sent to the third party.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summary, the District&apos;s position on the issue raised by X is that a school district may generate data about a student and use that data in its decision making processes. A school district may send the data to third parties who are making decisions about the student. After using this data and sending it to others, a school district may dispose of the data and all copies of it and therefore have no data available to the parent of a student who seeks access to data concerning decisions made about his child by the school and third parties. However, as the District&apos;s response addresses this line of reasoning as only a possibility, the District&apos;s response does not directly address whether or not this was the sequence of actual events that lead the District, as alleged by X, to tell him that it no longer retained a copy of the data sent to Dr. DeSanctis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
The issues raised by X in his requests for an opinion were stated by him as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When Buffalo High School Psychologist, Paula Dietz, and Assistant Principal, Mary Loberg, coerced the minor child into believing that in order to be readmitted to school, a psychological evaluation would been to be conducted, when in reality it did not, and then failed to provide the minor child and custodial parent in writing with: 1) What is the purpose and intended use of the data? 2) Whether the child may refuse to supply the requested data? 3) What are the known consequences arising from supplying or refusing to supply this confidential data? and 4) The identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data, was the minor child&apos;s and custodial parents government data practices rights violated?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Buffalo High School supplied an ACTIVITY TRACKER RECORD to Dr. Michael DeSanctis. The data being held by Dr. Michael DeSanctis was viewed by the custodial parent on 6 Jun 94 and noted as inaccurate and incomplete. Although requested to do so, Dr. DeSanctis will not release the information supplied by the Buffalo High School. Buffalo High School has either altered the data or destroyed it, and in any case, did not reveal the data maintained by Dr. DeSanctis to the custodial parent for inspection and copying per the MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT REQUEST of 6 June 94. Did Minnesota Independent School District 877 violate the rights of the minor child and custodial parent by altering, destroying or withholding data that was supplied to Dr. DeSanctis, and not allowing the minor child and custodial parent to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the data. Did Dr. DeSanctis, acting as an agent for the School District, violate the rights of the custodial parent by not allowing the inspection and copying of data when requested.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did Buffalo High School Principal, Nick Miller, violate the rights of the data subject by not providing the consent forms requested on 3 July 94 by the custodial parent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;NOTE: The PUPIL FAIR DISMISSAL ACT OF 1974 [127.27] defines &quot;Parent&quot;as: (b) in the case of divorce, legal separation or illegitimacy, the custodial parent.
&lt;br /&gt;
Did Buffalo High School Psychologist, Paula Dietz, have the authority to release private data to Dr. Michael DeSanctis without the written consent of the parent?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
X and his child are guaranteed certain rights by Chapter 13. The rights conferred on them by the legislature, when it enacted the Act, have no substantive meaning unless the government entity with which they are dealing chooses to perform those administrative activities that will actually put into effect the rights conferred on X and his son. Although the District&apos;s position on the law surrounding the disagreement between the District and X and his son is clear, the District chose to provide no factual affirmation or rebuttal to the allegations presented by X. This opinion should be read in light of that factual reality.
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1.&lt;/h2&gt;
In this issue, X asks whether the District, when the District told the child and the noncustodial parent that the child would not be readmitted to school unless there was a psychological assessment, was required to give the child and the parent a written Tennessen Warning?
&lt;p&gt;Tennessen Warning is the popular name given to the Act&apos;s requirement that government entities, when they ask individuals to provide private or confidential data concerning themselves, inform those individuals of certain factual and legal information concerning the data the government seeks to collect. This requirement takes the form of a notice to the individual in which the individual must be told why the government is asking for data, whether or not providing it is legally required, what uses will be made of the data by the entity collecting it, the consequences to the individual of either providing or not providing the data and the identity of other persons and agencies, outside the entity collecting the data, that will have access to the data if the individual provides it. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X described situations in which the District discussed with his child, with himself and with the noncustodial parent the District&apos;s position that it would not readmit his child to school until the child had undergone a psychological evaluation. It is possible in these discussions that the school psychologist and the assistant principal asked the child or either of the parents to supply private data about the child to the District. (With very specific and limited exceptions, all data concerning a student collected or maintained or sought to be collected or maintained by school district or an agent of a school district are private educational data. See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.) If they did, that would trigger the requirement that the child or the parent be provided with a Tennessen Warning. However, if what occurred were discussions about a course of action in which the agents of the District did not ask the child or the parents to provide private data to them, the requirement that the District provide a Tennessen Warning would not be triggered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The situation, as described by X, appears to be a situation in which what occurred was a general discussion of a course of action. If that was the case, the District was not required to provide the child or the parents with a Tennessen Warning and there was no violation of the right conferred on the child and the parent by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 1.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
In this issue, X describes a set of data called an Activity Tracker Record that he alleges that the District sent to Dr. DeSanctis. Although it appears that X knew this document existed and that a copy of it was sent by the District to Dr. DeSanctis, he alleges that Dr. DeSanctis will not provide him with a copy of it. He also alleges that the District has told him that it destroyed the original document after sending a copy to Dr. DeSanctis. He then asks if the District&apos;s alleged destruction or withholding of this Tracker Record violates the rights of himself and his child, under the Act, to gain access to private data. He also asks if the failure of Dr. DeSanctis, whom he describes an agent of the District, to allow X to inspect or copy this document violates X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13.
&lt;p&gt;Chapter 13 does not directly regulate the ongoing retention of educational data by the District. Data retention by the District is the subject of a separate statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17. This section of Minnesota Statutes and the sections that immediately follow it are commonly referred to as the Records Management Act. Under the Records Management Act, government entities, including school districts, must receive certain approvals before they can lawfully dispose, through destruction and other means, of government records. While the Commissioner has duties under the Records Management Act, issues involving whether or not a government entity improperly disposed of government records are, in most instances, outside the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions. However, it should be noted that improper destruction of government records may subject a government employee to a misdemeanor penalty. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 138.225.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 gives data subjects and the parents of data subjects who are minors the right to gain access to private or public data maintained about the subject by a government entity. For data to be accessible, it must exist. In this instance, X has been told, according to him, that he cannot gain access to the Tracker Record because the District, after it sent a copy to Dr. DeSanctis, destroyed the original. Technically, it is not a violation of the rights of a data subject for a government entity to fail to provide access to data that the entity once maintained about that subject but has now destroyed. However, if the District destroyed the Tracker Record in response to X&apos;s request to gain access to it, this could be viewed as conscious attempt by the District to deny the right conferred by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and therefore a violation of the rights of X and his child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X has not provided any data from which it could be reasonably concluded or inferred that the District did, in this instance, destroy the Tracker Record to negate X&apos;s rights under Section 13.04. X sought access to data that, according to the District, no longer existed. He did not provide information that establishes that the District destroyed this data in order to deny him his rights under Section 13.04. It cannot be concluded from the information provided that the District&apos;s failure to provide him with a copy of the Tracker Record was a violation of his rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although this is a reasonable conclusion based on the information provided by X, the District&apos;s apparent position, that destruction of a student record is not prohibited by Chapter 13, does present other possible problems. Destruction of a record could have implications for a government entity&apos;s obligations to keep data on individuals accurate, complete and current. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Also, destruction of a record by a school district could have implications for the district under federal law and especially the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its rules. There are also possible problems with the Records Management Act as noted earlier.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this issue, X also asked if Dr. DeSanctis&apos; failure to allow X to inspect or copy the copy of the Tracker Record in the doctor&apos;s possession was a violation of X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13. X provided no information from which the Commissioner can conclude that Dr. DeSanctis was operating as an agent of the District. If the doctor is not an agent of the District and if he is not employed by an entity otherwise made subject to the Act, he is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. However, X&apos;s attention is called to the existence of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, the provision of Minnesota Statutes that gives individuals access to data maintained about them or their minor children by health care providers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
In this issue, X asks if the District&apos;s failure to provide him with copies of the consent forms that authorized dissemination of the data about his child to Dr. DeSanctis violated his right to gain access to data.
&lt;p&gt;Although the District&apos;s factual response admitted nothing about this issue, the District&apos;s response states as a generality a position that nothing in Chapter 13 requires a school district to keep copies of consent forms used to disseminate data outside a school district. As with the discussion of the previous issue, if a government entity chooses to destroy government data it once had and the subject of that data or the parent of a minor data subject seeks access to that data, the government entity is under no obligation to provide data that no longer exists. Although this may present issues under the Records Management Statute, it does not appear to be a violation of the rights of a data subject under Section 13.04 unless, as discussed in the previous issue, it can be established that government entity destroyed the data for the express purpose of denying a data subject access to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The District&apos;s position on this issue, or what can reasonably be inferred as the District&apos;s position on this issue is very puzzling. It would always seem to be in the best interest of a government entity, that has released private data to a third party because the data subject has given written consent to that release, to keep copies of the consent forms for an extended period of time. The signed consent form or authorization is the entity&apos;s best defense if the data subject should ever allege that the entity improperly released private data to the third party. In this instance, the District appears to be saying that either X has misstated what happened or that it no longer stores the consent forms and therefore has no obligation under Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to provide access to them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 4.&lt;/h2&gt;
In this issue, X asks if the high school psychologist had the authority to release data about his child to Dr. DeSanctis without his consent.
&lt;p&gt;Private data about an individual can be released to others with the written consent of the individual data subject. (See Minnesota Statues Section 13.05, subdivision 4 and Minnesota Agency Rules Sections 1205.0400 and 1205.0500.) In the case of an individual data subject who is a minor, the individual who has the right to consent to the release of data includes both the minor child and the parents of that child. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8.) Agencies that allow minor individuals the full exercise of their rights under the Act normally will consider the actual age and maturity level of the minor before deciding that the child can fully exercise his or her rights under Chapter 13. In the case of child whose parents are divorced, either parent has the right to consent to the release of data about the child unless the other parent has provided the government entity, that holds the data, with some kind of legally binding instrument such as a court order that says only one of the parents can access data or consent to its release. (See Minnesota Agency Rules Section 1205.0500, subpart 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears from the information provided by X and the actual content of his statement of this issue, that a consent for release of data about his child to Dr. DeSanctis may have been given either by his child or by the child&apos;s mother. If that is the case, he argues that only he, as the custodial parent, ought to be able to release data about his child to others. He has not provided any information that would indicate the child&apos;s mother has been legally disqualified from exercising her rights under Chapter 13 or that the maturity level of his child is impaired in such a way that the District ought not, if it did, honor a consent from either the child or his mother. If the District released data with the written consent or either the child or the mother, it did not violate X&apos;s rights under Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, and only on detailed information and allegations as presented by X, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue 1,&lt;/h2&gt;
the District was not required to give the notice required by Section 13.04, subdivision 2 of the Act because the information as presented does not establish that the District was asking the data subject to provide data in a circumstance that would require the District to provide a Tennessen Warning.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue 2,&lt;/h2&gt;
the District was not required to provide private data to the parent of a minor child if the data in question was no longer being stored by the District. This failure to provide the data because the data had been destroyed, was not a violation of the data subject&apos;s right, under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, of the Act unless the District destroyed the data in order to deny the subject access to the data. It is my further opinion that a health care provider who is not operating as an agent of an entity subject to Chapter 13 is not required to comply with Chapter 13.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue 3,&lt;/h2&gt;
the District was not required to provide copies of the private data in consent for release of data forms if the District destroyed those forms after releasing the data. Failure to provide private data on the consent forms to a data subject or the parent of a minor data subject was not a violation of the rights established by Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the Act unless the District destroyed the consent forms in order to deny the subject access to the data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;As to issue 4,&lt;/h2&gt;
either the minor data subject, the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent of the minor data subject has a right under Chapter 13 to give written consent for the District to release data about the minor to a third party. Absent the existence of some legal instrument that would disqualify the noncustodial parent from exercising rights under Chapter 13 and evidence that the custodial parent provided that instrument to the District, it would not be violation of the rights of the custodial parent for the District to release data to a third party with the consent of the minor or the minor&apos;s noncustodial parent.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 7, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267106</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed consent</Title><Id>266713</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-040</Title><title>Opinion 94 040</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267402&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-05T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When an employee of the City of Buffalo didn&apos;t know what the classification of a piece of private data was, did that constitute a violation of the minor child&apos;s rights by impeding access to government data and not applying appropriate safeguards?
When the City of Buffalo charged a set fee of $5.00 on May 4 and June 10, to copy information from a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request, were they impeding access to government data and violating the minor child&apos;s rights?
When Buffalo Police Officer Steven Huberty disseminated private data to the Buffalo High School, did that violate the minor child&apos;s rights to privacy and rights to challenge the accuracy of data being maintained by the Buffalo Police Department?
Was the City of Buffalo suppose to respond to the custodial parent&apos;s Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request of May 6 in 30 days? Did the City of Buffalo violate Minnesota Statutes and the rights of the data subject in the manner they responded?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 5, 1994; City of Buffalo</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On August, 16, 1994, the Commissioner received a letter from X, a resident of Buffalo, Minnesota. In this letter, X described incidents involving the collection, use and dissemination of data about his child by the City of Buffalo Police Department, hereinafter City. He alleged that certain activities of the City were in violation of the rights of his child and of himself under provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13. The allegations X stated concerning his disagreement with the City are as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In April, 1994, X&apos;s child was involved in an incident at the high school in Buffalo and the child was taken into custody by an officer of the City. On May 4, 1994, X went to the offices of the City and asked to inspect and to receive a copy of the police report concerning the incident involving his son. The City&apos;s office coordinator made a copy and informed X that there was a $5.00 charge for making the copy. X told the coordinator the Act limited the City&apos;s charges to only the actual costs of making the copy. The coordinator replied that it was the City&apos;s policy to charge $5.00 to copy a report. During this conversation, X asked the coordinator how the data in the policy report was classified. According to X, the coordinator replied that she was not sure about the classification of the data but it might be classified as juvenile.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After reviewing the report with his child, X, on May 6, 1994, filed a notice of data in dispute with Mr. Bob Fix, the chief of the City of Buffalo Police Department. On May 18, 1994, X received a number of documents from the district court in Wright County, including a copy of the police report. However, these documents did not include a copy of the notice of data in dispute that X had filed with the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to X, at some time between May 6, 1994, and May 26, 1994, Chief Fix gave a copy of the data dispute notice to Mr. Steven Huberty, the officer who conducted the investigation of X&apos;s child. Mr. Huberty copied the document and provided a copy of it to Mr. Thomas Hoffman, an official at Buffalo High School who shared it with another school official. This second official discussed the data challenge with X&apos;s child. On May 26, 1994, Mr. Hoffman wrote a memo to Chief Fix and made comments about the data challenge.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 31, 1994, X, wrote a letter to Mr. Merton Auger, an employee of the City of Buffalo. X had learned that Mr. Auger was the responsible authority for purposes of the Act for all of the City of Buffalo. In his letter, X expressed concern about the City of Buffalo and its data practices.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 2, 1994, X received by mail a copy of a supplementary police report prepared by Mr. Huberty that appeared to be a response to the notice of data in dispute filed by X. Further discussions with the City of Buffalo continued and, on June 5, 1994, X asked the City of Buffalo to respond to the notice of data in dispute filed on May 6, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 10, 1994, X discussed with Chief Fix the circumstances of the dissemination of the data in dispute notice. In that conversation, according to X, Chief Fix stated that the notice had been shared with Mr. Hoffman so that Mr. Hoffman could give his view of the events described in the data challenged by X. Officer Huberty used Mr. Hoffman&apos;s letter to write the supplementary report and the letter from Mr. Hoffman was then shredded. X then asked for more copies of files and the City charged him $5.00 for the copies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X continued his discussion with the City of Buffalo and its police department about the data in dispute which now included data in the supplementary report. On July 21, 1994, the City of Buffalo wrote to X and informed him that the City believes the report that was challenged to be accurate.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After this discussion of his disagreement with the City, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the four issues described in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Merton Auger, the Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Buffalo. The purposes of this letter, dated August 19, 1994, were to inform Mr. Auger of X&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Auger to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 12, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Paul A. Weingarden who indicated that his law firm represented the City of Buffalo and that his letter was in response to the request for information from PIPA. The following is a summary of Mr. Weingarden&apos;s response.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weingarden expressed concerns that the Commissioner&apos;s opinion might attempt to resolve disputed factual issues and that the Commissioner would be acting as a fact finder on these issues. He questioned the Commissioner&apos;s authority to do so. Mr. Weingarden also expressed concern at X&apos;s statement of the issues in his request for an opinion. Accordingly, Mr. Weingarden indicated that the City of Buffalo was exercising the right to restate the issues raised by X and that the City of Buffalo also reserved the right to dispute any factual allegations unless, in response to a question as restated, the City admitted certain facts.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As to the issue of whether the alleged failure of the City&apos;s office coordinator to know the classification of data in a juvenile police report, Mr. Weingarden questioned X&apos;s statement of the facts and then restated the issue to be an issue of possible improper dissemination of data if any employee characterized data in a generic way as opposed to the Act&apos;s data classification. Mr. Weingarden pointed out that the employee, in responding to X&apos;s question about the classification of data in report, was being tested about a technical legal definition. He also pointed out that the coordinator, consistent with what s/he had been taught at seminars taught by PIPA and consistent with Department of Administration rules and Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161, provided X with access to the private data on his child.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As to the issue of whether the $5.00 fee charged to X for copies of data on May 4, and June 10, 1994 impeded rights, Mr. Weingarden rephrased the question to be a question of whether a fee of $5.00 constitutes a reasonable minimal charge for copy costs when a request for data is made. Mr. Weingarden discussed the language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 that allows a responsible authority to require an individual to pay the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weingarden reviewed the provisions of rules promulgated by the Department of Administration at Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, Sections 1205.0300 and 1205.0400 that direct a responsible authority to consider certain factors in determining the fee for providing copies. In his view, the actual costs of providing copies may encompass the cost of providing, maintaining and repairing the copy machine and the cost of paper. He also added that the cost includes the cost of labor, including salary and benefits, that reflect the employee&apos;s time spent in assembling the documents, copying the same, filling out a receipt and making a notation in the report of the date and recipient of the data. He indicated that this minimum fee of $5.00 is charged for providing copies of arrest and accident reports and appears to be consistent with charges for that data in other agencies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As to the issue of whether the dissemination by the City of a copy of X&apos;s data in dispute notice constituted a violation of the rights of either X or his child, Mr. Weingarden restated the question. In his view, the question should be as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Does an individual who is the subject of a data dispute notice concerning the individual&apos;s statement or conduct, with personal information of the events, have the right to access the data to assist the City in responding to the dispute notice?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weingarden then pointed out that many of the facts alleged by X in his request are either facts unknown to the City or refer to documents that are not in the possession of the City. He indicated that made it impossible, in the forum of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, to resolve the factual basis for X&apos;s concern.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              He advised, on behalf of the City, that a school district employee was only shown that data in X&apos;s dispute notice that concerned certain statements made by the employee in the presence of Officer Huberty. This data was provided to the employee for the sole purpose of responding to the dispute notice. Because statements by or conduct of the school employee were referenced, the data are private data about the school employee and are accessible to him under Chapter 13. Without giving this employee access to the dispute notice, a full investigation of the dispute would not be possible. Because the employee was a participant in the events described in the report, the employee discovered no information otherwise unavailable as a result of the data review.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As to the issue of whether the City&apos;s alleged failure to respond to X&apos;s May 6, 1994, notice of data of data in dispute violated either X&apos;s or his child&apos;s rights under Chapter 13, Mr. Weingarden restated the issue as one concerning what is the appropriate time frame and manner of response to a data dispute notice properly served upon the responsible authority for the City of Buffalo. Mr. Weingarden reviewed the statutory basis for an individual&apos;s right to challenge data, under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, which includes the requirement that the individual file the data challenge with the responsible authority for the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weingarden reviewed the alleged facts of X&apos;s filing. He pointed out that X filed his notice of dispute with Chief Fix when, in fact, the Buffalo City Council had appointed Mr. Merton Auger to be the responsible authority for the City of Buffalo. Mr. Weingarden pointed out that X had conceded that he had not notified Mr. Auger of the dispute until May 31, 1994 and that on June 2, 1994, X was provided with a written response to his data challenge. Mr. Weingarden added that X&apos;s second challenge was also responded to within 30 days and therefore, in both these instances, the City of Buffalo complied with the Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          When an employee of the City of Buffalo didn&apos;t know what the classification of a piece of private data was, did that constitute a violation of the minor child&apos;s rights by impeding access to government data and not applying appropriate safeguards?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          When the City of Buffalo charged a set fee of $5.00 on May 4 and June 10, to copy information from a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request, were they impeding access to government data and violating the minor child&apos;s rights?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          When Buffalo Police Officer Steven Huberty disseminated private data to the Buffalo High School, did that violate the minor child&apos;s rights to privacy and rights to challenge the accuracy of data being maintained by the Buffalo Police Department?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Was the City of Buffalo suppose to respond to the custodial parent&apos;s Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request of May 6 in 30 days? Did the City of Buffalo violate Minnesota Statutes and the rights of the data subject in the manner they responded?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                The Commissioner has, in previous opinions, discussed her view of the role of facts in issuing these opinions. There is no need to restate her position on that issue in any detail. Suffice it to say, the Commissioner does, for purposes of the issuance of these opinions, attempt to steer a neutral course in dealing with what are often emotionally laden and emotionally stated issues for citizens while providing answers to the questions that citizens raise and, through the publication of opinions, educating the public and agencies as to the rights and requirements of Chapter 13. This position does not affect full consideration by a court of the facts of a given matter in a dispute, that has been the subject of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, if the matter does end up in a court of law. The Commissioner&apos;s practice of quoting, in most instances, the issues as actually raised by a citizen should not be taken as a failure on her part to actually analyze and address the issues in a neutral fashion.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 1:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                In this issue, X asks whether the alleged failure of the City&apos;s office coordinator to know the classification for a specific set of data violates his child&apos;s rights by impeding access to the data and not applying appropriate safeguards for the data.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is clear that the dispute between X and the City is one that presents greatly divergent views on what happened in the facts underlying each of the issues about which X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion. In this particular instance, the primary issue raised by X is answered by facts that do not appear to be in dispute. Upon his request, X was provided with access to private data about his minor child. This is the appropriate result under Chapter 13. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 subdivision 3 gives X the right of access to private data about his child. Minnesota Statues Section 260.161 not only classifies police data about minors as private but also specifically gives parents of a minor access to data about their child unless access would interfere with an ongoing investigation. Although there may be situations in which the failure of an employee to know the classification of data might situationally impede a data subject&apos;s access to that data, for example when an employee did not know if the data are private or confidential, that is not the case in this instance. X got access to the data and it appears that he did so almost immediately upon making his request for access.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X also raised as part of this issue the question of whether an employee&apos;s failure to know the classification of a certain data could lead the employee to fail to apply appropriate safeguards. Beyond raising that issue, neither X or Mr. Weingarden commented as to whether there was anything in this instance that would indicate that the City&apos;s office coordinator had failed to apply appropriate safeguards. A failure to know the classification of data could lead to a failure to appropriately safeguard the data. However, there is nothing in this situation that indicates that was the case.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 2:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                In this issue, X asks whether the City&apos;s practice of charging a set fee of $5.00 for a police report, on two occasions, impeded access to the data and violated the rights of him and his child.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this instance, it appears that X and the City&apos;s office coordinator did have a discussion for some period of time as to whether a $5.00 charge for a copy of a report was what the City was authorized to charge under Chapter 13. According to X, he questioned whether that represented the actual costs of providing the copies and the office coordinator replied that the $5.00 charge was the policy of the City. The response from Mr. Weingarden confirms that the $5.00 charge is a set fee for copies of police reports involving accidents and arrests. Although this discussion about the appropriate fee temporarily impeded X&apos;s receipt of the copies, in the final analysis, he got access because he could pay the $5.00 demanded.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, in the second half of his request on this issue, X asked if the $5.00 fee violated the rights of himself and his child under Chapter 13. In his response, Mr. Weingarden has stated this issue as an issue of whether a fee of $5.00 constitutes a reasonable minimal charge for copy costs. In dealing with this issue, the legislature provided what appears to be clear policy on this issue. When a data subject, or in this case the parent of a data subject, asks for copies of data about him or herself, [T] the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) In addition to this guidance, the rules of the Department of Administration provide more detail about the kinds of costs that an agency can examine as it makes its decision about what constitutes the actual costs of providing copies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In addition to the items described in the rules, Mr. Weingarden asserts that an agency ought to be able to include, as part of the actual costs of providing copies, the cost to the City of providing, maintaining and repairing a copy machine and some portion of the salary and benefits costs of the employee who makes the copies. Claiming these as reimbursable costs, when the costs of having a copy machine and an employee who prepares copies on that machine are already budgeted as part of the City&apos;s operating expenses seems to go beyond what the legislature had it mind when it authorized the City to recover the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  There was no indication in the materials provided by either X or Mr. Weingarden as to the actual number of pages X received for the $5.00 he was charged. In light of Chapter 13&apos;s focus on the City only being able to recover actual costs, the City&apos;s policy of a set fee of $5.00 for receipt of a copy of either an arrest or accident report, no matter how many pages make up a report, may, in the instance where the person requesting the report is a subject of that report, be in violation of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 3:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                In this issue, X asked whether dissemination by a police officer of the City of the notice of data in dispute, violated the privacy rights of his child and the right to challenge the accuracy or completeness of data being maintained by the City. Mr. Weingarden restated this issue to ask whether an individual, who is identified in disputed data, has the right to access that data to assist the City in responding to the dispute.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In light of the position taken by the City on the fourth issue raised by X, see below, its position on this alleged dissemination of data is puzzling. It is the City&apos;s position that X did not file a data challenge with the City of Buffalo until May 31, 1994. It is X&apos;s position that all or some part of his notice of data in dispute was disseminated from the City to an employee of the school district sometime between May 6, 1994, and May 26, 1994. However, the City takes the position that it was appropriate for an officer in the City to share all or some part of X&apos;s data challenge with a school district employee because that data sharing was necessary for the City to fully investigate the claimed dispute. The City does also state that the actual facts associated with this issue raised by X are difficult to ascertain or establish in this forum.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  A discussion of the underlying requirements of the Act that possibly affect this situation may be helpful. Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161, subdivision 3 (1992) as amended by Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 351 states that peace officers&apos; records of children who are or may be delinquent or who may be engaged in criminal acts are private data. This language does not provide any differentiation as to the source of peace officers&apos; records of children, it just says if peace officers have records on children, those records are private. In a situation where the parent of a child attempts to challenge data held about that child in police records by filing a notice of data in dispute with the police department, that notice becomes part of a peace officer&apos;s records of the child and is therefore private data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Chapter 13 allows dissemination of private data between entities subject to the Act only when access to the data is authorized or required by statute or federal law. The City&apos;s position is that it had the authority to disseminate this data to the school district in order for it to properly investigate the claim that the data were inaccurate or incomplete. However, there is nothing in Section 13.04, subdivision 4, the statutory provision dealing with challenges to the data that authorizes dissemination of disputed data to another government entity for purposes of investigating the claims of inaccuracy and incompleteness. In addition, Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161, in addition to classifying police juvenile records as private, says those records shall only be disseminated: by order of the juvenile court; as required in certain chemical abuse situations; to release non identifying data to the public; to the child or the child&apos;s parent or guardian; or as part of accident information in certain circumstances. Nothing in Section 260.161 authorizes the City to disseminate private police data to a school district to investigate a data dispute that alleges certain data maintained by the City are not accurate or complete.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his restatement of this issue and comments in support of that restatement, Mr. Weingarden concludes that Mr. Hoffman had the right to gain access to the data in the dispute notice because it was private data about Mr. Hoffman accessible to him under Chapter 13. However, there is nothing in the information provided by either the City or X that indicates that Mr. Hoffman, in this instance, exercised his rights under Chapter 13 and requested access to the data in the dispute notice. Although Mr. Weingarden reserved the City&apos;s right to challenge alleged facts as stated by X, it appears, based on X&apos;s statement, that Officer Huberty sent a copy of the data in dispute notice to Mr. Hoffman, without a request from Mr. Hoffman to do so. If that is the case, this transaction does not involve an issue of exercise of rights by a data subject but it does involve an issue of whether the City had the statutory authority to send a copy of the data in dispute notice to the school district.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  There does not appear to be any authority found in Minnesota Statutes, other than consent of the data subject or the data subject&apos;s parent, for the City to disseminate X&apos;s notice of dispute to the school district. The City&apos;s position on this issue is also complicated by the fact that the City appears to take the position that at the time this data dissemination allegedly occurred, X had not filed his notice of data in dispute with the appropriate responsible authority. As the City had not, in its view, received a notice of data in dispute there should have been no need for agents of the City to begin an investigation of the dispute and include as part of that investigation a dissemination of private data to another government agency for which there appears to be no statutory authorization.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 4:
                &lt;/h2&gt;
                In this issue, X asked whether the City violated the rights of himself and his son by not responding to a data challenge within 30 days of that challenge being filed with Chief Fix. Mr. Weingarden restated this issue to focus on the appropriate time frame required by the Act when a notice is properly served on the responsible authority for the City of Buffalo.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  There appears to be no dispute that X filed a document that he considered to be a data in dispute notice with Chief Fix of the City on May 6, 1994. There also does not appear to be any disagreement that, upon learning that Mr. Auger was the City&apos;s appointed responsible authority, X filed notices of dispute with Mr. Auger and that Mr. Auger responded to those notices within 30 days.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4, gives individuals the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data maintained about them by the government entities subject to the Act. To exercise that right, the Act requires the individual to file a written notice of that challenge with the responsible authority for the data. In cities, the responsible authority is the individual appointed to the position by the city&apos;s council. (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Section 1205.0200, subpart 14.) There is nothing in the Act or its rules that requires a government entity to inform an individual that he has filed a data challenge with an incorrect person in the governmental entity. The Act assumes that the individual will either know the correct person with whom to file the challenge or will seek out that information before filing.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, the 30 day clock did not begin running until X filed his data challenge with the responsible authority. There was no violation of the rights of himself or his child when the City did not respond within 30 days to the documents he filed with Chief Fix because Chief Fix was not the City&apos;s responsible authority.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues presented by X and the City is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 1,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              did the alleged failure of the City&apos;s employee to state the classification of a police report, when asked by an individual, violate the rights of a minor individual or that individual&apos;s parent to gain access to the data in the report? My opinion in this instance, is that the individual was provided by the City with access to the data that was appropriate to its classification. The employee&apos;s failure to state the classification did not violate the data subject&apos;s rights under the Act.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 2,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              did a charge of $5.00 for a police report regardless of the number of pages in the report and the actual costs of providing copies of the report, violate the rights of a data subject or a minor data subject&apos;s parent to receive copies at actual cost? My opinion on this issue is that an entity subject to the Act can only, consistent with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, require a data subject who requests copies of data to pay the actual costs of making, certifying or compiling the copies.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 3,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              did the dissemination of a copy of a data in dispute notice, that was filed with a police department, to a school district, constitute an unauthorized dissemination of data? My opinion on this issue is that there appears to be no authority in either Chapter 13 or Minnesota Statutes Section 260.161, subdivision 3, that authorizes the dissemination of a data in dispute notice from a police department to a school district.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                As to issue 4,
                              &lt;/h2&gt;
                              did the failure of the City to process a challenge to data within the 30 days required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision violate the data subject&apos;s rights under that subdivision? My opinion on this issue is that a data subject must file the data challenge with the responsible authority for the data before the 30 day period can begin to run. In this instance, the data challenge was not filed with the responsible authority and therefore the City&apos;s failure to act within 30 days was not a violation of the rights of the data subject.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 5, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267402</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Operating expenses excluded</Title><Id>266306</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)</Title><Id>266302</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266308</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-039</Title><title>Opinion 94 039</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266981&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-10-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>When the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office issued the petition on May 18, 1994, which included the Buffalo Police Report and not the custodial parent&apos;s Minnesota Data Practices Act Request of May 6, 1994, did that office violate the right of an individual, when challenging data, to have recipients of the challenged data notified of the challenge?
In charging $5.00 for the first 10 copies of data on individuals, rather than the actual cost, is the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office impeding access to government data by the data subject?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 5, 1994; Wright County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On August 16, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X, a resident of Buffalo, Minnesota. In his letter, X described incidents involving the collection, use and dissemination of data about his minor child by the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office. He then asked for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion concerning what he believed to be a violation of provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, of the rights of his child and himself. The facts X stated concerning his disagreement with the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office, hereinafter County are summarized as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In April, 1994, X&apos;s child was involved in an incident at the high school in Buffalo. The child was taken into custody by an officer of the City of Buffalo Police Department. Subsequently, X and the child reviewed the police report on this incident. On May 6, 1994, X filed a notice with Bob Fix, the chief of the City of Buffalo Police Department. In that notice, X challenged data that was contained in the police report. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 gives data subjects, or in the case of a minor, the parent of a data subject, the right to challenge the accuracy and completeness of data maintained about the subject by a government entity.) X also sent a copy of the data challenge notice to Ms. Anne Mohaupt at the County.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 18, 1994, X and his child received a number of documents from the Wright County District Court, including a notice of hearing, a summons and a copy of the Buffalo Police Department report. Not included in these data was any indication, including a copy of the notice filed by X, that the Buffalo Police Department report contained data that had been challenged by X.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 1, 1994, X discussed with Mr. Brian Asleson, an assistant attorney for the County, the fact that the attorney appointed to represent X&apos;s child had also, when provided data from the court administrator, not received any notice of the data challenge filed by X. In response to that conversation, Mr. Asleson wrote to the court administrator&apos;s office to inform them of the challenge he had made to the Police Department&apos;s data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 9, 1994, X filed a request for access to data with the County and with the Wright County Court Services Departments. Both departments stated that the cost of providing copies would be $5.00 for the first 10 pages and twenty cents for each additional copy page. X believed that charge to be excessive.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After describing these disagreements with the County, X then requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issues summarized in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Wyman A. Nelson, the Wright County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated August 19, 1994, were to inform Mr. Nelson of X&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Nelson to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 31, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Asleson. The following is a summary of the information and argument provided by Mr. Asleson. Mr. Asleson agreed with X&apos;s description of their June 1, 1994, conversation and the description of the actions Mr. Asleson took to communicate information about the proper handling of a data challenge. Mr. Asleson included a copy of the letter he had sent to the court administrator&apos;s office as part of his response.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Asleson then stated the County had received the Buffalo Police report on May 4, 1994. He agreed that it was likely that the County had received a copy of X&apos;s data challenge on May 6, 1994. He stated that he was not able to determine when the County had filed with the court the petition that omitted either a copy of X&apos;s challenge to data in the police report or other information about the challenge. He also pointed out that it was possible that the petition had been filed before the County received the dispute notice.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              It was his opinion that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 does not address whether a dispute notice or statement of disagreement must be sent out even if the disclosure of disputed data is made prior to the receipt of the notice or statement that puts the data in dispute. The County&apos;s position is that it made a good faith attempt to remedy any technical violation that occurred and therefore it did not violate the rights of X or his child.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the issue of whether the County&apos;s charges for providing copies of data were excessive, Mr. Asleson pointed out that X&apos;s inquiry assumes that providing the first ten copies of the pages in a set of data will always be less than $5.00. It was Mr. Asleson&apos;s argument that this was an incorrect assumption. In this particular instance, X requested data that involved the identities of other minors and therefore it was necessary to redact the private data on other individuals.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Asleson stated that X had received approximately 80 pages of data for which he paid approximately $19.00. Mr. Asleson estimated the actual cost of providing the copies to X would be $45.00, including employee time. Mr. Asleson argued that a charge of $19.00 did not impede access to the data. Mr. Asleson stated that the County&apos;s position on copying charges was adopted after careful consideration and done . . . for ease of administration and for consistency purposes. Mr. Asleson acknowledged that while . . . the actual cost of providing copies may vary slightly in individual cases, we believe this policy to be an accurate representation of our copying costs.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          When the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office issued the petition on May 18, 1994, which included the Buffalo Police Report and not the custodial parent&apos;s Minnesota Data Practices Act Request of May 6, 1994, did that office violate the right of an individual, when challenging data, to have recipients of the challenged data notified of the challenge?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          In charging $5.00 for the first 10 copies of data on individuals, rather than the actual cost, is the Wright County Attorney&apos;s Office impeding access to government data by the data subject?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4, gives an individual, and in the case of a minor, the individual&apos;s parent, the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about the individual. To exercise that right, the individual or parent is required to file a written notice with the responsible authority for the data that describes the nature of the disagreement. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 then says that: Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is X&apos;s contention that once he filed a copy of the notice, challenging certain contents of the report of the Buffalo Police Department, with the County, that the County could only disclose the police report to others if a copy of his statement of disagreement was included with the report. It is clear that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 requires that once a government entity has received a challenge to data, that any subsequent disclosures of the contested data should be accompanied by the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement so long as the data are in dispute.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The exact date on which X filed his challenge with the County and the date the County filed its petition and the police report with the court are not clear from the information provided. Mr. Asleson acknowledged that there is the possibility that the County had received the challenge notice before it provided a copy of the disputed report to the district court. If that is the case, in order for the County to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the challenge notice should have been sent along with the police report at the time the report was filed with the court. The comments and correspondence provided by Mr. Asleson make it clear that once the County realized it may have disseminated the police report without a copy of the data challenge, it took affirmative action to rectify its mistake.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  As Mr. Asleson correctly observes, there is no requirement in Section 13.04, that imposes an obligation on a government entity, when it initially receives a challenge to data, to go back to previous recipients of the data to provide them with a copy of the data challenge. However, Section 13.04 is very clear in requiring a government entity, once it has received a data challenge, to include a copy of the individual&apos;s statement of disagreement with each dissemination of the data with which the individual disagrees. In this instance, it appears more likely than not that the County did not comply with this requirement. If it had done so originally, it would not have determined that it should notify the court of its error.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The second issue, charges for copies, also involves individual rights. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, gives a data subject the right to receive copies of public or private government data. Under subdivision 3, a government entity that receives the request for copies may require the data subject to pay the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies. In his comments, Mr. Asleson appears to assume that a data subject may, as part of the cost of providing copies, be assessed for all of the costs associated with providing the copies, including the reasonable costs of employee time for searching out and redacting the data. It appears from these comments, that the County is applying the standard, as found in Minnesota Statutes 13.03 subdivision 3 of what can be included in copy charges for providing public data. If that is the case, the County is not applying the correct and different standard that limits a government agency to only charging data subjects the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, agencies are not authorized to charge data subjects for the cost of searching out data to be copied. This is consistent with a related policy, stated in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that requires government entities to inform data subjects, upon request and at no charge to them, that they are data subjects. If agencies could impose a charge for searching out the data that will tell them that a given individual is a data subject, they would be able to charge to individuals the costs of doing something they are required to do by statute at no charge. If the County charges all individuals requesting copies of data the same fee, and does not differentiate between requests from members of the public for copies of public data and requests from data subjects for copies of private or public data, then County&apos;s position would appear to be in conflict with the statutory provisions discussed above.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Asleson&apos;s comments also indicated that the County&apos;s decision to charge $5.00 for the first 10 copies and 20 cents a copy thereafter was a decision done for ease of administration and consistency. Although that is an understandable objective from the County&apos;s perspective, it does not take into account the limiting language in the statute that says that the County, in assessing charges for providing copies to an individual data subject, can only require the data subject to . . . pay the actual costs of making, certifying and compiling the copies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, the County&apos;s charges to X did not actually impede his access to the data in question. Actual impedance did not occur because X was able to pay for the copies he requested. In addition, if X had asked to inspect the data in question, the County would have been required by Section 13.04 to allow him to inspect the data at no cost. However, based on the requirements of Section 13.04, X may have been charged too much for the copies. From the information provided, it does not appear that certified copies were requested. As limited by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the County could only charge X for the actual costs of running pages through its copying machine. The actual cost of performing that function for 80 copies would not appear to total $19.00.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                            As to issue 1, dissemination of challenged data, when the County sent the copy of the challenged police report that contained data challenged by X to the district court, the County was required by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 to send a copy of X&apos;s data challenge along with the report. Failure to do so violates the right of an individual to have the individual&apos;s version of disputed data disseminated along with the disputed data.
                            &lt;br /&gt;
                            As to issue 2, the County&apos;s practice of charging data subjects $5.00 for the first ten copies and 20 cents per page thereafter is excessive in light of the requirements of Chapter 13 that charges for copies of data provided to data subjects must be computed on the basis of the actual costs of making and compiling the copies.
                          &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: October 5, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266981</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>No charge to search/retrieve/redact</Title><Id>266485</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:08Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266314</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-038</Title><title>Opinion 94 038</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267356&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-09-29T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is he entitled to gain access to data that existed on the District&apos;s computer on or before October 21, 1993?
Has X actually received the information that existed in the District&apos;s computer on or before October 21, 1993?
Does X have the right to gain access to data maintained on the District computer after October 21, 1993 and does he have the right to gain access to data that would inform him who, if anyone, changed certain data codes and why those codes were changed?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 29, 1994; School District 625 (St. Paul)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On August 17, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X, a resident of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. In his letter, X described his attempts to get access to certain computerized data maintained about him by his former employer, District 625, the St. Paul Schools and hereinafter District. He then asked the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner, to issue an opinion on the three questions summarized in the Issues section below. A summary of the facts X stated concerning his disagreement with the District follows. X also provided copies of computer and computer screen printouts, summaries of meetings and correspondence concerning this dispute.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Some time ago, X became concerned that the District was disseminating incorrect data concerning the circumstances of his departure from employment with the District. In particular, X stated that on October 21, 1993, a company checking X&apos;s employment history was told that X had been terminated and dismissed by the St. Paul schools and would not be rehired. After receiving that information, X delivered a letter, dated December 6, 1993, to the District personnel office. In this letter, X asked to see his personnel file and also stated his interest in seeing any information regarding himself stored on computers. He also asked that he be given hard copies of the materials he was requesting.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After further discussion and correspondence with various representatives of the District, Mr. Phillip D. Penn, the District&apos;s Director of Human Resources, on January 10, 1994, provided X with two printouts of data maintained about him. In viewing these printouts, X was particularly interested in any data that described the nature of his separation from employment with the District. These two printouts, one of which has a printed title Payroll Master Dummy and the other of which is titled Personnel Master Dummy, contained a variety of data about X which are presented in the form of a variety of labels, codes and mnemonics. One of the items of data is labeled PER and carries a code number of 57. This label and number appear on both the Personnel Master Dummy and Payroll Master Dummy printouts.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X was of the opinion that he had not gotten all data kept about him and continued to request access to personnel data maintained about him with particular reference to computerized data. On February 9, 1994, X met with a representative of the District&apos;s human resources division who showed him computer display terminal screens containing personnel data. This employee provided X with what appear to be printouts from these computer screens. (These items carry a printed notation of screen and the handwritten labels Employee Personnel Maintenance and Employee Payroll Maintenance. These printouts contain fewer computer codes, read more like English than the printouts received on January 10 and are personnel data about X. The Personnel Maintenance printout has a data field labeled PERS STATUS that is followed by a code number 64 and the notation Terminated - Volunta (sic). The next line below in this printout has a field labeled PREV STATUS that is followed by a code number 47 and the notation Terminated - Persona (sic). The Payroll Maintenance printout has a data field labeled PAY STATUS: that is followed by the notation T Terminated. This same line contains another field labeled PERS STATUS: followed by a code number 64 and the notation Terminated - VO (sic).
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On receipt of this second set of printouts, X began raising questions with the District as to changes made to the codes. He requested any data maintained by the District that would document when and who made those changes. In a letter dated February 25, 1994, Mr. Penn informed X that his request had been discussed with the District&apos;s data processing employees. According to Mr. Penn, those employees stated that the fields described above . . . are status fields and any changes to status fields, whatever they happen to be, are not retained or stored as historical information. Mr. Penn also told X that the printouts he had received on January 10, 1994, were printouts from the same computer system that X had viewed on a computer display screen on February 9, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his letter to the Commissioner, X disputed the statements made by Mr. Penn about the District&apos;s retention of data on the computer system that would state when and by whom a change to a status field had been made. According to X, he had been told by Ms. Judy McDonald that a record of transactions involving changes made to personnel and payroll data is maintained on computer tape that is in storage. X described Ms. McDonald as a computer personnel person for Metro II, the organization that provides computer services to the District.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After reciting the history of his dispute with the District, X asked that Commissioner provide an opinion concerning the issues summarized below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Curman Gaines, the Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter were to inform Dr. Gaines of X&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Gaines or the District&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the District&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, both Dr. Gaines and X were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, beyond the initial twenty day period, to issue this opinion.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On September 2, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Jeffrey G. Lalla, the General Counsel for the District. In his response, Mr. Lalla provided information, a summary of which follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Lalla provided a brief history of the District&apos;s disagreement with X. Mr. Lalla explained that the District is a member of a consortium of school districts that is a joint powers entity bearing the name of Metro II. Metro II&apos;s function is to provide data processing services to the members of the consortium. He reviewed the history of Metro II&apos;s work to collate personnel data codes from the various school districts into one system. According to Mr. Lalla, one of the purposes of this collation of codes was to maintain, for historical purposes, each of the particular school districts&apos; prior reference coding.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Lalla enclosed a printout that contained the Metro II Tables-Personnel Status by Code. This table contains the summary of personnel status codes used in the personnel record keeping system operated by Metro II and used by the District. On the Tables printout provided by Mr. Lalla, the code number 57 is followed by the notation NOT REHIRED / DISMISSAL. According to Mr. Lalla, the code number 57 is one example of a code collated by Metro II. He then stated that: The phrase &apos;not rehired/dismissal&apos; is a code phrase which prior to the formation of Metro II had never been utilized by the District and even today is not utilized nor does it make any sense to apply to the personnel practices of the District.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Lalla explained that on January 4, 1994, X was provided with hard copies of computerized data maintained about him. (Note: the actual date of this meeting was January 10, 1994. In his original submission to the Commissioner, X used the January 4 date. In a subsequent letter he noted his error and corrected the date to January 10, 1994. The actual date of January 10 is used throughout the balance of this opinion. Mr. Lalla appears to be using the incorrect date originally provided by X.) These hard copies contained a personnel status code of PER 57 and a pay status code of T TERMINATED. In the February 9, 1994, meeting with the District human resources employee, Mr. Lalla pointed out that X received another hard copy of computerized data that indicates a pay status code of T TERMINATED and a personnel status code of 64 TERMINATED.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Lalla summarized his view of X&apos;s dispute with the District as one that involves issues of whether or not X&apos;s pay and/or personnel status codes were changed some time between October 20, 1993, and January 10, 1994, and whether the District has refused to give X the pay status code contained in the District computers prior to the perceived change. Mr. Lalla acknowledged that the District had changed X&apos;s personnel status code. However, Mr. Lalla pointed out, by reference to Mr. Penn&apos;s letter of February 25, 1994, the initial personnel status code cannot now be retrieved. Mr. Lalla pointed out that the change to the personnel status code was not made between October 20, 1993 and January 10, 1994. According to him, the change was actually made between January 10, 1994, and February 9, 1994. Mr. Lalla stated that X was provided with the hard copy of the data that was stored on the computer on January 10, 1994, and in that copy he received the data as it originally existed.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, X raised three issues that have been summarized as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Is he entitled to gain access to data that existed on the District&apos;s computer on or before October 21, 1993?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Has X actually received the information that existed in the District&apos;s computer on or before October 21, 1993?
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Does X have the right to gain access to data maintained on the District computer after October 21, 1993 and does he have the right to gain access to data that would inform him who, if anyone, changed certain data codes and why those codes were changed?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                It is X&apos;s contention that on October 21, 1993, a District employee examined coded data from the District&apos;s computer and informed a member of the public that X had been terminated from employment with the District and would not be rehired. It is also X&apos;s contention that he has either not been provided with access to data on the District&apos;s computer or that when he was provided access to the computerized data, the District had changed the original personnel codes so that the computer file now read voluntarily terminated. An examination of the information provided by X and the District reveals the following.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  On January 10, 1994, approximately 22 working days after X asked to see his personnel file, the District provided him with the Payroll and Personnel Master Dummy printouts described above. These printouts both contain a personnel status code number of 57. According to the table of personnel status codes provided by the District, the numerical personnel status code 57 means Terminated - Not rehired/dismissal. The fact that this is the code that appears on the personnel data provided to X is very puzzling in the light of Mr. Lalla&apos;s assertion that the code phrase not rehired/dismissal has never been, either now or in the past, used by the District.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  [It is interesting to note that the District&apos;s computer printout, that lists the personnel status codes, uses language that states that for the wide variety of reasons, including travel, death, other employment and so forth, that when employees leave the employment of the District, the employee has been terminated. Given the normal understanding of the word terminated and the District&apos;s potential exposure to liability for providing inaccurate or incomplete data about an employee&apos;s personnel status, the District may wish to examine what seems to be an excessive and situationally inappropriate use of the word terminated. ]
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Both the Payroll and Personnel Master Dummy printouts provided to X on January 10, 1994, are clearly labeled at the top left side of the printout with the printed words and numbers District 625 - 625, the numerical designation of the District, and that label is followed by the words St. Paul Schools. These printouts were provided by a representative of the District to X, in response to his request for access to his personnel file. The appearance of the code number 57 on these printouts clearly indicates that, as of January 10, 1994, the District was utilizing the code number 57, that means terminate - not rehired/dismissed, to communicate a former employee&apos;s personnel status.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Subsequently, X was provided with another set of printouts that reflected data that he viewed on a video display terminal operated by a human resources employee of the District. As noted earlier, these printouts have an entirely different appearance than the Dummys provided to X on January 10, 1994. On these printouts, the personnel status code is the number 64. The table of personnel status codes indicates that the number 64 means terminated - voluntary quit. X believes that the personnel status code was changed from 57 to 64 sometime after October 21, 1993. There is no disagreement on this issue between the District and X. Mr. Lalla admitted that the printouts provided to X on January 10, 1994 carried the code number 57 and the printouts provided on February 9, 1994, carried the code number 64. Mr. Lalla concludes that this means that the codes were changed but that they were changed between January 10, 1994 and February 9, 1994.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  What is clear from the information provided to the Commissioner is that the two printouts, labeled Personnel and Payroll Master Dummy, provided to X indicate that a computerized file used by the District carried the number code 57 to describe X&apos;s personnel status. Equally clear is that the printouts X received on February 9, 1994, indicate that a computerized file used by the District carried a code number 64 to describe X&apos;s personnel status. However, in addition to the different personnel status codes, there are significant differences in the size, physical appearance, layout, coding structure and use of language between the Master Dummy printouts and the Maintenance printouts. The differences are such that they raise the possibility that X may have been provided with printouts from two entirely difference files or data bases maintained by the District.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If X has not been provided with data from two different files, the District should take whatever steps are reasonable to reassure X that the only personnel status code that the District is maintaining about him is the correct code. One possible method of reassurance is to provide X with access to the data from whatever file is used to print the Master Dummy files. Until something like that is done, X will not know if he has actually gained access to the data that are currently retained about him in the District&apos;s computers. Clearly, as a subject of private and public personnel data maintained about him by the District, X has the right to gain access to that data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.43.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X has also raised the issue of whether he can gain access to data that was maintained on the District&apos;s computers at a certain point in time, specifically October 21, 1993. As any data maintained about him by the District are either private or public personnel data, he is entitled to gain access to the data if the District is able to actually isolate the data that were maintained about X by the District&apos;s computers on October 21, 1993. In regard to this request, X has been told by Mr. Penn that access to data about X, as it was kept on the District&apos;s computers on a specific date in the past, is not possible. Mr. Lalla reiterated that position in his response to the Commissioner. However, X has been told by either a District or Metro II employee, who he describes as a computer personnel person, that computerized historical data are available. That is a possibility. In some computer systems, electronic copies of all files are made on a daily basis. This is done for purposes of system backup and restoration of system files in the event of a computer crash.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  These computerized historical files may be available for certain dates in the past from the District itself or from Metro II, the entity that provides the District computer services. It appears from the information provided that computer personnel of the District and its service entity are telling the District and X contradictory things. To facilitate X&apos;s access to historical computerized personnel data that exist about him, or to reassure him that these data actually do not exist, the District should bring the computer personnel together to resolve their competing views. X should, if possible, be provided with the personnel data maintained about him on October 21, 1993 and on other dates thereafter. If providing him with historical data is not possible, the District should provide him with policies, procedures, operations manuals, computer system documentation or any other public data that will verify with factual data, beyond the competing views of the District&apos;s personnel, that historical data are not kept.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, X has asked if he has the right to gain access to data that would inform him if the personnel status codes about him were changed and, if so, by whom and for what reason. The answer to this question depends, in part, on whether the District is maintaining more than one set of personnel data about X. As discussed above, there is some possibility of that being the case. If it is not, then it is clear that the personnel status code of 57 that appeared on the printouts received by X on January 10, 1994, was changed so that the printouts he received on February 9, 1994, carried a different status code. X is certainly free to ask the District why the codes were changed and who changed them. That kind of question is not necessarily within rights guaranteed him by the Data Practices Act. Asking a government entity to explain its actions is not a request for access to government data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is possible that the District maintains data, computer monitoring data, internal memoranda, copies of electronic mail messages or other forms of notes or correspondence, that document why the personnel codes were changed and who changed them. If it does, then X may have the right to gain access to that data by making requests for access to that data, either as personnel data maintained about him or as public data that record the identity of who, within a government entity, changed data in that government entity&apos;s files. It is not clear from the correspondence provided by X or by the District&apos;s response provided by Mr. Lalla whether or not the District even maintains the data that X seeking. Some computer systems closely monitor and record changes made to computerized files. Sometimes those systems also document by whom or by what terminal any data changes were made. It is not clear from the information provided how the District&apos;s computers are actually operated and what documentation about changes is recorded and kept.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              If the District maintains personnel data concerning X, as those data existed on October 21, 1993, he has a right to gain access to the data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              It is not clear from the information provided if X has received the data that existed in the District&apos;s computers on or before October 21, 1993. Of chief concern to X is the determination of what personnel status code the District kept in its computer files about him. On January 10, 1994, he received printouts that clearly state that the status code was the number 57. If the District maintains historical computerized data that indicates what personnel code was on the data kept about X prior to January 10, 1994, he should have access to the data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              It is also not clear from the information provided if the District maintains data concerning exactly when, by whom and why the personnel status code about X was changed sometime between January 10, 1994, and February 9, 1994. If the District maintains government data that document when, by whom and why the code was changed, then those data are available to X pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivisions 3 and 13.04, subdivision 3.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 29, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267356</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Electronic data</Title><Id>266884</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access to personnel data</Title><Id>266883</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data request vs. question/inquiry</Title><Id>266276</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Trade secret</Title><Id>266414</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-037</Title><title>Opinion 94 037</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266664&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-09-23T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do any of the data contained in the capital expenditure reports, and particularly, the dollar amounts reported for individual capital expenditures, qualify for protection as trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 23, 1994; Minnesota Department of Health</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On August 29, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner, received a request for an opinion from Ms. Mary Jo O&apos;Brien, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, hereinafter MDH. In her request, Commissioner O&apos;Brien stated certain facts that are summarized as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 62J.17, MDH collects data concerning capital expenditures from health care providers. These reports come to MDH in the form of capital expenditure reports, hereinafter reports, and they contain considerable detail as required by statute including the actual dollar amounts associated with an individual capital expenditure. Section 62J.17 does not state a specific data classification for data in the reports.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As of the date of Commissioner O&apos;Brien&apos;s request, MDH had received 159 capital expenditure reports from health care providers. In response to questions about the reports or in follow up correspondence, MDH has, in 32 instances, expressly encouraged persons filing reports to identify information they consider to be trade secret information. (Trade secret information are classified, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, as nonpublic data.) An unspecified number of those persons have discussed the status of certain capital expenditure information with MDH.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Correspondence about those discussions, as provided by MDH, reveals the following. One provider sought protection for data about agreements relating to the dollar amounts of contributions it receives from other medical facilities with which it is associated. Another provider, a public hospital, discussed signing a contract for an equipment purchase and agreeing to keep the transaction . . . private to the extent possible. Another wrote of seeing nothing in sales contracts, it had entered into, requiring the terms of the contract to be proprietary. MDH provided copies of this correspondence and a regional summary of expenditures.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue raised by Commissioner O&apos;Brien, in her request, can be summarized as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Do any of the data contained in the capital expenditure reports, and particularly, the dollar amounts reported for individual capital expenditures, qualify for protection as trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                For data to be treated as a trade secret, pursuant to Section 13.37, they must meet the definition of a trade secret as outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37. The language of Section 13.37 states that information provided to Minnesota government entities may qualify to be treated as a trade secret if the information is government data, that includes a formula, pattern, compilation program, device, method, technique or process and:
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                    the data are supplied to a Minnesota governmental entity by an individual or organization that would be affected by the data&apos;s disclosure to the public;
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                    the data are the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                    the data derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      It is clear from this language that for data to qualify as a trade secret the data in question and the situation associated with the data must meet all four elements of this definition. The definition of trade secret that appears in Section 13.37 is drawn from the definition of trade secret that appears in Minnesota Statutes Section 325C, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      A review of the capital expenditure summary provided by MDH shows a wide variety of capital expenditures that are reported. Examples include: purchase of a medical facility; purchase of equipment; remodeling of a building; construction of an employee parking facility; replacement of water lines and replacement of exterior signage. None of the items that are listed on the expenditure summary report appear to meet the definitional requirement that a trade secret be a formula, pattern, process and so forth. Although the use of the term including in the first sentence of Section 13.37 (b) appears to say that a trade secret may be more than a formula, pattern, and so forth, other laws construing the meaning of the term trade secret provide clearer guidance.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       For example, the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as interpreted, requires that information claimed to be a trade secret, must be a commercially valuable plan, process, formula or device used for making, preparing, compounding or processing trade commodities. Federal law further requires that the information claimed to be a trade secret must be the product of innovation or substantial effort. (See &lt;u&gt;Anderson v. Department of Health and Human Services&lt;/u&gt;, 907 F. 2d 936 (10th Cir. 1990).) Examination of federal law is helpful in this instance because Minnesota courts have not interpreted the elements of the trade secret definition in the context of discussion about public access to information provided to the government by persons outside the government.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Applying the federal standard in this instance to the items contained in capital expenditure reports would, on the items summarized and provided by MDH, reveal few if any items reported that are plans, formulas, etc. used to make, prepare, compound or process a trade commodity. Furthermore, the items reported, and particularly the dollar amounts associated with the capital expenditures, do not appear to be the product of innovation or a substantial effort. The data in question, items of expenditure and the dollar amounts for those expenditures, are simply summaries of how a health care provider is spending or plans to spend money.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The second element of the definition, that must be met in order for certain data to be treated as a trade secret, is the data in question be subject to efforts, by the person providing the data, that make it reasonable to maintain the secrecy of the data. The fourth element requires that the data not be readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from disclosure of the data. In the instance of the capital expenditure reports, application of the test required by these two elements also leads to a conclusion that the reports do not qualify as trade secrets.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The types of data reported, as described above, include data that do not appear to be kept secret by the health care providers reporting the data. It does not appear reasonable under the circumstances described to determine they should be kept secret. The data often appear to be data that are readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons. None of the persons who discussed this issue with MDH described a situation in which that person was required by the circumstances or any contracts with suppliers or building or other contractors to keep data about the expenditure, including its costs, not public. One health care provider discussed an understanding with a equipment supplier that the favorable terms of a contract would be kept private but only to the extent possible. Another provider stated that its sales contracts were silent on the issue of any confidentiality associated with the agreement. A third provider asked for protection of information about a contribution arrangement among facilities that were all owned by the same religious order. However, it is not clear how that arrangement could be viewed as formula, pattern process, etc. that could even begin to qualify as a trade secret.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the case of the fourth element of the trade secret definition, that the data not be readily ascertainable by others through proper means, it appears that much of the capital expenditure data, including dollar amounts of the expenditure, could be available to others through proper means. Many of the health care providers that report capital expenditures are publicly owned facilities. Those facilities are subject to all of the requirements of Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. In practice, that means that the terms of contracts they enter into with contractors are public data. Accounting records that document their capital and other expenditures are accessible by the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In the case of nongovernmental facilities, the costs of things like remodeling and other construction projects can be readily ascertainable by others, unless the health care facility has specifically required that the person providing it with the equipment, construction or other services keep that information secret. A person curious about the costs of a hospital addition, of changes to signs and so forth could merely call the contractor doing the work and ask for that information. There is no indication in the information provided by MDH that the facilities reporting the capital expenditures require the contractors doing the work to keep the costs of the work a confidential.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                       Minnesota cases construing the definition of a trade secret in Chapter 325C, in non governmental contexts, make it clear that for a person to claim trade secret protection, that person must show that it exerted reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information. (See &lt;u&gt;Electro Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.&lt;/u&gt;332 N.W. 2d 890 (Minn. 1983).) In the instance of expenditure reports, it appears that none of the health care facilities were concerned about the issue of the possible secrecy of the data they were reporting until MDH encouraged them to consider a trade secret claim. If these facilities were concerned with the secrecy of this information, it seems reasonable that they would have exerted the initial effort to raise that issue with MDH before MDH raised it with them. That does not appear to be the case in this instance.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The capital expenditure reports, and particularly the dollar amounts associated with the expenditure, fail to meet at least three of the elements that are required for data to be treated as a trade secret. As these reports do not qualify for trade secret protection, and there does not appear to be another specific statute classifying them as not public, they fall within the general presumption that all data are public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Commissioner O&apos;Brien is as follows:
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Capital expenditure reports, including dollar amounts associated with the expenditures, as reported to the MDH under Minnesota Statues Section 62J.17, do not meet the definition of a trade secret under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37 and are therefore public data under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Signed:
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Debra Rae Anderson
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                          Commissioner
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                          Dated: September 23, 1994
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266664</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</Title><Id>266663</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-036</Title><title>Opinion 94 036</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267551&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-09-02T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>&quot;Is the Memorandum dated December 30, 1993 private personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, subd.5, which provides that all personnel data relating to an individual employed as an undercover law enforcement officer is private data?&quot;
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 2, 1994; City of Brooklyn Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On August 15, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner, received a letter from Ms. Anne E. Walther, who stated that she was the attorney for a Mr. M , a police officer employed by the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter City. (The need for the use of the pseudonym, Mr. M to identify Ms. Walther&apos;s client will be self evident in the balance of this opinion. In this letter, Ms. Walther described Mr. M&apos;s employment which included a number of years spent as an undercover police officer working on narcotics cases. Although this undercover assignment ended in February, 1994, Mr. M continues to be involved with cases he worked on while undercover.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Walther then described an incident, that occurred on or about May 19, 1994, in which she alleged that the Chief of Police and Mayor of the City released a packet of information to the public. In that packet was a memorandum, dated December 30, 1993, from the Chief to the City&apos;s finance director. Ms. Walther provided a copy of this memo. She quoted a portion of this memo that stated, with appropriate editing, the following:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;[t] he check is attached and is for reimbursement of overtime for Investigator M who is a member of the Hennepin-Anoka Drug Task Force.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Walther stated that her client had been informed by the City&apos;s manager and responsible authority under the Data Practices Act, Mr. Gerald Splinter, that the Chief and Mayor had been told not to release this memo since it contained private personnel data. According to Mr. Walther, Mr. Splinter also told Mr. M that the memorandum was private personnel data. Ms. Walther also noted that at the time the memo was released to the public that Mr. M was no longer an undercover police officer.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Walther then asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issue reproduced below in the Issue section. Implicit in her statement of the issue is a request for the Commissioner to issue an opinion on whether her client had a right to not have certain data, alleged to be private, released to the public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Gerald Splinter, the responsible authority for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated, August 18, 1994, were to inform Mr. Splinter of Ms. Walther&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask the City to provide information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 29, 1994, PIPA received a response letter from Mr. Charles L. LeFevere, who identified himself as legal counsel for the City. In his letter, Mr. LeFevere offered two possible interpretations for the provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, that states that all personnel data maintained by an entity subject to Chapter 13 that relate to an individual&apos;s employment as an undercover police officer are private data on individuals. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 5.) According to Mr. LeFevere, this language could be interpreted to only apply to data on officers who are currently employed as undercover police officers or it could be interpreted to apply to any data on an individual who has been employed as an undercover officer at any time in the past. It is the City&apos;s position that the first interpretation is the only reasonable and practical interpretation of the statute. In support of that position, Mr. LeFevere offered five reasons as summarized in the following.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               Citing a provision in the statutory interpretation act, Minnesota Statutes Section 645.16, Mr. Lefevere argued that the words of Section 13.43 are sufficiently clear in their actual statement to be interpreted to only apply to data about an individual who is currently &lt;u&gt;employed&lt;/u&gt;(emphasis added) as an undercover law enforcement officer. In the case of Mr. M, he was not employed as an undercover officer at the time the data were released to the public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. LeFevere also referenced the portion of the Statutory Interpretation Act that states that, in ascertaining legislative intent, courts should be guided by a presumption that the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable. In Mr. LeFevere&apos;s view, interpreting Section 13.43 to make all data maintained on an officer who has ever been employed in an undercover capacity would produce an unworkable result because no data whatsoever could ever be disseminated to the public about that officer no matter what capacity they were currently working in. He also argued that interpreting this section to apply to data about an officer only while the officer was working undercover would serve no public purpose because the public data provisions of Section 13.43 would already have established that, for example, a given individual, was or is a police officer.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. LeFevere noted that Section 13.09 of the Data Practices Act provides for a misdemeanor penalty for willful violations of Chapter 13. In. Mr. LeFevere&apos;s view, this makes Chapter 13 a penal law and penal laws are to be strictly construed. He cited a case in support of that view. A strict interpretation of the language at issue would lead to a conclusion that Section 13.43, subdivision 5 does not apply to individuals who have been employed in an undercover capacity in the past.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              It was also Mr. Lefevere&apos;s view, in reference to Minnesota Statutes Section 645.16, that the legislative purpose for enacting this provision was not to protect individuals from retaliation but rather to protect them from having their covers blown while working undercover. Given that interpretation of legislative purpose, there would be no need to have this data classified as private after an officer has left an undercover assignment.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Lastly, Mr. LeFevere discussed the language in Section 645.17, that the courts, in ascertaining legislative intent, should understand the legislature favors the public interest as against any private interest. Given the presumption, stated in Section 13.01, subdivision 3, that all government data are public unless otherwise classified and the fact that the legislature has identified a number of data elements about public employees that are public, it was Mr. LeFevere&apos;s conclusion that the public interest in having data about undercover law enforcement officers ends when the officer is no longer working undercover. Therefore, the public interest in having certain data about public employees public will best be served if Section 13.43, subdivision 5 is interpreted to mean it does not apply to data on officers once they leave undercover status.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In her letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Is the Memorandum dated December 30, 1993 private personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, subd.5, which provides that all personnel data relating to an individual employed as an undercover law enforcement officer is private data? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                As noted earlier, Ms. Walther&apos;s statement of this issue implicitly asked whether or not her client had the right, because of the classification of this data as private, to not have the data contained the December 30, 1993, memorandum disclosed to the public. By definition, private data means data that are accessible by the data subject but are not public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) In this particular instance, if Section 13.43, subdivision 5 applies to the data contained in the memo, the data are private. If Section 13.43, subdivision 5 does not apply to the data in the memo, the data are public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 5 that classifies data about public employees, including data about gross salary and data that accounts for an employee&apos;s work time for payroll purposes, as public data.)
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Both Ms. Walther and Mr. LeFevere agree that when this memo was created by the City&apos;s police chief and sent to its finance officer that Mr. M was employed as an undercover police officer. They also agree that when the memo was disseminated to the public, Mr. M was no longer employed as an undercover law enforcement officer. The underlying question then is whether Mr. M&apos;s change in status yields a change in the data maintained about him by the City. As Mr. LeFevere points out, the plain words of the statute indicated that all personnel data are classified as private about an individual employed as an undercover law enforcement officer. However, the term employed could mean both currently employed or formerly employed. The words of the statute itself offer no guidance on that issue.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given that reality, Mr. LeFevere concludes correctly that the Statutory Interpretation Act should be examined for assistance in ascertaining legislative intent in enacting Section 13.43, subdivision 5. Many of the points he makes, in arguing for an interpretation that this provision should no longer apply after an officer leaves an undercover assignment, have some validity. A particularly telling point that he makes is that, an interpretation of this language to classify all data about law enforcement officers who have ever worked undercover as private in perpetuity, could be both unworkable and an absurd result.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  However, application of the Statutory Interpretation Act to some of the points he raises can lead, reasonably, to a conclusion that is exactly opposite to the conclusion he reaches. For example, it is reasonable to presume that the legislature classified all data about individuals employed as undercover officers as private not only to protect their covers but also to maximize protection of them from retaliation. These individuals often work in dangerous conditions. They are also involved with situations and individuals that may make them be subject to retaliation for years after they end an assignment as an undercover officer.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In applying the favoring of the public interest over the private interest test to this situation, one can conclude that one type of public interest is served by treating data about undercover officers as public after they complete an undercover assignment. However, another reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that a strong public interest in public safety is served by encouraging individuals to take on these dangerous assignments. This encouragement includes protecting them as much as possible including protecting from public disclosure all data that relates to their undercover service.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Although this issue appears not to have been discussed and decided in a decision of the appellate courts, one district court in Minnesota has examined this issue and determined that the statute should be interpreted to classify as private all data about individuals currently and formerly employed as undercover law enforcement officers. (See &lt;u&gt;Kortz v. City of Albert Lea&lt;/u&gt;, Third Judicial District, File No. 24-C-1086, Order dated September 28, 1990.) Although this decision is helpful, it still leaves open the question raised by Mr. Lefevere about the problem of having all data about police officers who are now or who have ever been employed as an undercover officer classified as private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The plain words of Section 13.43, subdivision 5, examined in light of the presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent, lead to the following conclusion. The data classified as private by Section 13.43, subdivision 5 are not just the personnel data relating to an individual&apos;s service as an undercover officer while the individual is employed as an undercover officer but the data about the work undercover continue to be private when the individual no longer is working undercover. However, when working in a non-undercover capacity, data about a police officer, that does not relate to the service undercover, should be treated the same as data about other public employees.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  This interpretation of Section 13.43 protects the officer both during and after the undercover assignment. By treating the data about the undercover assignment as private even after the officer leaves that assignment, this interpretation also provides some protection for officers because it may help prevent persons from retaliating against an officer. Treatment of these data as private will make it difficult for a person contemplating retaliation to be able to connect what they know about an undercover officer with actual data about that officer after the officer leaves the undercover assignment. No data will be released to the public about the officer&apos;s undercover work unless the officer consents to its release. This rewards the public interest in providing maximum protection to officers who work undercover while at the same time dealing with the obvious problem of having all data about an officer, either working publicly or undercover, classified as private in perpetuity.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Applying this interpretation of Section 13.43, subdivision 5 to the issue presented by Ms. Walther leads to a conclusion that the data about Mr. M, contained in the December 30, 1993, memo were classified as private when it was released to the public on or about May 19, 1994. Because of its private classification, the memo should not have been part of a packet of information released to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the Commissioner is comfortable with the result reached in this opinion, it is clear, particularly in light of the arguments and issues raise by Mr. LeFevere, that the legislature should clarify this section so that the plain words of the statute itself, without recourse to the Statutory Interpretation Act, will actually tell everyone what result the legislature desires. To that end, this issue will be raised with the legislature in the 1995 session.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Walther is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The memorandum dated December 30, 1993, contains data that are made private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 5 because they are data that identify an individual and relate to his employment as an undercover law enforcement officer. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 2, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267551</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Undercover law enforcement officer</Title><Id>266513</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Legislative intent (645.16)</Title><Id>267202</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-035</Title><title>Opinion 94 035</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267464&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-09-02T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the consultant&apos;s reports and materials, prepared for the County, available to him as he requested?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 2, 1994; Anoka County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 12, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Bart F. Biernat, a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Biernat described attempts by him to gain access to certain data that he believed ought to be maintained by Anoka County and asked for an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner, concerning the issue stated under Issue below. The facts Mr. Biernat stated concerning his disagreement with Anoka County, County, are summarized as follows. In addition to describing his dispute with the County, Mr. Biernat provided copies of the correspondence and other materials described below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In 1992, the County entered into a contract for consulting services with the DCA Stanton Group, consultant. Mr. Biernat provided a copy of this contract whose objective was for the consultant to review county personnel practices and to make recommendations and develop a strategy for implementation of changes to the county personnel program. Public funds of approximately $17,000 were paid to the consultant for preparation of reports and presentations to the County&apos;s Board of Commissioners.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Mr. Biernat, County personnel prepared changes to county personnel polices and made recommendations to the County Board of Commissioners that were based in part on information and conclusions that appeared in the consultant study. In 1993, the County Board approved those resolutions. Also in 1993, one County Commissioner distributed a memo to County employees announcing a plan for improvements to the County&apos;s compensation system and, in that memo, referenced the fact that this plan was based, at least in part, on the consultant study.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 5, 1993, Mr. Biernat sent a letter to Mr. Jay McLinden, the County&apos;s Administrator, requesting all reports and materials related to the consultant study. On October 15, 1993, Mr. Biernat received a response from Mr. Ronald Welde, the County&apos;s Director of Human Resources, that stated that the consultant study . . . is no longer retained by Anoka County. After receiving that letter, Mr. Biernat met with Mr. John Sprague, the Assistant Director for Human Resources, who stated that the consultant report was the property of the consultant and could not be accessed using the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After providing that chronology, Mr. Biernat offered arguments as to why this report ought to be available to him and requested an opinion concerning the issue described below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Biernat&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Mr. Welde. The purposes of this letter, dated August 12, 1994, were to inform Mr. Welde of Mr. Biernat&apos;s request, provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Welde or the County&apos;s attorney to provide information or support for the County&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Subsequently, PIPA was contacted by phone by Mr. Anthony Palumbo, the Anoka County Attorney&apos;s Office specialist on data practices issues. Mr. Palumbo indicated that he would work with the consultant to make a copy of the consultant&apos;s report available to Mr. Biernat. PIPA staff indicated to Mr. Palumbo that if Mr. Biernat received a copy of the report and stated to the Commissioner or PIPA that he no longer needed an opinion that no opinion would be issued.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 30, 1994, Mr. Biernat wrote to PIPA. He enclosed a copy of a letter, dated August 25, 1994, sent to him by Mr. Palumbo. This letter stated that the consultant report was not being retained by the County and that the report was available directly from the consultant. Mr. Biernat also enclosed an August 27, 1994, letter that he sent to Mr. Palumbo that described Mr. Biernat&apos;s attempts to get a copy of the report from the consultant. According to Mr. Biernat, Mr. George Gmach, a representative of the consultant, informed him that as the consultant had no obligations under the Data Practices Act that Mr. Biernat would have to pay a charge of $25.00 to get access to any part of the report. In addition to that charge, he would also be charged for the cost of copies of the report. Mr. Biernat then renewed his request for an opinion from the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Although, Mr. Palumbo made the efforts described above to provide Mr. Biernat with access to this report through the consultant, the County itself did not make any submission in response to the notice of opinion sent to Mr. Welde. The balance of this opinion should be read in light of the County&apos;s choice not to submit information explaining its position.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, Mr. Biernat asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the consultant&apos;s reports and materials, prepared for the County, available to him as he requested? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   In making his request for an opinion, Mr. Biernat cited the case of &lt;u&gt;Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University&lt;/u&gt;, 461 N.W. 2d 726 (Minn. App. 1990) and argued that his dispute with the County was controlled by the result in that case. In the Pathmanathan case, an individual who was applying for a position at St. Cloud State sought access to a report done by a private investigator that was not in the possession of St. Cloud State but was retained by the private investigator. In reaching its result in the Pathmanathan case, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the fact that the St. Cloud State&apos;s contract with the investigator included a term in which St. Cloud State retained ownership rights to reports and information generated by the investigator in doing the background checks on prospective employees. The contract between the County and the consultant does not contain a comparable contract term. However, Term XVI of the contract does state the following:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                   In collecting, storing, using and disseminating data on individuals in the course of providing services hereunder, the Consultant agrees to abide by all pertinent state and federal statutes, rules and regulations covering data privacy, &lt;u&gt;including but not limited to the Minnesota Data Practices Act&lt;/u&gt; and all rules promulgated pursuant thereto by the Commissioner of the Department of Administration. (Emphasis added.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  This contractual provision can certainly be read to mean that the consultant has obligated itself to comply with the entire Minnesota Data Practices Act (sic). Abiding by all of the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, means that the consultant obligated itself to make copies of data that are public under the Act available to a member of the public, such as Mr. Biernat, free of charge for purposes of inspection and for a reasonable cost of providing copies if copies are requested. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.) There is no provision of the Minnesota Statutes that appears to classify a consultant&apos;s report of recommendations for changes to the County&apos;s compensation system as anything other than public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the presumption that all government data are public unless there is a state statute or federal law that provides to the contrary.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Given its acceptance of an obligation to abide by all provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the consultant should make a copy of the report available at a reasonable cost to Mr. Biernat.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Another route presents itself for access to a copy of the consultant&apos;s report. Part of the concern raised by Mr. Biernat in his request for an opinion goes to what he sees in this situation of the County&apos;s ability to evade certain obligations under the Data Practices Act. In Mr. Biernat&apos;s view, the County contracted with this consultant, the consultant was paid public funds to do a study, the study was presented in the form of a written report to the governing body of the County and County representatives acknowledge that the report was used by the County to make decisions concerning the County&apos;s system of compensating employees. After the County&apos;s obvious reliance on the report in making decisions, it did not retain a copy of the report. When Mr. Biernat sought access to the report, the County told him it did not have the report.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Chapter 13 does not contain any specific language imposing obligations on government agencies to retain government data. After broadly defining government data, the Act states that all government data are public unless classified otherwise. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 7 and 13.03, subdivision 1.) The definition of government data and the presumption that government data are public are clear statements of intent by the legislature, in this age of information, to give the public access to data the public wants to examine to determine what its government is doing and why. Although not specifically providing for retention of government data for purposes of accountability in Chapter 13, the legislature has long required public officers of this state acting for any governmental entity to . . . make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. (Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, subdivision 1.) When the legislature amended the predecessor language to what now appears in Chapter 13, establishing the presumption of public data and providing for maximum access to public data, the legislature also amended Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17. This amendment provided that access to records required to be kept under Section 15.17 is governed by Chapter 13. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1979, Chapter 328.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  When read together, Section 15.17 and Section 13.03, impose an obligation on the County to preserve records that it uses to conduct public business so that those records will be available for public inspection. In this situation, it is quite clear that the County used and relied on the consultant&apos;s report to make decisions about its compensation system. It is also clear that the County failed in its obligation to preserve the report that it used and on which it relied in making decisions concerning the public&apos;s business. To fulfill its obligations under Minnesota Statutes, the County should re-acquire a copy of the report and make it available to the public under the conditions provided in Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Biernat is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The report that Mr. Biernat seeks access to is public data for purposes of Chapter 13. A copy of the report should be made available to him at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of copying by the consultant, because it has obligated itself to comply with Chapter 13. The County should make a copy of this report available to Mr. Biernat because it should have retained a copy of the report in order to comply with Chapter 13 and with Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: September 2, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267464</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consultants</Title><Id>266758</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Presumption of openness</Title><Id>266912</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Location of data</Title><Id>266667</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Obligation to maintain and preserve records</Title><Id>266373</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:07Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-034</Title><title>Opinion 94 034</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267854&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the documents, other than the personnel file and the building file, that have been requested by the employee subject to disclosure to the employee given the nature by which those documents were generated, kept and maintained in the District?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 24, 1994; School District 742 (Saint Cloud)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016), held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On August 1, 1994, PIPA received a request for an opinion from Mr. Gordon H. Hansmeier, the attorney for Independent School District 742, the St. Cloud Community public schools, and hereinafter District 742. In his request for an opinion, Mr. Hansmeier related the following. He also provided copies of certain correspondence, a draft of a request for a court review of documents and an affidavit from the acting superintendent of schools of District 742.
&lt;p&gt;District 742 employed X as a principal at one of its elementary schools. District 742 maintained a personnel file and a separate building file about X. The building file contained references to her job performance and comments from the public. In addition to these files, District 742 also had other documents concerning X which were kept by the District&apos;s superintendent. These documents consisted of notes of meetings, notes of discussions, correspondence directed to the superintendent and a few other miscellaneous documents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a letter dated May 25, 1994, Mr. Dale G. Swanson, X&apos;s attorney, asked Ms. Lenore Janman, District 742&apos;s acting superintendent, for copies of . . . all data of which she (X) is the subject. He elaborated on this request by pointing out that the request was not to be limited by what District 742 might consider to be files about X, or her personnel file but was intended to be . . . coextensive with the breadth of access described in the Data Practices Act . . . . Mr. Swanson enclosed a signed and dated request from his client in which she requested . . . copies of any and all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by Independent District No. 742 of which I am a subject, wherever generated, however filed and wherever stored.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;District 742 decided it would release the personnel file and the building file to X. The District initially decided to request the district court to review the other documents in camera and to determine if they were releasable by court order pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3. After further discussion with Mr. Swanson, Mr. Hansmeier agreed with Mr. Swanson that the issue, summarized in the Issue section below, would instead be submitted as a request for an opinion to the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
The issue raised by Mr. Hansmeier, as summarized by the Commissioner, is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the documents, other than the personnel file and the building file, that have been requested by the employee subject to disclosure to the employee given the nature by which those documents were generated, kept and maintained in the District?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
More information about the data at issue in this matter is provided in the affidavit of Ms. Janman. She described these other documents as materials handed to her by the former superintendent of schools. Ms. Janman stated she believed that these were documents contained in personal files of the former superintendent and were never made part of the official District files. They were not filed with the personnel office or maintained in any usual files within District 742. The documents contain notes made by the former superintendent during meetings as well as correspondence to the former superintendent from persons . . . who may have had an expectation of privacy when corresponding with him. Although it is not explicitly stated in the affidavit, it seemed clear that the notes, letters and other documents must contain data about X or there would be no issue presented as to whether or not she had access to those documents.
&lt;p&gt;The issue presented here is very similar to the issue presented to the Commissioner in a opinion she issued on May 25, 1994, concerning the right of an employee of the City of Brooklyn Park to gain access to data maintained about him by his supervisor. In that situation, the city took the position that certain data maintained by supervisors about employees under their supervision were not government data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter Chapter 13 or the Act. In her May 25, 1994 opinion, the Commissioner concluded that not only were the data in question government data but that the data were also private personnel data and accessible by the employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this instance, District 742&apos;s position appears to be that as these documents were not kept in the files the District has labeled personnel file or building file, an individual who is a subject of data contained in these documents is not entitled to the data in the documents. However, in enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the legislature did not define personnel data as data contained in official personnel files. The legislature actually provided a very broad definition of personnel data by stating that: . . . &apos;personnel data&apos; means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of. . . a . . . political subdivision. . . . (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1.) There appeared to be no dispute that X was employed by District 742. District 742 is a political subdivision for purposes of Chapter 13. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11.) Whatever data are actually contained in the documents in dispute appear to have been created, collected, received or maintained by the former superintendent because X was an employee of District 742.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that provides individuals with access to private or public government data maintained about them, the legislature acknowledged that information stored about individuals, as it is used by government entities to make decisions, can have a great effect on the lives of those individuals. By giving individuals access to public and private government data maintained about them, the legislature has given individuals the power to see data that affects their lives, to determine what impact those data may have had on decisions made about them and to determine if the data maintained about them are accurate, complete and current. As more and more data are kept on individuals, the importance of the rights of individuals to gain access to data maintained about them becomes increasingly important.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Personnel data maintained about public employees are a type of data that can have immense significance for the professional and even the personal life of the employee. Decisions to offer employment, to keep someone employed, or to promote an employee are examples of critical decisions that are made on the basis of personnel data. The legislature acknowledged the criticality of those decisions by providing that, with certain exceptions, personnel data are private and are therefore accessible by an employee or former employee of a government entity. By providing a broad definition of personnel data and by providing for employee access to personnel data, the legislative policy clearly controls the answer to the issue presented here. For purposes of data subjects&apos; rights to gain access to data maintained about them by their former employer, it makes no difference if the employer chooses to categorize the data in question as personal notes or files are not official files or data provided by others with an expectation of privacy. The data X seeks access to are within the definition of personnel data as stated in Section 13.43. It does not appear that District 742 has a basis for classifying these data as confidential. The data are private personnel data and copies of its should be provided to her.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the letters referred to in Ms. Janman&apos;s affidavit may be letters from individuals who discussed data concerning students or other staff of District 742. It is not clear from the information provided by District 742 just what is contained in the letters. If the contents of the letters, either in whole or in part, are educational data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, or personnel data on other employees of District 742, then it may be necessary for the District to withhold some or all of the content from X. Except for letters that contain data classified as not public, a letter sent to an entity subject to Chapter 13 will normally, upon its arrival in the government entity, be subject to the presumption in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data, including those letters received by a government entity, are public. In the case of letters of complaints concerning a public employee, the complainant clearly has no recognized expectation of privacy. (See &lt;u&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/u&gt;, 468 N.W. 2d 71 (Minn. 1991).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Hansmeier is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Data that identify an employee or former employee and that are contained in documents that are stored outside a school district&apos;s official personnel or building files are still personnel data for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Pursuant to that section and to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, copies of data contained in those documents are accessible by the employee or former employee.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 24, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267854</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject access</Title><Id>267012</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Supervisor file</Title><Id>266788</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Personnel files</Title><Id>266986</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266282</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-033</Title><title>Opinion 94 033</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267023&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-18T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether discussion of allegations or charges against an employee of the city should only take place at a closed meeting unless the employee who is the subject of the discussion requests that the meeting be open to the public?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 18, 1994; City of Centerville</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On July 29, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner , received a letter from X, a citizen employed as the city clerk/administrator by the City of Centerville. In her letter, X described what she believed to be a violation of her rights under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, by the Centerville City Council, hereinafter Council. The facts X stated concerning her disagreement with the City were as follows. She also provided copies of various documents referred to below.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              A resident of the City of Centerville made a written complaint against X. The Council referred this complaint to an Employee Review Board composed of two members of the Council. The Board investigated the complaint for the purpose of recommending action to the Council. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Council, held on May 25, 1994 and during a portion of the meeting that was open to the public, a member of the Review Board brought up the issue of the complaint and distributed the written recommendations of the Board and a draft letter to the complainant.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X asked this member of the Review Board if the data privacy implications of this item had been discussed with the city attorney. After some further discussion about the issue of the citizen complaint and how it should be handled, and a further expression of concern by X about discussion of this matter at an open meeting, the Council took action to table consideration of the Review Board recommendation until the Council had an opportunity to review further information. On June 22, 1994, the matter was discussed at a closed meeting of the Council.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X then stated that she interpreted Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, the state Open Meeting Law , to say that preliminary discussion of complaints or charges against a city employee should be discussed at a closed meeting unless the employee requests that the meeting be open. She then asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion about the issue stated in the Issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X &apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. John C. Buckbee, III, the mayor of the City of Centerville. Copies of this letter were sent to the City&apos;s attorney and to X . The purposes of this letter, dated August 5, 1994, were to inform Mr. Buckbee of X &apos;s request, to ask Mr. Buckbee or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the Council&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The Commissioner has received no response to the letter sent to the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue distilled from X &apos;s letter and sent to the Council for comment was as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Whether discussion of allegations or charges against an employee of the city should only take place at a closed meeting unless the employee who is the subject of the discussion requests that the meeting be open to the public? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                At the outset, it should be emphasized that this opinion is based only on the version of the facts of this dispute as provided by X . Although she provided transcripts of the Council&apos;s meetings and other information, the Council itself has chosen not to comment on her request for an opinion.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Among the rights that are provided for individuals, who are the subjects of private government data, is the right not to have that private data about them disclosed to the public. Private data means data that are not public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.) The legislature has determined that a number of types of data and datum are private under Chapter 13. In the case of public employees such as X , the legislature has provided very specific treatment of personnel data about public employees. In Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the legislature has listed data about public employees that are public data and then clearly stated that all data not identified to be public are classified as private. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 (a) and 4.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In an instance where a complaint or charge is made against a public employee, the fact that a complaint or charge has been made and the status of the handling of that complaint or charge by the government entity are the only data that are public until there has been a determination by the public employer that disciplinary action will be taken against the employee. Details concerning the complaint or charge and the reasons for a proposed disciplinary action do not become public until there is a final disposition of the disciplinary action. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.) In this particular instance, the Council had not made any decision about a possible disciplinary action concerning X . At the time the Council began the May 25, 1994, discussion of the recommendation of the Employee Review Board, the data that were public about the complaint against X was the fact that a complaint had been made and the status of the processing of that complaint, i.e. it had been investigated by the Review Board and the Board had a recommendation. No other data about this complaint could be public unless and until the Council decided to impose a disciplinary action and that action became final.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In recent years, the legislature has taken steps to harmonize the sometimes conflicting imperatives of the state&apos;s Open Meeting Law , Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, and the classification by the Data Practices Act and other statutes, of various types of data as not public. This policy harmony is attained by the legislature specifying, in the Open Meeting Law, when bodies subject to that law can close meetings to discuss certain types of not public data. The Open Meeting Law also specifies conditions for discussions of certain types of data and provides authorizations in many instances for governing bodies to discuss data, that would otherwise be not public, in meetings that are open to attendance by the public. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705, subdivision 1d.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although the statute that authorizes the issuance of opinions by the Commissioner gives her the authority to issue opinions involving rights of subjects of data, the Commissioner is reluctant to venture very far into interpretations of the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. In this instance, because the issue raised by X about her rights as a data subject directly intersects with the Open Meeting Law and because a major purpose of these opinions is educational, the balance of this opinion will address what impact the Council&apos;s discussion had on X &apos;s rights under Chapter 13. The issue of legislative direction on the issuance of opinions that fall into this intersection will be raised with the legislature in the 1995 session.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Open Meeting Law states that a public body must close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against individuals subject to its disciplinary authority. If the governing body concludes that discipline is warranted as a result of the specific charges or allegations they have considered, further meetings concerning those specific charges or allegations must be open to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivision 1d (c) as amended by Minnesota Sessions Laws 1994, Chapter 618, section 39.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X contends that the Council discussion of the Review Board recommendations was a consideration of the allegations against her at an open meeting. She further contends that this discussion was the first time the Council had actually considered the allegations against her and that, as required by the Open Meeting Law, the meeting should have been closed for that discussion. Because it was not, she concludes that her right to not have private data disclosed to the public was violated by the Council.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In the written minutes of the May 25, 1994, Council meeting that X provided, the Council began discussing the handling of the complaint against X after the written recommendations of the Review Board were distributed. These Council minutes are not a verbatim transcript but a summary of the Council&apos;s deliberations. After X raised the question of the appropriateness of the discussion, one Council member noted that disciplinary action was not recommended by the Review Board. Another Council member asked questions about one of the detailed recommendations. It is not clear from the minutes if that question and the response to it contained actual details of the statements made about X in the recommendation. The Mayor noted that this appears to be an ongoing problem but what this consists of is not clear from the minutes. Another Council member made general comments about handling complaints against employees. X again raised the question of the appropriateness of the discussion. A Council member moved to table consideration of the Review Board recommendation and that motion carried.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Public employees who are subject to the authority of governing bodies, as is X , have the right to have allegations and charges against them protected against public disclosure by the requirement in the Open Meeting Law that the preliminary consideration of the allegations or charges be conducted in a closed meeting. Although an employee can waive that right by asking that the meeting be opened to the public, it is clear from X &apos;s comments at the May 25, 1994 meeting that she either had not been given that choice or did not want the meeting to be open.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although it is not clear from the minutes just exactly what details of the complaint and the Review Board&apos;s proposed handling of the complaint were actually discussed, it appears that this was the first meeting at which the Council was considering the allegations against X . Some of the comments of Council members summarized in the minutes could have disclosed details of the complaint, the investigation of that complaint and the proposed resolution. Suffice it to say if any details about the complaint against X were discussed by the Council at the open meeting on May 25, 1994, they failed in their duty to her to keep those data private, consistent with Chapter 13 and the Open Meeting Law. The Council did not close the meeting to have the preliminary consideration of the private data that comprised the allegations and charges as is required by the Open Meeting Law.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Discussion of allegations or charges against an employee of a city, subject to the authority of the city council, should, consistent with the classification of this type of data as private pursuant to Chapter 13, take place only at closed meetings of the council unless the employee requests that the meeting be opened to the public. Once a city council or other governing body concludes, as a result of the consideration of specific charges or allegations against an employee, that disciplinary action against the employee may be warranted, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges must be open. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 18, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267023</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Open Meeting Law</Title><Id>266392</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-04-19T15:24:06Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-032</Title><title>Opinion 94 032</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267874&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-11T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do the policies of two state agencies, that of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and that of the Department of Corrections, both of which insist upon a birth date in order to access criminal history information, subvert the Legislature&apos;s intent that criminal history data on individuals convicted of crimes (13.87, subd. 2) be classified as public data and that governmental agencies &quot;. . . keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&quot; (§13.03, subd. 1.)
Are birth date data in BCA files classified as private data on individuals?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 11, 1994; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On July 21, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Gary A. Weissman, an attorney in Minneapolis. In this letter, Mr. Weissman described attempts by him to gain access to certain data about a specific individual maintained by the state Departments of Public Safety and Corrections. This particular opinion deals with issues Mr. Weissman has raised about access to data at the Department of Public Safety, hereinafter Public Safety.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weissman initially called the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a part of Public Safety, to ask how he could obtain information about a specific individual. In addition to the individual&apos;s name, Mr. Weissman knew that the individual had been convicted of a crime and had been incarcerated in the Hennepin County Workhouse. The person he spoke to at the BCA told him that criminal history data was not accessible without the individual&apos;s birth date. She then referred him to the Department of Corrections as a possible source of the birth date information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weissman contacted the Department of Corrections. Someone at Corrections told him that its data were arranged so that a birth date was needed to access criminal history data. Corrections staff suggested that he contact two other government agencies. Mr. Weissman was not able to get birth date information from one of those agencies. He did not mention what response, if any, he got from the other agency. Mr. Weissman then decided to ask for an opinion from the Commissioner to raise the issue as to whether the requirements of the two state agencies that citizens provide birth dates of individuals in requesting access to criminal history data about those individuals violate the statutes that provide the public with access to government data and specific access to public criminal history data. (The full text of the issues raised by Mr. Weissman is reproduced in the Issue section below.)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Weissman offered arguments as to why Public Safety should not require the public to provide the date of birth of an individual when the member of the public requests access to the criminal history data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2. It was Mr. Weissman&apos;s position that, when Public Safety requires the public to provide the birth date of an individual about whom the member of the public is seeking criminal history data, Public Safety is in violation of two statutory provisions. Mr. Weissman argued that Public Safety&apos;s position violates the provision in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that requires government entities to keep their records containing government data conveniently accessible to the public. He also argued that this requirement effectively contravenes the legislative purpose in classifying certain criminal history data as public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Weissman also presented what he called a sub-issue concerning the classification of birth dates in the government data held by Public Safety. It was Mr. Weissman&apos;s position that Public Safety, by refusing to release birth date data to him, was effectively treating birth date data as private. It was his opinion that the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2, should lead to a conclusion that birth date data are part of the identifying data that are made public by that section.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Michael Jordan, the Commissioner and responsible authority for Public Safety. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 1994, were to inform Commissioner Jordan of Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, to ask Commissioner Jordan or Public Safety&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for Public Safety&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 5, 1994, PIPA received a response from Commissioner Jordan. Commissioner Jordan summarized the position of Public Safety as follows. He quoted the provisions of the 1993 amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87 that provide that certain criminal history data are public and that require the BCA to provide public access to that data at no charge through a computer monitor located at the offices of the BCA. Commissioner Jordan described how the BCA was implementing that requirement. The computer monitor provides the public access to certain data in the BCA&apos;s criminal history system. A person seeking access to that system must provide the name, sex and date of birth of the individual whose public data, if any, they wish to inspect. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that law enforcement agencies seeking access to criminal history data through criminal justice system terminals must also provide name, sex and date of birth data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Commissioner stated that the BCA has established procedures, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, to ensure requests are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. The BCA is quite willing, through the use of the computer terminal to provide access to the public data when the subject of the data can be sufficiently identified. If sufficient identifying data are presented, the person&apos;s public record is easily accessible to the public.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              It is Public Safety&apos;s position that its insistence on a birth date to gain access to the public criminal history data does not subvert legislative intent to have the data public and to provide convenient access to the data. The Commissioner pointed out that the individual about whom Mr. Weissman is seeking data has a common name and that Mr. Weissman is unable to provide sufficient information to form a computer inquiry specific enough to identify the individual record he desires. The Commissioner stated his opinion that the BCA records are contained in an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use as is required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to the Commissioner, if Mr. Weissman could provide sufficient identifying information, specifically name, date of birth and sex, the public criminal history records are easily accessible. Mr. Weissman simply does not possess sufficient &apos;identifying information&apos; to access the record he desires. Just because Mr. Weissman cannot gain access does not mean the criminal history records are not arranged in a condition to make them easily accessible for convenient use. They are simply not convenient for Mr. Weissman&apos;s use because he does not have sufficient information to narrow his inquiry.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the issue of whether all birth date data in BCA files are being treated as private data, the Commissioner offered the following. For those individuals within the fifteen year period during which some criminal history data are public under Section 13.87, subdivision 2, the birth date is part of the identifying data that are made public by that section. For all other data about individuals contained in the BCA files, the date of birth is private data. In the case of the individual about whom Mr. Weissman is seeking information, Public Safety cannot, according to the Commissioner, know whether the data about that individual are private or public until the birth date is provided. The computer search will then determine whether the data about an individual with the name and birth date provided are private or public data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              In his letter, Mr. Weissman asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Do the policies of two state agencies, that of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and that of the Department of Corrections, both of which insist upon a birth date in order to access criminal history information, subvert the Legislature&apos;s intent that criminal history data on individuals convicted of crimes (13.87, subd. 2) be classified as public data and that governmental agencies . . . keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (section13.03, subd. 1.)
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Are birth date data in BCA files classified as private data on individuals?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                It is Mr. Weissman&apos;s position that the requirement imposed by Public Safety, that a member of the public provide the name and birth date of an individual about whom the member of the public desires public criminal history data, violates the intent of the legislature as expressed in Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1, and 13.87, subdivision 2. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1 states the following: The responsible authority in every state agency, . . . shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2, states, in part: . . . data created, collected, or maintained by the bureau of criminal apprehension that identify an individual who was convicted of a crime and the offense of which the individual was convicted are public data for 15 years following the discharge of the sentence imposed for the offense. Section 13.87 goes on to state that the BCA is required to provide the public with the ability to inspect the criminal conviction data classified as public under subdivision 2.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Minnesota legislature has stated a very strong public policy position favoring public access to government data. The presumption that government data are public, as contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, is one reflection of that position. However, the language, also contained in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that requires responsible authorities to keep their records in such an arrangement and condition so that the data in them are easily accessible for convenient use by the public expands on the strong public policy favoring public access to government data. This language places an affirmative duty on government agencies to design data storage, data retrieval, records storage, records retrieval and filing systems in such a way that those systems will assist and not hinder the public in gaining access to government data. This particular language has been a part of legislatively enacted public policy in this state since 1941.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language concerning convenient use that now appears in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, was first enacted by the legislature in 1941 and made a part of Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the states Official Records Act . (See Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, Chapter 553, Section 4.) Virtually all of the modern record-keeping and management information systems, both manual and electronic, that have come into existence in the state in the last 50 years have been subject to the requirement that they be designed and implemented so that the data contained within them will be easily accessible for convenient use by the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language of Section 13.87, subdivision 2, makes it clear that the legislature intends that the criminal history data made public by that section be available to the public in as convenient a fashion as possible. The section requires a public access computer monitor and access to criminal history data at no charge to the public. The real issue implicit in both these statutes and in Mr. Weissman&apos;s inquiry is whether requiring the public to provide both the name and birth date of an individual about whom the member of the public wants to receive public criminal history data effectively deprives the public convenient access to the public criminal history data. Although the BCA also asks for data about the sex of the individual, that is a relatively easy requirement to meet. The name of the individual will usually indicate the gender. Even if it does not, there are only two possibilities as the BCA files contain only two gender identifiers, male or female.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Public Safety&apos;s position is that Mr. Weissman could gain convenient access to the criminal history data if he had the birth date of the individual he is seeking. Mr. Weissman&apos;s position is that requiring a birth date means he is not getting convenient access to the data. He is getting access to only that data which is convenient for Public Safety to provide him. Webster&apos;s New World Dictionary, College Edition, copyright 1968, defines convenient as follows: favorable to one&apos;s comfort; easy to do, use or get to; causing little trouble, work, etc; handy to use. The Public Safety requirement that the public provide a birth date before the Department will search for public data is clearly not easy for the public to do . It does not make the public data easy to get to or handy to use .
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Public Safety&apos;s position is that all persons seeking access to criminal history data using terminal access to the computer file, including law enforcement agencies, must provide name, date of birth and sex to gain access. However, at one time it was the practice of Public Safety to provide name only access to the much larger driver license file. It is possible in this circumstance that Public Safety has not exhausted all of the possible methods available, particularly with a computerized file, to provide the public with convenient access to the public criminal history data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  A common method used to resolve the dilemma presented by Mr. Weissman&apos;s request is to search the file using name only and to indicate to the requestor how many individual records exist using that name. To the extent that those files fit within the criteria of what is public under Section 13.87, the actual number of individual records that are possible matches to the request can be reduced so that the public could then view the files to determine whether the individual they are seeking is found in any of those individual records. This method, as an example, would come much closer than the BCA&apos;s current method of compliance with statutory requirement that files be easily accessible for convenient use by the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is understandable, given the fact that the legislature only recently, in 1993, classified the data described in Section 13.87, subdivision 2 as public, that Public Safety would try to find the simplest and least costly way to respond to the legislative requirement. However, the plain words of Sections 13.03 and 13.87, and the history of the convenient access language of Section 13.03, indicate that the Department must provide convenient access to the public criminal history data. Compliance with the two statutory sections cited means providing access to the criminal history data with a name only access capability. Members of the public who request access and can provide date of birth information may be able to get quicker access. However, in the long run all requestors, including those who can provide only name and sex, would, if another access method is implemented, get the convenient access required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Weissman raised the additional issue of whether Public Safety&apos;s requirement that the public provide a birth date effectively treats all birth date data in the criminal history file as private. What he seems to be saying is that birth dates in the public criminal history identifying data must always be public even if a birth date is not associated with the name of an individual. However, it is not clear from Mr. Weissman&apos;s letter whether or not he put his perception to the test by asking Public Safety to provide to him the birth dates of all individuals, sharing the same name as the individual about whom he was seeking information.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Public Safety has responded to this issue by stating that classification of birth date data depends on whether a given date of birth is part of the identifying data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87. Public Safety&apos;s position is an accurate statement of the effect of the language, in Section 13.87, that classifies some criminal history data as public and the balance of the data as private. If the data concerns an individual who is within the window of 15 years following the discharge of a sentence for a felony offense, then the birth date data are public. If the data concerns an individual who is not in the 15 year window, the birth date data are private.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  My opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Weissman in his letter are as follows.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              The policy and practice of Public Safety to require the public to provide birth date data about an individual before Public Safety will search its computer file to determine if data on that individual are public criminal history data does not comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1 and 13.87, subdivision 2.
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              Birth date data in Public Safety&apos;s criminal history data are public if the individual on whom the data are maintained is within 15 years of the discharge of the sentence for conviction of a felony. All other birth date data in the Public Safety criminal history data, as defined in Section 13.87, are private data
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 11, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267874</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal history/justice data (13.87)</Title><Id>266457</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Easily accessible for convenient use (13.03, subd. 1)</Title><Id>266655</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Requests for data</Title><Id>266272</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-031</Title><title>Opinion 94 031</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267777&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do the policies of two state agencies, that of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and that of the Department of Corrections, both of which insist upon a birth date in order to access criminal history information, subvert the Legislature&apos;s intent that criminal history data on individuals convicted of crimes (13.87, subd. 2) be classified as public data and that governmental agencies &quot;. . . keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.&quot; (§13.03, subd. 1.)
Are birth date data in BCA files classified as private data on individuals?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 11, 1994; Minnesota Department of Corrections</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.84, was amended in 2000 to make birth date data explicitly public. The 1998 amendment to section 13.85 may alter the analysis in this opinion of the classification of birth date data under that section.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On July 21, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Gary A. Weissman, an attorney in Minneapolis. In this letter, Mr. Weissman described attempts by him to gain access to certain data about a specific individual maintained by the state Departments of Public Safety and Corrections. This particular opinion deals with issues Mr. Weissman has raised about access to data at the Department of Corrections, hereinafter Corrections.
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Weissman initially called the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a bureau of the state Department of Public Safety, to ask how he could obtain information about a specific individual. In addition to the individual&apos;s name, Mr. Weissman knew that the individual had been convicted of a crime and had been incarcerated in the Hennepin County Workhouse. The person he spoke to at the BCA, told him that criminal history data was not accessible without the individual&apos;s birth date. She then referred him to Corrections as a possible source for the birth date information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Weissman then contacted Corrections. Someone at Corrections told him that the Department&apos;s data were arranged in such a way that a birth date was needed to access criminal history data. Corrections staff suggested that he contact two other government agencies. Mr. Weissman was not able to get birth date information from one of those agencies. He did not mention what response, if any, he got from the other agency. Mr. Weissman then decided to ask for an opinion from the Commissioner to raise the issue as to whether the requirements of the two state agencies that citizens provide birth dates of individuals in requesting access to criminal history data violate the statutes providing general public access to government data and specific access to public criminal history data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his request for an opinion, after describing the issue summarized above, Mr. Weissman offered arguments as to why the two state departments should not be allowed to require the public to provide the date of birth of an individual when the member of the public requests access to the public criminal history data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2. It was Mr. Weissman&apos;s position Corrections, when it requires the public to provide the birth date of an individual in seeking access to public criminal history data, is failing in its obligation to comply with the statutory requirement under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 that the Department make its public data conveniently accessible to the public. He also argued that this requirement effectively contravenes the legislative purpose in classifying certain criminal history data as public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Weissman also set out, what he called a sub-issue concerning the classification status of birth date in the government data held by Corrections. It was Mr. Weissman&apos;s conclusion that Corrections treated birth date data as private data and his line of discussion implicitly asked whether that was a correct classification of birth date data by Corrections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, PIPA on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Frank W. Wood, the Commissioner and responsible authority for Corrections. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 1994, were to inform Commissioner Wood of Mr. Weissman&apos;s request, to ask Commissioner Wood or Correction&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for Correction&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 5, 1994, PIPA received a response from Ms. Jean M. Whitney, assistant to Commissioner Wood. She stated that Commissioner Wood had asked her to respond to PIPA&apos;s letter and that she would be providing responses to the questions raised in PIPA letter to Commissioner Wood. Ms. Whitney offered the following facts and arguments in support of Correction&apos;s position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the issue of public access to public criminal history data, Ms. Whitney pointed out that the statute cited by Mr. Weissman assigns responsibility for providing access to those data to the Department of Public Safety and not to Corrections. She then described the types of information maintained about offenders by Corrections and how access is provided to the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Whitney then discussed the basis for Correction&apos;s position that birth date data held by the Department are classified as private data. She explained that data on offenders that is maintained by Corrections is classified by Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85. It is the position of the Department that both of those sections classify birth date data as private. The operation of Section 13.84 classifies birth date data as private because under Section 13.84 any data that is not assigned a classification of public or confidential are classified as private. Under Section 13.85, Corrections has determined that birth date data are personal data and under the definitions and classifications set forth in Section 13.85, personal data are private. She added that Corrections has always treated birth date data on offenders as private.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In his letter, Mr. Weissman asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Do the policies of two state agencies, that of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and that of the Department of Corrections, both of which insist upon a birth date in order to access criminal history information, subvert the Legislature&apos;s intent that criminal history data on individuals convicted of crimes (13.87, subd. 2) be classified as public data and that governmental agencies . . . keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. (section13.03, subd. 1.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Are birth date data in BCA files classified as private data on individuals?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
On the first issue raised by Mr. Weissman, Ms. Whitney correctly points out that the obligation to provide the public with access to public criminal history data is the responsibility of the Department of Public Safety and not of Corrections. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87, subdivision 2, states that criminal history data are private in all agencies that gain access to criminal history data provided by the BCA, . . . except that data created, collected or maintained by the bureau of criminal apprehension that identify an individual who was convicted of a crime and the offense for which the individual was convicted are public data for 15 years following the discharge of the sentence imposed for the offense. In short, the criminal history data made public by Section 13.87 is available as public data only from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Corrections is not subverting the public access policy set out in Section 13.87 because the only obligation that Corrections has under Section 13.87 is the obligation to keep private any criminal history data that it receives from the BCA.
&lt;p&gt;As to the second issue raised by Mr. Weissman, it is the position of Corrections that birth date data are properly classified by Corrections as private data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85. Examination of those sections leads to a conclusion that for Corrections to treat birth date data as private is appropriate given the language of the two sections. However, in the interest of consistency, Corrections should determine whether, in its interaction with the public, it actually treats birth date data as private. It appears that Corrections disseminates birth date data to the public by confirming for public requestors that a named individual with a birth date the same as that provided by the requestor is or was under the supervision of Corrections. To confirm the existence and congruence of a piece of private data effectively disseminates that private data to the public. However, in the instance described by Mr. Weissman, because he was requesting data made private by Sections 13.84 and 13.85, Corrections was under no obligation to provide him with the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion on the issued raised by Mr. Weissman on the issues raised by his request is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As to whether Corrections has an obligation to provide the public with access to public criminal history data, Corrections has no such obligation under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87.
&lt;p&gt;As to the proper classification of birth date data held by Corrections, the classification of birth date data under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.84 and 13.85 if private and therefore birth date data cannot be made available to the public by Corrections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 11, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267777</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Birth date data</Title><Id>266918</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Court services data (13.84)</Title><Id>266336</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Criminal history/justice data (13.87)</Title><Id>266457</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:05Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-030</Title><title>Opinion 94 030</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267738&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-09T15:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does the Brooklyn Park Police Department violate §13.82, subd. 5 of the Data Practices Act by having a policy of classifying as private all photographs taken at death scenes, regardless of their contents?
Should the Brooklyn Park Police Department review each photograph in Gwen Donald&apos;s investigative file and make a photograph by photograph determination whether the photograph is clearly offensive to common sensibilities before answering a request for that data?
If a portion of a photograph is reasonably deemed clearly offensive to common sensibilities, should the public have access to that portion of the photograph which is not offensive?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 1994; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On July 20, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Rick Kupchella, an investigative reporter at KARE 11, a local television station. In his letter, Mr. Kupchella described attempts to gain access to photographs or portions of photographs maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department, hereinafter City . The facts Mr. Kupchella stated concerning his disagreement with the City were as follows.
&lt;p&gt;KARE 11 had made a number of requests for access to photographs taken during the investigation of a woman&apos;s death. An investigation of the matter resulted in a determination that the woman had committed suicide. The investigation concerning her death is no longer active. For purposes of access to law enforcement investigative data, the data concerning this investigation are in an inactive file and the City has provided portions of the inactive file to KARE 11. However, Mr. Kupchella has been told by the City that it is their policy that no photographs taken at death scenes will be released to the public regardless of the contents of the photos. KARE 11&apos;s requests for access to photos have been denied.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Kupchella went on to discuss how Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 handles the classification of data that are part of an inactive investigative file. He pointed out that, generally, data in inactive criminal investigative files are public. One exception to that rule is that photographs in inactive investigative data, that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are not public. It was Mr. Kupchella&apos;s opinion that the City&apos;s policy that all death scene photos are not public is not consistent with the statutory guidance. It was his position that the statute requires a case by case determination based on the content of the photographs and not a blanket policy making all death scene photographs not public. He then asked for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issues described in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Kupchella&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. David M. Johnson, who had previously identified himself as the responsible authority for the City police department. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 1994, were to inform Mr. Johnson of Mr. Kupchella&apos;s request, to ask Mr. Johnson or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 1, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson summarized the position of the City as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Johnson reviewed the history of KARE&apos;s requests for data concerning this particular death. Given that history, it was Mr. Johnson&apos;s opinion that this particular dispute was not a data practices dispute but a dispute about whether the City had honestly answered questions from KARE 11. He stated that he had encouraged KARE to bring an action under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 4 to resolve the dispute. Mr. Johnson then focused on the City&apos;s position relative to the statutory guidance in Chapter 13.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Johnson quoted the language of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, as it relates to the handling of photos in inactive investigative files, and pointed out that within the statute itself there were no definitions for the terms clearly offensive and common sensibilities. In Mr. Johnson&apos;s view, this lack of definition indicates a lack of legislative direction to responsible authorities. It also means that a responsible authority, in making judgments about the contents of photographs, must use his or her discretion. Mr. Johnson then cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072 subdivision 1 (b), a part of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion authority, that says the Commissioner cannot issue opinions when the question involves . . . the exercise of discretionary power specifically granted by statute to a responsible authority to withhold or grant access to government data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general statutory classification. Given that language, it was the City&apos;s position that the Commissioner is barred from issuing an opinion in this instance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In case the Commissioner decided to issue an opinion, Mr. Johnson went on to review the basis for the City&apos;s position that all death scene photographs are not public. It has been the City&apos;s experience that the release of death scene photographs, no matter what their content, causes anguish to families of victims and to others. The City has often received calls of complaints when death scenes and family agony are displayed by the media. Because, according to Mr. Johnson, the statute provides no guidance to responsible authorities in making decisions about whether or not to release death scene photographs, the experience and opinion of the City is that all death scene photographs meet the statutory test.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In further support of that position, Mr. Johnson cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.83, the medical examiner&apos;s section of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13. This section makes most medical examiner data not public. According to Mr. Johnson, the authority conferred on the Hennepin County medical examiner by Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.225, subdivision 6, gives the medical examiner control of the body and scene of a death. After expanding on that authority and its relationship to law enforcement investigations, it was Mr. Johnson&apos;s conclusion that the data in question were actually medical examiner data and were therefore classified as private or nonpublic and not discloseable to the public or KARE 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In regard to the third issue raised by Mr. Kupchella, relating to the provision of the non- offensive portions of photographs to the public, Mr. Johnson made the following arguments. The City does not possess the equipment to separate offensive from non-offensive portions. Even if the City could conduct such a separation it would be open to charges that things removed had been removed because the police did not want the public to see them. Because of the nature of a photograph, it is a single piece of data which should be judged only in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Johnson summarized the City&apos;s position urging that the Commissioner should not issue an opinion and that a dispute about a classification of data made by a responsible authority should be addressed by the public taking recourse to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 4, the portion of the remedies section of the Act that gives any aggrieved person the right to bring an action to compel an agency to comply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
In his letter requesting an opinion, Mr. Kupchella raised three issues as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the Brooklyn Park Police Department violate section13.82, subd. 5 of the Data Practices Act by having a policy of classifying as private all photographs taken at death scenes, regardless of their contents?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Should the Brooklyn Park Police Department review each photograph in Gwen Donald&apos;s investigative file and make a photograph by photograph determination whether the photograph is clearly offensive to common sensibilities before answering a request for that data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;If a portion of a photograph is reasonably deemed clearly offensive to common sensibilities, should the public have access to that portion of the photograph which is not offensive?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before addressing the substance of Mr. Kupchella&apos;s request, the issue raised by the City concerning the Commissioner&apos;s authority must be addressed.
&lt;p&gt;When the opinion authority was being considered by the legislature, concern was expressed that there were situations where the authority given to a responsible authority either to withhold or grant access to data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general classification was so critical that the exercises of discretion in those instances should not be subject to Commissioner&apos;s opinions. However, expression of that concern, led to an additional concern that if all decisions of responsible authorities were viewed as discretionary then the opinion authority would be meaningless. The legislative response was to craft a middle position that says that the Commissioner cannot issue an opinion in instances where:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;a responsible authority;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;has exercised discretionary power;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;specifically granted to the responsible authority;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;to withhold or grant access to government data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general classification. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the statutory guidance as to whether or not photographs in inactive criminal investigative files are discloseable to the public, the legislature has said that all inactive criminal investigative data, with certain exceptions, are public. Photographs in inactive criminal investigative files are classified as public unless the agency determines that the photographs being requested by the public are clearly offensive to common sensibilities. First, this is not a specific grant of discretionary power to a responsible authority. Instead, it is a grant of authority to an agency. Second, this is not a grant of authority to withhold or release data. It is direction to an agency to make decisions about whether the contents of photographs are or are not clearly offensive to common sensibilities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Contrary to the position of the City, the decisions about whether photographs are public or not are not decisions totally within the discretion of the City but are decisions to be made within the confines of whether or not certain photographs are clearly offensive to common sensibilities. Although, as the City points out, the terms, clearly offensive and common sensibilities are not defined in Chapter 13, any number of terms and words used within Chapter 13 are not defined by the Chapter itself. A word or phrase not defined by the Act is to be construed according to the common and approved usage of that word. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 654.08.) The dictionary and other reference works are common sources to be used in determining the meaning of words and phrases used within a statute and not defined by the statute itself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because this question does not involve a specific grant of discretionary power to a responsible authority, it is appropriate for the Commissioner to issue an opinion in this matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues 1 and 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
In these issues, Mr. Kupchella asks if the policy of the City, that all death scene photographs are not public, violates the Act and whether the Act requires the City to make a photograph-by-photograph determination.
&lt;p&gt;When the legislature was discussing the implications of a possible decision to have most inactive criminal investigative data classified as public, the effect of such a decision on photographs appearing in inactive data was actively discussed. The discussion of the status of data in photographs focused heavily on photographs involving death scenes, pictures of a sexual or what might be perceived to be a sexual nature and pictures illustrating physical violence. Much of the discussion about these types of photos was concerned with photos of deceased individuals. At the end of that discussion, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 which, in part, states that all inactive investigative data, which implicitly includes photos, are public data. The legislature did create an exception by stating that photographs that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It seems clear from the language of the statute that when a request for access to inactive criminal investigative data is made, and those data include photographs, the appropriate response from the law enforcement agency should be to examine the content of each photograph to determine if the content is clearly offensive to common sensibilities. A policy, such as the one adopted by the City, that states that all death scene photographs are not public, does not accomplish what Section 13.82, subdivision 5 requires.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the legislature actively discussed concerns such as those raised by the City about release of photos to the public. The legislature concluded that photographs are to be treated as not public only if their content is clearly offensive to common sensibilities. The City&apos;s policy, that holds that all death scene photographs are inherently offensive, and are therefore not public, does not comply with the treatment accorded to photographs in inactive criminal investigative data by the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its response, the City also argued that the photographic data ought to be treated as medical examiner data. It is in the nature of the data classification system, and how the legislature has applied the system in making classification decisions, that the legislature will sometimes prescribe different treatment for the exact same data held by two different government entities. For example, home addresses of public employees are private personnel data. Home addresses of public employees in state driver license files are public unless the driver requests otherwise. The fact that the legislature provides different treatment for photographs held by a medical examiner and photographs held by a police department is a consequence of specific legislative decisions about the photographic data in two different organizational and functional contexts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since 1981, the legislature has specifically declared that inactive criminal investigative data, including some kinds of photographic data in law enforcement agencies, are classified as public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5.) In a subsequent enactment amending the original language of Section 13.82, subdivision 5, the legislature made it clear that the regulation of photographic data held by law enforcement agencies includes regulation of law enforcement photos of deceased persons. Section 13.82, subdivision 5 was amended in 1985. The 1985 amendments clarified that photos of deceased individuals, taken after their death are treated as data not on individuals. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1985, Chapter 298, Section 31.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data regulated by Section 13.82, subdivision 5, are data specifically maintained by law enforcement agencies such as the City. The fact that a law enforcement agency may work closely with a medical examiner in the investigation of a death does not make the data collected and maintained by the law enforcement agency medical examiner data. Therefore, the data requested by Mr. Kupchella are subject to the requirements of Section 13.82 and not Section 13.85.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
In this issue, Mr. Kupchella asks whether the public has a right to see those portions of a given photograph that do not contain images that are offensive to common sensibilities.
&lt;p&gt;In theory, depending on the exact content of a given photograph, it is possible to separate offensive from non-offensive portions. Contrary to the concerns of the City about the need for specialized equipment to perform such a separation, the equipment necessary may be a scissors or other cutting instrument that could separate the offensive and non-offensive portions. In a given situation that may be a reasonable compromise to deal with public concerns that photographic details are being unreasonably withheld.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the plain language of Section 13.82, subdivision 5 indicates that once an agency makes a determination that a photograph contains content which is clearly offensive to common sensibilities , the photograph in its entirety is classified as private or nonpublic. This is a situation where the legislature could have said that the offensive content is not public. Instead the plain language of the statute indicates that the entire photograph containing offensive content is not public. Although a law enforcement agency might choose to separate the contents of a photograph, the Act does not require it to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on each of the issues raised by Mr. Kupchella is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
The policy of the City in declaring all death scene photographs in inactive criminal investigative data to be not public, regardless of the content of the photographs, is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5.
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
When the City receives a request from the public for access to photos in inactive criminal investigative data, it should review each of the photos requested to determine whether the content of each photo is or is not clearly offensive to common sensibilities. Any photos that are not deemed to be offensive should be released to the public.
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 3:&lt;/h2&gt;
If the City determines that a specific photograph does contain data that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities, it is not required to separate the offensive and non-offensive portions and to provide the non-offensive portion to the public. The City could chose to perform such a separation but it is not required to do so.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: August 9, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267738</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs/videotapes (See also: Law enforcement - Booking photos)</Title><Id>266525</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Photographs</Title><Id>266526</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-029</Title><title>Opinion 94 029</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266839&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the Minneapolis police department&apos;s property inventory lists recording information about inventory sales of firearms to federally licensed gun dealers public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 9, 1994; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On July 20, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Rick Kupchella, an investigative reporter at KARE 11, a local television station. In his letter, Mr. Kupchella described attempts to gain access to data concerning gun sales conducted by the City of Minneapolis, hereinafter City. The facts Mr. Kupchella stated concerning his disagreement with the City were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              KARE requested that the City provide it with access to data concerning the City&apos;s sale of confiscated firearms to licensed gun dealers. According to Mr. Kupchella, KARE was specifically trying to get access to data that would indicate what items were sold, the prices and the purchasers. Mr. Kupchella stated that the request was denied and the City cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36 as the basis for classifying the requested data as private.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Kupchella quoted Section 13.36 and then discussed his understanding that the City interpreted this provision to mean that all data maintained by the City concerning the purchase or transfer of firearms and applications for permits to carry firearms are classified as private data. Mr. Kupchella then attacked the City&apos;s position on the basis of grammatical interpretation, on the basis that such an interpretation would classify much more data as private than the actual language of the section, on the basis that the data in question were not collected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 624.712 through 624.719, which is cross referenced in Section 13.36, and on the basis of public policy. Mr. Kupchella then asked for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Kupchella&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Jim Moore in the Office of the Minneapolis City Attorney. Mr. Moore handles data practices issues for the City. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 1994, were to inform Mr. Moore of Mr. Kupchella&apos;s request, to ask Mr. Moore to provide any information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On August 3, 1994, by facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Mr. Moore. He provided the explanations and arguments summarized below and provided copies of sample documentation kept by the City concerning the sale of confiscated firearms. Mr. Moore summarized the position of the City as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After stating the City&apos;s disagreement with Mr. Kupchella&apos;s description of the facts at issue, Mr. Moore explained that the City does maintain some records concerning the sale of confiscated firearms sold at three different sales conducted in 1987, 1988 and 1989. The firearms were sold at auctions conducted by a private auction firm hired by the City. The City ceased the sales after the 1989 sale.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Although the records of the sales vary from year to year, the City generally has:
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                a list of the weapons by type, serial number and description of the incidents leading to the seizure; and
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                the auctioneer receipt that contains the sale price and a random number assigned by the auction company identifying the federally licensed purchaser of the confiscated weapon.
                &lt;p&gt;
                  The 1988 and 1989 records include copies of the federal firearms licenses of the individuals who attended the sales but do not include a cross reference to any firearm they may have purchased. The actual record of who bought what may be held by the auction company but the City does not know if that is the case. Mr. Moore provided copies of the documents he described.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Moore agreed that KARE&apos;s request was preliminarily denied on the basis of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36. After discussions with an attorney for KARE, Mr. Moore offered to provide KARE with a list of weapons sold by type with their serial numbers and the sale price. KARE&apos;s attorney responded that those data would not be adequate.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Although it is the City&apos;s position that City records do not identify the purchaser, the City maintains that the release of unexpurgated files relating to the auctions could lead to identifying purchasers. Therefore, the City takes the position that these data constitute data on individuals as defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter Act or Chapter 13. If indeed the data are data on individuals, then the City takes the position that the data in question are classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36. Mr. Moore then offered detailed arguments in opposition to some of the arguments offered by Mr. Kupchella.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, Mr. Moore quoted Section 13.36 and discussed his view as to why the cross reference to Minnesota Statutes Sections 624.712 through 624.719, which is contained in Section 13.36, should not be read as limiting the application of Section 13.36 to data collected or maintained only for purposes of the administration of Chapter 624. It was his position that a reading of Section 13.36 as relating only to the protection of data concerning firearms transactions under Chapter 624 would produce an absurd result.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  In his letter, Mr. Kupchella asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the Minneapolis police department&apos;s property inventory lists recording information about inventory sales of firearms to federally licensed gun dealers public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Discussion:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                    The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act states a strong presumption that all government data are classified as public unless there is a statute or federal law that specifically provides that certain data are not public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1). However, for government data to be public under the presumption the data in question must also be under the actual or, perhaps, constructive control of a government agency. In this particular instance, there is some dispute or confusion as to just exactly what data about the sale of confiscated firearms are under the control of the City.
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      The City&apos;s position is that it does not maintain the data actually being sought by KARE 11, i.e. what firearm was sold, at what price and to whom. The City states that the sale was conducted by the auction company and the company provided limited data to the City. The City holds out the possibility that the auction company may be maintaining the data sought by KARE 11. It may be possible, depending on the content of the contract entered into by the City and the auction company and what data about the sale is actually held by the auction company, that data identifying the actual purchaser and what was purchased may be government data within the meaning of the Act under the rule set down in the Pathmanathan case.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      In that case, a government entity contracted with a private investigation to do work for it but provided in the contract that the work product of the contractor would be owned by the government entity. (See Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University, 461 N.W. 2d 726 (Minn. Ct. App.1990)). However, even if the City&apos;s contract with the auction company contained similar language and the data were retrievable from the auction company, the City&apos;s position on the data generated by the sale is that any data that identify or could identify purchasers and transferees of confiscated firearms sold by the City are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36 reads as follows:
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;All data pertaining to the purchase or transfer of firearms and applications for permits to carry firearms which are collected by state agencies, political subdivisions or statewide systems pursuant to sections 624.712 to 624.719 are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 12. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;
                    It is very clear from the plain words of this section that the data classified by it are not all data concerning the purchase or transfer of firearms or permits to carry firearms, but only data collected by a government entity . . . pursuant to sections 624.712 to 624.719 . . . The legislature did not, in Section 13.36, classify all data about firearms transactions maintained by government agencies as private. It classified as private only the data on individuals collected by government entities in their administration of the statutory sections that regulate certain transactions involving the purchase and transfer of certain kinds of firearms and applications for permits to carry certain kinds of firearms.
                    &lt;p&gt;
                      Minnesota Statutes Sections 624.712 to 624.719, hereinafter referred to as Chapter 624 , is sometimes referred to as the gun control statute. Under the terms of Chapter 624 certain classes of persons are disqualified from acquiring certain types of firearms. To enforce that disqualification, persons who are prospective transferees or transferrors of firearms are required to provide certain data to law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement agency then makes a determination as to whether the proposed transferee is disqualified from acquiring the firearms regulated by Chapter 624. Under Chapter 624, law enforcement agencies also receive applications and make decisions about whether persons can carry firearms in a concealed fashion.
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      It is the data collected and maintained by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of the administration of Chapter 624 that are classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.36. Data concerning the transactions in which the City auctioned off confiscated firearms of various types are not data collected and maintained for the purpose of the administration of Chapter 624. As there appears to be no other section classifying these data as not public, the data in question, to the extent that they are maintained by the City or are retrievable from the company that conducted the auctions for the City, are public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                        Opinion:
                      &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                      My opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Kupchella in his request is as follows:
                      &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;All data concerning the City&apos;s sales of firearms to federally licensed gun dealers are public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Signed:
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                          Debra Rae Anderson
                          &lt;br /&gt;
                          Commissioner
                        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                          Dated: August 9, 1994
                          &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266839</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Firearms (13.87, subd. 2 / 13.36)</Title><Id>266698</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Copy costs</Title><Id>266271</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-028</Title><title>Opinion 94 028</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267216&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-08-03T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Sheriff&apos;s office in general and Investigator Johnson in particular have any basis to their denial of my file?
Are the costs assessed by the Sheriff&apos;s department for copying the material excessive?
Do the deletions made by the Sheriff to the records eventually provided have a basis in law? Was the Sheriff&apos;s department required to justify each deletion or omission with particularity?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 3, 1994; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 13, 1994, PIPA received a request for an opinion from X, a resident of Shoreview, Minnesota. In his letter, X described attempts by him and his attorney to gain access to data maintained by the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office, hereinafter Sheriff . A summary of X&apos;s view of those attempts and responses to them by the Sheriff is as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 8, 1994, X, his wife and their attorney, Mr. Simcha Plisner, went to the Shoreview station of the Sheriff&apos;s department. The purpose of this trip was to obtain an investigator&apos;s report concerning allegations of child abuse. A clerk at the front desk of this station informed X that a report did exist and that it had a case number. However, after consulting with Deputy Stan Johnson, the investigator working on the case, the clerk informed them that the investigation was still open. X had previously been informed by Ramsey County Human Services that the investigation was closed. At this point, X asked to talk to Mr. Johnson. After waiting for twenty minutes, X and his wife and Mr. Plisner decided to leave.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X and Mr. Plisner proceeded to the main office of the Sheriff to make a direct request for the file from Sheriff Patricia Moen at her office on Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. At that office they were informed that the Sheriff was out of the office. They were referred to a sergeant whose name X believes was Nelson. Sergeant Nelson communicated with Deputy Johnson. Mr. Plisner then spoke directly to Deputy Johnson. According to X, Deputy Johnson told Mr. Plisner that the investigation was still open and that it would take him a week or two to close the case. According to X when Mr. Plisner pressed the Deputy for more specifics, Deputy Johnson told Mr. Plisner that neither he nor X would ever see the case file because of concerns about retaliation against some individuals.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              After this conversation, X and his attorney spoke to an internal affairs officer. She agreed to look into the matter. The next day she called Mr. Plisner and left a message saying that based on an opinion from the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office they could not gain access to the investigative file.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Plisner, in a letter to Sheriff Moen dated June 22, 1994, requested on behalf of X and his wife access to all data maintained by the Sheriff concerning the allegations of maltreatment. He asked for a response within five days as required by law. In a letter dated June 29, 1992, Dick Dornbusch, a lieutenant writing on behalf of the Sheriff, informed Mr. Plisner that the Sheriff maintained public, private and confidential data about the allegations. He reiterated that some of the data relating to the allegations was confidential and this data would be withheld pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5a and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d). Lieutenant Dornbusch asked for an additional week in which to make the data available for review and informed Mr. Plisner that copies of the data, if requested, would be provided at a cost of $5.00 for the first page and $1.00 for each additional page.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter to Sheriff Moen, dated July 5, 1994, Mr. Plisner reviewed the history of X&apos;s and his wife&apos;s attempts to gain access to this data. He asked for immediate production of the documents, for citations to authority for deletions or omissions from the data and for an explanation of Deputy Johnson&apos;s actions in denying X and his wife access to the file.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X stated the Sheriff subsequently called Mr. Plisner and told him that the records could be picked up. A receipt provided by X indicates copies of the records were paid for on July 6, 1994. X enclosed copies of the data that were received from the Sheriff with his letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. X then asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion and address five issues that he specifically described. Three of those issues are reproduced in the Issue section below. Two of the issues X raised are not within the opinion authority of the Commissioner and will not be addressed.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ms. Patricia Moen, the Ramsey County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated July 15, 1994, were to inform Sheriff Moen of X&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Sheriff Moen or her attorney to provide any information about or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of this letter were sent to X and Mr. Plisner. Sheriff Moen was asked to submit any comments no later than July 27, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 27, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Karen Kushner, an Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. She explained that the Sheriff had forwarded PIPA&apos;s letter to her for a response. She responded specifically to each of the three issues raised by X as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kushner discussed Deputy Johnson&apos;s actions in denying X and his wife access to the investigative file. She stated that those actions were in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13 . Specifically, she cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 that classifies active criminal investigative data in law enforcement agencies as confidential data. She stated that at the time X contacted Deputy Johnson the investigation was still active and that none of the events that would make an investigation inactive had occurred.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kushner discussed the costs assessed by the Sheriff&apos;s department for copying the material provided to X and his wife. She cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3 that authorizes a responsible authority to require a person requesting copies to pay the actual costs associated with providing the copies. She stated that X was charged the same charges that all individuals who request copies from the Sheriff are required to pay. She stated a belief that these charges . . . fairly compensate the County for all of the activities authorized by the statute.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Lastly, Ms. Kushner discussed the justification for the deletion of certain data from the records that were provided to X and his wife. In explaining the Sheriff&apos;s justification for deleting the data, she referenced Lieutenant Dornbusch&apos;s letter of June 29, 1994, in which the Lieutenant, speaking for the Sheriff, cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 5a and 10 (d) as the statutory provisions on which access to certain data was denied. She stated that Lieutenant Dornbusch&apos;s reference to Section 13.82, subdivision 5a also, by reference, includes a basis for denying access to data under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556. She stated, in explaining the Sheriff&apos;s basis for denying access under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d), that the Sheriff had denied access . . . after receiving communications from witnesses who feared reprisals from X based on threatening statements they had heard him make.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              To further document the Sheriff&apos;s position, Ms. Kushner provided PIPA copies of the data in question in both edited (data deleted as explained above) and unedited (no deletions of data) versions. Ms. Kushner provided the unedited version on an understanding that the data would be treated as confidential pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 4.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In his request for an opinion, X raised the following issues:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Did the Sheriff&apos;s office in general and Investigator Johnson in particular have any basis to their denial of my file?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Are the costs assessed by the Sheriff&apos;s department for copying the material excessive?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                          Do the deletions made by the Sheriff to the records eventually provided have a basis in law? Was the Sheriff&apos;s department required to justify each deletion or omission with particularity?
                        &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Statutory guidance, that will provide the framework within which answers to the first and third issues raised by X and his wife, is found in the section of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that regulates law enforcement data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 establishes the following classifications for criminal investigative data:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot;&gt;
                  . . . investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, . . . for the commission of a crime or civil wrong is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Inactive investigative data is public unless the release of the data would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identify of individuals protected under subdivision 10.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Section 13.82, subdivision 5 provides specific guidance as to when a criminal investigation becomes temporarily or permanently inactive. The occurrence of any one of three specific developments in a specific criminal investigation will, subject to certain exceptions, render an investigation inactive. These developments include: a decision by a law enforcement agency or the appropriate prosecutor not to pursue the case, expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged crime or exhaustion or expiration of the rights of appeal of a person convicted on the basis of the investigative data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Generally when criminal investigations become inactive, most of the data collected, created and maintained for the investigation become public. However, the legislature has made certain exceptions to that general rule. Since Section 13.82 was first enacted, in 1981, the legislature has provided for the protection of the identities of certain types of individuals in both active and inactive investigative files. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1981, Chapter 311.) From time to time, the legislature adds to the list of identities protected. (See, for example, Session Laws of Minnesota 1991, Chapter 319.) In 1989, the legislature provided that criminal investigative data that relate to the alleged abuse or neglect of a child by a person responsible for the child&apos;s care, and that become inactive because of a decision by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor not to pursue the case or because the statute of limitations has run, do not become public data but instead become private data. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1989, Chapter 351.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 1
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Access by X and his wife to the Sheriff&apos;s investigative data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  When X and his wife first approached the Sheriff on June 8, 1994, they were eventually, after a persistent inquiries, told that the data which they requested was part of an active criminal investigative file and was therefore confidential data. A written statement that this was the position of the Sheriff was provided to them after Mr. Plisner had directed his June 22, 1994 letter to the Sheriff. This is the letter from Lieutenant Dornbusch to Mr. Plisner described above.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X and his wife made their initial request for this data on June 8, 1994. Their attorney made his written request in a letter dated June 22, 1994. The copies of the investigative file provided by the Sheriff include a form entitled Investigative Disposition Supplementary . This form includes a notation that the criminal prosecution of the case was declined after review of the case by the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office. The form also contains the following notation: Case closed pending additional information. The form is dated June 28, 1994. It appears from this form that when X and his wife made their June 8, 1994, request for access to the investigative file, an alleged criminal act was still under investigation. This file contained active criminal investigative data and therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, the criminal investigative file was classified as confidential and the data contained therein was not accessible by X and his wife.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In his letter requesting this opinion, X stated that he had been advised by the Ramsey County Human Services Department that the investigation had been closed. This statement from another department of Ramsey County contributed to a concern on the part of X and his wife and their attorney that the Sheriff was improperly denying them access to data. The reality is that a report of alleged maltreatment of a child will yield two separate inquiries into that report. In response to a report concerning any alleged maltreatment, child protection units within the human services system are mandated to do an assessment to determine whether maltreatment has occurred and whether child protective services are needed. Parents and alleged perpetrators must be given notice of these determinations. (Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivisions 10, 10e and 10f.) In response to a report alleging maltreatment, the nature of which could be the basis for a criminal prosecution, law enforcement agencies are mandated to do a criminal investigation to determine, in consultation with prosecutors, whether criminal charges should be brought. (Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 10.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is in the nature of these two separate and distinct activities of assessment and investigation that they may be concluded at different times and may yield different results. With regard to timing, this appears to be what happened to X and his wife. They were notified by Ramsey Human Services that the child protection personnel assessment of alleged maltreatment of their child had been completed. However, this assessment had no bearing on the status of the data in the active criminal investigation being conducted by the Sheriff. Although this may be confusing to citizens, it is also a very probable result given the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 and the workings of the Data Practices Act. In this particular situation, the Sheriff could deny X and his wife access to the active criminal investigative file even though the Ramsey County Human Services agency had told X and his wife the child protection assessment/investigation was closed.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 2
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Cost of the copies provided by to X and his wife.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X and his wife were charged by the Sheriff $5 for the first page and $1 for each additional page for the data they requested. The receipt provided by X indicates that they were charged a total or $37.00 by the Sheriff. This means that they received 33 pages of documents from the Sheriff. In support of that charge, Ms. Kushner cites Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3 which allows responsible authorities to require a person requesting copies of public data to pay the actual costs of providing the data. She goes on to state that X and his wife were charged the same charges for copies that all individuals who ask for copies of government data are charged.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The position of the Sheriff is incorrect. First, the data that X and his wife asked for was not public data. Given the operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5b, the data they sought was classified as private. It appears from the correspondence provided by X and his wife that they were making their requests as data subjects and not as members of the public. Their request for access to the data, including receipt of copies, was subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statues Section 13.04, subdivision 3 and not to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, agencies are not authorized to charge data subjects for the cost of searching out data to be copied, as is allowed under Section 13.03, subdivision 3. This is consistent with a related policy, stated in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that requires government entities to inform data subjects, upon request and at no charge to them, that they are data subjects. If agencies could impose a charge for searching out the data that tells them that a given individual is a data subject, they would be able to charge to individuals the costs of doing something they are required to do at no charge by statute. If the Sheriff charges all individuals requesting copies of data the same charges, and does not differentiate between requests from the public and from data subjects, that position would appear to be in conflict with the statutory provisions discussed above.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  There is an additional problem with the Sheriff&apos;s position. Ms. Kushner stated that the charges of $5 for the first page and $1 for each additional page were the same charges made to everyone who asks for copies of data and were intended to . . . compensate the County for all of the activities authorized by the statute. The actual statement of policy contained in Section 13.03, reflects a legislative judgment that a government entity ought to be able to recover its actual costs for providing copies of public data. Charging everyone the same price for copies may be fair to some individuals and not to others. Whether the charge is fair is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a standard charge of $5.00 per page for the first page of public data requested to be copied and a charge of $1.00 per page for each additional page reflects the actual costs to the Sheriff of providing copies of public data. The legislative policy, as set forth in Section 13.03, subdivision 3 does not authorize a government entity to be compensated for all of its activities but allows the entity, if it so chooses, to recover the actual costs of providing copies of public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X&apos;s and his wife&apos;s request illustrates the problem. Assuming that X and his wife were actually asking for copies of public data, which they were not, they were charged $37.00 for getting copies of a file and a portion of another file. Most of the pages copied appear to have come from one investigative file. It is reasonable to assume that those pages were kept in one place in the Sheriff&apos;s filing system. The placement of the data in one location would minimize the time necessary to search out the data. As the Act does not allow an entity to charge for separating public from not public data, the time necessary to prepare this file for copying would mean removing any staples or clips and carrying it to a copying machine. The actual copying of 33 pages of materials would also entail a minimal expenditure of time on the part of clerical staff of the Sheriff. Depending on the actual type of copying equipment used by the Sheriff, compilation of the copies was probably an automatic part of the copying process. It is also important to note that at no time did X and his wife request certified copies and no notices of certification appear on the copies provided to them. It does not seem likely that searching for, retrieving, and making copies of 33 pages of data taken from two files of the Sheriff&apos;s office would yield $37.00 in actual costs to the Sheriff.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Issue 3
                &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Deletions of data from the data provided and justifications for each of those deletions.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  When copies of the inactive investigative data were provided to X and his wife, the Sheriff deleted certain items of data from those copies. In his letter to Mr. Plisner, Lieutenant Dornbusch explained that the Sheriff would not make available data classified as confidential under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5a and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d). In her comments on behalf of the Sheriff, Ms. Kushner cited Section 13.03 that requires responsible authorities to cite a specific statutory basis for denying access to public data. She stated that Lieutenant Dornbusch&apos;s letter was in compliance with that requirement. She also noted that Lieutenant Dornbusch&apos;s citation to 13.82, subdivision 5a would, by reference, include a classification of data as confidential under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 as a basis for a denial of access. In summary, the Sheriff&apos;s position is that X was properly denied access to the data that was deleted from the copies of data provided to him because the deleted data would either identify a reporter of child maltreatment or would identify witnesses who feared reprisals from X based on threatening statements they had heard him make.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Review of the materials provided by the Sheriff reveals that the Sheriff generally deleted three types of data from the copies of the data provided to X and his wife. Deleted were: data associated with the identity of the individuals who made reports alleging maltreatment of X&apos;s and his wife&apos;s children; data identifying witnesses who expressed concern about alleged threats by X; and a portion of a Ramsey County Human Services Child Protection Assessment. Examination of the statutory basis for the deletion of each of those types of data follows.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11 classifies the names of reporters of maltreatment as confidential. In addition to classifying the name of the reporter as confidential, this statutory provision makes it a misdemeanor for persons conducting assessments or investigations to reveal the name of the reporter while a report of maltreatment is under investigation or assessment. This subdivision also puts a heavy burden on any subject of a maltreatment report who tries to require release of the name of the reporter by a court. Disclosure by a court of the name of a reporter requires a written finding by the court that the report was false and that there is evidence the report was made in bad faith. Chapter 13 adds an additional element to the treatment of data about reporters, in active or inactive criminal investigative files, by clarifying that data that identifies reporters, and not just their names, are classified as confidential data. In the interest of encouraging reports of child maltreatment, the legislature has put an extremely high wall around data that identifies reporters.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In deciding what data concerning the reporter to delete from the data provided to X and his wife, the Sheriff not only deleted the name and other specific data that could identify the reporter but also deleted other data identifying associates of the reporter and other data that could possibly identify the reporter. It is not clear from the information provided if all of that data would indeed identify the reporter. However, in light of the very strong policy statement the legislature has presented in Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.556 and 13.82, subdivision 5a, it is not surprising that the Sheriff applied a rule that appears to say: If there is any chance that certain data might reveal the identify of a child maltreatment reporter, including names of associates, then do not release the data. Given the specific guidance provided by the legislature and the policy implicit in that guidance, the Sheriff&apos;s position is understandable and defensible under Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The language protecting crime victims and witnesses in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d) states that names of victims and witnesses will be private data in those instances when the victim or witness . . . specifically requests not to be identified publicly, and the agency reasonably determines that revealing the identify of the victim or witness would threaten the personal safety of the witness. It is clear that the language requires a two step process. First, the law enforcement agency must receive a specific request from victim or witness to protect their identity. Second, the law enforcement agency must examine that request and make a reasonable determination as to whether revealing the victim&apos;s or witness identity would threaten their personal safety or property.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is reasonably clear from the data provided by the Sheriff that in this instance the Sheriff did receive requests from witnesses interviewed that their identities be protected. What is not clear from the data provided is whether the Sheriff made the reasonable determination, required by Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d), that in the interest of the protection of the personal safety or property of these witnesses it indeed was reasonable to protect their identities. When this statutory provision was being considered by the legislature, there was concern that while requests for protection of identities by victims and witnesses could very well be legitimate, always protecting their identities could deprive the public of access to sources of information and could allow individuals to make negative remarks about someone else without accountability. To balance those interests, the legislature provided for the two step process that is outlined in Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d).
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  When a law enforcement agency receives a request for protection of identity, Section 13.82, subdivision 10 requires that the agency make an independent and reasonable determination based on facts and circumstances as to whether the request ought to be honored. It should also be noted that in 1993, in response to concerns that this provision was not being properly administered, the legislature required agencies to establish procedures to acquire the data necessary to make the decisions concerning protection of identities of victims and witnesses. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 351, Section 18.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The data provided by the Sheriff contains no explanation of the process or procedures the Sheriff followed in making the determinations required by the Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d). If the Sheriff merely concluded that it would honor the requests made and not do the independent determination that is required by this section, then it has not done what is required by the Act. A decision to withhold data identifying a witness in that circumstance would not be proper. It could be that the Sheriff has made the independent determination required and has established procedures that document how that determination is made. However, there is nothing in the data or response provided by Ms. Kushner that indicates that is the case.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Lastly, the Sheriff deleted from a copy of a Ramsey County Child Protection Report a notation that a person provided information. There is nothing that indicates this person was a child maltreatment reporter or a person related in such a way to a reporter that revealing this person&apos;s identify would reveal the identity of the reporter. In addition, there is nothing that indicates that this person was a witness who requested that their identity be protected and that the Sheriff had reasonably determined their identity should be protected. This deletion is somewhat curious because it was deleted from the child protection assessment that is classified as private by Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11. This assessment is available as private data to X and his wife. In light of the above, it appears that this particular deletion was not justified.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In the second half of the issue raised by X, he asked whether the Sheriff is required to justify each deletion or omission with particularity. In this instance, the Sheriff has indicated specific sections of Minnesota Statutes that are the basis for denying X and his wife access to the data in question. Although this does not track each item deleted and state a specific statutory basis for deleting that item, it does provide the information required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. The method used by the Sheriff to provide that citation, in this instance, also avoids the issue of whether providing the statutory basis directly associated with each specific item deleted could, contextually, identify a specific individual protected by a statutory section. On balance, X has received the information required by Section 13.03, subdivision 3 so he knows the basis on which the Sheriff determined not to release the data and the Sheriff has avoided the possibility of identifying a person by specifically associating the statutory basis with the data deleted. In this instance, that is a reasonable compromise of conflicting imperatives.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion as to the issues raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As to Issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;, denial of access to the investigative file, the Sheriff&apos;s position was justified at the time the initial request for access was made because the active criminal investigative data was classified as confidential by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As to Issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;, the costs of providing copies of the data, the Sheriff&apos;s practice of a standard charge of $5 for the first page and $1 for each additional page is excessive in light of the requirements of the Act that charges for copies be computed on the basis of whether the person requesting the data is the subject of the data or is a member of the public and on the basis of the costs of the actual activities necessary to provide the copies.
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As to Issue 3&lt;/strong&gt;, deletion of certain data from the copies provided to X, some of the data was justifiably withheld because it is data classified as confidential under Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.556, subdivision 11 and Section 13.82, subdivision 5a. It appears that some of the data withheld may have been improperly withheld because the Sheriff did not perform the determinations required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 10 (d) or did not have statutory basis for withholding data under either Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11, Section 13.82, subdivision 5a or 10 (d).
                            &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: August 3, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267216</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Flat or standard fee</Title><Id>266307</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-027</Title><title>Opinion 94 027</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267379&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-07-20T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether these disclosures of educational data, as described by X&apos;s parents in their request letter, were improper disclosures of private educational data by agents of the School District?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>July 20, 1994; School District 273 (Edina)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On June 13, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner received a request for an opinion from X&apos;s parents. X is an elementary school student in Independent School District Number 273, the Edina School system and hereinafter Edina. A summary of the facts X&apos;s parents alleged in their request is as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 23, 1993, the X&apos;s parents attended a student conference concerning their son at his elementary school. In addition to his classroom teacher, other personnel of Edina were present at the conference. Following this conference, X&apos;s parents sent a letter, dated November 30, 1993, to Dr. Kenneth Dragseth, the Superintendent of Schools in Edina. In the letter, the X&apos;s parents made complaints about how the conference was handled and about certain attitudes and statements of their son&apos;s classroom teacher. According to X&apos;s parents, the sending of this letter triggered a series of events in which various personnel of Edina disseminated private educational data about them and their son to the public. X&apos;s parents identified their son&apos;s classroom teacher, the principal of his school, an assistant superintendent and a school nurse as the employees of Edina who had, in the opinion of X&apos;s parents, improperly disseminated data about them and their son. A summary of the alleged improper dissemination for each of those employees is as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to X&apos;s parents, the classroom teacher made comments to students in her class and to parents of students about the letter, about her feelings about the letter and about X and his parents. X&apos;s parents provided some details about these instances of allegedly improper disseminations of private educational data. For example, they stated that the classroom teacher had a conference with a parent of another student in X&apos;s class. According to the X&apos;s parents, the classroom teacher told this parent about the general situation of X&apos;s parents&apos; complaints and also told her that, contrary to certain rumors, X&apos;s parents were not suing the classroom teacher or Edina. In providing details about these alleged improper disseminations, the X&apos;s parents did not include specific items of information such as names of students or parents who had received data about them or their son.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X&apos;s parents also stated that the principal of X&apos;s school had made comments about X&apos;s status in meetings and conversations with parents who were upset about what they had heard was contained in X&apos;s parents&apos; letter to Dr. Dragseth or who had contacted the principal to ask questions about the situation. X&apos;s parents described other instances in which they believe parents had improperly received information from the principal about them, X and the situation.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X&apos;s parents then described a situation in which they believe that a mother of another student at X&apos;s school had provided data about X&apos;s parents and X to other people. According to X&apos;s parents, this particular person told people that the information she was sharing had been provided to her by an assistant superintendent for Edina. According to X&apos;s parents this information included such things as statements that X&apos;s parents were suing the District for millions of dollars and that associating with X&apos;s parents could have a negative effect on a parent&apos;s relationship with Edina.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Lastly, X&apos;s parents described an incident in which the parent of another student with whom X had had an altercation discussed details of the incident with X&apos;s mother. According to X&apos;s parents, this parent told them she had received information about the incident from a school nurse and that the nurse had told her that she had to contact this parent outside of normal working hours because of some kind of situation with X&apos;s parents.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Following this recitation of alleged disclosures of data, X&apos;s parents then asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion as to whether these disclosures were improper.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s parents&apos; request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Dragseth, Edina&apos;s superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated June 15, 1994, were to inform Dr. Dragseth of X&apos;s parents&apos; request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Dragseth or Edina&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for Edina&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 21, 1994, Mr. Paul Ratwik, the attorney for Edina, contacted PIPA and asked for an extension of time in which to make a response to X&apos;s parents&apos; request. Given the allegations of X&apos;s parents, Mr. Ratwik stated that Edina needed more time to gather information from employees, some of whom had departed for summer break, in order for Edina to make a response to X&apos;s parents&apos; request. PIPA agreed to extend additional time and, in a letter dated June 24, 1994, informed X&apos;s parents of that extension and a probable new date for issuance of the opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 8, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Nancy E. Blumstein, another attorney for Edina. In this letter, the attorneys for Edina, while possibly reserving the right to submit a further response to the Commissioner&apos;s request for information, raised issues and made arguments for the proposition that the Commissioner does not have the authority to issue an opinion in this instance. A summary of the arguments presented by Edina&apos;s attorneys follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              It is the opinion of Edina&apos;s attorneys that the Commissioner can render opinions concerning Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter the Act or Chapter 13, only in certain circumstances and in the presence of certain conditions. According to the Edina attorneys, the Commissioner, when asked for an opinion by a citizen, can issue an opinion concerning the only citizen&apos;s . . . rights as a subject of the government data or rights to access to this data. In addition, the Edina attorneys argue that the Commissioner can issue an opinion only after a determination about data practices has been made by the governmental entity with whom a citizen is having a disagreement.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In this particular instance, Edina&apos;s attorneys argue that Edina has not made any determinations regarding data practices that affect X&apos;s parents or their son. The Edina attorneys also argue that even if Edina has made a determination with which X&apos;s parents disagree, the Commissioner is not authorized to issue an opinion on the rights of X&apos;s parents that would be implicated by the facts of this situation. Edina&apos;s attorneys state that the rights of X&apos;s parents about which the Commissioner may issue an opinion concern only rights under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 and the right to seek redress under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08. In the view of the Edina attorneys, X&apos;s parents&apos; request for an opinion about whether Edina improperly disclosed private data about them does not involve their rights under Chapter 13 and therefore is not appropriate for an opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Edina&apos;s attorneys go on to argue that for the Commissioner to render an opinion on the allegations of X&apos;s parents would require her to make determinations of fact and she does not have the authority or the resources to do so. They expressed concern that the Commissioner&apos;s statement of the issue to be addressed in the opinion assumed that X&apos;s parents&apos; allegations were correct. As an alternative to the issuance of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the Edina attorneys conclude that the options for citizens to sue government agencies or to seek personnel and criminal sanctions under Sections 13.08 and 13.09 of the Act offer the proper methods for checking agency compliance and for determining the facts of a dispute between citizens and government agencies. In their opinion, Any opinion rendered by the Commissioner in this matter would effectively subvert this legislatively created mechanism.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In summary, the attorneys for Edina state that the District does not feel it is appropriate to respond to the factual allegations made by X&apos;s parents until the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s powers under the opinion statute is clarified. They also indicated that Edina reserved the right to ask for an Attorney General&apos;s opinion on the Commissioner&apos;s authority and the right to file a declaratory judgement action on this question.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On July 14, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X&apos;s parents. They had received a copy of the letter submitted by Edina&apos;s attorneys and offered arguments in their letter as to why the positions taken by Edina&apos;s attorneys are not correct. They concluded their arguments with a renewed request for the Commissioner to issue an opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue raised by X&apos;s parents in their request, as restated in the letter sent to Edina for comment, was as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Whether these disclosures of educational data, as described by X&apos;s parents in their request letter, were improper disclosures of private educational data by agents of the School District?
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                Before addressing this issue, the issues raised by Edina&apos;s attorneys concerning the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s authority in general and in this particular instance must be addressed. On two previous occasions involving requests for opinions by parents involving two other school districts, Mr. Ratwik and Ms. Blumstein have raised issues concerning the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions. In each of those instances, the Commissioner&apos;s opinion has stated her view as to the scope of her authority and the statutory basis for that position. The position of the Commissioner as discussed in those other opinions remains unchanged and copies of those opinions are enclosed for information of those reviewing this opinion so that they may see the basis for the Commissioner&apos;s position concerning the scope of her authority. To the extent that Edina believes it is important to its interests to seek a declaratory judgement on the issue of the Commissioner&apos;s authority, it is certainly free to do so. Edina, the Commissioner and possibly other government agencies might then possibly be saved from a continued, expensive and ongoing discussion about the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s authority.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Edina&apos;s attorneys express concern that the statement of the issue raised by X&apos;s parents assumes that Edina has done something improper and that to make a determination about this issue would make the Commissioner a finder of fact. The statement of the issue in this instance, as it has been in other Commissioner&apos;s opinions, is a statement or restatement of the citizen&apos;s view of what the citizen believes the dispute to be about. In X&apos;s parents&apos; view, Edina has improperly disclosed private educational data. In their request, they merely ask the Commissioner to issue an opinion as to whether or not she agrees with their belief.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Edina attorneys conclude that to deal with this issue, the Commissioner must become a finder of fact and that she does not have the authority or resources to do so. The role of facts and the authority and resources of the Commissioner related to the establishment or assumption of facts were previously discussed in the two opinions described above. These opinions should be consulted for the details of the Commissioner&apos;s view as to her authority to use facts in issuing an opinion.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Edina&apos;s attorneys also urge that an opinion by the Commissioner, in this instance, would subvert the role that civil remedies and criminal and personnel sanctions, established in Sections 13.08 and 13.09 of the Act, play in ensuring agency compliance. This argument misses the obvious. Part of the reason the legislature determined to try a process in which the Commissioner issues opinions was based on negative experiences of both agencies and the public in resolving disputes under Chapter 13 by using recourse only to traditional conflict resolution methods such as civil litigation and imposition of penalties. Contrary to the statement that the Commissioner&apos;s role in issuing opinions would subvert those remedies and penalties, the role of the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, as assigned by the legislature, is to act as an alternative and a supplement to those traditional methods of resolving disputes.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In addition to the general arguments made by the Edina attorneys as described above, they have also argued that the Commissioner should not render an opinion in this matter because the question raised by X&apos;s parents does not involve the rights of their son or themselves under the Act. In addition the Edina attorneys also argue that an opinion of the Commissioner can be issued only after a determination about data practices has been made by a government agency. In this instance, the Edina attorneys argue that no determination about data practices has been made by Edina. The Commissioner&apos;s response to each of these specific argument is as follows.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  According to the Edina attorneys, the Commissioner can issue an opinion only concerning a citizen&apos;s . . . rights as a subject of government data or rights to access this data. This view of the Commissioner&apos;s authority seems to conclude that the Commissioner can issue opinions only about an individual&apos;s rights as the subject of government data and the right to access data of which the citizen is a subject. This is not the statement of the Commissioner&apos;s authority that appears in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072. The Commissioner can actually issue an opinion to a citizen about . . . the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, subdivision 1.) Contrary to the conclusion of the Edina attorneys, a citizen may ask for and receive an opinion about the right to gain access to data even if the citizen is not the subject of the data in question.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In discussing what rights of citizens are appropriate for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the Edina attorneys argue that these are only the rights set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, a section of the Act which is captioned Rights of Subjects of Data. However, the Edina attorneys assert that the Commissioner also has the authority to offer opinions to citizens about their right to seek redress under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, the civil remedies section of the Act. In the actual language of the opinion statute itself, there is no detailed explanation as to what rights the legislature says are appropriate for opinions. When the statute says that citizens can ask the Commissioner for an opinion about their rights, there is no cross reference to Section 13.04 in that statement. If the legislature wanted to clearly limit the Commissioner&apos;s authority to deal only with the rights of data subjects under Section 13.04, it could have done so. However, it did not.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   There is general agreement that one of the rights established by the Act is the right of a subject of private data not to have that data disseminated to the public or to persons not legally authorized to have access to or receive the data. (See &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. 1989), in which the Supreme Court discusses the classification of some employee personnel data as private data and concludes this classification establishes privacy rights for public employees.) It seems clear that the establishment by the legislature of classifications of various data as private gives subjects of that data a privacy right about which that citizen can seek an opinion from the Commissioner.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If the Commissioner assumes arguendo that she has the right to issue opinions only about the rights of data subjects as set forth in Section 13.04, then she must also ask whether the issue presented by X&apos;s parents implicates a right conferred on them by Section 13.04. Based on the information available to the Commissioner, it is possible that the rights conferred on X&apos;s parents and their son by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, the so-called Tennessen Warning requirement, may be implicated in the issue they have presented to the Commissioner. (A more detailed discussion about the effect of this provision on X&apos;s parents&apos; rights is found below.) An alleged improper disclosure of private data, if the private data has been collected from the data subject, will directly implicate Section 13.04, subdivision 2 and, even in the narrow interpretation of the opinion statute urged by the Edina attorneys, a request for an opinion about the individual&apos;s rights as a data subject will be appropriate.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Edina attorneys also argue that the Commissioner cannot issue an opinion until after a determination concerning data practices has been made by a government agency and a citizen asks for an opinion concerning that determination. In this instance, the Edina attorneys argue that Edina has not made determinations regarding data practices, therefore there is nothing with which X&apos;s parents may disagree, and therefore an opinion is not appropriate. It is clear from the submission of X&apos;s parents&apos; letter that they believe that Edina has made determinations regarding data practices that affect X&apos;s parents and their son and that they strongly disagree with those determinations.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The Commissioner has previously indicated that she will not issue these formal written opinions in hypothetical situations or where there has not been a determination by a government agency that affects a data subject&apos;s rights or a citizen&apos;s right to gain access to government data. However, this need for a determination by an agency should not be interpreted in such a way that an agency could avoid ever having to deal with a Commissioner&apos;s opinion by refusing to make determinations that affect data practices. In some cases, a determination necessary to a Commissioner&apos;s opinion may be a determination regarding just exactly how a government entity has chosen or not chosen to comply with provisions of the Act that affect rights of data subjects or the right of the public to gain access to data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  It is important to remember that virtually all of the rights of citizens under Chapter 13 have a procedural implication for government agencies. For citizens to be assured of their rights, agencies must establish, implement and administer certain procedures. Citizen rights under the Act are meaningless, outside the context of a law suit, if government agencies do not make the necessary data classification or other determinations that are required to be made by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Rights of citizens are actualized only when agencies establish and enforce the appropriate policies and procedures that stem from those determinations. It is this ongoing process of establishing the policies and procedures required by Chapter 13, and applying those policies and procedures in specific instances, that constitute data practices determinations for purposes of compliance with Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, certain of the determinations of Edina, as it has made decisions, established policies and procedures and taken actions to comply with the Act, will have a direct bearing on the allegations of X&apos;s parents that the District has improperly disclosed private data to the public. For example, the notice required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, must include statements as to how a government entity intends to use data it seeks to collect for internal purposes and the section also requires that data subjects be informed of the identity of persons outside the entity to whom the collected data can lawfully be disseminated. How any government entity, including Edina, implements that particular provision constitutes a determination concerning data practices.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In conclusion, it is the position of the Commissioner that she has the authority to deal with issues such as those raised by X&apos;s parents because they involve rights of X&apos;s parents under the Act that are implicated by data practices determinations made by Edina.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Because of the decision of Edina not to provide specific factual responses to the allegations of X&apos;s parents, the Commissioner is forced into a situation of being able to use information provided by one only of the parties to this dispute. Use of conditional terminology and phraseology throughout the balance of this opinion reflects that reality.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The alleged improper disclosures of data described by X&apos;s parents all revolve around the same common theme. X&apos;s parents state that they are having a dispute with Edina about the education of their son. As part of that dispute, they sent a letter to the Edina superintendent and copied other school personnel. According to X&apos;s parents, details of the data contained in that letter and other data about them and their son have been disseminated to members of the public by agents of Edina. Specifically, X&apos;s parents identify a classroom teacher, a school principal, an assistant school superintendent and a school nurse as agents of Edina who have allegedly disseminated data to the public. The public in question in this particular instance seems to be largely parents of children who are either active in school affairs or who have children at the same school attended by X&apos;s parents&apos; son.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, educational data is defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution, or by a person acting for the agency or institution that relates to a student. (Minnesota Statues Section 13.32, subdivision a.) With limited exceptions that do not appear to be germane here, educational data are private data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3.) By definition, private data is data that is accessible by the subject of the data, or in the case of a minor by the parents of the minor, but private data cannot be made accessible to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  X&apos;s parents also contend that in addition to data about their son being disclosed to other students and parents, data about them has also been disclosed to other parents. It is important to note that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 also regulates the handling of data on parents by educational agencies and institutions. Specifically, this section says that data about parents . . . shall be considered educational data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 2.) When read in conjunction with the language in Section 13.32 that declares the educational data are private, this language evidences legislative intent that school districts and other educational agencies and institutions should treat data they collect, create and maintain about parents as private educational data that also should not be disclosed to the public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Under the Act, X&apos;s parents and their son enjoy the right not to have private data about them disclosed to the public. They also enjoy the right to have private data about them disclosed only to persons outside Edina who are specifically authorized by law to have access to private educational data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 subdivision 9.) In dealing with Edina, X&apos;s parents also have the right to have private data about them disclosed only to employees and other agents of Edina whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data. (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Chapter 1205.0400 and 1205.0500.) To the extent that Edina has asked X&apos;s parents or X to provide private data about themselves to the school district, X&apos;s parents and their son have the right not to have that data used or disseminated for any purpose other than those communicated to them at the time the data was collected from them. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2 and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivisions 3 and 4.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The alleged improper disclosures described by X&apos;s parents, depending on the complete facts and circumstances, may implicate all of the rights of X&apos;s parents described in the previous paragraph. A review of Chapter 13 does not reveal any authority for the disseminations of data concerning X&apos;s parents by agents of Edina as has been alleged by X&apos;s parents. Whether Edina absolutely disputes that the alleged disseminations have taken place or has an explanation or justification for them is not known to the Commissioner because Edina has chosen not to provide her with that information.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  If we take as correct the allegations of X&apos;s parents that various agents of Edina have disclosed to Edina students and parents data about X, about X&apos;s parents themselves and about the details of the ongoing educational dispute between X&apos;s parents and Edina, then this disclosure of data would be to persons who are members of the public. Dissemination of private educational data about students and parents by a school district to the public is specifically prohibited by Chapter 13 and, to the extent that such disseminations actually occurred in this instance, those disclosures of data would constitute a violation of Chapter 13.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, subject to the qualifications discussed above, my opinion on the issue raised by X&apos;s parents is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is my opinion that without the consent of a data subject or, in the case of a minor, the consent of the minor&apos;s parent, private educational data about students or their parents cannot be disclosed to other parents or students. An instance of dissemination of private educational data to other parents or students is, for purposes of Chapter 13, an improper disclosure of data to the public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: July 20, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267379</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent data</Title><Id>266386</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Intergovernmental access (13.05, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266387</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-026</Title><title>Opinion 94 026</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267425&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-06-28T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the recorded minutes of the meeting of a public body public data prior to their formal approval by the body at a subsequent meeting?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 28, 1994; City of Byron</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On May 31, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, the attorney for the Byron Review, a newspaper located in Byron, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson described attempts by his client to gain access to data prepared by the City of Byron, hereinafter Byron , and asked for an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below. The facts Mr. Anfinson recited concerning his client&apos;s disagreement with Byron are as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Byron Review periodically covers meetings of the Park Board of Byron. The Park Board generally meets once a month. As part of the meeting, minutes of the Park Board are routinely recorded in writing. These minutes are considered to be preliminary minutes until the next meeting of the Board. At that meeting, the preliminary minutes are reviewed, any necessary amendments made and then the minutes are formally approved. Mr. Anfinson stated that in the past the Park Board provided copies of preliminary minutes to his client. However, the Board recently changed the policy and now refuses to release copies of the minutes until they have been formally approved.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Anfinson went on to argue that under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter MGDPA , preliminary minutes must be considered public data. His client asks for access to the preliminary minutes, in part, because of the month long period between minutes. Mr. Anfinson stated that he knew of no law that would classify preliminary minutes as other than public data. He then asked the Commissioner of Administration to address the issue discussed below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Mark Behl, the clerk/administrator of Byron. The purposes of this letter, dated June 3, 1994, were to inform Mr. Behl of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Behl or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the City&apos;s position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On June 13, 1994, PIPA received a phone message from Mr. Phillip Gartner, the city attorney for Byron. In that message, Mr. Gartner indicated that the City of Byron was willing to release the minutes to the public and therefore an opinion was not necessary. On June 16, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Behl. That letter stated that after review with the Byron city attorney, the Park Board was willing to release the minutes.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to that information from Byron and its attorney, PIPA consulted by phone with Mr. Anfinson about whether an opinion was still required. He acknowledged that Byron was willing to provide minutes but asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issue he had raised because the issue comes up with some frequency. In those instances, an opinion could be very helpful to assist the public and agencies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
              The issue raised by Mr. Anfinson in his request was as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Are the recorded minutes of the meeting of a public body public data prior to their formal approval by the body at a subsequent meeting?
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                It must be emphasized that in this particular instance, Byron has decided to make the preliminary minutes of its Park Board meetings available to the public. Although Byron has complied with Chapter 13 and made public data available to the public, the Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s assessment that this issue does arise with some frequency and that an opinion may be helpful to both the public and entities subject to Chapter 13.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Under Chapter 13, all government data are presumed to be available for access by the public, either by physical inspection of the data or receipt of copies, unless the government data are classified as not public by state statute or federal law. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.) For purposes of Chapter 13, government data is defined in very broad terms as follows:
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&apos;Government data&apos; means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 7.)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Recorded minutes of the meeting of a public body are public government data prior to the minutes being formally approved by the body at a subsequent meeting &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: June 28, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267425</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Draft documents</Title><Id>266609</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minutes, personal notes</Title><Id>266615</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:42:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-025</Title><title>Opinion 94 025</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267897&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-06-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>What is public information regarding mediation in the data of the Authority?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 24, 1994; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On May 16, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a request for an opinion from Patricia J. Hughes, the Executive Director of the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority, hereinafter Authority . In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hughes stated the following facts.
&lt;p&gt;The Authority was established by an ordinance of the City of Minneapolis to receive, consider and make determinations regarding complaints made by citizens alleging misconduct by any Minneapolis police officer. If the Authority sustains a complaint by a citizen, the complaint is forwarded to the Chief of Police for a disciplinary decision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of its process of handling citizen complaints, the Authority, in an appropriate circumstance will suggest that the complainant and the police officer use mediation as a possible means to resolve the complaint. If the parties cannot agree to use mediation or if a mediation attempt is unsuccessful, the complaint will be referred for investigation by the Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Administrative Rules promulgated by the Authority, mediation is an informal process held before a neutral third party. (Ms. Hughes provided a copy of these rules as part of her submission to the Commissioner.) Except in situations involving children and vulnerable adults, the only persons allowed to attend the mediation session are the complainant, the officer and the mediator. No record is made of the mediation proceeding and no information discussed can be used in subsequent proceedings. The Authority or its agents do monitor the mediation process and the implementation of any mediation agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Hughes, the Authority&apos;s file about a complaint could include the following information about mediation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That one or both of the parties refused mediation;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That the parties mediated but came to no resolution;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That the complaint was successfully mediated;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That the successful mediation occurred prior to, during or after an investigation, but prior to any final decision about discipline; and ,&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;That, in rare cases, discipline was agreed to as part of the mediation agreement and that there is a final disposition.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Hughes further related that the Minneapolis City Attorney&apos;s Office has given the Authority an opinion as to the classification of data related to the mediation of complaints. However, because of the importance of mediation to the Authority&apos;s functioning, the Authority decided to also seek the opinion of the Commissioner about the classification of mediation data in Authority files. She then stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that is reproduced in the Issue section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 20, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Ann E. Walther. Ms. Walther identified herself as the attorney for the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation. She asked for the opportunity to make comment on the issue raised by the Authority in its request for an opinion. In a letter dated May 26, 1994, Ms. Walther was informed by PIPA that she could comment on the issue raised by the Authority. On June 6, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Walther. In that letter, Ms. Walther made the following comments about the issue raised by the Authority.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mediation of civilian review complaints is facilitated by an organization called the Minneapolis Mediation Services. According to Ms. Walther, this organization is not a government agency and any data it collects is not government data within the terms of the Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With respect to mediation data in the possession of the Authority, it is Ms. Walther&apos;s contention that the data is private personnel data as classified by Minnesota Statues Section 13.43. Ms. Walther did point out that public personnel data may include . . . the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship. However, she maintained that Ms. Hughes had stated that the Authority only receives a notification of the outcome of a mediation, successful or unsuccessful, and that this notification of outcome cannot be considered to be the terms of an agreement. She also pointed out that what she called notification of outcome data does not appear on the list of public personnel data, in Section 13.43, and therefore must be private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She then provided her opinion on the status of mediation data where the mediation might result in an agreement between the parties for the officer to accept discipline. She argued that because the discipline was agreed to at the Minneapolis Mediation Service, the data is not government data. Because Chapter 13 does not apply to the data, the issue of final disposition is irrelevant. While the fact that discipline was carried out by the City will be public data, the data supporting the discipline is not government data, and therefore is not covered by the Act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Ms. Walther stated that the Police Federation was strongly opposed to the treatment of mediation data as public on public policy grounds. She reviewed what she characterized as a strong public policy favoring the confidentiality of mediation as evidenced by Minnesota Statutes Section 595.02, subd. 1 (l). She also offered information that in keeping with this public policy that the Minneapolis Mediation Service considers mediation data to be confidential and has the parties participating in mediation sign confidentiality agreements. She observed the use of mediation to resolve complaints was strongly supported by the Federation, that mediation was positive alternative to the civilian review process. However, she also pointed out that if any information about the mediation process were to be treated as public information that she would advise officers not to participate in the process. It was her opinion that data generated about mediation of civilian review complaints are private and confidential and should remain so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
The issue raised by Ms. Hughes in her opinion request is as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What is public information regarding mediation in the data of the Authority?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Government data collected about an individual because that individual is or was an employee of an entity subject to Chapter 13 is personnel data as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13. 43. This statutory section contains detailed lists of personnel data about applicants for employment, employees and former employees that are classified as public data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3.) The section then states that all other personnel data not appearing in the lists of public data are classified as private data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4.) A question about the classification of personnel data will always be answered by first examining the lists of public data to determine if the data in question appears on either of the two statutory lists. If the data appears on either of those lists, the data are public. If the data does not appear on either of the lists, the data are private.
&lt;p&gt;Within Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the following personnel data about complaints or charges against an employee are public:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee; whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other than data about the existence and status of complaints or charges made against employees, the status of the handling of those complaints or charges, both current and historical, and whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action, no detailed data can be made public about a complaint or charge against an employee until there is a decision to impose disciplinary action and the proposed disciplinary action has become final. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) If no disciplinary action is imposed, either because there was a decision not to impose disciplinary action or a proposed disciplinary action was reversed in an appeal process, then only the limited data described above are public. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) and (c). See also &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. 1989).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Minneapolis process of the handling of complaints or charges against police officers, the ultimate decision as to whether or not to impose disciplinary action against an officer is a decision made by the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department. In an instance where the Authority determines that a complaint against an officer has been sustained, the Authority&apos;s Findings of Fact and Determination are submitted to the chief who makes a disciplinary decision based on the information. (See Section 9.0 of the Administrative Rules of the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority approved by the Board of Directors of the Authority on October 31, 1990.) In the Minneapolis process, there is not a final disposition of a disciplinary action against a police officer until the chief of police imposes discipline and the officer, if he or she is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, either does not grieve the proposed disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement or does grieve the action with a result that the proposed disciplinary action is upheld by an arbitrator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that process, and except for the limited data described above concerning existence of complaints, status etc., most of the data collected and maintained by the authority concerning processing of complaints against officers are not public data under, depending on the specifics of a particular complaint against an officer, Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.39, 13.43 or 13.82. The Administrative Rules of the Authority acknowledge that status for the Authority&apos;s data. (See Sections 1.221, 1.222, 1.223, 1.232 and 1.241 of the Rules of the Authority.) In addition to rules regarding not public data held by the Authority, the Authority also has promulgated a rule that states what data held by the Authority are treated as public data. (See Section 1.251 of the Rules of the Authority.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under Rule Section 1.251, the Authority has interpreted the phrase status of any complaints or charges against the employee , found in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, to mean that the fact that a complaint is in mediation and the fact that a mediation agreement has been reached are public data. Although the word status is not defined in Section 13.43, it seems clear that the legislature intended that the public has a right to know, when a complaint or charge has been made against a public employee, the status of the processing of that complaint or charge in the government entity that is considering disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To tell the public where a given complaint or charge is in the entity&apos;s processing of the complaint, prior to there being a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee, does not reveal any substantive detail about what the complaint or charge is about. It merely tells the public, at given moments in time, just exactly what the entity is doing or has done procedurally with the complaint or charge. The communication of this type of data to the public responds in a reasonable way to the legislative directive that the status of complaints and charges against the employee are public data and must be made accessible to the public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Rules of the Authority, the only data associated with mediation that the Authority has determined to be public are the fact that a complaint is in mediation and the fact that a mediation agreement has been reached. However, given the list of data provided by Ms. Hughes that the Authority might have in its files about mediation, it would be consistent with the public nature of status data if the Authority also treated the fact that mediation was attempted and was not successful as public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data noting that one or both of the parties refused mediation is not status data and should not be treated as public during the processing of a complaint or charge. This data could become public data about the complainant, once the investigation of the complaint is no longer active. (See &lt;u&gt;Demers v. City of Minneapolis&lt;/u&gt;, 468 N.W. 2d 71 (Minn. 1991).) It is possible, but very unlikely, that data about an officer&apos;s refusal to enter into mediation could become public if the officer were disciplined and the data about the officer&apos;s refusal to mediate were part of the data documenting the basis for a disciplinary action or were part of the specific reasons for the action.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data concerning the timing of the occurrence of mediation which may also appear in the Authority&apos;s files according to Ms. Hughes presents a unique problem of classification. In and of itself, the data does not appear to have anything to do with status. However, if a member of the public were to regularly check the status of the processing of a complaint or charge against an employee, it would be possible for that person to learn the timing of the occurrence of mediation merely by comparing the Authority&apos;s responses about the status of the handling of a complaint. The authority treats the fact that the complaint is being investigated as public status data . A member of the public, who sought access to status data at a given point in time, could be told by the Authority that the complaint was being investigated. If this person subsequently asked for status data and was told that the complaint was in mediation, the person would know that the mediation had occurred after some investigation had taken place. Given this practical reality, the timing of mediation, if mediation has occurred, can be properly treated as part of status data .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Ms Hughes indicated that the Authority will have information about those cases where a mediation has resulted in the employee agreeing to some kind of disciplinary action. In those cases, it also appears according to Ms. Hughes&apos; explanation that the agreement will constitute the final disposition of the complaint brought against the employee. In light of the Rules of the Authority, this possible disposition of a complaint against an employee is confusing. Although it is clear from Ms. Hughes&apos; statement that a police officer could agree to accept some kind of discipline as part of a mediation agreement, it is equally clear under the Rules of the Authority that a copy of the mediation agreement will not be sent to the chief of police. (See Section 5.23 of the Rules of the Authority.) In light of those two statements, it is unclear how the discipline that the employee has accepted as part of a mediation agreement can be imposed by the City when the management person responsible for actually ordering the imposition of a disciplinary sanction will not be apprised of the discipline the employee has agreed to accept?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even if it is unclear as to exactly how an agreed to disciplinary action can be imposed given the limitations described above, it seems clear that if an employee accepts the imposition of some kind of disciplinary action as part of an agreement negotiated through the mediation process that, in the language of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the complaint or charge has resulted in a disciplinary action. According to Ms. Hughes, in these instances, the officer&apos;s agreement to accept disciplinary action is a final disposition of the matter and therefore the reasons for the disciplinary action and any data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action would be public data. Given the fact that no record is kept of the mediation proceeding, the only data that exists that may document the basis for the disciplinary action and the reasons for the action is the mediation agreement. If that is the case, the mediation agreement would be public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue raised by Ms. Walther about the effect of the handling of data about mediation may have on the mediation process are clearly issues of legitimate concern. However, the statutory treatment of data associated with complaints or charges against public employees has been clear and consistent for several years. The Rules of the Authority that treat certain mediation related data as public status data have been in effect for almost four years. If the treatment of mediation data as described in this opinion has a deleterious effect on the mediation process used by the Authority, those issues should be raised with the legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hughes is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The fact that a complaint against a Minneapolis police officer is in mediation, the fact that a mediation agreement has been reached, the fact that mediation was attempted but was unsuccessful and the timing of the occurrence of mediation are status data for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 and are therefore public data. The fact that one or both of the parties refused to mediate is not public data but may, in the case of data about the complainant, become public when the investigation of the complaint is no longer active. If an officer agrees as a result of mediation to accept disciplinary action, data describing the action and data providing the reasons for and documenting the disciplinary action are public data for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 24, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267897</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mediation data, generally (See also: Bureau of Mediation Services data and Labor relations data)</Title><Id>266503</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Minneapolis Civilian Review Board (CRA)</Title><Id>266814</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mediation</Title><Id>267206</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-024</Title><title>Opinion 94 024</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267718&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-06-14T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Program in Human Sexuality improperly denying X access to data maintained about him?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>June 14, 1994; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On May 12, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner , received a letter from X, a resident of Golden Valley, Minnesota. In this letter and enclosures, X described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained about him by the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, hereinafter Program . X asked for an opinion of the Commissioner concerning the issue restated in the Issue section found below. The facts X stated concerning his disagreement with the Program are as follows.
&lt;p&gt;In June, 1992, X became a patient at the Program. In the course of his treatment, the Program generated a record of that treatment from June 23, 1992, through November, 24, 1993. X indicated that he had made written and oral requests to see the medical record generated about him by Dr. Michael Miner, his treating psychologist. According to X, all of those requests were denied including a request that was made to Dr. Miner after X was released from Dr. Miner&apos;s care in November, 1993.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request that he be told why he was being denied access to his medical record, Dr. Miner provided him with a copy of a Program form, dated June 23, 1992. X provided a copy of this form as part of his request for an opinion. This form carries the University of Minnesota logo and identifies itself as a form of the Program entitled Patient Access to Medical Record . The top part of this form provides space for the patient&apos;s name and number and contains a summary of a portion of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, the statutory section that provides patients with the right to gain access to their medical records and limitations on that access. The top portion also explains that the purpose of the form is . . . to document a physician&apos;s recommendation to restrict access to the record by the patient.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The balance of the form is labeled Physician Recommendation . It includes language allowing a physician to check boxes and by so doing to recommend what type of record access the patient should have, a space in which the physician states the basis for the recommendation about access, a statement as to the duration of the recommendation and places for the physician&apos;s signature and the date of the recommendation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of the form provided to X, it recommends that he only be provided with a summary of his medical record. The justification for that recommendation was stated as follows: nature of case, subject to misinterpretation. The recommendation was to remain in effect until further notice and the recommendation was signed by Dr. Miner and dated June 23, 1992. X stated that on the date this form was completed that he was still being evaluated by Dr. Miner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After recounting this history and providing a variety of documents, X stated his opinion that the form prepared by Dr. Miner was improperly completed and improperly utilized. According to X the form completed by Dr. Miner was not proper because it did not contain a specific basis for withholding his access to data as is required by Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. X also pointed out that, within Section 144.335, the option to receive a summary of the medical record instead of a copy of the record is an option to be exercised with the consent of the patient and that he had not given his consent to preparation of a summary. X provided additional arguments as to why he felt the Program&apos;s position was incorrect and then requested an opinion from the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to X&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Eli Coleman, the Director of the Program. The purposes of this letter, dated May 20, 1994, were to inform Dr. Coleman of X&apos;s request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask Dr. Coleman or the Program&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the Program&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue an opinion. In this particular instance, the Commissioner informed both Dr. Coleman and, by separate letter, X that the Commissioner would be taking more than the normal twenty days contemplated for issuing an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 6, 1994, by facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Barbara L. Shiels, Associate General Counsel from the Office of the University of Minnesota Hospital Counsel. In her letter, Ms. Shiels made the following responses to PIPA&apos;s requests for information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, Ms. Shiels argued that X&apos;s request was outside the purview of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion authority. In support of that position, she quoted the portion of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072 that states that the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions . . . does not apply to a question involving the exercise of a discretionary power specifically granted by statute to a responsible authority to withhold or grant access to government data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general statutory classification.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Shiels then pointed out that Dr. Miner made a decision to deny X access to his medical record on the basis of discretionary power to make that determination given to some health care providers as provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. She quoted the pertinent part of that statutory provision that deals with the exercise of this discretionary authority. She further stated that Dr. Miner&apos;s decisions were made within the discretionary authority granted to him by statute. For those reasons, it was her position that X&apos;s request for an opinion falls within the exclusionary language of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072 relating to exercises of discretion and therefore X&apos;s request is outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to her comments relative to the Commissioner&apos;s lack of jurisdiction, Ms. Shiels also stated that Dr. Miner had prepared a letter to the Commissioner which would explain the substantive basis for his medical judgement that granting X&apos;s request for access to his medical record would be detrimental to X&apos;s mental health. However, according to Ms. Shiels, the Program views this letter as private medical data and is reluctant to provide the letter to the Commissioner without X&apos;s consent or an assurance from the Commissioner that consent is not required. Ms. Shiels indicated she had prepared a consent form, discussed it with X and was awaiting his decision as to whether he would sign it. (In a subsequent letter from X, dated June 8, 1994, he indicated he would not sign the consent but if the Commissioner felt it necessary to view medical data about him this June 8 letter was express consent to do so.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In closing, Ms. Shiels asked that the Commissioner to deny jurisdiction of X&apos;s request or, if she took jurisdiction, to review the contents of Dr. Miner&apos;s letter as described above.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On June 8, 1994, PIPA received an additional letter, dated June 7, 1994, via facsimile transmission from Ms. Shiels. In that letter, Ms. Shiels stated that she had talked to Dr. Miner who had spoken to a Dr. Alan Valgemae. Dr. Valgemae had requested a copy of X&apos;s medical record and had received a consent from X to receive that copy. Ms. Shiels stated that Dr. Miner would be forwarding a copy of the record to Dr. Valgemae pursuant to the release from X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Shiels, this sequence of events was exactly what was contemplated by Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. She quoted the part of that statute that states that if a health care provider determines that medical record information should be withheld from a patient, the health care provider may supply the information to another provider or appropriate third party who may then release the information to the patient. Ms. Shiels states that the proposed transfer of X&apos;s medical record to Dr. Valgemae would satisfy the obligation of the Program to deal with X&apos;s requests under Section 144.335.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In closing, she also pointed out that X had informed her that he would not consent to the release of the letter prepared by Dr. Miner. She then asked, if the Commissioner were to take jurisdiction of X&apos;s request, to advise her if the letter could be released without X&apos;s consent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is the Program in Human Sexuality improperly denying X access to data maintained about him?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Before discussing the substance of X&apos;s request, the jurisdictional issue raised by Ms. Shiels must be addressed. In her June 6, 1994 letter, Ms. Shiels argued that the Commissioner should not take jurisdiction of this issue because, under the terms of the opinion statute, X&apos;s request is outside the purview of the Commissioner&apos;s authority. In support of that position, she quoted the following language from Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, subdivision 1 (b):
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;This section does not apply to a question involving the exercise of a discretionary power specifically granted by statute to a responsible authority to withhold or grant access to government data in a manner different than the data&apos;s general statutory classification.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;She then discussed how X&apos;s therapist, Dr. Miner, exercised his discretion to deny X&apos;s access to his medical record. Because Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, gives Dr. Miner discretion to make judgments about a patient&apos;s access to medical records, Ms. Shiels concluded that the discretion awarded to Dr. Miner and other health care providers under Section 144.335 is the kind of discretion contemplated by the language limiting the Commissioner is authority in Section 13.072 and therefore the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over X&apos;s request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plain language of the pertinent portion of Section 13.072, quoted above, makes it clear that the Commissioner authority does not extend to issuing opinions when a request she is presented with stems from an exercise of discretion by a responsible authority about access to data. Although Dr. Miner is a health care provider employed by the Program and by the University of Minnesota, there is nothing that indicates that he is the responsible authority for data maintained by the Program and by the University of Minnesota. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 16 and Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, Section 1205.0200, subpart 13.) The responsible authority for the University of Minnesota is the individual appointed to be the responsible authority by the Board of Regents of the University. Although it is not clear who that individual is, it does not appear to be Dr. Miner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X&apos;s request does not deal with an issue involving the exercise of discretion by a responsible authority. It does deal with a request for access to data maintained about him by an entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.01, subdivision 1 and 13.02, subdivision 17.) In this particular instance, X disagrees with the determination of the Program about his request for access to that data. The Commissioner has jurisdiction to issue opinions to individuals who disagree with a determination regarding data practices and their rights as a subject of government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, subdivision 1.) The Commissioner has jurisdiction to issue the opinion requested by X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the event that the Commissioner determined that she did have jurisdiction over X&apos;s request, the Program asked that it be given the opportunity to submit a letter prepared by Dr. Miner explaining his rationale for denying X access to his medical records. Given the facts of this matter, as discussed below, there really is no need for the Program to provide this letter. It is not information that is necessary for the Commissioner to have to be able to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As established by the statements of the Program and the nature of the services it provides, the government data maintained and stored by the program is medical data as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42. Medical data are classified as private data. However, unlike other types of private data that are fully accessible by individuals as provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, individual subjects of medical data only have access to that data subject to the procedures and possible limitations imposed on access by the Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335 is the statutory section that regulates access by patients to all medical record information and data collected and maintained about them by both governmental and nongovernmental health care providers. At the time of its enactment, health care providers successfully argued to the legislature that, because of the nature of medical data health care providers ought to retain some discretion to limit patient access to medical data. Under Section 144.335, a patient may make a written request to receive either a copy of the patient&apos;s health record or a pertinent portion of the record pertaining to a specific condition. Upon receipt of the patient&apos;s request, a health care provider is required to promptly furnish to the patient the items requested by the patient. A health care provider may furnish only a summary of the health care record. However, this option may only be exercised if the patient consents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some types of health care providers, essentially individual professionals such as doctors and psychologists but not institutional providers such as hospitals, are given the discretion to withhold information from patients. This discretion is not boundless but may be exercised in situations where the health care provider . . . reasonably determines that the information is detrimental to the physical or mental health of the patient, or is likely to cause the patient self harm, or to harm another, . . . . (Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 2, (c).) Section 144.335 acknowledges that in many instances, patients will be making requests for access to medical data, generated by individual health care providers, to hospitals and other institutions. In those instances, the institutional health care provider is required to release medical information unless the individual provider has . . . designated and described a specific basis for withholding the information as authorized by paragraph (c). (Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 2, (d).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This language makes it clear that the individual provider must designate a basis for denying a patient access to medical records that is one of the basis specified in Section 144.335, subdivision 2 (c). A basis for withholding medical information from a patient is therefore limited to reasonable concerns by the individual health care provider that providing the information may be detrimental to the health of the patient, may cause the patient to inflict self harm or to harm another person. No other basis for denying a patient access to a medical record is allowed by Section 144.335.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the particular instance of X&apos;s requests to gain access to medical records maintained about him by the Program, Dr. Miner, an individual health care provider who is given the discretion to make a determination to deny a patient access to a medical record as contemplated by Section 144.335, has determined that X should not have access to his medical record. He made that determination and recorded it on the Program&apos;s Patient Access to Medical Record form while X&apos;s condition was being first evaluated by Dr. Miner. In addition, as Dr. Miner acknowledged in an April 22, 1994, letter to X, Dr. Miner made that determination before X had even requested that he be provided with access to his medical records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In making the determination that X should not have access to his medical record, Dr. Miner, on the form described above, stated that X should only have access to a summary of the medical record written by Dr. Miner and that the justification for that recommendation was: nature of case, subject to misinterpretation. Dr. Miner did not state any of the basis that are contemplated by Section 144.335, that would give an individual health care provider a reasonable basis for denying a patient access to the patient&apos;s medical record. Dr. Miner did not indicate any basis or justification for a determination that X&apos;s access to his medical record could be detrimental to his physical or mental health or would be likely to cause X to inflict self harm or to harm another. Dr. Miner&apos;s justification is that if X has access to his medical record, that because of the nature of the case, the record could be subject to misinterpretation. This is not a basis for denying a patient access to a medical record as contemplated by Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335. If that is the only basis that Dr. Miner can provide for denying X access to his medical record, X should be provided with access to the data that the Program is maintaining about him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her correspondence, Ms. Shiels indicates that Dr. Miner is willing to provide the Commissioner with a letter that will justify denial of access by X to his medical record. It is not clear if this willingness to provide this letter, that would appear to state a basis for not allowing X access to his medical record that is a basis contemplated by Section 144.335, is prompted by X&apos;s request for an opinion or by the existence of an actual medical basis for denying him access. What is clear is that each time X asked for access to medical records, the Program&apos;s basis for denying him access was the basis contained in the Program&apos;s form, as prepared by Dr. Miner, and that basis is not a basis for denial of access as authorized by Section 144.335. The Program&apos;s willingness to provide this letter only now, after several requests by X to gain access to his medical records, does not affect the issue raised by X. The Program has improperly denied his requests for access to his medical record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;X is correct when he states that, pursuant to Section 144.335, a health care provider can only provide a summary of the medical record to a patient, in lieu of access to the complete record or pertinent portion thereof, if the patient consents to the receipt of a summary. In its dealing with its patients, the design of the Program&apos;s Patient Access form may cause unnecessary conflict. In the portion of the form, in which the health care provider is given the opportunity to recommend a response to a patient&apos;s request for access to medical records, the options available do not include a recommendation allowing the patient complete access to the file and do seem to indicate that the health care provider, and not the patient, has the option to provide a summary of the record. As this form is critical to how the Program responds to requests by patients for access to their medical records, the Program should review this form and bring it into compliance with the requirements of Section 144.335.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Ms. Shiels in her June 7, 1994 letter indicates that because the Program is willing to transfer records to Dr. Valgemae that the Program has satisfied its obligations to X as he has attempted to gain access to his medical records. Dr. Valgemae is seeking receipt of a copy of X&apos;s medical records because X is being treated by Dr. Valgemae and to assist in that treatment has consented to the release of records maintained by the Program to his new health care provider. This is not a request initiated by X to have records transferred to another health care provider or appropriate third party because the Program is denying X access to his medical records for the reasons contemplated by Section 144.335, subdivision 2, (c). According to X, there have been no conversations between him and the Program or its representatives concerning a transfer of records to Dr. Valgemae as a way to resolve the dispute between X and the Program about his access to his medical records. This new development does not change the fact that the Program denied X access to his medical records and did so on a basis that is not contemplated by Section 144.335.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issued raised by X is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota has improperly denied X access to his medical records. Although there are statutory basis on which health care providers may properly deny patient access to medical data, the basis relied on by the Program in responding to X&apos;s requests for access to medical data maintained about him is not a basis for denial within Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: June 14, 1994
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267718</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293)</Title><Id>266714</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-023</Title><title>Opinion 94 023</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267829&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-05-25T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City required to provide to one of its employees data contained in what the employee refers to as a &quot;field files&quot; and what the City characterizes as &quot;informal files of supervisors&quot; concerning employees?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 25, 1994; City of Brooklyn Park</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On May 8, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner , received a letter from X, a resident of Maple Grove, Minnesota and an employee of the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department, hereinafter City . In this letter, X described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained about him by the City and asked for an opinion of the Commissioner concerning the issue stated under Issue below. The facts X stated concerning his disagreement with the City were as follows.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On November 26, 1993, X directed a written request for copies of certain data to Michael Newberger whom X identified as an assistant chief of the police department. Specifically, X asked for corrective notices concerning him that had been placed in what X described as a field file maintained about him. He described the contents of this field file as corrective notices from supervisors, emergency notification forms and employee photos. According to X , Mr. Newberger&apos;s response, after consultation with Mr. Donald Davis, chief of the police department, was to refuse X &apos;s request because the file in question belonged to supervisors of the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Because of that refusal, X searched for an attorney to assist him in his attempts to get access to the data he had requested. He secured the services of Ms. Ann Walther, who, on March 11, 1994, wrote to Chief Davis requesting the same information and cited provisions of Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter Chapter 13 or MGDPA . On March 15, 1994, Chief Davis responded to this request and, according to X , made excuses for why the information was not released and advised X to direct his request to the proper designated authority for the police department.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 17, 1994, X made a request for certain documents concerning his employment, including his field file, to Mr. David M. Johnson, the designated authority. According to X , Mr. Johnson, in a letter received April 19, 1994, stated that the records requested by X would not be released because those records were not government data as defined in the Act. A further exchange of letters produced the same responses, at which time, X decided to request an opinion from the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X &apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. David M. Johnson who was identified in correspondence provided by X as the responsible authority for the police department. The purposes of this letter, dated May 11, 1994, were to inform Mr. Johnson of X &apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Mr. Johnson or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the City&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue an opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On May 19, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson made a series of responses and arguments (summarized below) and provided copies of portions of the City&apos;s labor agreement with the union representing police officers and copies of other documents he deemed relevant. Mr. Johnson summarized the position of the City as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In discussing X &apos;s November 26, 1993, request for data, Mr. Johnson stated it was the position of the City that X &apos;s request was a request made pursuant to the City&apos;s labor agreement with the union representing X . According to Mr. Johnson, under that agreement, employees can gain access to their personnel files. Because, in Mr. Johnson&apos;s opinion, X &apos;s request did not ask for access to data in X &apos;s personnel file, as provided for in the labor agreement, the City determined that the data would not be provided.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Johnson then discussed the City&apos;s handling of the letter, received from X &apos;s attorney Ms. Walther, that requested access to certain data maintained by the City. Mr. Johnson stated that the City&apos;s response to Ms. Walther&apos;s request was prepared in compliance with requirements of Chapter 13 and that he had actually prepared the response letter signed by Chief Davis. In this letter, dated March 15, 1994, Mr. Johnson reiterated the City&apos;s position that X &apos;s initial request to Mr. Newberger was interpreted by the City as a request under the labor agreement. The letter also pointed out to Ms. Walther that her citation to the provision of Chapter 13 giving her client access to data maintained about him was not correct. The letter further advised that if Ms. Walther&apos;s client was making requests under Chapter 13 those requests should have been directed to the City&apos;s director of services, Mr. Johnson. According to the letter, Chief Davis had designated the individual occupying the City&apos;s position of director of services as the responsible authority for purposes of the MGDPA.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The March 15 letter then goes on to quote Ms. Walther&apos;s request. According to the letter, Ms. Walther demanded that X be provided with . . . a copy of any and all data collected on him by the Brooklyn Park Police Department. The City&apos;s letter referred to this request as being vague and a request that, in the opinion of the City, if fully complied with by the City could be financially costly to X . The letter concluded with a statement that no action would be taken on the request until the request was made more specific as to the nature and extent of the information requested, payment of costs were agreed to and personal requests or appropriate waivers from X for access to the data were received by the City.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Johnson then reviewed his handling of requests for data made by X on April 17, April 20 and May 4, 1994. In these requests, X asked for a variety of data including the field file and offered arguments and statutory citations in support of the requests. Mr. Johnson stated that each of these requests were promptly replied to and that the City was on record as denying X access to the field file data because field file data is not government data for purposes of the Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Johnson disagreed with the definition of the field file that X provided in his May 4, 1994, letter to the Commissioner. Mr. Johnson noted that emergency notification files and employee photos are kept by shift commanders and corrective notices are placed in employees&apos; personnel files. Mr. Johnson did state that some supervisors of the City keep informal records on employees they supervise. He described these records as being akin to the desk drawer notes described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.32 and noted they are not identified on the City&apos;s records retention schedule or kept in a centralized location. Mr. Johnson stated that it was the assessment of the City that these supervisors&apos; files are what X is actually requesting.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Johnson went on to describe these supervisors&apos; files as being kept as . . . an aid to the brain or memory jogger. According to Mr. Johnson, the supervisors&apos; files concern: . . . the performance of an officer (positive and negative) observations, problem areas, training needs, directives given and matters discussed. This information is used by supervisors to prepare annual reviews, recommending disciplinary action, preparing for labor arbitrations, requesting commendations, and monitoring areas of concern. The information is eventually translated into documents that are made part of an officer&apos;s personnel file, or are discarded by the supervisor.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
               According to Mr. Johnson, it is the City&apos;s position . . . that its employees cannot create &apos;government data&apos; on the basis that all information and events which occur while working become &apos;government data&apos; by virtue of that relationship alone. He argued that the supervisor&apos;s files present an issue similar to the data discussed in the case of &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. App. 1992). He quoted a part of that case for the proposition that individual City . . . employees can create and maintain information, while on duty time, that is not in government possession and therefore not government data. For examples of this type of information, he mentioned personal phone calls, personal business, personal schedules and calendars, fraternal contacts and labor relations and union business. It was his opinion that a determination that all information collected, created, received maintained or disseminated by employees while on duty is government data would lead to absurd results.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Lastly, Mr. Johnson stated that it is the City&apos;s position that the treatment of these field or supervisors&apos; files as government data and personnel data for purposes of the MGDPA would have a detrimental effect on the subjects of that data. Without recourse to an informal system of dealing with employee issues, supervisors would have to make formal notices that would become part of the employees personnel file that could paint pictures of employees that are not beneficial. It is the City&apos;s position that use of these types of information by supervisors are an effective supervisory tool that improves performance reviews, disciplinary actions and training assessments.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;dd /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Is the City required to provide to one of its employees data contained in what the employee refers to as a field files and what the City characterizes as informal files of supervisors concerning employees?
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                In its enactment of various provisions of Chapter 13, the legislature has attempted to deal with the simple reality that governmental institutions that actually collect, create, use, maintain and disseminate data and information have tremendous power over the individuals on whom that information is maintained and on the public&apos;s ability to determine just what exactly is happening in the operation of its government. This power, in part, derives from the simple reality that governmental institutions are in the actual possession of the information and data in question. Government agencies hold the physical and electronic keys to government files, collections of data and electronic data bases that can block physical access to government data or information. More importantly government agencies, through their inherent power to describe or to not describe or to acknowledge or not to acknowledge the existence and content of government data generated by human agents who serve the agency, also hold the language keys to data and information. The use of these language keys by government agencies offers a potentially far greater problem for issues of accessibility to and accountability for government data and information than the physical keys.
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  To counter the potentially devastating effect of the operation of these language keys on two of the MGDPA&apos;s most important provisions, the presumption of openness and rights of subject of data, the legislature, in Chapter 13, uses exceedingly broad language to define terms like government data , and data on individuals . By doing so the legislature attempts to give persons approaching the government, and attempting to gain access to data or to exercise rights as the subjects of government data, some advantages to counter or perhaps to balance the power of the physical and language keys possessed by government agencies.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, X is attempting to gain access to all data maintained about him by the City that employs him. He is making his requests in a situation, i.e. possible litigation against the City, where his and the City&apos;s interests are adverse to one another. It is not surprising then that when X describes some data, file or collection of information in making his requests, the City responds by telling him he is not asking for the right thing or that, in the City&apos;s view, he is not entitled to gain access to that kind of data. It is exactly these kinds of disagreements between individuals and Minnesota governmental agencies that the legislature attempts to manage through the mechanism of the MGDPA.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   It is the position of the City that X is not entitled to gain access to supervisors&apos; files because those files are not government data. In support of that position, the City cites the case of &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. App. 1992). This case involved an appeal from a summary judgement awarded against an individual who contended that an oral dissemination of data about him, in situations where members of the public could overhear the data disclosed, violated his right to not have private data disclosed about him. However, the data in dispute in the Keezer case is not the same as the data being sought by X .
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   The actual holding in the &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;case is that a plaintiff could not establish a violation of the MGDPA in a situation where a government employee said something about a plaintiff, in the presence of members of the public, but the plaintiff had not established that the information that was disclosed is recorded in some physical form other than in the human brain of the speaker. (&lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, at page 617.) In reaching this result and discussing the term government data , the Court of Appeals stated . . . that information is not &apos;government data&apos; until the information is recorded somewhere other than the human brain. (Keezer, at page 617.) The holding in the &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;case is more about what government data is not than what it is. However, the &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;opinion does state that it is the purpose of the MGDPA to regulate every aspect of how the government manages the information it collects and stores and that as long as data is recorded somewhere other than the human brain it can be government data. (&lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, at page 618.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   In expanding on its argument relative to the &lt;u&gt;Keezer case&lt;/u&gt;, the City argues that it is not proper to conclude that just because a supervisor&apos;s files are generated during a supervisor&apos;s on-duty time that the generation of the data in those files makes the data government data. In support of this proposition the City mentions various other types of data that can be generated by supervisors during work time, including data associated with personal business or personal phone calls, that would not be viewed as government data. However, X is not seeking access to data on personal business of supervisors. He is seeking access to supervisors&apos; informal file data that, as described by Mr. Johnson, includes information about officer performance, problem areas, training needs, directives given and matters discussed. This is also data that, according to the City, is used for a variety of personnel related decisions including annual reviews, disciplinary matters, preparation for labor arbitration, requesting commendations and monitoring areas of concern.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                   Government data is defined, in part as . . . all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any . . . political subdivision. It is clear from the City&apos;s description of the supervisor&apos;s files that they are data collected, created, maintained and sometimes disseminated by supervisors who act as agents of a political subdivision. In addition, based on the City&apos;s description of the supervisors&apos; files as being used as an aid to the brain or a mind jogger , the supervisors&apos; files, unlike the data complained about in the &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;case, are kept in some physical form outside the mind of the individual supervisors working for the City. Application of the statutory definition of the term government data , both as a matter of simple interpretation and as an interpretation of the legislative policy inherent in the definition leads to a conclusion that the supervisors&apos; files are government data for purposes of the MGDPA.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Having determined that the supervisors&apos; files are government data, it must be determined what type of government data the files are and how that type of data is regulated and classified by any applicable provision of the MGDPA. Determining the application of specific provisions of the MGDPA is a process of looking at the data in question and determining whether data of that type is specifically identified, defined and regulated by a specific provision of the MGDPA. As described by the City, the data in the supervisor&apos;s files is entirely concerned with the monitoring by supervisors of employees under their supervision. Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, subdivision 1 defines personnel data , in part, to mean data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee. Data on an individual is defined in part, at Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02, subdivision 5, as all government data in which an individual is or can be identified. Given those definitions and the City&apos;s description of the supervisors&apos; files, those files are personnel data for purposes of the MGDPA.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, personnel data are public if they are listed in subdivisions 2 and 3 of the section. Given the City&apos;s description of the supervisor&apos;s files, it would appear that most of the data contained in them are classified as private data with some of the data, depending on the actual content, classified as public. For example, the City&apos;s description of the files mentions that they sometimes contain data concerning disciplinary actions. To the extent that a disciplinary action became final and a supervisor&apos;s file was part of the data documenting the basis for that action then that part of the file would be classified as public. In any event, because the supervisors&apos; files are classified as private or public, individual employees such as X who are identified in those files have a right to gain access to the data maintained about them in the supervisors&apos; files. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.04, subdivision 3.)
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Supervisors&apos; files, maintained by agents of the City of Brooklyn Park that identify individual employees being supervised, are government data and personnel data for purposes of the MGDPA and the data about those employees in those supervisors&apos; files are accessible by the employees. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: May 25, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267829</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data (13.02, subd. 7)</Title><Id>266380</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Government data</Title><Id>266902</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:02Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-022</Title><title>Opinion 94 022</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267737&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-05-06T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Since the search committee is now conducting interviews of the remaining candidates, are those candidates &quot;finalists&quot; within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 3, and are their names therefore public data?
Regardless of whether the current candidates are finalists within the meaning of §13.43, subd. 3, must the job histories and educational and training backgrounds disclosed by the search committee contain details such as dates and places?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>May 6, 1994; Saint Cloud State University</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On April 19, 1994, PIPA received a letter, via facsimile transmission, from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson. Mr. Anfinson indicated that he was writing on behalf of his client, the St. Cloud Times newspaper. He explained that he was requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion on two issues that have arisen in connection with a search being conducted to fill the vacancy of St. Cloud State University (SCSU).
&lt;p&gt;According to Mr. Anfinson, the State University Board (SUB) has appointed a presidential search committee that is charged with selecting a new SCSU president. Mr. Anfinson explained that this description of the search committee&apos;s charge was taken from U News , a publication of the SCSU public relations office. (Mr. Anfinson enclosed a copy of the issue of the publication in which the statement about the committee&apos;s charge was published.) The search committee has been examining candidate qualifications for several weeks and has now narrowed the list of candidates to nine. Those candidates will be interviewed by what Mr. Anfinson called a committee of the search committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson explained that given the charge of the search committee and the fact that a part of the committee was about to interview applicants, that it was the position of his client that the nine remaining candidates are finalists for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . Under the MGDPA, the names of applicants who are finalists for public employment are public data. Mr. Anfinson stated that it was the position of SCSU that finalists had not yet been selected and no names would be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson went on to explain that his client had also sought other public information about all of the applicants including their job histories and their education and training background. He stated that the search committee had provided only an outline of this information and stripped out specific details including things like names of colleges attended and specific places of employment. Following this discussion of the attempts by his client to get access to data, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an opinion on the issues that appear in the Issues section below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Dr. Terrence J. MacTaggart, the Chancellor of the State University System. The purposes of this letter, dated April 22, 1994, were to inform Dr. MacTaggart of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to ask Dr. MacTaggart or the System&apos;s attorney to provide information concerning the issues raised, to address some specific questions associated with those issues and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 29, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Dr. MacTaggart. In this response, Dr. MacTaggart described the process that is being followed by the SUB in selecting a new president for St. Cloud State University. He clarified that, contrary to the article in U News , that the new president is actually selected by the SUB and will not be selected by the search committee. In the process being used to fill the vacancy in the office of president, four individuals, who Dr. MacTaggart referred to as semi-finalists , will be interviewed by a variety of on-campus groups at St. Cloud State. Following those interviews, the State University Board will select individuals, who Dr. MacTaggart referred to as finalists , who will be interviewed by the State University Board. One of these individuals will be selected by the Board as the new SCSU president.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. MacTaggart further clarified that the individuals referred to in the selection process as semi-finalists are advised that their names become public upon being selected as semi-finalists . According to Dr. MacTaggart, it is the position of the SUB that even though the individuals are referred to as semi-finalists in the Board&apos;s search process, they meet the definition of finalist for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 3. Based on that position, the names of the semi-finalists were released to the public on April 28, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. MacTaggart also provided comments about the fact that the SUB stripped out references to specific schools attended and places worked when it provided data in response to the St Cloud Times&apos; request for public data on applicants. Dr. MacTaggart pointed out that, in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 3, the legislature has decided that the identity of applicants remain private unless an applicant becomes a finalist. According to him, applicants who do not become finalists are entitled to have their identities remain unknown to the public. It was his position that releasing details of schools attended and places worked could identify some applicants who did not become finalists. This release would conflict with the legislative policy, established in Section 13.43, subdivision 3, that the identities of applicants who do not become finalists should not be released to the public. In support of this position, he cited to and discussed a data practices rule provision dealing with the meaning of the term data on individuals . (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Section 1205.200, subpart 4.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also stated that nothing in section 13.43, subdivision 3 requires that specific details about places of employment, job titles, dates of graduation and so forth be treated as public data. It was his opinion that the MGDPA&apos;s reference to job history and education and training as public data was only generic and did not require the release of specific data. It was his position that this interpretation of the MGDPA was consistent with the legislative mandate of applicant privacy so that provision of detailed data, that could identify an applicant, would be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his letter to PIPA, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Since the search committee is now conducting interviews of the remaining candidates, are those candidates finalists within the meaning of Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 3, and are their names therefore public data?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Regardless of whether the current candidates are finalists within the meaning of section13.43, subd. 3, must the job histories and educational and training backgrounds disclosed by the search committee contain details such as dates and places?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The MGDPA, at Section 13.43, subdivision 3, deals with how and when data about applicants for public employment, other than undercover law enforcement officers, must be disclosed to the public. The MGDPA links the release of data to the processes used by public entities to fill vacant positions. The MGDPA classifies as public certain specific items of data about all applicants for employment. These specific items include: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. Whenever these elements of data are received in a government entity, or are generated through the entity&apos;s application processing procedures, they are public data. However, the name of an applicant for public employment does not become public unless the applicant is certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or is considered by the entity&apos;s appointing authority to be a finalist for a position.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legislative treatment of applicant data establishes a policy that gives the public the right to gain access to the data elements listed above for all applicants for public employment. However, these data elements cannot be associated with names of applicants until an applicant reaches a certain point in a public entity&apos;s process of considering candidates to fill a vacancy in public employment. When an applicant is certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or becomes a finalist, the government entity is required to disclose the applicant&apos;s name and the other associated public data listed in Section 13.43, subdivision 3 to the public. This legislative policy protects the privacy of applicants until they are treated as a serious contender for a position in government. The policy advances the public interest by giving the public access to data about the qualifications of all applicants and specific individually identifiable data about those applicants who are considered by the agency to be likely candidates to fill positions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 3 defines finalist to mean . . . an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection. In this instance, Mr. Anfinson argues, in part because of the incorrect information in the U News , that the names of the finalists for the presidency of St. Cloud State must be disclosed to the public because the search committee has picked who will be interviewed. However, Dr. MacTaggart points out that in this presidential selection process, the appointing authority is actually the State University Board. According to Dr. MacTaggart, the Board will be interviewing candidates on June 13, 14, and 15 and will actually select the next president of St. Cloud State University on June 15. It would follow from his statement, and from the application of the language in Section 13.43, subdivision 3, that the actual finalists for the job of president are those people who will be selected to be interviewed by the State University Board. The names of those candidates should be made public when the Board decides which candidates it will interview and notifies them of that selection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, Dr. MacTaggart states that four candidates, to whom he refers as semi-finalists , are scheduled to be interviewed by a variety of individuals and groups on the St. Cloud State campus. Following those interviews, the SUB will select finalists from that group of four to be interviewed by the Board. Dr. MacTaggart did not state how many of the four would be selected to be interviewed. He did make it clear that the SUB will select finalists to be interviewed from the group of four and one of those finalists will be the next president of St. Cloud State. He also stated that the SUB considered these four candidates to be finalists for purposes of the MGDPA and that their names had been released to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to see how the SUB can reach that conclusion in interpreting Section 13.43 of the MGDPA. The SUB&apos;s clear position is that it is the appointing authority. The MGDPA makes its clear that the only candidates whose names become public data are those candidates who are selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. The process described by Dr. MacTaggart in which, using his words, representatives of the State University Board go from interviewing semi-finalists to interviewing finalists is a process in which the State University Board itself is the final interviewing and appointing authority. Application of that language of Section 13.43 of the MGDPA to the SCSU presidential selection process leads to a logical conclusion that the candidates whose names become public are only those candidates who are selected to be interviewed by the State University Board. Although the SUB may consider names of the semi-finalists to be public and may have advised the candidates who are semi-finalists that their names are public, Section 13.43, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA does not support that result.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As previously discussed, Section 13.43, subdivision 3 does try to make some data about applicants public while at the same time protecting the names of applicants until decisions about their particular applications are made in the employment decision process. Dr. MacTaggart discusses this protective language in terms of it protecting not just the names of candidates but also protecting any data in resumes and applications concerning job history and education and training from which the identity of the candidate could be derived. Although, Section 13.43, subdivision 3 does refer only to names being protected, the SUB&apos;s interpretation of the MGDPA is consistent with the underlying policy established by the legislature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is clear that the legislature intends to protect applicants from the possible consequences of having it become public knowledge that they are appealing for a particular public job. This protection is in place for some applicants essentially forever, but for other applicants only until the applicant becomes a finalist or his/her name appears on an eligible list. This legislative objective would be frustrated if details about a candidate&apos;s job history, education and training, that could identify an applicant just as surely as the release of the applicant&apos;s name, were released as part of making the job history, education and training background public. In the words of the statutory interpretation statute, an interpretation of this provision of the MGDPA that would only protect names and not protect other clearly identifying data about an individual would be an absurd result. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.17.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in administering the balance that the legislature tries to provide to the rights of applicants and to the public&apos;s right to know, a government entity such as the SUB should only strip out details of an applicant&apos;s job history, education and training background in those situations where the detailed data could, in the best judgement of the government entity, clearly identify an applicant who is not yet a finalist, who has not yet been certified on an eligible list or who never becomes a finalist or certified. Wholesale stripping of all details of job history, education and training background should not be the practice. Stripping details to protect identify should only be the case where the actual detail in itself or a series of details in combination could reveal the identity of the applicant. Instead of a wholesale practice of stripping all job history, education and training background detail, each applicant&apos;s resume or application should be examined to determine if the detail of that resume or application presents a real problem of possible identification. Although this process presents more work for the government entity, it does protect the public interest in finding out as much information as possible as early as possible about applicants for public employment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The SUB also concludes that the legislature only intends for public entities to reveal generic information about applicant&apos;s job history, education and training. This conclusion fails to take into account that the legislature also recognizes a strong public interest in assuring that the public and other applicants for public employment should have access to as much detailed data as possible in evaluating a public entity&apos;s decisions about selecting individuals to fill vacancies. Without detailed information, it would be virtually impossible for the public and other candidates to compare the actual qualifications of the candidates. The quality and reputation of the college and university from which an individual receives a degree and the size and complexity of an organization in which an individual previously worked can have a great effect on understanding the entity&apos;s personnel and salary decisions. In situations where they may be allegations of improper selection, access to detailed information about the job histories, education and training of finalists and eligible candidates can help to dispel or reinforce those allegations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 1, the fact that the candidates for president of SCSU are being interviewed by the presidential search committee does not make the names of those candidates public. In the SCSU presidential search process, the appointing authority is the State University Board. When the State University Board selects the candidates that it will interview, the names of those candidates will become public data.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 2, details including dates and places appearing in the job histories and education and training backgrounds of the candidates for the president of SCSU should be disclosed to the public unless it is clear that providing a detail or a series of details could identify a candidate who is not considered a finalist. In making this determination, the SUB should not remove all details but should examine the details of job histories and education and training backgrounds to determine what details, if released, would have a strong possibility of identifying candidates.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: May 6, 1994&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267737</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Access to actual data</Title><Id>266843</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Candidates for employment</Title><Id>360796</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for employment</Title><Id>266522</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicant data</Title><Id>266545</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Education/training background, job history, previous work experience</Title><Id>266583</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2025-08-05T19:56:15Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266420</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-021</Title><title>Opinion 94 021</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267639&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-21T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the City of Rosemount in compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA regarding the appointment of a responsible authority and the development and implementation of procedures for access to government data by the public?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 21, 1994; City of Rosemount</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On March 22, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from Mr. Larry Walsh, a resident of Rosemount, Minnesota. In this letter Mr. Walsh described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained by the City of Rosemount pertaining to actions taken by the City to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA. Mr. Walsh provided copies of the written requests he had made to the City of Rosemount, hereinafter Rosemount.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On December 12, 1993, Mr. Walsh asked Rosemount who was the city&apos;s responsible authority from 1990-1993. On January 26, 1994, Mr. Walsh asked that the city provide him with a copy of the public document described in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 that would identify the responsible authority for the city. He also asked for . . . any materials describing specific procedures set by the city for accessing government data. After describing the history of those requests, Mr. Walsh stated that Rosemount had not provided him with information identifying the responsible authority and had not clearly identified the procedures to be followed to access data maintained by Rosemount. Mr. Walsh then asked that the Commissioner of Administration (Commissioner) issue an opinion on the issue described in the section labeled issue below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Walsh&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Ron Wasmund, Rosemount&apos;s interim city administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated March 28, 1994, were to inform Mr. Wasmund of Mr. Walsh&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Wasmund or the city&apos;s attorney to provide information concerning the issue raised and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 8, 1994, PIPA wrote to Mr. Walsh to explain to him the twenty day period for issuing an opinion in this matter would be extended. The reasons given included the demands of the legislative session and the fact that no response had been received from Rosemount. Subsequently, there were discussions with Rosemount and its attorney and on April 13, 1994, by facsimile transmission, Mike Miles, the attorney for Rosemount, presented a letter of response.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his letter, Mr. Miles explained that he had discussed the issue raised by Mr. Walsh with his client. Based on those discussions, it was Mr. Miles&apos; understanding that Rosemount had for many years empowered its city administrator to serve as the city&apos;s responsible authority. Some years ago, after Rosemount hired its first city clerk, that position was designated as the official to serve as responsible authority and to receive and handle requests for data either personally or through delegations to others. Mr. Miles did not make any other comments about specific public access procedures established by Rosemount.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Walsh asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the City of Rosemount in compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA regarding the appointment of a responsible authority and the development and implementation of procedures for access to government data by the public? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  When the legislature first began formulating the public policies that have now evolved into the full blown MGDPA, there was a recognition that policy objectives concerning the regulation of government data could not be attained unless there was a clear identification of who, within each government entity subject to the MGDPA, would be responsible for the entity&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA. The concept of the responsible authority evolved out of this discussion. Within the MGDPA, the responsible authority is given the assignment of making the decisions and taking actions to establish the policy and procedure framework for an entity&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA. After establishing the framework, the responsible authority then works with personnel of the entity and with citizens on an ongoing basis to assure compliance. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1974, Chapter 479 and Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, 13.05 and 13.08.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this particular instance, Mr. Walsh has come to understand that the MGDPA requires that he make his requests for access to data held by Rosemount to the responsible authority for the city. To be able to do that, Rosemount must be able to tell him who functions as its responsible authority. For some reason they have chosen not to do so. This appears to be the case even though the attorney for Rosemount indicates in his letter to PIPA that the responsible authority has been either the city administrator or the city clerk.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of a city, the actual designation of the responsible authority takes place when a city council, by resolution, appoints the responsible authority for the city. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 16.) So that the public can ascertain the actual identity of the individual appointed, the MGDPA requires the responsible authority to prepare a document containing the name, title and address of the responsible authority. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 1.) The requirement that this document be prepared has been a part of the MGDPA since 1975. (Minnesota Session Laws 1975, Chapter 401, section 2.) Beginning on August 1, 1977, the MGDPA required public entities to annually update this document. (Section 13.05, subdivision 1.) In one of his requests to Rosemount, Mr. Walsh specifically cited to Section 13.05, subdivision 1 and asked for a copy of the Rosemount public document. It was not provided to him.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Rules promulgated by the Department of Administration in 1981 were, among other things, intended to assist government entities in complying with the responsible authority appointment process and public document preparation. In addition to legal rules dealing with those topics, the Department of Administration also provided model advisory forms for resolutions to appoint a responsible authority and to produce the public document required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. (See Minnesota Agency Rules, Chapter 1205 and its Appendix.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The best evidence that Rosemount could offer to Mr. Walsh, as to its compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA regarding the appointment of a responsible authority, would be copies of all appointment resolutions acted upon by the Rosemount City Council and of the public document required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. Although Mr. Miles has identified the city clerk and city administrator as Rosemount&apos;s responsible authorities over the years, copies of appointment resolutions and the public document would demonstrate clearly that Rosemount has actually done what the MGDPA requires it to do in appointing a responsible authority and identifying that responsible authority to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An important feature of the MGDPA is its provisions that deal with public access to government data. In his attempts to get access to data at Rosemount, Mr. Walsh also asked the city to provide him with information about its procedures regarding how citizens get access to public data maintained by the city. Mr. Walsh states that Rosemount has not provided him with copies of those procedures or any information about them. In his comments, Mr. Miles states that Rosemount has directed its city clerk and administrator to deal with public requests for access to data. However, he provided no further detail.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    After stating the presumption that all government data are presumed to be public, the legislature went on to require that the responsible authority in every entity subject to the MGDPA . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) Although the MGDPA does not necessarily require that these procedures be in writing, it would be difficult for a government entity to properly deal with the public access requirement and all the detail associated with it, if the entity did not prepare the public access procedures in writing. In addition, members of the public would have a difficult time in gaining access to public data because they would not know, on an ongoing basis, just exactly what makes up the detailed guidance of the unwritten procedures. For those reasons, agencies are strongly encouraged by PIPA and associations of government entities, like the League of Minnesota Cities, to have written procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The problems that Mr. Walsh has encountered in gaining access to government data at the City of Rosemount are a good illustration of the problem. (See the Commissioner&apos;s previous opinion concerning Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests for access to data at Rosemount issued March 7, 1994.) He has asked for certain government data. He has not received a reply from the city. He has no way to know if the reasons for which he is not being provided the data he is seeking are in the format of his request, to whom he is directing his request or some other problem. Without access to the actual procedures Rosemount has established to direct its personnel on how to comply with requests for access to public, citizens like Mr. Walsh cannot fully exercise the right of public access conferred on them by the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although Rosemount, through its attorney, indicates it has assigned responsibility for handling requests made under Section 13.03 to its city clerk, it has not provided what Mr. Walsh asked for on January 26, 1994. Specifically, he asked for any materials describing the specific procedures set by Rosemount for accessing government data. The best evidence Rosemount can offer about its procedures is a copy of those procedures themselves. They have not been provided to Mr. Walsh and they were not provided as part of Rosemount&apos;s comments on Mr. Walsh&apos;s request for an opinion. Rosemount should either provide Mr. Walsh with a copy of its procedures, explain to him in detail how he gains access to public government data maintained by the city or acknowledge that procedures do not exist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Walsh is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is my opinion that the City of Rosemount does not appear to be in compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA that require the appointment of a responsible authority and identification of that responsible authority to the public. It is my further opinion that the City of Rosemount does not appear to be in compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA that require the establishment of procedures to ensure that public gains prompt and appropriate access to public government data maintained by Rosemount &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 21, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267639</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Responsible authority</Title><Id>266677</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200)</Title><Id>266310</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Name, title, and address</Title><Id>266627</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:49:00Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-020</Title><title>Opinion 94 020</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267955&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-19T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are booking photos public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 19, 1994; Blue Earth County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Due to a legislative change in 1995, booking photographs are now classified as public under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 26.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On March 29, 1994, PIPA received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, the General Counsel of the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Mr. Anfinson stated that he was requesting an opinion on behalf of his newspaper client, the Free Press at Mankato, Minnesota. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson described a request, that was made by a reporter for the Free Press to the Blue Earth County Sheriff&apos;s office, to receive a copy of a booking photo. He stated that in the past, that the Sheriff&apos;s office had regularly provided these photos to reporters working for his client. In this particular instance, the request for the photo was refused and the Sheriff&apos;s office gave Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5 as the basis for that denial of access.
            &lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Anfinson went on to discuss his view of the status of booking photos for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . It is Mr. Anfinson&apos;s view that booking photos cannot be classified as active investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5. He quoted the MGDPA description of what constitutes active criminal investigative data and argued that a booking photograph would virtually never be used to prepare a case against a person. It was his position that booking photographs are used by law enforcement agencies to document the identity of someone who has been detained and are hardly ever used to prepare criminal cases.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              He acknowledged that there may be rare instances in which a booking photo could be active investigative data. He used an example of a booking photo taken in a previous incident and used in the investigation of a later crime. He concluded by saying that, because a photo might occasionally be relied on in preparing a criminal case, this occasional use should not, in all cases, preclude the public&apos;s access to all booking photos maintained by a government agency.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. LaRoy Wiebold, the Blue Earth County Sheriff. The purposes of this letter, dated March 30, 1994, were to inform Sheriff Wiebold of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Sheriff Wiebold or the Blue Earth County Attorney to provide any information about or support for the Sheriff&apos;s position and to inform them of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of this letter were sent to Mr. Ross Arneson, the Blue Earth County Attorney and Mr. Anfinson. The Sheriff and the County Attorney were asked to submit any comments no later than April 13, 1994. No comments were received.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
              &lt;dd /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are booking photos public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                  Discussion:
                  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                The status of booking photographs, also known as mug shots , for purposes of the MGDPA has been the subject of discussion and disagreement for a number of years. In the last legislative session, bills were introduced to clarify the status of booking photos. After some discussion and preliminary action by the Senate, there was no final legislative action taken in the 1993 session. (See H.F. 206 and S.F. 183, both of which were introduced on February 1, 1993.)
                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  No provision of the MGDPA or any other provision of Minnesota Statutes appears to explicitly deal with the subject of booking photos. For example, a review of the items and types of data made public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 2-4, does not include any specific reference to booking photos. However, it is clear from the publication of daily newspapers and the broadcast of television news programs that a number of law enforcement agencies are making booking photos available to the public. Those agencies must have found some basis in the MGDPA for making booking photos public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  In this particular instance, according to Mr. Anfinson, the Blue County Sheriff&apos;s office, hereinafter Sheriff&apos;s Office , has denied his client access to a booking photo and stated that the photo in question is classified as confidential by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5. This provision of the MGDPA classifies . . . data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, . . . for the commission of a crime or civil wrong . . . . as confidential or protected nonpublic. These classifications only apply when the investigation for which the data are being collected is active.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Active criminal investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. These particular classifications are defined by the MGDPA so that they preclude access by the data subject to the data in question. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 13. In the context of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, this represents, among other things, a legislative judgement that criminal investigative data should not be available to the subject of that data. However, in the case of a photo taken of an arrested individual, that individual knows very clearly, after participating in the booking process, that the arresting agency has taken a photo of him or her. It does not follow logically that the arrested person should be denied access to any data concerning the photo taken of them.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  The various provisions of the MGDPA and other statutes that define the types of data that are classified as not public should be interpreted reasonably. To say that a provision of the MGDPA that classifies certain data as confidential should be applied to data that is a non-surreptitious photo taken of the data subject is not a reasonable interpretation of the MGDPA. The subject of the booking photo already knows that the Sheriff&apos;s Office is maintaining this data about him or her and just exactly what the data are.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  Mr. Anfinson&apos;s point that it is difficult to see how, except in very rare instances, a booking photo can actually be data collected or created by a law enforcement agency to prepare a criminal case against an individual is also well taken. By the time of an individual&apos;s arrest in most cases, much of the data that is being collected or created to prepare the criminal case against the individual has already been collected or created by the law enforcement agency. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s conclusion, that booking photos are taken by law enforcement agencies to document the identity of persons detained by them, is very well taken. Data collected for the purpose of documenting the identity of an individual arrested is not data collected or created for the purpose of preparing a criminal case against that individual.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                  None of the various other provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 that classify data as not public appear to apply to booking photos. If booking photos are not classified by any of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, then in this particular instance booking photos should be treated as public data pursuant to the general rule for all government data as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1. Although arguments may be made that other provisions of the MGDPA may classify booking photos as not public, those arguments were not made by the Sheriff&apos;s office in this instance. Absent those arguments and, as discussed above the fact that Section 13.82 does not explicity mention booking photos, the photos should be treated as public data.
                &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Opinion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Booking photos do not appear to be classified as public by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. Booking photos do appear to be classified as public by operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Signed:
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Debra Rae Anderson
                      &lt;br /&gt;
                      Commissioner
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                      Dated: April 19, 1994
                      &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267955</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:59Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-019</Title><title>Opinion 94 019</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267946&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the decision of the city manager at Step II of the grievance process a &quot;final decision&quot; within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 2 (b)?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 15, 1994; City of Crystal</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On March 25, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a request for an opinion from John M. LeFevre Jr., an attorney for the City of Crystal. In his request for an opinion, Mr. LeFevre stated the following facts.
&lt;p&gt;The City of Crystal, hereinafter Crystal , is a political subdivision of the state and therefore, an entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter MGDPA . Under the Crystal Charter, at section 6.02, the city manager appoints city employees and may discipline them. The Crystal Charter also requires that an employee review board be created to rule on grievances brought by nonunion employees. Employees of Crystal who are covered by collective bargaining agreements have grievance rights under those agreements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pursuant to ordinance, Crystal has adopted rules and regulations concerning the employment relationship. For the purpose of handling employee disciplinary actions, these rules and regulations establish a two-step internal procedure for nonunion employees who want to grieve proposed disciplinary actions. In Step I of the grievance process, the employee presents the grievance to his or her department head for a decision. If the employee disagrees with the department head&apos;s decision, the grieving employee, in Step II, may appeal the department head&apos;s decision to the city manager. The city manager must give a written notice of the city manager&apos;s final determination concerning the grievance. An employee may not submit a grievance to the employee review board until all steps of this grievance procedure have been completed. Any grievance submitted for review by the employee review board must be submitted within ten days of the city manger&apos;s final determination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Crystal Charter and Code, the employee review board is composed of three residents of Crystal who are appointed by the City Council. The employee review board has the discretion to refuse to review a grievance. If the board chooses to review the grievance, it may conduct a hearing and confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the city manager. A decision of the employee review board is final.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Crystal currently has a grievance proceeding pending at Step II of the process which involves a proposed disciplinary action against a nonunion employee of the city. It is anticipated that if the city manager issues a determination that is adverse to the employee that the employee will submit that grievance to the employee review board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
The issue raised by Mr. LeFevre in his opinion request was stated by him as follows:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the decision of the city manager at Step II of the grievance process a final decision within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 2 (b)?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
After stating this issue, Mr. LeFevre quoted the full text of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). This is the provision of the MGDPA that provides guidance on when there is a final disposition of a proposed disciplinary action. This provision is of critical importance to both the public and public employees because, when there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action, detailed information about why the employee is being disciplined becomes public data under the MGDPA.
&lt;p&gt;The full text of this provision reads as follows:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;(b) For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency, statewide system, political subdivision, or arbitrator.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. LeFevre then stated that it is Crystal&apos;s position that the city manager&apos;s decision is the final decision of the City within the meaning of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b). Although the Crystal grievance procedure does provide for the appeal of a city manager&apos;s decision to the employee review board, in the City&apos;s view that appeal procedure is a later proceeding within the meaning of subdivision 2 (b). Under this interpretation, detailed data about a disciplinary action would become public at the conclusion of Step II of the grievance process when the city manager issues a final determination upholding the proposed disciplinary action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After the Minnesota Supreme Court&apos;s decision in the case of &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. 1989), the legislature decided that it should more clearly specify just when the final disposition of a disciplinary action against a public employee would occur. Chief impetus for this concern came from a perception that one of the holding of the &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Annandale&lt;/span&gt; decision was, that as long as a public employee had recourse to any possible forum in which to appeal a disciplinary action, no detailed information could be made available to the public about the disciplinary action. Given possible recourse by the employee to judicial and other forums, disclosure of detailed data about an employee disciplinary action could be delayed for years. (&lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, at p. 29.) Section 13.43 subdivision 2 (b) was added to the MGDPA to deal with that issue. (See Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, Section 1.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b) contains different specifications and possibilities as to when the final disposition of a disciplinary action may occur. For public employees, who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, subdivision 2 (b) states that . . . a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, . . . . The focus in this language is on whether the government entity has made its final decision about a disciplinary action. Once its decision is made, the proposed disciplinary action of the government entity is final and detailed data about that action becomes public. It is clear from a reading of the first sentence of subdivision 2 (b) that the it referred to is either a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Crystal discipline and appeal process for nonunion employees, the decision of the city manager may be appealed to the employee review board. The employee review board is provided for in both the Crystal City Charter and City Code. (See the Crystal City Charter, section 6.07 and Crystal City Code, Section 312.11.) The members of the employee review board are appointed by the city council. (Crystal Charter 6.07.) The qualifications and terms of members of the review board are established by the Crystal Code. (Crystal Code, 312.05.) The Crystal City Code requires that the city manager provide the employee review board with staff and legal assistance and that members of the board are reimbursed for expenses by Crystal. Most importantly, the employee review board can modify a decision of the city manager in any respect. (Crystal City Code, 312.11, subd. 5.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By its adoption of the Charter and Code provisions dealing with the employee review board, Crystal has made the operation of the employee review board and appeals to it by employees an integral part of the process Crystal uses to deal with employee disciplinary matters. Although from a temporal standpoint, a decision by the employee review board may be a later proceeding, decisions by the board are actually the last step in an integrated process used by Crystal to process employee disciplinary matters. Crystal has established and supports the employee review board. The board is not making decisions for itself. It is making decisions on behalf of the City of Crystal. Decisions by the employee review board, to either not review a decision of the city manager or to review a city manager&apos;s decision in a hearing and either uphold the decision or to modify it, are the final decisions of the City of Crystal for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. LeFevre is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;The decision of the city manager at Step II of the grievance process used in the City of Crystal is not the final decision concerning a disciplinary action. For purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), a final decision occurs in the Crystal grievance process for nonunion employees when the employee elects not to grieve a proposed disciplinary action within the timeframe required by the Crystal Code, the employee review board decides not to review a decision by the city manager or the board reviews a decision and issues its written order upholding a proposed disciplinary action.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: April 15, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267946</id><pubdate>2022-12-02T21:56:27Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-018</Title><title>Opinion 94 018</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267647&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-11T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Under Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 8, does the phrase &quot;data on the complainant or witness&quot; include more than the names of student complainants?
If so, does it include: (a) the names of witnesses, (b) any or all of the data described in Mr. Tanick&apos;s* letter to Maggie Wallner**, and/or (c) any other data not specifically described in Mr. Tanick&apos;s letter?
What (or who) determines which data are &quot;necessary for the employee to prepare&quot; for the disciplinary proceeding?
*Ms. Clark&apos;s client&apos;s former attorney.

**An attorney for District 272.</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 11, 1994; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On February 25, 1994 the Commissioner of Administration (Commissioner) received a letter from Ms. Christina L. Clark, a staff attorney for the Minnesota Education Association. In this letter, Ms. Clark described attempts by her and another attorney representing Ms. Clark&apos;s client to get access to certain data. Requests for the data were made in connection with preparation of a defense against a disciplinary action being proposed against Ms. Clark&apos;s client by the Eden Prairie School District, hereinafter District 272 . In her letter, Ms. Clark raised a number of issues concerning requests for data made to District 272 and asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on those issues.
            &lt;p&gt;
              On March 2, 1994, on behalf of the Commissioner, Donald Gemberling of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) wrote to Ms. Clark. The purpose of this letter was to clarify the exact issues that Ms. Clark was requesting the Commissioner to address with an opinion and to clarify the determinations made about those issues by District 272. He noted that Ms. Clark&apos;s February 25 request could not be treated as an opinion request, for time line purposes, until those issues were resolved. In a letter dated March 9, 1994, Ms. Clark submitted a new request for an opinion that identified three issues to be addressed by the Commissioner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her letter and copies of other correspondence she enclosed, Ms. Clark described attempts by her and her client&apos;s previous attorney to get access to certain data maintained by District 272. Her client&apos;s former attorney had, on October 15, 1993, asked for copies of a variety of materials and documentation relating to complaints and charges, accusations and so forth against the client, no matter if those documents identified other individuals, including students. In a letter dated October 28, 1993, and sent to an attorney for District 272, Ms. Clark notified the District that she was now representing the client. In this letter, Ms. Clark made reference to the request made by the previous attorney and reiterated that request on behalf of her client.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 4, 1994, Ms. Clark wrote to the attorneys for District 272 to discuss a number of issues relating to an arbitration hearing for her client. She reviewed the previous requests for access to data, stated that she now had most of the documents that she was seeking but requested that she be provided with the names of the students whose complaints had been the source of the most recent allegations against her client. She stated that her client was entitled to this data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. She reminded the attorneys for District 272 that this data practices request had been made 112 days prior to her letter.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 14, 1994, Mr. Joseph Flynn, an attorney for District 272, wrote to Ms. Clark. He stated that his letter was in response to her February 4, 1994, requests. He listed the names of five students who had made complaints and stated that the names were being provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. He also advised Ms. Clark that these names could not be disclosed to anyone other than her client and others representing him and that the names could not be used for any purpose other than preparation for the discharge hearing. He also stated that there were no other public documents available from District 272 that would be responsive to Ms. Clark&apos;s requests.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Following this explanation of her client&apos;s dispute with District 272, Ms. Clark asked the Commissioner to address the three issues that are reproduced in the Issues section below. In response to Ms. Clark&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Dr. Gerald McCoy, the superintendent of schools for District 272. The purposes of this letter, dated March 14, 1994, were to inform District 272 of Ms. Clark&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Dr. McCoy or the District&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support concerning the District&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of this letter were sent to Ms. Clark and Mr. Flynn. In subsequent correspondence and conversations with Mr. Flynn, PIPA agreed to extend by one week the date by which District 272 was to submit its response. Ms. Clark was apprised by letter of this extension.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On April 4, 1994, PIPA received Mr. Flynn&apos;s response. Mr. Flynn stated that his letter represents how District 272 interprets Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. He went on to state that the District had made two determinations on data practices issues related to the requests by Ms. Clark on behalf of her client. First, the District had determined that it was appropriate to release the names of student complainants to Ms. Clark&apos;s client but that any additional necessary and relevant data are available to the client by other procedural means. Second, the District had determined that while the release of the names is appropriate, Ms. Clark&apos;s client can use the names only for preparation for the arbitration and that the names may not be redisclosed or used for any other purpose.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Flynn went on to explain that when District 272 had received the initial October 15, 1993, request, the District had studied the request in light of the language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. The District ultimately determined that disclosure of the names was necessary so that Ms. Clark&apos;s client could prepare for the arbitration proceeding but that the names once disclosed could not be redisclosed or used for any other purpose. Mr. Flynn went on to discuss the District&apos;s reasoning concerning those two determinations.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the issue of the release of names and other data concerning the complainants, the District determined that the names and other data about the student complainants were private data. Private data about students can be released only under limited circumstances as expressly authorized by statute or federal law. Mr. Flynn reviewed the various provisions of and cases decided under state and federal law that had been examined by District 272. This examination included a review of the language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, that states that data about complainants or witnesses shall be available to an employee as may be necessary to prepare for a disciplinary proceeding. It was the determination of District 272 that, while the names of complainants were data that were necessary for the employee to receive, other data about the complainants were not necessary and would not be provided. Mr. Flynn pointed out that Ms. Clark&apos;s client could seek a court order or the consent of students or their parents for release of any additional data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Flynn then discussed District&apos;s 272&apos;s second determination that the names could be used only for preparation for the arbitration proceeding and could not be redisclosed and used for any other purpose. District 272 placed these conditions on the dissemination of the names to Ms. Clark and her client based on a reading of the federal law that regulates access to and dissemination of educational records. Federal law makes it clear that a person receiving education records may use those records only for the purposes for which the disclosure was made. (See 34 C.F.R. 99.33.) It was District 272&apos;s determination that, as the students&apos; names are education records, the only authorized use for the dissemination of students&apos; names would be to enable Ms. Clark&apos;s client to prepare for the arbitration. Any further disclosure or use of the information by Ms. Clark or her client would be, in Mr. Flynn&apos;s view, prohibited by federal law.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In closing, Mr. Flynn reiterated that the District&apos;s release of names was in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, and that limitations imposed on Ms. Clark and her client concerning the use of the names and any further disclosure of them was limited by federal law.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her letter requesting an opinion, Ms. Clark asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Under Minn. Stat. section13.43, subd. 8, does the phrase data on the complainant or witness include more than the names of student complainants?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If so, does it include: (a) the names of witnesses, (b) any or all of the data described in Mr. Tanick&apos;s* letter to Maggie Wallner**, and/or (c) any other data not specifically described in Mr. Tanick&apos;s letter?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            What (or who) determines which data are necessary for the employee to prepare for the disciplinary proceeding?
                            &lt;p&gt;
                              *Ms. Clark&apos;s client&apos;s former attorney.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              **An attorney for District 272.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The genesis for this dispute between Ms. Clark&apos;s client and District 272 originates with the October 15, 1993, request made to an attorney for the District for, in summary, copies of all data relating to complaints, charges or accusations made against the employee no matter if that data identifies other individuals including students. The discussions between Ms. Clark and attorneys for District 272 continued for several months until Ms. Clark made a very focused request for data in her February 4, 1994 letter to Mr. Flynn. In that letter, Ms. Clark stated that her primary interest was to receive the names of students who had complained about her client and that her client was entitled to this data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. All subsequent discussions between Ms. Clark and District 272, including the issues raised in Ms. Clark&apos;s request for an opinion and the District&apos;s response to the request, focus on whether the names and other data about individuals who allege harassment by a public employee can be made available to that employee.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, was added to the Minnesota Government Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA , as a 1993 change to the Act. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1993, Chapter 351, Section 7.) Subdivision 8 reads as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Subd. 8. Harassment data. When allegations of sexual or other types of harassment are made against an employee, the employee does not have access to data that would identify the complainant or other witnesses if the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to that data would:
                          &lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              threaten the personal safety of the complainant or a witness; or
                              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                              subject the complainant or witness to harassment.
                              &lt;p&gt;
                                If a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding.
                              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This particular subdivision was added to the Act because of a particular situation encountered in 1992 by Senator Gene Merriam, who has been a principal architect of the policies established in the MGDPA. An employee of the Senate complained about alleged harassment by an executive branch employee. As part of an investigation into that complaint, agents of the executive branch interviewed the Senate employee, other Senate employees and Senator Merriam. Subsequently Senator Merriam and the Senate employees learned that the data they had provided in those interviews had been made available to the employee against whom the complaint was originally made. Discussions with executive branch representatives established that it was their position that the employee was entitled to the interview information as a function of collective bargaining agreements and due process requirements. Given the circumstances of this particular instance of harassment, Senator Merriam was of the opinion that this information should not be released to the executive branch employee.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Subsequently, Senator Merriam authored an amendment to Senate File 976, the 1993 Senate version of the Omnibus Data Practices Bill . (See S.F. 976, introduced on March 15, 1993, by Senators Ranum, Finn and Merriam, with a report of the Judiciary Committee recommending adoption of the bill adopted by the Senate on March 31, 1993. Senator Merriam&apos;s amendment became Section 5 of S.F. 976.) The Omnibus Data Practices Bill is the popular name assigned to a bill processed in both the Minnesota House and Senate that is used by the legislature each year as the principal vehicle to amend the MGDPA and other statutes related to legislative direction on information. Senator Merriam&apos;s amendment contained only the language that appears in the first paragraph of Subdivision 8.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1993 House version of the Omnibus Data Practices Bill , H.F. 1245, authored by Representatives McGuire, Carruthers and Macklin did not, when it was passed by the House on May 5, 1993, contain any language pertaining to Senator Merriam&apos;s amendment. This and other differences between the two versions of the 1993 Omnibus Bill were subsequently resolved in a conference committee and the product of that conference committee was enacted into law as Chapter 351.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When Senator Merriam&apos;s amendment was considered by the conference committee, concerns were raised about the effect of his amendment on the due process rights of public employees. Although his amendment dealt only with very limited situations in which a complaint against an employee involved sexual or other forms of harassment and was further limited to situations where the responsible authority determined that employee access to data about complainants might threaten the personal safety of a complainant or witness or subject them to further harassment, concern was raised by members of the conference committee that, even in those very limited situations, an employee might need access to data about a complainant to be able to effectively prepare a response to the complaint. Those discussions led the conference committee to agree to the language that became the second paragraph of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Understanding this legislative history is critical to understanding the operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. The background to this amendment was based on a legislative understanding that because of collective bargaining agreements or due process concerns, public employees have access to data about complainants or witnesses. Senator Merriam&apos;s amendment was an attempt to limit that access only in those situations where access by an employee could threaten the safety of a complainant or witness or subject them to further harassment. The final decision by the entire legislature on that issue was that in those situations where the responsible authority determines, based on safety concerns or additional harassment possibilities, that an employee cannot have access to identifying data about complainants or witnesses, that this determination could be subsequently set aside if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee and it was determined by the responsible authority that the identifying data on complainants or witnesses is needed by the employee to prepare for the proceeding.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Section 13.43, subdivision 8 amendment was not intended to be new and independent authority for the dissemination of identifying data on complainants and witnesses to public employees in situations involving allegations of sexual or other kinds of harassment. It was intended to deal only with those situations where a responsible authority determines, based on safety or further harassment concerns, that an employee is not entitled to gain access to identifying data about complainants or witnesses. It was also intended, in those situations where a responsible authority determines to withhold access to witness and complainant identifying data, to give the employee the means to gain access to the data if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated and the employee needs the identifying data to prepare for the proceeding.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the particular situation of attempts by Ms. Clark&apos;s client to gain access to data involving the accusations against him, there does not appear to have been a determination by the responsible authority for District 272 that the employee&apos;s access to data about the student complainants would threaten the safety of those complainants or subject them to further harassment. Without that determination by the responsible authority for District 272, the discussion about access by the employee to data about complainants is not a discussion that is guided by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8. It is a discussion based on the whether the employee is entitled to access to this data under the District&apos;s collective bargaining agreements with its employees or as may be required to protect the due process interests of the employee. In addition, District 272 must also consider whether disclosure of data concerning complainants who are students presents issues under federal law regulating the disclosure of education records and state law classifying educational data as private. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 34 C.F.R. 99.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner&apos;s opinions are intended by the legislature, among other things, to provide education for agencies and the public and to assist in the resolution of controversies. Given those objectives, the Commissioner has determined, even though it appears that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8 should not have been at issue in this situation, that Ms. Clark should receive answers to the issues she raised.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    As to issue 1,
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 limits access only to data that identifies a complainant or witnesses. This is consistent with the intent of the legislature in enacting this section to deal only with situations where there is a threat to the personal safety of a witness or complainant or the possibility of further harassment.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    As to issue 2,
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Ms. Clark, in her February 14, 1994, letter to Mr. Flynn, stated that she had received most of the documents asked for in the data practices request and that her primary interest was in receiving the names of the student complainants. Given those statements and the flow of other correspondence and phone calls involving the parties, it is understandable that District 272 took the position that it made no determination on this issue. If Ms. Clark does not agree with this conclusion, she should either renew her request for data, make a new request or use the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6 to gain access to the data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    As to issue 3,
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  the initial determination as to whether identifying data about complainants or witnesses, in situations involving sexual or other forms of harassment, are available to a public employee being complained about must be based in the determinations called for in Section 13.43, subdivision 8. If the responsible authority determines that access by the employee will not threaten witness or complainant safety or subject a witness or complainant to further harassment, then the responsible authority may release the data to the employee. This assumes that data on the complainants or witnesses are not classified as not public by other Minnesota Statutes or federal law. If the responsible authority determines that the employee&apos;s access to data identifying complainants or witnesses may threaten their personal safety or subject them to harassment, the responsible authority may withhold data identifying complainants or witnesses from the employee. If data are being withheld and a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the employee, the responsible authority shall release the identifying data to the employee if the responsible authority determines the data are necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding. If a responsible authority determines that the data are not necessary and the employee disagrees, then the employee can seek relief from a judge, hearing officer or arbitrator as established in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6.
                  &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinions on the issues raised by Ms. Clark are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8 should not have been at issue in this situation. However, in response to issues number one and two as raised by Ms. Clark, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8 is concerned only with regulating the release of identifying data on complainants and witnesses and regulates that release only in the particular circumstances described in Section 13.43, subdivision 8. Whether an employee is entitled to gain access to the other data described in the initial request letter sent to District 272 is determined by statutes and collective bargaining agreements specifically applicable to that data and to resolutions of disputes concerning access to that data. As to issue 3, the determination concerning release of data on complainants or witnesses, in the particular circumstances described in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 8, is a determination made by the responsible authority for the data. An employee who disagrees with those determinations can seek resolution of that disagreement under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 11, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267647</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment claims, investigations</Title><Id>266489</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Collective bargaining agreements</Title><Id>266602</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Complainant identity</Title><Id>266343</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8)</Title><Id>266603</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Witness identity or statement</Title><Id>267171</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-017</Title><title>Opinion 94 017</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267298&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-07T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether your office is required by Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.04 to provide her with access to data concerning the County&apos;s collection and payment of child support to her?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 7, 1994; Ramsey County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On March 7, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from X, a resident of Roseville, Minnesota. In this letter and the enclosures that accompanied it, X described attempts by her to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s office of Child Support and Collections (CSC).
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X provided a copy of a letter that she had sent to Ms. Tamsin Bergmann, a child support supervisor in CSC, on February 15, 1994, and to Ms. Judith Wong, the CSC manager, on March 2, 1994. In that letter, X asked to inspect and to receive copies of all checks sent by CSC to her for child support. She stated that she was making this request to cover all checks sent to her in the time period from January, 1986, to February, 1994. X also requested that she receive all information about revenue recapture and wage withholding in regards to payments collected by the county for recovery of payments made to her for public assistance for herself and her son. She specifically stated that when this data was provided she did not want to receive any data that would identify an individual, named in her letter, who is the father of her son. For both types of data, she asked that she be provided access within five days of her request and she cited the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA that she believed to be applicable to her request.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X provided a copy of a letter from Ms. Bergman, dated March 2, 1994, that was sent in response to X&apos;s February 15, 1994, letter. In this letter, Ms. Bergman first stated the following: I am sorry that we are unable to comply with your request for copies of all checks sent to you by this office from January, 1986, through February, 1994. It is the policy of this office to provide copies of cancelled checks only when the receipt of a specific check is in question. Our policy has not changed since you made this same request in 1991.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Bergman went on the explain that X receives a monthly statement, called a Notice of Collections that provides detailed information about payments received and distributed by CSC in the previous month. Ms. Bergman also mentioned that CSC prepares account reviews once a year upon a written request and that an account review was prepared for X on April 29, 1993. Ms. Bergman stated that if X wanted another account review, that she would need to submit a written request to her child support agent.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her letter to the Commissioner, X then asked that the Commissioner review the position of herself and of Ramsey County concerning her right to access information in regards to collection and distribution of child support to herself and to the County. Based on her request to the Commissioner, staff of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) formulated the issue described in the Issues section below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Foley, the Ramsey County Attorney. CSC is organizationally located within the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office. As the elected county attorney, Mr. Foley is the responsible authority for the MGDPA for his office. The purposes of this letter, dated March 14, 1994, were to inform Mr. Foley of X&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Foley to provide any information or support for CSC&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 22, 1994, Don Gemberling, director of PIPA wrote to X and Mr. Foley to inform them that due to his absence from the office, that issuance of the opinion would be delayed. For good cause, the Commissioner may delay issuance of an opinion up to 30 days after the initial 20 days allowed by the opinion statute.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On March 31, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Jill Fedje, an Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. Ms. Fedje first reviewed the status of data collected and maintained by CSC. As CSC operates under contracts with the state Department of Human Services, it was her position that data collected by CSC is welfare data regulated by Section 13.46 of the MGDPA. She went on to point out that welfare data is classified as private data by Section 13.46 and that on account of that classification X would not have a right to see all data contained in the file about collection of support.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms Fedje reviewed X&apos;s rights to see data maintained about her and stated that . . . Ramsey County Child Support and Collections has complied fully with the mandates of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. She went on to state that contrary to X&apos;s belief, CSC does not keep copies of the checks requested by X. She did refer to Ms. Bergman&apos;s description of CSC&apos;s practice of providing monthly statements and account reviews as a means for X to get access to information. In closing her letter, Ms. Fedje reiterated that CSC does not keep on its premises copies of the checks sent to the custodial parent and pointed out that X has been given monthly notices and account reviews on numerous occasions .
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In its letter to the Ramsey County Attorney&apos;s Office, PIPA summarized the issue raised by X in her request for an opinion as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Whether your office is required by Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.04 to provide her with access to data concerning the County&apos;s collection and payment of child support to her? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  In the letters she sent to Ms. Bergman and Ms. Wong, X made two distinct requests for access to data maintained by CSC. She first asked to inspect and to receive copies of cancelled checks that had been sent to her during the period of time from January, 1986, to February, 1994. She also requested all information about revenue recapture and wage withholding concerning payments collected by Ramsey County and funds kept by the County to recover AFDC monies spent on herself and her son. She specifically noted in making this latter request that she did not want to have access to any data that would identify the father of her son.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to X&apos;s first request, Ms. Bergman stated, in her March 3, 1994, letter that CSC could not comply with X&apos;s requests for copies of the checks. She stated that it was the policy of CSC to only provide copies of cancelled checks when the receipt of a specific check was in question. Ms. Bergman did not respond to X&apos;s second request other than to mention that CSC provides monthly notice of collections and on request, subject to certain limitations, will prepare account reviews.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In reviewing CSC&apos;s position on X&apos;s two requests, Ms. Fedje commented on X&apos;s first request by stating that copies of checks or the actual checks are not kept on CSC&apos;s premises. In commenting on X&apos;s second request, Ms. Fedje stated that as this data is welfare data , subject to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, that X does not have the right to see data contained in X&apos;s CSC file that involves the noncustodial parent. Ms. Fedje also mentions the availability of monthly statements and account reviews.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Under the MGDPA, X has the right to gain access to all private or public data maintained about her by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Ms. Fedje, in her response, acknowledged that the data that CSC is collecting and maintaining is welfare data , regulated by Section 13.46 of the MGDPA, because CSC is part of the welfare system. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46 subdivision 1 (c).) Data on individuals maintained by the welfare system are, with certain exceptions, classified as private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 2.) To the extent that CSC maintains private data about her, including actual or copies of cancelled checks sent to her, X has the right under Section 13.04 of the MGDPA to gain access to that data. Access for purposes of Section 13.04, subdivision 3 consists of either physically inspecting these checks or receiving copies of them.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her February 15, 1994 letter to CSC, X asked to inspect certain checks and to receive copies of them. Ms. Bergman did not respond to that request by saying that CSC did not keep the actual checks or copies of them. She responded by saying that it was the policy of CSC to only provide copies of checks under certain circumstances. Although that may be CSC&apos;s policy, that policy ignores the duty that CSC owes to X, and to other individuals on whom it maintains private data, to provide access to that data in compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA. CSC cannot operate a policy that is counter to the requirements of the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her comment on X&apos;s request for an opinion, Ms. Fedje states that CSC cannot provide the actual checks or copies of them to X because the checks or copies are not kept on the premises of CSC. In light of Ms. Bergman&apos;s response to the effect that CSC will provide copies of checks under certain circumstances, Ms. Fedje&apos;s comment is confusing. Her explanation that the checks are not kept on the premises of CSC is also confusing. A government entity cannot avoid its duties under the MGDPA simply by choosing to physically store data for which it is accountable outside the normal offices of the entity. No matter where CSC may be choosing to physically store public or private data about X, she has the right to gain access to that data. In this situation, particularly in light of the comments made by Ms. Bergman, X had the right to expect that the actual checks or copies of them are available from CSC. If the data constituting these checks is actually maintained by another government entity, then CSC should clear up the confusion it has created by either assisting X to secure the copies of the checks to which she is entitled from that entity or by referring X to that entity.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to the right to gain access to the private data in the checks she requested, X has the right to request access to and CSC is required to provide her with access to other private data maintained about her by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) In addition to her rights as a data subject, she has a right as a citizen to gain access to public data maintained by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3.) Depending on the actual content of the data maintained by CSC, X&apos;s second request is either a request for access to private data about herself, a request for access to public data that documents transactions involving money that the County has collected and paid to itself for recovery of previous AFDC payments to X and her son or a combination of both.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Except for references to monthly statements and account reviews, Ms. Bergman did not respond at all to X&apos;s second request. In her comments, Ms. Fedje mentions that X cannot get access to private data about the noncustodial parent in CSC files and also states that X gets a monthly statement and can ask for an account review. However, in making her second request, X specifically stated that she did not want to receive data that would identify the noncustodial data. She asks for data about CSC&apos;s collections of money and disbursements of that money to itself and to her. While CSC personnel persist in offering her monthly statements and account reviews, X is asking for the source data, either public data not on individuals about the County and how it pays itself over the course of CSC&apos;s relationship with X or private data about herself and the course of that relationship, that CSC uses to produce or prepare account reviews or monthly statements. This kind of data not on individuals maintained by the welfare system is public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1 and 13.46, subdivision 6.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    CSC, both in Ms. Bergman&apos;s initial response and in Ms. Fedje&apos;s comments, refuses to acknowledge that X is asking for data that CSC maintains or to tell her that the data she seeks does not exist. In essence, CSC keeps saying to X: We will give you what we want to give you (account reviews and monthly statements) but we will not give you the data you are asking for (private data about X or all public data concerning how the County disburses money to itself.) X is entitled to this data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    To the extent that CSC is maintaining data about private data on individuals other than X, it is CSC&apos;s responsibility, in properly handling her requests, to separate private data about others from private data about X and public data about the County. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.03, subdivisions 1-3.) Access to the private data about X should have been provided to her within five days of her initial request and access to the public data she requested at the same time should have been provided to her promptly. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.08, subdivision 3 and 13.03, subdivision 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X, as stated in the March 14, 1994, letter to Mr. Foley, is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is my opinion that CSC had not provided X with timely access to data that she has a right to gain access to as required by Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.04. CSC should review its policies and procedures and the data requested by X to provide data to her and to make whatever changes may be necessary to assure that requests such as those made by X are handled in compliance with the MGDPA.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 7, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267298</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Child support</Title><Id>266396</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:58Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Litigation</Title><Id>266590</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-016</Title><title>Opinion 94 016</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267862&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-04-05T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must the District release to her the IEPs or any elements or items contained in them?
If so, what elements or items contained in the IEPs must the District release?
Are there any elements or items contained in the IEPs that the District must not release?
If so, what are they?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>April 5, 1994; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On March 16, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from Ms. Christina L. Clark, a staff attorney for the Minnesota Education Association. In this letter, Ms. Clark described attempts by her to get access to certain data. She explained that she represents the Anoka-Hennepin Education Association in a number of grievances filed by a special education teacher against the Anoka-Hennepin School District, Independent School District No. 11 and, hereinafter, District 11. She stated that her client and District 11 are preparing to arbitrate these grievances.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In preparation for that arbitration, Ms. Clark, on January 27, 1994, wrote to Cathryn T. Olson, a representative of District 11, and made two requests for data under the Data Practices Act. In addition to asking for public personnel data about a District 11 employee, Ms. Clark also asked for a sample set of at least thirty individual education plans (IEPs) for students of District 11 prepared by teachers other than the teacher she is representing. In her request, Ms. Clark made it clear that she did not want to receive copies of IEPs that would contain names or other data that could identify an individual student. After a subsequent phone message from Ms. Olson, Ms. Clark, in a letter dated January 31, 1994, amended her data practices request as to the type of data she requested and certain criterion for selection of the data.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated February 9, 1994, Ms. Gloria Blaine-Olsen, an attorney for District 11, informed Ms. Clark that the data Ms. Clark had requested about student IEPs could not be made available to Ms. Clark. It was Ms. Blaine-Olsen&apos;s opinion that providing the IEPs without student names would still violate . . . state and federal data practices laws because the IEPs contain personally identifiable information even with the student names removed. In a letter to Ms. Blaine-Olsen, dated February 14, 1994, Ms. Clark discussed Ms. Blaine-Olsen&apos;s response and reiterated that she did not want to receive IEPs that would identify students. Ms. Clark asked Ms. Blaine-Olsen to explain what items of data contained in an IEP would constitute personally identifiable information.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a letter dated February 25, 1994, Ms. Blaine-Olsen responded to Ms. Clark&apos;s inquiry. Ms. Blaine-Olsen quoted the Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 provision that defines educational data in broad terms. She also quoted the federal rule provision, 34 C.F.R. Section 99.31, that restricts the disclosure of personally identifiable data on students. It was Ms. Blaine-Olsen&apos;s position that IEPs are specifically developed for each individual student for whom a plan is required. In her view, IEPs are so unique to each student and so full of detail about the student that even with names deleted that IEPs may still constitute individually identifiable data. Disclosure of individually identifiable data in an IEP . . . would constitute a violation of data practices laws and regulations. In conclusion, Ms. Blaine-Olsen stated that District 11 . . . must strictly comply with data practices laws and regulations.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Following the detailed discussion outlined above, Ms. Clark then asked the Commissioner of Administration (Commissioner) to issue an opinion concerning four issues. Those issues are reproduced below in the section labeled Issues . In response to Ms. Clark&apos;s request, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA), on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Douglas Otto, the Superintendent of District 11. The purposes of this letter, dated March 22, 1994, were to inform Mr. Otto of Ms. Clark&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Otto or the District&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the District&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On March 31, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Anne Krisnik and Ms. Gloria Blaine-Olsen who identified themselves as attorneys for District 11. This letter reiterated District 11&apos;s position that IEPs could not be edited in a way that would avoid disclosure of individually identifiable data on specific students. The letter went into significant detail concerning requirements of state and federal law relative to the preparation and content of IEPs. In summary, the letter stated that . . . each IEP is custom designed for the individual student which it covers. The District believes it is impossible to remove personally identifiable information from an IEP since an IEP, by its very nature, is made up completely of information specific to an individual student. Any number of the pieces of information contained in an IEP may be connected to a particular student, thereby allowing a significant amount of private data on that student to be released.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Given the nature of IEPs, as discussed above, it is District 11&apos;s position that . . IEPs cannot be provided to the MEA without releasing private educational data. Because of the nature of an IEP, the student&apos;s data privacy rights cannot be protected merely by redacting names or other minor pieces of data. It is the belief of the District that release of IEPs is prohibited by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her letter requesting an opinion, Ms. Clark asked that the Commissioner answer the following questions:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Must the District release to her the IEPs or any elements or items contained in them?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If so, what elements or items contained in the IEPs must the District release?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Are there any elements or items contained in the IEPs that the District must not release?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If so, what are they?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA , at Section 13.32 defines educational data as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution as educational data. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) With the exception of directory information , educational data are classified as private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3.) Directory information is that information designated by a school district, in compliance with federal law, as directory information. Neither Ms. Krisnik nor Ms. Clark has provided any information that would lead to a conclusion that data involving student IEPs have been designated by District 11 as directory information . In addition to the requirements of the MGDPA, federal law restricts the disclosure of education records. (See 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 34 C.F.R. Part 99.)
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this particular instance, Ms. Clark is a member of the public when she requests data from District 11. As an attorney representing a grievant, there is nothing in the MGDPA or federal law that gives her or her client any special access to private educational data or education records. However, Ms. Clark asserts, and she has done so consistently since her first request to District 11, that she is not seeking access to private educational data or to individually identifiable education records. She is seeking access to IEPs from which all data that could identify an individual student has been removed. If IEPs can be edited in such a way to remove all personal identifiers, the resulting product is no longer private educational data under the MGDPA or individually identifiable data under federal law. The product of this editing process would be data that does not identify individual subjects. This product would be public data under the MGDPA and not subject to regulation by federal law. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1 and 34 C.F.R. Part 99.) This particular process of editing out personal identifiers from a set of data has come to be called redaction .
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response to Ms. Clark&apos;s request to receive redacted copies of IEPs, District 11 takes the position that given the unique nature of IEPs that it is not possible for the District to prepare a redacted version of an IEP. Although it is possible to argue that at least some redacting of these IEPs is theoretically possible, it is ultimately District 11&apos;s judgement call as to whether or not these IEPs can be redacted in such a way as to not reveal private data about individual students. The process of doing the redaction is under the control of District 11. However, exercise of this control also can subject District 11 to possible liability under the MGDPA. If the District were to improperly redact an IEP or IEPs in such a way as to reveal data about a student to Ms. Clark, a member of the public, this disclosure could be actionable under the MGDPA by the student or his or her parents. Not surprisingly in a situation like this, District 11 has elected to take a position that exposes the District to the least legal risk and to not agree to release any IEP data to Ms. Clark.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However, this situation also presents a dilemma for Ms. Clark and her client. It is Ms. Clark&apos;s opinion that access to this IEP data will be most helpful to assisting her client in the successful resolution of the client&apos;s grievance against District 11. In this particular situation, the District&apos;s position, while it is clearly based on concern for providing privacy protections for student data as required by state and federal law, may also be helpful to the District as an adversary to a grievance brought against it by one of its employees. To address these kinds of dilemmas, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Briefly stated, this provision states a policy that if a government entity subject to the MGDPA resists discovery of data maintained by it on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party seeking access to the data can bring an action to ask the officer presiding over a dispute to compel the government entity to release the data. Presiding officers include judicial officers, administrative law judges and arbitrators. It is the responsibly of the presiding officer to conduct a balancing test concerning access to and release of the not public data and, if necessary, to issue protective orders to assure proper handling of the data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6.) A government entity that releases not public data pursuant to an order issued under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6 is immune from civil or criminal liability. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 5.) Federal law governing educational records provides for release of individually identifiable student record information without consent of the parent or student pursuant to court order or subpoena if a school district makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student that the district has received an order or subpoena. (See 34 C.F.R. 31.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, recourse to Section 13.03, subdivision 6 of the MGDPA can give Ms. Clark access to complete IEPs so long as she can convince the arbitrator that the needs of her client outweigh the privacy interests of any individuals identified in the IEPs. In addition, if she and her client receive IEP data, Ms. Clark and her client may have to comply with protective order concerning the IEPs issued by the arbitrator. On the other hand, District 11, if it receives a subpoena issued by the arbitrator after the balancing requirements of Section 13.03, subdivision 6 have been met, will be able to release the data to Ms. Clark without concern for liability.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinions on the issues raised by Ms. Clark are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issues 1 and 2,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                because the IEP data identify or may identify students even after a process of some redacting, District 11 is constrained from releasing private educational data to Ms. Clark as a member of the public.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issues 3 and 4,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                the nature of IEPs combined with the possible liability exposure to District 11 require that they not release IEP data to Ms. Clark. However, IEP data may be made available to her if she takes recourse to the dispute resolution provisions contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 6. Recourse to a Section 13.03, subdivision 6 action for an order compelling discovery is the appropriate way to proceed in a way that can resolve this dispute in a way that protects the interests of all parties.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: April 5, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267862</id><Tag><Description/><Title>IEP (Individual Education Plans)</Title><Id>266338</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Discovery (13.03, subd. 6; 1205.0100, subpart 5)</Title><Id>267038</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-015</Title><title>Opinion 94 015</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267762&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-03-11T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>A member of the public asked about the classification of data regarding ambulance services from the City of Red Wing Fire Department. The City argued the data were private under Minnesota Statutes section 144.807, which classifies data in reports sent the Commissioner of Health as private. The Commissioner determined that the some ambulance services data are public under Minnesota Statutes section 13.82, and that this data do not become private data because similar data was submitted to the Commissioner of Health. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 11, 1994; City of Red Wing</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: Minnesota Statutes section 144.807 was repealed in 1989.&lt;span style=&quot;mso-spacerun:yes&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On February 17, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a letter from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, the attorney for the Red Wing Republican Eagle, a newspaper published in Red Wing, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson stated that he was requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion concerning the classification of certain data maintained by publicly operated ambulance services. He went on to state that his client has, for some time, obtained and published basic data concerning ambulance calls. The data was obtained from the City of Red Wing Fire Department which operates a local ambulance service and responds to requests for ambulance service from the public. Mr. Anfinson described the data obtained by the Eagle as being consistent with the disclosures of data that are required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Anfinson went on to relate that the fire department recently informed his client that ambulance run data would no longer be provided. According to Mr. Anfinson, this change came about due to the advice of an attorney for the City of Red Wing, that Minnesota Statutes Section 144.807 classifies ambulance run data as non-public . Mr. Anfinson stated that on his advice, his client took the position that Section 144.807 does not classify ambulance call data as not public but is intended only to classify the data provided in reports made to the Commissioner of Health. Mr. Anfinson then stated the issue, quoted below, that he was asking the Commissioner of Administration to address in an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration wrote to Mr. Steven Perkins, Red Wing City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 1994, were to inform Mr. Perkins of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Perkins or the City&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for the position taken and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. George C. Hoff, who was identified as the City&apos;s attorney.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On March 4, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Peter M. Schaub, an assistant Red Wing City Attorney. He stated that it was the City of Red Wing&apos;s position that ambulance run reports and information contained within them are classified as private data on individuals and may not be released except upon the request of the individual who is the subject of the data. He described the City&apos;s support for this position as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;While acknowledging that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 does govern the release of data collected by municipal police and fire departments, Mr. Schaub pointed out that Minnesota Statutes Section 144.807, which he quoted in its entirety, classifies as private information that operators of ambulance services must report to the Commissioner of Health. He also quoted a provision of the statutory interpretation act, Minnesota Statutes Section 645.26, subdivision 2, that provides when a general and specific provision in the same or another law cannot be reconciled that the special provision shall prevail as an exception to the general provision. Lastly, he quoted Section 13.03, subdivision 9. This provision states that the classification of government data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for that data is made regardless of the time the data was collected, created or received.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Given those statutory provisions, Mr. Schaub stated that it was the position of the City of Red Wing that while the Section 13.82 and Section 144.807 provisions are not mutually exclusive, their applicability depends on the form of the data requested and the time the request is made. Although information initially collected by the Red Wing Fire Department in the operation of the ambulance service . . . may initially appear to be private or non-public, once it is included in a report pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 144.807, subd. 1, it becomes &apos;private data on individuals&apos; and may not be released to anyone except the subject of the data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his letter to PIPA, Mr. Anfinson stated the issued he wished the Commissioner to address as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Minn. Stat. Section 13.82 govern disclosure of data collected and maintained by the ambulance service operated by the Red Wing fire department, or does Minn. Stat. Section 144.807 control?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 was first enacted in the 1981 legislative session. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1981, Section 36.) This section was enacted after a long negotiation between representatives of the media and of law enforcement about public access to law enforcement data. To facilitate public access and minimize disagreements between law enforcement and the public, the legislature listed in great and specific detail what elements of data maintained by law enforcement agencies, including police and fire departments, have to be made available to the public. Typically, this public data includes data about actions taken by law enforcement agencies and data about people and events involved with those actions. For example, if a member of the public requests services from a law enforcement agency, the following request for service data , as listed in Section 13.82, subdivision 3, are public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;(a) the nature of the request or the activity complained of;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the name and address of the individual making the request unless the identity qualifies for protection under subdivision 10;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the time and date of the request or complaint; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;(d) the response initiated and the response or incident report number.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In an instance where a law enforcement agency responds to the public&apos;s request for services or takes action on its own initiative, the following response or incident data , as listed in Section 13.82, subdivision 4, are also public:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol type=&quot;a&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;date, time and place of the action;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action unless the identities of the agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 10;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;any resistance encountered by the agency;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;any pursuit engaged in by the agency;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;whether any weapons were used by the agency or other individuals;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;a brief factual reconstruction of events associated with the action;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;names and addresses of witnesses to the agency action or the incident unless the identity of any witness qualifies for protection under subdivision 10;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;names and addresses of any victims or casualties unless the identities of those individuals qualify for protection under subdivision 10;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the names and location of the health care facility to which victims or casualties were taken;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;response or incident report number;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;dates of birth of the parties involved in a traffic accident;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;whether the parties involved were wearing seat belts.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;All of the request for service data and most probably items (b), (f), (h), (i), (k) and (l) of response of incident data would be the items of data collected or created by a fire department ambulance service about a fire, accident or criminal event that would generate the most public interest. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 1, 3 and 4 state quite clearly that these and the other data elements listed are public data when maintained by a law enforcement agency including a municipal fire department.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 144.807 requires operators of licensed ambulance services to report information about those services to the Commissioner of Health. The actual data to be reported is whatever data the Commissioner of Health requires. The reports made to the Commissioner are classified as private data on individuals. This particular section of Minnesota Statutes, first enacted in 1974, has evolved from a statute requiring reports that do not contain identifying data to a statute in which any data on individuals included in the report are classified as private. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1974, Chapter 300, section 1 and Minnesota Session Laws 1989, Chapter 134, section 8.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Given the statutory treatment, described in Sections 13.82 and 144.807, of data collected, maintained or reported by a municipally operated fire department, Mr. Anfinson asked which one of these provisions controls access to this data by members of the public such as his client. It must be noted that Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Schaub did not provide as part of their submissions either a description or listing of the data that Mr. Anfinson says was previously provided or a copy of the form or a description of the data that must be reported under Section 144.807. For purposes of this opinion, it will be assumed that Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client has been receiving data similar to the request for service data and response or incident data as described above. It will also be assumed for purposes of this opinion, that some or all of those data elements are similar to data that is required to be provided in the Section 144.807 reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is very clear that the legislature intends to make certain data about law enforcement activities, including the activities of fire departments, public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 1 through 4.) It is also clear that when operators of ambulance services, including municipal fire departments, make reports, under Section 144.807, to the Commissioner of Health about the services they provide that those reports are classified as private. However, there is nothing in those two points of clarity that is necessarily in conflict. What is classified as private by the Section 144.807 provision is the contents of reports made to the Commissioner of Health. In other words, when personnel of a city fire department sit down and fill out the form required by the Commissioner of Health, that form, once completed, is what is classified as private. The fact that this data may have been compiled and brought together from public data, collected and maintained as request for service and response or incident data , or from private medical data does not change the classification of the source data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;All that Section 144.807 classifies as private is the data that appears on the forms that report to the Commissioner of Health. By its terms the section does not classify all data about the provision of ambulance services as private. It merely says when the reports are prepared . . .the reports shall be classified as &apos;private data on individuals&apos; under the Minnesota government data practices act, chapter 13. As with many data classification issues, it is important to focus, not so much on what classification of data is stated but on what data is being classified. In this instance, the data being classified as private, is data on certain forms. The classification as stated does not say all data about ambulance services provided by a city fire department are not public. What is classified is only the data that appears on the forms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Red Wing&apos;s position is based on reliance on language in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that states that the classification of certain data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made regardless of the time the data was collected created or received. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 9.) This provision was enacted by the legislature for the purpose of harmonizing changes that it may make over time to the treatment of data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The language in subdivision 9 grew out of the legislative reaction to the case of &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt; 435 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. 1989) and is a legislative attempt to state a policy that when the legislature changes the classification of a given set of data that it intends that data, no matter when it was collected or created, to have the classification that is presented in the most recent legislative enactment. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1991, Chapter 319, section 2.) In the case of its response to the &lt;u&gt;Annandale&lt;/u&gt; case, the legislature was attempting to ensure through a series of amendments, including the Chapter 319, section 2 amendment, that the treatment of data associated with public employee disciplinary actions be treated uniformly no matter when the data associated with the disciplinary action was created or collected. For example, the legislature wanted data about disciplinary actions created or collected in 1988 treated the same as data about disciplinary actions created or collected in 1992.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City of Red Wing&apos;s interpretation of Section 13.03, subdivision 9 would establish the proposition that data, clearly and specifically classified as public at the time of its collection or creation, can become not public just because a government agency replicates the same or comparable data in a report that is classified as not public. This interpretation clearly suggests that if a member of the public asks for access to the request for services or response or incident data &lt;u&gt;before&lt;/u&gt; the comparable data is inserted by the City into a report to the Commissioner of Health, the classification of the data is public. However, merely because the City prepares the health department report those data would be not public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;To agree with that interpretation would seriously injure the Data Practices Act data classification system that rests firmly on the policy that the legislature and not government agencies controls classification of all government data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Acceptance of the City&apos;s position would mean that data can be classified by an agency&apos;s preparation of a form and not by legislative action. In a worst case scenario a city, that received a request from the public for public request for service data or response or incident data , could change the classification of that data to private merely by delaying its response to the public&apos;s request until after a Section 144.807 report was generated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Acceptance of the City&apos;s position could mean that other elements of data described in subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 of Section 13.82, would become not public because some of this data, once reported to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, become private criminal history data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.87. An interpretation of Sections 13.82 and 144.807 that reaches a result that harmonizes the public access requirements of section 13.82 with the privacy requirements of section 144.807 is that the data identified as public data in Section 13.82 continues to be public no matter if similar data is subsequently reproduced and made a part of a section 144.807 report.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is my opinion that data concerning ambulance services provided by the City of Red Wing are public data for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 and that those elements of public data do not become private data just because similar data may subsequently be placed on the forms required to be submitted to the Commissioner of Health by Minnesota Statutes Section 144.807.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: March 11, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267762</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Ambulance service data</Title><Id>266519</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Classification at time of request, controls access (13.03, subd. 9)</Title><Id>266595</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266736</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4)</Title><Id>266724</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-07-13T19:33:39Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-014</Title><title>Opinion 94 014</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268012&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-03-07T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the questions and documents [that he asked and requested] considered public data, was the method he used to make his request a legitimate one, [and] did the City respond in a legal and timely manner?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>March 7, 1994; City of Rosemount</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On February 14, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from Mr. Larry Walsh, a resident of Rosemount, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Walsh described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained by the City of Rosemount and to get answers to certain questions from the City. The City of Rosemount, hereinafter Rosemount or the city, operates a system whereby citizens can fill out a Rosemount Community Card for the purposes of either making comments on city services or requesting information from the city. Mr. Walsh explained that he had used these cards on a number of occasions to request information from Rosemount and that he had received no reply or response to his requests from the city.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Walsh provided copies of the requests he had made. On November 11, 1993, he submitted a list of questions about city activities which included questions about how the city classifies certain data it maintains. On November 14, 1993, he submitted two lists of questions. On December 29, 1993, he submitted an additional question about city activities, including a question about who within Rosemount functions as the city&apos;s responsible authority for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. In his December 29 request, Mr. Walsh also made specific requests for copies of various documents that he believed were maintained by the city. On January 12, 1994, Mr. Walsh submitted a request that was a mixture of questions and specific requests for documents maintained by the city. On January 27, 1994, after consulting with the Department of Administration&apos;s Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA), Mr. Walsh wrote a letter to Rosemount asking the city to send him documents that would identify the city&apos;s responsible authority and any procedures that the city has established to provide access to government data. Mr. Walsh stated that none of these requests had been responded to by Rosemount.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Walsh&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Mr. Ron Wasmund, Rosemount&apos;s interim city administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 1994, were to inform Mr. Wasmund of Mr. Walsh&apos;s request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Wasmund or the city&apos;s attorney to provide any information or support for Rosemount&apos;s position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On March 3, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response by Mr. J. Michael Miles, the attorney for Rosemount. Mr. Miles stated that the Rosemount City Council had met to consider PIPA&apos;s letter and the questions asked by Mr. Walsh. Following the council&apos;s discussion, the members asked Mr. Miles to respond to PIPA&apos;s letter.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In his response, Mr. Miles made comments that are summarized as follows. Mr. Miles asked that the Commissioner note that many of Mr. Walsh&apos;s questions have . . . nothing to do with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Mr. Miles cited an example from one of the comment cards submitted by Mr. Walsh. Mr. Miles noted that of the 103 questions asked by Mr. Walsh, it was Rosemount&apos;s position that only about 25 percent of those questions had any relationship to government data as that term is defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Miles also asked that the Commissioner take into account the fact that Rosemount is a small community with finite and limited resources. Given those limitations, requests such as Mr. Walsh&apos;s take considerable time to respond. (Mr. Miles also noted that Mr. Walsh had submitted 35 additional requests on February 11, 1994.) Mr. Miles went on to describe the city&apos;s future intentions regarding Mr. Walsh&apos;s inquiries. The city administrator will meet with Mr. Walsh to answer as many questions as possible and to discuss Mr. Walsh&apos;s options for receiving data from the city. According to Mr. Miles, Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests for copies involve over 1,000 pages of materials so Mr. Walsh will be advised that he may prefer to inspect the documents at no cost instead of paying for the receipt of copies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In closing, Mr. Miles stated assurances that Rosemount has and will continue to be responsive to requests from persons requesting information from the city. He also asked that the Commissioner take into account his comments as well as the nature and tenor of Mr. Walsh&apos;s inquiries.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In its letter to Rosemount, PIPA summarized the issues raised by Mr. Walsh in his request for an opinion as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are the questions and documents [that he asked and requested] considered public data, was the method he used to make his request a legitimate one, [and] did the City respond in a legal and timely manner? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Except for his January 27, 1994 letter, Mr. Walsh asked questions of the city and requested documents by filling out a Citizen Comment Card provided by Rosemount to its citizens. The card provides information about the city&apos;s concern for providing quality service to its customers and includes instructions on how to fill out the form and submit it to the city. A portion of the card, labeled Request for Information , provides blank space to be filled in by the citizen which is preceded by the statement: I would like a city representative to contact me about the following service or concern. In making his initial requests, Mr. Walsh filled in this blank space with a comment that essentially said: please answer the questions I am submitting on an attachment. Starting with the comment card he submitted on December 12, 1993, Mr. Walsh, in the space provided, in addition to asking questions, asked to be provided with copies of the public data he described on his attachments. Rosemount did not dispute Mr. Walsh&apos;s statement that he received no responses to his submission of comment cards that contained both questions and requests for government data.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  Rosemount is correct in stating that general questions directed to a city or other state or local government entity in this state do not implicate the requirements of the MGDPA. An illustration is helpful. If a citizen calls a representative of a city council and asks why the city council took a certain action at its most recent meeting, the question that is asked is not a request for access to data under the MGDPA. However, if the same citizen calls the representative of the city council and asks for access to government data that explains a certain action taken by the city council, this request is a request for access to government data and those provisions of the MGDPA that provide the public with the right to access government data will be implicated.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  In this instance, Mr. Walsh has asked a number of specific questions about operations of Rosemount but he has also asked to receive copies of various items of government data that are or may be maintained by the city. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3 provide the basic guidance for state and local government entities such as Rosemount to follow when a citizen requests to either inspect government data or to receive copies of government data. In summary, those provisions state a presumption that all government data is presumed to be public, require government entities to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner and deal with a variety of other issues associated with public access to government data.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  Rosemount did not provide the Commissioner with a description of the actual policies and procedures it has put into effect in order to insure that the city is in compliance with the public access provisions of the MGDPA. Whatever those procedures may be, it does not appear in Mr. Walsh&apos;s case that the requirements of the MGDPA were met. Mr. Walsh did, using the city&apos;s own Citizen Comment Card system, ask lots of questions of Rosemount. The MGDPA does not impose direct obligations on Rosemount, except in very limited instances where a citizen asks to have government data explained, to answer questions from citizens about the operation of the city. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.) However, Mr. Walsh also asked, using the vehicle of the Citizen Comment Card, for copies of various documents that he believed to be maintained by the city. It does not appear that anyone at Rosemount ever told him that there were other procedures he ought to be following to make requests for government data held by the city.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  Mr. Walsh was provided with an official city document, the Citizen Comment Card, that, among other things, told him he could request information. In the comment cards he presented to Rosemount on December 29, 1993, and January 12, 1994, he made at least 13 requests that are clearly requests for copies of government data. In his January 26, 1994, letter, he not only asked for copies of documents but he also asked the city to provide him with a copy of the procedures adopted by the city for accessing government data. Development and implementation of public access procedures have been required of the City of Rosemount, as part of the MGDPA, since January 1, 1980. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1979, Chapter 328.) In response to his requests that clearly fall within the MGDPA requirements, Mr. Walsh did not receive, and still has not received, the data he has requested.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  The MGDPA requires that the responsible authority in a city establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an . . . appropriate and prompt manner . The MGDPA requires that citizens be provided with copies of public government data upon the request of the citizen. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02 subdivisions 2 and 3.) It is not an appropriate response to a citizen&apos;s request for copies of government data for Rosemount to not respond at all. It is not a prompt response to a citizen&apos;s request for copies of government data to provide no response whatsoever until that citizen seeks an opinion from the Commissioner. Rosemount has not met its obligations to provide Mr. Walsh with copies of government data upon his request when it would not acknowledge that it had even received his request.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  It is conceivable that Rosemount has not responded to Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests because he is asking for copies of government data that are classified as not public. However, an examination of his requests do not reveal any request that appears to ask for data that is classified as not public. Even if he requested not public data, Rosemount is required to respond to his request in an appropriate and prompt manner by informing him that the city could not provide copies of the data because it is classified as not public. Rosemount has not made any response like that to Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests.
                  
									&lt;br /&gt;
									
                  The Commissioner agrees with Rosemount that many of Mr. Walsh&apos;s questions are not requests for data within the meaning of the MGDPA. The Commissioner is aware of the work that is imposed on a city of the size of Rosemount by the requirements of the MGDPA. In the past the Department of Administration has worked with the League of Minnesota Cities and similar organizations to develop uniform compliance procedures to reduce the burden of the MGDPA on government agencies. However, this work is for naught if a government agency does not, if it has not developed its own procedures, choose to adopt and implement model procedures so that it can be in compliance with the public access and other requirements set out in the MGDPA by the legislature. The Commissioner recognizes that the city is moving forward to deal with Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests and recommends that the city use this particular experience to review its policies and procedures for compliance with the MGDPA and for providing city personnel with the training necessary to insure compliance.
                  
									&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinions on the issues raised by Mr. Walsh are as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;It is my opinion that the questions asked by Mr. Walsh about a variety of city services and issues are not requests for access to public data within the meaning of the MGDPA. It is my further opinion that, when his requests specifically stated that he was requesting certain documents, those requests were requests for access to public data within the meaning of the MGDPA. It is my further opinion that Rosemount&apos;s failure to respond in any way to Mr. Walsh&apos;s requests for copies of public data were not appropriate or prompt or in compliance with the requirements of the MGDPA.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: March 7, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268012</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Contracts/privatization</Title><Id>266279</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-013</Title><title>Opinion 94 013</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267692&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-24T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are day care provider profiles, maintained by a community action agency, public data for purposes of the State Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 24, 1994; Dakota County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On December 23, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division received a letter from Mr. Charles A. Miller, a resident of West St. Paul, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Miller described attempts by him to gain access to data maintained by the Community Action Council of Dakota County. Subsequent discussions with Mr. Miller established that the purpose of his letter was to request an opinion of the Commissioner. For the purposes of the time and notice requirements of Chapter 192, his letter is being treated as being received on February 7, 1994. The facts Mr. Miller stated in his request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Miller and his wife hold day care licenses. In an effort to measure demand for child care in his area, Mr. Miller contacted the Community Council of Dakota County, hereinafter CAC, and asked to be given child care provider profiles for certain geographical areas. Mr. Miller stated that he received the forms on December 11, 1993. His review of the forms led him to direct some follow up questions to Ms. Laura Brandys of CAC on December 13, 1994. According to Mr. Miller, Ms. Brandys was concerned about the fact that he had received provider profiles and she stated that she could give him no further information citing the Data Privacy Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Miller stated that he found it interesting that one representative of CAC would agree to sell him the provider profiles while another representative of CAC would tell him that he should not be able to access the profiles. He also commented on the fact that profiles of himself and another person, both of whom were day care providers located within the geographical area covered by his request, were not included in the data sent to him by CAC. Subsequently, on December 20, 1993, CAC sent Mr. Miller a copy of a provision from a grant contract that discussed data practices requirements for grantees and a copy of a portion of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA , that regulates welfare licensing data. Mr. Miller stated that no letter accompanied this material that explained the reason for the denial of release of information to him.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Miller then discussed the information he is seeking. Specifically, he is asking for: provider&apos;s name and city; ages served, hours of operation, schedule options including full time, part time, weekends, overnights and so forth, whether a program has openings; and, if possible, fees charged by the provider. Although Mr. Miller did not feel comfortable sharing an example of an actual provider profile, he did provide a copy of a How to Read a profile sheet that had been provided by CAC.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Miller&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Ms. Mary Ajax, the Director of CAC. The purposes of this letter, dated February 7, 1994, were to inform Ms. Ajax of Mr. Miller&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to her, to ask Ms. Ajax or the attorney for CAC to provide any information or support for CAC&apos;s position and to inform her of the date which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 16, 1994, PIPA received a response from Ms. Ajax. She made reference to the enclosure previously provided by Mr. Miller, the copy of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 4, welfare licensing data, and pointed out that she was enclosing a copy of a State of Minnesota grant contract for operating a child care resource and referral program, authorized by Minnesota Statutes 256H.20, and a copy of a family child care provider information survey.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Ajax pointed out that the grant contract states no private or confidential data collected, maintained or used in the course or performance of this contract shall be disseminated except as authorized by statute, either during the period of this contract or hereafter. She then cited to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 4, the welfare licensing data section of the MGDPA, and listed the following items identified as public data in that subdivision: name, address, telephone number of licensees, licensed capacity, type of client preferred, variances granted, type of dwelling, name and relationship of other family members, previous license history, class of license and the existence and status of complaints.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              She then reviewed Mr. Miller&apos;s request and stated that with the exception of the name, city and ages served, the information Mr. Miller requested is not public data according to Section 13.46.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              She discussed CAC&apos;s practice of providing parents, who are looking for child care, with copies of provider profiles that indicate child care programs that meet the need of the client. The provider profiles are developed from information provided to CAC by providers in the information survey discussed. She also stated that statistical information on supply and demand for child care is provided in a report format for all areas in Dakota County.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              PIPA summarized the issue raised by Mr. Miller in his request as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are day care provider profiles, maintained by a community action agency, public data for purposes of the State Data Practices Act? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Along with her written response, Ms. Ajax sent a copy of Article XVI. of a contract between CAC and the State of Minnesota in which CAC is a grantee for purposes of operation of a child care resource and referral program. In addition to the statements about the handling of private and confidential data Ms. Ajax discussed above, the contract provisions also states that the grantee (CAC) is, for purposes of the operation of this program, considered to be part of the welfare system as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1. The contract also requires CAC . . . to comply with all the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act in providing services under this contract. The contract also states that CAC accepts responsibility to provide adequate supervision and training to its agents and employees to ensure compliance with the MGDPA.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Under the Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1, clause (c), any organization can, through the execution of a contract with a part of the welfare system, obligate itself to become a part of the welfare system for purposes of the MGDPA and to comply with the MGDPA . . . to the extent specified in the contract. In this particular instance, the CAC has agreed to comply with all requirements of the MGDPA in providing the child care referral service and to train and supervise its employees to ensure compliance. As a part of the welfare system, compliance for CAC means that they must treat data on welfare licensees consistent with the requirements of Section 13.46, subdivision 4 of the MGDPA. This section classifies data on welfare system licensees, including licensed day care providers, as public, private and confidential. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In addition to the language from CAC&apos;s contract with the State of Minnesota, Ms. Ajax also provided a copy of a Family Child Care Provider Information Survey . This is the survey used to gather the basic data from which the provider profiles are generated. The first item that appears on this survey form is a notice/release of information statement that reads as follows:
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table class=&quot;opinion_quote&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;As a licensed child care provider in Dakota County, my name, address, phone number and licensed capacity are public information. Any additional information given to CAC CCRamp;R may be used for referrals or statistical purposes, and may be shared with parents, county social service agencies and/or the MN Department of Human Services. I am not required to provide this information and understand that not doing so may limit CCRamp;R&apos;s ability to effectively make referrals. I may change any information given to CAC CCRamp;R at any time and may request to be placed on inactive status where my name will not be referred.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This statement is followed by space for the provider&apos;s signature and a date. This notice is followed by five pages of questions asking details about the provider and the services they offer.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear from the content of this notice whether it is intended to operate as CAC&apos;s Tennessen Warning , as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, or as a release of information as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4. In either instance, it is clear that the statement tells child care providers that their names, addresses, phone numbers and licensed capacities are treated as public data. The notice/release also is clear in stating that other private data about licensed child care providers may be shared with parents, county social service agencies and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. These statements are consistent with the treatment of data on licensed day care providers as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the requirements of the MGDPA and the notice/release described above, it seems clear, as Ms. Ajax stated in her response, that CAC will provide public data about child care licensees to the public. However, the provider profiles contain data that are classified as private and those profiles are released only to parents seeking referrals, to county social service agencies and to the state Department of Human Services. These releases of data are authorized because the child care provider consented to the release when they signed the signature block that appears below the notice/release statement reproduced above.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a member of the public, who is not a parent seeking child care referrals, asks CAC for provider profile data or other data on licensed child care providers, CAC should only be providing the name, address, phone number, licensed capacity and other data made public by Section 13.46, subdivision 4. However, if a member of the public seeks access to provider profile data for purposes of finding child care, CAC is authorized to provide the other data supplied by the child care providers because the providers have authorized the release of that data by signing the statement reproduced above. The latter data has not become public data. The data retains its classification of private. However, the subjects of the data have authorized its release to members of the public who are seeking child care referrals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Some confusion remains in this situation because Mr. Miller maintains he was provided with provider profile data until CAC learned he was a provider himself. If the person Mr. Miller initially dealt with thought he was a parent seeking profile data for purposes of child care, then the data was mistakenly released to him. Once CAC established that Mr. Miller was not a parent seeking child care, their decision not to provide profile data to him would be consistent with what they are required to do by the MGDPA and with what providers have authorized them to do. The data in question are private. They cannot be shared with the general public but can be shared with parents seeking child care referral information.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It appears that Mr. Miller was denied access to his own provider profile. CAC&apos;s position is that the profile, subject to limited exceptions, is classified as private data by the MGDPA. Private data is accessible to the subject of the data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, and 13.04, subdivision 3.) Under those provisions, Mr. Miller should be provided with access to his own profile.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Miller is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;In its operation of the child care referral program, CAC is operating as part of the welfare system and is bound to comply with the MGDPA, including properly treating data on welfare system licensees consistent with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 4. Those portions of the day care provider profiles maintained by CAC that are identified as public data, under Section 13.46, subdivision 4, are accessible by members of the public such as Mr. Miller. Those portions of the day care provider profiles maintained by CAC that are private data under Section 13.46, subdivision 4, are only accessible as stated in the notice/release that CAC provides to day care providers. As the subject of private data in his own day care provider profile, Mr. Miller should be given access to that data &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 24, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267692</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Contractors</Title><Id>266553</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Contracts</Title><Id>266604</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Privatization</Title><Id>266374</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>13.03 subdivision 11</Title><Id>379294</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Daycare, child care provider</Title><Id>266743</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:56Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-012</Title><title>Opinion 94 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267607&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-22T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>As to the non-government providers and facilities which have to supply data on individual patients pursuant to the rules, is any relationship created which would require them to give the Tennessen Warning?
In light of certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, must providers advise patients their medical records could be released to the Commissioner and the MHDI without their consent?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 22, 1994; Minnesota Health Data Institute</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 1, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a request for an opinion from Mr. Dale V. Shaller, executive director of the Health Data Institute. In his request, Mr. Shaller stated the following facts.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The Minnesota Health Data Institute, hereinafter MHDI , is a public-private partnership created by the 1993 legislature to facilitate the collection of health data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62J. The MHDI is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . One of the duties of the MHDI is to assist the Commissioner of Health in developing and implementing a data collection plan concerning health care.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In implementing the requirements of Chapter 62J, the Commissioner of Health, hereinafter Commissioner has promulgated emergency rules. These rules require hospitals, health care providers and health carriers to submit encounter level data to the Commissioner. The Commissioner will be gathering data from these persons directly who will be submitting it from the data they maintain on patients. This data will become part of a large scale data base. Given some of the specific details of this data collection effort, the Ethics and Confidentiality Committee of the MHDI asked Mr. Shaller to request an opinion regarding the applicability of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2 in this particular situation.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              The issues raied by Mr. Shaller in his request were stated by him as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            As to the non-government providers and facilities which have to supply data on individual patients pursuant to the rules, is any relationship created which would require them to give the Tennessen Warning?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            In light of certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, must providers advise patients their medical records could be released to the Commissioner and the MHDI without their consent?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  The Tennessen Warning referred to in issue number one is the popular name given to the notice requirement of the MGDPA that is set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. This requirement states that when individuals are asked to supply private or confidential data they must be provided with a notice that tells them certain things about the data collection transaction including whether they are legally required to provide the requested data and the identity of other persons and entities that are authorized by state or federal law to receive the data if the individual chooses to provide it.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Shaller&apos;s request describes a situation in which various organizations, that are collecting and maintaining data on patients, are being required to provide data on those patients to the Commissioner and to the MHDI. The requirement for submitting this data is found in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62J. Mr. Shaller&apos;s background explanation assumes, and correctly so, that in instances where the organizations, that are submitting data to the Commissioner and to MHDI, are state or local government entities, those entities are required to give Tennessen Warnings to patients when collecting data from them. The Tennessen Warning in this instance will, in addition to the other details of the actual notice, have to inform patients that data collected from them will be provided to the Commissioner and the MHDI. Mr. Shaller then asks what about instance when the organizations collecting data from patients are not state and local government entities but are private health care providers, hospitals and insurance carriers. Will those private entities be required to give patients a Tennessen Warning ?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Tennessen Warning is a requirement of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, a part of the MGDPA. By its terms, the MGDPA regulates various activities of state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.01, subdivisions 1 and 3.) Entities such as privately owned hospitals and health care providers do not fit the statutory definitions of the terms state agency, statewide system or political subdivision. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivisions 11, 17 and 18.) Except in instances where nongovernmental entities agree to contractually bind themselves to be subject to the requirements of the MGDPA, they are not required to comply with the Tennessen Warning or other requirements of the MGDPA. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.05, subdivision 6 and 13.46, subdivisions 1, (c) and 5. The duty to provide a Tennessen Warning is not imposed on a private sector entity by the MGDPA. Private sector organizations collecting and disseminating patient data to the Commissioner and the MHDI are not required by the MGDPA to give Tennessen Warnings to those patients.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In regard to the second issue raised by Mr. Shaller, he cites provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.333. This is a provision of Minnesota Statutes that, among other things, gives patients the right to gain access to their health care records and limits dissemination of health care records. A key element of Section 144.335, quoted by Mr. Shaller, is a general rule that, except as otherwise specified in Section 144.335 or specifically authorized by law, patient health care records cannot be disseminated without the signed and dated consent of the patient. (Minnesota Statutes Section 144.335, subdivision 3a.) Mr. Shaller then quotes a 1993 amendment to Section 144.335 that specifies that the provisions of Section 144.335. subdivision 3a do . . . not apply to the release of health records to the commissioner of health or the data institute under chapter 62J, provided that the commissioner encrypts the patient identifier upon receipt of the data. Given that language, Mr. Shaller asks if providers must advise their patients that medical records could be released to the Commissioner and the MHDI without the consent of the patient?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is not clear from Mr. Shaller&apos;s question whether the providers he mentions are private sector organizations or state and local governmental entities. The latter group of providers are subject to the Tennessen Warning requirement. If they provide Tennessen Warnings to patients and include in that Warning statements that medical data about the patient will be disseminated to the Commissioner and to the MHDI then the medical data can be disseminated to the Commissioner and the MHDI without the consent of the patient. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 2, 13.05, subdivision 4 and 13.42.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As to private sector providers, as discussed above, those providers are not subject to the MGDPA and therefore are not affected by the Tennessen Warning requirement. Section 144.335 obligates these private health care providers, subject to certain exceptions, to only release health records with the consent of the patient. Health care providers can disseminate health records without the consent of the patient if the release of the record is specifically authorized by law. In a 1993 amendment, the legislature specifically stated that the limitation on the release of health records without consent is not applicable if the release of health records is to the Commissioner and to the MHDI. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1993, Chapter 345, article 12, section 7.) Although this particular amendment is not stated in the form of an authorization for health care providers to release health records without consent, it seems clear the legislature intended that health records should be released to the Commissioner and the MHDI even if a patient has not consented to that particular release. Furthermore, there is nothing in the provisions regulating this submission of data by private providers that would require them to advise patients that data from their health records will be released to the Commissioner and to the MHDI.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The 1993 amendment cited above does condition this release of health records without consent on a requirement that the Commissioner take actions to encrypt the identifier of the patient upon receipt of the health record. Mr. Shaller did not provide information as to actions being taken or planned by the Commissioner or the MHDI to meet that requirement. It is reasonable for providers to receive information about compliance with that requirement from the Commissioner or MHDI so that they can be assured that this requirement of the amendment to Section 144.335 is being met. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1993, Chapter 345, article 12, section 7.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Shaller is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 1, my opinion is that no relationship created by the health record dissemination requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62J read in conjunction with the MGDPA that would require a nongovernmental health care provider, group purchaser or insurance company to give patients and clients Tennessen Warnings.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 2, my opinion is that private providers are not required to advise patients that their medical records can be released to the Commissioner and the MHDI without their consent.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 22, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267607</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Consent to release</Title><Id>266644</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Health care providers (Chapter 62J)</Title><Id>266645</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)</Title><Id>266269</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:55Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Records management/retention</Title><Id>266520</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-011</Title><title>Opinion 94 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266552&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-16T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>If Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report was destroyed by the District, as stated by Mr. Nelson in his letter of October 13, 1993, does this violate the MGDPA?
If Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report was not destroyed by the District, but the District told the parents it had been destroyed and therefore did not provide it until December 15, 1993 (accepting arguendo that the District&apos;s version of the facts is correct), does this violate the MGDPA?
Since Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report is not in the stack of documents received by this office and has not been provided, does this violate the MGDPA?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 16, 1994; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On January 13, 1994, the Public Information Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja D. Kerr, the attorney for X, a student in the Minnetonka Schools, and his parents. In subsequent correspondence involving PIPA, Ms. Kerr and Mr. William Kelly, attorney for the Minnetonka Schools, Ms. Kerr, in a letter dated January 24, 1994, raised additional issues, that went beyond her initial request, and asked for a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion on those issues. PIPA determined that those issues should be the subject of a separate opinion and notified Superintendent Draayer of the Minnetonka Schools of that determination in a January 28, 1994, letter sent to the superintendent and copied to Ms. Kerr and Mr. Kelly. This letter also requested comments from the Minnetonka Public Schools, hereinafter Minnetonka , or its attorney on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr and for copies of policies and procedures of Minnetonka relating to student record retention and destruction. The letter also informed Minnetonka and Ms. Kerr of the date by which this opinion was required to be issued.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              As part of the discussion about these issues, PIPA received several items of correspondence from the Kelly law firm and Ms. Kerr, including copies of correspondence they directed to one another. On February 9, 1994, PIPA received a letter from Mr. William Kelly that made direct comments about the issues raised by Ms. Kerr in her January 24, 1994, letter.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In her January 24, letter, Ms. Kerr stated that although a large number of documents involving X as a subject of data had been provided to her on December 15, 1993, that a certain psychological report concerning X and prepared by Ms. Mary Nelson, had not been part of the documents provided. Ms. Kerr stated that X&apos;s parents had first requested a copy of the original version of this report in a letter dated October 6, 1993, and sent to Milan Nelson, director of special education of Minnetonka. Ms. Kerr provided a copy of this letter. In this letter, X&apos;s father summarizes a conversation that he had with Mr. Nelson on the morning of October 6. He writes: In our conversation, I reiterated our request for the original version of Mary Nelson&apos;s report which I had not seen but was read by my wife during a file review of X&apos;s folder in Linda Saukkonen&apos;s office. Ms. Saukkonen is the principal of the school X was attending.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              (This particular report had been the subject of discussion between X&apos;s parents and Minnetonka and it appears that there was a decision to rewrite the original version of this report. As a result of this decision, X was the subject of two versions of a psychological report prepared by Ms. Nelson. Both versions are dated June 6, 1992, and carry a case number of 6061. The original version includes a sentence in the last paragraph of the last page that has been removed from the edited version. For purposes of clarity, the version that includes this sentence is referred to in this opinion as the original version . The version that does not include the sentence is referred to as the edited version .)
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kerr also provided a copy of a letter dated October 13, 1993, from Mr. Nelson and received by X&apos;s parents. In this letter Mr. Nelson indicated enclosure of various items of data that he was providing in response to X&apos;s father&apos;s telephone request on October 7, 1993. The letter goes on to state the psychological report done by Ms. Mary Nelson dated June, 1992, . . . is not available in my folder or in the building. Mr. Nelson goes on to say that he had a conversation with Ms. Nelson and she told him she had destroyed the original version of the report and had not provided Mr. Nelson with a copy of the original before it was destroyed. In conclusion, Mr. Nelson stated: Therefore, we do not have a copy of the June 1992 psychologist report available to send.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Kerr went on to state that after she received the documents on December 15, 1993, X&apos;s mother had reviewed all of the data provided by Minnetonka. X&apos;s mother had noted a copy of the edited version of Ms. Nelson&apos;s report had been provided but not a copy of the original version. Ms. Kerr pointed out that in a January 20, 1994 letter that Mr. William Kelly sent to PIPA, he stated that a copy of the original version was provided to Ms. Kerr on December 15, 1993. Ms. Kerr also provided a copy of a letter she had sent to the Kelly law firm that expressed concern about Minnetonka&apos;s alleged destruction of the original version of this report.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Following this discussion of the attempts by herself and her clients to get access to the original copy of this report, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on the three issues replicated below. These issues all revolve around the handling of the original version of the report by Minnetonka.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA wrote to Dr. Draayer and Mr. Kelly as described above and asked for Minnetonka&apos;s response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request. On February 9, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. William Kelly. Mr. Kelly commented on the three issues raised by Ms. Kerr as follows.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the issue of whether the destruction of the original version of the report would constitute a violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA , Mr. Kelly stated the fact of the matter was the original version had not been destroyed. At some point a copy of the original version was forwarded, without Mr. Nelson&apos;s knowledge, to a Ms. Bev Mongomry, who is the coordinator for special education for Minnetonka. According to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Nelson&apos;s statements to X&apos;s parents, in his October 13, 1993, letter, that the original version was not in his files and that the original version was destroyed, were true as to the knowledge possessed by Mr. Nelson.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the issue of whether the fact that Minnetonka informed X&apos;s parents that the original version had been destroyed when it had not been destroyed was a violation of the MGDPA, Mr. Kelly stated that when a copy of the original version of the report was discovered in Ms. Mongomry&apos;s files, a copy of the original version was provided to Ms. Kerr on December 15, 1993. At this point in his response, Mr. Kelly added a series of comments and arguments to the effect that Ms. Kerr had been incorrectly directing requests for access to data to him instead of to the superintendent of Minnetonka. He then cited arguments as the basis for a request for the Commissioner to reconsider the opinion issued February 2, 1994.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On the last issue of whether, in Ms. Kerr&apos;s view, Minnetonka&apos;s failure to actually provide a copy of the original version of the report, in the documents delivered to her on December 15, 1993, was a violation of the MGDPA, Mr. Kelly commented that the original report was included in the documents delivered on December 15. He stated he had personally reviewed the materials and . . . noted the inclusion of both the original report and the corrected report.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issues in this opinion:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report was destroyed by the District, as stated by Mr. Nelson in his letter of October 13, 1993, does this violate the MGDPA?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            If Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report was not destroyed by the District, but the District told the parents it had been destroyed and therefore did not provide it until December 15, 1993 (accepting arguendo that the District&apos;s version of the facts is correct), does this violate the MGDPA?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Since Mary Nelson&apos;s original psychological report is not in the stack of documents received by this office and has not been provided, does this violate the MGDPA?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  First, as noted above, Mr. Kelly included in his remarks on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr some arguments and a request that the Commissioner reconsider the opinion she issued on February 2, 1994, concerning X&apos;s parents and their access to data about their son at Minnetonka. Essentially, Mr. Kelly has added some arguments concerning the issue dealt with in the February 2 opinion. The simple fact is he could have made those arguments when Minnetonka was given an opportunity to respond to Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request involving Minnetonka. He did not do so. In addition, there is nothing in his arguments that would lead the Commissioner to conclude that her previous opinion was in error. Mr. Kelly argues he was the wrong representative of Minnetonka for Ms. Kerr to contact to gain access to data about her client. At the time he received her request, he could have informed her of that fact and directed her to the Minnetonka superintendent. Instead, he chose to move forward to handle her request as if he were the proper representative to contact.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As to the first issue raised by Ms. Kerr, relating to an alleged violation of the MGDPA if Minnetonka had destroyed the original version of Ms. Nelson&apos;s report, Mr. Kelly&apos;s point that the actual fact is that the original version of the report was not destroyed is well taken. However, the discussion of this issue in the correspondence between X&apos;s parents and Minnetonka seems to indicate that Minnetonka was not aware of any problem if indeed the report had been destroyed. For educational purposes, Minnetonka should be aware that destruction of a report like this could have implications for it under the MGDPA and other laws.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For example, if there were an outstanding request by a parent to have access to a report on their minor child and a government entity destroyed that report, the destruction could be viewed as a violation of the provision of the MGDPA that give data subject&apos;s access to data about themselves. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Destruction of a report could have implications for a government entity&apos;s obligations to keep data on individuals accurate, complete and current. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Destruction of a report like this by a government entity, without an approved retention schedule, could have implications for that entity under Minnesota Statutes Section 138.17, the state&apos;s Records Management Statute . Lastly, destruction of this kind of report by a school district could have implications for the district under federal law and especially the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its rules.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her second issue, Ms. Kerr asks whether Minnetonka&apos;s failure to provide a copy of the original version of this report to X&apos;s parents until December 15, 1993, is a violation of the MGDPA. (Ms. Kerr indicates in her statement of the issue that she is willing to accept, for purpose of argument, that a copy of the original version was provided to her on December 15, 1993. This portion of the opinion will therefore assume that a copy of the original version was provided to X&apos;s parents attorney on December 15, 1993.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In their October 6, 1993 letter, X&apos;s parents, among other items, specifically asked for a copy of the original version of this report. In his reply to them, Mr. Nelson stated he did not have a copy of the report, there was no copy in the building and that Ms. Nelson had told him she had destroyed the original version after preparing an edited version. Subsequently, on December 15, 1993, approximately 48 working days, depending on the exact computation of what days in October, November and December that Minnetonka took as holidays, a copy of this report was made available to X&apos;s parents through their attorney. Mr. Kelly&apos;s comment explains that the original version was discovered in Ms. Mongomry&apos;s files so it was also included in the December 15 submission to Ms. Kerr. He points out that Mr. Nelson&apos;s response to X&apos;s parents was correct in the sense that Mr. Nelson believed that the original version had been destroyed. (In his response, Mr. Kelly actually stated that Mr. Nelson made his comments to X&apos;s parents in a September 20, 1993 letter. Those remarks were actually made in Mr. Nelson&apos;s October 13, 1993, letter to X&apos;s parents.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the overall correspondence presented to the Commissioner, it seems clear that Minnetonka, acting through its agent Mr. Nelson, had communicated to X&apos;s parents that data they were seeking on their son was indeed available from Mr. Nelson. At any time, Minnetonka could have indicated to X&apos;s parents that Dr. Draayer was the responsible authority for purposes of the MGDPA and they should direct all inquiries to him. By doing so, Minnetonka could have assured a complete response to X&apos;s parents&apos; request and hopefully, if Minnetonka has prepared and implemented the various policies and procedures required by the MGDPA and its implementing rules, could have avoided providing data to X&apos;s parents 48 days after their request when they had the right, under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to receive the requested data within five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is a part of modern reality that school districts and other government institutions often generate large volumes of data on their students and clients. In this case, Minnetonka&apos;s data on X totalled more than 600 pages of materials. The MGDPA and its implementing rules establish a legal reality that assumes that government agencies will develop and put into effect a variety of policies, procedures and will identify and assign responsibilities which, when taken together, should allow a government entity to respond to requests and stay within the time frames required by the MGDPA. Once X&apos;s parents were told, either through communication or actions of Minnetonka, that Mr. Nelson was the person to whom they should direct requests for access to data about their son, they had the right to expect that he would respond to their request in a timely and complete fashion. At least one copy, or even the actual original, of the version of the report they were seeking was held in the files of Minnetonka at the time they made their request. It should have been provided to them within five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her last issue, Ms. Kerr asks that the assumption that she was willing to accept for purposes of issue number two, that a copy of the original version of the report was delivered to her on December 15, not be assumed. She then asks if Minnetonka is in violation of the MGDPA for not providing a copy of the original version. Whether or not, a copy of the original version was provided on December 15 is a matter of dispute between Mr. Kelly and Ms. Kerr. Mr. Kelly states that he took note, when reviewing the materials prior to their being delivered to Ms. Kerr, that both the original and edited versions were in the stack of materials. He did not provide an inventory of the materials sent to Ms. Kerr. Ms. Kerr states that X&apos;s mother reviewed all of the materials on December 17, and did not see the original version. Written notes made by X&apos;s mother during her review and provided by Ms. Kerr are not clear on whether one or two versions of this report were provided.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is clear that in the correspondence exchanged by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Kerr relating to this opinion that on January 31, 1994, Ms. Kerr acknowledged receipt of copies of two versions of the report mailed with a January 28, 1994, letter from Mr. Kelly. The effect on the obligations of Minnetonka, under the MGDPA, of the receipt of the copy by Ms. Kerr on December 15, 1993, has been discussed above. If Ms. Kerr in actuality did not receive the copy until January 31, 1994, then the effect of that fact under the MGDPA would be that additional days would be added to the period of time in which Minnetonka failed to respond to the request. However, the information provided by Ms. Kerr and Mr. Kelly does not lend itself to reach a complete conclusion either way.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issue one,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                an alleged violation of the MGDPA by Minnetonka&apos;s destruction of the original version of a psychological report, it is my opinion that all copies of the report were not destroyed and therefore compliance problems for Minnetonka under various provisions of the MGDPA that would have been implicated by that destruction are not present in this situation.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issue two,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                it is my opinion that Minnetonka provided a copy of the original version of this report approximately 48 days after X&apos;s parents made their request. The MGDPA required that the copy be provided within five days of the request.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issue three,
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                it is my opinion that the factual dispute between Minnetonka and X&apos;s parents is such that I am unable to conclude whether a copy of this report was actually provided on December 15, 1993, or January 31, 1994. However, in either instance, Minnetonka&apos;s response would be well outside the five days required by the MGDPA.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 16, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266552</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data destruction</Title><Id>266551</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-010</Title><title>Opinion 94 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267145&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-14T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>&quot;. . . whether arrest records are public information and, if so, whether they have to be provided in a readily accessible form under the name of an individual, rather than through perusing 10 years of daily arrest logs.&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 14, 1994; Hennepin County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On January 24, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Jan Dietrich, a resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. The facts that Ms. Dietrich alleged in her request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On December 29, 1993, Ms. Dietrich went to the Hennepin County Sheriff&apos;s Office (HCSO) and requested an arrest record on an individual. She was informed by a staff person that it was the policy of the HCSO that this information was not available to Ms. Dietrich unless the person whose arrest record she sought authorized release of the information to her. Ms. Dietrich stated that she was able to get arrest records of this nature from both the Minneapolis Police Department and the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              According to Ms. Dietrich she then asked a supervisor in the HCSO why the HCSO had this policy and . . . I was told it was the law that all arrest records were kept confidential without a release. (Ms. Dietrich did not identify this supervisor by name.) There was some further discussion and conjecture with this supervisor about the basis for the HCSO policy. According to Ms. Dietrich the supervisor then told her she could review daily arrest logs which appeared to be several pages thick for just one day of arrests. There was some further discussion about what appeared to Ms. Dietrich as inconsistent treatment of what she called computerized arrest records and the daily arrest log.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Dietrich went on to state that the supervisor had told her that information about arrests could be released if the individual identified in the arrest record signed a release of information. According to Ms. Dietrich, the supervisor told her that this release need not be notarized. Subsequently Ms. Dietrich brought in a signed release from the person whose arrest record she wanted and the record was provided. Ms. Dietrich concluded her description of this dispute by asking the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning the issue described below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Dietrich&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration wrote to Don Omodt, the Sheriff of Hennepin County. The purposes of this letter, dated January 24, 1994, were to inform Sheriff Omodt of Ms. Dietrich&apos;s request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask the sheriff or his attorney to provide any information or support for the position of his office that would explain HCSO&apos;s handling of Ms. Dietrich&apos;s request, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The letter also asked the sheriff to describe what kinds of indices are used in conjunction with arrest records and other systems of data on individuals maintained by the Sheriff&apos;s Office.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 10, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from the HCSO signed by Mr. Ovide L. LaBerge, the HCSO chief deputy. He stated that Ms. Dietrich&apos;s description of her attempts to get access to arrest records reflected a misunderstanding on Ms. Dietrich&apos;s part as to the accessibility of the data she was requesting under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and hereinafter MGDPA. . It was his opinion that when she referred to arrest data, that Ms. Dietrich was referring to the chronological arrest history of individuals who have been arrested. According to him, the only historical data that the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (HCADC) maintains on inmates resident in that facility is data relating to an inmate&apos;s prior detention in the HCADC and that information is not attributable to any arrests made by the HCSO. In Mr. LaBerge&apos;s view, data about a person&apos;s history of incarceration at HCADC is not arrest data as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 2 of the MGDPA.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. LaBerge also pointed out that the arrest data that is made public by Section 13.82, subdivision 2 is public in the agency that originated the arrest. Because the HCADC is not an arresting agency, it does not qualify as the originating agency under the MGDPA. He stated the HCADC does maintain some data that is identified by the MGDPA as arrest data. Specifically, he referred to the portion of the statutory listing (found in Section 13.82, subdivision 2) of what constitutes arrest data that says that the date, time and legal basis for any transfer of custody and the identity of the agency or person who received custody are part of arrest data and are public. He stated this data is contained on HCADC intake sheets and that Ms. Dietrich incorrectly referred to those sheets as daily arrest logs. He also stated these intake sheets were maintained by the Jail Records Unit of the HCSO.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. LaBerge then stated that with the exception of the partial arrest data, described above, . . . all data on current and former HCADC inmates maintained by the Jail Records Unit is &apos;corrections and detention data&apos; as defined under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.85, subd. 1. . . . He quoted the definition of corrections and detention data from Section 13.85 of the MGDPA. He stated it was the policy of the HCADC that detention data covered by Section 13.85 will be released to the public if the data are either reflected in court records or are released by valid authorization executed by the subject of the detention data. It was his opinion that these interpretations of the applicable MGDPA provisions are consistent with the legislative intent to guard against secret arrests by police agencies.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Lastly, Mr. LaBerge pointed out it was the policy of the HCADC that any signature of a data subject on a release of data form should be the subject of reasonable efforts by HCSO personnel to verify authenticity. Ms. Dietrich&apos;s comments about alleged failure of HCSO personnel has lead the HCSO to conduct an internal investigation of the Records Unit.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request, Ms. Dietrich stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner&apos;s opinion as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; . . . whether arrest records are public information and, if so, whether they have to be provided in a readily accessible form under the name of an individual, rather than through perusing 10 years of daily arrest logs. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  In her letter, Ms. Dietrich describes her attempts to get arrest records from the HCSO. She did not provide any information about whether the individual whose record she sought had been arrested by the HCSO or by some other law enforcement agency in Hennepin County. In his response letter, Mr. Laberge indicates that Ms. Dietrich made her initial request for an arrest record by going to the Jail Records Unit at the HCSO. For a member of the public who may not be knowledgeable about the detailed operation and organization of a government agency, such as a sheriff&apos;s office, this may have appeared to be the appropriate office to contact to receive an arrest record. It should be emphasized that Ms. Dietrich did not state why she made her request to the Jail Records Unit. She may have just found this office or she may have been directed there by other personnel of HCSO. In any case, her approach to this particular office of the HCSO then began to dictate what kind of responses she would receive from that particular portion of the HCSO. Those responses directly implicate the issues Ms. Dietrich raised in her request for an opinion.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As Mr. LaBerge appears to indicate in his letter, the Jail Unit of the HCSO primarily maintains records on individuals because they were detained in the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center. Most of those individuals are or were incarcerated in the HCADC because they were arrested by other police agencies located within Hennepin County. After their arrest, they were transferred to the HCADC because it is the primary holding facility for arrested persons within Hennepin County. Because they perform this function of housing prisoners who have been arrested and are awaiting trial, sheriffs expressed concern, when the arrest data provision of Section 13.82 was being developed, that they would become burdened with the responsibility for providing all arrest data to the public. To address that concern, the legislature added to the treatment of arrest data, the language that states that arrest data . . . shall be public at all times in the originating agency. Originating agency means the agency that originated the arrest of the individual.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his response, Mr. LaBerge makes it clear that because of this language on originating agency, the HCSO only feels obligated to make available to the public that portion of the arrest data that he calls daily intake sheets, i.e. data indicating information about the transfer of custody of an individual to the HCSO. Ms. Dietrich indicates that another sheriff&apos;s office is providing complete arrest data to the public. Given the language of Section 13.82, subdivision 2, that is clearly a choice that a sheriff&apos;s office can make . It appears the Ramsey County Sheriff&apos;s Office chooses to make all arrest data available to the public. Hennepin County chooses to send members of the public to the agency that originated the arrest if the member of the public wants arrest data that goes beyond the transfer kinds of data described above. These choices about how to relate to the public on the subject of access to arrest data in sheriff&apos;s offices, where the sheriff&apos;s office did not originate arrest, have been left up to those offices by the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It must be emphasized that if the HCSO is the law enforcement agency that originated an arrest, that it is obligated by the provisions of the MGDPA to make all of the arrest data listed in Section 13.82, subdivision 2 available to the public. Given the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Chapter l205.0300, the HCSO should have in place, or if it has not done so, should put into place policies and procedures to assure that the public is given convenient access to arrest data and other public data maintained by the HCSO.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    This leads to a discussion of the second point raised by Ms. Dietrich in her request. To the extent that the HCSO is maintaining the portions of arrest data, described by Mr. LaBerge in his letter as intake sheets, should the HCSO be providing that data under the names of arrested individual or by access to a daily log.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In seeking a response to Ms. Dietrich&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA asked the HCSO to provide information about the indices that the HCSO uses to access its data on individuals. This information was not provided. Even though it would be helpful to know just exactly what tools are available to HCSO personnel to access data of that office, the MGDPA does provide general guidance about a government entity&apos;s obligations in handling requests for access to public data by the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The MGDPA requires that each responsible authority, and in the case of the HCSO, Sheriff Omodt is the responsible authority, keep their records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use by the public. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) Each responsible authority is also required to establish procedures to insure that requests for public access to government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the specific instance of arrest data, or in the case of the portion of arrest data that is maintained by the Jail Records Unit concerning individuals transferred to the custody of the HCSO, the MGDPA states that part of the arrest data that is public are the names of adult individuals who are arrested. Given the complexity of the HCSO operation, it would be quite surprising if the HCSO is not using some kind of master name index to reference by name the various transactions it has with individuals. Given the general requirements of section 13.03, as described above, and the specific requirement that arrest data and portions thereof include names of arrested individuals, HCSO should be able to provide access to full arrest data on arrests it originates and partial custody transfer data by the name of the arrested individual. By doing so, the HCSO will be in compliance with Sections 13.03 and 13.82.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The legislature has stated a very strong policy toward ensuring easy public access to public government data since 1979. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1979, Chapter 328.) In 1981, the legislature sorted out and provided very detailed guidance to law enforcement agencies about the types and elements of data they must make available to the public. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1981, Chapter 311.) Given the strong public interest in public safety issues and the clear guidance provided by the legislature, law enforcement agencies should be putting in place policies and procedures, consistent with the MGDPA, that facilitate public access to the public government data of those agencies. The HCSO should review its existing policies and procedures to see how well they comply with these legislative objectives. The experience Ms. Dietrich described in her request for an opinion indicates that those procedures could be improved.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Dietrich is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Although arrest data are public data, the HCSO is only required to make all of the arrest data, listed in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 2 available to the public on those individuals arrested by personnel of HCSO. HCSO is required to make the partial arrest data including names of individuals arrested by other agencies and the custody transfer data detailed in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 2, clause (h). Both complete and partial arrest data should be made available to the public when a member of the public presents the name of an individual.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 14, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267145</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arrest data</Title><Id>266722</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:54Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Welfare data</Title><Id>266575</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-009</Title><title>Opinion 94 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267565&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Does Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 bar the release of the addresses of real property owned by the Minneapolis Public Housing Agency?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 10, 1994; City of Minneapolis</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On January 21, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson. Mr. Anfinson is the attorney for City Pages, a newspaper published in Minneapolis. According to Mr. Anfinson, City Pages recently asked the Minneapolis Public Housing Agency, hereinafter MPHA , an agency of the city of Minneapolis, for a list of the addresses of all real property owned by the MPHA. This request was denied and the MPHA cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data .
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Anfinson then discussed his view of the position of the MPHA that disclosure of addresses of property owned by the MPHA could identify housing recipients of benefits. Mr. Anfinson stated that it was his client&apos;s contention that this possibility of identifying benefit recipients is not sufficient to make the addresses data on individuals as that term is defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . After emphasizing that his client is not seeking the identities of residents, Mr. Anfinson requested an opinion on the issue stated below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Ms. Cora McCarvey, Executive Director of the MPHA. The purposes of this letter, dated January 24, 1994, were to inform Ms. McCarvey of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to acquaint her with the authority of the Commissioner of Administration to issue opinions, to ask the MPHA or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On February 4, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Ms. Mary G. Dobbins, who identified herself as the attorney for the MPHA. It was her position that City Pages had requested the addresses of what she called scattered site houses. The acquisition of single family homes throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area and offering those homes for rent to low income families is the product of policies of both the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and MHFA. One objective of these policies is to disburse, i.e. scatter , subsidized housing throughout the metropolitan area.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Dobbins then discussed Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, the benefit data section of the MGDPA, that classifies as private all data on MPHA tenants. It was Ms. Dobbins opinion that this classification must include the addresses of scattered site houses because individuals who are receiving benefits can be identified from the street address information. Ms. Dobbins summarized the provisions of the MGDPA that make it clear that this data on addresses qualifies for treatment of data on individuals if the data in question can be used to identify an individual. According to her, classifying the specific addresses of scattered site housing as public data would identify the tenants of the houses at those addresses as public housing tenants thereby denying them the protection for data about them that is provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31. She indicated a willingness on the part of her client to provide summary or descriptive data about the general locations of scattered site houses without revealing specific addresses.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his request, Mr. Anfinson stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner&apos;s opinion as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Does Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 bar the release of the addresses of real property owned by the Minneapolis Public Housing Agency? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  First, it should be noted that Mr. Anfinson&apos;s statement of the issue and his discussion of the request made by City Pages to the MPHA address a broader topic than the topic discussed by Ms. Dobbins in her response. Mr. Anfinson states that City Pages has asked the MPHA to release the address of all real property owned by the MPHA. Ms. Dobbins only discussed the effect of the release of address data concerning scattered site housing owned by the MPHA. Neither Ms. Dobbins nor Mr. Anfinson provided the text of the actual request made by City Pages. This opinion will deal with the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 is captioned as benefit data in the MGDPA. Benefit data is defined as . . . data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, and rehabilitation . . . administered by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 1.) Except for certain data about individuals who seek and receive assistance to purchase housing or other real property, all benefit data are private data on individuals. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 3.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    For purposes of the MGDPA, the term data on individuals is defined, in relevant part, as follows: Data on individuals&apos; means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, . . . . The part of the definition that talks about government data being able to identify an individual as the subject of certain data reflects an understanding by the legislature that in some instances, while government data in and of itself does not directly identify a specific individual by using the individual&apos;s name or other unique personal identifier, the very nature of the data can still identify an individual and associate that individual with data that is required to be maintained as not public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An example, relative to this particular situation, illustrates the issue. If a member of the public went to the MPHA and asked to receive the names and addresses of tenants in housing owned by the MPHA, Section 13.31 would operate to prevent lawful disclosure of that data by the MPHA. This request would clearly be a request for private government data that identifies an individual. If that same member of the public returned to the MPHA a week later and made a request to receive the addresses of properties owned by the MPHA and used for public housing, no data is being requested that directly identifies public housing tenants. However, upon the receipt of the addresses, the requestor would be provided with data from which individual identities, names and so forth of public housing tenants, could be established. In such an instance, the legislature&apos;s intent to classify benefit data as private data would become meaningless.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the definitions of benefit data and data on individuals as discussed above, it is appropriate for the MPHA to consider addresses of scattered site house owned by the agency as data that can identify recipients of housing benefits and therefore private data under the MGDPA. For the MPHA to do otherwise could subject it to potential liability under the MGDPA. If data on scattered site housing addresses were released to the public by MPHA, housing benefit recipients identified through that release of data could assert a cause of action against the MPHA. The threat of a possible lawsuit is designed into the MGDPA as part of its overall framework of requiring agency compliance. In this instance, the MPHA is attempting to avoid that risk by a reasonable judgement that the scattered site housing address in the possession of the MPHA are private data that cannot be made available to the public. Although this discussion clarifies the treatment of scattered site housing addresses by the MPHA, it appears that Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client asked for the addresses of all real property owned by the MPHA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The information submitted by Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Dobbins does not make it clear what types of real property that the MPHA owns that are not parcels of property used for scattered site housing. To the extent that the MPHA owns other real property, and if data about the addresses of those pieces of property would not reveal the identifies of recipients of housing benefits, then the addresses of those properties should be public data because there is no classification other than public for data about those properties. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              It is my opinion that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 does bar the release of the addresses of real property owned by the MPHA when the property in question is used by the MPHA to provide housing benefits for its clients. Data about other real property owned by the MPHA and not used for those purposes are public data.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 10, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267565</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Benefit data</Title><Id>266347</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Indirect identification of individuals</Title><Id>266348</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-20T15:45:04Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-008</Title><title>Opinion 94 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-268019&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-02-02T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>&quot;Has the District violated the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.04, subd. 3 because the records were requested on November 29 and not received until December 15?&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>February 2, 1994; School District 276 (Minnetonka)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On January 13, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja D. Kerr. Ms. Kerr is the attorney for X, a student in the Minnetonka Schools, and his parents. The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Since March, 1993, X&apos;s parents have been attempting to correct certain data in X&apos;s files. As part of that effort, they retained Ms. Kerr to represent them and X. In a letter dated November 29, 1993, Ms. Kerr wrote to a Mr. Frank Kelly who was identified to Ms. Kerr as attorney for the Minnetonka Public Schools, hereinafter Minnetonka . In that letter Ms. Kerr asked to get copies of X&apos;s school records and enclosed a signed release of information from X&apos;s mother. On December 15, 1993 copies of a number of records on X were delivered to Ms. Kerr. Ms. Kerr believed that Minnetonka&apos;s response was not timely and asked for an opinion on that issue. The exact wording of her request is duplicated below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Dr. Donald Draayer, the Superintendent of Schools for Minnetonka. A copy of this letter was also sent to Mr. William F. Kelly, the attorney for Minnetonka. The purposes of this letter, dated January 14, 1994, were to inform Dr. Draayer and Mr. Kelly of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint them with the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask Minnetonka or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform them of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On January 24, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Kelly. In his letter, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Ms. Kerr&apos;s request had been received on November 30, 1993. He stated that under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 that . . . the responsible authority has a total of ten days in which to comply with such a request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. He described efforts by his office and Minnetonka to prepare copies of the voluminous records on X. He pointed out that delivery of the records to Ms. Kerr was accomplished with personal service on
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              December 15, 1993, which, according to him was day eleven of the timeline. It was his opinion that Minnetonka had responded to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request in a timely manner.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request, Ms. Kerr stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner&apos;s opinion as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt; Has the District violated the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.04, subd. 3 because the records were requested on November 29 and not received until December 15? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  Although Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for copies of X&apos;s records is dated November 29, 1993, it appears from Mr. Kelly&apos;s letter that the request was actually received by him on November 30, 1993. In computing the time frame within which Minnetonka was required to respond, the first day is not counted against the time requirements established by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA or Chapter 13 . Under this computation of time, five days elapsed at the end of the day on December 7, 1993, and ten days elapsed at the end of the day on December 14, 1993. The parties agree that Minnetonka provided the copies of X&apos;s records to Ms. Kerr on December 15, 1993, which was the eleventh day after the legal date of the request.
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Once a data subject, parent of a minor data subject or, in this case an attorney acting for the data subject, makes a request for receipt of copies of public or private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the government entity subject to the MGDPA is required to provide those copies within certain time frames dictated by the MGDPA. Most educational data , defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or by a person acting for the agency which relates to a student, are classified as private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Kelly reads Section 13.04, subdivision 3 as allowing Minnetonka to respond to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request within ten days. However, the statute clearly states that a government entity should provide the copies immediately, if possible, and if immediate compliance is not possible then the copies should be provided within five days of the request. The MGDPA does allow a government entity to stretch a response, under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to ten days only if response within the initial five day period is not possible and the responsible authority informs the requestor that response within the initial five days is not possible and five additional days are needed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, at any time between December 1 and the end of the business day on December 7, 1993, Minnetonka could have gained an additional five days to respond by notifying Ms. Kerr, before the end of the day on December 7, that it was having problems with complying. If Minnetonka had done so, it could have, within the requirements of the MGDPA, had until December 14, 1993, to comply. For some reason, Minnetonka did not communicate its difficulty in complying until it mentioned that difficulty in Mr. Kelly&apos;s December 15, 1993, letter to Ms. Kerr that accompanied delivery of the copies of the data requested.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Minnetonka provided the copies of the data requested eleven days after the request for copies was made. The MGDPA required that those copies be provided within five days of the request. Minnetonka could have gained an additional five days within which to respond by informing Ms. Kerr of the need for additional time. It appears from the information provided that Minnetonka chose not to do so.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: February 2, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>268019</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-007</Title><title>Opinion 94 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267992&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-27T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are data about the births of children public data in a public hospital? In his response, Mr. Melchert makes it clear that Ridgeview&apos;s position on the release of birth data is not a function of an interpretation of the 1993 amendments to Section 144.651 but is based only on an interpretation of Section 13.42 of the MGDPA. To deal with the contrasting approaches to the issues presented here, the issue that will be addressed by the Commissioner is the issue presented to Ridgeview, i. e. are data about the births of babies public data in public hospitals?
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 27, 1994; Ridgeview Medical Center</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On January 7, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson. Mr. Anfinson is the attorney for the Waconia Patriot, a newspaper of general circulation located in Waconia, Minnesota and hereinafter Patriot . The facts Mr. Anfinson alleged in his request were as follows.
&lt;p&gt;As part of its coverage of local news, the Patriot publishes news of local interest including reports of babies born at the local hospital, the Ridgeview Medical Center, hereinafter Ridgeview . Ridgeview is a publicly owned hospital and clinic and is an entity subject to the requirements of the Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Anfinson stated that in the past, Ridgeview had routinely supplied the newspaper with directory information concerning babies born at the hospital. Recently, however, Ridgeview has changed its policy and is refusing to provide any information about newborns, citing a 1993 amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651, the Patient&apos;s Bill of Rights .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Anfinson then listed the pertinent parts of Section 144.651 and concluded that Ridgeview must be interpreting the 1993 amendment to Section 144.651 in such a way as to put the amendment in conflict with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 2. This provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter MGDPA , authorizes the release of directory information about patients in public hospitals to the public. Mr. Anfinson stated that he had advised his client that it was his belief that the legislature had not intended to nullify the Section 13.42 provision with the amendment to Section 144.651 because the two provisions serve two different functions. He then stated that, because he and his client were not able to convince Ridgeview of the same conclusion, a commissioner&apos;s opinion was being requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Mr. John Devins, President of Ridgeview. The purposes of this letter, dated January 7, 1994, were to inform Mr. Devins of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, to acquaint him with the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask Ridgeview or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform him of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. Anfinson.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On January 20, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter of response from Paul A. Melchert, the attorney for Ridgeview. In his letter, Mr. Melchert reviewed the part of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request that discussed Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651&apos;s effect on the release of birth information, and stated that the proper issue to be addressed was, as per PIPA&apos;s letter to Mr. Devins, whether data about birth of children at public hospitals are public data. He then requested that the Commissioner find that birth information are not public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Melchert stated that although hospitals once commonly provided birth information to local newspapers, the practice of doing so has been discontinued due to safety concerns. In support of that statement, Mr. Melchert enclosed copies of two articles from healthcare journals discussing the safety problems of releasing birth information to the public. He also enclosed an excerpt from a study done by Ridgeview&apos;s insurer that recommended that the hospital discontinue the practice of releasing birth announcement information to local newspapers. Lastly, he included an affidavit from Ms. Susan Wilson, the director of Maternal Care at Ridgeview. This affidavit discussed the articles, the recommendation from the insurer and included a statement of opinion from Ms. Wilson that in her position she has learned that all other metro area hospitals have discontinued the practice of providing birth information to local newspapers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Melchert elaborated on the concerns raised by the articles, pointed out that the recommendation from the insurer had come as part of its review of a variety of practices of Ridgeview and, relying on Ms. Wilson&apos;s affidavit, pointed out that the Ridgeview practice was consistent with practices of other hospitals in the metropolitan area. He indicated that these concerns had been previously communicated to the Patriot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Melchert then turned to his view of the proper interpretation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, the medical data section of the MGDPA. He disagreed with Mr. Anfinson&apos;s argument that Section 13.42 compels a municipal hospital to release birth information to the public. Mr. Melchert&apos;s analysis was that birth information is not directory information. He discussed the definition of directory information, which appears in Section 13.42, subdivision 1, and pointed out that the definition does not include any reference to whether a given patient is newly born and that there is nothing requiring public hospitals to designate which patients are newly born. He went on to point out that information typically provided as birth information, including the names of parents of a newly born child and the height, weight and time of birth of a baby, are not items that are identified by statute as being part of directory information. In Mr. Melchert&apos;s view, those items of data are private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Melchert stated that Ridgeview&apos;s interpretation of the directory information provision makes sense in view of the safety concerns that were discussed. He also noted that if municipal hospitals were required to disclose this information that children and their parents would be put at greater risk because a child was born in a municipal instead of a private hospital. Lastly, Mr. Melchert asked the Commissioner to point out that directory information is not public at all if a patient requests that the information not be made public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In his letter requesting an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion to the effect that certain 1993 amendments to Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651 should not be reasonably interpreted to preclude the release of information about the births of babies of public hospitals. In requesting a response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA asked Ridgeview to respond to the following issue:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Are data about the births of children public data in a public hospital? In his response, Mr. Melchert makes it clear that Ridgeview&apos;s position on the release of birth data is not a function of an interpretation of the 1993 amendments to Section 144.651 but is based only on an interpretation of Section 13.42 of the MGDPA. To deal with the contrasting approaches to the issues presented here, the issue that will be addressed by the Commissioner is the issue presented to Ridgeview, i. e. are data about the births of babies public data in public hospitals?&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
One of the clearest policies that the legislature has established in the MGDPA is that all government data are public unless the legislature has enacted a statute stating that certain data are not public or the federal government, through its laws, has stated that certain data maintained in Minnesota government agencies are not public. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Through its extensive and annual work with the MGDPA, the legislature continually indicates to the public and to government agencies that it intends to exercise tight control over issues of access to and dissemination of government data.
&lt;p&gt;Since 1979, when the legislature first enacted the section of the MGDPA that is currently codified as Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, the legislature has provided that directory information about patients in public hospitals is, subject to certain conditions, public data. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1979, Chapter 328.) In 1980, the legislature refined its treatment of medical data and clarified that, with the exception of directory information, medical data are classified as private data. (See Session Laws of Minnesota 1980, Chapter 603.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Within Section 13.42, medical data are defined as data collected because an individual was or is a patient or client of a hospital . . . operated by a state agency or political subdivision including . . . data provided by or about relatives of the individual . Directory information is defined in that same section as the name of the patient, date admitted, general condition and date released. The legislature has made no substantive amendments to Section 13.42 and its predecessors since the classifications of medical data and directory information were decided in 1979 and 1980.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that until just recently, it was the practice of Ridgeview to release information about births of babies to the Patriot, other newspapers and by implication to the public. The statements of both Mr. Anfinson and Mr. Melchert clearly agree that this has been the practice for quite some time. What appears to have caused Ridgeview to change that practice are growing concerns about the problems of personal safety that the release of birth data may cause, a recommendation from the hospital&apos;s insurer to discontinue releasing the data and a perception that other public hospitals are discontinuing the practice. The problem with these particular motivations for the hospital to change its practice is that they are not based in any change by the legislature in how the legislature expects public hospitals to treat medical data and directory information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since 1980, medical data, in its broad definition as described above, have been classified as private by the MGDPA. The only medical data that can be disclosed to the public by a public hospital are directory information and that disclosure is subject to the condition that patients be given the opportunity to request that directory information not be released about them. Once such a request is made, directory information about that patient must be treated as private. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since Ridgeview has been disseminating data about births of babies in the hospital for some time, it must have deemed it proper to release that data as directory information under Section 13.42. Any other conclusion would indicate that Ridgeview has been disseminating private medical data to the public. Given the clear and unchanging guidance that has appeared in Section 13.42, and its predecessor, since 1979 and 1980, Ridgeview must have been interpreting the directory information provision to include the ability to disseminate data about births to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As indicated in Mr. Anfinson&apos;s letter, the Patriot became accustomed to Ridgeview relying on the directory information provision to provide the Patriot with information about births at the hospital. As matter of fact, Mr. Anfinson assumed that when Ridgeview stopped releasing birth data to the Patriot that change was on account of a 1993 amendment to the Patient&apos;s Bill of Rights Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651. This amendment (see Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 54) may have an effect on the directory information provision in the MGDPA. However, Mr. Melchert&apos;s letter indicates that Chapter 54 did not play a part in Ridgeview&apos;s decision to stop releasing birth data to the public, so the effect of Chapter 54 will not be discussed here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reliance of both the public and Ridgeview on the directory information provision as a means of communicating birth data to the public is not an unreasonable interpretation of the MGDPA. Public directory information includes the name of the patient, date admitted, general condition and date released. Upon their birth, it must be the common practice of hospitals to admit the newly born child to the hospital and, in effect treat the date of birth as the date of admittance. The legislature has given hospitals some discretion by using the terminology general condition to describe a patient&apos;s status. In the instance of a birth, it is not unreasonable to include, as part of a description of general condition, that the patient is a newly born baby. It is also not unreasonable to see how the term general condition could be used by a hospital to announce the physical dimensions of a newly born child. It must be emphasized that these interpretations of the directory information provision indicate a not unreasonable way for Ridgeview to do, what it acknowledges it has done in the past, and that is to release birth data to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over time, and for the reasons outlined in Mr. Melchert&apos;s letter, Ridgeview became uncomfortable with what appears to have been its long term interpretation of the directory information provision. At that point a number of options were available to Ridgeview. It could have gone to its legislative delegation or the legislature itself and asked for a change to the directory information provision. It could have asked for a temporary classification for birth data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.06. Instead, it appears that Ridgeview reinterpreted its long standing interpretation of the medical data provision of the MGDPA and effectively reclassified public data as private data. This reinterpretation, particularly in light of the hospital&apos;s long standing practice of releasing birth data to the public and its ability to use other options to deal with the legitimate concerns raised in Mr. Melchert&apos;s letter, does not comport with the paramount legislative policy that the legislature exercise control over access to government data. Any other conclusion could leave interpretations of the MGDPA, and reliance on those interpretations by the public, in an undesirable situation where a classification of government data could change, not by legislative direction, but because an agency became concerned about the classification or, in this particular case, because of recommendations of an insurer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that the concerns raised by Ridgeview about the personal safety of newly born babies and their families are not legitimate. However, those concerns can be addressed without offending the policy judgments made by the legislature in the MGDPA. As Mr. Melchert points out in his letter, directory information must be treated as private data if the patient, or in the case of a minor, the patient&apos;s parents, have stated that they do want data about the patient treated as directory information. Nothing in the MGDPA prevents Ridgeview from communicating to parents the possible risks of having data about the birth of their child treated as directory information. If after the communication, parents ask that data about the birth of their child not be treated as directory information, Ridgeview must honor that request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Melchert&apos;s letter indicates that the issue of release of birth data to the public is of concern among many hospitals in this state. The Department of Administration will raise the issue with the legislature in the coming legislative session. In the meantime, the directory information language in Section 13.42 still provides the opportunity for birth information to be released to the public while at the same time addressing the personal safety concerns for parents and newly born children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, it is my opinion that:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;directory information concerning the births of babies in public hospitals is public data in an instance where a public hospital has previously treated that data as directory information as matter of practice. Legitimate concerns about the effect that the release of data to the public about births of babies may have on the personal safety of parents and newborns can best be addressed by public hospitals in their communications with parents about the parents&apos; preference as to the release of directory information about their newly born children&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 27, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267992</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-006</Title><title>Opinion 94 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267726&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Would you state if you agree with Commissioner Jordan&apos;s interpretation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 20, 1994; Minnesota Department of Public Safety</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On January 4, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Robert B. Whereatt, a staff writer at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The facts Mr. Whereatt alleged in his request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Ms. Sharon Harris of the Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted an investigation for the Department of Public Safety, hereinafter Public Safety , about the work environment at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. This investigation was prompted by a variety of allegations from current and former employees of the Bureau. According to Mr. Whereatt, Mr. Michael Jordan, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, of which the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is a part, has declined to release the findings and supporting materials prepared by Ms. Harris as a result of her investigation. Commissioner Jordan has cited M.S. 13.39, subd. 2, and M.S. 13.43, subd. 4, as prohibiting him from releasing the material to the media and the complainants. Mr. Whereatt then asked for a Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue stated below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to Mr. Whereatt&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Commissioner Jordan. The purposes of this letter, dated January 4, 1994, were to inform Commissioner Jordan of Mr. Whereatt&apos;s request, to acquaint him with the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask Public Safety or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform Public Safety of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. Copies of this letter were sent to Mr. Whereatt and to the Attorney General&apos;s Office.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On January 12, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter of response from Commissioner Jordan. In that letter, Commissioner Jordan pointed out that this was an investigation that was conducted about the former superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Commissioner Jordan stated that he had not released any of the investigative information to any third parties, including the complainants, the accused Bureau employee or the media because of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.39, subdivision 2 and 13.43, subdivision 4.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Commissioner Jordan went on to discuss the application of these two statutory provisions to the investigative data. As to support for a position that the investigative data is covered by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, Commissioner Jordan stated the investigative data were collected by a state agency and are being retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. He added that: I was advised by counsel that the chief attorney acting for MDPS (Public Safety) determined that a pending civil legal action was anticipated because of correspondence I received on December 10, 1993, from an attorney retained by the complaining parties. Public Safety subsequently provided a copy of this letter from attorney Stephen Cooper who described himself as being retained by Bureau of Criminal Apprehension employees. Mr. Cooper asked to meet with Commissioner Jordan to discuss the concerns of the employees and the investigation and to attempt to reach closure on corrective actions.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Commissioner Jordan went on to state that even if this civil investigative data were deemed to be inactive under the Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, the data would be private personnel data under the provisions of Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Commissioner Jordan discussed the provisions of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 that make certain data about complaints and charges against public employees and data about disciplinary actions public data. In this instance, Commissioner Jordan concluded, that because no disciplinary action would be taken against this former employee . . . the data collected on him during the investigation are private personnel on him under Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, subd. 4, and may not be released without his informed consent or a court order.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In his letter, Mr. Whereatt described the issue for which this opinion was sought as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Would you state if you agree with Commissioner Jordan&apos;s interpretation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Whether the data concerning the investigation, collected and created by Ms. Harris, is accessible by the general public, as represented by members of the Minnesota media community, or by the current or former employees of Public Safety who made complaints about the former superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension., is a function of the classification of this particular data. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter MGDPA presumes that all government data, including that collected, created and maintained by agent of a state agency, are accessible by the public unless there is a state statute or provision of federal law that says the data in question are not public. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) As federal law is not a consideration in this particular instance, Public Safety can properly deny public access to this investigative data if the data are classified as not public by statute.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Public Safety has taken the position that these investigative data are classified as not public by Minnesota statutes Sections 13. 39 and 13.43. Analysis of these two sections and how they relate to this particular data reveals the following.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, which is captioned civil investigative data does not contain an actual definition of that term. The working definition of the term that emerges from analysis of the section is as follows: Civil investigative data are either data collected by an entity subject to the MGDPA as part of an active investigation that was undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action or data being retained by a government entity in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Civil legal actions include a variety of judicial and administrative proceedings including arbitration proceedings. Whether a civil legal action is pending is a determination to be made by the chief attorney acting for the government entity. Civil investigative data are classified as confidential in the case of data on individuals and protected nonpublic in the case of data not on individuals. Because of those classifications, civil investigative data are not accessible by either the public or any individual or other person who is the subject of civil investigative data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is Public Safety&apos;s position that the investigative data generated by Ms. Harris are civil investigative data. In support of that position, Commissioner Jordan points out that he has acted consistent with that position by not releasing data to any of the subjects of the data or to the public. He also points out that he has been advised by counsel that a key element of the definition of civil investigative data, the requirement that the chief attorney acting for Public Safety determine that a civil legal action is pending, has been met. Given the somewhat conciliatory tone of Mr. Cooper&apos;s letter a genuine question could be raised as to whether the existence of the letter and its content is sufficient to conclude that a civil legal action against Public Safety is pending. However, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39 clearly assigns that judgement call to the chief attorney acting for Public Safety. In this particular instance, the attorney has determined, according to Commissioner Jordan, that a pending civil legal action is pending and therefore it is permissible for Public Safety to treat the investigative data as civil investigative data for purposes of access under the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Commissioner Jordan points out that even if this data were determined to be inactive at some future point under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, subdivision 3, that this particular investigative data would then become private data. Section 13.39, subdivision 3 states that inactive investigative data become public unless portions of a civil investigative file are classified as not public by this chapter or other law. In the instance of this particular investigative data, it is the position of Public Safety that once it becomes inactive, it is still classified as not public by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43 is the personnel data section of the MGDPA. The section contains two lists of data on employees, former employees and applicants for employment that a government entity subject to the MGDPA must treat as public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3.) For all other personnel data, i.e. data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an public employee or is or was an applicant for public employment, the general rule is that all personnel data that is not listed in subdivisions 2 or 3 are private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4.) Private data are not accessible by the public but are accessible by the individual who is the subject of the private data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a situation where personnel data is gathered in response to a complaint or charge against an employee, the fact that a complaint or charge has been made, the status of the investigation of the complaint or charge and whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action are all clearly public data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.) Whether any details about the complaint or charge or the investigation of that complaint or charge become public are a function of whether or not the complaint or charge results in a disciplinary action. If a final disciplinary action is taken against a public employee, then the final disposition of that disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the action and data that document the basis for the disciplinary action are all public data. If no disciplinary action is taken against the public employee, then none of the detailed data about the complaint or charge or the details of the investigation become public data but remain private data
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is Public Safety&apos;s position that the investigation into the complaints or charges against Martin Rahinsky, the former superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been completed. This investigation did not result in any disciplinary action against Mr. Rahinsky. Because no disciplinary action will be taken, there can be no final disposition of a disciplinary action and without the final disposition of a disciplinary action, none of the data that details the complaints or charges against Mr. Rahinsky or the details of the investigation can be made available to the public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     In its enactment of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, which was reexamined and amended after the Supreme Court&apos;s decision in &lt;u&gt;Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale&lt;/u&gt;, 435 N.W. 2d 24, (Minn. 1989), the legislature has balanced the privacy rights of public employees against the right of the public to gain access to data about public employees. The balancing point rests on whether a disciplinary action is taken against an employee or former employee in response to complaints or charges against the employee or former employee. If disciplinary action is taken, considerable data about the details and basis for that action become public. If no disciplinary action is taken, then very little data become public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The particular investigation about Mr. Rahinsky did not result in any disciplinary action being taken against him. Given that fact and the language of the Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, it is clear that Public Safety is required to treat the details of the investigation, including the details of the complaints or charges and the data collected and created in the investigation as private data. This is the result dictated by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, it is my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Whereatt that:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              the Commissioner of Public Safety can treat this data as confidential and protected civil investigative data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, as long as the chief attorney acting for Public Safety determines that a civil legal action is pending and, if this investigative data become inactive, the proper treatment of the data is as private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 20, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267726</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Chief attorney has substantial discretion to determine</Title><Id>266646</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Final disposition of disciplinary action</Title><Id>266405</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Disciplinary action not taken, data not public</Title><Id>266556</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:53Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-005</Title><title>Opinion 94 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267990&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-10T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Was Steele County&apos;s response to X&apos;s request the response contemplated by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and hereinafter &quot;MGDPA&quot;?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 10, 1994; Steele County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On December 21, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from X. X is a recipient of services provided by the Steele County Department of Human Services, hereinafter Steele County . Enclosed with X&apos;s letter were a number of pieces of information. The facts X alleged in his request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On Wednesday, December 9, 1992, X went to Steele County and delivered a handwritten request for information. The request was stated as follows: We are at this time requesting copies of any and all information that may be in your file that has anything to do with us or our kids. This request was signed by X and his wife Y. X stated at the time he delivered his request, he was informed that Steele County could not get started on his request until Friday, December 11 and that providing the copies would take from 3 to 4 days.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X waited until Friday, December 18, 1992. Because he still had not received the copies, he made a second written request on that date. The request stated that it was a second request and that Steele County had previously indicated that the copies would be made available in 4-5 days. In this second request, X and his wife specifically requested that they be able to see their file today . According to X, Steele County informed him that there was an illness in the office, that his request for copies could not be completed and that he could not see his file.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              X stated that on December 30, 1992, and January 9, 1992, he was at the Steele County office and delivered documents to them. (His statement of a date of January 9, 1992, is obviously a misstatement and he meant January 9, 1993.) In support of that statement, he provided copies of the documents that he delivered with received date stamps from Steel County. He states that he verbally asked for his file on February 3, 1992, (again it is clear he means 1993) and the files were not ready. He then states that he went to Steele County on February 5, 1993, to deliver copies, asked verbally for his file and the file was provided. He provided a copy of a receipt dated February 5, 1993, that indicates he paid Steele County $15.00 for copies made of the file.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In response to X&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration wrote to Stanley A. Groff, Director of the Steele County Human Services Department. The purposes of this letter, dated December 16, 1993, were to inform Steele County of X&apos;s request, to acquaint the County with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the County or its attorney to provide any information in support of the County&apos;s position and to inform the County of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Douglas Ruth, the Steele County Attorney.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On January 6, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Groff. In that letter, Mr. Groff recited the history of Steele County&apos;s interaction with X and Y about their request for data. As to the various dates alleged by X and Y and to statements of requests for information and the County&apos;s response to those requests, Steele County&apos;s statements agrees with X and Y. However, after the agreement on dates, Steele County&apos;s view of what occurred, disagrees, to some extent, with the statements made by X.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Mr. Groff stated that once the County received X&apos;s initial request that they had 10 working days (by virtue of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subdivision 3) to comply if they had good cause for not responding within five days. Mr. Groff stated that copies of the data were prepared for X and Y on December 19, 1992, and placed in a pick-up basket on that date. On the point of the long delay between this placement and the actual pickup of the data by X, Mr. Groff stated that it was not credible that X and Y were not informed the data were available for pickup because County personnel prepared the copies by working overtime on a Saturday to duplicate a lengthy file. He also pointed out that X . . . often confuses dates. He gave examples of that confusion.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              Although X&apos;s requests did not contain a formal statement of the issue for which he sought a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, the issue presented by his request can be stated as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Was Steele County&apos;s response to X&apos;s request the response contemplated by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and hereinafter MGDPA ? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
									
                  X&apos;s request and Steele County&apos;s response to that request are controlled by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Once the X and Y made their request to receive copies of private data about themselves, most data on individuals maintained by the welfare system is private as classified by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, it was the obligation of the responsible authority for the Steele County Human Services Department to respond within the following requirements. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 10, makes Mr. Groff, on account of his position as Director, the responsible authority for his Department. If possible, Mr. Groff or his designee was required to provide X and Y with copies of the data immediately. If Mr. Groff were not able to respond to X and Y&apos;s request, he was required to inform X and Y that immediate compliance was not possible and that the he would provide the copies within five working days. If the copies could not be provided within the initial five day period, Mr. Groff was required to inform X and Y of that fact and then provide the copies of the data within the second five day period. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.)
                  
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X&apos;s statement makes it clear that someone at Steele County told him that immediate compliance was not possible. Once X and Y were provided with that information, the MGDPA required that X and Y be provided with the copies no later than December 16, 1992. Contrary to Mr. Groff&apos;s statement, the County is not automatically afforded 10 working days to respond to a request by a data subject for copies of data. The County if required to provide copies immediately, if possible. If not possible, the copies are to be provided within five days and if the five day limit cannot be met, and if the data subject is informed that compliance within the initial five days is not possible, then and only then is the County able to take ten days to respond to a request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this situation, someone at the County told X that immediate compliance was not possible and that work would be done to start the copying on the second day after his request and that the copying would take anywhere from three to four days. This accounts for the initial five day period. However, without a second notice to X and Y that compliance within the initial five days was not possible, the County was required to make the copies available to X and Y on December 16, 1992. The County did not do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Both X and Y, and Steele County agree that X renewed his request to be provided with copies on December 18, 1992. X also stated that on that date he asked to inspect the private data maintained by the County. According to X, a County employee told him that was not possible. In his response, Mr. Groff did not discuss any actions taken by the County to respond to X&apos;s request to inspect the data. Access to inspect and receipt of copies are distinct rights that data subjects are given by the MGDPA. Once X made his request to inspect, Steele County should have had procedures in effect to deal with that request.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is X&apos;s view that he was actually not provided with the copies he requested until February 5, 1993, which is 39 working days after his initial request. It is Steele County&apos;s view, as expressed by Mr. Groff, that the data were provided on December 19, 1992 when they were placed in the pickup basket. Putting the position of the County in the best light, the copies would have been available for pickup by X on December 21, 1992. County offices must not have been open on December 19 as Mr. Groff describes the making of the copies as an overtime project. If X had picked up the copies on December 21, he would have actually received them eight working days after his request. This is beyond the time frame required by the MGDPA unless the County notifies a data subject of its inability to respond within the initial five days. The County has not provided any information that it did so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Putting the position taken by X in its most favorable light puts the County&apos;s actual delivery of the documents, on February 5, 1993, well outside even the 10 day time frame contemplated by the MGDPA. It also brings into question the procedures followed by the County in handling X&apos;s request. The MGDPA requires entities subject to it to provide copies of data to data subjects within set time frames. In this situation, the County is taking the position that it provided copies by putting those copies in a pickup basket. If it desires to use that technique, which presents other risks to the County discussed below, then the County&apos;s operating procedures ought to provide that the data subject be informed in some reasonable fashion that the materials he or she has requested are waiting for that person in the pickup basket. The County has not provided any information that this is the practice in the County.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Steele County&apos;s position is that they had complied with the MGDPA when they placed the copies in the basket. However, X reports, and he provided copies of documents hand receipted in the County on December 30. 1992 and January 9, 1993, that he was at the office of Steele County on three other dates, and County personnel never called his attention to the materials waiting for him in the pickup basket. The legislature provided for data subject access to private and public data, and stated specific time frames for providing access, as an acknowledgement of the powerful effect of information on citizen&apos;s lives and how crucial it is in a variety of situations for citizens to gain access to data. In this situation, X was trying to gain access to information because he was having trouble securing benefits for his family. The interests of data subjects, as recognized by the legislature, requires that agencies establish procedures for providing access that go beyond placing copies of data in a pickup basket without notifying the data subject of the availability of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The use of a pickup basket also presents a potential security problem for Steele County. Among its data practices, the County is required to assure that all data on individuals is appropriately safeguarded. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) In dealing with access to private data, entities subject to the MGDPA are required by the rules of the Department of Administration to assure that an individual who gains access to private data, because he or she identified him or herself as the data subject, is actually the subject of that private data. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400.) As the subject of private data, X and Y have the right to not have that private data disclosed to the public, including disclosure to members of the public who visit Steele County offices and who may be able to view the contents of a pickup basket. These various requirements of the MGDPA and its rules are directly implicated by the County&apos;s use of the basket. The actual implications for the County will depend on how it actually controls access to the pickup basket.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
									
                    Based on correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
                    
									&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              Once X made his initial request to Steele County, the County should have provided him with copies of the data he requested within five working days or given him notice that an additional five days was required. It is my opinion that no notice was given and that the data, that should have been provided to X no later than December 16, 1992, was actually provided to X on February 5, 1993. The County&apos;s use of a pickup basket, without notifying the data subject of the availability of data for actual pickup, does not adhere to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and offers other negative implications for both the County and data subjects under the MGDPA and its implementing rules.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 10, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267990</id><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:52Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-004</Title><title>Opinion 94 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267470&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-06T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Are the long distance telephone billing records of a county employee public data?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 6, 1994; Crow Wing County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 21, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Roy A. Luukkonen, who is the Crow Wing County Auditor. Enclosed with his request was a copy of a state Department of Human Rights charge and a series of letters discussing the issue described below. A review of the correspondence establishes the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 4, 1993, Mr. Luukkonen wrote to John Remington Graham, the Crow Wing County Attorney, and asked Mr. Graham whether the 1993 legislative enactment of Chapter 370, Section, 7, a provision making long distance telephone bills of the legislature, judges, state agencies and political subdivisions public data, was superseded by provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 25, 1993, County Attorney Graham wrote to the Chair of the Crow Wing County Board. In that letter, he summarized issues raised by various county personnel about the status of telephone records in light of various provisions of the MGDPA and Chapter 370, Section 7. Mr. Graham reviewed a variety of statutory provisions, including the child abuse reporting act, Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 and the welfare data and law enforcement data sections of the MGDPA, that appear to classify data, no matter where or what form it appears in, as private or confidential data. Mr. Graham then reviewed the Chapter 370 provision and concluded the clear impact of the legislative enactment was to make telephone bills of public officers of Crow Wing County public data. His reading of Minnesota Statutes Section 645.26, a portion of the statutory interpretation act, was that where two statutes are in conflict, the later enactment prevails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 2, 1993, Auditor Luukkonen received a request for access to data from a member of the public. Specifically, this individual asked the auditor to provide him with a list of long distance telephone calls made from the telephone extension assigned to a certain employee of the County Attorney&apos;s Office. This particular employee has filed a charge of discrimination against the County. In response to this request, the Auditor, also on December 2, wrote to Mr Graham. In that letter Mr. Luukkonen pointed out that while he was the custodian of the phone bills and telephone cost accounting records, Mr. Graham was the responsible authority for the data about his office under the MGDPA and as such, the County Attorney should decide whether this data should be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 7, 1993, County Attorney Graham wrote to Auditor Luukkonen. Mr. Graham referenced the opinion he had done on October 25 and summarized that opinion by stating that the records of telephone calls made from bills paid on behalf of the County Attorney&apos;s office and any other office of the county are public data. Mr. Graham asked the Auditor to assist the citizen to view telephone records of the County Attorney&apos;s office. Following his receipt of the response from the County Attorney, Mr. Luukkonen requested this opinion from the Commissioner of Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
Although Mr. Luukkonen did not formally state an issue for the Commissioner&apos;s consideration in his request, the issue presented by the request can be stated as follows:
&lt;dl&gt;
&lt;dd&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;101%&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Are the long distance telephone billing records of a county employee public data?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Telephone bills of the legislature, and to some extent other government entities, were the subject of considerable discussion during the 1993 legislative session. In response to the public controversy about improper uses of telephone systems, the legislature, among other actions, amended Chapter 10 of Minnesota Statutes. This amendment was enacted as Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 370, section 7. It creates a Section 10.46 in Minnesota Statutes that reads as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Long-distance telephone bills paid for by the state or a political subdivision, including those of representatives, senators, judges, constitutional officers, heads of departments and agencies, local officials and employees thereof, are public data.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that language, it appears that the question presented by Mr. Luukkonen can be answered quite simply. The individual whose phone records were sought is an employee of a political subdivision. To the extent that she used her telephone for long distance calls, the records of the bills paid on account of those calls are, by the provisions of Chapter 370, Section 7, public data. This person was employed as a technical clerk in the County Attorney&apos;s Office. Nothing in the information provided by the county indicates that she held a position where she would have been making long distance phone calls of a sensitive nature. If she been in a sensitive position, then the question posed by the Crow Wing County Auditor would present a more difficult and sensitive issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, if this employee were a child protection investigator making long distance phone calls to individuals who reported child abuse, would the presence of those individuals&apos; phone numbers on a telephone bill be public data because of the enactment of Chapter 370, Section 7? It has been long standing legislative policy to provide maximum protection to any data that discloses the identify of an individual who reports child maltreatment. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11.) If this employee were the supervisor of undercover law enforcement officers, using long distance calls to monitor their work and check on the progress of investigations, should the telephone numbers of those undercover law enforcement officers, appearing on a telephone bill, be public data when the legislature has stated very clearly that all data relating to undercover law enforcement officers are not public? (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.43, subdivision 5 and 13.82, subdivision 10.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For purposes of this opinion, however, the question before the Commissioner is whether the telephone billing records of calls made by the phone assigned to this particular employee are public data. For an employee working as a technical clerk in a county attorney&apos;s office, the billing records of her long distance phone calls are public data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Luukkonen is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr valign=&quot;center&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Long distance telephone billing records maintained about the telephone assigned to a person working as a technical clerk in the office of a county attorney are public data under Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 370, Section 7 and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and those records should be made available to the citizen who has requested them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 6, 1994
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
&lt;/dl&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267470</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Telephone records/bills</Title><Id>266783</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-08-29T14:16:31Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Law enforcement data</Title><Id>266301</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-003</Title><title>Opinion 94 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267571&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-04T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the police department violate Minnesota Statute Section 13.04, Subdivision 3 by refusing to provide Y all of the records regarding X within the five day timeline, which began to run on October 9, 1992?
Was the police department entitled to delay providing records regarding X because the police department claimed to be investigating the situation, without advising us of same, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.39?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 4, 1994; City of Waseca</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 14, 1993, the Public Information Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor, and his mother, Y. The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 9, 1992, Y made a request for information about X to the Waseca Police Department. Her written request stated that she was X&apos;s mother and that she was . . . requesting a copy of any and all information you have concerning him on. (sic.) In response, she received two pages. One is labeled: Waseca Police Department. Juvenile Master Name and Incident Listing . The other is labeled: Waseca Police Department. Initial Complaint Report . They both indicate that X was a possible victim of child abuse. They carried report dates of November 8, 1991.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Kerr, Y later learned that X was interviewed about the alleged abuse sometime in May, 1992. On May 3, 1993, in a letter to the Acting Chief of Police in Waseca, the Waseca City Attorney and the Waseca County Attorney, Ms. Kerr summarized a conversation she had with the Acting Chief, Mr. James M. Staloch on April 15, 1993, in which, according to Ms. Kerr, she emphasized to Mr. Staloch that she needed the police reports on X and another minor. In that letter, she also summarized a conversation she had with Keith Deike, the Waseca City Attorney, in which, according to Ms. Kerr, Mr. Deike told her the City could not forward data about X to Ms. Kerr because they had not received a release of information from Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 4, 1993, Y hand-delivered a release of information to the Waseca Police Department. In a letter dated May 17, 1993, Ms. Kerr wrote to the same parties and told them that she still had not received any response or information from any of them. In that letter, she also pointed out various statutory provisions which she maintained entitled her clients and, through them, her to have access to police reports about X and another child being represented by Ms. Kerr.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 18, 1993, Ms. Kerr received a letter from Keith Deike that enclosed all of the records the police had in their possession regarding X. These records included copies of reports, interview notes and other materials involving two instances of alleged abuse of X by a teacher at his school, one in November, 1991 and one in May, 1992.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following this recitation of interactions with the City of Waseca, Ms. Kerr then requested an opinion on the two issues described below. In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Mc Cauley, the city manager of Waseca. The purposes of this letter, dated December 16, 1993, were to inform Mr. Mc Cauley of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the City with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the City or its attorney to provide any information in support of the City&apos;s position and to inform the City of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of the letter was also sent to Mr. Deike.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 21, 1993, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Deike, attorney for the City of Waseca. According to Mr. Deike, it is the City&apos;s position that with the exception of the information initially provided to Y on October 9, 1992, that no other data was available to her because there was an active investigation concerning the alleged incident of abuse. Mr. Deike also discussed the release of information issue and agreed that on May 4, 1993, that he did receive a release of information from Y authorizing the release of data on X to Ms. Kerr.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mr. Deike stated that a decision about charges growing out of the incident was not made by his office until May 18, 1993. His decision was not to charge anyone in regard to the incident of alleged abuse. According to Mr. Deike, he then sent the records and a letter about the charging decision to Ms. Kerr. Mr Deike also discussed the history of the receipt of releases of information from Mr. Kerr. It is his position that Ms. Kerr asked for information regarding both children and two releases would be forthcoming. He did not feel it was necessary to act on her request until he received releases from parents of both the children. Lastly, Mr Deike stated that it was his understanding that Ms. Kerr also wanted information about his charging decision. It was his interpretation of the law that active investigative data could not be released until he made a decision about whether or to bring criminal charges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issues as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the police department violate Minnesota Statute Section 13.04, Subdivision 3 by refusing to provide Y all of the records regarding X within the five day timeline, which began to run on October 9, 1992?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Was the police department entitled to delay providing records regarding X because the police department claimed to be investigating the situation, without advising us of same, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.39?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Was the police department required to provide all records regarding X within five days of her request of October 9, 1992?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether Y was entitled to receive copies of data regarding X and held by the City of Waseca police department is a function of the classification of the data maintained about X. As the parent of a minor child, Y acts as the data subject for any data held by a government entity subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA , about her child. She was therefore entitled, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to gain access, either for purposes of inspection or receipt of copies, to all public and private data maintained about X by the Waseca Police Department on October 9, 1992.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her May 17, 1993 letter to city and county officials, Ms. Kerr offered a position that this data was available to Y under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 626.555, subdivision 11, the child abuse reporting provisions that deal with record access, and under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5a. The position of the City, as advanced by Mr. Deike, is that with the exception of the basic data provided to Y in response to her October 9, 1992, request that all other data pertaining to the alleged incidents of abuse were criminal investigative data and therefore confidential under Minnesota Statues Section 13.82, subdivision 5 as long as the investigation was active. In Mr. Deike&apos;s view, the investigation did not cease to be active until May 18, 1993, when he made a decision not to charge anyone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kerr is correct in quoting from Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11 certain language that states that the subject of a report of alleged abuse is entitled to have access to the record. However, the record described in Section 626.556, subdivision 11 is the record maintained by a child protection agency that is processing the report of alleged abuse. This is not the record maintained by a law enforcement agency that is investigating whether a report of abuse or neglect involves a criminal act.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For a considerable period of time, data maintained about abuse reports by both law enforcement and child protection agencies was regulated by the Section 626.556, subdivision 11 provision. However, a few years ago, the legislature clarified that law enforcement data, with the exception of the initial report of alleged abuse, is to be regulated not by the provisions of Section 626.556, subdivision 11 but by the applicable provisions of the MGDPA. The legislature accomplished this result by adding the following language to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556, subdivision 11: Section 13.82, subdivisions 5, 5a and 5b apply to law enforcement data other than reports .&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt;(Sept 11-12,2013)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An examination of Section 13.82, subdivisions 5, 5a and 5b reveal the following. Law enforcement investigative data about alleged criminal acts is confidential data while the alleged crime is being actively investigated. Section 13.82, subdivision 5 states very clearly when investigations cease to be active. In either an active or inactive law enforcement investigative file, data that identify a victim of child abuse or neglect are private data. This is the provision relied on by Ms. Kerr in arguing that her client has access to active investigative data about X. The problem with that argument is that the only data made private by this provision is data that identifies the alleged victim. The Waseca Police Department did make data that identified X as a victim available to his mother after her October 9, 1992, request. They did not make available other data, including interviews with the alleged perpetrator, because it was the City&apos;s position that this was active investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5b says that inactive investigative data that become inactive either because the statute of limitations for the alleged offense has run or there is a decision not to pursue a criminal case, instead of becoming public data become private data. The intent of this language is to make the details of the case involving both the alleged perpetrator (s) and victim (s) private data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the complex interrelationship of the detailed guidance provided by these various provisions, it is not surprising that good faith arguments can be made by both Ms. Kerr and Mr. Deike. However, it was not unreasonable for the City to deny Y access to details about the criminal investigation when she sought access to the data based on an argument that the data in question were private. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82 makes active investigative data confidential and therefore inaccessible to any subjects of the data. If a victim wants access to active investigative data, the legislature has provided, at Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82. subdivision 6, a means for victims and their legal representatives to gain access. Once the investigative data became inactive, and, in the City&apos;s view private data about X, it provided the data to Ms. Kerr.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Was the police department entitled to delay providing the data without advising X&apos;s parents and their attorney of the reasons for the delay?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Once an individual data subject requests access to data about him or herself, he or she is entitled to gain access to private and public data. Individuals are also entitled to be informed if they are the subject of confidential data maintained by the agency. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivisions 3.) As described by Mr. Deike, the City took the position that although there was additional data being maintained in the police department of which X was arguably the data subject, Y was not entitled to access to that data because it was confidential. In the information provided to the Commissioner, there is nothing that indicates that the City informed Y or X&apos;s attorney, Ms. Kerr, that he was the subject of additional and confidential data. Section 13.04, subdivision dictates that a subject should, upon his or her request, be informed if they are the subject of confidential data being maintained by an entity subject to the MGDPA. Y should have been informed, when she was provided the minimal data in response to her initial request, that the City was maintaining additional confidential data about X.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As to issue 1&lt;/strong&gt;, an alleged failure to provide data to Y regarding her son, it is my opinion that the City of Waseca provided all of the data it was required to provide at the time the initial request was made, that the the other data regarding X was properly classified as confidential investigative data and that when the underlying criminal investigation ceased to be active that Y was provided with additional data concerning X that had become private data by operation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivisions 5 and 5b.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As to issue 2&lt;/strong&gt;, an alleged failure of the City to advise X&apos;s parents of the existence of confidential investigative data concerning X, it is my opinion that data subjects or, in the case of minor data subjects, their parents are entitled under Minnesota Statues Section 13.04 subdivision 3 to be notified if they are the subjects of confidential data including confidential law enforcement investigative data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 4, 1994&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267571</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data access to data subject</Title><Id>266497</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Subject&apos;s right to know</Title><Id>266498</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Informed of existence/classification</Title><Id>266499</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Victim access to active investigative data (13.82, subd. 13 / subd. 6)</Title><Id>266500</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-002</Title><title>Opinion 94 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266355&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-04T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did ISD 829 or its attorney(s) violate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 3 by denying X&apos;s parent his full educational records within the timelines required by law?
Did ISD 829 violate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 4 by failing to provide, under the timelines required by law, all of X&apos;s records once it was on notice that the parent considered the file provided to be incomplete?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 4, 1994; School District 829 (Waseca)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
              Facts and Procedural History:
            &lt;/h2&gt;
            On December 14, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja D. Kerr, who is the attorney for X, a minor, and his mother Y. X is a student in the Waseca Public Schools, Independent School District Number 829, and hereinafter District 829 . The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.
            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 1, 1992, Y requested all of X&apos;s school records. Ms. Kerr provided a copy of a letter addressed to the Waseca Middle School and dated October 1, 1992 that states the Y is . . . requesting copies of X&apos;s Qum file, Special Education file and all other records . In response, District 829 provided some data on October 1, 1992. The transmittal letter, on Waseca Public School stationery, that accompanied the data provided contained the following language. The enclosed envelope contains all of X&apos;s files and information that we have on file. The letter was signed by a Mr. John Currie who identifies himself as an assistant principal.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 5, 1992, Ms. Kerr sent a letter to District 829, identified herself as X&apos;s family&apos;s attorney, mentioned an enclosed release of information and requested a special education due process hearing. The release of information asked for a variety of educational data about X.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On October 12, during a discussion with Becky Riffe, an attorney for District 829, Ms. Riffe acknowledged that she had certain drawings done by X in her possession that had not been shared with Y. In a letter summarizing that discussion, Ms. Kerr pointed out to Ms. Riffe that Y had requested all records about her son and the District&apos;s failure to provide the drawings and any other files was not in compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              In a separate letter, Ms. Kerr identified the items Y had received from the District and asked that any other documents about X provided to Ms. Riffe by her clients be forwarded to Ms. Kerr. In response to that letter, Mr. William Hoversten, another attorney for District 829, sent an October 14, 1992, letter to Ms. Kerr explaining that he was asking his client to assemble all information about X within the District in a single file. According to Ms. Kerr, no additional data was sent to her.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              Subsequently, the District changed lawyers and on October 20, 1992 additional documents were provided to Ms. Kerr by District 829. According to Ms. Kerr, this stack of documents was catalogued on two pages and she included a summary description of the documents that in her summary covered 78 separate items. These documents were sent by Ms. Lucia A. Blau, the secretary to the District&apos;s new attorney, Ms. Susan E. Torgerson. The letter of transmittal contains the following sentence. Enclosed for your file is a complete copy of X&apos;s school records.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On November 17, 1992, just prior to a hearing scheduled to begin on November 22, 1992, the District delivered a stack of records that it planned to introduce as evidence at the hearing. This stack was catalogued on eight pages and contained documents that were dated prior to Y&apos;s initial request for documents and that had not been previously provided to either Y or Ms. Kerr.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              The educational dispute was resolved by a settlement between District 829 and X&apos;s family. However, issues arising out of the Data Practices Act were left open by agreement of the parties. Following this recitation of her view of what happened, Ms. Kerr then requested an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration on the two issues described below. In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of Commissioner Anderson, wrote to Fran Heinen, Superintendent of District 829. The purposes of this letter were to inform District 829 of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the District with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the District or its attorney to provide any information in support of the District&apos;s position and to inform the District of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Ms. Susan Torgerson in her role as attorney for District 829.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
              On December 27, 1993, PIPA received a facsimile transmitted copy of a response signed by Ms. Elizabeth B. Davies and also on behalf of Ms. Torgerson in their capacity as attorneys for District 829. The mailed copy of this letter, received December 29, included a copy of portions of District 829&apos;s data practices policy. The letter offered some additional information. However, the major thrust of District 892&apos;s response was to offer argument for a variety of reasons as to why the Commissioner should decline to issue an opinion. The Commissioner&apos;s response to Ms. Davies&apos; will be made below.
            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot; /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issues as follows:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did ISD 829 or its attorney(s) violate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 3 by denying X&apos;s parent his full educational records within the timelines required by law?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did ISD 829 violate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 4 by failing to provide, under the timelines required by law, all of X&apos;s records once it was on notice that the parent considered the file provided to be incomplete?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Ms. Davies&apos; reasons as to why the Commissioner should decline to issue an opinion are summarized as follows: This request is outside the Commissioner&apos;s jurisdiction because the questions involve the timing of data disclosure. She also maintains that there is no issue in controversy because ultimately X&apos;s parents received complete data on X. She maintains that Ms. Kerr is asking the questions for improper purposes, i.e. as an attempt to litigate a data practices issue or leverage an additional settlement. Lastly, Ms. Davies argues that the Commissioner should decline to issue an opinion because the facts of the case are much more complex than demonstrated by Ms. Kerr.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The Commissioner&apos;s response to Ms. Davies&apos; arguments is as follows. The Commissioner is authorized to issue opinions when the person requesting the opinion disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by an agency subject to the act in situations where the disagreement involves the person&apos;s rights as a data subject or right to have access to government data. (Laws of Minnesota, 1993, Chapter 192, section 38.) As the individual acting for her minor child, Y has the right under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to gain access to data about her child immediately or within five days of her request. Contrary to Ms. Davies&apos; assertion, the timing of an entity&apos;s response to a request by an individual to exercise his or her rights is part and parcel of the assurance that those rights have meaning. This request for an opinion does involve the right of an individual to gain access to data within the time frames required by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, hereinafter MGDPA , and therefore is clearly within the authority of the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Acceptance of Ms. Davis&apos; argument that the Commissioner should decline to issue an opinion because ultimately X&apos;s parents and their attorney got complete data about X would make a mockery of the rights conferred on individuals by the Act. The legislature imposed time frames in the MGDPA as an acknowledgement that the timing of a response may be not only critical to the data subject&apos;s exercise of his or her rights but may also be critical for other substantive reasons. Where the allegation is that the government entity took too long to provide the data requested, to fail to issue an opinion, on the basis that the data subject finally got the data sometime would seriously injure the legislative policy requiring prompt attention to a data subject&apos;s request for access.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Davies urges the Commissioner not to issue an opinion because, she argues, Ms. Kerr is trying to litigate a data practices issue in the wrong forum. The enforcement mechanisms in the MGDPA for almost all controversies between citizens and government entities are found in the remedy and penalty sections of the MGDPA, Minnesota Statues Sections 13.08 and 13.09. In enacting the opinion authority, the legislature did not change the basic enforcement mechanisms but did try to acknowledge the special expertise built up in the 20 plus years that the Department of Administration has worked with issues of government information policy. The legislature did this not only by giving the Commissioner the authority to issue opinions but also by directing the courts to give those opinions deference. (See Laws of Minnesota 1993, Chapter 192, section 38.) It can very well be that Ms. Kerr will, if this opinion is favorable to her clients, use the opinion as part of her argument in a court of law. There is absolutely nothing that is improper about her doing so and the legislature has acknowledged that role for the Commissioner&apos;s opinions.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Lastly, Ms. Davies argues that the Commissioner should not issue an opinion in this matter because not all of the facts have been provided to the Commissioner. This is a particularly ironic argument because District 829 was given notice of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request and afforded the opportunity to offer any information in support and explanation of what happened. Instead of offering information, the District now says the Commissioner should not issue an opinion because she does not have enough information. As she is required to do, the Commissioner will issue an opinion based on the information that has been presented to her.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In summary, Ms. Kerr&apos;s request is within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the other arguments raised by Ms. Davies are not persuasive that the Commissioner should decline to issue an opinion.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Did District 829 and its various agents fail to provide Y access to X&apos;s education records within the timelines required by law?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The portion of the MGDPA that establishes rights for individuals, or, in the case of minors their parents, the right to gain access to all data maintained about them by a government entity subject to the MGDPA, is Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 8 and 13.04, subdivision 3. In summary, these provisions say that the parent of a minor child acts as the data subject for the child under the MGDPA and that as a data subject the parent has a right to gain access to all private or public data about that child immediately upon the parent&apos;s request for access or, if immediate access is not possible, within five working days of the request. Access can mean either inspection of the data or receipt of copies of the data. What kind of access is provided is dictated by the nature of the request made by the data subject.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this particular instance, Y stated her initial request very clearly. She asked, in writing, to receive copies of particular records but also copies of all other records about her son. This kind of request, delivered to a school district, is also regulated by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32. This is the section of the MGDPA that specifically deals with data about students and declares that most data about students that is maintained by a school district or by a person acting for the school district is private data. Although in a school setting this kind of request may cause a school district to have to gather together a large amount of information, the request is a reasonable request under the MGDPA and District 829 should have, within five days of Y&apos;s request, either provided all of the educational data about X or informed Y that it needed an additional five days to complete the gathering of the data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In response, District 829, on October 1, 1992, which is clearly within five days, sends an envelope of copies of data to Y that an agent for District 829 describes as all of X&apos;s and information that we [the District] have on file. Subsequently, Y&apos;s attorney learns that District 829 or its attorney may be maintaining additional educational data on X and asks for that data. In part as a response to that request but also as part of evidence disclosures required for a due process hearing, the District and its attorney agents make additional data available to the attorney for X&apos;s parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    These copies of additional educational records were provided, according to Ms. Kerr, on October 20 and November 17, 1992. The October 20th disclosure is either 13 or 14 working days after Y&apos;s request depending on whether or not October 12, Columbus Day, was a holiday for District 829. The November 17th disclosure is either 32 or 33 days after Y&apos;s request depending on whether or not October 12 was a District 829 holiday and assuming the November 11, 1992, Veterans Day, was a holiday. Clearly, District 829, for the two additional disclosures that occurred after October 1, 1992, exceeded the five day period contemplated for a response by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act provision on rights of subjects of data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Did District 829 violate the MGDPA by failing to provide all of X&apos;s records once the District was put on notice that Y considered the file to be incomplete?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her full statement of this issue, Ms. Kerr cites to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 which is a provision of the MGDPA that gives individuals the right to challenge the accuracy or completeness of data maintained about them by an entity subject to the MGDPA. This right to challenge data on the grounds of inaccuracy or incompleteness is a right distinct and separate from the right of a data subject to gain access to all public or private data maintained about him or her by a government entity. The purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 is to give people the right, once they have seen data that a government agency is maintaining about them, to challenge the content of that data on the grounds that the data in question is not accurate and/or not complete. The focus of the statutory language is on detailed data content or lack thereof, not on whether a given file or set of data is treated as being complete for purposes of an individual&apos;s access to that file. The rules of the Department of Administration bear out that emphasis on data content by defining complete to mean . . . that the data in question reasonably reflects the history of an individual&apos;s transactions with the particular entity. Omissions in an individual&apos;s history that place the individual in false light shall not be permitted . ( Minnesota Rules, Section 1205.1500, subpart 2.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kerr&apos;s communications to District 829 on the issue of completeness are all oriented toward trying to assure that she and her client received complete copies of all data maintained by the District about X. They are not communications that could reasonably be interpreted as challenges to the completeness of the content of the data maintained about X. District 829 should have been handling those requests as requests for access to the complete data about Eric in the sense of providing to Y or Ms. Kerr all educational data that the District and its agents was maintaining about X. The requests to receive complete data did not invoke any additional obligation for District 829 to act under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter my opinion of the issues is as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;
                              As to issue 1, an alleged failure to provide educational data about X to his parent and his attorney, it is my opinion that District 829 failed to provide the requested data within the timeframes required by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The District was required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to provide the data immediately if possible, within five days if not possible or to give notice of the need for an additional five days within which to comply. After initially providing some data on the same day of the request, the District provided additional data between 13 and 33 working days later. Clearly this is not the response required by the MGDPA.
                            &lt;/dd&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;
                               As to issue 2, an alleged failure to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 4 by not providing a complete file within the timeliness required, it is my opinion that Section 13.04, subdivision 4 deals with challenges to the content of data and not with requests for access to data and that none of the requests made by Y or Ms. Kerr invoked an obligation by District 829 to treat their requests as challenges to the completeness of data the District maintains on X. &lt;!--/dl--&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: January 4, 1994
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266355</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Challenge accuracy and completeness of data</Title><Id>266305</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 94-001</Title><title>Opinion 94 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267329&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1994-01-04T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did ISD 829 violate the rights of Mr. Hay by denying him immediate access to the school records of the children without, in any way, on the date when he requested the records, stating any reason for the denial. Minnesota Statute Section 13.04, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.
Does Mr. Hay, in his individual role as a lay advocate, constitute a &quot;person&quot; within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, Subdivision 1?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>January 4, 1994; School District 829 (Waseca)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On December 14, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja D. Kerr who is the attorney for Jim Hay, a lay advocate for children with disabilities. The facts she alleged in her request were as follows.
&lt;p&gt;Acting as an advocate for two children, Mr. Hay visited the offices of the Waseca Public Schools, Independent School District Number 829 and hereinafter District 829 , on November 5, 1992. (One item should be clarified here. In her letter Ms. Kerr states that Mr. Hay visited District 829 on November 29, 1992. However, in an affidavit prepared by Mr. Hay and submitted by Ms. Kerr, he states that he appeared at District 829 on October 30, 1992. The balance of this Opinion will assume that Ms. Kerr&apos;s date notation is an error.) He brought with him a signed authorization, from the mother of the children, for access to the school records about her children. On the actual date of his visit, October 30, 1992, Mr. Hay was not provided either access to the records or copies of those records. Also, according to Ms. Kerr, he was not advised by representatives of District 829 that it was not possible to comply with his requests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kerr enclosed with her request for an opinion a copy of a letter from the District 829&apos;s attorney, Ms. Susan Torgerson. This letter, dated November 6, 1993, and sent by facsimile transmission and mail to Ms. Kerr, states that Mr. Hay should not have expected immediate access to the data because District 829 was entitled to take time to collect the information. The letter also indicates that on November 5, District 829 completed its collection of the information and attempted to contact Mr. Hay to see whether he wished to pick up the information. Ms. Torgerson indicates that the transmittal of the information to Mr. Hay had now been accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following her descriptions of Mr. Hay&apos;s dealings with District 829, Ms. Kerr then requested an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration on the issues described below. In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of Commissioner Debra Anderson, wrote to Fran Heinen, Superintendent of District 829. The purposes of this letter, dated December 16, 1993, were to inform District 829 of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the District with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the District or its attorney to provide any information in support of the District&apos;s position and to inform the District of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Ms. Torgerson, in her capacity of attorney for District 829.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On December 29, 1993, the Commissioner received a mailed letter of response from Ms. Torgerson and signed by Ms. Elizabeth B. Davies, another attorney for District 829. In her letter, Ms. Davies offered specific information and argument in response to the first issue raised by Ms. Kerr and argued that it would be improper for the Commissioner to provide a response to the second issue. More of Ms. Davis&apos; information and argument will be addressed below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issues as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did ISD 829 violate the rights of Mr. Hay by denying him immediate access to the school records of the children without, in any way, on the date when he requested the records, stating any reason for the denial. Minnesota Statute Section 13.04, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does Mr. Hay, in his individual role as a lay advocate, constitute a person within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, Subdivision 1?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1:&lt;/h2&gt;
Was it a violation of Mr. Hay&apos;s rights when District 829 denied him immediate access to records of the children and did not state a reason for the denial?
&lt;p&gt;Both Ms. Kerr and Ms. Davies agree that the provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter MGDPA , that governs Mr. Hay&apos;s request and District 829&apos;s response is Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. This provision of the MGDPA provides that a data subject has a right to seek access to private or public data about him or herself by either inspecting the data in question or being provided with copies of the data. What access method is required depends on what type of access the data subject has requested. The responsible authority is required to provide immediate access if possible and if immediate access is not possible, the MGDPA requires that access be provided within five working days. Although Mr. Hay was not the subject of the data he was requesting, he was acting on behalf of and with the consent of a parent of the minor data subject and both Ms. Kerr and Ms. Davies indicate in their argument that Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 was the section guiding the actions of both Mr. Hay and District 829 once Mr. Hay made his request for access.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kerr argues that District 829 was required to provide Mr. Hay with immediate access to the data. She further argues that if immediate access was not possible, District 829 should have advised Mr. Hay that immediate access was not possible. Ms. Davies argues that it is in the nature of educational records that they must be carefully examined so that information about other students, for example, can be removed so that the private status accorded to the data about other students will not be compromised. She also points out that District 829 is obligated by the Rules of the Department of Administration to proceed with caution when an individual such as Mr. Hay appears with an authorization to gain access to data about students. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Davies also points out there is nothing in either the MGDPA or the Department of Administration rules that require District 829 to state any reason for why it is denying immediate access to the data. Lastly, she points out that in this instance, copies of the records were made available to Mr. Hay within five days of his request and therefore the access requirement of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, was met.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is clear from the information provided by Ms. Kerr and Ms. Davies that Mr. Hay knew at the time of his request on October 30, 1992, that he was not going to be provided with immediate access to the records. It is not clear from the information provided just exactly what Mr. Hay was told about when access would be provided. However, Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA did not require District 829 to provide Mr. Hay with a statement of denial of access and basis for denial. Although the legislature has made this explicit statement a requirement when access to public data is denied, it has not imposed a similar requirement when a data subject or representative of a data subject is denied immediate access to data about the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Once District 829 refused Mr. Hay immediate access to the data, the District was then required to comply with his request within five days of the request. In this instance, it appears that District 829 did provide Mr. Hay with the copies of the records on November 5, 1992. October 30, 1992, was a Friday. District 829 provided the copies to Mr. Hay on the following Thursday. His request for access was provided by the District within four working days of the receipt of the request. District 829 acted within the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2:&lt;/h2&gt;
Is Mr. Hay a person within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 1, the action for damages remedy provision of the MGDPA?
&lt;p&gt;Other than raising this as an issue for the Commissioner to offer an opinion about, Ms. Kerr does not provide any information or argument as to why Mr. Hay ought to be treated as a person within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 1. On the other hand, Ms. Davies concludes that by asking for an opinion on this issue, Ms. Kerr is actually asking the Commissioner to offer an opinion on whether Mr. Hay was legally damaged by the actions of District 829 and therefore can maintain a lawsuit under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, subdivision 1. Ms. Davies argues that the Commissioner should decline to answer that question because the question is being asked in anticipation of civil litigation or to leverage an additional legal settlement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the MGDPA defines the term person in Section 13.02, subdivision 10, it is clear that the legislature has left it up to the judicial system to address and decide contested issues of a person&apos;s ability to bring and to carry forward a lawsuit brought under the provisions of the MGDPA. Although it is not entirely clear that Ms. Kerr is actually asking the question that Ms. Davies argues Ms. Kerr is asking, the Commissioner is of the opinion that given the scant information provided it is not appropriate for the Commissioner to say anything more on this particular issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter my opinion of the issues raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 1, an alleged failure to provide Mr. Hay with data or a statement of impossibility of providing the data requested, it is my opinion that District 829 was not required to provide Mr. Hay with a statement of impossibility and that the District did provide the data within the five days required by the MGDPA.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;As to issue 2, whether Mr. Hay is a person within the meaning of the damages remedy provision of the MGDPA, it is my opinion that a court should decide whether Mr. Hay is a person who suffered damages for an alleged violation of the MGDPA.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: January 4, 1994&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267329</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Advocates - access to data</Title><Id>266685</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:48:51Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-012</Title><title>Opinion 93 012</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267376&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-12-30T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Must the school district provide X&apos;s parents a copy of a report or notes about an incident/dispute involving their child and family which was created by a school district employee? Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.04, Subd. 3. </ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 30, 1993; School District 624 (White Bear Lake)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On December 10, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor and his parents. X is a student enrolled in the White Bear Lake School District Number 624, hereinafter District 624. The facts she alleged in her request were as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;X was enrolled in an extended day care program within District 624. The parents and the District had a disagreement about that enrollment and X was terminated from the day care program in June, 1993. In July, 1993, X&apos;s parents met with District 624&apos;s superintendent, Dr. Ted Blaesing, to discuss the dispute. During that meeting, Dr. Blaesing read what Ms. Kerr describes as a report to X&apos;s parents. This report had been authored by Ms. Peggy Coleman, one of the day care teachers. According to Ms. Kerr, this report related to X&apos;s termination. Although Ms. Kerr states that X&apos;s parents were not allowed to see or have a copy of this report, she does not make it clear if X&apos;s parents asked to see or receive a copy of the report during this meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;However, on September 15, 1993, X&apos;s father sent a letter by certified mail to Dr. Blaesing and asked for a copy of the report. In a letter dated September 22, 1993, Dr. Blaesing acknowledged receipt of X&apos;s father&apos;s letter. He also characterized the report as notes recorded by Ms. Coleman after, what he described to X&apos;s father as, . . . the incident which occurred between Peggy [Coleman] and yourself last spring. Dr. Blaesing then stated that A staff member&apos;s notes are not public records and cannot be automatically released to anyone upon request. Therefore, Dr. Blaesing refused to provide X&apos;s father with a copy of the report or notes. Copies of X&apos;s father&apos;s letter and Dr. Blaesing&apos;s response were provided by Ms. Kerr.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Following her description of the exchanges between X&apos;s parents and Dr. Blaesing, Ms. Kerr then requested an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration on the issue described below. In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, PIPA on behalf of Commissioner Anderson wrote to Dr. Blaesing in his capacity of Superintendent of District 624. The purpose of this letter, dated December 13, 1993, was to inform District 624 of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the District with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the District or its attorney to provide any information in support of the District&apos;s position and to inform the District of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of the letter to Dr. Blaesing was sent to the Knutson Flynn law firm after PIPA was informed that this firm represented District 624. No correspondence from either the District or its attorney has been received in response to the December 13, 1993, letter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issue as follows:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Must the school district provide X&apos;s parents a copy of a report or notes about an incident/dispute involving their child and family which was created by a school district employee? Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.04, Subd. 3.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;

&lt;br xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Ms. Kerr&apos;s position is that this data, whether it be characterized as a report or staff notes, ought to made available to X&apos;s parents because it is data about them and their child and is therefore accessible by them under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the Right of Subjects of Data section of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter MGDPA . District 624&apos;s position, as taken from Dr. Blaesing&apos;s letter to X&apos;s parents, is that the notes recorded by Ms. Coleman . . . are not public records and cannot be automatically release to anyone upon request. The answer to the issue raised by Ms. Kerr involves an analysis of where, within the coverage of the MGDPA, these notes actually fall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The MGDPA&apos;s overall objective is to regulate various aspects of governmental data collection, use and dissemination and to also regulate access to government data. Government data is the basic subject matter of the MGDPA and the definition of the term government data is exceedingly broad. &apos;Government data&apos; means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. In the normal course of governmental operations, it is not state agencies or political subdivisions that actually collect and create data, data in most instances are collected or created by employees of state agencies and political subdivisions who are acting as agents on behalf of the government entity that employs them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this particular instance, it appears from the correspondence, that Ms. Peggy Coleman, an agent of District 624, created or collected certain data about X&apos;s parents and their son X. While there is some dispute as to whether the data were notes or a report , the actual existence of the data is not disputed. In addition to that it appears that the data were used in discussions between X&apos;s parents and District 624. In his September 22, 1993, letter, Dr. Blaesing does not dispute that notes made by Ms. Coleman were read to X&apos;s parents during the July meeting. For purposes of the MGDPA, it appears clear that the notes are indeed government data. Whether or not those notes as government data are accessible by X&apos;s parents is a function of how those notes are classified for purposes of the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The MGDPA contains a very clear presumption that all government data is accessible by the public unless certain data are classified as private, confidential, nonpublic or protected nonpublic i. e. not public. Whether certain data are not public is a function of whether there is a state statute or federal law that says certain data are not public. However, the fact that certain data may be classified as not public does not mean that the data in question are automatically not accessible by those who may be the subjects of that data. The MGDPA does provide that when certain data are classified as private or nonpublic, those types of data are accessible by the subjects of the data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivisions 9 and 12 and 13.04, subdivision 3.) As these notes are government data, then they should be accessible by X&apos;s parents if they are either public or private data about X&apos;s parents and their child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Much of the sheer volume of language in the MGDPA is concerned with identifying various types of government data and stating classifications for those types of data. The key to determining exactly how a given set of data is classified depends on what type of data is involved in a given situation. Examination of the circumstances and agencies involved in generating data will normally answer the question as to what type of data is involved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In this instance, the data in question were generated by an agent of District 624. The section of the MGDPA that deals with educational data defines educational data as follows: &apos;Educational data&apos; means data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Clearly, District 624 is an educational institution or agency. Just as clearly, X is a student who is currently enrolled in District 624 and was formerly enrolled in the extended day care program. Any data maintained about X by District 624, or by an agent for the District such as Ms. Coleman, fits the definition of educational data and most educational data are classified as private. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivisions 1 and 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although it is not completely clear from either Ms. Kerr&apos;s or the District&apos;s discussion and description of the notes, it appears likely that these notes may also contain data about X&apos;s parents and especially X&apos;s father. To deal with the issue of a school district maintaining data on parents, the MGDPA contains language that data concerning parents shall be considered educational data. Therefore, to the extent that these notes discussed X&apos;s parents, they are also private data and ought to be accessible to X&apos;s parents. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.32, subdivision 2 and 3.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dr. Blaesing&apos;s characterization of these notes as a staff member&apos;s notes that are not public records leaves one question to be addressed. Although educational data has a broad definition, certain data maintained by school districts and by agents of those districts have been exempted by the legislature from being educational data. The practical effect of these exemptions is that data falling into an exemption may not be accessible by a subject of that data. One of the exemptions covers records of instructional personnel maintained solely in the possession of the creator of the record and not shared or revealed to anyone else except a substitute. This exemption is popularly referred to as the desk drawer notes exemption. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a).) Ms. Coleman&apos;s notes do not appear to fall within this exemption.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Although Ms. Kerr describes Ms. Coleman as a teacher, and therefore within the words of the exemption, instructional personnel , it appears from the information provided that Ms. Coleman shared these notes with Dr. Blaesing, who was not a substitute for her. He in turn shared the content of the notes, but not the actual notes themselves, with X&apos;s parents. It is clear that if these were notes of instructional personnel that they were not maintained solely in Ms. Coleman&apos;s possession and therefore they do not qualify as part of this exemption and are therefore educational data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;To the extent that these notes identify X, they are educational data about him and given the fact that he is a minor, they are accessible by his parents. To the extent that these notes identify either of X&apos;s parents, they are also educational data about them and are accessible by them. This result is reached by a reading of Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 8, 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.32.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These notes are private educational data and access to them, either inspection or provision of copies, should have been accomplished by District 624 within five days of the receipt of X&apos;s father&apos;s September 15, 1993, letter that requested access and clearly described the data sought.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: December 30, 1993&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267376</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Instructional personnel</Title><Id>266531</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notes, &quot;desk drawer notes&quot;</Title><Id>266532</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Parent data</Title><Id>266386</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-011</Title><title>Opinion 93 011</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267900&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-12-20T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Whether the identity of the individual, known only to Superintendent Smit and not existing in any physical form, is not classified as &quot;government data.&quot;
Whether, if you believe the identity of the source is government data, it would be classified as &quot;harassment data.&quot;
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 20, 1993; School District 504 (Slayton)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On December 1, 1993, the Commissioner of Administration received a request for an opinion from Ms. Claire C. Olson and Mr. Kevin J. Rupp, attorneys for Independent School District No. 504, the Slayton School District, and hereinafter District 504 .
              &lt;br /&gt;
              In their request for an opinion, the school district attorneys stated the following facts.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                X was employed by District 504 as a high school teacher until November 1, 1993, the date of his resignation. In October, 1993, an individual brought information regarding X&apos;s conduct to the attention of Superintendent Cornelius Smit. Specifically, the individual presented Superintendent Smit with two documents from X&apos;s martial dissolution court file: an Affidavit of X&apos;s wife, and X&apos;s Responses to Requests for Admissions. Upon receipt of this information, Superintendent Smit authorized the Ratwik law firm to conduct an investigation into the allegations regarding X&apos;s conduct. X resigned from employment with the School District, as a part of a settlement between the School District and X, before the investigation was completed.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Superintendent Smit is the School District&apos;s Responsible Authority. On November 15, 1993, X wrote Smit requesting a copy of his personnel file and demanding to know the source of the information which initiated the investigation. Smit provided X with a copy of his personnel file. Smit denied X&apos;s demand for the identity of the source. This denial is based on the District&apos;s determination that the identity of the source is unrecorded and thus not government data subject to dissemination. Further, the District has determined that even if the source&apos;s identity was government data, the data is harassment data (Minn. Stat 13.43. subd. 8) to which X is not entitled.
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              The issues raised by Ms. Olson and Mr. Rupp in their opinion request, were stated by them as follows:
              &lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Whether the identity of the individual, known only to Superintendent Smit and not existing in any physical form, is not classified as government data.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Whether, if you believe the identity of the source is government data, it would be classified as harassment data.
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                  Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 and 13.04, subdivision 3, X is entitled to gain access to either public or private data on individuals that identifies him and is currently maintained about him by District 504. Public and private data on individuals are discrete classifications of government data, which is the all encompassing term used by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (hereinafter MGDPA ) to describe the overall subject of the Act which is the regulation of government data. Government data is defined by the MGDPA as . . . all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the course of dealing with certain allegations made about X, Superintendent Smit met with an unnamed individual. This individual provided the Superintendent with copies of court records that were part of the information filed in a marital dissolution action involving X. According to the facts presented by District 504, Superintendent Smit did not, either at the meeting, or at any time thereafter make any written record that identifies the individual who shared the copies of the court documents with him. The only place this data exists within District 504 is in the mind of Superintendent Smit.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    X has the right to gain access to public or private government data maintained about him by District 504 or its agents. The real issue here, as discussed by the District&apos;s attorneys in their request letter, is whether data that only exists in the mind of the District&apos;s superintendent is government data within the meaning of the MGDPA?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     Given the very broad definition of the term government data, there has been for a number of years an open question as to the status of information whose only situs is in the mind of a government employee. That question was answered in the &lt;u&gt;Keezer &lt;/u&gt;case decided by the Court of Appeals in late 1993. (See &lt;u&gt;Keezer v. Spickard&lt;/u&gt;, 493 N.W. 2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), review denied February 12, 1993.) In this case, Judge Peterson, writing for the panel, made it very clear that, in the view of the Court, the legislature did not intend for . . . the term &apos;government&apos; data to be literally interpreted to include unrecorded data that exist only in a human brain. (&lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, at 617.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     From the facts presented by District 504, it appears that the only place that the information that identifies the individual who shared the copies of the records from the district court record with Mr. Smit is in the superintendent&apos;s mind. If it were recorded elsewhere within the District, X would have access to it if it were public or private data. (&lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;, at page 618) Based on the holding in the &lt;u&gt;Keezer&lt;/u&gt;case, it is clear that the identity of this individual is not government data for purposes of the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the Commissioner&apos;s conclusion on the first issue raised by District 504, it is not necessary to offer an extensive opinion on the second issue. For the data in question to be harassment data, it would have to be government data. It is not.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Olson and Mr. Rupp are as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 1, my opinion is that the information that would reveal the identity of the person that provided the court records to Superintendent Smit exists only in the mind of the superintendent and it is therefore not government data for purposes of the MGDPA and is therefore not accessible to X under either Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03 or 13.04.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 2, it is my opinion that as the data is not government data, it is not necessary to comment further on whether this data could constitute harassment data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 8.
                                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 20, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267900</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (See: Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266791</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Mental impressions (Keezer v. Spickard, 493 N.W.2d 614)</Title><Id>266381</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Redaction</Title><Id>266324</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-010</Title><title>Opinion 93 010</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267430&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-12-09T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Upon final disposition of the disciplinary action (receipt of the Arbitrator&apos;s decision), does the Notice of Deficiency become public data?
Is the decision of the Arbitrator public? If so, must the District remove the names and personally identifiable information of students and employees who testified at the hearing?
Is the portion of the transcript containing the Teacher&apos;s testimony public, with appropriate redactions? Is the testimony of other witnesses public, provided names and personally identifiable information is deleted?

</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 9, 1993; School District 112 (Chaska)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On November 19,1993, the Commissioner of Administration received a request for an opinion from Ms. Anne F. Krisnik, the Attorney for Independent School District Number 112, the Chaska School District and hereinafter District 112 . In her request for an opinion, Ms. Krisnik stated the following facts.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              In January of 1993, the Superintendent of Independent School District No. 112 ( School District ) gave one of its teachers ( Teacher ) a Notice of Deficiency for unacceptable physical contact with students and inappropriate and demeaning discipline of students. The School District also suspended the Teacher for 10 days without pay based on his misconduct and gave him several directives. Notice of the 10 day suspension without pay was contained in the Notice of Deficiency.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The Teacher challenged both the Notice of Deficiency and the suspension. The arbitration hearing on his grievance lasted two days and was fully transcribed. The School District called as witnesses nine students and eight current and former staff members, several of whom were witnesses to the events which served as a basis for the discipline. On November 15, 1993, the Arbitrator issued an award denying the Teacher&apos;s grievance, upholding the suspension and letter. Parents have requested copies of documents related to this matter.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Krisnik&apos;s letter indicated that the attorney for the teacher in this matter received a copy of her request for an opinion. To date, no comments about District 112&apos;s request have been received from either the teacher or the attorney for the teacher.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              The issues raised by Ms. Krisnik in her opinion request were stated by her as follows:
              &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Upon final disposition of the disciplinary action (receipt of the Arbitrator&apos;s decision), does the Notice of Deficiency become public data?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the decision of the Arbitrator public? If so, must the District remove the names and personally identifiable information of students and employees who testified at the hearing?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is the portion of the transcript containing the Teacher&apos;s testimony public, with appropriate redactions? Is the testimony of other witnesses public, provided names and personally identifiable information is deleted?
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Upon final disposition of the disciplinary action (receipt of the Arbitrator&apos;s decision), does the Notice of Deficiency become public data?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Whether or not certain personnel data that relates to proposed disciplinary actions about public employees, including teachers, become public is the subject of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. This provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA contains a list of data on public employees that is classified as public data. Under this provision, personnel data on current or former employees that is public includes: . . . the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; . . . . The quoted language states a principle that, although limited information is available to the public about a governmental entity&apos;s consideration of a proposed disciplinary action against one of its employees during the time of that consideration, considerable information about the actions of the entity and the employee will become public if the entity disciplines the employee and that disciplinary action is final.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Section 13.43, subdivision 2, in clause (b) provides guidance to government entities as to just exactly when a disciplinary action against a public employee becomes final. This clause states that a final disposition of a proposed disciplinary action against an employee occurs when the government entity has made its final decision about the disciplinary action regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. This general rule, that a disposition is final when the entity makes its final decision, is modified in situations where the employee being considered for disciplinary action has rights under a collective bargaining agreement. When the employee, under the terms of the agreement, can grieve a proposed disciplinary action and carry that grievance through a proceeding before an arbitrator, the final disposition of a disciplinary action does not occur until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. An arbitration proceeding is concluded when the arbitrator completes consideration of the matter and sends a copy of the decision in the arbitration to the parties.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, the Notice of Deficiency was the statement given to the teacher that the teacher had engaged in certain inappropriate conduct. This particular Notice also contained a notice to the teacher that the teacher was being suspended for ten days without pay. This Notice of Deficiency appears to contain statements as to what disciplinary action was proposed by District 112 . Once the arbitrator issued an award upholding that disciplinary action, the nature of the disciplinary action itself, the reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for that action became public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2. During the time that the Notice of Deficiency and proposed 10 day suspension were being grieved, the Notice and related data continued to be private data as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4. However, once the arbitrator&apos;s award sustained imposition of a disciplinary action the data became public.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Is the decision of the Arbitrator public? If so, must the District remove the names and personally identifiable information of students and employees who testified at the hearing?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The status of data contained in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision depends on the actual content of the decision and how data that identifies individuals in that decision is classified under the MGDPA. A copy of the actual decision of the Arbitrator has not been provided to the Commissioner. Information provided by Ms. Krisnik indicates that the decision contains information about whether the proposed disciplinary action against the teacher is appropriate and does contain information about other employees and students of District 112.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As previously noted, data about the teacher in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision that states reasons why disciplinary action can be taken against the teacher or data that document the basis for the disciplinary action are public data. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, Subdivision 2.) The status of data in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision that identifies other employees and students in District 112 is less clear cut. The District&apos;s request indicates concern that release of individually identifiable data about other employees and students may be improper. This could be the case if the data released about other employees or students are private data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about other employees of the District that appear in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision are private if the data in question identifies those employees, states something about those employees and whatever is stated about the other employees is not data that is identified as public data in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 3. Without examining the actual content of the decision, it seems reasonable to conclude that the data about the other employees that appears in the decision is basic information that identifies them, states their positions within District 112 and then refers to what they testified about as to their actions and the actions of the teacher that lead to the disciplinary action taken against the teacher. Names of public employees, their job titles and job descriptions are public data. Data describing the actions or lack thereof of an employee identified in the decision, other than the teacher disciplined, can be viewed as private data about that employee. However, data provided by other employees about the actions of the teacher disciplined are properly viewed as data about the disciplined teacher. To the extent those data constitute reasons for the disciplinary action or are data that document the basis for the action the data are public data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Data about students of District 112, that appear in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision, may also be private if the data in question identifies a student, states something about the student and the data in the statement is not data that constitutes data designated as directory information by state and federal law. Data on individuals that is maintained by District 112 that relates to an individual who is currently or formerly enrolled as a student in the District is educational data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, clauses (a) and (b).) All educational data is private data unless certain data about students is designated as directory information by state and federal law. Once a school district goes through the directory information process contemplated by federal law, the MGDPA states that data on students designated as directory information is public data for purposes of the MGDPA. (See 20 U.S.C. 1232g, 34 C.F.R. Section 99.37 and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, Subdivision 5.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Without actually examining the Arbitrator&apos;s decision, it is reasonable to conclude that the portions of the decision that involve students of District 112 are data that identifies those students and that refers to their actions and observations relative to the conduct of the teacher that lead to disciplinary action being taken against the teacher. To the extent that these data only are about what the student said, did or experienced, a strong argument can be made that these data fit the definition of private educational data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. This conclusion is reinforced by the requirements of federal law. The federal law cited above states that education records are records that directly relate to a student and that are maintained by an educational institution or person acting for the institution. Except in limited instances none of which are relevant here, education records cannot be disclosed without parental consent.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    However the actual data that relates to students in the Arbitrator&apos;s decision may be their statements about the actions of the teacher who is being disciplined. To the extent that this data does not identify the student, it can be properly viewed by District 112 as data about the teacher. If these statements provide reasons as to why disciplinary action was taken against the teacher or constitute data that documents the basis for the action, they are public data about the teacher.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 3:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Is the portion of the transcript containing the Teacher&apos;s testimony public, with appropriate redactions? Is the testimony of other witnesses public, provided names and identifiable information is deleted?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Much of the discussion and analysis associated with Issue 2 is applicable to the questions raised in Issue Number 3 as to what portions of the transcript of the arbitration hearing are public data. Although the question specifically raises the issue of the content of the testimony of the teacher who was disciplined, the same analysis applies to the testimony of all of the witnesses as either persons employed by District 112 or students of the District. If the transcripts contains witness statements that are either private educational data or private personnel data then the portion of the transcript in question should be treated as private data. If the testimony, as it appears in the transcripts, concerns the actions and statements of the teacher who was disciplined and if that testimony provides a reason or reasons for why disciplinary action was taken against the teacher or are data that documents the basis for that action, then the data are public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13, 43, subdivision 3
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    If a given set of testimony does contain private personnel or educational data intermixed with public disciplinary data and the data can be redacted in such a way as to not disclose private data about other employees or students of District 112, the redaction process would be an appropriate way to balance the protection provided to those employees and students with the right of the public to gain access to the reasons for and the data that documents the basis for the disciplinary action taken against this teacher.
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matters, subject any qualifications discussed above, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Krisnik are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 1, my opinion is that once the Arbitrator issued a report in this matter, that the notice of deficiency became public data.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 2, my opinion is that those portions of the Arbitrator&apos;s decision that describe the reasons for the disciplinary action or describe data that documents the basis for the action are public data. Data contained in the decision that is data about other employees of District 112 or its students, may be public or private data as discussed above. The actual content of the decision should be examined in light of the discussion above to determine what is releasable as public disciplinary data and what needs to be protected as private data on students or other employees.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 3, my opinion is that those portions of the transcript of the arbitration hearing that describe any reasons for the disciplinary action or describe data that documents the basis for that action are public data. As with the decision itself, the transcripts needs to be examined in light of the discussion above, redacted as necessary to balance privacy rights of students and other personnel with the public&apos;s right to gain access to disciplinary data.
                                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 9, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267430</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Arbitrator decision or award</Title><Id>266606</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Notice of deficiency</Title><Id>266432</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)</Title><Id>266334</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-009</Title><title>Opinion 93 009</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267804&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-12-03T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>In your view, was it a responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Education to review compliance with Chapter 13, as well as compliance with FERPA?
Did the Minnesota Department of Education violate the law by failing to provide the contents of Complaint No. 424 within five days, or requesting an extension or explaining in writing the impossibility of doing so (Minn. Stat. 13.04; Sec. 13.03, Subd. 3)?
Did the Minnesota Department of Education have a responsibility to notify X&apos;s parents of their rights to file a Notice of Claim or lawsuit or other legal action regarding potential violations of Chapter 13. (Minn. Stat.Sec. 13.05; subd.8.)
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>December 3, 1993; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On October 22, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor and his parents. X was a student in a program called Family Focus which is operated by Intermediate School District Number 287, hereinafter District 287. The facts she alleged in her request, involving the Minnesota Department of Education (hereinafter MDE ) were as follows.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              On August 11, 1993, Ms. Kerr wrote to MDE and requested a copy of contents of a file that MDE had created and collected in response to certain complaints made by X&apos;s parents. Along with her request, she included a copy of a release of information form from X&apos;s parents. According to Ms. Kerr, the Department sent a copy of the file to her on August 30, 1993, and she received the copy on September 2, 1993. She stated that at no time did the Department ask to take longer than five days to provide the copies.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 30, 1993, Ms. Kerr wrote to the MDE and asked why there had been a delay in responding to her August 11, 1993, letter. In a letter dated October 1, 1993, Ms. Barbara Stilwell, an investigator for the Department, responded that Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request was received in MDE on August 14, 1993, that contact was had with the Attorney General&apos;s office to determine what parts of the file could be released, that a response was received from the Attorney General&apos;s office on August 21, 1993 and that the data requested was then given to clerical staff to copy and mail to Ms. Kerr.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Also in the September 30, 1993, letter, Ms. Kerr raised an issue with MDE about its jurisdiction to issue violations against a school district for failing to provide records within the timeframes provided by Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes when it appears that MDE has authority to enforce these kinds of issues under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, (FERPA). Ms. Stilwell&apos;s October 1, 1993, letter stated that MDE&apos;s authority to enforce the FERPA derived from federal law but her letter did not make a definitive statement as to the Department&apos;s position on its authority to enforce Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Kerr, in her October 21, 1993, letter requesting a Commissioner&apos;s opinion, then asked for a variety of opinions on issues involving a local school district and MDE. This opinion only involves the issue concerning MDE. The issues involving the local school district were the subject of an opinion issued separately on November 12, 1993.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Linda Powell, Commissioner of MDE. The purpose of this letter, dated October 28, 1993, was to inform MDE of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, to acquaint MDE with the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask MDE or its attorney to provide any information to explain the actions taken or not taken and to inform MDE of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 9, 1993, PIPA received via facsimile transmission a letter from Mr. Robert J. Wedl, Assistant Commissioner of MDE. Although this letter offered some information and arguments about the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority in this matter, the letter also requested additional time within which to respond. MDE asked to examine all of the information submitted by Ms. Kerr when she requested an opinion. In a letter dated November 16, 1993, PIPA wrote to Mr. Wedl transmitting copies of the information provided by Ms. Kerr to him and informed him that MDE had until November 30, 1993, to submit additional information. On November 20, 1993, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Wedl that stated, after review of the documents submitted by Ms. Kerr, that MDE would not be submitting additional information.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The November 9, 1993, letter submitted by Mr. Wedl offered the following. Mr. Wedl made a variety of arguments as to why Ms. Kerr&apos;s opinion requests exceed the scope of the opinion authority conferred on the Commissioner by the legislature. A more detailed review of MDE&apos;s position in those arguments will be found below. After arguing the Commissioner&apos;s lack of authority, Mr. Wedl did offer for the record that the file in question was over 500 pages in length and that it was provided on the 11th business day after Ms. Kerr&apos;s request was received. Mr. Wedl stated that during that time MDE was consulting with its attorney to determine if the investigative file was closed and could be released. Mr. Wedl also offered additional argument as to another issue raised by Ms. Kerr that will be discussed below.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issues involving the Department of Education as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            In your view, was it a responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Education to review compliance with Chapter 13, as well as compliance with FERPA?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the Minnesota Department of Education violate the law by failing to provide the contents of Complaint No. 424 within five days, or requesting an extension or explaining in writing the impossibility of doing so (Minn. Stat. 13.04; Sec. 13.03, Subd. 3)?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did the Minnesota Department of Education have a responsibility to notify X&apos;s parents of their rights to file a Notice of Claim or lawsuit or other legal action regarding potential violations of Chapter 13. (Minn. Stat.Sec. 13.05; subd.8.)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before offering opinion on each of the specific issues raised by Ms. Kerr, the basic question of the authority of the Commissioner in this matter, as raised by Mr. Wedl, must be addressed. The plain statement of that authority, as it relates to requests from individuals for opinions, is found in the 1993 enactment. Chapter 192 states: Upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision, the commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, Section 38.)
                  &lt;br /&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion Ms. Kerr&apos;s raised the issues quoted above. In summary, those issues are: is MDE responsible for reviewing a school district&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA; did the MDE fail to provide data within the time frames required by the MGDPA; and did the MDE fail to include certain information in procedure required to be prepared in writing by all entities subject to the MGDPA? Ms. Kerr argues that each of these issues affects the rights of her clients under the MGDPA and that they are entitled to receive an opinion under the Commissioner&apos;s opinion authority. Mr. Wedl responds that for the Commissioner to offer an opinion on these issues would exceed the authority conferred on the Commissioner by the legislature.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                     The Commissioner&apos;s authority, as summarized from Chapter 192, is to review requests for opinions from persons who disagree with a determination of a government entity regarding data practices and to give opinions to those persons regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or the right to have access to government data. Ms. Kerr&apos;s first request clearly indicates a disagreement with the position taken by the MDE about whether it has the authority to review school district compliance with the MGDPA. If the MDE has that authority, MDE&apos;s review of a school district&apos;s practices regarding government data could have a distinct effect on Ms. Kerr&apos;s clients. For example, if an administrative remedy for an alleged violation of the MGDPA were available from the MDE, Ms. Kerr&apos;s clients would have to exhaust that remedy before they could take other legal action. Failure to exhaust an administrative remedy can have a distinct and negative effect on a data subject&apos;s right under the MGDPA. (See &lt;u&gt;Bohn v. County of Dakota&lt;/u&gt;, 772 F.2d 1433 1985.) The first issue raised by Ms. Kerr&apos;s involves a data practices issue potentially implicating the rights of her clients under the MGDPA and therefore it is appropriate for the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning that issue.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the second issue, Ms. Kerr is asking whether the data practice of the MDE in not responding to her clients&apos; request for access to data within timeframes required by the MGDPA violated her clients&apos; rights under the Act. This issue clearly involves a determination regarding data practices made by the MDE that affects Ms. Kerr&apos;s clients. Given the language of Chapter 192, this issue is also appropriate for an opinion of the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the last issue, Ms. Kerr asks whether the MDE was required to include certain information in a public document that the MGDPA requires each state and local government entity in this state to prepare. The practices utilized by an entity to prepare or not prepare this document and its decisions about the content of the document can have an effect on a data subject&apos;s rights under the MGDPA. Therefore, this issue is also appropriate for an opinion of the Commissioner.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Is it a responsibility of the MDE to review a school district&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    As described above, Ms. Kerr previously raised this issue with the MDE. She did not receive a clear response to her request from the Department of Education. In his November 9, 1993, letter, Mr. Wedl reviews MDE&apos;s authority under federal apply to enforce special education law and, to the extent that federal special education law adopts FERPA requirements, to also enforce those requirements. However, he does not provide a direct response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s question as to MDE&apos;s responsibility to review a school district&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Although she has raised this issue with MDE and in her request for this opinion, Ms. Kerr has not offered information or citations that would support a finding that the MDE is responsible for reviewing school district compliance with the MGDPA. Review of the MGDPA itself and Minnesota Statutes Section 120.17, the state special education statute, reveals no legislative direction that could be interpreted to require the MDE to review school district compliance with Chapter 13. Although MDE might choose to assist school districts with their compliance with the MGDPA, no information has been offered to or discovered by the Commissioner that would lead to a conclusion that MDE is required to review compliance.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Did MDE fail to provide data within the time frames required by the MGDPA?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The primary section stating rights of data subjects to gain access to data maintained about them is section 13.04 of the Data Practices Act. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides that, upon his or her request, a data subject must be provided with access to public or private data concerning that subject. The subdivision goes on to state that the responsible authority shall comply with a data subject&apos;s request for access ... immediately, if possible,... or within five days of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays if immediate compliance is not possible. The subdivision goes on to state that a responsible authority may gain an additional five days to comply with a request if the responsible authority cannot, for good reason, comply within the first five days, by informing the data subject of the need for additional time. This five day requirement covers both requests to inspect and requests to receive copies of data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Stilwell&apos;s October 1, 1993, letter, Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request was received in MDE on Friday, August 14, 1993 . August 14 1993, is actually a Saturday. It is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Stilwell did intend to say that Ms. Kerr&apos;s request was received on Friday August 13, 1993. According to Ms. Kerr, she received the copy of the file on September 2, 1993. She provided a copy of Ms. Stilwell&apos;s August 30, 1993, letter transmitting the copy of the file. This copy carries a combination stamped and handwritten received notation of September 2, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When a request for receipt of copies of private data is made within the provisions of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the MGDPA imposes certain obligations on the government entity to assure that the rights established by the provision are actualized. The government entity is required to provide the copies requested immediately. If immediate compliance is not possible, the entity is required to provide the copies within five working days. If the entity cannot comply within the first five working days, and it informs the individual of its inability to comply, the entity gains an additional five working days within which to comply. In summary, once it receives a request to provide copies of private data, the entity is required by Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA to provide the copies within five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, MDE received the request for receipt of copies of data on August 14, 1993. It actually provided the data to the requestor on September 2, 1993. Fourteen working days transpired between the receipt of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request and her receipt of the copy of the file. It is MDE&apos;s position, that it provided the file on the 11th business day. The 11 day result can only be achieved if the date of Ms. Stilwell&apos;s letter transmitting the copy is used as the day on which the Department responded. However, the Department&apos;s obligation, under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 was to actually provide the copies within a certain time frame. By choosing to mail the copies, as opposed to informing Ms. Kerr they were available for pickup on August 30, MDE added additional days to its response time.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In either case, 11 days or 14 days, it is clear that Ms. Kerr did not receive copies of the records within the five days required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. At no time in the initial five day period after receipt of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, did MDE indicate to Ms. Kerr that the copies could not be provided within the required timeframe. In order to gain the additional five days within which to comply, MDE was required to inform Ms. Kerr of its inability to comply within five days. For some reason, it chose not to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Wedl&apos;s argument on MDE&apos;s delayed response is that the file was large and because of the nature of the file it had to be reviewed with the Department&apos;s attorney. This need for review could have been communicated to Ms. Kerr within five days of her initial request. By not doing so, MDE deprived itself of its ability, under Section 13.04 subdivision 3 to gain an additional five days to comply. The MGDPA requires compliance with a request for copies, and other requests made under Section 13.04, subdivision, within five to ten days. This have been a requirement of the MGDPA since 1977. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1977, Chapter 375.) In addition to the clear statement of this requirement in Section 13.04, the MGDPA and its implementing rules also require MDE to prepare and follow written procedures to assure and assist compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8 and Minnesota Agency Rules Section 1205.0400.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Once the MDE received Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request, it knew or should have known that to be able to comply within five days it would have to have an extensive file reviewed by its attorney and arrange for the delivery of the copy of the file no later than August 20, 1993. The MDE did not do so. As an alternative, the MDE could have informed Ms. Kerr between August 16, 1993 and August 20, 1993 that is was not able to comply before August 20 and needed until August 27. The MDE did not do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 3:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Did the MDE fail to include certain information in the public document required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8? Ms. Kerr&apos;s essential argument about this issue is that this requirment is a function of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8. Minnesota Statues Section 13.05, subdivision 8 reads as follows.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    The responsible authority shall prepare a public document setting forth in writing the rights of the data subject pursuant to section 13.04 and the specific procedures in effect in the state agency, statewide system or political subdivision for access by the data subject to public or private data on individuals.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    MDE&apos;s position on this issue, as stated in Mr. Wedl&apos;s November 9, 1993, letter is that nothing in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 or any other portion of the MGDPA requires the MDE to inform individuals of their right to file legal claims for violations of the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    An examination of Section 13.05, subdivision 8, makes it clear that the public document that is required to be prepared by the subdivision is a document that tells the public how they can specifically assert their rights under Section 13.04 in the government entity that prepared the document. The rights described in Section 13.04 includes rights to be informed of certain things in data collection situations, to gain access to data and to challenge data. The purpose of the public document is to make it easier for individuals to actualize these rights by being told by a government entity who to see, how to make contacts with the entity and those other detailed things that actually make up the process the entity will follow to respond to an individual&apos;s attempt to exercise the rights conferred by Section 13.04. The right to bring a legal action under the MGDPA is not a right covered in Section 13.04. There was no requirement in Section 13.05, subdivision 8 or elsewhere in the MGDPA that the MDE inform X&apos;s parents of their right to file lawsuits for MGDPA violations.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In his comments on this issue Mr. Wedl stated that if Ms. Kerr&apos;s interpretation of Section 13.05, subdivision 8 were correct that certain notices prepared by PIPA, copies of which were submitted with Mr. Wedl&apos;s letter, would be defective. It should be noted for the record that the notices described by Mr. Wedl are not the public document required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8. Among its other functions, PIPA assists members of the public by providing them with information and assistance concerning their rights under the MGDPA. These so-called notices are actually public information handouts prepared for public distribution and are not prepared because of a duty imposed on PIPA by the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinions on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr are as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 1, a question of the responsibility of the MDE, it is my opinion that the MDE was not required by the MGDPA or the state special education statute to review a school district&apos;s compliance with the MGDPA.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 2, an alleged failure to provide X&apos;s parents a copy of education data about their son within the time frame required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, it is my opinion that the MDE provided the copy requested within 14 days when the MGDPA required that the copy be provided within five days.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                                As to issue 3, an alleged failure by the MDE to provide X&apos;s parents with a notice of their right to file a lawsuit for violations of the MGDPA, it is my opinion that the MDE is not required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8 or any other provision of the MGDPA to provide that kind of notice.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: December 3, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267804</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Department of Education</Title><Id>266712</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:13Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-008</Title><title>Opinion 93 008</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267039&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-11-29T16:16:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did School District No. 281 violate the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.03, Subd. 3, 13.04, Subdivision 3, and 13.05, Subd. 8 and Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.32) by its failure to provide all of the documents that were requested on August 26, 1993 within the timelines required and to provide the parents notice of access procedures? Specifically, is the District in violation by not providing to the parents a copy of the letter that its own Superintendent wrote on January 21, 1993 to the Minnesota Department of Education?
Is School District No. 281 presently in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for failing to provide X&apos;s parents a copy of her statement and other information contained in any internal investigation file concerning sexual harassment? (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.03, 13.04, 13.05, 13.32, 13.39; Subd. 2)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1993; School District 281 (Robbinsdale)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On November 4, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor, and her parents. Until February, 1993, X was a student at Independent School District 281, the Robbinsdale School District and hereinafter District 281 . The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              X had made complaints to District 281 concerning acts of sexual harassment against her that allegedly occurred in the fall of 1992 and the early winter of 1993. X&apos;s parents were notified by a state Department of Education employee that District 281 was conducting an internal investigation of X&apos;s allegations. X also told her parents that she had, with assistance from District 281 employees, completed what Ms. Kerr described as a sex survey .
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Beginning with a letter dated August 25, 1993, Ms. Kerr requested a due process hearing on behalf of X and her parents and asked for copies of all of X&apos;s school records and any written information concerning the sexual harassment complaint made by X. She sent a follow-up letter dated September 2, 1993. In a letter dated September 1, 1993, Ms. Susan E. Torgerson, attorney for District 281, wrote to Ms. Kerr to inform her that she was representing District 281 and to inform Ms. Kerr that her August 25, 1993 letter did not arrive in the District offices until Monday, August 30. On September 9, 1993, Ms. Torgerson informed Ms. Kerr that she was still waiting for copies of District 281&apos;s documents and would be contacting Ms. Kerr about access to that data. On September 13, Ms. Kerr wrote to Ms. Torgerson informing her of a notice of claim for a violation of Chapter 13 because X&apos;s records had not been provided. Ms. Kerr wrote to Ms. Torgerson again on September 14 and asked for a copy of her August 25, 1993 letter with District 281 date received stamp.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 15, 1993, 471 pages of records from District 281 were hand delivered to Ms. Kerr&apos;s office. According to Ms. Kerr, this stack of documents did not contain any information about the sexual harassment claim, the sex survey , report cards or tuition agreements with other school districts. The letter of transmittal that accompanied these documents, from Ms. Lucia Blau, assistant to Ms. Torgerson, referred to the enclosed records as those that were requested from District 281.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In a letter dated September 16, 1993, Ms. Kerr indicated to Ms. Torgerson that not all of the information relating to X had been received and asked that information relating to the sexual harassment investigation and the tuition agreement be provided. In a letter dated September 20, 1993, Ms. Torgerson informed Ms. Kerr that all documentation possessed by the District about sexual harassment issues involving X had been delivered. Ms. Torgerson also discussed the tuition agreements but did not state how they would be provided. On September 22, Ms. Kerr wrote to Ms. Torgerson again and pointed out that the sex survey and tuition documents had not been received. On or about September 23, a paralegal at Ms. Torgerson&apos;s law firm provided to Ms. Kerr the evidence that District 281 intended to produce at the due process hearing. According to Ms. Kerr, these documents, approximately 547 pages, still did not contain report cards, the sex survey or any investigative files concerning the sexual harassment claim.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Further discussions about access to these documents were had by the parties in the context of a pre-hearing about the due process issues. The Administrative Law Judge hearing that matter indicated she would compel delivery of any documents through subpoena power. Subsequently, X&apos;s parents and District 281 reached a tentative agreement to settle the due process hearing leaving open issues relating to Minnesota Government Data Practices Act claims and the sexual harassment complaint. Ms. Kerr maintains that to date, that neither she nor X&apos;s parents have received a copy of the sexual harassment investigation information including any statement(s) made by X. X&apos;s parents received a letter, dated August 25, 1993, from the Director of Human Resources for District 281 that indicates that X&apos;s sexual harassment complaint is still being investigated.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In addition to discussing these facts involving District 281, Ms. Kerr also recited facts involving X&apos;s parents&apos; interaction with the Minnesota Department of Education and the State Office of Administrative Hearings and asked for opinions involving those agencies. These opinions are being prepared and issued separately because they involve either different facts or issues than those involving District 281.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James Dahle, Acting Superintendent of District 281 in a letter dated November 9, 1993. The purpose of this letter was to inform District 281 of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the District with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the District or its attorney to provide any information to explain the actions taken or not taken and to inform them of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 19, 1993, by facsimile transmission, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Torgerson. The information and argument offered by Ms. Torgerson included the following. The District responded as promptly as possible to the parent&apos;s request for information and the request was not received until August 30, 1993. Ms. Torgerson pointed out that: X was no longer in attendance in District 281; educational files are typically maintained in more than one location; Ms. Kerr was told that the files would be provided as soon as possible; the District was undergoing a change in administration; and it was necessary for Ms. Torgerson to review the materials to prepare for the due process hearing and to determine which materials were educational data. Ms. Torgerson stated that the District has published the access procedures under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.06, subd. 8 . (Section 13.06 is actually the temporary classification of data section of the Data Practices Act. The quoted part of Ms. Torgerson&apos;s letter must be a typographical error with the correct citation being Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8.)
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                One of Ms. Kerr&apos;s contentions was that a letter, dated January 21, 1993, from the District 281 Superintendent to the state Department of Education had been specifically requested from District 281 and not provided. Ms. Torgerson replied: this letter was not from the Superintendent; was not educational data; but was data collected by the District for the purpose of an active investigation and was, therefore, confidential civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Torgerson pointed out that the District had initiated an investigation of X&apos;s allegations of sexual harassment. According to Ms. Torgerson, that investigation is still active and the investigative data generated is classified as confidential civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. She also stated that it is possible, that once the investigation is concluded, the inactive file may contain private educational data on other students and on District 281 employees.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In Ms. Torgerson&apos;s summation, she concludes that the District provided all requested public and private data about X in . . . as timely a manner as possible. In her view, Ms. Kerr&apos;s claims of non-disclosure are frivolous and there is no violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issues:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issues involving District 281 as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Did School District No. 281 violate the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.03, Subd. 3, 13.04, Subdivision 3, and 13.05, Subd. 8 and Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.32) by its failure to provide all of the documents that were requested on August 26, 1993 within the timelines required and to provide the parents notice of access procedures? Specifically, is the District in violation by not providing to the parents a copy of the letter that its own Superintendent wrote on January 21, 1993 to the Minnesota Department of Education?
                            &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;
                            Is School District No. 281 presently in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for failing to provide X&apos;s parents a copy of her statement and other information contained in any internal investigation file concerning sexual harassment? (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.03, 13.04, 13.05, 13.32, 13.39; Subd. 2)
                          &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 1:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Did District 281 violate various provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act because it failed to provide the documents requested within the timelines required and did not notify the parents of access procedures?
                  &lt;br /&gt;
                  The primary section stating rights of data subjects to gain access to data maintained about them is section 13.04 of the Data Practices Act. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides that, upon his or her request, a data subject must be provided with access to public or private data concerning that subject. The subdivision goes on to state that the responsible authority shall comply with a data subject&apos;s request for access ...immediately, if possible, ... or within five days of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays if immediate compliance is not possible. The subdivision goes on to state that a responsible authority may gain an additional five days to comply with a request if the responsible authority cannot, for good reason, comply within the first five days, by informing the data subject of the need for additional time. This five day requirement covers both requests to inspect and requests to receive copies of data.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    According to Ms. Torgerson&apos;s September 1, 1993, letter to Ms. Kerr, District 281 did not receive Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request for copies of X&apos;s school records until August 30, 1993. Ms. Kerr&apos;s letter is dated August 25, 1993, and carries the notation By Overnight/Express Mail . Ms. Torgerson did provide a copy of Ms. Kerr&apos;s letter that carries a date received stamp of August 30, 1993. It is not clear from the information provided as to how this discrepancy of timing may have occurred. For purposes of the balance of this opinion, it will be accepted that District 281 received the request on August 30, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The nature of Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request must be examined to determine what provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA were implicated. Ms. Kerr&apos;s letter dated August 25, 1993 states that she is representing X&apos;s parents, that she requests that she be sent . . . all of X&apos;s school records, including any written information concerning a sexual harassment complaint in which X was the victim. She prefaces her request by stating that she is enclosing a release of information form. This release, signed by X&apos;s mother, does authorize District 281 to disclose to Ms. Kerr information about X including: Any and all reports, evaluations, letters, school records of any kind.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There is no disagreement that X was a student at District 281 and that the District collected, created and maintained data about her and may still be doing so. To the extent that this data relates to X as a student at District 281, it is educational data and it is, except for directory information that is not at issue here, classified as private data by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3. The request as stated is not a request for public data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. The nature of the actual request made by Ms. Kerr presents an additional question that should be addressed.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 deals with requests by data subjects to exercise certain rights, including data access, established by the subdivision. Ms. Kerr&apos;s request is not stated as a request by X&apos;s parents to gain access to data about their daughter as is their right as her parents. Ms. Kerr makes a request to have data released to her pursuant to a release of information authorized by X&apos;s parents. The case could be made that Ms. Kerr&apos;s request is actually not a request made pursuant to Section 13.04 subdivision 3 but an authorization for data release under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4 and Minnesota Agency Rules Sections 1205.0400 and 1205.0500. The District did not raise that argument and it appears from the correspondence between Ms. Torgerson and Ms. Kerr that the District and its attorney considered this to be a request under Section 13.04, subdivision 3. In her September 9, 1993 letter to Ms. Kerr, Ms. Torgerson states that in ...accordance with your request for information and Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd. 3, we will be in further contact with you soon regarding your access to that data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When a request for receipt of copies of private data is made within the provisions of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the MGDPA imposes certain obligations on the government entity to assure that the rights established by the provision are actualized. The government entity is required to provide the copies requested immediately. If immediate compliance is not possible, the entity is required to provide the copies within five working days. If the entity cannot comply within the first five working days, and it informs the individual of its inability to comply, the entity gains an additional five working days within which to comply. In summary, once it receives a request to provide copies of private data, the entity is required by Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA to provide the copies within five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, accepting the District&apos;s position as correct, Ms. Kerr&apos;s request was received on August 30, 1993. The initial installment of copies was provided to Ms. Kerr by delivery of copies of 471 pages to her on September 15, 1993. (There is an indication in Ms. Torgerson&apos;s September 14, 1993, letter that delivery was attempted on September 14, 1993, but the notation from Ms. Kerr as to when the copies were received indicates an actual receipt on September 15, 1993.) In other words, 11 working days transpired between the receipt of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request and her receipt of the initial installment of copies. At no time in the initial five day period, did District 281 or its attorney indicate to Ms. Kerr that the copies could not be provided. In order to gain the additional five days within which to comply, the District was required to inform Ms. Kerr of its inability to comply within the first five days. For some reason, it chose not to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Torgerson&apos;s essential arguments on this timing issue is that the District responded as promptly as possible. She suggests there were a variety of mitigating factors that contributed to delays in the District&apos;s response. However, these mitigating factors were not communicated to Ms. Kerr within five days of her initial request. By not doing so, District 281 deprived itself of its ability, under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to gain an additional five days to comply. The MGDPA requires compliance with a request for copies, and other requests made under Section 13.04 subdivision 3, within five to ten days. This has been a requirement of the MGDPA since 1977. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1977, Chapter 375.) In addition to the clear statement of this requirement in Section 13.04, the MGDPA and its implementing rules also require District 281 to prepare and follow written procedures to assure and assist compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8 and Minnesota Agency Rules Section 1205.0400.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Once the District received Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request, it knew or should have known that to be able to comply within five days it would have to assemble the data from various locations within the District, have the materials reviewed by its attorney and arrange for the delivery of the copies no later than September 7, 1993. The District did not do so. As an alternative, the District could have informed Ms. Kerr between August 30, 1993 and September 7, 1993 that it was not able to comply before September 7 and needed until September 14. The District did not do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Given the broad nature of Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request, i.e. all of X&apos;s school records, there may also be timing problems with the copies of additional information that District 281&apos;s attorney provided to Ms. Kerr after September 15, 1993. Ms. Kerr states that she received 547 copies of documents on or about September 23, 1993. It is not clear from her description of these items if they included additional school records on X. If they did, those records would have been received 17 working days after her request. In her September 20, 1993 letter to Ms. Kerr, Ms. Torgerson indicates she is sending copies of tuition documents about X by fax. If sent on September 20, these copies would have been received by Ms. Kerr 14 working days after her request. Lastly, in a November 5, 1993, letter to Ms. Kerr, Ms. Torgerson indicates that she is sending copies of X&apos;s report cards. Clearly, report cards would be part of X&apos;s schools records and should have been provided no later than September 7, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Within Ms. Kerr&apos;s statement of alleged violations of the MGDPA by the District, she also asserts that District 281 violated X&apos;s parents&apos; rights by not providing them with a copy of the access procedures required to be prepared by District 281 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8. In the information provided by Ms. Kerr, there is nothing to indicate that X&apos;s parents requested a copy of the District 281 procedures. In her November 19, 1993, letter to PIPA, Ms. Torgerson states that District 281 has published the access procedures required by the cited section. She did not provide a copy of those procedures.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Lastly, as part of her statement of Issue 1, Ms. Kerr questions whether District 281 has violated the provisions of the MGDPA because it has failed to provide to X&apos;s parents a letter written by, in Ms. Kerr&apos;s words, its own Superintendent, to the Minnesota Department of Education. The letter in question, dated January 21, 1993, is actually from Dr. Gwen Martinson, Director of Special Education for District 281, and is directed to Mr. Rick Van Sant, a complaint investigator for the Minnesota Department of Education. In this letter, Dr. Martinson mentions an order given to District 281 that was part of finding from a complaint made by X&apos;s mother on behalf of X. The letter discusses actions taken by the District to correct the problems identified in the findings and includes a directive sent to a variety of personnel within District 281 to begin implementation of the corrective action. Ms. Kerr argues that this letter was part of X&apos;s school records, was never received from District 281 but was obtained from the state Department of Education.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her November 19, 1993, letter to PIPA, Ms. Torgerson states that this letter was not educational data but it is civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. She also states that there is additional data being maintained about X that District 281 also considers to be civil investigative data. The status of the January 21, 1993 letter will be considered as part of Issue #2, below.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Issue 2:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;
                  Is District 281 in violation of the MGDPA because it refuses to provide X&apos;s parents with copies of investigative materials about her sexual harassment complaint, a statement she allegedly made to the District and the previously described January 21, 1993 letter?
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In her September 22, 1993, letter to Ms. Torgerson, Ms. Kerr specifically mentions that she and X&apos;s parents did not receive, as part of the materials provided by District 281 on September 15, 1993, what she describes as the sexual abuse/harassment survey allegedly completed by X at the direction of a District 281 official. Ms. Kerr then states that an additional Chapter 13 claim will be filed if that survey and the tuition documents are not provided. The only response that District 281 seems to have made to Ms. Kerr about this survey is found in Ms. Torgerson&apos;s letter to Ms. Kerr, dated November 5, 1993. This response says that if X completed such a survey, it is no longer being retained by the District. Although Ms. Torgerson&apos;s statement may raise questions about District 281&apos;s records management practices, the simple fact remains that if the survey were destroyed by District 281, there is no data in existence that is capable of being accessed under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    There seems to be some confusion in the correspondence between Ms. Kerr and Ms. Torgerson about whether or not Ms. Kerr was also requesting a copy of a statement X may have made about alleged sexual harassment or whether such a document, if it exists, is also being referred to in their correspondence as the sex survey previously discussed. Ms. Torgerson discussed the possible existence of X&apos;s statement in her November 5, 1993 letter to Ms. Kerr. She seems to suggest that if such a statement exists, and she asks Ms. Kerr to provide more information, it may involve other students, employees of District 281 or may be confidential civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. In any of those instance, Ms. Torgerson concludes that any such statement would not be available to X&apos;s parents. Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for opinion letter states that District 281 still has not provided the statement to her.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    One of the more difficult questions presented by MGDPA involves the question of the status of a statement given by a data subject that includes private data that identifies and says things about other individuals. The difficult question presented to agencies occurs when either the individual who gave the statement or one of the other individuals identified in the statement comes and asks for a copy of the statement. Ms. Torgerson&apos;s November 5, 1993, letter suggests that this may be the problem if a statement made by X exists. Although it is understandable for an entity subject to the MGDPA to be concerned with this issue, it is also critical that the MGDPA be applied and interpreted with common, as well as legal sense.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In a situation like this, any statement that exists has been made by the individual who has either been asked to or has volunteered to make the statement. This individual is, in essence, the author of its entire content. Although the individual may not, with the passage of time, be able to recreate the entire content of a previous statement they made, the individual will, in most instances, be able to recall they made the statement and even recall some of the things they said. For data created by a data subject to be treated as data not about him or her seems to offend the very idea behind the provisions of the MGDPA that try to maximize access by data subjects to data maintained about them by government agencies. A reasonable result that will provide access by data subjects to statements they have made can be obtained by interpreting that these statements are data about the individual making the statement because the various details of the statement are either directly about the individual or are his or her statements of opinion about events and other individuals. Except for the lingering question of whether this statement, if it exists, is civil investigative data, this analysis should lead to a result whereby X&apos;s parents and their attorney should be provided with access to the statement if it exists.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kerr maintains that District 281 should have provided X&apos;s parents with a copy of the January 21, 1993, letter from Dr. Martinson to the investigator in the Department of Education. Ms. Torgerson, in her November 19, 1993 letter, takes the position that this letter was not educational data but was civil investigative data. The letter includes identifying information about X and talks about certain actions relative to her educational program that were taken in her school of attendance. Except for an argument that this is civil investigative data, it seems clear that this data is data maintained by a school district that relates to a student and would therefore be educational data that should be provided to X&apos;s parents within the time frames required by the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    A number of reasons make it difficult to agree with District 281&apos;s argument that the data in the January 21, 1993, letter is properly classified as confidential civil investigative data. The content of the letter makes it clear that the District agrees with a finding of the Department of Education about a complaint made by X&apos;s parents and is taking corrective action. Those actions involve X and would be visible to her and her parents. In submitting this letter to the Department of Education, District 281 knew or should have known that the Department would be either treating the letter as educational data on X in its possession or as part of its closed investigative file that would also be accessible by X&apos;s parents. Nowhere in the letter does the writer seek to have the letter treated as being confidential to X&apos;s parents. In addition, copies of the letter are distributed to a number of people, including X&apos;s principal at her middle school and none of them are asked to treat the letter as confidential. That pattern of inaction about protecting this data as confidential leads to a reasonable conclusion that it should be treated as educational data and accessible by X&apos;s parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The only question remaining involves the status of any investigative data District 281 may be retaining about X&apos;s allegations of sexual harassment. To the extent that this kind of data is solely about other students, it is appropriate for District 281 to deny X&apos;s parents access to the data (see Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32). To the extent that this kind of data identifies employees of the District, where no disciplinary action has been taken, it is appropriate to deny X&apos;s parents access to the data (see Minnesota Statutes section 13.43). However, there may be situations, where the only data involved in a given set of investigative data is just about X herself or her parents. Can that kind of data be treated as confidential civil investigative data and, if so does this situation present other MGDPA compliance problems?
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Beginning with her initial request, Ms. Kerr was quite persistent in requesting and reiterating her requests that she be provided with any written information concerning a sexual harassment complaint involving X. In her September 20, 1993 letter, Ms. Torgerson states clearly that all documentation possessed by District 281 about sexual harassment issues involving X has been delivered to Ms. Kerr. However, in her November 19, 1993, letter to PIPA, Ms. Torgerson indicates that there is investigative data about X&apos;s complaints that is neither public nor private but is confidential investigative data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the legislature, in addition to providing rights for data subjects concerning access to data, also sought to address the problem of secret files being maintained on individuals in situations where the individuals might not even know that a file was being maintained and actions being taken based on that file. The legislature addressed that problem by providing that, upon the request of a data subject, s/he must be informed if they are the subject of stored data and whether that data are classified as public, private or confidential. In light of Ms. Kerr&apos;s persistent requests to gain access to investigative data about her client, District 281, instead of telling her that all data about X&apos;s claims had been provided, should have informed Ms. Kerr that data was in fact being maintained about her client and that the data, in the District&apos;s view, was classified as confidential. By doing so, the District could have avoided what appears to be a misleading statement, i.e. all documentation has been delivered, while at the same time complying with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The additional question remains as to whether or not District 281 can deny X&apos;s parents access to its investigative files by reliance on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. Consideration of the District&apos;s position leads us to another of the more difficult issues presented by the MGDPA. The District&apos;s position is that there is still an active investigation involving X&apos;s claim. However, what Section 13.39 actually requires is that the chief attorney acting for District 281 to determine that there is a pending legal action involving X&apos;s parents. Ms. Torgerson appears to have made that determination. The data being maintained by District 281 is, however, still data that relates to X in her capacity as a student or former student and therefore is, arguably, private educational data. This is the position argued by Ms. Kerr in her attempts to get access to all of the data concerning the handling of X&apos;s sexual harassment complaints. The basic operational logic of the MGDPA, particularly in the variety of specific statutory provisions that define and then classify various types of data, can often lead to situations in which the exact same data can be classified as private by one section of the MGDPA and as confidential by another section. This is the result that is at issue as X&apos;s parents and their attorney attempt to get all of the data being maintained by District 281 about X.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Two provisions of law, one state and one federal seem to indicate that X&apos;s parents ought to be able to get access to the data that the District maintains is confidential investigative data. First, the legislature, within the MGDPA, has attempted to deal with the situation where different sections of the Act yield private and confidential classifications for the same data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 4 provides the following: If data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by this chapter, or any other statute or federal law, the data is private. This language indicates that it is the legislature&apos;s position that if this data is both private educational data and confidential civil investigative data, it ought to be treated as private educational data and be made available to X&apos;s parents.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Second, virtually all of the information collected and maintained by District 281 about X directly relates to her and is maintained by District 281 or by parties acting for the District. This qualifies this information for treatment as an education record under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g and the rules promulgated thereunder. Although FERPA describes a variety of types of information or records that may be maintained by a school district about students that are not educational records , FERPA and its rules do not contain any provision that would allow a school district to treat its investigative files concerning an investigation about sexual harassment involving one of its student as something other than an educational record. FERPA and its rules clearly provide that education records must be made available to parents. (See 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 34 C.F.R. Sections 99.10 and 99.12.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It should be clarified that, in the information provided to the Commissioner, it does not appear that when X&apos;s parents or Ms. Kerr asked District 281 for access to the investigative files that they ever stated in their request that the access was sought to educational records as that term is defined in FERPA and its rules. Dealing with X&apos;s parents&apos; requests as a request under federal law could allow the District to deny all or part of the request if the information sought is not an educational record on X. However, District 281 would not be able to avail itself of the civil investigative data argument because federal law does not contemplate that kind of exception.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr are as follows:
                    &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issue 1
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the alleged failure of District 281 to provide X&apos;s parents with copies of data within the timelines required by the MGDPA, it is my opinion that District 281 did not provide X&apos;s parents with the educational data they requested within the time frames required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. The District provided the data after varying lengths of time ranging from 11 days to 17 days to, in the case of the report cards, 48 days when the MGDPA requires data to be provided in five days. As to the issue of whether District 281 violated the provision of the MGDPA that requires a written notice of access procedures, it appears that X&apos;s parents did not request a copy of District 281 procedures and that the District does provide this information to its parent and students.
                                &lt;p /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                                  As to issue 2
                                &lt;/h2&gt;
                                , the alleged failure of District 281 to provide certain specific documents and other types of data to X&apos;s parents, it is my opinion that District 281 should, with the exception of the sex survey , have provided X&apos;s parents and their attorney with the copies of the January 21, 1993 letter, copies of any statement(s) made by X and other investigative materials that involve only X and not other students or employees of District 281.
                              &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 29, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267039</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Harassment claims, investigations</Title><Id>266489</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-007</Title><title>Opinion 93 007</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267095&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-11-29T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the Minnesota Department of Education violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act by failing to provide the contents of a closed investigative file within the timelines required by the Act? (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.02, subd. 17,; 13.32; 13.39, subd. 3)</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1993; Minnesota Department of Education</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On November 4, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor, and her parents. X&apos;s parents are involved in a controversy with Independent School District Number 281 that is the subject of a separate opinion being issued with this opinion.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              Ms. Kerr recited a history of requests made to the School District Number 281 relative to access to data and other issues related to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (hereinafter MGDPA ). She also stated that in a letter dated August 26, 1993, she requested from the Minnesota Department of Education, hereinafter Department of Education or Department , a closed investigative file involving a previous complaint X&apos;s parents had made about School District Number 281. The copy of this letter she provided carried a date stamp indicating that the letter was received on August 27, 1993, in the office of the Commissioner of Education. The letter asked for a complete copy of the file and identifies it with file&apos;s complaint number of File Number 389. Enclosed with Ms. Kerr&apos;s request letter was an authorization for a release of information, signed by X&apos;s mother, authorizing the release to Ms. Kerr of any and all reports, evaluations, letters and school records of any kind.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Kerr stated that no response was received from the Department of Education about this requests until, during the course of an administrative hearing involving another complaint made by X&apos;s parents against District Number 281, an administrative law judge issued a subpoena for the closed file. Ms. Kerr enclosed a copy of this subpoena that was directed to Barbara Stillwell, a complaint investigator at the Minnesota Department of Education. The subpoena directs Ms. Stillwell to provide the complete copy of the file involving Complaint Number 389. Ms. Kerr provided a copy of a statement signed by Ms. Adele Ciriacy, an employee of the Minnesota Department of Education, that indicates that Ms. Ciriacy personally hand delivered File Number 389 to Ms. Kerr on September 28, 1993.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Ms. Kerr then asked the Commissioner of Administration to issue an opinion concerning the delay experienced by X&apos;s parents in getting access to File Number 389.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Linda Powell, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education. The purpose of this letter, dated November 9, 1993, was to inform the Department of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the Department with the Commissioner of Administration&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the Department or its attorney to provide any information to explain the actions taken or not taken and to inform them of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On November 29, 1993, PIPA received a letter, dated November 19, 1993, from Robert Wedl, an Assistant Commissioner with the Department. In his letter, Mr. Wedl questioned the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue an opinion in a situation like this and offered some arguments relative to that question. In addition, Mr. Wedl offered by way of explanation that a variety of factors delayed a response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request. Those factors included a need to review the file to redact information about students other than X, the absence of staff responsible for responding who were performing other duties and the fact that the division that held the file within the Department is without a director.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issue involving the Department of Education as follows:
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Did the Minnesota Department of Education violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act by failing to provide the contents of a closed investigative file within the timelines required by the Act? (Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.02, subd. 17,; 13.32; 13.39, subd. 3) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Before offering an opinion on the specific issue raised by Ms. Kerr, the basic question of the authority of the Commissioner in this matter, as raised by Mr. Wedl, must be addressed. The plain statement of that authority, as it relates to requests from individuals for opinions, is found in the 1993 enactment. Chapter 192 states: Upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision, the Commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, Section 38.)
                  &lt;br /&gt;
                  In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the question that is replicated as the Issue statement above. This issue involves a question of X&apos;s parents&apos; rights and the Department&apos;s actions relative to Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, subdivision 3. Section 13.04 is the part of the MGDPA that is captioned Rights of Subjects of Data . The right afforded by this particular subdivision is the right of an individual, or in the case of a minor the individual&apos;s parents, to gain access to all private or public data maintained about that individual by an entity subject to the MGDPA within certain time frames mandated by the MGDPA. It is the view of X&apos;s parents that the Department did not take certain actions required by the MGDPA within the timeframes dictated by the Act and that those actions involve a data practices determination impacting on their rights under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04. There appears to be no argument that the Department and its data practices are regulated by the MGDPA. The Commissioner agrees with X&apos;s parents that this is a question of involving the data practices of the Department and certain rights of X&apos;s parents when their daughter is the subject of data maintained by the Department and it is appropriate for the Commissioner to issue an opinion.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Wedl&apos;s arguments about the Commissioner&apos;s authority urge the Commissioner to adopt a narrow view of that authority. Mr. Wedl&apos;s chief objection seems to rest on the concern that the Commissioner is being asked whether the actions of an entity subject to the MGDPA constitute a violation of the MGDPA. Many of the questions that can be asked of the Commissioner under this new authority will implicitly or explicitly lead to a conclusion, based on the facts relied on by the Commissioner in issuing an opinion, that a violation of the MGDPA may have occurred. The Commissioner is of the opinion that refusing to issue opinions in situations like that would lead inevitably to a situation of issuing no opinions whatsoever because virtually all opinions requested by individuals could be interpreted as a finding that an agency violated the MGDPA.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the legislature conferred sufficient authority on her to issue these types of opinions. Her opinions are by their nature conditional on the facts and information presented to her by the government entity and the data subject. To the extent that a Commissioner&apos;s opinion becomes at issue as part of a lawsuit, no court is bound to adopt all or part of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. Under the terms of the authority conferred by the legislature, courts are only asked to give deference to the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, they are not directed to surrender their fact finding authority to the Commissioner or to automatically accept that if the Commissioner determined on the facts provided to her that there may have been a violation of MGDPA that an actual violation did occur. To the extent that a court finds the Commissioner&apos;s opinions helpful because of the special expertise of the Department of Administration in data practices matters, it is free to use that expertise. To the extent that a court finds that the Commissioner&apos;s opinion rests on incomplete or incorrect facts, the court will obviously be free to find its own facts.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Ms. Kerr&apos;s request asked whether the Department violated certain requirements of the MGDPA relative to the timing of a response for access to data made by a data subject. Although an argument could be made that Ms. Kerr&apos;s request could be viewed as something other than a request made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, the Department seems to concede that this is the section under which her request was made and that section provides the framework for determining what actions of the Department were required once Ms. Kerr&apos;s request was received.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subdivision 3 is the section that states the rights data subjects have to gain access to data maintained about them. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides that, upon his or her request, a data subject must be provided with access to public or private data concerning that subject. The subdivision goes on to state that the responsible authority shall comply with a data subject&apos;s request for access ...immediately, if possible, ... or within five days of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays if immediate compliance is not possible. The subdivision goes on to state that a responsible authority may gain an additional five days to comply with a request if the responsible authority cannot, for good reason, comply within the first five days, by informing the data subject of the need for additional time. This five day requirement covers both requests to inspect and requests to receive copies of data.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Both X&apos;s parents and the Department appear to agree that File Number 389 was, at the time Ms. Kerr&apos;s request was filed with the Department, a closed investigative file maintained by the Department and containing private educational data concerning X. Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for that file was received by the Department on August 27, 1993. The file was delivered to Ms. Kerr on September 27, 1993. It was delivered only after an administrative law judge&apos;s subpoena, requiring production of the file, was served on the Department.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    When a request for receipt of copies of private data is made within the provisions of Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the MGDPA imposes certain obligations on the government entity to assure that the rights established by the provision are actualized. The government entity is required to provide the copies requested immediately. If immediate compliance is not possible, the entity is required to provide the copies within five working days. If the entity cannot comply within the first five working days, and it informs the individual of its inability to comply, the entity gains an additional five working days within which to comply. In summary, once it receives a request to provide copies of private data, the entity is required by Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA to provide the copies within five days.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In this instance, the time interval occurring between receipt of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request and delivery of the copy of the file to her was 20 working days. At no time in the initial five day period did the Department indicate to Ms. Kerr that the Department was encountering some difficulty in making the copy available. Although by so doing, the Department could have gained an additional five days within which to reply, for some reason it chose not to do so.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Mr. Wedl&apos;s November 19,1993, letter offers a variety of reasons why the Department did not respond within the five to ten day period required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. None of these reasons were communicated to Ms. Kerr within the first five days of her request. The MGDPA requires compliance with a request for copies, and other requests made under Section 13.04 subdivision 3, within five to ten days. This has been a requirement of MGDPA since 1977. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1977, Chapter 375.) In addition to the clear statement of this requirement in Section 13.04, the MGDPA and its implementing rules also require District 281 to prepare and follow written procedures to assure and assist compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8 and Minnesota Agency Rules Section 1205.0400.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Once the Department received Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request, it knew or should have known that to be able to comply within five days, it would have to review an extensive file to determine if there were data about students other than X contained in the file and to assign staff as necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the MGDPA. Given the staffing problems described by Mr. Wedl, the Department could have, before September 3, 1993, described those problems to Ms. Kerr and gained until September 13, 1993 to comply. The Department chose not to do so. Instead, the Department provided the file on September 27, 1993.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
                    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              As to the alleged failure of the Department to provide X&apos;s parents with a copy of the data that was Complaint File Number 389, within the timelines required by the MGDPA, it is my opinion that the Department did not provide X&apos;s parents with the private educational data they requested within the time frames required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. The Department provided the data twenty working days after Ms. Kerr&apos;s initial request when the MGDPA requires data to be provided within five working days.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 29, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267095</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:12Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-006</Title><title>Opinion 93 006</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267852&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-11-29T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Is the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or FERPA an issue, in your view, that should be heard as part of a due process hearing conducted pursuant to Minn. State. Sec. 120.17, Subd. 3b or does your office concur with Judge Reha&apos;s opinion? </ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 29, 1993; Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;
              On November 4, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor, and her parents. X&apos;s parents are involved in a controversy with Independent School District Number 281 that is the subject of a separate opinion being issued with this opinion.
              &lt;br /&gt;
              Ms. Kerr recited a history of requests made to the School District Number 281 relative to access to data and other issues related to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (hereinafter MGDPA ). She also stated that as part of her client&apos;s disagreements with District Number 281 that they had sought a due process hearing as provided by Minnesota Statutes section 120.17, subdivision 36.
              &lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                It appears from the information provided by Ms. Kerr, portions of the transcript of a pre-hearing conference before Administrative Law Judge Phyllis Reha, that Ms. Kerr asked Judge Reha to consider certain claims of X&apos;s parents related to violations of the MGDPA and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The transcript states that it was Judge Reha&apos;s position that she did not have the jurisdiction or discretion to determine data practices issues within a special education hearing process. Although, she stated it was within her authority and discretion to order a school district to produce documents, that state and federal statutes provided the forum for litigating violations of either the MGDPA or FERPA and that kind of litigation was not appropriate in a special education due process hearing.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                After asking for opinions concerning the activities of School District 281 and the Minnesota Department of Education, Ms. Kerr also asked for an opinion concerning the position taken by Judge Reha as described above.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Mr. Kevin E. Johnson, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings, hereinafter OAH . The purpose of this letter, dated November 9, 1993, was to inform the OAH of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint the OAH with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask the OAH or its attorney to provide any information to explain Judge Reha&apos;s position and to inform the OAH of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. To date, PIPA has not received any reply from the OAH.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
                &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
              In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr stated the issue involving the OAH as follows:
              &lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Is the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or FERPA an issue, in your view, that should be heard as part of a due process hearing conducted pursuant to Minn. State. Sec. 120.17, Subd. 3b or does your office concur with Judge Reha&apos;s opinion?
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
                  Although the OAH appears to have chosen not to provide the Commissioner with any comments on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr, Judge Reha&apos;s discussion about this issue in the pre-hearing transcript is quite clear as to the basis for her position. She discusses the remedies provided in the MGDPA and, by implication, the remedies provided by FERPA and concludes those remedies are available in certain forums but they are not available in a special education due process hearing. Other than to raise the issue in the pre-hearing conference and to request a Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the issue, Ms. Kerr did not offer any argument or information to support a conclusion that MGDPA and FERPA claims for relief can be made a part of a special education due process hearing.
                  &lt;br /&gt;
                  Review of the remedy provisions of the MGPDA, the complaint process contemplated by FERPA and its rules and the scope and subject matter of the due process hearing described in Minnesota Statutes Section 120.17, subdivision 3b leads to the conclusion that there is nothing in those various provisions that would provide a basis for an Administrative Law Judge to consider either violations of the MGDPA or FERPA in a special education due process hearing. Judge Reha&apos;s position on this matter is supported by review of those statutory and regulatory federal and state law provisions.
                  &lt;p /&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p /&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                              As to issue raised by Ms. Kerr as to the authority of a state Administrative Law Judge to consider claimed violations of the MGDPA or FERPA in a hearing conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 120.17, subdivision 3b, it is my opinion that the OAH is without authority to hear those kinds of claims.
                            &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: November 29, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267852</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of administrative hearings OAH</Title><Id>266970</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)</Title><Id>266316</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Office of Administrative Hearings</Title><Id>266410</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Response to data requests</Title><Id>266297</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Policies and Procedures</Title><Id>513961</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-005</Title><title>Opinion 93 005</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267155&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-11-12T16:15:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do the actions of either District, in failing to ensure that parents received a copy of the records within the timelines of Chapter 13, constitute a violation of that law, including a failure to explain access procedures? (Ms. Kerr then cites Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.05, subdivision 8 as the statutes she alleges were violated.)
</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 1993; School District 287 (Hennepin Intermediate)</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
On October 22, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor and his parents. X was a student in a program called Family Focus which is operated by Intermediate School District Number 287, hereinafter District 287. The facts she alleged in her request were as follows.
&lt;p&gt;In the fall of 1992, X&apos;s parents were attempting to move him from Family Focus to a program operated by the Minneapolis Public Schools. To plan for the move, the parents requested a copy of X&apos;s records on or about November 23, 1992. According to Ms. Kerr this request was received by District 287 on November 30, 1992. After some further discussions with the District, including assistance from the PACER Center, the District sent the records on January 8, 1993, and the parents received the copy on January 12, 1993. (In the actual words of her letter Ms. Kerr refers to the District as having claimed to having sent the copy on January 8, 1992.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Subsequently, X&apos;s parents complained to the state Department of Education about the timing problems associated with receiving copies of X&apos;s records and effectuating transfer of copies of those records to the Minneapolis School District. After an investigation, the Department of Education determined, in a report issued on April 21, 1993, that no violations of federal law had occurred when District 287 had provided a copy of the records to X&apos;s parents within 45 days and District 287 provided a copy of the records to the Minneapolis Schools within a reasonable time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kerr then asked for a variety of opinions on issues that arose out of the incidents she described. A number of these issues involve the Department of Education and are being dealt with in a separate opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Dr. Ronald Carter, superintendent of District 287, and to Mr. James Smith, superintendent of District Number 277, which is X&apos;s home district. The purpose of these letters was to inform the school districts of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, to acquaint them with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask them to provide any information to explain the actions taken or not taken and to inform them of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On November 9, 1993, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Nancy E. Blumstein, attorney for District 287. Although Ms. Blumstein offered information to describe and explain District 287&apos;s actions in this matter, the primary thrust of her letter was to argue that the Commissioner is being asked to issue an opinion which is outside the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s authority and therefore it would be improper for the Commissioner to issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The information offered by Ms. Blumstein included the following. The District&apos;s position was that it denies that it violated Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 and 13.05. She pointed out that District 287 has prepared and distributed to parents a document regarding a student&apos;s access to student records. She also referred to another information sheet, which she described as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Education, which also describes a student&apos;s right to documents. Both documents were included as enclosures to her letter. She stated that the documents were also provided to students during the school year. In regard to the question as to whether the District&apos;s response to X&apos;s parents&apos; requests for copies of records was timely, she did not offer any explanatory information but argued that an answer to this question involved a factual determination that the Commissioner is not, in her view, equipped to make.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Do the actions of either District, in failing to ensure that parents received a copy of the records within the timelines of Chapter 13, constitute a violation of that law, including a failure to explain access procedures? (Ms. Kerr then cites Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.05, subdivision 8 as the statutes she alleges were violated.)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Before offering an opinion on the specific issues raised by Ms. Kerr, the basic question of the authority of the Commissioner in this matter must be addressed. Ms. Blumstein has raised this same issue in an opinion involving other clients of both her and Ms. Kerr. The Commissioner&apos;s response to that issue is that she does have the authority to issue an opinion in matters such as these. For the full explanation of the Commissioner&apos;s position, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-267704#/detail/appId/1/id/267474&quot; title=&quot;93-004&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Advisory Opinion 93-004&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of clarity, Ms. Kerr&apos;s statement of the issue is divided into two questions and referred to here as Issue 1 and 2. In the original statement of the issue, Ms. Kerr asked whether both District 277 and District 287 were in violation of statutory provisions. It appears now that only the actions of District 287 are in question and only those actions are the subject of the Commissioner&apos;s opinion. The issues relating to the Minnesota Department of Education will be dealt with in a subsequent opinion. The Department has asked the Commissioner to provide it with additional information and additional time to respond to those issues and the Commissioner is honoring that request.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did District 287 fail to provide X&apos;s parents with the explanation of their rights to gain access to data as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 requires responsible authorities in each government entity subject to Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statues, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and hereinafter the MGDPA, to prepare a written public document that sets forth the rights of subjects of data, pursuant to Section 13.04, and that describes the specific procedures in effect in the entity that an individual must follow to gain access to public or private data the entity is maintaining about them. Ms. Kerr alleges that District 287 has not provided her clients with any such document.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response, Ms. Blumstein describes and offers copies of documents that are in use in District 287. She states that these documents are made available to both students and parents. The documents in question are entitled as follows. The first document is a two sided threefold brochure which contains the District 287 logo and the title Student Records and the further explanation that this is referenced in the Special Education Section . The second document, that Ms. Blumstein referred to as being prepared by the Minnesota Department of Education, contains general information about the right of parents to look at education records about their children. The District 287 brochure contains fairly detailed information about where education records are maintained and identifies school district personnel by name as being available for parents to contact to actually gain access to records. The brochure also contains a notice that copies of policies and procedures concerning the District 287 recordkeeping system can be obtained from the District&apos;s special education office.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Neither Ms. Kerr nor Ms. Blumstein, has offered specific information that would conclusively establish that this brochure was actually received or not received by X&apos;s parents. The actual requirement of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8 is that a public document be prepared by the District that describes data subject rights and data access procedures. The District 287 brochure meets that requirement and it appears that it was, according to Ms. Blumstein, either provided to parents and students by the District or was available on demand by parents as a public document available from the District Therefore, if X&apos;s parents were not provided with a copy by the District, they could have received a copy of it by requesting it as a public document.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Did the failure of District 287 to provide X&apos;s parents with a copy of X&apos;s education records within the timelines of Chapter 13 constitute a violation of Chapter 13?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 provides that, upon his or her request, a data subject must be provided with access to public or private data concerning that subject. The subdivision goes on to state that the responsible authority shall comply with a data subject&apos;s request for access . . . immediately, if possible, . . . or within five days of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays if immediate compliance is not possible. The subdivision goes on to state that a responsible authority may gain an additional five days to comply with a request, if the responsible authority cannot for good reason comply within the first five days, by informing the data subject of the need for additional time. This five day requirement covers both requests to inspect data and requests to receive copies of data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to Ms. Kerr&apos;s recitation of the facts in this matter, District 287 received X&apos;s parents request for X&apos;s school records on November 30, 1992. X&apos;s records are private educational data, as determined by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 and are therefore subject to the five day rule as set forth by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. According to Ms. Kerr, the District provided the records to X&apos;s parents on January 12, 1993. If the date of receipt of the request is not counted, the District took 43 calendar days to honor X&apos;s parents&apos; request. When weekend and holiday days are removed from the total, the District took 28 working days to respond to X&apos;s parents&apos; request. Clearly, this is not the timeframe contemplated by the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Among the documents provided by Ms. Blumstein is the summary of parent&apos;s rights that she says was prepared by the state Department of Education. This document does state that a school district can never take more than 45 days to respond to a request for access to student records. Although this appears to be a correct statement of federal law regarding access to education records, it is clearly not what is required by the MGDPA. On this point, the MGDPA is not in conflict with federal law because state law gives greater rights to students and their parents. In this case, the right is more timely access to data concerning the student. Given the clear requirement of the MGDPA, a requirement that has been a matter of state law since 1977, it is unclear why the District would choose to have its internal procedures guided only by federal law. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1977. Chapter 375.) The District has chosen not to offer any information on that point, other than the document previously described, so the Commissioner can only make a conclusion based on that document and the information provided by Ms. Kerr.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, subject to the qualifications discussed above, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As to issue 1, an alleged failure to provide X&apos;s parents with the information required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8, it is my opinion that District 287 either provided X&apos;s parents with the threefold brochure that summarized data subject and specific access rights or had the brochure available for distribution if X&apos;s parents had requested the document. Providing a public document summarizing data subject and specific access rights is all that was required of District 287 by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 8.
&lt;p&gt;As to issue 2, an alleged failure to provide X&apos;s parents with a copy of their son&apos;s education records within the time frame required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, it is my opinion that the District provided the records within 28 days when the statute required that they be provided within five days. District 287 could have gained an additional five days within which to respond by informing X&apos;s parents of some need to do so, but it appears from the information provided that the District chose not to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Terry L. Bock for
&lt;br /&gt;
Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 1993
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267155</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266479</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:11Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Data subjects</Title><Id>266262</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Educational data</Title><Id>266263</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Tennessen warning</Title><Id>266265</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-004</Title><title>Opinion 93 004</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267474&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-11-12T16:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Did the school district violate Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 3 by failing to provide a copy of the statement to X&apos;s parents after their verbal and written requests for same?
Does the state Department of Administration or the state Department of Education have the authority to ensure school district compliance with Chapter 13?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>November 12, 1993; Minnesota River Valley Special Education Cooperative</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On October 24, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja Kerr who is the attorney for X, a minor and his parents. X is a student at the Minnesota River Valley Special Education Cooperative, hereinafter River Valley . The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sometime in April, 1993, X was involved in an altercation with another student at River Valley. Following that incident, X was asked to write-up what happened by Mr. Joel Kiekbusch, his special education teacher. Preparing these kinds of statement was part of X&apos;s individualized education plan (IEP) and he had prepared previous statements. X prepared the statement that was requested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On or about June 26, 1993, X&apos;s parents received a notice that X was being charged, in Scott County Juvenile Court, with Fifth Degree Assault. This charge grew out of the previously described April incident. According to Ms. Kerr, X&apos;s father was told by police that a copy of a handwritten statement prepared by X was in their possession. Ms. Kerr states that X&apos;s father then verbally asked the school to provide him with a copy of any report on the incident and, in July, the school provided a copy of an incident report that described the April incident but did not provide a copy of the statement prepared by X. On July 14, 1993, X&apos;s father wrote a letter to River Valley specifically asking for a copy of the statement. Subsequently, X&apos;s father received a copy of X&apos;s statement from the county attorney&apos;s office. According to Ms. Kerr, River Valley has never provided a copy of X&apos;s statement to his parents and never indicated why they have failed to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A motion was made to suppress the statement in Scott County Juvenile Court. Judge Jean Davies of that Court ordered that the statement be suppressed. The juvenile court matter was settled with a plea bargain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Kerr&apos;s request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Ms. Nedra Mahaney, the Director of River Valley in a letter dated October 28, 1993. The purpose of this letter was to inform River Valley of Ms. Kerr&apos;s request, to acquaint personnel of the Cooperative with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, to ask River Valley to provide any information to explain the actions taken or not taken and to inform them of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 9, 1993, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Nancy E. Blumstein, the attorney for River Valley. Although Ms. Blumstein offered information to describe and explain River Valley&apos;s actions in this matter, the primary thrust of her letter was to argue that the Commissioner is being asked to issue an opinion which is outside the scope of the Commissioner&apos;s authority and therefore that it would be improper for the Commissioner to issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The information offered by Ms. Blumstein included the following. The statement that X was asked to prepare was consistent with X&apos;s educational needs and called for by his IEP. Ms. Blumstein asserted that X&apos;s parents had given written consent for preparation of statements of this type by signing and dating the IEP. X was not asked to prepare the statement as part of any kind of investigation of the altercation but as part of his educational process. According to Ms. Blumstein, the statement . . . was disposed of by the School since it had served its educational purpose. She stated that X&apos;s parents&apos; complaint had been investigated thoroughly by River Valley and that the Cooperative has determined that no one at the School either contacted the police or provided them with the information. It is the position of River Valley that because X was asked to prepare this statement as part of a class assignment, that was consistent with the IEP executed by his parents, that it was not necessary for River Valley to give X a Tennessen Warning , i.e. the notice required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when he was asked to prepare the statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issues:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did the school district violate Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subd. 3 by failing to provide a copy of the statement to X&apos;s parents after their verbal and written requests for same?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does the state Department of Administration or the state Department of Education have the authority to ensure school district compliance with Chapter 13?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before offering opinion on each of the specific issues raised by Ms. Kerr, the basic question of the authority of the Commissioner in this matter, as raised by Ms. Blumstein, must be addressed. The plain statement of that authority, as it relates to requests from individuals for opinions, is found in the 1993 enactment. Chapter 192 states: Upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision, the commissioner may give a written opinion regarding the person&apos;s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. (Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, Section 38.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the questions stated as Issues above. The first issue involves a question as X&apos;s rights and River Valley&apos;s actions relative to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. Section 13.04 is the part of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter MGDPA that is captioned Rights of Subjects of Data . The right afforded by this subdivision in appropriate circumstances is the right of an individual to receive and the duty of an agency to provide the notice required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. It is the view of X and his parents that certain determinations were made by River Valley involving the data collected in his statement and that those determinations involve the practices of River Valley concerning data about X that affect his rights as a data subject and therefore it is appropriate to seek an opinion from the Commissioner. The Commissioner agrees that this is a question of data practices and data subject rights and it is appropriate for her to issue an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second issue raised by Ms. Kerr presents similar questions. This issue involves the right of X and his parents to gain access to data allegedly maintained about him by River Valley. The data subject access right is covered by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 subdivision 3. The right provided by this subdivision is the right of a data subject, and in the case of a minor his parents, to gain access to all private or public data maintained about the subject by an agency subject to the MGDPA. Again, the question that is presented is a question that involves the data practices of an entity subject to the MGDPA and the effect of those practices on a data subject&apos;s rights. This is clearly a question that is appropriate, given the language of Chapter 192, for the Commissioner to address in an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Blumstein&apos;s arguments about the Commissioner&apos;s authority urge the Commissioner to adopt a narrow view of that authority. Ms. Blumstein&apos;s chief objection seems to rest on the concern that the Commissioner is being asked whether the actions of an entity subject to the MGDPA constitute a violation of the MGDPA. Many of the questions that can be asked of the Commissioner under this new authority will implicitly or explicitly lead to a conclusion, based on the facts relied on by the Commissioner in issuing an opinion, that a violation of the MGDPA may have occurred. The Commissioner is of the opinion that refusing to issue opinions in situations like that would lead inevitably to a situation of issuing no opinions whatsoever because virtually all opinions could be interpreted as a finding that an agency violated the MGDPA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that the legislature conferred sufficient authority on her to issue these types of opinions. Her opinions are by their nature conditional on the facts and information presented to her by the government entity and the data subject. To the extent that a Commissioner&apos;s opinion becomes at issue as part of a lawsuit, no court is bound to adopt all or part of a Commissioner&apos;s opinion. Under the terms of the authority conferred by the legislature, courts are only asked to give deference to the Commissioner&apos;s opinions, they are not directed to surrender their fact finding authority to the Commissioner or to automatically accept that if the Commissioner determined on the facts provided to her that there may have been a violation of the MGDPA that an actual violation did occur. To the extent that a court finds the Commissioner&apos;s opinions helpful because of the special expertise of the Department of Administration in data practices matters it is free to use that expertise. To the extent that a court finds that the commissioner&apos;s opinion rests on incomplete or incorrect facts, the court will obviously be free to find its own facts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One last factual item of Ms. Blumstein&apos;s arguments about the Commissioner&apos;s authority needs to be addressed. In her argument, Ms. Blumstein states that the legislature could not have contemplated that the Commissioner would be making factual determinations because it did not provide the Commissioner with additional staff or funding to perform fact finding or a forum to do so. Attention is directed to Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, section 15, subdivision 7, in which the legislature did appropriate additional funds to the Commissioner for the purpose of . . . giving opinions under Minnesota Statutes section 132.072.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to the additional funding, the legislature provided the forum for the Commissioner to gather information and facts by directing her to provide a government entity, whose data practices will be the subject of an opinion, with the opportunity to explain its decisions regarding the data. (Minnesota Session Laws 1993, Chapter 192, section 38, subdivision 1.) If an entity chooses not to offer facts or information to explain its actions, the Commissioner will still issue an opinion. However, the opinion will, by necessity, be conditioned only on the facts and information provided. The Commissioner has concluded that issuing an opinion in these circumstances is the best way to carry out the legislative directive to issue prompt opinions to help resolve and analyze disputes while at the same accommodating the interests that an individual or entity may be trying to protect when the individual or entity decides not to provide information or facts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s position on the third issue is the subject, in more detail, of a separate opinion requested by Ms. Kerr, and that position will be addressed in that opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner&apos;s opinion on the actual issues for which Ms. Kerr requested an opinion are as follows. As discussed above, the opinions rely solely on the information provided by Ms. Kerr and Ms. Blumstein and are therefore conditioned on that being the only information before the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 1&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In summary, Ms. Kerr asks whether River Valley&apos;s actions in collecting the statement from X were in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, the notice requirement which is popularly known as the Tennessen Warning ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The notice requirement, which currently appears at Section 13.04, subdivision 2 in Minnesota Statutes, has been a part of the MGDPA and it predecessor statute, the so-called Data Privacy Act , since 1974. (See Minnesota Session Laws 1974, Chapter 479, section 4.) The purpose of the notice is twofold. First, it operates to provide a data subject and, in the case of a minor data subject, the minor&apos;s parents with information about data that a government agency wants to collect from the subject so the data subject can make an informed decision based on what s/he is told about the data as to whether or not s/he will actually provide the data. This notice requirement is grounded in the view that the ultimate privacy protection, if one wants to protect oneself from governmental privacy intrusions, is to just not provide the data at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second purpose for the notice is to establish a baseline for government entities to be guided by in their subsequent decisions about uses and disseminations of data provided by an individual after s/he has been provided with the notice. This purpose is accomplished by direction from the legislature that data collected from an individual after the Tennessen Warning notice is given . . . shall not be collected, stored, used or disseminated for purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4. The exceptions described in the subdivision include subsequent legislative changes, approvals by the Commissioner of Administration and consents by data subjects.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 is silent on the issue of just exactly what form the notice must take. It is clear that a notice is required when an individual is asked to provide private or confidential data that is about the individual asked to provide the data. The general content of what must be included in the notice is provided but the specifics that fit the actual circumstance of the entity&apos;s data collection must be provided by the government entity requesting the data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ms. Kerr is of the position that River Valley violated her clients rights by not telling him or his parents the reason for why the statement was being requested, of his right to refuse the statement, of any known consequence to him of refusing and whether the information could be provided to a law enforcement agency. River Valley, through Ms. Blumstein, responds that this statement was taken as part of X&apos;s educational needs and was provided for in his IEP which his parents had approved. The portion of the IEP that was enclosed with Ms. Blumstein&apos;s letter does contain language that says that as part of his educational program X needs to be listened to and . . . to have the opportunity to express his side of a problem in a quiet non-distracting, private setting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other than this portion of the IEP, neither Ms. Kerr nor Ms. Blumstein has provided the Commissioner with any information as to exactly how River Valley implements the requirements of Minnesota Statues Section 13.04, subdivision 2 when it collects private educational data from students. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 which classifies almost all data about student as private educational data.) To the extent it accepted that X&apos;s parents participated in the development of the IEP, signed off on it and were made aware as part of the IEP development and agreement process that X would be asked to prepare written statement about his side of problems, then it is clear that they were either informed that statements would be prepared in certain circumstances or they consented to their preparation by agreeing to the IEP. Unfortunately the information provided does not make that particular result clear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the IEP language is the functional equivalent of the notice required by Section 13.04, then it is deficient because other than identifying to the reader to the fact that X would be asked to express his side of problems in a private non-distracting setting, it says nothing, except in the most general of terms, about the purpose for requesting this information from X and the uses to which River Valley would put the information. (It can be inferred from the overall language of the IEP that the information provided is to assist X in accomplishing his educational objectives but that is not explicitly stated.) The portion of the IEP provided by Ms. Blumstein contains no notice as to whether X is legally required to provide statements, of any known consequence to him of providing or not providing statements and the identity of other persons and entities authorized by law to receive data provided by X. It must be emphasized that River Valley may be providing this kind of detailed notice in some other fashion. However, it has not chosen to provide that information to the Commissioner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information provided, it does not appear that X or his parents were provided with the complete notice required by Section 13.04 for those situations in which X was asked by provide private data concerning himself to his special education teacher who was an agent of River Valley.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Issue 2&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In this issue, Ms. Kerr asks if River Valley violated Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04 by failing to provide a copy of the statement to X&apos;s parents after their requests to do so?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires that upon the request of a data subject and, in the case of a minor data subject, his parents, an entity subject to the MGDPA is required to provide the data subject or his parents with access to private or public data that the entity is storing about the data subject. For purposes of the MGDPA, access means that the individual must be shown the data or provided with a copy of the data. Which form of access is provided depends on what form the subject or parents request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr states that sometime after July 26, 1993, her clients verbally asked the school for a copy of any report on the incident. In response to that request, the school on July 7, 1993, provided an incident report dated April 14. This report was on a form used by River Valley for staff reports of student incidents. Subsequently, X&apos;s father, on July 14, 1993, wrote a letter to Nedra Mahaney requesting . . . all and every written piece of information, (concerning the April 14 incident) including the report X had written and given to Joel Kiekbusch. Prior to X&apos;s father&apos;s presentation of this letter to the school district, it could be argued that his previous requests for data about his son were sufficiently vague so as not cover the statement in question. However, the wording of the July 14 letter clearly makes a request not only for the statement but all other data concerning the April 14 incident. According to Ms. Kerr, River Valley never provided a copy of X&apos;s statement and never indicated why they failed to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;River Valley&apos;s position, as stated by Ms. Blumstein, is that after X wrote out his statement and it was discussed with him, . . . it was disposed of by the School since it had served its educational purpose. Ms. Blumstein&apos;s statement does not contain an exact date when the disposition of the statement occurred. It can be reasonably inferred from her statement that this disposition must have taken place within days after the April 14 incident and therefore the statement was not being retained by the District when X&apos;s father made his July 14, 1993 request for the statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 requires that agencies provide data subjects with access to stored data. If an agency is not retaining data, then no obligation arises from Section 13.04. Although a government entity might, as a matter of courtesy in a situation like this, if it knew about the destruction of the statement inform the parents of that fact, there is no requirement imposed by Section 13.04 on an entity to inform data subjects that data they are requesting is no longer being stored by the entity. The disposition of this data by River Valley may raise issues under other provisions of the MGDPA that impose obligations on River Valley to maintain current, complete and accurate data on individuals, see Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5, and may also raise issues as to whether this data was properly disposed of as required by the Minnesota Statutes Section 138.163 et.seq, the Records Management Act , but no opinion of the Commissioner has been requested about those issues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the information provided, it does not appear that the statement in question was being stored by River Valley at the time X&apos;s father requested a copy of the statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, subject to the qualifications discussed above, my opinions on the issues raised by Ms. Kerr are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;As to Issue number 1, the Tennessen Warning . It is my opinion that the X and his parents were not provided with a notice, relative to collections of statements from him, that fulfills the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. X was being asked to provide private educational data about himself and, consistent with Section 13.04, he and his parents should have been provided with a complete and proper notice. This part of my opinion is conditioned on the very limited information provided by River Valley as to how it actually implements the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2. As to Issue number 2, access by X&apos;s parents to the statement he provided. It is my opinion that because River Valley was no longer storing the data that was requested by X&apos;s parents, River Valley had no obligation under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 to provide the statement. This part of my opinion is conditioned on the information provided by River Valley and therefore assumes that the statement was no longer being stored by River Valley when X&apos;s father explicitly asked for it in July 14, 1993 letter. This part of my opinion also does not address the issues of maintenance and retention of this data under other provisions of Minnesota Statutes and federal law, if applicable.&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Terry L. Bock for
&lt;br /&gt;
Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: November 12, 1993
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267474</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Commissioner of Administration</Title><Id>266473</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Purpose of notice - informed choice</Title><Id>266773</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data</Title><Id>266375</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Statutory construction (Ch. 645)</Title><Id>266309</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-003</Title><title>Opinion 93 003</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267450&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-10-15T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Do videotapes that trigger an investigation that ultimately leads to discipline of a public employee, and which are referred to as grounds for the disciplinary action, constitute &apos;public data&apos; under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, Subd. 2?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>October 15, 1993; University of Minnesota</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Additional note: See Advisory Opinion &lt;a href=&quot;http://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/?id=36-268003#/detail/appId/1/id/267650&quot; title=&quot;02-049&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;02-049&lt;/a&gt; for discussion of a district court ruling that disagrees with this opinion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;On August 26, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Marshall H. Tanick, attorney for the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota. The facts he recited were as follows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the spring of 1993, the University of Minnesota decided to terminate the employment of X and Y, a married couple who served as coaches of the University Women&apos;s Intercollegiate Gymnastics Team at the University. According to Mr. Tanick, the University&apos;s ultimate decision to discipline X and Y by terminating them was the outcome of an investigation about them that was begun because Y distributed two videotape recordings of himself and X, engaged in sexual intercourse, to members of the Women&apos;s Gymnastic Team. Mr. Tanick further stated that once the disciplinary action against X and Y had become final, that numerous requests were made by himself on behalf of his client to gain access to public data including copies of these videotapes. He attached copies of those requests and the responses he received from the University and its legal counsel. The University took the position that it would provide some of the requested data because there had been a final disposition of the disciplinary actions against X and Y. However, it refused to provide access to or copies of the videotapes. The University&apos;s position was that the videotapes were private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 or confidential investigative data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. In response to that refusal, Mr. Tanick wrote asking for a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response to Mr. Tanick&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner wrote to Ms. Barbara L. Shiels, Associate General Counsel for the University, in a letter dated September 2, 1993. This letter informed her of Mr. Tanick&apos;s request, acquainted her with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, asked for any information the University might be able to provide to support its position of withholding this data and informed her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On September 29, 1993, PIPA received, via facsimile transmission, a letter from Ms. Shiels. She confirmed that it was the University&apos;s position that the videotapes were private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 and confidential civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. In support of the position that the videotapes are private personnel data, Ms. Shiels stated that the University grievance panel, who considered the cases of X and Y, and Regent Elton Kuderer, who was the University&apos;s final decision maker about the disciplinary matters, either did not have the videotapes as part of the record before them or did not view the videotapes in reaching the University&apos;s decision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Shiels drew a distinction between the distribution of the videotapes, which she agreed was part of the basis for the University&apos;s actions against X and Y, and the actual content of the videotapes which she argued was not relevant to University&apos;s final disciplinary action. In Ms. Shiel&apos;s view the tapes were not part of either the specific reasons for the disciplinary action taken against X and Y or data documenting the basis of the action, and therefore they remain private personnel data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ms. Shiels also asserted that the tapes are civil investigative data and therefore are classified as confidential by Minnesota Statues Section 13.39. She noted that X and Y have legal actions pending against the University in federal district court and that there is an appeal involving the cases of X and Y pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She stated that the tapes are being retained for possible use in defending the University in these pending civil legal actions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After examination of the correspondence presented by Mr. Tanick and Ms. Shiels, personnel of PIPA wrote to Ms. Shiels and asked her to clarify some of the points she had made in her September 29, 1993 letter. This request was sent to her by facsimile transmission on October 11, 1993. On October 12, 1993, a letter from Mr Tanick was delivered to PIPA. This letter contained extensive argument and commentary on the University&apos;s position as outlined in Ms. Shiels September 29, 1993 letter. Also on October 12, 1993, Ms. Shiels sent her clarifying response by facsimile transmission.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;The issue raised by Mr Tanick, in the words of his initial request for an opinion is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Do videotapes that trigger an investigation that ultimately leads to discipline of a public employee, and which are referred to as grounds for the disciplinary action, constitute &apos;public data&apos; under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, Subd. 2?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no dispute in this situation that the videotapes in question are a form of government data and therefore subject to the applicable requirements of the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and hereinafter the Act . There are disputes as to what type of data these videotapes are and how they are classified for purposes of the Act. To reach the issue of the appropriate classification of a given type or item of data, the opening discussion must focus on what type of data the videotapes in question constitute. By the nature of how the legislature has enacted the various provisions of the Act, there is, when those provisions are applied to the real world, the ongoing probability that a given type of data may fit into more than one category. In this situation, the University argues that these videotapes are both personnel data which is the subject of Section 13.43 of the Act and civil investigative data which is covered by Section 13.39 of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that these tapes are not civil investigative data subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. The Commissioner is of that opinion for three reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;First, the Data Practices Act tries to resolve internal conflicts between its own provisions that produce inconsistent results by stating, at Minnesota Statutes Section 13. 03, subdivision 4, that if data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by the Act, the data in question is private. Finding this data to be within Section 13.39 of the Act would make the data confidential. Finding that the data are within Section 13.43 would make the data private. However, to conclude the data are private, as Section 13.03, subdivision 4 requires, we must also conclude the data are made private by Section 13.43 and therefore the data must be personnel data for purposes of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second, a major reason that the legislature enacted Section 13.39 of the Act is to assist government agencies, when they are subject to possible lawsuit or are in actual litigation, by giving those agencies and their attorneys a level playing field in relation to their opponents. If a person bringing suit against the government could have full access to the agency&apos;s data under the Act, without some protection for data essential to the agency&apos;s defense of its position, agencies would be at a continual disadvantage in litigation. This was a major reason the legislature enacted Section 13.39. In this instance finding that these videotapes are covered by Section 13.39 would not advance that legislative objective. The record makes it clear that Y actually prepared the videotapes in question. He certainly knows of their existence and content and therefore there appears to be no practical reason why these tapes should be considered to be civil investigative data under Section 13.39.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, the record of the incidents involving these videotapes makes it clear that Y provided these tapes to members of the Women&apos;s Gymnastic Team. Subsequently, personnel of the University confiscated the tapes. In a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, interpreting Section 13.39, the Court held that when a government agency does not affirmatively take action to collect certain data that the agency cannot claim that the data are civil investigative data. (See &lt;u&gt;St. Peter Herald and the Free Press v. City of St. Peter&lt;/u&gt;, 496 N.W.2d l812 (Minn. 1993).)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the case before the Supreme Court, the issue involved whether a notice of claim sent to the City of St. Peter was civil investigative data. The Supreme Court concluded that the notice of claim was not civil investigative data because the notice was provided to the City and not collected by it. In the Commissioner&apos;s view this same logic is applicable to the videotapes in question. The tapes were already in the University&apos;s possession before any investigation of the allegations of wrongdoing against X and Y was commenced and they were in that possession, albeit perhaps inadvertently, because of the actions of Y.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Commissioner is of the opinion that the videotapes are not civil investigative data and are not, therefore, classified as confidential by Section 13.39 of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Having determined, and both the University and the Minnesota Daily agree on this point, that the videotapes are personnel data within the meaning of Section 13.43 of the Act, the only question that remains is what is the classification of the tapes? Section 13.43 of the Act is somewhat unique in that it reverses the normal presumption of the Act&apos;s treatment of various types of data. Most government data is presumed to be public data according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1. However, personnel data is presumed to be private data unless a certain element or type of data appears on one of two lists of data that the legislature has stated must be public data. This result is reached by interpreting subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 of Section 13.43 of the Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Among the items and types of data that are public about current and former public employees are the following: whether or not a complaint or charge against an employee resulted in disciplinary action; the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2.) It is the University&apos;s position that the contents of the videotapes do not constitute either a specific reason for the disciplinary actions taken against X and Y or a part of the data documenting the basis for the action. It is the University Daily&apos;s position that the content of the videotapes and the viewing of that content by athletes at the University were the triggering events that lead to the disciplinary actions taken X and Y. For those reasons, the Daily argues the tapes are one of the specific reasons for the disciplinary action against X and Y and are a part of the data that documents the basis for the action.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Although the University makes a strong case that certain decision makers involved in the disciplinary action taken against X and Y never saw the contents of these tapes, it is clear from the record presented that even though some decision makers at the University may not have viewed the tapes, the contents were the primary reason for beginning the investigation of X and Y that ultimately lead to their dismissal. In addition, Regent Kuderer, who the University describes as its final decision maker in the disciplinary process, referred in his disciplinary findings to these tapes as containing sexual relations between X and Y and further found that certain acts and omissions relative to the taping and the distribution of the tapes to students were among the reasons that he concluded that the disciplinary action of dismissal was appropriate. Although, it is agreed that Regent Kuderer never viewed the tapes, he relied in making his findings, including the decision to fire X and Y, on the testimony and admissions of those who had seen the tapes and described their contents.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the above discussion, a reasonable answer to the question of whether these videotapes and their contents are part of the reasons for the disciplinary actions taken against X and Y and part of the data that documents the basis for those actions can be answered in a common sense fashion. A review of the correspondence, documents describing settlement negotiations between X and Y and the University and the findings made by Regent Kuderer are full of references to the distribution of videotapes containing sexual activity between X and Y. Taken that record as a whole, it would defy common sense for the Commissioner to conclude that these videotapes and their contents, based on a reading of Section 13.43 of the Act, were not among the reasons for or data documenting the basis for the disciplinary actions taken against X and Y.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, in preparing and issuing these opinions, it is the position of the Commissioner that her primary role is to give the greatest possible effect to the legal and policy objectives that the legislature tries to accomplish in the Data Practices Act and related statutes. Given that objective, the question of whether videotapes of two former public employees, engaged in sexual activity, ought to be made available to the public as public personnel data remains to be considered. To help the Commissioner and others in ascertaining its intent, the legislature has, in addition to presenting the plain words of Minnesota Statutes, also enacted a specific statutory section to provide general guidance. This statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 645.17, states certain presumptions to be followed in making statutory interpretations. The first of those presumptions is that the legislature does not intend that a statute be interpreted in such a way as have an absurd or unreasonable result. It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that a conclusion that these videotapes ought to be disclosed to the public would be an absurd and unreasonable result.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In its overall handling of the Data Practices Act, the legislature has clearly expressed an intent to take very specific control over issues of access to government data. Although that approach represents a strong commitment to dealing with issues of information policy, the specific approach presents problems where a new situation arises that the legislature did not contemplate when it made specific decisions relative to various types of data. The legislature has itself acknowledged that particular practical problem by, among other things, giving the Commissioner of Administration the authority to issue temporary classifications of data. In the particular instance of release of these videotapes to the public, the Commissioner must ask: would the legislature want the Data Practices Act to be interpreted to make public the videotapes of two public employees engaged in sexual activity or would that be seen by the legislature as an absurd result?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For guidance on that issue, the Commissioner has looked within the Data Practices Act itself. The legislature has in the past considered whether photographs that appear in confidential criminal investigative files, that become public because after a criminal investigation becomes inactive, ought to be treated as public data. The legislature concluded that in those instances where certain photographs are clearly offensive to common sensibilities those photographs ought to become private and not public. In this situation where it appears, incidentally, from the record that X may not have even known these videotapes were being made and given the nature of the activity portrayed on the tapes, it is clear that if these tapes were part of an inactive criminal investigative file they would be private data when the rest of the file became public.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that to treat these data as public would be an absurd result. The Commissioner acknowledges, as discussed above, that a strong case can be made for these tapes to be viewed as public data. However, it is the Commissioner&apos;s opinion that to treat these data as public, particularly in light of the legislative intent evidenced by the treatment of similar data in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subdivision 5, would be an absurd result.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, it is my opinion that:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;the videotapes are private data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Given the uniqueness of this situation, I wish to take note of the fact that specific clarification of this issue will be sought from the legislature in the 1994 legislative session.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Terry L. Bock for
&lt;br /&gt;
Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;Dated: October 15, 1993
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267450</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Civil investigative data (13.39)</Title><Id>266376</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action</Title><Id>266377</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)</Title><Id>266378</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Legislative authority and intent</Title><Id>266315</Id><Key/></Category><Category><Description/><Title>Personnel data</Title><Id>266293</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-002</Title><title>Opinion 93 002</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-267535&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-09-09T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>Were the names of the three candidates for the position of St. Louis County Administrator public data on August 11, 1993, the date the Mesabi Daily News requested those names from the County?</ShortDescription><Subtitle>September 9, 1993; St. Louis County</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;opinion_introbox&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
        This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;table width=&quot;100%&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;20&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Facts and Procedural History:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On August 20, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Mesabi Daily News located in Virginia, Minnesota. The facts he recited were as follows.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The St. Louis County Board is in the process of hiring a new county administrator. After consideration of applications, the County Board reduced its original list of applicants to three candidates and scheduled those three people for interviews with the County Board. Mr. Anfinson&apos;s client sought access to the names of those individuals and was told that the names would not be released until the candidates had undergone psychological testing by a private firm. It was Mr. Anfinson&apos;s view that these three applicants had become finalists for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 and therefore their names were public data. When his client did not receive the names from St. Louis County, Mr. Anfinson wrote to request a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA , on August 25, 1993, wrote to Marilyn Krueger, Chair of the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners. This letter informed the County of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, acquainted the County with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, asked for information the County might be able to provide to support its position of withholding the data and informed the County of the Commissioner&apos;s intent to issue an expedited opinion in this matter. A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. Allan Mitchell, the St. Louis County Attorney.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                On September 1, 1993, PIPA received a letter via facsimile transmission from Mr. Mitchell. In this letter Mr. Mitchell discussed the procedures put into effect by the County to select its new administrator and recited the history of the process followed by the County in selecting finalists for the position of county administrator. His letter was supplemented by a variety of memorandum and letters from various county personnel. In summary, the County&apos;s position is that they had reached a point in their selection process where only three candidates would be considered for the position. Under the selection process set up by the County, each candidate would be interviewed by the St. Louis County Board only if the candidate had not been ruled out of consideration by criminal history and credit checks into their background. In addition, before being selected to actually be interviewed, the candidate would have to successfully complete an evaluation process conducted by Personnel Decisions, Incorporated (PDI), a personnel consulting firm selected by the County to evaluate the candidates.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                Mr. Mitchell&apos;s letter stated that the criminal history, credit checks and PDI assessment for the three candidates were not completed until after the close of the business day on August 23, 1993. Once all three candidates were recommended by PDI, the County made their names public in a press release issued on the morning of August 24, 1993.
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                Issue:
              &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                The issue raised in Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request for an opinion is:
              &lt;/p&gt;&lt;dd&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;Were the names of the three candidates for the position of St. Louis County Administrator public data on August 11, 1993, the date the Mesabi Daily News requested those names from the County? &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                    Discussion:
                  &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the personnel data section of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act reverses the normal presumption that all government data is presumed to be public. In the case of personnel data, the legislature has chosen to provide a very specific list of data elements and types of data on public employees and on applicants for public employment that are public and then to go on to state that all other personnel data is private. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivisions 2, 3 and 4.)
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    In the case of applicants for public employment, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 states that certain data on applicants for public employment are public from the moment an application arrives in an agency subject to Chapter 13. Section 13.43 does provide special protection for the names of applicants by classifying those names as private data until the applicant becomes a finalist. In the instance of a personnel selection process such as the one used by St. Louis County, the name of any applicant for the position of St. Louis County Administrator would become public data when the applicant was selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority, the County Board.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    Analysis of the County&apos;s position leads to a conclusion that the County selected candidates to be interviewed by the County Board on a conditional basis. The County&apos;s explanation emphasizes that both the selection process and the communications made to candidates made it clear that a given candidate would not be interviewed if he or she did not survive the background checks and PDI assessment.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                    The treatment of names of finalists in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 reflects a legislative judgement that balances the right of the public to gain access to information about candidates for public employment against the right of those candidates to not have their candidacy known to others. The legislature struck that balance at the point at which a candidate becomes a finalist. If the candidate is actually going to be interviewed by the appointed authority, then his or her name must be public. The candidates for the position of St. Louis County Administrator were, at the time the Mesabi Daily News made its request for their names, only tentative finalists. They were informed that the County Board would interview them but only if they survived the background checks and the assessment. In actuality, they were not finalists for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 subdivision 3 because the County&apos;s review of the background checks and PDI assessment could have lead to a decision to not interview a candidate thereby disqualifying that candidate as a finalist.
                  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;h2&gt;
                      Opinion:
                    &lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                      Based on the correspondence in this matter, it is my opinion that
                    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;at the time the Mesabi Daily News requested the names of these candidates that they were not yet finalists as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 3 and therefore the names of these candidates were not public.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Signed:
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
                        Debra Rae Anderson
                        &lt;br /&gt;
                        Commissioner
                      &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;date&quot;&gt;
                        Dated: September 9, 1993
                        &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>267535</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Applicants for employment</Title><Id>266522</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Candidates for employment</Title><Id>360796</Id><Key/></Tag><Tag><Description/><Title>Finalist for public employment (13.43, subd. 3)</Title><Id>266330</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2022-01-19T19:55:10Z</pubdate></list><list><metadata><Type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></Type><DublinCore><Description/><Audience/><Title/><Publisher/><Source/><Rights/><Identifier/><Format/><Language>eng</Language><SubjectControlled/></DublinCore></metadata><Category><Description/><Title>Government Data</Title><Id>515651</Id><Key/></Category><metadata_type><Description/><Title>Opinions</Title><Id>266258</Id><Key/></metadata_type><Title>Advisory Opinion 93-001</Title><title>Opinion 93 001</title><url>&lt;custom:Link urlOnly=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;Component&quot; destination=&quot;tcm:36-266950&quot; templateURI=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot; origin=&quot;tcm:0-0-0&quot;  /&gt;</url><Date>1993-08-24T15:14:43Z</Date><ShortDescription>&quot;I therefore request a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion on the issue of whether a federal subpoena served on the city of Edina is public data in the city of Edina.&quot;</ShortDescription><Subtitle>August 24, 1993; City of Edina</Subtitle><publication>36</publication><BodyText>&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Facts and Procedural History:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 24, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark Anfinson, attorney for Minnesota Sun Publications. The facts he recited were as follows. His client had learned that the City of Edina had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury seeking information maintained by the City. His client asked for a copy and the request was refused. Mr. Anfinson contacted the attorney for the City, Mr. Jerome Gilligan of the Dorsey and Whitney firm. Mr. Gilligan informed Mr. Anfinson that the City was attempting to ascertain, from the United States Attorney&apos;s Office, whether a copy of the subpoena could be disclosed to the newspaper. Mr. Anfinson waited three weeks for a further reply from the City and when none was forthcoming he wrote asking for a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;In response to Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to the City of Edina and Mr. Gilligan, in a letter dated August 10, 1993, informed them of Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, acquainted them with the Commissioner&apos;s authority to issue opinions, asked for any information the City might be able to provide to support its position of withholding this data and informed them of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;On August 14, 1993, PIPA received a letter from Mr. Gilligan. He cited to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and expressed concern that release of the subpoena might constitute a violation of the Federal Rule. He also suggested, based on the rule, that the City as the recipient of an authorized disclosure under Rule 6 might be bound by the Rule 6 secrecy provisions. He also indicated that he had contacted the U. S. Attorney&apos;s Office and received advice that it was the strong preference of the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office that the subpoena not be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;After some research into the issues presented by Mr. Anfinson&apos;s request, personnel of PIPA tried to reach Mr. Gilligan by phone to secure some additional information. So far, they have not been able to reach him. This failure to secure additional information leads to some conditional language in the opinion that is explained below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Issue:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;table xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr align=&quot;left&quot; valign=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;opinion_issuebox&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue raised by Mr. Anfinson in the words of his request is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I therefore request a Commissioner&apos;s Opinion on the issue of whether a federal subpoena served on the city of Edina is public data in the city of Edina.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Discussion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;All issues of classification of data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act have the same starting place. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, states a presumption that all government data is public unless there is a state statute, temporary classification of data or federal law that says certain data is not public. The subpoena is government data for purposes of the Data Practices Act because it has, within the definition of government data been received by the City of Edina. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, Subdivision 7.) Review of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, and other statutes classifying data do not reveal any state statute that classifies this data as not public. Records of temporary classifications of data are maintained by PIPA and there is no temporary classification covering this data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This process of eliminating either state statute or temporary classifications of data as a basis for classifying this data as not public coupled with the issues raised by the City Attorney lead then to a question of whether or not this subpoena is classified as not public by the provision of any federal law. For purposes of this discussion, it should be noted that federal law is defined, for purposes of the Data Practices Act, as . . . United States Code, rules and regulations of federal agencies as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and federal case law including decisions of any court in the federal judicial system. ( Minnesota Agency Rules, Section 1205.0200, subpart 7.) Rules of federal criminal procedure are clearly part of federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Federal Rule 6, that deals with grand jury operations, does contain provisions relating to the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Subdivision (e) (2) of the rule reads as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(2) General Rule of Secrecy. A grand juror, an interpreter, a stenographer, an operator of a recording device, a typist who transcribes recorded testimony, an attorney for the government, or any person to whom disclosure is made under paragraph (3) (A) (ii) of this subdivision shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided in these rules. No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule. A knowing violation of Rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The rule also provides that disclosures of matters occurring before a grand jury may be made in specific instances.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The City Attorney points out that this part of the rule allows disclosure of grand jury matters to government personnel, including personnel of political subdivisions, when the attorney for the federal government deems it necessary to disclose information to assist in the performance of the attorney&apos;s duty to enforce federal criminal law. However, the latter part of paragraph (e) (3) (B) of Rule 6 makes it very clear that if a government attorney has disclosed matters to personnel of a political subdivision to assist in the attorney&apos;s duty to enforce criminal law the attorney must provide the federal district court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of persons to whom the disclosures have been made and must certify that these persons have been advised of their obligation of secrecy. (See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6 (e) (3 ) (B).)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Mr. Gilligan makes no mention of any statements made to his client by the U.S. attorney that would invoke the obligation under this part of the rule to maintain secrecy. Personnel of PIPA were not able to reach Mr. Gilligan to a certain the name of the Assistant U.S. attorney so the attorney could be contacted to determine if the certification required by the rule has been filed in U.S. District Court. The only information provided to the Commissioner on this point is the statement from Mr.Gilligan that the U.S. Attorney&apos;s office had a strong preference that the subpoena not be released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the information provided it also seems plausible that if the U.S. attorney were seeking assistance from personnel of the City of Edina to perform duties in relation to enforcement of federal criminal law and, by doing so, to bring into play possible secrecy matters under the (e) (3) (B) provision of Rule 6, that a subpoena would not be issued for documents. A subpoena does not seek assistance for a U.S. attorney. It directs compliance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This leads back then to the basic secrecy requirements of the federal rule and whether the rule requires, for purposes of Chapter 13, that this subpoena not be disclosed. Rule 6 itself contains part of the answer to that question. It qualifies the rule of secrecy by saying: No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule. If city personnel are not required to keep the subpoena secret because they are not rendering assistance to a government lawyer under the (e) (3) (B) provision of Rule 6, does the general language of the rule requiring nondisclosure of matters occurring before a federal grand jury obligate the City to keep this subpoena secret?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;This issue has been dealt with by federal courts that have addressed the issue of whether or not the recipient of a federal grand jury subpoena is obligated to keep the subpoena secret, particularly from the person who is the object of the grand jury inquiry. (See for example: &lt;u&gt;In re Grand Jury Proceedings&lt;/u&gt;, 814 F.2d 61, (CA1 1987.)) These cases discuss Rule 6 and conclude that secrecy will not be imposed on recipients of subpoenas except in certain circumstances. One of the cases reaching this conclusion is an Eighth Circuit case. In this case, &lt;u&gt;In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum&lt;/u&gt;, 797 F. 2d 676, (CA8 1986), the federal government sought to reinstate an order, initially issued by a district court and then vacated, that directed a financial institution not to disclose to its customers, whose records were the subject of a subpoena, either of the fact of the subpoena or the specifics of the records that were sought.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;The Court upheld the decision to vacate the order but remanded the matter to district court to allow the government to provide additional information as to why the information ought to be kept secret. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established a procedure to be followed when an attorney for the government seeks to impose a requirement of secrecy on the recipient of a grand jury subpoena. The Court stated that: To impose an order of secrecy upon a grand jury witness, there must be a &apos;compelling necessity . . . shown with particularity.&apos; (&lt;u&gt;In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum&lt;/u&gt;, at page 681.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Because of the rule in this case, lawyers for the federal government can get orders extending secrecy requirements to persons who receive grand jury subpoenas by going into district court and making the compelling necessity showing. The Commissioner has not been provided with any information that could lead her to reasonably conclude that the government attorney in this case has sought or received such an order. Therefore the secrecy provision of Rule 6, as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, would not extend to the City of Edina as a recipient of the subpoena.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;It is possible that the subpoena, if revealed to the public, might adversely affect an ongoing active criminal investigation. Some federal courts have held that under these circumstances, it may be possible for grand jury information to be withheld from disclosure under the exemption provisions of the federal Freedom of Information Act , 5 U.S.C. 552, that deal with information made not public by other federal statutes (exemption 3) or information relating to investigatory files (exemption 7). (For example, see &lt;u&gt;Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives and Records Service&lt;/u&gt;, 656 F. 2d 856 (DCCA 1981).) PIPA personnel have not been able to get information from the City that could assist in deciding whether this information might be subject to those provisions of federal law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Lastly, there is the possibility that the data sought in the subpoena is data that is protected by provisions of Chapter 13. For example, if the subpoena sought personnel data, it is possible that, given the definition of personnel data and the classification of personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, information about the subpoena might reveal private personnel data. PIPA personnel have not been able to secure information from the City that could lead to that conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot; /&gt;
&lt;h2 xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Opinion:&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Based on the correspondence in this matter, subject to the qualifications discussed above, it is my opinion that this subpoena is public data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. If further information is provided to me by the City of Edina or the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office, this opinion may be modified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;I do wish to take note of the fact that this request for opinion has revealed an issue that was not considered by the legislature when it enacted this authority. Although my opinions provide to a government unit, who acts in conformance with them, protection from payment of damages and attorneys fees, it cannot provide that protection when part of the issue involves a possible violation of federal law. In this case, a violation could subject personnel of the City of Edina to a contempt citation. PIPA personnel will address this issue with the legislature in the next legislative session.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Signed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Debra Rae Anderson
&lt;br /&gt;
Commissioner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;Dated: August 24, 1993&lt;/p&gt;</BodyText><Author/><id>266950</id><Tag><Description/><Title>Grand jury subpoenas (federal)</Title><Id>266949</Id><Key/></Tag><pubdate>2023-08-23T16:14:51Z</pubdate></list></results>